Pleasanton City Council
October 21, 2025

• Group 1: PG&E CARE eligible customers (including seniors) - receive 30% discount • Group 2: Seniors 65 years or older with income equal to or below100% AMI consistent with the PHAP (See Table 2) - receive 20% discount

Similar to Alternative 1, Group 1 applicants will have priority in application and enrollment. If there is remaining capacity, Group 2 will be considered next. If the discount program exceeds the capped budget of $425,000 at the 6-month check-in, Group 1 will be prioritized to continue receiving the utility discount. Group 2 may receive a reduced discount, or the discount will be discontinued until the new fiscal year budget is approved.

According to the Pleasanton PAHA guidelines, a household earning 100% AMI earns around $150,000 annually. Including this tier of eligibility at a higher income level would continue to offer a discount to seniors who do not qualify under the lower-income limits, while adding the 100% AMI requirement seeks to ensure that benefits are not directed to higher income households that face fewer barriers to paying for essential utility services.

Staff does not recommend Alternative 2, as it does not focus limited resources on those customers most in need of rate relief, nor does it align with best practices across California utilities. This option also has even more burdensome additional administrative costs and additional risk of exceeding the budgetary cap.

Transition and implementation plan
In the interest of providing a smooth transition plan from the current discount program to the new council-approved discount program, staff is providing the following transition and implementation plan.
• Applications will be received and processed on a first-come, first-served basis starting February 1, 2026, and will close on February 17, 2026. Applications received before February 1, 2026, and late applications received after February 17 will not be processed.
• Applications can be submitted via email, mail, or in person. • Only a complete application will be accepted. Incomplete applications with missing documentation and incomplete forms or signatures will not be considered. • Existing customers currently in the discount program will receive direct mail by the end of the year and a mail insert in their next regular utility bill cycle advising them that their participation in the utility discount program will be discontinued effective March 1, 2026, and that it will be replaced with a new discount program with new criteria. • All existing customers currently in the discount program will continue to receive the discount based on the current discount program until March 1, 2026, when the new program will be effective.
• Other customers who are not currently in the discount program will receive a mail insert in their regular utility bill informing them about the new discount program, application process and requirements. If approved, the utility discount will take effect on March 1, 2026. No new applications will be accepted between October 21, 2025, and February 1, 2026.
• After the City Council approves the City’s Utility Discount Program, staff will update the City website with information on the new program and clear instructions to customers on the application process will be shared more broadly with the community through

regular channels.
• The City will host one dedicated all-day in-person assistance to all customers at the end of January 2026. Customers can seek help from the City to fill out the forms and answer questions about the discount program. For customers who may not be able to attend in person, they may call the City to seek help through phone calls or visit the City’s website for forms and application instructions. The City will share information broadly with the community through our regular communication channels about available assistance.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The recommended discount program clarifies eligibility and seeks to create a more equitable method that reflects the unique needs and circumstances of the City of Pleasanton. As the discount program is limited to the current City’s maximum General Fund budget allocation for the discount program, the new recommendation will not create an additional burden to the City’s budget.

OUTREACH
Water rates and discounts were previously presented and discussed at public City Council meetings on May 6, 2025, and September 16, 2025. Staff recommendations are provided based on the information and direction from City Council at those meetings.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Funding our Future, Strategy 3 - Evaluate and update enterprise revenue sources, including utility rates, and connection and user fees to address growth and meet current needs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City's annual budget allocation for the water bill discount program is funded from General Fund.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

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

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Presentation

Utility Bill Discount Program
October 21, 2025
Current State:
• The City currently offers two separate utility discount programs:

1. Low-Income Discount - 30% for residents who qualify as a low- income based on participation in the PG&E CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy) Program
• Caps household income eligibility at $53,300 or less for a family of 3

2. Senior Discount - 20% based on the age of customers who qualify as a “senior” (age 65 or older), regardless of need or income level 2

Recap on 9.16.25 Council Feedback
• Utilize an income-based discount program as the primary model and propose an alternative discount program for senior residents with options for 80 percent and 100 percent AMI (Adjusted Median Income) qualification
• Apply 24-hundred ccf monthly as maximum water usage to qualify for the discount program
• Propose a method to ensure continuity and consistency of the discount program to qualified customers throughout the entire fiscal year with a maximum cap of $425,000
• Review the option to add proof of residency as an eligibility criteria 3 Recommendations 1-3

1. Continue to apply the discount to Pleasanton’s and Zone 7’s fixed and variable charges for water, and Pleasanton’s fixed charges.

2. Decrease from 30 ccf maximum usage to 24 ccf maximum usage to be consistent with the recent water rate study.

3. Cap the Utility Discount Program at a maximum of $425,000 annually, with a 6-month check in.
ƒ Conduct and seek council for further direction at 6 months review or when actual expenditures exceed 50% of max cap of $425k.
4

Recommendation 4: Proof of Residency
Staff Recommendation: Maintain current requirements for proof of residency without minimum length of residency:

General Requirements:

1. The applicant must be the primary account holder of the water and sewer account.

2. Must be a full-time resident at the address where the discount will be received.

3. applicant water and sewer account must be in good standing where all past due payment have been paid or resolved.

Low-Income Customers:

1. Must meet the income requirements of the PG&E CARE program and also be enrolled in the PG&E CARE program.

2. The name and address on the PG&E bill must match the name and service location on the City of Pleasanton water and sewer bill.

Senior Customers:

1. The address on their driving license must match with the address of the utility services.
5 Recommendation 5: Continue with the current
process for facilities with a shared master meter
Staff recommendation: Maintain current process with the revised eligibility criteria (1) Qualified Low-Income or Qualified Senior Living Facilities • Facilities submit application.
• Discount applied to Master Meter
• Residents do not need to apply individually and cannot apply if the facilities already received discount
(2) Non-qualified Low-Income or Senior Living Facilities • Residents can submit application to qualify for the Low-Income or Income-based Senior discount program.
• Annual reconciliation and annual check to approved customers 6

Comparison of Household Income Eligibility Limits
Person in
Household PG&E CARE Threshold 2024 PHAP Low Income
Limit 80% AMI
2024 PHAP Median Income
Limit 100% AMI
1 $42,300 $84,600 $109,000
2 $42,300 $96,650 $124,550
3 $53,300 $108,750 $140,150
4 $64,300 $120,800 $155,700
5 $75,300 $130,500 $168,150
6 $86,300 $140,150 $180,600
7 $97,300 $149,800 $193,050
8 $108,300 $159,500 $205,500
Each Additional Person:

Add $11,000
Each Additional Person:

Add $8,000
Each Additional Person:

Add $12,450
7 Recommendation 6: Utility Discount Structure
(Staff Recommendation) Single Tier Utility Discount Structure • Continue offering a 30% discount to qualified low-income customers under the PG&E CARE program to all qualified customer that meet recommendations:
ƒ 24 CCF maximum usage
ƒ Proof of residency
ƒ Shared Meter process (if applicable)
8

Recommendation 6: Alternatives
• Alternative 1: 2-Tier Discount Program with Senior Discount at 80% AMI ƒ Group 1: (Priority Group) 30% discount for Low-Income qualified customers under PG&E CARE Program
ƒ Group 2: 20% discount for Senior 65 years or older with income at or less than 80% AMI
ƒ Priority provided to Group 1
• Alternative 2: 2-Tier Discount Program with Senior Discount at 100% AMI ƒ Group 1: (Priority Group) 30% discount for Low-Income qualified customers under PG&E CARE Program
ƒ Group 2: 20% discount for Senior 65 years or older with income at or less than 100% AMI
ƒ Priority provided to Group 1
9 Transition Plan and Implementation Plan
• Applications will be received and process on first come first serve basis • Applications will be accepted starting in February 2026 • Application can be submitted via email, mail, or in-person • Only complete applications will be accepted
• Effective date of new discount program: March 1, 2026 • Existing customers currently receiving the discount will continue receiving the discount under the current program until February 28, 2026 • No new applications will be accepted between October 21, 2025 and February 1, 2026
10

Communication Plan

1. Existing customer in the discount program (3,200 Senior and 225 Low-Income customers)
• A direct mail by end of the year.
• A mail insert in the regular utility billing cycle

2. All other customers
• A mail insert in the regular utility billing cycle

3. All-day in person application assistance day
• Mid-week at end of January
• 8am to 7pm
• Remillard Room

4. Updating Website with clear instructions

5. Share more broadly with the community through our regular communication channels: City Newsletters, social media, Water Pipeline Newsletter 11 Summary of Staff Recommendations
Approve recommendations to update the Utility Billing Discount Program effective March 1, 2026 to:

1. Apply the discount to Pleasanton’s and Zone 7’s fixed and variable charges for water, and Pleasanton’s fixed charges for sewer

2. Reduce the maximum water usage to receive the discount to 24-hundred cubic feet (ccf)

3. Cap the maximum total discount program budget at $425,000, funded by General Fund allocation

4. Maintain the requirement for proof of residency for discount eligibility

5. Continue discount applications to low-income facilities and senior facilities, and residents in facilities with a shared master meter

6. Adopt a 30% utility bill discount to qualified low-income customers under the PG&E CARE Program
12

END OF PRESENTATION
13

Item #20

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

October 21, 2025
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: CONSIDER AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE KEY TERMS OF A PRE-

ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AND 330 LAND COMPANY, LLC, FOR THE PROPOSED
ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 3030 MOHR AVENUE (APN 946-4634-1)

SUMMARY
In February 2025, the City Council provided direction to staff to accept and process an application for annexation and development of the Arroyo Lago residential project in Pleasanton. The application is now being processed, and staff has worked with the project applicant and developer, 330 Land Company, LLC, (Developer) to formulate key terms of a proposed Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) between the City and the Developer, which would be among the future project approvals to be considered by the City Council. The City Council is requested to consider and provide direction on those key terms, which would ultimately be incorporated into a formal PADA for consideration and approval in conjunction with the project entitlements expected in early 2026.

RECOMMENDATION
Consider and provide direction on the key terms of a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement between the City of Pleasanton and 330 Land Company, LLC, for the proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Development at 3030 Mohr Avenue (APN 946-4634-1).

BACKGROUND
The Arroyo Lago residential project is proposed on an approximately 26.6-acre site located just east of the Pleasanton City Limits within unincorporated Alameda County, adjacent to the Village at Ironwood residential community and City of Pleasanton Public Works Operations Services Center (OSC), and north of Busch Road.

County Residential Development Application
The Arroyo Lago project site has been designated for residential development (Medium Density Residential, MDR) by Alameda County for many years. In June 2022, the Developer, 330 Land Company, submitted a Preliminary Application to Alameda County for site development. In September 2022, the Developer submitted a formal application to the County for the project, which was deemed complete in February 2023. The County has prepared and circulated a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. On September 15, 2025, the Alameda County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certification of the EIR and approval of the project; after hearing public comment and discussion, the Planning Commission continued the item, with the continued hearing now set for October 20, 2025.

Evaluation of Annexation of Projects into Pleasanton

August 20, 2024, Initial Study Session
On August 20, 2024, staff provided the City Council with an update on the Arroyo Lago project and another proposed residential development within the County (the project now known as “East Lakes”) on the immediately adjacent parcel to the east. Staff was directed to return with additional information on the pros and cons of potentially annexing these two properties into Pleasanton.

Arroyo Lago City Preliminary Application
On December 3, 2024, 330 Land Company submitted a preliminary review application to the City for the Arroyo Lago project, including modifications from the County-proposed application:
• Revised utilities and grading plan, to incorporate connections to City utilities. • A modified lotting and home design plan, with larger (deeper) lots and single-story homes adjacent to the Village at Ironwood. This plan reduced the total lot count from 194 to 189 units and made minor modifications to the street section to accommodate the deeper lots.

February 18, 2025, Study Session and City Council Direction On February 18, 2025, staff returned to City Council to present the results of the additional analysis directed by City Council and an updated evaluation of the Arroyo Lago projects based on the “City” preliminary application and the East Lakes project based on a revised project concept submitted by the applicant.

The technical studies included: 1) an evaluation of the fiscal impacts of the projects being developed in the City versus the County; 2) a traffic analysis focused on the need to create a public El Charro Road; and 3) an evaluation of water and sewer capacity and improvements triggered by East Pleasanton development.

In summary, the outcomes of these studies indicated it would be beneficial for both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects to annex into Pleasanton, compared to developing in the County. Specifically:
• Annexation would provide improved and positive fiscal benefits to the City compared to development in the County.
• Developing in the City would have fewer environmental impacts since connecting to City utilities would eliminate the need for the proposed off-site wastewater treatment facility and spray fields proposed for the County project.
• Although requiring new infrastructure, no major impediment was identified to allowing the projects to connect to City systems (although noting downstream improvements, such as new and upsized pipes, would be needed).
• Annexation would allow for a coordinated approach to financing and constructing new infrastructure.

Notably, the traffic study confirmed that the through-connection of El Charro Road, optimally to include a connection from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard, remained a critical improvement. Construction of El Charro is needed to address existing traffic and congestion within the City and accommodate future traffic from East Pleasanton development. Although

construction of El Charro is costly, particularly the southern leg from Busch Road to Stanley Boulevard, annexation provides the best opportunity to create a long-term funding mechanism for the extension, whether through a cooperative funding arrangement (shared costs) among major property owners, or through creation of a funding structure such as a Community Facilities District (CFD). Please see the February 18, 2025, Agenda Report for additional details of the various studies’ findings.

Based on the analysis and by majority consensus, the City Council approved the staff recommendation to accept and process development applications for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects. With respect to Arroyo Lago, specifically, the City Council directed staff to accept deviations from various of the City’s existing development standards, with the exception of rear setbacks for properties abutting the Village at Ironwood.

In additional consensus motions, staff was further directed to work collaboratively with the applicant to develop a mechanism for public infrastructure financing, and develop a vision and expanded and updated General Plan policies for East Pleasanton. This latter work is proceeding separately. Additional recommendations specific to the East Lakes project were also provided, but are not detailed here, since that project is not for discussion at this meeting. (See February 18, 2025 Meeting Minutes for additional details on consensus items)

Arroyo Lago City Application
Based on the direction provided by the City Council, on February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted its formal application for annexation and development into the City of Pleasanton.

These applications include a Planned Unit Development (PUD)/PUD Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and General Plan Amendment for designation of the site as Medium Density Residential (MDR), as well as a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA), see below.

The City is continuing its review of the application, and, among other refinements, has been working closely with the applicant to address the grading of the site to reduce the differential between grades at the Village at Ironwood and Arroyo Lago, which are substantial in the County-proposed plan. The grade differences in the County plan relate primarily to the project’s sewer flows and overland drainage, so efforts have been focused on finding opportunities to redesign the sewer and drainage routing to improve the grading. While not all aspects of this redesign have been fully resolved (for example, the optimal sewer line routing to improve grading relies on acquiring an easement from Zone 7), staff is optimistic that a substantially better outcome will be realized. Attachment 1 includes excerpts of the most recently submitted City plans, for reference.

Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement
As noted, the Developer seeks to enter into a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) with the City, which is relatively common for major development projects in Pleasanton that require legislative approval. The basis for development agreements is established in State law, which authorizes cities to enter into binding development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property.

Development agreements reflect commitments between the City and a property owner or developer to proceed with a specific development, with the agreement specifying the entitled land uses/development rights and related processes that will apply to the application. The developer gains certainty through the development agreement before committing to a

substantial investment in project improvements. In exchange, the City gets certain benefits and concessions or amenities it may not be able to require through conditions of approval.

Negotiation of the terms of the PADA has been an essential part of the application review, since its terms significantly affect the project's acceptability as a development within Pleasanton for both the City and the applicant. While the City Council’s direction at this meeting is not binding (since no formal action of the Council is being requested), early direction on the PADA’s key terms is sought to provide more certainty to both parties as the project moves forward to public hearings in early 2026.

DISCUSSION
The various key terms of the PADA are outlined below, with a note of the status of each term, including whether staff and the applicant are in general agreement on the term, or not, and a brief analysis to outline the basis for the recommended position on each.

1. Term and Effective Date of Agreement:

Proposed Term:

PADA effective for a period of 10 Years, with no extension allowed. Agreement effective upon Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval of annexation.

Status: Developer and Staff Agree

Analysis: Development agreements (DA's) typically include a specified “term” which is the period within which the project must be developed, and within which the terms of the agreement, including developer and City rights and obligations, are in effect. 10 years is a typical term for past DA's within the City of Pleasanton, providing a reasonable period for the project to develop should there be construction delays due to market changes or other factors, and a reasonable expectation for the City and community that the project will develop in a timely manner.

2. Park and Trail Improvements
Proposed Term:

Developer to design, construct and maintain on an ongoing basis:
• An approximately 0.7-acre private park, with public access easement • A public trail connection within the project (along Street “A”) and from project “Street D” to Mohr Avenue at the Irongate Drive intersection, subject to granting of an easement by Zone 7.

Status:

Developer and Staff Agree

Analysis: The proposed subdivision includes a publicly accessible park and trails connections.

This term would memorialize the Developer’s responsibility to design, construct and maintain these improvements. Staff notes that construction of the trail connection to Mohr Avenue is contingent on securing an easement from Zone 7 to facilitate the trail connection, but is optimistic this can be obtained.

3. Maintenance of In-Tract Improvements
Proposed Term:

Developer to cooperate with City to form a maintenance Community Facilities District (CFD) for costs of maintenance of park, trail improvements, streets, sidewalks, landscape, lighting and in-tract utilities in perpetuity. The CFD would also address long-term maintenance of storm drainage and bioretention facilities proposed to be located on private property to the east of Arroyo Lago.

Status: Developer and Staff Agree

Analysis: The project will necessitate the installation of various public improvements within the subdivision, all of which will require long-term maintenance. In the past, the City has either absorbed the long-term cost of maintaining many of these types of improvements or has relied on financing mechanisms such as Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Districts (LLMDs).

The latter are limited in terms of the types of maintenance they can address and, because increases to assessments require affected property owner approval under Proposition 218, it has proven difficult for funding collected within the LLMD to keep pace with maintenance costs over time. A CFD is a more flexible mechanism, being established as a special tax on benefiting properties, prior to transfer of ownership to individual homeowners, and able to cover a much broader range of maintenance items, beyond landscaping and lighting.

4. Water and Sewer System Improvements
Proposed Term:

With respect to the needed water and sewer system improvements to serve the project:
• Developer to design and construct the necessary water and sewer improvements to meet the City’s specifications based on technical modeling. • Developer would a) be eligible for credit of City water and sewer connection fees; and b) to the extent other projects benefit from the improvements, Developer would be eligible to receive reimbursement from other benefitting projects, based on a Fair-Share methodology agreed to between the City and the Developer.

Status: Developer and Staff Agree

Analysis: The project will be among those in East Pleasanton that trigger the need for “downstream” improvements to the City’s water and sewer system, including pipe upsizing, potential upsizing of a sewer siphon, extension of water and sewer pipes, and related improvements. These improvements would also benefit other East Pleasanton development projects (particularly the future East Lakes project). Building the new infrastructure with adequate oversize capacity for other development, subject to reimbursement, is a more cost- efficient way to proceed.

5. Off-Site Street Improvements
Proposed Term:

With respect to off-site street improvements:
• The Developer shall construct Busch Road as a two-lane roadway along the project frontage. This two-lane design is not eligible for fee credit.

• In addition to the required frontage improvements (the north side of Busch Road), Developer shall install a six-foot wide sidewalk, curb and gutter on the north side of Busch Road, extending to the western boundary of the City Operations Services Facility parcel. This improvement is subject to a fee credit.
• If the Villages at the Quarry (Tract 8680 on the former Kiewit property) constructs Busch Road improvements on behalf of the Arroyo Lago project, the City agrees that such improvements shall be eligible for reimbursement by Arroyo Lago to Villages at the Quarry, with such reimbursement subject to a private agreement between the two parties, not part of this PADA.

Status: Developer and Staff Agree (Municipal Code requirement)

Analysis: Pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, projects are responsible for improvements to public streets fronting the property (“Frontage Improvements”), such as travel lane additions or widening, intersection improvements, installation of curb, gutter and sidewalks, landscaping and street lighting, and dedication of right-of-way to accommodate required public improvements. The Arroyo Lago project is obligated to make such improvements to its (north) half of the Busch Road frontage. With the development of the Villages at the Quarry project, which shares a portion of the Busch Road frontage with Arroyo Lago, there is the opportunity to coordinate construction and to share costs for the total improvements required for both projects.

6. Development Impact Fees and Fee Credits
Proposed Term:

With respect to City Development Impact Fees and eligibility for Fee Credits:
• Development to be subject to fees in place as of December 2024 (i.e. pre-update), based on consideration of the substantial investment to date in advancing the project, except such fees shall be subject to annual adjustment per the Construction Cost Index. (Other fees such as building permit and plan check fees to be paid at rates in effect at time of Building Permit)
• Impact fees to be paid at time of issuance of building permits, except as allowed by State law.
• Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) credit for improvements beyond those frontage improvements required pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance

Status: Developer and Staff Agree

Analysis: Development projects are subject to payment of City impact fees (Capital Facilities (CFF) and Transportation Impact Fees (TIF)). The City Council adopted updates to the City’s Impact Fee schedule in December 2024, with the new fees going into effect in mid-February 2025. The update increased the fee amounts for this type of residential project quite substantially. With the adoption of the fees, the City Council included provisions in Resolution 2024-077 to exempt projects “already in process” from the new fees, with such projects defined as those deemed complete, or for legislative approvals, where substantial investment had been made in advancing the project. The Arroyo Lago project has been “in process” with Alameda County since 2022, and as described above, a preliminary application was submitted

to the City in December 2024 and a formal application in mid-February 2025, both substantially based on the County application. In staff's view these factors meet the requirements of Resolution 2024-077 to qualify for the pre-update fees. It is noted that, if developed in Alameda County, the project would not pay any City impact fees.

7. Point of Sale Designation
Proposed Term: Developer would designate the City of Pleasanton as the point of sale for all construction materials and fixtures.

Status: Developer and Staff Agree

Analysis: Local jurisdictions receive a direct share of sales tax revenue from transactions occurring within the jurisdiction. Construction projects may or may not have the city within which the project is being constructed as the designated point of sale for the building materials and fixtures used in the project (e.g. a contractor’s business location or facility could be so designated by default). By agreement, designating the City as the point of sale would help to boost sales tax revenues associated with project construction.

8. Developer Public Benefit Contribution
Proposed Term:

The Developer has proposed the following public benefit contribution:
• The developer proposes to contribute $2.25 million towards the design and physical improvement of El Charro Road as a public roadway, which will be paid on a phased basis tied to the issuance of building permits.
• Such contribution is to be in addition to the estimated $2.19 million in TIF (exclusive of any eligible fee credits) to be paid by the project, and the costs of constructing required frontage improvements per the Subdivision Ordinance on Busch Road.

The City has proposed:
• The Developer should contribute $3.0 million toward the design and improvement of El Charro, which would also be in addition to the TIF paid, and the costs of developer construction of required improvements on Busch Road.

Status:

The Developer and the City do not agree on the amount of the public benefit contribution for El Charro, with the developer stipulating that its public benefit contribution ($2.25 Million), plus cost to construct required Busch Road improvements (estimated at approximately $750,000) should total no more than $3 Million. The City believes the total contribution should be $3 Million, exclusive of the cost of the required frontage improvements (required by Ordinance).

Staff would also prefer some flexibility to apply the funds to other transportation projects benefiting circulation in Pleasanton, in the event the El Charro project does not proceed in the near to medium-term.

Analysis: It is common for projects seeking legislative approval, such as annexation and

rezoning, and also seeking the advantages of vested development rights in a Development Agreement, to provide some additional community benefit, beyond the baseline requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance or payment of City impact fees. For example, the recently approved Merritt project Development Agreement included a $1 million contribution by the developer towards public safety facilities and equipment.

Staff notes that the proposed total contribution (TIF and voluntary contribution combined) for transportation improvements, even at $3 million, would be less than Arroyo Lago’s “fair share” cost of constructing El Charro. This amount has been calculated by the City Traffic Engineer using estimates of the contribution of vehicle trips by various future projects in East Pleasanton to El Charro traffic. In the Traffic Engineer’s calculation, the “fair share” for Arroyo Lago would be approximately $6.5 million for the construction of the segment from Busch Road to Stoneridge Drive; adding the more costly “south” leg of El Charro from Busch to Stanley would increase the fair share to approximately $8 million. Therefore, further reducing the contribution to $2.25 million creates a larger gap.

It would be optimal for Arroyo Lago to pay its full fair share cost since not doing so creates a larger financing gap for the City and/or other projects to overcome. However, the Developer has expressed that paying the entire fair share amount would not be financially feasible, and the proposed $2.25 million contribution is fair and reasonable based on the project's total development cost burden if developed in the City.

Staff notes that, if developed in the County, no such contribution to the El Charro improvements would be required, nor would the project be subject to City TIF. Further, not annexing the project to Pleasanton would create an impediment to the adjacent East Lakes project developing in the City, and run the risk that it too would develop in the County, contributing additional traffic with no requirement to mitigate or pay towards the cost of City transportation improvements. Staff recommends the $3 Million contribution as reasonable and appropriate based on the reduction represented by allowing for payment of the 2024 Impact Fee rates, balanced against the fact that the applicant did not contemplate payment of CIty impact fees or a public benefit contribution with its County application/proposal.

9. Affordable Housing Proposal
Proposed Term:

With respect to meeting affordable housing requirements:
• Developer will construct a minimum of 48 deed-restricted Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in the project. No payment of Affordable Housing Fees will be made.

Status: Developer and staff agree.

Analysis: Allowing ADUs or Junior ADUS to satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance would be a significant departure from the IZO, which disallows ADUs from satisfying the requirements. Approval of this approach would require findings to support approval as an “alternative method of compliance” pursuant to PMC 17.44.080.G.

While not in alignment with the IZO, accepting the deed-restricted ADUs would have the advantage of allowing the units to be counted against the City’s lower-income RHNA.

Payment of the Affordable Housing Fee, which is permitted by the IZO subject to specific findings, may be a more practical proposal in the sense it would not require re-design of the project, and would contribute a significant increment to the City’s Lower-Income Housing Fund.

Affordable Housing Fees would amount to over $9 Million if paid at the 2024 rates, and based on the existing negotiation with respect to the El Charro contribution, this approach is not likely to be financially feasible. Alameda County does not have an inclusionary ordinance or requirement to pay affordable housing fees; therefore this cost in Pleasanton represents a significant additional cost compared to developing in the County. As such, and given the unique circumstances and likely untenable financial burden payment of the in-lieu fee would place on the project, staff recommends the applicant be allowed to satisfy the IZO requirement by deed-restricting the 48 proposed Junior ADUs.

Conclusion and Summary
Staff requests the City Council review and provide direction on the Key PADA terms, numbered 1 through 9, above.

As noted, staff and the Developer are in agreement on the terms under items 1 through 7 and item 9. As such, staff recommends the City Council support these points of agreement. Staff and the Developer have not yet found agreement on Item 8.

With respect to Item 8: Public Benefit Contribution for El Charro Road, staff and the Developer are not in agreement about the amount of the proposed public benefit contribution, whether $2.25 Million as proposed by the Developer, or $3 Million, as recommended by staff. And, while it is staff's intent to advance the construction of El Charro with the East Lakes and Amazon projects, staff requests the inclusion of some flexibility in the language for this monetary contribution to potentially be used on different circulation network improvement(s) should the East Lakes and Amazon projects not advance.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The City Council's direction will support successful resolution of the terms of the PADA, an essential component of the overall set of entitlements necessary for annexation and development of the Arroyo Lago property in Pleasanton, versus in Alameda County. As noted, annexation of the project represents the environmentally preferred option in terms of the project's overall impacts, since it would eliminate the need for the off-site wastewater treatment facility and spray fields proposed in the County project. If approval and construction of the project proceeds, it would support equity goals by providing additional housing opportunities, potentially including deed-restricted or affordable by design ADUs.

OUTREACH
Although no public notification is required for this item, courtesy notices of this item were sent to all property owners and residents of the Village at Ironwood, and email notification provided to other interested parties.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
As one of the major properties within East Pleasanton, advancing the Arroyo Lago project will support Strategic Plan Goal: Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs; Strategy 9. to Advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, since it would resolve development outcomes for this particular site. By supporting the construction and providing funding for ongoing

maintenance of new public facilities needed to serve the project, the terms of the PADA also support Goal A: Funding our Future, Strategy 4. to Include assessment of ongoing maintenance and operating costs for all new projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
As described, the fiscal evaluation presented in the February, 2025 Agenda Report indicated that annexation of the Arroyo Lago project would be fiscally positive compared to its development in Alameda County, and fiscally positive in general when considering the relative benefits and costs of the new development. These positive effects would be augmented by the PADA's proposed securing of long-term maintenance funding for in-tract public facilities, and public benefit contribution towards construction of El Charro Road.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Ellen Clark, Director of
Community and Economic
Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Arroyo Lago - Excerpt of Project Plans

2. Presentation

BUSCH ROAD

STREET ASTREET A

LOOP ASTREET B

STREET CSTREET C

STREET E

STREET F

STREET D OPEN SPACE
23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102 128129130
131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146
116115114113112111110109108107106105127126125124123122121120119118117 147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161
162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189 104103 1 LOOP A
LOOP A
F:\3435-010\ACAD\TM\P-2.DWGOF SHEETSSHEET NO.P-22JOB NO.: 3435-010 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT 8423PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANARROYO LAGOCITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIASCALE: 1" = 60' DATE: JULY 2025 180120600 CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916) 788-4456

59.5' X 95' LOT TYPICAL50' X 70' LOT TYPICAL50' X 80' LOT TYPICAL50'X80' PRODUCT MIXPLAN SFNO. OF LOTS% MIXTOTAL SF50'X70' PRODUCT MIXPLAN SFNO. OF LOTS% MIXTOTAL SF 59.5'X95' PRODUCT MIXPLAN SFNO. OF LOTS% MIXTOTAL SF

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102 1471481491501511521531541551561571581591601611621631641651661671681691701711721731741751761771781791801811821831841851861871881891

STREET A

STREET A

BUSCH ROAD

LOOP ASTREET BSTREET C

STREET CSTREET E

STREET F

STREET D

OPEN SPACE
103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146LOOP ALOOP A F:\3435-010\ACAD\TM\C0.0.DWGJOB NO.: 3435-010
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT 8423TITLE SHEETARROYO LAGOCITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIASCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: JULY 20253002001000 CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916) 788-4456

SITEGENERAL NOTES

VICINITY MAP
20 / PARCEL A

DESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDLEGENDEXISTING

ABBREVIATIONS
SHEET LIST TABLESHEET NO.SHEET TITLE
OF SHEETSSHEET NO.C0.011

BUSCH ROAD

EL CHARRO ROAD

VALLEY AVE

URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARYCITY LIMIT LINEAIRPORTPROTECTION AREA F:\3435-010\ACAD\TM\C5.1-ALT 2.DWGJOB NO.: 3435-010
VESTING TENTATIVE MAPTRACT 8423OVERALL OFFSITEUTILITY PLANARROYO LAGOCITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIASCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: JULY 2025 OF SHEETSSHEET NO.C5.111
LEGEND
6004002000CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916) 788-4456

ARROYOLAGO

PROJECT SITE
A A
A A

BUSCH ROADEL CHARRO ROAD
DMA 1
B B
F:\3435-010\ACAD\TM\C5.2-ALT 2.DWGJOB NO.: 3435-010
VESTING TENTATIVE MAPTRACT 8423OFFSITE GRADING AND DRAINAGEPLAN AND STORMWATERCONTROL PLANARROYO LAGOCITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIASCALE: 1" = 100'DATE: JULY 2025 3002001000CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916) 788-4456 SECTION A-ASECTION B-BDRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA SUMMARYAREA IDIMPERVIOUS AREA(SF)PERVIOUS AREA(SF)EFFECTIVEIMPERVIOUSAREA (SF)TREATMENT AREAREQUIRED (SF)TREATMENT AREAPROVIDED (SF)··NOTESLEGENDDMA 1 OF SHEETSSHEET NO.C5.211

CITY OFPLEASANTONMOHR AVE (FORMER COUNTYROAD NO. 7794 PER TRACT 7431)ACFCIRONWOODIRONWOODACFC XX

BINGHAM COURT

BRADFORD WAYCHATHAM PLACE
MOHR AVENUEPROPOSED INLET WITH FLAP GATE FOR OVERLANDRELEASE INTO MOHR AVENUE FROM A PORTION OF THEARROYO LAGO PROJECT.GRATE ELEVATION IS BELOW ARROYO LAGO FOR OVERLANDRELEASE. STORM WATER WILL BUBBLE UP IN LARGER STORMEVENTS INTO MOHR AVENUE WHEN THE EXISTING 54" MOHRAVENUE STORM DRAIN PIPE IS FULL (ONLY INITIATED IF PRIMARYARROYO LAGO SYSTEM IS ALSO AT CAPACITY PER STANDARDSOR BLOCKAGE)CITY OF PLEASANTONACFC ACFC

IRONGATE DRIVESAGEWOOD COURT

UPSIZE EXISTING SD PIPE FORSECONDARY RELEASE OFPORTION OF ARROYO LAGO ARROYO LAGOIRONWOODTRACT 8004TRACT 7431REMOVE/ABANDONEX PIPEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PRIMARY STORM DRAIN WITHFLAPGATE TO PREVENT BACKWATERFROM ARROYO LAGO ENTERINGSECONDARY RELEASE PIPE AA BB
F:\3435-010\ACAD\TM\C5.3.DWG
LEGEND
SCALE:SECTION A-A1" = 10'SCALE:SECTION B-B1" = 10'JOB NO.: 3435-010 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT 8423OFFSITE UTILITY PLAN - MOHRAVENUE CONNECTIONARROYO LAGOCITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIASCALE: 1" = 50' DATE: JULY 2025150100500 CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916) 788-4456OF SHEETSSHEET NO.C5.311

10/13/2025
1 Arroyo Lago Residential DevelopmentPre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) Key TermsCity Council, October 21, 2025 Request•Consider and provide direction on the key terms of a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) between the City of Pleasanton and 330 Land Company, LLC, for the proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Development at 3030 Mohr Avenue (APN 946-4634-1)•City Council direction non-binding •Approval of PADA to be considered among all project entitlements at a future date1 2

10/13/2025
2 Background•June 2022 – Feb 2023:Arroyo Lago County application submitted; EIR prepared and circulated•August 20, 2024: City Council Study Session: Projects updates and initial input on annexation pros/cons•December 3, 2024: Preliminary City application submitted•February 18, 2025: City Council Study Session: Staff directed to process annexation and development applications based on fiscal and other analysis•February 25, 2025:Formal City Application submitted (189 units, modified site plan)•February–October 2025: City/Developer negotiated draft PADA terms•September 15 and October 20, 2025: County Planning Commission Hearings for Project approval Benefits of Annexation•Positive long-term fiscal impact for City vs. County development•Environmentally Preferred: Eliminates need for off-site wastewater facility and spray fields•Enables connection to City utilities with manageable downstream utility upgrades•Supports coordinated infrastructure planning and financing•Advances long-term goal of El Charro Road connection from Stoneridge toStanley•“City” Project Revisions:•Larger lots and single-story homes abutting existing residential (lot count reduced)•Utility and storm-drain system modifications to improve grading profile•Negotiated benefits through PADA 3 4

10/13/2025
3 Key PADA Terms (1–4)1. Term of Agreement:•10 years; effective upon LAFCo annexation approval2. Park & Trail Improvements:•0.7-acre private park with public access•Public trail connection through project and to Mohr Ave3. Maintenance Funding: •Maintenance CFD for park, trail, streets, lighting, and storm facilities in perpetuity4. Water & Sewer Improvements:•Developer constructs needed improvements per City standards•Eligible for credit of City water and sewer connection feesCity staff and Developer Agree on Terms 1-4 Key PADA Terms (5–7)5. Off-Site Street Improvements:•Busch Road north frontage (per Subdivision Ordinance)•Sidewalk connection to OSC - TIF credit eligible•Villages at Quarry may construct improvements (Developer eligible for reimbursement through private agreement)6. Impact Fees & Credits:•Based on Dec 2024 rates (“substantial investment” provision) with CCI adjustment•TIF credits available per PMC criteria7. Point-of-Sale Designation:•Pleasanton as point of sale for construction materials and fixtures•Staff and Developer Agree on Terms 5-7 5 6

10/13/2025
4 Key PADA Terms (8 and 9)8. Public Benefit Contribution (El Charro Road):•Developer proposes 2.25M contribution•City recommends $3M contribution“Fair-share“ El Charro cost ≈ $6.5–8M; $3M contribution provides reasonable balance9. Affordable Housing: •48 deed-restricted JADUs proposed•Staff and developer agreeIZO generally disallows ADUs to satisfy affordable requirement (“alternative compliance” findings needed)Payment of fees (~$9 Million of additional cost), unlikely to be feasible for developer Council Direction Requested•Discuss and provide direction on key PADA terms:•Staff and developer agreed PADA terms (Items 1–7 and 9)•Provide direction on Public Benefit contribution for El Charro (Item 8)•Authorize staff to finalize Draft PADA consistent with Council directionNext Steps•Prepare final Development Agreement and Project Approvals for Future City Council consideration •Public Hearings and Council action in early 2026 7 8

10/13/2025
5 Arroyo Lago Residential DevelopmentPre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA)City Council, October 21, 20259

Item #21

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

October 21, 2025
Public Works - Utilities Division

TITLE: APPROVE THE LONG-TERM SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

SUMMARY
On June 17, 2025, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the City’s 2025 Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). At that time, the SSMP City Council Agenda Report identified under Next Steps that a long-term Sewer Capital Improvement Plan (Sewer CIP) would be prepared and presented to the City Council at a later date. This report presents that long-term sewer CIP, which includes prioritized projects over a 20-year span, under three distinct implementation scenarios.

A detailed resource review and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) requirements to properly implement the SSMP, which was also identified as a next step in the SSMP Staff Report of June 17, 2025, is currently under development and will be presented at a future City Council meeting. The City will also be conducting a sewer rate study and sewer connection fee study that will utilize the results of the SSMP, including this CIP, to calculate and recommend increases to user rates and connection fees for City Council consideration in 2026.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Long-Term Sewer Capital Improvement Plan.

BACKGROUND
The City owns and operates a sewer collection system that consists of approximately 253 miles of gravity sewers, approximately 4.9 miles of force mains, 8 siphons, 11 active pump stations, and approximately 21,000 service connections. The average dry weather flow is approximately 6 million gallons per day (MGD). The City has agreements with Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and City of Livermore (for Ruby Hill service area) for wastewater treatment and is a member of Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) for treated wastewater disposal. The City also has agreements with Alameda County that allow sewage flows from the Castlewood Service Area to be transported through the City’s collection system for treatment at DSRSD.

The City has developed a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) that is a living document to guide management of its sewer collection system. As a regulatory-mandated document, the SSMP covers nearly all management aspects, including Element 8, System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements. The City hired a consultant, Woodard & Curran, to prepare this long-term Sewer CIP (Attachment 1) as well as two key studies that informed the development of the Sewer CIP: the sewer system capacity evaluation and the facility condition assessments.

The studies evaluated both the system capacity (ability to convey sewage flows) and the condition of the infrastructure (most, but not all assets), which are used to convey sewage.

Generally speaking, with just a few exceptions, the system capacity (size of piping and pump stations) is robust and is able to convey current and future predicted sewage flows. Some up- sizing of piping is needed to support future development.

The assessment of the condition of assets is more complicated. While systems remain operationally reliable, they are beginning to degrade with age and are nearing the end of their useful life. A recent unexpected severe sewer line collapse at Danker Rd where approximately 300 feet of sewer pipes failed is one of several conditions that show signs of aged infrastructure and the need for capital improvement and replacement. Over the next 20 years, replacement and rehabilitation projects will be needed to renew piping and pumping systems to extend the useful life of the conveyance systems and maintain reliability. More studies are needed of the piping systems, including significant closed-caption television (CCTV) analysis, to develop a complete picture of asset conditions.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the City’s long-term Sewer CIP is to ensure the sustainability of the City’s sewer system infrastructure and determine funding needs. The long-term CIP is a living plan that is reviewed on a two-year cycle to evaluate implementation progress and updated on a six-year cycle to reflect any changes in drivers and needs. Development of the long-term CIP is based on technical evaluations that include condition assessments and system capacity assessments. The long-term CIP includes prioritized projects with cost estimates over a 20- year span.

The long-term Sewer CIP consists of a list of recommended projects that fall within the major categories listed below:
• Capacity & Reliability Improvement Projects
• Lift Station Projects
• Condition Assessment Projects.

Each recommended project was prioritized based on the following system:
• Priority Level A – The highest priority projects in need of immediate repair/replacement because of imminent failure, or safety hazard. Includes critical infrastructure that could result in a sewage spill if left unaddressed, or that does not meet the City’s current hydraulic design criteria. This priority level also includes inspection of critical assets missing condition data, so the extent of any future rehabilitation or replacement needs can be determined.
• Priority Level B – The midterm priority projects, defined as projects in need of near-term repair/replacement because of deteriorating/poor condition. This priority level also includes assumptions about asset replacement/rehabilitation identified as part of the inspection performed in priority level A.
• Priority Level C – The lowest priority projects. These include work anticipated based on assumed asset conditions, but the scope and schedules of these projects are not defined. This priority level also includes the re-inspection and condition assessment of critical infrastructure.

Development of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes three phased implementation scenarios that will guide the rate-setting process by balancing annual spending requirements with the risks associated with project deferrals. These scenarios were developed based on the system needs identified in the City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).

The three implementation scenarios: Maintain, No Deferral, and Maximum Deferral, represent varying levels of investment in the City’s wastewater collection system.

Each scenario reflects a different approach to maintaining sewer service reliability, rehabilitating aging infrastructure, improving system performance, and meeting State regulatory requirements for sanitary sewer systems.

As part of the next phase of the financial plan analysis, the delivery of these scenarios will inform potential rate revenue adjustments and capital financing strategies, including the consideration of debt financing. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure the sewer enterprise continues to meet its financial performance targets, fund essential infrastructure improvements, and support the selected SSMP CIP implementation alternative.

Staff plans to present the results of the financial plan analysis to the City Council in November.

At that time, staff will seek City Council direction on selecting the preferred scenario that best aligns with the City’s financial capacity, infrastructure needs, and regulatory compliance obligations.

See Attachment 2 for summary of all expenditure scenarios. The three scenarios are:
• Scenario 1 (Maintain) - Offers a balanced approach, deferring some projects while aiming to reduce the backlog of gravity sewer with major defects. Requires 2 to 3 additional staff starting in FY 2026-27, managing an average of $8.4 million annually.

Staffing requirements increase to four during FY 2031-32 and FY 2032-33 to complete major pipeline and lift station work. The scenario targets full repair/replacement of pipes with existing major defects by FY 2030-31. This scenario requires more than double the City’s current capital spending. The total funding expenditure is $130,800,000 in net present value.
• Scenario 2 (No Deferrals) - Minimizes the City’s risk by proactively investing in rehabilitation and replacement of high-risk assets. Requires three to four additional staff in the first 10 years to manage up to $15 million annually. The staffing requirement decreases to two in the long term, managing an average of $6.5 million annually. This scenario aims to eliminate the backlog of pipes with severe defects by FY 2029-30. The upfront spending in the next 10 years would present significant implementation challenges due to the volume of work. The total funding expenditure is $139,200,000 in net present value.
• Scenario 3 (Maximum Deferrals) - Defers projects to give the City more time to ramp up its capital spending program and hire additional staff. In doing so, this scenario presents the highest risk, since high priority projects are deferred into the long term. Requires two to three additional staff over the 20-year span. Aims to maintain or reduce the current backlog of pipes with major defects by replacing one mile of pipe per year starting in FY 2027-28. The total funding expenditure is $125,700,000 in net present value.

Once the Sewer CIP is approved, the City's SSMP will be updated to incorporate the report by

reference in accordance with California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) procedures.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The Sewer CIP, as a component of the SSMP, includes preparing community water resources for a changing climate, which will result in cost savings, enhanced water quality, improved infrastructure, and increased resiliency.

OUTREACH
No outreach was specifically conducted for development of the Sewer CIP, as this is a routine matter of City business. However, outreach globally for the SSMP will occur as described in Element 11 (Communication Program) in the SSMP.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the Citywide ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Investing in our Environment, Strategy 8 – Update the Sewer System Master Plan to reflect current and future operations and identify system improvements and necessary maintenance.

FISCAL IMPACT
This item has no fiscal impact. Preparation of the Capital Improvement Plan was funded by CIP 16245 (Sewer Capacity Evaluation Project) and CIP 22289 (Sewer System Management Plan).

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

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

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Long-Term Sewer Capital Improvement Plan Report

2. Combined Scenarios

3. Presentation

LONG-TERM SEWER

CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN

0012108.00
City of Pleasanton, CA
October 6, 2025
woodardcurran.com

woodardcurran.com
2175 N. California Blvd | Suite 810
Walnut Creek, California 94596
800.426.4262

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) i Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.

1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE PLAN ................................ ................................ ..............1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Plan Updates ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Existing Wastewater Collection System ................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3.1 Sewer Collection Pipelines .............................................................................................................. 1-4

1.3.2 Sewer Lift Stations .............................................................................................................................. 1-6

1.3.3 Private Laterals and Systems .......................................................................................................... 1-9

1.3.4 Wastewater Treatment ..................................................................................................................... 1-9

2. SEWER SYSTEM PROGRAM EVALUATIONS ................................ ................................ ..................2-1

2.1 Gravity Sewer Condition Assessment ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Lift Station Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Sewer Capacity Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4 SCADA Master Plan (West Yost) ................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.5 Energy Master Plan (West Yost) ................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.6 Generator Report (TJC) ................................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.7 Future Evaluation Efforts .............................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.7.1 Large Diameter Trunk Sewer Condition Assessment ........................................................... 2-5

2.7.2 Sewer Siphon Condition Assessment ......................................................................................... 2-6

2.7.3 Force Main Condition Assessment .............................................................................................. 2-6

2.7.4 Asset Management Plan .................................................................................................................. 2-7

3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ................................ ................................ ............................. 3-1

3.1 Project Prioritization ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Cost Estimating Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Capital Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.3 Engineering Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Priority A Projects and Costs ...................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Gravity Sewer R&R ............................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.3.2 Lift Station Improvements ............................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.3 Sewer Inspection/Condition Assessment .................................................................................. 3-5

3.3.4 Sewer Capacity Improvements ...................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.5 Other Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.5.1 Generator Upgrades/Replacements ............................................................................ 3-6

3.3.5.2 SCADA Upgrades ................................................................................................................ 3-7

3.4 Priority B Projects ............................................................................................................................................ 3-7

3.5 Priority C Projects ............................................................................................................................................ 3-8

4. LONG-TERM CIP ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-1

4.1 CIP Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Long-term CIP Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4-5

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) ii Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

TABLES
Table 1-1: Gravity Pipeline Information by Pipe Size
Table 1-2: Gravity Pipeline Information by Material
Table 1-3: Gravity Pipeline Information by Age
Table 1-4: Sewer Siphons
Table 1-5: Lift Station Information
Table 1-6: Force Main Information by Lift Station
Table 3-1: Priority A – Gravity Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement Table 3-2: Priority A – Lift Station Improvements
Table 3-3: Priority A – Sewer Inspection/Condition Assessment Projects Table 3-4: Priority A – Capacity & Reliability Improvement Projects Table 3-6: Priority A – Generator Upgrades/Replacements

FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Sewer Network
Figure 1-2: Lift Station Locations
Figure 2-1: Pipe Risk Priority
Figure 4-1: CIP Implementation – Scenario Comparison
Figure 4-2: Scenario 1 – Annual Spending by Fiscal Year Figure 4-3: Scenario 2 – Annual Spending by Fiscal Year Figure 4-4: Scenario 3 – Annual Spending by Fiscal Year

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Sewer System Management Plan

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 1-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
The City of Pleasanton (City) adopts operating and capital budgets (budgets) through an ongoing two-year budget process and adopts a five -year capital improvement program (CIP). This report focuses on what capital programs the City requires to maintain a high level of service for their sanitary sewer system. For the purposes of this report a high level of service is defined by:
• System reliability and resilience – Keeping the sewer system in good condition and avoiding sanitary sewer spills due to condition related issues.
• Capacity Management – Maintaining a sewer network that can meet the City’s capacity standards for both existing and future development flows without risk of SSOs. • Regulatory Compliance – Meeting all state and federal requirements for sewer system management.
• Duration of Service Interruptions – If service is interrupted, ensuring that the City has the capacity to respond quickly.

In addition to this CIP Implementation document, the City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), prepared in compliance with the Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Sanitary Sewer Systems (WDR), describes the City’s ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) and condition assessment programs and other related aspects of its management of the sanitary sewer system. The SSMP supplements this CIP document and is the basis for estimating O&M budgetary needs for the sewer system.

Several speci fic contractor or engineering support O&M programs, developed by City Staff, have been included in this plan to capture expected costs, especially where they may tie in with future capital improvement work.

1.1 Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the City’s long -term capital improvement plan (CIP) is to ensure sustainability of the City’s sewer system infrastructure and determine funding needs. The long-term CIP is a living plan that is reviewed on a 2-year cycle to evaluate implementation progress and updated on a 6-year cycle to reflect any changes in drivers and needs. Development of the long -term CIP is based on technical evaluations that include condition and system capacity assessments. The long -term CIP includes prioritized pro jects with cost estimates over a 20-year span. The long-term CIP is developed in coordination with Utilities Division O&M staff and Engineering Division staff. The City’s Engineering Division is responsible for implementing CIP projects. Engineering will u tilize the long-term CIP as a guide for developing its 5 -Year CIP budget that is updated every 2 years.

Section 1 of this report defines the assets within the sanitary sewer system, Section 2 describes the program evaluations performed to develop the project recommendations, Section 3 describes cost estimating assumptions for projects identified by the program evaluations, and Section 4 describes several 20 -year capital improvement plan investment scenarios for the City to consider.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 1-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

1.2 Plan Updates
In order to maintain a plan that is in line with the City’s goals, funding levels, and project backlog, it is recommended that the following components of this plan are updated on an ongoing basis:
• Review cycle (2-year per CIP budget cycle).
o Evaluate project completion, prioritization, funding, progress toward capital project implementation.
o Reassess near-term project priorities and annual budget constraints. • Update cycle (6-year per SSMP update cycle).
o Evaluate/update per WDR/SSMP requirements.

1.3 Existing Wastewater Collection System
The City is located in southern Alameda County and covers approximately 25 square miles. The City’s sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 258 miles of pipe, ranging from 4 to 42 inches in diameter, and 11 pumping stations. The majority of the sys tem discharges to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) located on Johnson Drive. The DSRSD plant has a design capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of dry weather flow allocated to the City of Pleasanton.

The Ruby Hills development in the far southeastern part of the city discharges to the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant in accordance with the Interjurisdictional Agreement between the two cities. The City also has an agreement with Alameda County that allows sewage flows from its Castlewood Service Area to be transported through the City’s collection system for treatment at DSRSD.

Four City trunk sewer pipelines are tributary to the DSRSD WWTF: the Highland Oaks trunk sewer, which services the northwestern portion of the City; the East Amador Trunk Sewer (EATS, also known as the Cross- Town Interceptor), which services the northeaste rn and northern portions of the City; Lift Station 6 (LS -6) force main, which conveys flow from the central and eastern portions of the City; and the Lift Station 8 (LS- 8) force main, which conveys flow from the southern portion of the City. The City’s sewer network is shown in Figure 1-1, and serves as the extent of this study.

±
Long-Term Sewer Capital
Improvement Implementation
Plan
Figure Exported: 8/11/2025 By: nhanson Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Projects\0012108.00 Pleasanton - Sewer System Modeling\wip\G. GIS\MXD\Pro_Files\FM_Sewer_Basins_10032022.aprx Layout: Overall Network Implementation Plan Fig1 Map Created: August 2025
0 600 1,200300
Feet
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS Legend
City Maintained Sewer
Gravity Main
[Ú Sewer Lift Station
City Force Main
Non-City Maintained
Sewer
DSRSD
LAVWMA
Other Private Sewers
Private Force Main
[Ú EALS Lift Station
Figure 1-1: Overall
Sewer Network
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, NGA, USGS

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 1-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

1.3.1 Sewer Collection Pipelines
As described in section 1.3, the City’s sewer system consists of approximately 258 miles of pipes. These pipes include gravity sewer pipes, sewer siphons, and force mains. Gravity sewer pipes make up the majority of the collection system (~98% of the system), with force mains located downstream of the City’s 11 lift stations, and siphons located at Creek/Arroyo or highway crossings. A summary of gravity sewer pipe materials, ages, and diameters are included below in Tables 1 through 3 . Additional information on the City’s 8 siphons is shown in Table 1-1, and information on the City’s force mains are shown in Section 1.3.2 Table 1-6 since they are all associated with one of the City’s lift stations.

TABLE 1-1: GRAVITY PIPELINE INFORMATION BY PIPE SIZE
Diameter, inches Number of Line
Segments
Pipe Length, linear
feet
Portion of Sewer
System, %
4 65 3,493 0.30%
6 1025 138,922 10.89%
8 4558 906,586 70.22%
10 461 102,040 7.95%
12 137 26,999 2.25%
14 6 898 0.01%
15 173 43,206 3.41%
16 3 327 0.02%
18 87 20,017 1.64%
21 18 5,845 0.47%
24 44 10,451 0.91%
27 52 16,275 1.17%
30 21 5,750 0.44%
33 9 2,530 0.23%
42 1 63 0.00%
Unknown 3 697 0.07%
Total 6,663 1,334,297 100%
Total Miles 252.7

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 1-5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
TABLE 1-2: GRAVITY PIPELINE INFORMATION BY MATERIAL
Material Number of
Line Segments Pipe Length, LF Percent of Sewer
System
ABS 8 911 0.07%
ACP 96 24,997 1.87%
CIP 33 614 0.05%
DIP 132 9,405 0.70%
HDPE 15 2,632 0.20%
PVC 2449 440,336 33.00%
RCP 39 11,738 0.88%
STEEL 1 80 0.01%
VCP 3843 833,090 62.44%
Unknown 47 10,495 0.79%
Total 6,663 1,334,297 100%

TABLE 1-3: GRAVITY PIPELINE INFORMATION BY AGE
Age, Years Construction Period Percent of System* Linear Feet of Main 0-15 2010 – Current 2.8% 37,807.3
16 – 35 1990 – 2009 33.1% 442,293.0
36 – 55 1970 – 1989 40.1% 534,866.3
56 – 75 1950 – 1969 23.3% 311,171.1
76 – 95 1930 – 1949 0.0% -
95 – 115 1910 – 1929 0.0% -
>115 Before 1910 0.0% -
Unk Unknown 0.6% 8,158.8
Total, linear feet 1,334,297
Total Miles 252
Weighted Average Age 40.8

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 1-6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
TABLE 1-4: SEWER SIPHONS
Siphon Location Construction
Date
Number of
Siphon
Barrels
Length
Linear Feet1
Size Pipe
Material Inches
S-5 Laguna Vista
Siphon 1988 1 600 10 VCP
S-8 Siphon 1968 1 440 14 MJCIP
Meadowlark Siphon 2018 2 1410 8 PVC
Highland Oaks
Siphon 1965 2 300 10, 14 CIP
Amberwood Siphon 1986 2 350 8 DIP
Nobhill Siphon 1966 2 400 8 DIP
Laguna Creek
Siphon 2002 2 620 8 DIP
West Las Positas
Siphon 1968 2 500 15 VCP
Total, Linear Feet: 4620
Total, Miles: 0.875

1. Total length of siphon pipes for multiple-barrel siphons

1.3.2 Sewer Lift Stations
The City of Pleasanton owns and operates eleven (11) sewer lift stations throughout its wastewater collection system. The collection system discharges to the Dublin San Ramon Services District Wastewater Treatment Plant (DSRSD WWTP). Figure 1-2 below displays the location of the 11 wastewater lift stations in relation to the DSRSD WWTF.

While the oldest station was installed in 1968, the stations were primarily constructed in the 1980s and early 2000s, and several stations have also been more recently upgraded. The lift stations have two general configurations: three (3) are dry-pit stations and the remaining eight (8) are wet pit stations with submersible pumps. The sizes of the pumps varies from 2 to 60 horsepower (HP) and total station capacity ranges between 0.4 MGD and 7.6 MGD. A summary of lift station installation dates, size, firm capacity, and standby generator size is included in Table 1-5. Table 1-6 includes information on the force mains to which each lift station discharges.

In addition to the City’s lift stations, the East Amador Lift Station (EALS), which is owned and operated by DSRSD, conveys flow from the City of Pleasanton to the DSRSD WWTF. Although DSRSD is responsible for the condition assessment and implementation of improvements needed to this lift station, the City is responsible for funding these improvements. An allocation for those costs has been included in the long - term CIP. EALS is not listed in Tables 5 and 6 since it is not owned by the City of Pleasanton.

±
Long-Term Sewer Capital
Improvement Implementation
Plan
Figure Exported: 8/11/2025 By: nhanson Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Projects\0012108.00 Pleasanton - Sewer System Modeling\wip\G. GIS\MXD\Pro_Files\FM_Sewer_Basins_10032022.aprx Layout: Overall Network Implementation Plan Fig2 Map Created: August 2025
0 600 1,200300
Feet
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS Legend
[Ú EALS Lift Station
[Ú Sewer Lift Station
City Maintained Sewer
Gravity Main
City Force Main
Figure 1-2: Lift
Station Locations
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
LS-6
LS-13
LS-4
LS-8
LS-7
LS-5
LS-12
LS-10
LS-2
LS-15
LS-14
EALS Lift
Station
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, NGA, USGS

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 1-8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
TABLE 1-5: LIFT STATION INFORMATION
Lift Station
Name Location
Construction
or Upgrade
Date
No.

Pumps
Pump
Firm
Capacity
gpm
Pump
Manufacturer
Pump
HP
Standby
Generation
KW
Sewer Lift
Station LS-2
8019 Foothill
Road 1998 2 158 Flygt 3 25
Sewer Lift
Station LS-4
1065
Serpentine
Lane
1981 2 459 Flygt 3
Uses
portable
when
needed
Sewer Lift
Station LS-5
1723 Laguna
Creek Lane 1968 3 1,751 Flygt 7.5
Uses
portable
when
needed
Sewer Lift
Station LS-6
6900 West
Las Positas
Blvd.
2014 5 4,3371 Flygt 20 200
Sewer Lift
Station LS-7
4950 Bernal
Ave. 1980 3 6,255 General
Electric 20 100
Sewer Lift
Station LS-8
6890 Koll
Center
Parkway
1980 3 2,836 General
Electric 60 155
Sewer Lift
Station LS-
10 7341 Foothill
Road 1986 2 292 Flygt 10 25
Sewer Lift
Station LS-
12 302 Happy
Valley Road 2002 2 409 Flygt 20 90
Sewer Lift
Station LS-
13 3300 Busch
Road 1992 2 N/A Paco 2
Uses
portable
when
needed
Sewer Lift
Station LS-
14 6614 Alisal
Street 2004 2 183 Flygt 10
Uses
portable
when
needed
Sewer Lift
Station LS-
15 2299
Vineyard Ave. 2006 2 N/A Flygt 15 60

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 1-9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
TABLE 1-6: FORCE MAIN INFORMATION BY LIFT STATION
Lift Station Name Upstream of
force main
Year
Installed
Length of the
Forcemain (LF)
Diameter
(in) Material

Sewer Lift Station LS-2 1994 1,235 4 PVC1
Sewer Lift Station LS-4 1982 354 4 PVC1
Sewer Lift Station LS-5 1968 774 10 CIP1
Sewer Lift Station LS-6 1968 2,814 10 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-7 1981 909 16 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-8 1980 10,010 18 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-92 1981 525 18 PVC
Sewer Lift Station LS-10 1985 4,477 4 DIP
Sewer Lift Station LS-112 1986 1,145 6 PVC
Sewer Lift Station LS-12 1998 2,445 4 PVC
Sewer Lift Station LS-133 1989 NA 4 PVC
Sewer Lift Station LS-14 2002 2,163 6 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-15 2003 862 4 DIP/PVC
Total Pressure Mains, linear feet 28,472
Total Pressure Mains, miles 5.4

1. Pipe material changed from VCP in the GIS based on as-built information.

2. LS-9 and LS-11 are currently not in use. Their forcemains have been left in the Table for reference only.

3. There is no forcemain downstream of sewer lift station 13 in the City’s GIS. The pipe’s length has been left as NA. The pipe diameter, year installed, and material have been pulled from the Sewer Lift Station Assessment for LS-13.

1.3.3 Private Laterals and Systems
Sewer service laterals are owned by the property owner and therefore are the responsibility of the property owner to maintain. The City will not service, repair, rehabilitate, or replace any portion of sewer service laterals from the building to the public sewer main.

1.3.4 Wastewater Treatment
The City has agreements with DSRSD and City of Livermore (for Ruby Hill area only) for wastewater treatment and is a member of the Livermore -Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) for treated wastewater disposal. The City does not own or operate any of their own treatment facilities.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 2-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

2. SEWER SYSTEM PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
As part of the Sewer System Capacity and Condition Assessment, a condition assessment of the City’s gravity sewer network and sewer lift stations was conducted. These assessments determined the City’s near -term, mid-term, and long-term rehabilitation and replacement needs for each asset. A capacity analysis was also performed using the City’s hydraulic model of its sanitary sewer system, InfoWorks ICMTM. These findings identified pipes that were predicted to be undersized under both existing and future sewe r flow scenarios.

The following sections describe these assessments in more detail and present their findings.

2.1 Gravity Sewer Condition Assessment
The City performs closed -circuit television (CCTV) inspections of its gravity mains up to 15 inches in diameter. The CCTV data was coded based on National Association of Sewer Services Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification System (PACP) sta ndards. As part of the condition assessment process, this inspection data is evaluated for the purposes of identifying CIP projects. The latest evaluation was completed in November 2024 by Woodard & Curran for pipes inspected and coded through June 2024. In total, 424,370 linear feet (or about 30 percent of the City-owned pipes in the gravity collection system) had CCTV data and defect scoring that could be utilized for a risk -based assessment. InfoAsset PlannerTM risk assessment software was used to devel op likelihood of failure (LOF), consequence of failure (COF), and corresponding risk scores for each pipe in the system.

LOF scoring was based on primarily structural condition information from the CCTV data and also included a “structural vulnerability” factor reflecting the age and material of the pipe (also used as a preliminary surrogate for structural condition for pipe s without CCTV data), and frequency of required cleaning (“hot spots”) factor. COF scoring considered the pipe size (reflecting its potential flow volume), environmental consequence (e.g., proximity to storm drain inlets or Waters of the State), the type o f road type in which the sewer was located (reflecting the impact to the public and difficulty of repair), and community impact (proximity to commercial areas and public facilities).

A risk-matrix weighting system was applied to each pipe’s LOF and COF score to determine an overall risk priority (very low, low, medium, or high) for each pipe. See Figure 2-1 for a map of risk priority for pipes in the system. In addition to the risk analysis, gravity sewers were assigned a rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) action based on an R&R decision process which analyzed pipes based on the quantity and types of structural defects present in the pipe. Based on this process, pipes with major defects (PACP grade 4 or 5 structural defects) are assigned a defect repair, full pipe lining, or pipe replacement R&R decision. Gravity sewers with no major defects were identified for continued preventive maintenance, and gravity sewers without CCTV data were assigned a CCTV priority. Based on the risk score and R&R decision for each gravity sewer pipe, recommendations for capital improvement projects were identified for inclusion i n the City’s long-term CIP.

Figure 2-1:

Overall Risk
Priority
Project #: 0012108
Map Created: January 31, 2025
Long-Term Sewer Capital
Improvement Implementation
Plan
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Legend
Risk Priority
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Force Main
Private Sewers
City Boundary
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
±

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 2-3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
Due to the limited CCTV data available (~30% of the system), assumptions were made for the long -term CIP about the total number of pipes that would require near -term R&R while the City completes its CCTV inspections. It was assumed that the same proportion of pipes identified for R&R in the 2025 condition assessment would apply to the rest of the system (e.g. if 10 pipes were identified in 2025 with an R&R decision because of defects present in the pipes, about 23 pipes would require an R&R decision in the portion of the system without CCTV data). This assumption will be revisited once the CCTV inspection of the system is completed, and the gravity condition assessment is updated based on the additional inspections.

2.2 Lift Station Condition Assessment
Lift stations are regularly inspected by operators and the findings recorded on the City’s lift station inspection forms. The lift stations also underwent an engineering assessment as part of the long -term CIP process. The engineering assessment was completed in January 2025 by Woodard & Curran. The evaluation process included an initial review of record drawings and miscellaneous documents followed by onsite inspections and assessments of each station’s configuration, process condition, mechanical conditio n, observed structural condition, safety, operations and maintenance issues, electrical facilities, and overall long-term reliability. In addition, Woodard & Curran coordinated with City staff for input on which lift stations present the highest risk in te rms of day-to-day operations. The assessment also incorporated the findings and recommendations of a separate generator study completed by TJC and Associates.

During the inspection of each lift station, issues were highlighted that may warrant additional attention or future improvements. For each facility, these identified issues were given numerical criticality (1 = Fair/Good, 2 = Poor, 3 = Crucial) and categor ized into six (6) groups: Process, Mechanical, Electrical, Structural, Site, and Health & Safety. Recommended lift station improvements based on the results of the lift station condition assessments were prioritized and have been scheduled in the City’s lo ng-term CIP. Additional assumptions about future lift station rehabilitation were also included in the long -term CIP based on the ages and criticality of each lift station. These rehabilitation assumptions represent high level electrical, mechanical, process, health and safety, and minor site upgrades that are needed based on the age of the lift station.

2.3 Sewer Capacity Evaluation
A sewer system capacity evaluation was conducted by Woodard & Curran in 2024; the analysis used a calibrated all-pipes model of the City’s sewer network to determine if any pipelines did not meet the City’s capacity criteria. The model was developed in Inf oworks ICM TM and used water billing data from 2017 through 2021 (with 2020 being omitted due to its assumed irregular water usage due to COVID19 stay -at- home orders) as the basis for existing base wastewater flows. The model was calibrated to flow meters installed at several different locations across the sewer network. This calibrated data was the basis for the dry weather flow scenarios that would be used in the capacity evaluation. For wet weather, a 25-year design storm was chosen based on City input th at closely matched a large storm event that occurred during the flow monitoring period. This design storm served as the basis for the wet weather flow scenarios that would be used in the capacity evaluation.

The capacity criteria used for the evaluation specified that sewers should flow no more than ¾ full under peak dry weather conditions and water level in manholes should rise no higher than to 3 feet below ground (freeboard) under a design peak wet weather flow condition. Under existing sewer flows, no sewers in the

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 2-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
City’s network were found to be capacity deficient under dry weather flow conditions. However, two locations exceeded the City’s freeboard criteria under wet weather conditions. Several alternatives were developed to alleviate the capacity issues and were presented to the City. A preferred alternative for each capacity project was selected based on a combination of cost, construction feasibility, and engineering judgment. The preferred alternatives were added to the City’s near-term CIP.

Future developments were added to the model by combining data from the 2020 Tri-Valley Demand Study1, data from the City’s Housing Element developed by the City’s Community Development Department (CDD), and several East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP) projects located near or outside the City’s existing urban growth boundary. This list was updated again with the latest Housing Element developed by the CDD in 2022. These planned projects that will likely be constructed in the near-term (within approximately 10 years), so any capacity issues caused by the additional developments need to be accounted for in the City’s long - term CIP. Flow factors were assigned to single family, multi-family, and non-residential developments based on factors derived from the water billing data, and the additional flow added was used to create the future development scenario.

As with the existing sewer loads analysis, dry and wet weather scenarios were modeled using the future loads to determine if any new capacity issues were caused by the increased flow. The same capacity deficiency criteria were applied for future flow conditions, However, in cases where future peak wet weather flows would result in any surcharge (flow exceeding full pipe capacity) due solely to future development, then the City specified that capacity relief would be required before any new development could be connected to the system. Once again, no sewers in the City’s network were found to be capacity deficient under dry weather flow conditions. However, two locations exceeded the City’s capacity criteria under wet weather conditions due solely to the addi tional flows added by the future developments, and alternatives were developed to add additional capacity. The preferred capacity alternatives for the future load conditions were added to the City’s CIP.

2.4 SCADA Master Plan (West Yost)
A separate planning study was performed by West Yost analyzing the City’s SCADA system in addition to the Water and Sewer Master Plans. The report focuses on equipment, preventive maintenance, and cyber security of the City’s existing SCADA system. The mos t applicable recommendation from the TM included in the long-term CIP is the upgrade of lift station remote terminal units (RTUs), which integrate the stations with the City’s SCADA system. No specific projects were included for RTU upgrades in the long-term CIP, but these costs were assumed to be included as part of the mid - and long-term lift station rehabilitation work.

2.5 Energy Master Plan (West Yost)
West Yost also completed an Energy Master Plan which evaluated and recommended mitigation measures related to system resilience and renewable energy . Specific projects were recommended as part of this report focusing on use of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), microgrids, time-of-use management (TOU), as well as process control strategies to evaluate energy optimization. These strategies were recommended at several of the lift stations to improve reliability and resiliency. Similar to the SCADA upgrades, no specific

1. Woodard & Curran, 2020 Tri-Valley Demand Study Municipal and Industrial Demand Study, 2021

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 2-5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
projects were included from the Energy Master Plan in the long-term CIP, but these costs were assumed to be included as part of the mid- and long-term lift station rehabilitation work.

2.6 Generator Report (TJC)
A separate generator report was prepared for the City in addition to the sewer lift station condition assessment. The goal of the report was to identify which pump/lift stations (including water, sewer, and storm) were most critical to the City and, in turn, recommend a reliable backup power source based on each asset’s priority. Priority was based on system importance with the most critical assets receiving a recommendation for stationary generators located at the lift stations to allow the station to run even if power was lost for up to 24 hours. Less robust systems were recommended for less critical assets. Costs for these upgrades to the sewer and storm drain lift station are included in the CIP (water pump station generator upgrades are captured in the water system long-term CIP).

2.7 Future Evaluation Efforts
While the physical condition of most gravity sewers can be determined with standard CCTV inspections, several asset types require special considerations/techniques to determine their condition. This section presents several proposed methods for the conditi on assessment of large diameter trunk sewer pipelines, siphons, and force mains. Although these assets account for a small overall percentage of the system, their operation is critical to maintaining the City’s current level of service.

2.7.1 Large Diameter Trunk Sewer Condition Assessment
The City does not currently have CCTV inspection data for their trunk sewers (considered to be any gravity sewer larger than 15 inches). These pipes are primarily located upstream of EALS, LS -8, and LS -6. Trunk sewers are typically more difficult to inspect than smaller diameter gravity sewers due to higher flow levels in the pipe. The additional flow can obscure view of the pipe wall, potentially causing inspection to miss defects in the pipe. Other issues include potential debris buildup in the pipe as grease and sediment deposit along the trunk line. In order to inspect these pipes, it is recommended that trunk sewers be inspected during nighttime hours, when the flow levels in the pipes are lowest, approximately 25 to 50 percent full based on hydraulic modeling results. During lower flow conditions like this, standard CCTV equipment could be used, and no flow bypass or flow plugs would be required. If significant flow or debris is present in the pipe, optional sonar measurements could be used to get a sense of the level of debris and condition under the water surface if pre-cleaning cannot remove the debris.

Additionally, sewer trunk manholes are recommended for detailed inspection. Sewer trunk manholes are generally more prone to failure from Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) than typical gravity sewer manholes due to the higher likelihood of hydrogen sulfide present in trunk sewers compared to typical small diameter gravity sewers. Surface level visual observation could be used to inspect the manholes walls as part of th is assessment. However, surface level inspection often provides limited informatio n on the condition of the concrete in the lower sections of the trunk manholes where corrosion is more likely to be visible. Therefore, a more detailed man -entry or televised inspection is recommen ded, especially if MIC is noted in the pipe or manhole. It is recommended that a manhole inspection based on NASSO Manhole Assessment Certification Program (MACP) level 2 inspection be performed along the trunk sewer if manhole corrosion is a concern.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 2-6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
The City’s system also includes a large diameter trunk, the East Amador Relief Sewer (EARS), that is not currently in use but could be used as an alternative/in addition to the EALS trunk sewer and lift station if some modifications are made to the system. The EARS trunk could provide a backup flow path while rehabilitation work is performed on the EALS line (if required), or a new lift station could be installed to supplement the EALS trunk and lift station. Analysis of these alternatives will require inspection of the EARS line and additional hydraulic modeling to determine the project’s feasibility. An analysis of the EALS and EARS capacity and condition assessment has been added to the CIP. As part of this effort an optional predesign for EARS could be conducted if the EALS lift station and/or trunk are found to be in poor condition and extensive rehabilitation is required.

For the long -term CIP, it is assumed a specialty CCTV contractor would be hired to perform the large diameter trunk sewer and manhole inspections. A follow -up condition assessment using the same methodology outlined in the Gravity Sewer Condition Assessment would be used to determine if any rehabilitation or replacement of trunk sewers or manholes was required. For the purposes of the long-term CIP, several segments of pipe rehabilitation of the trunk sewer were assumed. This placeholder cost represents eit her several pipe segment replacements or a pipe lining projects but these costs are not sufficient for extensive rehabilitation of the trunk mains if they are found to be in poor condition. Based on the findings of the future condition assessment, assumption s for trunk sewer rehabilitation costs will be revisited and updated as needed.

2.7.2 Sewer Siphon Condition Assessment
The City does not currently have CCTV inspection data for any of its sewer siphons. Siphons are also more difficult to inspect than smaller diameter gravity sewers since they flow full during typical operation, requiring the siphon to be drained prior to CCTV inspection. Also, due to the geometry of siphons, siphons can accumulate significant amounts of debris, further complicating inspections. Some siphons may also not be possible to inspect if the access points and the geometry of the pipe make it impossible to start/recover the CCTV camera. In these cases, sonar data could be used to determine if defects are present in the pipe (although this data will not be in NASSCO PACP format).

It is assumed that specialty CCTV contractors would be hired to perform all siphon inspections. Siphon inspections would need to occur at night while the system flows are lowest. The siphon would be plugged, dewatered, and inspected in a single night. A follow-up condition assessment using the same methodology outlined in the Gravity Sewer Condition Assessment would be used to determine if any rehabilitation or replacement of sewer siphons would be required.

2.7.3 Force Main Condition Assessment
Similar to sewer siphons, inspecting force mains is typically challenging because they operate under full flow conditions and cannot easily be dewatered, making standard CCTV inspection infeasible. Additionally, access points are often limited, further complicating the inspection process. To address these issues and focus future condition assessment efforts, the City will also include an engineering evaluation as part of its long-term CIP process. The evaluation will first include a desktop assessment of th e force mains, which will include a review of pipe attributes (alignment, age, material, etc.), geotechnical conditions in the proximity of the force mains, pump cycling data, and break history. This analysis will help identify feasible and appropriate inspection methods for each force main.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 2-7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
The inspections will be prioritized based on the same types of factors used for gravity pipe risk assessment.

The force main inspections may include visual assessment of pipe alignments, inspection of discharge manholes, ultrasonic pipe thickness testing if feasible/appropriate, and actual internal CCTV inspection or other technology to assess pipe condition if possible . Any force mains that can be CCTV inspected (or partially inspected) may be added to the gravity pipe CCTV inspection program to be conduct ed by contractors. Once available, needed improvements based on the results of the condition assessments will be prioritized and scheduled into the City’s long-term capital improvement plan as appropriate.

2.7.4 Asset Management Plan
The City is currently in the process of developing a City -wide asset management program. As part of this program the sewer utility will need to develop its approach to asset management that integrates with the City’s overall asset management plan.

2.7.5 Cathodic Protection and Installation and I/I Studies The City plans to perform an inventory and assess the effectiveness of its cathodic protection along pipeline and lift stations. Corrosion can drastically reduce the expected useful life of both lift station components and metallic pipes. To address this, the City has also allocated funding in the near, mid, and long term to install new cathodic protection systems following the study.

In addition, high I/I can significantly increase wet weather flows in sewer mains and may contribute to spills, so the City may perform further investigations in areas prone to higher I/I.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
In this section, the projects identified in Section 2 are analyzed based on system importance, regulatory requirements, and City goals to determine their project priority. A brief description of all projects, their priorities, and their relative costs are also included in this Section.

3.1 Project Prioritization
• Priority Level A: the highest priority projects, defined as projects in need of immediate repair/replacement because of imminent failure, or safety hazard. Critical infrastructure that could result in a sewer spill if left unaddressed, or not meeting the City’s current hydraulic design criteria.

This priority level also includes inspection of critical assets missing condition data so the extent of any future rehabilitation or replacement needs can be determined. • Priority Level B: the medium priority projects, defined as projects in need of near -term, repair/replacement because of deteriorating/poor condition. This priority level also includes assumptions about asset replacement/rehabilitation identified as part of the inspection performed in priority level A.
• Priority Level C: the lowest priority projects , these projects include work anticipated based on assumed asset condition but the scope and schedules of these projects are not defined. This priority also includes the re-inspection and condition assessment of critical infrastructure.

3.2 Cost Estimating Assumptions

3.2.1 Capital Costs
Recent bid tabs, vendor quotes, City staff input, and Woodard & Curran’s institutional knowledge have been used to establish the estimated costs for the repair, replacement, rehabilitation , inspection, and analysis recommendations identified in the long-term CIP. All capital costs shown include a 30 percent construction contingency and 30 percent allowance for engineering, administration, and legal costs per the Association of the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 4 standards and City preference. The costs provided are in November 2024 dollars with no escalation or inflation applied. These estimates are subject to change and will be further refined at the design stage.

3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance (O&M) programs identified align with Element 8 of the SSMP. Cost estimates for these programs were provided by City staff. These costs reflect work performed by contractors or engineers supporting the City on specific projects and do not include typical day-to-day O&M expenses or internal staff resources. A detailed list of O&M costs will be developed by City staff and is not included in this report.

3.2.3 Engineering Resources
To support the implementation of capital improvement projects recommended in the long -term CIP, additional staffing will be required. For planning purposes, it was assumed that one additional full -time equivalent (FTE) staff member would be needed for every $4 to $5 million in annual capital project spending.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
These FTEs are not assumed to be permanent positions and may be phased out if capital project workloads decrease.

3.3 Priority A Projects and Costs
The following sections describe the Priority A projects broken out by their program category. Each section gives a brief rational for why these assets received a Priority A rating and summarizes the costs shown in the long-term CIP (see Section 4).

3.3.1 Gravity Sewer R&R
Seven high risk pipes received a rehabilitation/replacement action based on the results of the gravity condition assessment. These pipes all have at least one severe structural defect (NASSCO PACP grade 4 or 5), which NASSCO defines as a pipe that will fai l in the near -term or has already failed. Based on these results, these pipes were assigned to priority A as near-term replacement/rehabilitation recommendations.

These pipes have a variety of preliminary rehabilitation recommendations based on the defects present in each pipe, but for simplicity they are presented as a single line item in the CIP. A detailed recommendation of each pipe’s specific R&R action can be found in the Pleasanton Sewer Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation/Replacement Recommendations technical memorandum. Additional costs for pavement and sidewalk replacement were also included under the “ Annual Sewer Collection System Improvements for Resurfacing”.

Funding in this line item may also be used to rehabilitate or repair large diameter sewer mains, sewer siphons, and force mains. As noted in Section 2.7 the condition of these assets is currently unknown and is expected to be assessed over the next 3 to 5 years. If any of these assets are found to be in poor condition, this funding can support near -term rehabilitation efforts. Total funding allocations for both gravity sewers and other asset classes will be re-evaluated during the next sewer rate study, scheduled for 2030.

Also included in this line item is the CCTV inspection cost for high priority gravity mains identified in the condition assessment analysis. These pipes received a high risk priority based on their age, material, cleaning frequency, and COF factors ( See Section 2.1 for additional details), and their actual condition should be determined in the near-term so an analysis of any defects present can be performed. A summary of pipeline R&R costs as well as costs for inspection of the high priority CCTV pipes without inspection data are shown below in Table 3-1.

An additional condition project was included based on City staff feedback. The Amberwood Siphon has been noted to be in poor condition and there is concern that it is capacity deficient, and unable to convey flows under Arroyo Mocho. If this siphon failed or became clogged, it could lead to SSOs in the residential neighborhood upstream of the siphon and it is therefore considered high priority. A preliminary cost has been included in Table 3-1.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

TABLE 3-1: PRIORITY A – GRAVITY SEWER REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT Project Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost
Pipeline Replacement
Pipeline Replacement includes
replacement and repair of high priority
pipes, as well as CCTV inspection and
PACP coding for high risk pipes
without CCTV inspections1. This
funding can also be used to other
near-term high priority pipeline
projects such as force mains, large
diameter sewers, and siphons as
inspections are completed.

Varies by
scenario see
Section 4 for
additional
details
Amberwood Siphon Identified by City staff $3,330,000
Annual Sewer Collection System
Improvements for Resurfacing $1,050,000

Cathodic Protection and I&I Studies $150,000
Cathodic Protection Installation Projects will be identified by the cathodic protection study.

Varies by
scenario see
Section 4 for
additional
details
Denker Road Sewer Replacement
Identified by City staff after reviewing
CCTV video in the Val Vista
neighborhood. The existing pipe is in
need of immediate repair/replacement
$1,650,000

1. These priority CCTV inspections are assumed to be performed by a CCTV contractor assisting existing City CCTV crews to complete the inspections in the near term.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

3.3.2 Lift Station Improvements
As part of the lift station condition assessment, recommendations for lift station rehabilitation were classified as one of three different criticality levels:
• Criticality 3 – the most severe criticality, was defined as Repair/replace immediately because of imminent failure or a safety hazard.
• Criticality 2 – was defined as Schedule repair/replacement because the equipment is at or exceeds its useful life or failure would cause operations or safety problems. • Criticality 1 – the least critical, was defined as Repair or replace as part of a long -term program because the equipment is inefficient, worn and nearing its useful life, or is failing but is not crucial to operation or safety.

Based on these definitions, all criticality 2 and 3 recommendations were considered Priority A projects. These recommendations included rehabilitation actions for all 11 of the lift stations and range from pulling wires and cutting conduits flush with finished floor to avoid trip hazards to a full lift station replacement (LS-5). A detailed list of recommended rehabilitation actions are included in the Sewer Lift Station Assessment . A summary of the priority A lift station costs is shown in Table 3-2.

An additional line item for a condition and capacity assessment of the existing East Amador lift station was assigned Priority A. Based on the most recent capacity assessment, EALS is currently undersized to accommodate the modeled peak wet weather flow s. This analysis would allow the City to determine the scope of future improvements required at the lift station . This line item also includes capacity assessment and predesign work for East Amador Relief Sewer (EARS) force main and lift station. This station would operate in tandem with EALS and give the City additional flexibility and redundancy when moving flows from the Eastern sewer shed to the WWTF.

TABLE 3-2: PRIORITY A – LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Project Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost
LS-02, -07, -08, -10 Improvements
Includes all criticality 2 and 3 projects identified
in the Sewer Lift Station Assessment report
$1,420,000
LS-04, -12, -13, -15 Improvements $940,000
LS-05 Full Replacement Project
At the time of this project, a redundant siphon
will also be installed. Costs include demolition of
the existing station and assumes full
replacement, including cutover costs from the
old to new station.
$6,120,000
EARS and EALS Condition
Assessment, Capacity Evaluation,
and Predesign
$500,000

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

3.3.3 Sewer Inspection/Condition Assessment
As described in Section 2.7, the City will be collecting additional inspection data on gravity sewers, trunk sewers, sewer siphons, and force mains as part of the long-term CIP to determine what, if any, rehabilitation is required for these assets. Due to the criticality and unknown condition of these assets, the inspection and condition assessment work was considered priority A. If one or more of these asset classes are shown to be in poor condition, it may result in significant changes to the mid-term and long-term CIP. A summary of the costs for these inspections and condition assessments are shown in Table 3-3.

TABLE 3-3: PRIORITY A – SEWER INSPECTION/CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROJECTS Project Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost
Large Diameter Inspection Study Included in the near-
term capital budget $150,000
Sewer Siphon Inspections (8), approx. 2,600 LF total Included in the near- term O&M budget NA
Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections Included in the near- term capital budget $704,000

3.3.4 Sewer Capacity Improvements
All four capacity projects identified by capacity evaluation (see Section 2.3) were considered priority A projects. Delaying these projects increases the risk of sewer spills, particularly for the projects triggered by existing sewer loads during wet weather conditions. For the projects triggered by future loads, the capacity improvements would ideally be constructed in tandem with the development, increasing the sewer capacity as additional flows are added to the system. Since these projects (Kiewit , Arroyo Lago, and the Stoneridge Mall developments specifically) are assumed to be starting construction in the next 5 -years, these projects received a Priority A ratin g. However, this assumption should be reassessed if these future developments are delayed. Furthermore, funding for capacity improvement projects caused by future developments is assumed to be almost entirely paid for by future development. A summary of the capacity projects and their cost to existing and future customers is shown below in Table 3-4.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-6 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
TABLE 3-4: PRIORITY A – CAPACITY & RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Capital Projects
Estimated
Total Capital
Cost
Cost Sharing
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Project 1B: Upsize Sunol Blvd Sewers $1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ - Project 2A: Bernal Ave Pipe Bridge $3,330,000 $ 3,330,000 $ - Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of
Stoneridge Mall $3,660,000 $ - $ 3,660,000 Project 4A: East Pleasanton Capacity Project A
(Kiewit and Arroyo Lago) $2,972,000 $ 222,2751 $ 2,749,725 Project 4B: East Pleasanton Capacity Project B
(Amazon, East Lakes, Site H) $4,314,000 $ - $ 4,314,000

3.3.5 Other Projects

3.3.5.1 Generator Upgrades/Replacements
Based on the TJC generator report, various sewer and storm drain lift stations received a backup generator recommendation based on the criticality of the facility. These generators would allow assets to continue to function even when power is cut to the facility. To he lp increase the resiliency of the City’s lift stations, the generator upgrade recommendations were assigned to Priority A. However, less critical assets identified by TJC could be moved to Priority B if funding is unavailable. A summary of the costs for th e generator upgrades for sewer and stormwater lift stations is shown in Table 3-5.

1 The $222,275 project cost attributed to existing customers represents funds collected by the City from the Kiewit development through its sewer connection fee. These funds will be reserved for future East Pleasanton Capacity Improvement projects, specifically for upsizing or installing new sewer infrastructure to accommodate additional flow.

Future developments in the East Pleasanton area will share the cost of these capacity improvements proportionally, based on the volume of flow each adds to the system. A preliminary capacity project, Capacity Project 4, was developed using the latest land use proposals from the Arroyo Lago, Amazon, East Lakes, and Site H developers. However, this project is subject to change depending on the final scope and timing of the developments.

An assumed cost split for Capacity Project 4 is shown based on the anticipated timing of each development’s connection to the system.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-7 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
TABLE 3-5: PRIORITY A – GENERATOR UPGRADES/REPLACEMENTS Project Notes
Estimated
Total Capital
Cost
Generator Replacement - Sewer and Storm
Includes all sewer and stormwater
generators identified in the TJC
Report (2023).
$9,860,000

3.3.5.2 SCADA Upgrades
SCADA upgrades including programmable logic controller (PLC) modifications will be installed at each sewer lift station, where appropriate, during the lift station rehabilitation (or replacement in the case of LS - 5). Costs for SCADA upgrades are captured i n the “LS Major Rehabilitation” line item included for each lift station. This line item also includes other programmed improvements such as pump rehabilitation/replacement, valves maintenance/replacement, conduits replacement, electrical panels maintenance/replacement, motor control replacement, etc.

3.4 Priority B Projects
Priority B projects include additional rehabilitation and replacement recommendations for pipes in poor condition selected based on the inspected condition, as well as less critical lift station improvements. Major projects included in Priority B include:
• East Amador Lift Station & East Amador Relief Sewer Improvements – The City of Pleasanton may be required to fund capacity upgrades at EALS based on the additional future developments proposed in the East Pleasanton area. The station will likely require general rehabilitation and modernization in addition to possible capacity improvements. The scope of these improvements will be determined by a future condition assessment and detailed capacity study. This study will also determine the benefits, scope, and s ize of an EARS lift station and force main . An EARS lift station would allow the City to have greater flexibility and redundancy, creating a new flow path to the WWTF for sewer flows from the eastern side of the City. This additional flow path would allow EALS to be taken out of service if extensive rehabilitation of the trunk sewer or lift station is required. • Major Rehabilitation of Lift Stations – The line items shown for Priority B and C lift stations represent high level rehabilitation and will be further defined during detailed design based on the lift station’s needs. This line item also includes programmed improvements that each lift station may require in addition to the specific upgrades included in priority A and criticality 1 items identified in the Sewer Lift Station Assessment. These improvements include pump and impeller rehabilitation/replacement, valves maintenance/replacement, conduits replacement, electrical panels maintenance/replacement, motor control replacement, SCADA upgrades, etc. A detailed cost estimate for each station will be determined closer to construction based on the ongoing inspection results at each station.
• Pipeline Replacement and Rehabilitation – The City will continue to rehabilitate and replace pipes in poor condition based on their CCTV inspection results and relative risk. This line item may include pipes identified in the 2024 Pleasanton Sewer Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation/Replacement

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 3-8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
Recommendations TM or pipes inspected in the near -term as part of the priority A recommendations.
• Sewer Siphon Replacement and Large Diameter Trunk Rehabilitation – This line item includes funding for possible rehabilitation or replacement of sewer siphon replacement or trunk sewers based on the findings of the inspections included in priority A. These costs will not be sufficient to rehabilitate or replace multiple siphons and/or trunk sewers, and it is recommended that this line item be revised following the results of the inspections and desktop analyses.

3.5 Priority C Projects
Priority C projects include additional rehabilitation and replacement recommendations for pipes in poor condition that have not yet been CCTV’d. Pipes will be selected based on their inspected condition as identified as part of future condition assessment effort. These projects are more programmatic in nature and represent the required investment to maintain the sewer network. Also included in this priority is the reinspection of sewer siphons, trunk sewers, and gravity mains and follow up condition assessment work. It is critical that the City continues to identify assets in poor condition as the system ages and react proactively to maintain a high level of service to the public.

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 4-1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

4. LONG-TERM CIP
The City of Pleasanton has identified both capital and O&M projects and programs to maintain and improve the City’s current level of service. The O&M projects provided by the City were incorporated into the Long- Term CIP scenarios described below to present total anticipated spending requirements).

4.1 CIP Scenarios
The following section describes three long -term CIP scenarios developed for the City. The scenarios represent different project timelines and associated expenditure rates. These scenarios all have different benefits and drawbacks which are discussed below. A comparison between their spending levels is shown in Figure 4-1.

FIGURE 4-1: CIP IMPLEMENTATION – SCENARIO COMPARISON

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14CIP Cost ($M)
CIP Implementation - Scenario Comparison
Scenario 1 - Total Cost Scenario 2 - Total Cost Scenario 3 - Total Cost

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 4-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
Scenario 1 – Maintain: This scenario offers a balanced approach, deferring some projects while aiming to reduce the backlog of gravity sewers with major defects. While less aggressive than Scenario 2, this option still requires more than double the City’s current capital spending by FY27 to avoid deferring Priority A work. To capture the risk in delaying projects, a line item representing unplanned/emergency repairs equal to 2.5% of City-funded capital projects is included in this scenario. A chart of spending by year is shown in Figure 4-2.

Capacity Projects:
• All priority A capacity projects are completed in the near term.

Lift Station Projects:
• Some near-term lift station projects are delayed to the mid -term, and some mid-term projects are delayed to the long-term.

Condition Assessment Projects:
• This scenario targets full repair/replacement of pipes with existing major defects by FY30 –31, with $3M annually (corresponding to approximately 1.5 miles of sewer) available starting in FY27 –28.

This funding assumes the pipes analyzed in Pleasanton Sewer Condition Assessment are representative of the entire sewer system, and that only ~4.5% of pipes in the system require some type of rehabilitation. If more defects are found than expected, the backlog of pipes in need of rehabilitation or replacement will grow in the near -term. This is especially true if siphons, forcemains, or trunk sewers are found to be in poor condition during their near-term studies and funding is needed for emergency repairs.

Staffing:
• This scenario r equires 2 to 3 additional staff starting in FY27, managing an average of $8.4M annually (excluding FY25–26). Staffing increases to 4 FTEs from FY31–33 to complete major pipeline and lift station work.

FIGURE 4-2: SCENARIO 1 – ANNUAL SPENDING BY FISCAL YEAR

$0
$5
$10
$15CIP Cost ($M)
Priority A Priority B
Priority C FTE

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 4-3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
Scenario 2 – Projects Funded by Priority: Minimizes the City’s risk by proactively investing in rehabilitation and replacement of high -risk assets. This scenario offers the most flexible near -term spending to address the findings of gravity main, large diameter sewer main, siphon, and force main studies. However, the high up-front spending in the next 5 years may be difficult to achieve, given the City’s current capital spending of ~$3M. A chart of spending by year is shown in Figure 4-3.

Capacity Projects:
• All priority A capacity projects are completed in the near term.

Lift Station Projects:
• All priority A lift station projects are completed in the near -term, and all priority B projects are completed in the mid-term.

Condition Assessment Projects:
• Aims to eliminate the backlog of pipes with severe defects by FY30, based on findings from the recent Pleasanton Sewer Condition Assessment. However, if additional asset in poor-condition are identified (e.g., siphons, forcemains, large -diameter trunk sewers), this scenario provides the most flexibility to address them in the near term, with $6M available in FY27 –28 and $3M every year thereafter. The intent of this scenario is to minimize the City’s backlog of projects before the next rate study.

Staffing:
• This scenario requires 3 to 4 additional staff in the near to medium term (FY27 –35) to manage $5– 15M in capital work. FTE requirements decrease to 2 in the long term (FY35 –44), managing an average of $6.5M annually.

FIGURE 4-3: SCENARIO 2 – ANNUAL SPENDING BY FISCAL YEAR

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14CIP Cost ($M)
Priority A Priority B
Priority C FTE

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 4-4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
Scenario 3 – Maximum Deferrals: This scenario defers projects to give the City more time to ramp up its capital spending program and hire additional staff. In doing so this scenario presents the highest risk since projects are deferred from the near and mid -term into the long -term. To capture the risk in delaying projects, a line item representing unplanned/emergency repairs equal to 5% of City-funded capital projects is included in this scenario. A chart of spending by year is shown in Figure 4-4.

Capacity Projects:
• All priority A capacity projects are completed in the near term.

Lift Station Projects:
• Some near-term lift station projects are delayed to the mid -term, and some mid-term projects are delayed to the long-term.

Condition Assessment Projects:
• This scenario aims to maintain or reduce the current backlog of pipes with major defects, replacing approximately 1 mile of pipe per year starting in FY27–28 with an annual budget of $2.1M. If more pipes with major defects are found or the siphons, forcemains, and/or large diameter trunk sewers are found to be in poor condition, the City’s backlog of pipes with rehabilitation requirements will grow under this scenario . This will increase the risk of asset failure and may require more costly emergency repairs.

Staffing:
• Requires between 2 and 3 additional staff starting in FY27 through the long term (FY 45). These staff manage an average of $8.4M annually, similar to scenario 1 but with more deferrals.

FIGURE 4-4: SCENARIO 3 – ANNUAL SPENDING BY FISCAL YEAR

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14CIP Cost ($M)
Priority A Priority B
Priority C FTE

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 4-5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025

4.2 Long-term CIP Summary
This section includes an itemized list of all Priority A, B, and C for each of the three scenarios.

This section is intentionally blank
See PDF for long term CIP tables and figures

City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan20-Year Plan -- Scenario 1 Maintain Long Term
Capital Projects Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 FY 35/36 - FY 44/45
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Priority A - Capacity & Reliability Improvement Projects Project 1B: Upsize Sunol Blvd Sewers preferred alt $1,600,000 790,000 $ 810,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,600,000 $ - $ Project 2A: Bernal Ave Pipe Bridge preferred alt $3,330,000 - $ 400,000 $ 2,930,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of Stoneridge Mall $3,660,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,660,000 $ Project 4A: East Pleasanton Capacity Project A (Kiewit and Arroyo Lago)
Note 1 $2,972,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,275 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,275 $ 2,749,725 $ Project 4B: East Pleasanton Capacity Project B (Amazon, East Lakes, Site H)
Note 2 $4,314,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,314,000 $ Priority A - Lift Station Projects
LS-02, -07, -08, -10 Improvements Note 3 $1,420,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,420,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,420,000 $ - $ LS-04, -12, -13, -15 Improvements Note 3 $940,000 - $ - $ 470,000 $ 470,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 940,000 $ - $ LS-05 Full Replacement Project Note 4 $6,120,000 - $ - $ 810,000 $ 5,310,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,120,000 $ - $ EARS and EALS Condition Assessment, Capacity Evaluation, and Predesign $500,000 166,700 $ 166,700 $ 166,700 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ Generator Replacement - Sewer and Storm
Note 5 $9,860,000 150,000 $ 1,710,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 9,860,000 $ - $ Priority A - Condition Assessment Projects
Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $9,500,000 - $ 500,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,500,000 $ - $ Amberwood Siphon $3,330,000 - $ 270,000 $ 3,060,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Priority A - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing $1,400,000 - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,400,000 $ - $ Large Diameter Inspection Study $150,000 - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ Denker Road Sewer Replacement $1,650,000 150,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,650,000 $ - $ Cathodic Protection and I&I Studies $150,000 - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ Cathodic Protection Installation $9,000,000 - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ - $ Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections $704,000 104,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 704,000 $ - $ $60,600,000 1,360,700 $ 6,306,700 $ 11,586,700 $ 10,630,000 $ 7,072,275 $ 1,920,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 49,876,275 $ 10,723,725 $ Priority B - Lift Station Projects
Health and Safety Signage $10,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $

EALS R&R
Note 7 $4,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 520,000 $ 3,480,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ EARS LS Note 7 $8,412,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,093,560 $ 7,318,440 $ - $ 8,412,000 $ - $ EARS LS Piping Note 7 $1,647,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 214,110 $ 1,432,890 $ - $ - $ 1,647,000 $ - $ LS-03, -09, 11 Abandonment Note 8 $600,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ LS-06 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $2,890,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 375,700 $ 2,514,300 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,890,000 $ - $ LS-08 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,120,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 405,600 $ 2,714,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,120,000 $ - $ LS-07 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,700,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 481,000 $ 3,219,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,700,000 $ - $ Priority B - Condition Assessment Projects
Priority B - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $15,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 15,000,000 $ - $ Priority B - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $6,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,000,000 $ - $ Priority B - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Force Main and Large Diameter Desktop Analysis and Inspections $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000 $ Priority B - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $1,750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 1,750,000 $ - $ $51,209,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,875,600 $ 12,411,100 $ 11,297,410 $ 5,876,450 $ 11,418,440 $ 3,330,000 $ 51,209,000 $ - $ Priority C - Lift Station Projects11
LS-02 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $750,000 $750,000 - $ LS-04 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $810,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $810,000 $810,000 - $ LS-10 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $880,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $880,000 $880,000 - $ LS-12 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,230,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,230,000 $1,230,000 - $ LS-13 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,150,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,150,000 $1,150,000 - $ LS-15 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $710,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $710,000 $710,000 - $ Priority C - Condition Assessment Projects
Force Main and Large Diameter Desktop Analysis and Inspections Note 12 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $750,000 $750,000 - $ Priority C - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $30,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $30,000,000 $30,000,000 - $ Priority C - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $12,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $12,000,000 $12,000,000 - $ Priority C - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $3,330,000 $3,330,000 - $ Project Deferral - Unplanned Repair Costs Note 13 $3,800,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $3,800,000 $3,800,000 - $ Priority C - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $3,500,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $3,500,000 $3,500,000 - $ $58,910,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,910,000 $58,910,000 - $ $1,360,700 $6,306,700 $11,586,700 $10,630,000 $7,072,275 $8,795,600 $13,911,100 $14,797,410 $6,376,450 $11,918,440 $67,240,000 $159,995,275 $10,723,725 Engineering/Administration FTE's Count 1 2 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 21 NA NA Engineering/Administration FTE's Cost $300,000 $600,000 $900,000 $900,000 $600,000 $600,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $6,300,000 NA NA Total CIP $1,660,700 $6,906,700 $12,486,700 $11,530,000 $7,672,275 $9,395,600 $14,811,100 $15,697,410 $7,276,450 $12,818,440 $73,540,000 $159,995,275 $10,723,725 Total Priority A Projects
Priority B Projects
Total Priority B Projects
Cost Sharing Near Term Mid Term
Priority A Projects
Priority C Projects
Total Priority C Projects
Estimated Total Capital Cost

Project: City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan Capital Improvement Projects
20-Year Plan -- Scenario 1 Maintain

Capital Improvement Project Notes:

1) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 9: Cost Sharing for Scenario 3 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerni ng the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume th at development of the Kiewit property will contribute $222,275 in payment while balance will be funded by the Arroyo Lago developme nt.

2) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 12: Pro-Rata Cost Sharing Scenario 6 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerning the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume that Project 4B costs will be the Total of all developments (Kiewit North, Site H, East Lakes, Arroyo Lago, and Amazon) minus the Project 4A cost (Kiewit North and Arroyo Lago). The City will seek funding from developments as application s are processed or will seek construction of these projects from the first development with reimbursements made to others on a pro rata share basis as others connect.

3) Priority A Lift Station projects encompass all Criticality 2 and 3 improvements, while Priority B represents Criticality 1 (included in rehabilitation projects), as identified in the 2024 LS Condition Assessment TM.

4) At the time of this project, a redundant siphon will also be installed. Costs include demolition of existing station and assumes full replacement, inc luding cutover costs from the old to new station.

5) Includes all sewer and stormwater generators identified in the TJC Report (2023).

6) Pipeline Replacement includes replacement and repair (R&R) of high priority pipes and an allowance for future R&R work, as well as CCTV inspection and Sewer AI for pipes. This money can also be spent on other high priority assets like force mains, siphons, or large diameter sewers as needed depending on the findings of condition assessment e fforts.

7) City funded work to be performed by DSRSD. CIP assumes EALS will be rehabilitated, and the EARS LS and associated piping will be installed to suppleme nt this rehabilitated lift station

8) Estimation of $200,000 for abandonment of Lift Stations currently not in service.

9) Major rehabilitation costs for lift stations were estimated based on the lift station's pump horse power and flow rate. A more refined cost estimate w ill be developed based on the extent of the rehabilitation required at each station prior to construction.

10) This line item is an allowance for the replacement or rehab of sewer siphons, forcemains, and large diameter sewers that are inspected as part of the Priority A analysis work. This cost will be refined as the analysis is completed

11) LS-14 Rehabilitation will take place under separate CIP funding, and therefore not included in this spreadsheet.

12) The SSMP will make subsequent recommendations a bout the scope and schedule of future condition ass essment work, including CCTV, force main inspection, and manhole inspections. 13) Unplanned repair costs represent the risk associated with deferring capital projects. This cost is intended to account for potential emergency repairs that may arise if assets fail before they can be rehabilitated or replaced. To reflect this risk, a line item equal to 2.5% of City-funded capital projects is included in priority C, but spending would occur whenever an asset fails unexpectedly (in addi tion to the City’s O&M budget).

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14 CIP Cost ($M)
CIP Implementation - Scenario 1
FTE Priority C Priority B Priority A

City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan20-Year Plan -- Scenario 2 Projects Funded By Priority Long Term
Capital Projects Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 FY 35/36 - FY 44/45
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Priority A - Capacity & Reliability Improvement Projects Project 1B: Upsize Sunol Blvd Sewers preferred alt $1,600,000 790,000 $ 810,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,600,000 $ - $ Project 2A: Bernal Ave Pipe Bridge preferred alt $3,330,000 - $ 400,000 $ 2,930,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of Stoneridge Mall $3,660,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,660,000 $ Project 4A: East Pleasanton Capacity Project A (Kiewit and Arroyo Lago)
Note 1 $2,972,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,275 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,275 $ 2,749,725 $ Project 4B: East Pleasanton Capacity Project B (Amazon, East Lakes, Site H)
Note 2 $4,314,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,314,000 $ Priority A - Lift Station Projects
LS-02, -07, -08, -10 Improvements Note 3 $1,420,000 - $ - $ - $ 710,000 $ 710,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,420,000 $ - $ LS-04, -12, -13, -15 Improvements Note 3 $940,000 - $ - $ 470,000 $ 470,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 940,000 $ - $ LS-05 Full Replacement Project Note 4 $6,120,000 - $ - $ 810,000 $ 5,310,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,120,000 $ - $ EARS and EALS Condition Assessment, Capacity Evaluation, and Predesign $500,000 166,700 $ 166,700 $ 166,700 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ Generator Replacement - Sewer and Storm
Note 5 $9,860,000 150,000 $ 1,710,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 9,860,000 $ - $ Priority A - Condition Assessment Projects
Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $12,900,000 - $ 900,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,900,000 $ - $ Amberwood Siphon $3,330,000 - $ 270,000 $ 3,060,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Priority A - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing $1,400,000 - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,400,000 $ - $ Large Diameter Inspection Study $150,000 - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ Denker Road Sewer Replacement $1,650,000 150,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,650,000 $ - $ Cathodic Protection and I&I Studies $150,000 - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ Cathodic Protection Installation $18,000,000 - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 18,000,000 $ - $ Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections $704,000 104,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 704,000 $ - $ $73,000,000 1,360,700 $ 6,706,700 $ 15,086,700 $ 11,840,000 $ 8,282,275 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 62,276,275 $ 10,723,725 $ Priority B - Lift Station Projects
Health and Safety Signage $10,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $

EALS R&R
Note 7 $4,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 520,000 $ 3,480,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ EARS LS Note 7 $8,412,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,093,560 $ 7,318,440 $ - $ 8,412,000 $ - $ EARS LS Piping Note 7 $1,647,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 214,110 $ 1,432,890 $ - $ - $ 1,647,000 $ - $ LS-03, -09, 11 Abandonment Note 8 $600,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 78,000 $ 522,000 $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ LS-06 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $2,890,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 375,700 $ 2,514,300 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,890,000 $ - $ LS-08 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,120,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 405,600 $ 2,714,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,120,000 $ - $ LS-07 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,700,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 481,000 $ 3,219,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,700,000 $ - $ Priority B - Condition Assessment Projects
Priority B - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $15,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 15,000,000 $ - $ Priority B - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $6,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,000,000 $ - $ Priority B - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 432,900 $ 2,897,100 $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections Note 11 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ Priority B - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $1,750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 1,750,000 $ - $ $51,209,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,275,600 $ 12,411,100 $ 11,808,310 $ 9,295,550 $ 11,418,440 $ - $ 51,209,000 $ - $ Priority C - Lift Station Projects11
LS-02 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $750,000 $750,000 - $ LS-04 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $810,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $810,000 $810,000 - $ LS-10 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $880,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $880,000 $880,000 - $ LS-12 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,230,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,230,000 $1,230,000 - $ LS-13 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,150,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,150,000 $1,150,000 - $ LS-15 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $710,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $710,000 $710,000 - $ Priority C - Condition Assessment Projects
Force Main and Large Diameter Desktop Analysis and Inspections Note 12 $1,500,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,500,000 $1,500,000 - $ Priority C - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $30,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $30,000,000 $30,000,000 - $ Priority C - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $12,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $12,000,000 $12,000,000 - $ Priority C - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $3,330,000 $3,330,000 - $ Priority C - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $3,500,000 - $ $3,500,000 $3,500,000 - $ $55,860,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,860,000 $55,860,000 - $ $1,360,700 $6,706,700 $15,086,700 $11,840,000 $8,282,275 $7,275,600 $14,411,100 $15,808,310 $10,295,550 $12,418,440 $65,860,000 $169,345,275 $10,723,725 Engineering/Administration FTE's Count 1 2 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 21 NA NA Engineering/Administration FTE's Cost $300,000 $600,000 $1,200,000 $900,000 $600,000 $600,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $900,000 $900,000 $6,000,000 NA NA Total CIP $1,660,700 $7,306,700 $16,286,700 $12,740,000 $8,882,275 $7,875,600 $15,611,100 $17,008,310 $11,195,550 $13,318,440 $71,860,000 $169,345,275 $10,723,725 Total Priority C Projects
Estimated Total Capital Cost
Cost Sharing
Total Priority A Projects
Priority B Projects
Total Priority B Projects
Priority C Projects
Near Term Mid Term
Priority A Projects

Project: City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan Capital Improvement Projects
20-Year Plan -- Scenario 2 Funded By Priority

Capital Improvement Project Notes:

1) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 9: Cost Sharing for Scenario 3 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerni ng the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume th at development of the Kiewit property will contribute $222,275 in payment while balance will be funded by the Arroyo Lago developme nt.

2) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 12: Pro-Rata Cost Sharing Scenario 6 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerning the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume that Project 4B costs will be the Total of all developments (Kiewit North, Site H, East Lakes, Arroyo Lago, and Amazon) minus the Project 4A cost (Kiewit North and Arroyo Lago). The City will seek funding from developments as application s are processed or will seek construction of these projects from the first development with reimbursements made to others on a pro rata share basis as others connect.

3) Priority A Lift Station projects encompass all Criticality 2 and 3 improvements, while Priority B represents Criticality 1 (included in rehabilitation projects), as identified in the 2024 LS Condition Assessment TM.

4) At the time of this project, a redundant siphon will also be installed. Costs include demolition of existing station and assumes full replacement, inc luding cutover costs from the old to new station.

5) Includes all sewer and stormwater generators identified in the TJC Report (2023).

6) Pipeline Replacement includes replacement and repair (R&R) of high priority pipes and an allowance for future R&R work, as well as CCTV inspection and Sewer AI for pipes. This money can also be spent on other high priority assets like force mains, siphons, or large diameter sewers as needed depending on the findings of condition assessment e fforts.

7) City funded work to be performed by DSRSD. CIP assumes EALS will be rehabilitated, and the EARS LS and associated piping will be installed to suppleme nt this rehabilitated lift station

8) Estimation of $200,000 for abandonment of Lift Stations currently not in service.

9) Major rehabilitation costs for lift stations were estimated based on the lift station's pump horse power and flow rate. A more refined cost estimate w ill be developed based on the extent of the rehabilitation required at each station prior to construction.

10) This line item is an allowance for the replacement or rehab of sewer siphons, forcemains, and large diameter sewers that are inspected as part of the Priority A analysis work. This cost will be refined as the analysis is completed

11) LS-14 Rehabilitation will take place under separate CIP funding, and therefore not included in this spreadsheet.

12) The SSMP will make subsequent recommendations a bout the scope and schedule of future condition ass essment work, including CCTV, force main inspection, and manhole inspections.

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14 CIP Cost ($M)
CIP Implementation - Scenario 2
FTE Priority C Priority B Priority A

City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan20-Year Plan -- Scenario 3 Maximum Deferrals Long Term
Capital Projects Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 FY 35/36 - FY 44/45
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Priority A - Capacity & Reliability Improvement Projects Project 1B: Upsize Sunol Blvd Sewers preferred alt $1,600,000 790,000 $ 810,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,600,000 $ - $ Project 2A: Bernal Ave Pipe Bridge preferred alt $3,330,000 - $ 400,000 $ 2,930,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of Stoneridge Mall $3,660,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,660,000 $ Project 4A: East Pleasanton Capacity Project A (Kiewit and Arroyo Lago)
Note 1 $2,972,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,275 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,275 $ 2,749,725 $ Project 4B: East Pleasanton Capacity Project B (Amazon, East Lakes, Site H)
Note 2 $4,314,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,314,000 $ Priority A - Lift Station Projects
LS-02, -07, -08, -10 Improvements Note 3 $1,420,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,420,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,420,000 $ - $ LS-04, -12, -13, -15 Improvements Note 3 $940,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 470,000 $ 470,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 940,000 $ - $ LS-05 Full Replacement Project Note 4 $6,120,000 - $ - $ 810,000 $ 5,310,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,120,000 $ - $ EARS and EALS Condition Assessment, Capacity Evaluation, and Predesign $500,000 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ Generator Replacement - Sewer and Storm
Note 5 $9,860,000 150,000 $ 1,710,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 9,860,000 $ - $ Priority A - Condition Assessment Projects
Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $6,615,000 - $ 315,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 2,100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,615,000 $ - $ Amberwood Siphon $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ 270,000 $ 3,060,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ - $ Priority A - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing $1,050,000 - $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,050,000 $ - $ Large Diameter Inspection Study $150,000 - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ Denker Road Sewer Replacement $1,650,000 150,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,650,000 $ - $ Cathodic Protection and I&I Studies $150,000 - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ Cathodic Protection Installation $9,000,000 - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ - $ Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections $704,000 104,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 704,000 $ - $ $57,365,000 1,444,000 $ 5,585,000 $ 6,990,000 $ 9,530,000 $ 9,232,275 $ 2,390,000 $ 1,970,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 46,641,275 $ 10,723,725 $ Priority B - Lift Station Projects
Health and Safety Signage $10,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $

EALS R&R
Note 7 $4,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 520,000 $ 3,480,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ EARS LS Note 7 $8,412,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,093,560 $ 7,318,440 $ - $ 8,412,000 $ - $ EARS LS Piping Note 7 $1,647,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 214,110 $ 1,432,890 $ - $ - $ 1,647,000 $ - $ LS-03, -09, 11 Abandonment Note 8 $600,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ LS-06 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $2,890,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $2,890,000 2,890,000 $ - $ LS-08 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,120,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,120,000 $ 3,120,000 $ - $ LS-07 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,700,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 481,000 $ 3,219,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,700,000 $ - $ Priority B - Condition Assessment Projects
Priority B - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $12,500,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ $0 12,500,000 $ - $ Priority B - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $6,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $6,000,000 6,000,000 $ - $ Priority B - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $3,330,000 3,330,000 $ - $ Priority B - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $1,650,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 1,650,000 $ - $ $47,859,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,370,000 $ 7,421,000 $ 6,283,110 $ 5,376,450 $ 10,168,440 $ 15,340,000 $ 47,859,000 $ - $ Priority C - Lift Station Projects11
LS-02 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ $750,000 - $ LS-04 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $810,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 810,000 $ $810,000 - $ LS-10 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $880,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 880,000 $ $880,000 - $ LS-12 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,230,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,230,000 $ $1,230,000 - $ LS-13 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,150,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,150,000 $ $1,150,000 - $ LS-15 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $710,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 710,000 $ $710,000 - $ Priority C - Condition Assessment Projects
Force Main and Large Diameter Desktop Analysis and Inspections Note 12 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ $750,000 - $ Priority C - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $30,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000,000 $ $30,000,000 - $ Priority C - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $12,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,000,000 $ $12,000,000 - $ Priority C - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,330,000 $ $3,330,000 - $ Project Deferral - Unplanned Repair Costs Note 13 $7,600,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,600,000 $ $7,600,000 - $ Priority C - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $3,500,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,500,000 $ $3,500,000 - $ $62,710,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 62,710,000 $ $62,710,000 - $ $1,444,000 $5,585,000 $6,990,000 $9,530,000 $9,232,275 $5,760,000 $9,391,000 $9,783,110 $5,876,450 $10,668,440 $83,050,000 $157,210,275 $10,723,725 Engineering/Administration FTE's Count 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 25 NA NA Engineering/Administration FTE's Cost $300,000 $600,000 $600,000 $900,000 $900,000 $600,000 $900,000 $900,000 $600,000 $900,000 $6,900,000 NA NA Total CIP $1,744,000 $6,185,000 $7,590,000 $10,430,000 $10,132,275 $6,360,000 $10,291,000 $10,683,110 $6,476,450 $11,568,440 $89,950,000 $157,210,275 $10,723,725 Total Priority C Projects
Estimated Total Capital Cost
Cost Sharing
Total Priority A Projects
Priority B Projects
Total Priority B Projects
Priority C Projects
Near Term Mid Term
Priority A Projects

Project: City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan Capital Improvement Projects
20-Year Plan -- Scenario 3 Maximum Deferrals

Capital Improvement Project Notes:

1) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 9: Cost Sharing for Scenario 3 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerni ng the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume th at development of the Kiewit property will contribute $222,275 in payment while balance will be funded by the Arroyo Lago developme nt.

2) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 12: Pro-Rata Cost Sharing Scenario 6 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerning the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume that Project 4B costs will be the Total of all developments (Kiewit North, Site H, East Lakes, Arroyo Lago, and Amazon) minus the Project 4A cost (Kiewit North and Arroyo Lago). The City will seek funding from developments as application s are processed or will seek construction of these projects from the first development with reimbursements made to others on a pro rata share basis as others connect.

3) Priority A Lift Station projects encompass all Criticality 2 and 3 improvements, while Priority B represents Criticality 1 (included in rehabilitation projects), as identified in the 2024 LS Condition Assessment TM.

4) At the time of this project, a redundant siphon will also be installed. Costs include demolition of existing station and assumes full replacement, inc luding cutover costs from the old to new station.

5) Includes all sewer and stormwater generators identified in the TJC Report (2023).

6) Pipeline Replacement includes replacement and repair (R&R) of high priority pipes and an allowance for future R&R work, as well as CCTV inspection and Sewer AI for pipes. This money can also be spent on other high priority assets like force mains, siphons, or large diameter sewers as needed depending on the findings of condition assessment e fforts.

7) City funded work to be performed by DSRSD. CIP assumes EALS will be rehabilitated, and the EARS LS and associated piping will be installed to suppleme nt this rehabilitated lift station

8) Estimation of $200,000 for abandonment of Lift Stations currently not in service.

9) Major rehabilitation costs for lift stations were estimated based on the lift station's pump horse power and flow rate. A more refined cost estimate w ill be developed based on the extent of the rehabilitation required at each station prior to construction.

10) This line item is an allowance for the replacement or rehab of sewer siphons, forcemains, and large diameter sewers that are inspected as part of the Priority A analysis work. This cost will be refined as the analysis is completed

11) LS-14 Rehabilitation will take place under separate CIP funding, and therefore not included in this spreadsheet.

12) The SSMP will make subsequent recommendations a bout the scope and schedule of future condition ass essment work, including CCTV, force main inspection, and manhole inspections. 13) Unplanned repair costs represent the risk associated with deferring capital projects. This cost is intended to account for potential emergency repairs that may arise if assets fail before they can be rehabilitated or replaced. To reflect this risk, a line item equal to 5% of City-funded capital projects is included in priority C, but spending would occur whenever an asset fails unexpectedly (in addition to the City’s O&M budget).

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14 CIP Cost ($M)
CIP Implementation - Scenario 3
FTE Priority C Priority B Priority A

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025
APPENDIX A: SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

Sewer System
Management Plan
WDI
D# 2SSO10167
Adopted by City Council – June 17, 2025
Submitted to State Water Resources Control Board – July 2025 In
consultation with:

Causey Consulting
Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Table of Contents
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 i Table of Contents

1.0: Element 1 – Goal and Introduction..................................................................................... 1

1.1: Regulatory Context .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2: SSMP Update Schedule ................................................................................................... 1

1.3: Sewer System Asset Overview ........................................................................................ 2

1.4: References ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.0: Element 2 – Organization .................................................................................................... 7

2.1: Organizational Chart ........................................................................................................ 7

2.2: LRO and Data Submitters .............................................................................................. 12

2.3: Responsible and Authorized Representatives ................................................................ 12

2.4: Chain-of-Communication for Reporting and Responding to Spills ............................... 14

2.5: References ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.0: Element 3 – Legal Authority.............................................................................................. 15

3.1: Municipal Code .............................................................................................................. 15

3.2: Agreements ..................................................................................................................... 15

3.3: References ...................................................................................................................... 16

4.0: Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program ....................................................... 17

4.1: Collection System Map .................................................................................................. 17

4.2: Operations and Maintenance Program ........................................................................... 17

4.2.1: Gravity Mains .................................................................................................. 19

4.2.2: Manholes ......................................................................................................... 20

4.2.3: Lift Stations ..................................................................................................... 20

4.2.4: Force Mains ..................................................................................................... 20

4.3: Training .......................................................................................................................... 21

4.4: Vehicle and Equipment Inventories ............................................................................... 21

4.5: Resource Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 22

4.6: References ...................................................................................................................... 22

5.0: Element 5 – Design and Performance Provisions ............................................................ 23

5.1: Design Criteria and Construction Standards .................................................................. 23

5.2: Inspection and Testing of New Facilities ....................................................................... 23

5.3: References ...................................................................................................................... 23

6.0: Element 6 – Spill Emergency Response Plan ................................................................... 24

6.1: Policy .............................................................................................................................. 24

6.2: References ...................................................................................................................... 25

7.0: Element 7 – Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program ....................................................... 26

7.1: Public Education and Outreach ...................................................................................... 26

7.2: Disposal of Pipe-Blocking Substances ........................................................................... 26

7.3: Legal Authority .............................................................................................................. 27

7.4: Requirements to Install Grease Removal Devices ......................................................... 27

7.5: Authority to Inspect and Enforce ................................................................................... 27

7.6: Sewer System Segments Subject to FOG ...................................................................... 27

7.7: Program Update and Future Implementation ................................................................. 27

Table of Contents
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 ii

7.8: References ...................................................................................................................... 27

8.0: Element 8 – System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 29

8.1: Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan .......................................................................... 29

8.2: Condition Assessments .................................................................................................. 29

8.2.1: Gravity Mains .................................................................................................. 29

8.2.2: Large Diameter Sewers, Siphons, and Manholes ............................................ 30

8.2.3: Lift Stations ..................................................................................................... 30

8.2.4: Force Mains ..................................................................................................... 31

8.3: Capacity Assessments .................................................................................................... 31

8.3.1: Hydraulic Analysis .......................................................................................... 31

8.3.2: Design and Performance Criteria .................................................................... 32

8.3.3: Capacity Assurance ......................................................................................... 32

8.3.4: Infiltration and Inflow ..................................................................................... 33

8.4: Impacts of Climate Change ............................................................................................ 33

8.5: Project Funding .............................................................................................................. 33

8.6: References ...................................................................................................................... 33

9.0: Element 9 – Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting System ............................................. 34

9.1: Adaptive Management ................................................................................................... 34

9.2: References ...................................................................................................................... 34

10.0: Element 10 – SSMP Audits .............................................................................................. 36

10.1: City SSMP Audit Procedures ....................................................................................... 36

10.2: References .................................................................................................................... 36

11.0: Element 11 – Communication Program ......................................................................... 37

11.1: Communication Program ............................................................................................. 37

11.2: References .................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A: SSMP City Council Adoption Documents
Appendix B: Spill and Operational Performance Tracking
Appendix C: SSMP Change Log

Table of Tables
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 iii Table of Tables
Table 1–1: Gravity Pipeline Asset Information by Pipe Size ................................................... 3 Table 1–2: Gravity Pipeline Asset Information by Pipe Material ........................................... 3 Table 1–3: Gravity Pipeline Asset Information by Pipe Age ................................................... 4 Table 1–4: Sewer Lift Station Asset Information ..................................................................... 4 Table 1–5: Force Main Asset Information................................................................................. 5 Table 1–6: Sewer System Siphon Assets .................................................................................... 6 Table 1–7: Sewer Service Connections ...................................................................................... 6 Table 2–1 : Responsible and Authorized Representatives .................................................... 12 Table 3–1: Summary of Legal Authorities .............................................................................. 15 Table 4–1: Major Vehicles and Equipment ............................................................................. 22 Table 9–1: Key Performance Indicator Targets per Calendar Year .................................... 35

Table of Figures
Figure 1-1: Sewer Service Area .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2–1: Public Works Department Organizational Chart ................................................ 8 Figure 4–1: O&M Program Workflow .................................................................................... 18

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 i List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Acronym Definition
ACPHD Alameda County Public Health Department
BMP Best Management Practices
CCTV Closed circuit television
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
City City of Pleasanton
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
CM Corrective Maintenance
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System
COF Consequence of Failure
COL City of Livermore
CWEA California Water Environment Association
DERWA DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority
DS Data Submitter
DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
ESM Environmental Services Manager
ESS Environmental Services Supervisor
FOG Fats, Oils, Grease
FSE Food Service Establishment
GCD Grease Control Device
GIS Geographical Information System
I/I Inflow / Infiltration
KvA Kilovolt-amperes
KW Kilowatts
LAVWMA Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency
LOF Likelihood of Failure
LRO Legally Responsible Official
LS Lift Station
MACP Manhole Assessment Certification Program

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 ii Acronym Definition
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
NASSCO National Association of Sewage Service Companies NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OES Office of Emergency Services
Plan Sewer System Management Plan
PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
PMC Pleasanton Municipal Code
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(DSRSD Regional Wastewater Treatment or COL Water Reclamation Plant) PW Public Works
R&R Rehabilitation and Replacement
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SERP Spill Emergency Response Plan
SHECAP Sewer Hydraulic Evaluation and Capacity Assessment Plan SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow or Spill
Spill SSO or Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan or Plan
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number
WDP Waste Discharge Permit
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems WQ 2022-0103-DWQ YD Year to Date

Element 1 – Goal and Introduction

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 1

1.0: Element 1 – Goal and Introduction
The goal of the Sewer System Management Plan ( SSMP or Plan) is to provide a plan and schedule to:
• Properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the Enrollee’s sanitary sewer system.
• Reduce and prevent spills .
• Contain and mitigate spills that do occur.

The SSMP must include a narrative i ntroduction section that discusses regulatory context, SSMP update schedule, and an overview of sewer system assets.

1.1: Regulatory Context
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRC B) has previously issued statewide waste discharge requirements for sanitary sewer systems which include requirements for development of an SSMP . The SWRCB requirements were outlined in Order No. 2006- 0003- DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems and the Monitoring and Reporting Program WQ 2013-0058-Exec. These two SWRCB requirements were replaced on December 6, 2022, by SW RCB Order WQ 2022- 0103-DWQ Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements, General Order for Sanitary Sewer Systems, which became effective for all enrolled agencies on June 5, 2023 . The City’s wastewater identification number for WDR compliance in the SWRCB CIWQS system is 2SSO10167.

The City also owns and operates a storm water collection system that is permitted under the RWQCB San Franscisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order No. R2-2022-0018, under NPDES permit number CAS612008.

1.2: SSMP Update Schedule
This section outlines the City’s schedule of future major milestones for updating and implementing its SSMP . As these milestones are completed this SSMP will be updated as appropriate and noted in the SSMP Change Log.
• 2025 SSMP Update – Submittal to CIWQS by 7/31/25
• Electronic Service Area Map – Submittal to CIWQS by 12 /31/25 • Utilities Resource Review – 10/2025
• Long-Term Sewer CIP Report – 10/2025
• Sewer Rate and Connection Fee Updates – Effective 7/2026 • 8/2024 to 8/2027 SSMP Audit – Submittal to CIWQS by 1/31/ 28 • 8/2027 to 8/2030 SSMP Audit – Submittal to CIWQS by 1/31/31

Element 1 – Goal and Introduction

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 2 • 2031 SSMP Update – Submittal to CIWQS by 7/31/31

1.3: Sewer System Asset Overview
The City owns and operates a sewer system that serves a population of approximately 76,000 in a 25 square mile service area that is shown in Figure 1- 1. The sewer system consists of approximately 253 miles of gravity sewers, approximately 4.9 miles of force mains, 8 siphons, 11 active pump stations, and approximately 21,000 service connections . The average dry weather flow is approximately 6 million gallons per day (MGD). The City has agreements with DSRSD and City of Livermore (for Ruby Hill area only) for wastewater treatment and is a member of LAVWMA for treated wastewater disposal. The City also has an agreement with Alameda County that allows sewage flows from their Castlewood Service Area to be transported through the City’s collection system (including LS-10) for treatment at DSRSD .

Sewer service laterals are owned by the property owner and therefore are the responsibility of the property owner to maintain. The City will not service, repair, rehabilitate, or replace any portion of sewer service laterals from the building to the public s ewer main.

Figure 1-1: Sewer Service Area

Element 1 – Goal and Introduction

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 3 The following tables provide a summary of the sewer program assets under management by the City.

Table 1–1: Gravity Pipeline Asset Information by Pipe Size Diameter, inches Number of Line
Segments Pipe Length, linear feet Portion of Sewer
System, %
4 65 3,999 0.30%
6 1025 145,239 10.89%
8 4558 936,942 70.22%
10 461 106,132 7.95%
12 137 30,045 2.25%
14 6 190 0.01%
15 173 45,459 3.41%
16 3 325 0.02%
18 87 21,890 1.64%
21 18 6,323 0.47%
24 44 12,101 0.91%
27 52 15,638 1.17%
30 21 5,869 0.44%
33 9 3,122 0.23%
42 1 51 0.00%
Unknown 3 972 0.07%
Total 6,663 1,334,297 100%
Total Miles 252.7
Table 1–2: Gravity Pipeline Asset Information by Pipe Material Material Number of
Line Segments Pipe Length, LF Percent of
Sewer System
ABS 8 911 0.07%
ACP 96 24,997 1.87%
CIP 33 614 0.05%
DIP 132 9,405 0.70%
HDPE 15 2,632 0.20%
PVC 2449 440,336 33.00%
RCP 39 11,738 0.88%

Element 1 – Goal and Introduction

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 4 Material Number of
Line Segments Pipe Length, LF Percent of
Sewer System
STEEL 1 80 0.01%
VCP 3843 833,090 62.44%
Unknown 47 10,495 0.79%
Total 6,663 1,334,297 100%
Table 1–3: Gravity Pipeline Asset Information by Pipe Age Age, Years Construction Period Percent of System* Linear Feet of Main 0-15 2010 – Current 2.8% 37,807
16 – 35 1990 – 2009 33.1% 442,293
36 – 55 1970 – 1989 40.1% 534,866
56 – 75 1950 – 1969 23.3% 311,171
76 – 95 1930 – 1949 0.0% -
95 – 115 1910 – 1929 0.0% -
>115 Before 1910 0.0% -
Unk Unknown 0.6% 8,159
Total, linear feet 1,334,297
Weighted Average Age 40.8
Table 1–4: Sewer Lift Station Asset Information
Pump
Station
Name
Location
Construction
or Upgrade
Date
No.

Pumps
Pump
Firm
Capacity
gpm
Pump
Manufacturer
Pump
HP
Standby
Generation
KW
LS-2 8019 Foothill
Road 1998 2 158 Flygt 3 25
LS-4 1065 Serpentine
Lane 1981 2 459 Flygt 3
Uses
portable
when needed
LS-5 1723 Laguna
Creek Lane 1968 3 1,751 Flygt 7.5
Uses
portable
when needed
LS-6 6900 West Las
Positas Blvd. 2014 5 4,3371 Flygt 20 200
LS-7 4950 Bernal
Ave. 1980 3 6,255 General
Electric 20 100

Element 1 – Goal and Introduction

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 5 Pump
Station
Name
Location
Construction
or Upgrade
Date
No.

Pumps
Pump
Firm
Capacity
gpm
Pump
Manufacturer
Pump
HP
Standby
Generation
KW
LS-8 6890 Koll Center
Parkway 1980 3 2,836 General
Electric 60 155
LS-10 7341 Foothill
Road 1986 2 292 Flygt 10 25
LS-12 302 Happy
Valley Road 2002 2 409 Flygt 20 90
LS-13 3300 Busch
Road 1992 2 N/A Paco 2
Uses
portable
when needed
LS-14 6614 Alisal
Street 2004 2 183 Flygt 10
Uses
portable
when needed
LS-15 2299 Vineyard
Ave. 2006 2 N/A Flygt 15 60
1Firm capacity for LS -6 is based on capacity prior to surcharging. The City recently replaced pump impellers of all LS-6 pumps and will re-evaluate pump performance at a later date.

Table 1–5: Force Main Asset Information
Lift Station Name
Upstream of Force Main
Year
Installed
Length of the Force
Main (LF)
Diameter
(in) Material
Sewer Lift Station LS-2 1994 1,235 4 PVC1
Sewer Lift Station LS-4 1982 354 4 PVC1
Sewer Lift Station LS-5 1968 774 10 CIP1
Sewer Lift Station LS-6 1968 2,814 10 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-7 1981 909 16 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-8 1980 10,010 18 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-10 1985 4,477 4 DIP
Sewer Lift Station LS-12 1998 2,445 4 PVC
Sewer Lift Station LS-13 1989 18 4 PVC
Sewer Lift Station LS-14 2002 2,163 6 Unknown
Sewer Lift Station LS-15 2003 862 4 DIP/PVC
Total Pressure Mains, linear feet 26,061
Total Pressure Mains, miles 4.9
1Pipe material changed from VCP in the GIS based on as-built information.

Element 1 – Goal and Introduction

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 6 Table 1–6: Sewer System Siphon Assets
Siphon Location Construction
Date
Number of
Siphon Barrels
Length Linear
Feet1
Size
Inches
Pipe
Material
S-5 Laguna Vista Siphon 1988 1 200 10 VCP
S-8 Siphon 1968 2 400 14 MJCIP
Meadowlark Siphon-1 1968 1 588 8 PVC
Meadowlark Siphon-2 2018 1 784 8 MJCIP
Highland Oaks Siphon 1965 2 280 10, 14 CIP
Amberwood Siphon 1986 2 360 8 DIP
Nobhill Siphon 1966 2 400 8 DIP
Laguna Creek Siphon 2002 2 620 8 DIP
West Las Positas Siphon 1968 2 350 10 VCP
Total, Linear Feet: 3982
Total, Miles: 0.75
1Total length of siphon pipes for multiple-barrel siphons.

Table 1–7: Sewer Service Connections
Service Connection Type Number Percentage of System
Residential 19,617 93.3%
Multi Family 425 2.0%
Commercial 954 4.5%
Industrial 3 0.1%
Institutional 16 0.1%
Total 21,015 100%

1.4: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 1

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 7

2.0: Element 2 – Organization
The SSMP must identify organizational staffing responsible and integral for implementing the SSMP through an organizational chart or other similar narrative documentation that includes :
a. The name of the Legally Responsible Official (LRO). b. The position titles, telephone numbers, and email addresses for management, administrative, and maintenance positions responsible for implementing specific SSMP elements.
c. Organizational lines of authorit y.
d. Chain of communication for reporting spills.

2.1: Organizational Chart
Implementation of the SSMP primarily falls under the City’s Public Works Department.

Divisions responsible for implementing elements of the sewer program include Utilities and Environmental Services, Engineering, and Customer Service & Billing. The City’s current Public Works Department organizational chart is illustrated in Figure 2–1.

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 8 Figure 2–1: Public Works Department Organizational Chart

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 9 Positions responsible for management and implementation of the SSMP are described below.

Director of Public Works
To plan, organize, direct and review the activities and operations of the Public Works Department including the operations and maintenance of the City’s streets, parks and trails, buildings, fleet, and utilities systems ; to coordinate assigned activities with other departments and outside agencies; and to provide highly responsible and complex administrative support to the City Manager.

Assistant Director of Public Works – Utilities and Environmental Services Under general direction from the Director of Public Works, the Assistant Director of Public Works-Utilities and Environmental Services is responsible for directing a wide variety of comprehensive functions and/or programs related to planning, operation and maintenance of the City's potable water facilities, recycled water facilities, sewer collection and storm drain systems; laboratory, environmental and regulatory compliance, as well as contract management with Zone 7 Water Agency, Dublin San Ramon Service s District, DERWA, LAVWMA, City of Livermore and the County of Alameda. Additionally, this position provides administrative and operational management in assigned areas to advance the goals and mission of the City and the Public Works Department.

Utilities Planning Manager
Under general direction from the Assistant Director of Public Works , the Utilities Planning Manager performs planning level duties to support the City's utility systems including potable water, recycled water, sanitary sewer collection, and storm water. This position is responsible for utility infrastructure and water supply master planning efforts; assists in preparation of Capital Improvement Programs in the area of utilities; assists in annual planning and budgeting of Utilities Division led projects; as sists in utility rate and connection fee studies; provides technical assistance to the Utilities Division; and acts as the Utilities Division liaison for planning related tasks with outside agencies and other City divisions and departments.

Utilities Division Manager
Under general direction from the Assistant Director of Public Works, the Utilities Division Manager manages, administers, directs, and provides oversight of the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the water, recycled water, sewer, and storm drain systems fo r the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. This includes overseeing all day- to-day O&M and water laboratory activities; developing and directing goals, procedures, and programs; providing professional assistance to City management staff and outside agencies in area of expertise; ensuring regulatory compliance and quality control; managing personnel; administering budget; assisting in the development of safety and training programs; ensuring capital improvement and asset management programs meet the needs of the Utilities Division; and overseeing public communication.

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 10 Chief Utilities System Operator – Water System
Under the general direction of the Utilities Division Manager, oversees the O&M activities of the water system. This includes planning, organizing and directing all operations and maintenance functions required; supervising assigned crews that perform technically complex duties in the operations and maintenance of the water system; responding to citizens’ needs and inquiries; providing reasonable and technical assistance to staff. The classification is regarded as the Chief System Operator in relation to State regulations for operation of the City’s drinking water system.

Utilities Maintenance Supervisor – Sewer & Storm Systems Under the general direction of the Utilities Division Manager, plans, organizes, directs, and oversees a comprehensive maintenance and repair program for sewer and storm drain systems.

This includes prioritizing and scheduling maintenance and repair of was tewater collection and stormwater systems and lift stations, utilizing the computerized maintenance management program (CMMS); implementing special projects or programs such as the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP); developing Standard Operating Procedur es (SOPs); providing technical direction and quality assurance; assisting in budget and contract preparation and administration; perform duties of a California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Data Submitter and assisting the Legally Responsible Official (LRO) with preparing monthly and daily reports, while supervising assigned staff.

Lead Utility Systems Operator
Under limited supervision from the Chief Utilities System Operator and Utilities Systems Maintenance Supervisor, directs and supervises the work of maintenance and operations crews in charge of the water, sewer and storm drain systems. Performs difficult tasks associated with the repair, maintenance and operations of these systems. In addition, is responsible for specific administrative functions and performs related work as required. This position is considered to be the shift supervisor .

Utility System Operator I/II
Operator I is an entry -level operator classification and Operator II is a journey -level operator classification. Under supervision and through training and experience employees in the se classifications are assigned increasingly more responsible duties in the operation and maintenance of the City's water, sewer and storm drain systems. Operators I and II are assigned on a rotating basis to crews responsible for either water, sewer, or storm drain systems. Operator II rotates through a 24- hr standby duty, res ponding to emergencies that deal with the water, sewer and storm drain systems.

Utilities Maintenance Worker
Under supervision performs a variety of duties associated with the City's operation and maintenance within the Utilities Division of the Public Works Department . Utilities work is

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 11 focused on potable/drinking water distribution, sanitary sewer collections, stormwater collections, urban runoff protection, recycled water distribution, water conservation and utility customer service.

Environmental Services Manager
Under general direction from the Assistant Director of Public Works , the Environmental Services Manager oversees environmental programs including the City's water conservation and recycled water program, hazardous materials management, storm water pollution prevention and the sewer pipe blockage control program.

Environmental Compliance Supervisor
Under general direction from the Environmental Services Manager , this position supervises and trains staff and assists in the administration of the Environmental Services Division.

Performs duties in the areas of budgeting, purchasing, contract administration, short- and long-term planning, organizing and supervising operations and functions within the NPDES Permit, Industrial Inspection, Storm Water Inspectio n, Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program, Environmental Hazmat programs, and the Backflow Protection Program.

Environmental Services Specialist
Under general direction, performs duties in one of two disciplines: Water Resources or Environmental Compliance. ESS -Water Resources performs day -to-day water conservation/recycled water program administration, landscape irrigation surveys, water conservation customer service, outreach, and inspections, and recycled water program related tasks including cross -connection testing, inspections, and program tracking. ESS - Environmental Compliance performs technical tasks in support of environmental compliance in regards to NPDES compliance, hazardous materials management, environmental analyses and assessments, fats, oils, and grease (FOG) program inspections, clean water program outreach, and other related work.

Assistant Director of Public Works – Engineering
Under the general direction of the Director of Public Works, the position oversees Public Works Capital Improvement Program , Land Development , Landscape Architecture and Public Works Inspection. P rovides leadership, management, and supervision to professional and technical support staff and serves as City Engineer. Responsible for the development and implementation of City standards.

Assistant Director of Public Works – Operations & Maintenance Under the general direction of the Director of Public Works, the position oversees Customer Service and Billing, Parks Division, and Operations and Maintenance Division which includes City buildings, fleet, streets, sidewalks and sign shop.

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 12

2.2: LRO and Data Submitters
An LRO must have authority to ensure compliance with the provisions of the General Order and make managerial decisions regarding the operation of the sewer system. The LRO must have direct authority over individuals that have the necessary qualifications, such as a recognized degree or certificate in sanitary sewer operations and maintenance or professional training and experience in sewer system management. In addition, the LRO must be authorized to make major capital improvement recommendations. The City’s LRO s by position are as follows:
• Primary LRO
o Assistant Director of Public Works : Utilities and Environmental Services o This position is vacant at the time of this SSMP Update. In its vacancy the primary LRO is the Public Works Director .
• Secondary LRO
o Utilities Division Manager
o The scope of the Utilities Division Manager’s legal responsibilities is limited to certification of spill reports.

Data Submitters are authorized to enter spill data and other WDR required information into the California Integrated Water Quality System ( CIWQS) prior to LRO approval and certification. The City’s Data Submitters by position are as follows:
• Data Submitters
o Utilities Maintenance Supervisor
o Lead Utilities Systems Operators

2.3: Responsible and Authorized Representatives
The City’s responsible and authorized representatives are summarized in Table 2–1.

Note that while the position of Assistant Director of Public Works – Utilities and Environmental Services remains vacant, the Director of Public Works will fill th e respective roles.

Table 2–1 : Responsible and Authorized Representatives Element Element Name Representative Phone Email
1 Introduction and
Goals
Director of Public
Works: Siew-Chin
Yeong
925-931-5506 [email protected]

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 13 Element Element Name Representative Phone Email
2 Organization
Director of Public
Works: Siew-Chin
Yeong
925-931-5506 [email protected]
3 Legal Authority City Attorney:

Daniel Sodergren 925-931-5015 [email protected] 4 O&M Program
Utilities Division
Manager: Jeremy
Cox
925-931-5522 [email protected]
5 Design and
Performance
Provisions
Planning - Utilities
Planning Manager:

David Bruzzone

CIP - Assistant
Director of Public
Works –
Engineering: Adam
Nelkie

925-931-5542

925-931-5675

[email protected]

[email protected]
6 Spill Emergency
Response Plan
Utilities Division
Manager: Jeremy
Cox
925-931-5522 [email protected]
7 Sewer Pipe
Blockage Control
Program
Environmental
Services Manager:

Rita Di Candia
925-931-5513 [email protected]
8 System
Evaluation,
Capacity
Assurance, CIP
Planning - Utilities
Planning Manager:

David Bruzzone

CIP - Assistant
Director of Public
Works –
Engineering: Adam
Nelkie
925-931-5542

925-931-5675

[email protected]

[email protected]
9 Monitoring,
Measurement and
Program
Modifications
Utilities Division
Manager: Jeremy
Cox
925-931-5522 [email protected]
10 Internal Plan Audit
Director of Public
Works: Siew-Chin
Yeong
925-931-5506 [email protected]

Element 2 – Organization

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 14 Element Element Name Representative Phone Email
11 Communications
Director of Public
Works: Siew-Chin
Yeong
925-931-5506 [email protected]
A Council Adoption
Director of Public
Works: Siew-Chin
Yeong
925-931-5506 [email protected]
B
SSMP
Performance
Tracking
Utilities Division
Manager: Jeremy
Cox
925-931-5522 [email protected]
C SSMP Change
Log
Director of Public
Works: Siew-Chin
Yeong
925-931-5506 [email protected]

2.4: Chain-of-Communication for Reporting and Responding to Spills In response to a spill event, the Public Works Department staff shall immediately implement the Spill Emergency Response Plan ( SERP), discussed in more detail in Element 6 . The SERP provides directions for the immediate verbal and written notification of City staff and agencies. The chain-of-communication for reporting and responding to spills is described in the SERP.

2.5: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 2
• City of Pleasanton Spill Emergency Response Plan

Element 3 – Legal Authority

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 15

3.0: Element 3 – Legal Authority
The SSMP must include copies or an electronic link to the Enrollee ’s current sewer system use ordinances, services agreements , and/or other legally binding procedures to demonstrate the Enrollee possess the necessary legal authority to:
a. Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system. b. Collaborate with storm sewer agencies to coordinate emergency spill responses, ensure access to storm sewer systems during spill events, and prevent unintentional cross connections sanitary sewer infrastructure to storm sewer infrastructure. c. Require that sewer system components and connections be properly designed and constructed.
d. Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, and/ or repairs for portions of the service laterals owned and/or operated by the Enrollee .
e. Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances , services agreements, or other legally binding procedures .
f. Obtain easement accessibility agreements for locations requiring sewer system operations and maintenance, as applicable.

3.1: Municipal Code
The City’s legal authority to implement its sewer program is provided by the City’s Municipal Code, Title 15 Sewerage. The specific sections applicable to the requirements of the Sewer System Management Plan ( SSMP) are stated in the table below.

Table 3–1: Summary of Legal Authorities
Legal Authority Issue Pleasanton Municipal
Code
Prevent illicit discharges into the sanitary sewer system 15.28 Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris that may cause blockages 15.44
Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed 15.32 Clearly defined maintenance responsibility 15.32.100
Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances 15.12
The City Attorney Office has procedures in place to update the municipal code when deficiencies are discovered by staff.

3.2: Agreements
The City has agreements with DSRSD and City of Livermore for wastewater treatment and a joint powers agreement under LAVWMA for treated wastewater disposal. The City also has

Element 3 – Legal Authority

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 16 agreements with Alameda County that allows sewage flows from their Castlewood Service Area to be transported through the City’s collection system (including LS -10) for treatment at DSRSD.

3.3: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 3
• City of Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 15
• Agreement with DSRSD: Wastewater Disposal Services (1992) and Supplemental Agreements 1 through 7 (through 2022)
• Agreement with City of Livermore : Wastewater and Disposal Services (1993) and First Amendment (2017)
• Agreements with Alameda County: Castlewood Service Agreement (1985); Maintenance and Operation Agreement (1985); and City Permit to Connect and Use of County Sewer System (1994)
• Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the LAVWMA (1997)

Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 17

4.0: Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program
The SSMP must include the items listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the Enrollee’s system:
a. An up-to-date map(s) of the sanitary sewer system, and procedures for maintaining and providing SWRCB staff access to the map (s). The map(s) must show gravity line segments and manholes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater facilities within the sewer system service area boundaries. b. A scheduling system and a data collection system for p reventative operations and maintenance activities conducted by staff and contractors including inspection and maintenance activities, higher frequency inspections, maintenance of known problem areas including areas with tree root problems, and regular visual and closed- circuit television (CCTV) inspections of manholes and sewer pipes. The data collection system must document the data from the system inspection and maintenance activities. c. In-house and external training provided on a regular basis for sanitary sewer system operations and maintenance staff and contractors. The training must cover the requirements of this General Order, the Enrollee’s SERP, and CIWQS reporting. d. An inventory of sewer system equipment, including the identification of critical replacement and spare parts.

4.1: Collection System Map
The City has a Geographic Information System (GIS) that deploys ESRI ArcGIS platform which hosts sewer system assets information. The current sewer asset includes: gravity line segments, manholes, pumping facilities, and pressure pipes (force mains). The City also has similar information in its GIS for the storm water drainage and conveyance system within and around the City service area. The GIS information is available to internal City staff in the field and can be made available externally . The City’s CC TV software and CMMS software are linked to its GIS .

Any new additions, improvements or modifications to the sewer systems are “ as built” documented by Engineering or Utilities staff and forwarded to t he City’s GIS team where it is reviewed and then updated in GIS . These updates occur on a monthly basis and are available to all city employees thereafter.

4.2: Operations and Maintenance Program
The City’s O&M p rogram is based on regular inspections and condition assessments of assets.

Figure 4–1 provides a workflow for the City’s O&M program. The elements of the program are described below. Record keeping of O&M activities are kept in the City’s CMMS , MaintStar.

Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program

City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 18 Figure 4–1: O&M Program Workflow

Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 19

4.2.1: Gravity Mains
Cleaning: Sewer collection systems require continuous maintenance to ensure proper function/performance. In addition to common maintenance defects (roots, debris, grease, etc.) , items not intended for the sewer system (non- dispersible wipes, kitty litter, floss, etc.) can be introduced at any time, which makes regular cleaning a high priority. Gravity mains will be cleaned on a 7-year frequency cycle and in a systematic manner to ensure flow efficiency.

Gravity main segments will be cleaned from the downstream manhol e to the upstream manhole whenever possible. Exceptions can be made in some cases: (1) there are no lateral connections on the gravity main being cleaned, or (2) a forward- cleaning nozzle is being used.

The City will primarily use in -house resources to perform cleaning for piping 15-inch and smaller. However, until a resource study is completed (see Section 4.5) and needed employees are identified and hired , contract services will be used to supplement staff . For large diameter sewers (greater than 15 -inch diameter) and siphons , all cleaning will be performed by contract services.

Inspection: CCTV inspection of gravity mains will follow cleaning and occur on a 7-year frequency cycle. The City will primarily use in -house resources to perform inspection for piping 15-inch and smaller. However, until a resource study is completed (see Section 4.5) and needed employees are identified and hired, contract services will be used to supplement staff. For large diameter sewers (greater than 15 -inch diameter) and siphons , all inspections will be performed by contract services . CCTV inspections are intended to evaluate system performance and drive much of the maintenance and repair activities needed to properly operate the sewer collection system. Defects and other findings will be coded using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO), Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) and Pioneer software.

CCTV inspections will also occur as a follow -up to SSOs to determine the cause of the SSO and to ensure the affected pipe is performing adequately. This inspection will be performed as soon as possible after the SSO event. This inspection will be used to verify findings when reporting to CIWQS and will help determ ine maintenance and repair activities to prevent reoccurrence of the SSO.

Hot Spots: The City keeps a hot spot list, which are sewer pipe segments that have been identified by staff as requiring high frequency cleaning. When placed on the hot spot list, the pipe segment is assigned a maintenance frequency (i.e. , monthly, quarterly, biannually, annually, etc.) and maintenance method (i.e., appropriate nozzle type). The pipe segment is also evaluated for feasibility, cost, and benefit of repair to determine if and when is the most appropriate time to implement improvements and remo ve the segment from the hot spot list.

Root Control: Gravity main segments to be included in the root control program are generally informed by the results of the cleaning and inspection program. Gravity main segments that

Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 20 are included have roots cut by in-house staff prior to chemical applications by contracted services.

Vector Control: The objective of the vector control program is to: (1) maintain a safe working environment for staff and (2) proactively address public concerns and maintain good public image by reducing the likelihood of disease -transmitting vectors (i.e., spiders, insects, rats, etc.) migrating from the collection system to homes and businesses. This program is currently the responsibility of Alameda County. Any areas of infestation that are identified during inspection are alerted to Alameda County.

Pipe Repair: Pipe segments identified as requiring repair are either placed on the Utilities Division repair and replacement plan or flagged for further evaluation as part of the engineering-based condition assessments that inform the CIP (see Section 8). Pipe repairs on the Utilities Division repair and replacement plan are primarily performed utilizing contract services.

4.2.2: Manholes
The City will inspect manholes during the pipe cleaning and inspection proces s utilizing City inspection forms. Results of the inspection inform of the maintenance and/or repair activities needed. Manholes identified as requiring repair are either placed on the Utilities Division repair and replacement plan or flagged for further evaluation as part of the engineering- based condition assessments that inform the CIP (see Section 8) . Manhole repairs on the Utilities Division repair and replacement plan are primarily performed utilizing contract services.

The City has 34 SMART covers installed in strategic location s to provide advanced notification of sewage surcharge and possibility of spill. These covers provide continuous monitoring/alerts and are maintained on a monthly basis by in-house staff.

4.2.3: Lift Stations
The City will inspect its lift stations utilizing City inspection forms. Note that the City is in the process of standardizing its lift station inspection form at the time of this SSMP Update .

Inspections vary based on the type of inspection activity. Results of the inspection inform the maintenance and/or repair activities needed. Items identified as requiring repair are either placed on the Utilities Division repair and replacement plan or flagged for further evaluation as part of the engineering -based condition assessments that inform the CIP (see Section 8) .

Repairs on the Utilities Division repair and replacement plan are performed in- house or with contracted services based on the nature of the repair.

4.2.4: Force Mains
The City will inspect its force mains on a yearly basis by walking the alignment and looking for evidence of leaks such as sink holes or depressions. The City will also inspect its valve vaults and air valves on a quarterly basis. Results of the inspection s inform of the maintenance and/or repair activities needed. Items identified as requiring repair are either placed on the

Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 21 Utilities Division repair and replacement plan or flagged for further evaluation as part of the engineering-based condition assessments that inform the CIP (see Section 8) . Repairs on the Utilities Division repair and replacement plan are primarily performed utilizing contract services.

4.3: Training
Sewer training currently falls under the Public Works Department’s training program managed by the Emergency Service s Manager. The purpose of the sewer training program is to provide knowledge, to develop the skills and abilities of Utilities staff to ensure competent performance and adherence to safe and efficient work practices, and to set performance expectations for new and existing employees. Training includes (1) safety in accordance with CalOSHA requirements and industry best practices and (2) job skills that are based off job competencies assessments. Training methods include discussion-based, computer -based, operations-based / drills, and on-the-job training. Training topics include the WDR, the City’s SSMP and SERP, and CIWQS training for LROs and Data Submitters. Training topics also incorporate the Utilities Division ’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) . Training activities are documented by the Emergency Service s Manager.

The City provides financial support and training opportunities for employees to advance their CWEA certification grades . Staff are actively involved in Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) and CWEA . The City also requires contractors working in the wastewater collection system to provide training for their employees related to safety and in the activities that may cause spills and in responding to contractor-caused spills.

Note that the City is in the process of reorganizing the structure of its training and emergency services programs at the time of this SSMP U pdate. As changes are put into place, the City will update the SSMP to reflect. Additionally, as part of the Resource Evaluation discussed in Section 4.5, the City will evaluate in- house staffing and/or contract services needs to properly implement the program .

4.4: Vehicle and Equipment Inventories
The City’s water and sewer-related vehicle and equipment is managed by the Public Works Department’s Operations and Maintenance / Fleet Division. The division maintains a city - wide database of vehicles and equipment that includes those assigned to water and sewer.

Major water and sewer vehicles and equipment are summarized in Table 4–1. The division implements a policy for funding the replacement of vehicles and equipment that includes funds dedicated to water and sewer. The City is currently working on a n Asset Management Plan (AMP) which will include enhancement of the management of its City-wide vehicles and equipment. The plan is expected to be complete at the end of calendar year 2025.

The City has interagency agreements and informal arrangements with neighboring agencies for vehicle and equipment support in the event of failure.

Element 4 – Operations and Maintenance Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 22 The Utilities Division maintains an inventory of routine parts for repair of sewer piping and lift stations. Note that the City is in the process of developing a critical spare parts list at the time of this SSMP Update.

Table 4–1: Major Vehicles and Equipment
Vehicles Equipment
Dump Truck, 1.5 ton w/ crane Camera Inspection, Crawler Stake Bed LG (8Wx12Lx4H) Camera Inspection, Crawler
Step van CCTV Truck Pump Hose Trailer
Utility bed, 1-1/2-ton with mounted hoist and auxiliary fuel tank Sandbagger 12 ft. Dump Truck, 7-9 YD Traffic Arrow Board
Flusher 6" Trash Pump
Utility Truck w/Scelzi Body (air compressor 369 ER) Portable Generator 300kW 12 ft. Dump Truck, 7-9 YD Compressor
Hydro-Excavator Muddog Light Tower
Hydro Excavator Camel Portable Generator 400kW
Hydro Excavator (On Order) 4” Trash Pump
Dump Truck 7-9 YD Forklift
Dump Truck 7-9 YD Backhoe
Dump Truck 7-9 YD Backhoe
Backhoe
Equipment Trailer
Bobcat Loader

4.5: Resource Evaluation
To properly implement the O&M program defined in this SSMP, the City will perform a resource evaluation with an estimated completion date listed in Section 1. 2. The resource evaluation will consider reorganizing the Utilities Division structure to establish dedicated sewer O&M staffing that is separate from dedicated water O&M staffing. The resource evaluation will also review the adequacy of internal staffing, contract service agreements/budgets, and vehicles/equipment. The results of the resource evaluation will inform the sewer rate study, which has an estimated completion date listed in Section 1.2.

4.6: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 4
• NAASCO PACP

Element 5 – Design and Performance Provisions
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 23

5.0: Element 5 – Design and Performance Provisions
The SSMP must include the following items as appropriate and applicable to the E nrollee’s system:
a. Updated design criteria, and construction standards and specifications, for the construction, installation, repair, and rehabilitation of existing and proposed system infrastructure components, including but not limited to pipelines, pump stations, and other system appurtenances.
b. Procedures, and standards for the inspection and testing of newly constructed, newly installed, repaired, and rehabilitated system pipelines, pumps, and other equipment and appurtenances.

5.1: Design Criteria and Construction Standards
The City’s capacity and performance criteria for its sewer system are defined in the November 2024 Sewer Capacity Evaluation Report . The City’s construction standards for its sewer system are defined in the July 2024 Standard Specifications and Details. These minimum standards shall apply to the City’s capital improvement projects and private development projects. These standards will be reviewed and updated periodically .

5.2: Inspection and Testing of New Facilities
The City’s July 2024 Standard Specifications and Details outlines the standards and procedures for testing newly installed facilities in addition to applicable state standards . For new facilities not addressed in the City’s Standard Specifications and Details, such as lift stations, the City uses consultants to design improvements and identify inspection and testing requirements. The City utilizes a combination of in- house staff and consultants to inspect and oversee testing of new installations.

5.3: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 5
• City Standard Specifications and Details Standards, July 2024 • Sewer Capacity Evaluation Report, November 2024

Element 6 – Spill Emergency Response Plan
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 24

6.0: Element 6 – Spill Emergency Response Plan
The Plan must include an up- to-date Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP) to ensure prompt detection and response to spills to reduce spill volumes and collect information for prevention of future spills. The SERP must include procedures to:
a. Notify primary responders, appropriate local officials, and appropriate regulatory agencies of a spill in a timely manner .
b. Notify other potentially affected entities (for example, health agencies, water suppliers, etc.) of spills that potentially affect public health or reach waters of the State. c. Comply with the notification, monitoring and reporting requirements of th e General Order, State law and regulations, and applicable Regional Water Board Orders . d. Ensure that appropriate staff and contractors implement the SERP and are appropriately trained.
e. Address emergency system operations, traffic control and other necessary response activities.
f. Contain a spill and prevent/minimize discharge to waters of the State or any drainage conveyance system .
g. Minimize and remediate public health impacts and adverse impacts on beneficial uses of waters of the State.
h. Remove sewage from the drainage conveyance system .
i. Clean the spill area and drainage conveyance system in a manner that does not inadvertently impact beneficial uses in the receiving waters . j. Implement technologies, practices, equipment, and interagency coordination to expedite spill containment and recovery .
k. Implement pre-planned coordination and collaboration with storm drain agencies and other utility agencies/departments prior, during, and after a spill event . l. Conduct post-spill assessments of spill response activities . m. Document and report spill events as required in this General Order . n. Annually, review and assess effectiveness of the Spill Emergency Response Plan, and update the Plan as needed.

6.1: Policy
Pursuant to the reissued WDR, the City has updated its Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP), which incorporates water quality monitoring requirements . The purpose of the City’s SERP is to support a prompt, orderly and effective response to spills, reduce spill volumes,

Element 6 – Spill Emergency Response Plan
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 25 and collect information for prevention of future spills. A “spill or SSO” is defined by State Water Board Order No. WQ 2022- 0103-DWQ as a discharge of sewage from any portion of a sanitary sewer system due to a sanitary sewer system overflow, operational failure, and/or infrastructure failure.

The City’s employees are required to report all spills from City owned sewer mains and laterals and to take the appropriate action to secure the spill area, properly report to the appropriate regulatory agencies, relieve the cause of the spill, and ensure that the affected area is cleaned as soon as possible to minimiz e health hazards to the public and protect the environment. The City’s goal is to respond to sewer system spills as soon as possible following notification. The City will follow reporting proc edures regarding sewer spills as set forth by the San Francisco RWQCB and the SWRCB Order No. WQ 2022- 0103-DWQ (SSSWDR).

The SERP provides guidelines for City personnel to follow in responding to, cleaning up, reporting, and properly documenting spills that may occur within the City’s service area.

Additionally, the SERP outlines procedures for responding to sanitary sewer spill backups into structures as required by the City’s insurer. “Backup” is a term typically used by insurers to describe property damage resulting from exposure and contact to untreated or partially treated sewage.

The link to the Spill Emergency Response Plan document is included in Section 6.2. The SERP includes a narrative of the plan, Sewer Spill/Backup Response Workbook that contains all documents used to properly document the City’s response activities to all spill events , and procedures for water quality monitoring when applicable .

6.2: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 6
• City of Pleasanton Spill Emergency Response Plan

Element 7 – Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 26

7.0: Element 7 – Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program
The Sewer System Management Plan must include procedures for the evaluation of the Enrollee’s service area to determine whether a sewer pipe blockage control program is needed to control fats, oils, grease, rags, and debris. If the Enrollee determines that a program is not needed, the Enrollee shall provide justification in its Plan for why a program is not needed.

The procedures must include, at minimum:
a. An implementation plan and schedule for a public education and outreach program that promotes proper disposal of pipe -blocking substances . b. A plan and schedule for the disposal of pipe -blocking substances generated within the sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to adequately dispose of substances generated within a sanitary sewer system service area.
c. The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent spills and blockages .
d. Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or interceptors), design standards for the removal devices, maintenance requirements, best management practices requirements, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements . e. Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the fats, oils, and grease ordinance.
f. An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to fats, oils, and grease blockages and establishment of a cleaning schedule for each section . g. Implementation of source control measures for all sources of fats, oils, and grease reaching the sanitary sewer system for each section identified above.

7.1: Public Education and Outreach
The City’s public education and outreach includes a website (see link in Section 7.3). The website includes information f or food service establishments (FSE) including requirements for grease interceptors or traps, maintenance requirements, record keeping requirements (including sample logs), and a link to State-registered Transporter of Inedible Kitchen Grease to service grease removal devices . The website also includes information for res idents.

In addition to the website, FSEs are given publications and BMP literature as part of the inspection process .

7.2: Disposal of Pipe-Blocking Substances
Nearby drop-off facilities and w astewater treatment plants that accept FOG products include:

Element 7 – Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 27 Location Address Phone
Alameda County Household & Business Hazardous
Waste Programs (Livermore Facility)
5584 La Ribera Street
Livermore, CA 94550 (800) 606-6606
Alameda County Household & Business Hazardous
Waste Programs (Fremont Location)
41149 Boyce Rd.

Fremont, CA 94538 (800) 606-6606
East Bay Municipal Utility District 2020 Wake Ave.

Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 287-1651

7.3: Legal Authority
The City’s legal authority to implement its sewer pipe blockage control program is provided by the City’s Municipal Code, Title 15 Sewerage, Chapter 15.44.

7.4: Requirements to Install Grease Removal Devices
The City’s Municipal Code, Title 15 Sewerage, Chapter 15.44 includes the City’s requirements and standards for grease removal devices.

7.5: Authority to Inspect and Enforce
The City’s Municipal Code, Title 15 Sewerage, Chapter 15.44 provides the City with authority to inspect and enforce against FOG producing facilities.

7.6: Sewer System Segments Subject to FOG
The largest concentration of commercial FOG sources are food service establishments (FSEs) located on Main Street in the downtown area. These facilities receive information on BMPs, and their effectiveness is monitored. Segments of the sewer system subject to FOG blockages are identified in the City’s Hot Spot List and include cleaning frequencies .

7.7: Program Update and Future Implementation
The Environmental Services Division is responsible fo r managing the sewer pipe blockage control program. At the time of this SSMP Update, the division is in the process of hiring contract services to assist staff in updating the existing program for compliance with the new WDR and to provide inspection services on an interim basis . As part of the Resource Evaluation discussed in Section 4.5, the City will evaluate in -house staffing and/or contract services needs to properly implement the program including administration, inspection, and enforcement. As the sewer pipe blockage control program is update d, the City will update the SSMP to reflect.

7.8: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 7
• FOG Program Website

Element 7 – Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 28 • City of Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 15

Element 8 – System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 29

8.0: Element 8 – System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements
The Plan must include procedures and activities for:
a. Routine evaluation and assessment of system conditions . b. Capacity assessment and design criteria.
c. Prioritization of corrective actions .
d. A capital improvement plan.

8.1: Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan
The purpose of the City’s long- term capital improvement plan (CIP) is to ensure sustainability of the sewer system’s infrastructure and determine funding needs. The long- term CIP is a living plan that is reviewed on a 2- year cycle to evaluate implementation progress and updated on a 6-year cycle to reflect any changes in drivers and needs. Development of the long- term CIP is based on technical evaluations that include condition assessments and system capacity .

The long-term CIP includes prioritized projects with cost estimates over a 2 0-year span. The long-term CIP is developed in coordination with Utilities Division O&M staff and Engineering Division staff.

The City’s Engineering Division is responsible for implementing CIP projects. Engineering will utilize the long -term CIP as a guide for developing its 5-Year CIP budget that is updated every 2 years.

At the time of this SSMP Update, t he City’s initial long -term CIP is in the process of being prepared by Woodard & Curran and will be completed by the date shown in Section 1.2.

8.2: Condition Assessments

8.2.1: Gravity Mains
As discussed in Section 4, the City performs CCTV inspections of its gravity mains up to 15 inches in diameter . As part of the condition assessment process , this inspection data is evaluated for the purposes of identifying CIP projects. The latest evaluation was completed in November 2024 by Woodard & Curran for pipes inspected and coded through J une 2024. In total, 424,370 l inear feet (or about 30 percent of the City- owned pipes in the gravity collection system) had CCTV data and defect scoring that could be utilized for a risk based assessment .

InfoAsset Planner  risk assessment software was used to develop likelihood of failure (LOF) and consequence of failure (COF) scores for each pipe in the system . LOF scoring was based on structural condition based on CCTV data, a “structural vulnerability” factor reflecting the age and material of the pipe (also used as a preliminary surrogate for structural condition for pipes without CCTV data), and frequency of required cleaning (“hot spots”) . COF scoring considered the pipe size (reflecting its potential flow volume), environmental consequence

Element 8 – System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 30 (e.g., proximity to storm drains or Waters of the State), location (road type), and community impact (proximity to commercial areas and public facilities) . A weighting system was applied to each of the LOF and COF factors to determine an overall risk score and risk category (very low, low, medium, or high), reflecting its priority. Based on the risk assessment results, gravity sewers were identified for continued preventive maintenance (pipes without major defects) or R&R. Pipes with R&R recommendations of medium or high-risk ratings were identified for inclusion in the City’s long-term CIP.

The City plans to expand the condition assessment evaluation to the remaining sewer pipes that have been inspected/coded since June 2024 ( ~103,000 linear feet inspected and coded and ~110,000 linear feet inspected and awaiting coding) . Moving forward, the City plans to maintain an overall 7- year inspection frequency. The City will also consider making future refinements to COF criteria to more specifically identify sewers in other environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., steep terrain, high groundwater areas, areas near creeks, etc.) or areas that may be more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. As part of the long- term CIP’s 2-year review and 6 -year update process , the City will review its CCTV inspection program to incorporate up- to-date information.

8.2.2: Large Diameter Sewers, Siphons, and Manholes
Inspection of the City’s large diameter sewers , siphons, and manholes were not performed or conditions evaluated as part of the City’s current CIP. Budget for these i nspections and condition assessments will be included in the City’s long- term CIP current ly under development. R esults of the inspections will be evaluated, and recommended improvements included in future 2 -year reviews and 6 -year updates of the long-term CIP.

8.2.3: Lift Stations
As discussed in Section 4, l ift stations are regularly inspected by operators utilizing the City’s lift station inspection forms. The lift stations also undergo an engineering assessment as part of the long-term CIP process . The last engineering assessment was completed in January 2025 by Woodard & Curran. The evaluation process included an initial review of record drawings and miscellaneous documents followed by onsite inspections and assessments of each station’s configuration, process condition, mechanical condition, observed structural condition, safety, operations and maintenance insight, electrical, and overall long- term reliability. In addition, Woodard & Curran coordinated with City staff for input on which lift stations present the highest risk in terms of day- to-day operations. The assessment also incorporated the findings and recommendations of a separate generator study completed by TJC and Associates.

During the inspection of each lift station, issues were highlighted that may warrant additional attention or future improvements. For each facility, these identified issues were given numerical criticality (1 = Fair, 2 = Poor, 3 = Crucial) and categorized into six (6) groups:

Process, Mechanical, Electrical, Structural, Site, and Health & Safety. Recommended lift

Element 8 – System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 31 station improvements based on the r esults of the lift station condition assessments were prioritized and will be scheduled into the City’s long- term CIP.

The East Amador Lift Station (EALS) which is owned and operated by Dublin- San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) , conveys flow from the City of Pleasanton to the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant . Although DSRSD is responsible for the condition assessment and implementation of improvements needed to this lift station, the City is responsible for funding these improvements . An allocation for those costs will be included in the long- term CIP.

8.2.4: Force Mains
Force mains are inspected as discussed in Section 4. Due to the challenges of inspecting force mains, the City will also include an engineering evaluation as part of its long -term CIP process. The evaluation will first include a desktop assessment of the force mains, which will include a review of pipe attributes (alignment, age, material, etc.) , geotechnical conditions in the proximity of the force mains, pump cycling data, and break history. This analysis will help identify feasible and appropriate inspection methods for each force main. The inspections will be prioritized based on the same types of factors used for gravity pipe risk assessment. The force main inspections may include visual as sessment of pipe alignments, inspe ction of discharge manholes, ultrasonic pipe thickness testing, and actual internal CCTV inspection or other technology to assess pipe condition. Any force mains that can be CCTV inspected (or partially inspected) may be added to the gravity pipe CCTV inspection program to be conducted by contractors . Once available, needed improvements based on the results of the condition assessments will be prioritized and scheduled into the City’s long- term capital improvement plan as appropriate.

Evaluation of the City’s force mains were not performed as part of the City’s current CIP.

Budget for these inspections and condition assessments will be included in the long- term CIP currently under development. R esults of the inspections will be evaluated, and recommended improvements included in future 2- year reviews and 6 -year updates of the long- term CIP.

8.3: Capacity Assessments
The City completed a Sewer Capacity Evaluation Report in November 2024 by Woodard & Curran, which summarizes the development of a calibrated hydraulic model used to analyze the capacity of the system, identify areas of capacity deficiencies , and develop recommendations for capacity improvements to be incorporated into the City’s long- term CIP.

Note that the City has not had any capacity- related spills from the sewer collection system.

8.3.1: Hydraulic Analysis
The hydraulic model was developed in InfoWorks  ICM modeling software and includes all active City-owned sewers, lift stations, and force mains in the system . Flows in the model were based on recent winter water use data (to estimate base wastewater flows) and flow monitoring data collected at 14 sites and during the 2022/23 wet weather season. The model

Element 8 – System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 32 was calibrated to the flow monitoring data to confirm that it would predict both dry and peak wet weather flows with reasonable accuracy . Potential increases in sewer flows were also estimated and included in the hydraulic analysis based on projected future development and land use changes within the sewer service area.

8.3.2: Design and Performance Criteria
The City selected a 25 -year return period, 24- hour rainfall event 1 as the basis for capacity assessment and design of its sanitary sewer system . This design event is considered to provide reasonable protection from the risk of sewer spills due to infrequent, extreme wet weather events.

The calibrated hydraulic model was used to simulate peak flows that would be expected in the system under both normal dry weather flows and during a design storm event, for both existing and future development conditions . Pipes with flow exceeding a flow depth to pipe diameter ratio of 0.75 under peak dry weather flow were considered deficient and in need of upgrade. Areas with excessive predicted surcharge (i.e., hydraulic gradeline reaching within 3 feet of the ground, indicating a potential risk of a sew er spill) under design storm peak wet weather flow were identified, and required capacity improvements to alleviate those capacity deficiencies were developed . However, if any surcharge was predicted to occur solely due to future development, then the City may require a capacity relief project evaluation before additional development could be connected to the system .

8.3.3: Capacity Assurance
The results of the hydraulic modeling indicated that the City’s sewer system has adequate capacity to convey peak dry weather flows under both existing and future conditions . The results for design storm model simulations indicated two areas of the system that may be considered capacity deficient under existing conditions and two areas that could become capacity deficient in the future due to increased flows from future develop ment. The capacity assessment also determined that all of the modeled system pump stations have sufficient firm capacity (capacity with largest pumping unit out of service) to convey the predicted design storm peak flow without exceeding the maximum allowable surcharge in upstream sewers .

The 2024 Sewer Capacity Evaluation identified four potential capacity improvement projects required to meet the City’s capacity criteria. In several cases, alternatives were also identified, which could be evaluated as part of additional pre -design studies . Required system capacity improvements would be designed in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards (see Element 5). The recommended projects have been incorporated into the City’s long- term CIP.

At the time of this SSMP Update, the City is evalua ting potential development alternatives for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area and respective impacts to sewer capacity. Any

1 Based on NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, point precipitation frequency estimates and spatial variation across the Pleasanton sewer service area. Reference: https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca.

Element 8 – System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance, and Capital Improvements City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 33 required capacity improvements will be funded and constructed by future develop ers and/or incorporated into the long-term CIP once identified .

8.3.4: Infiltration and Inflow
The hydraulic model was used to evaluate the magnitude of infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the City’s sewer system . Peak I/I flow (for the 25- year design storm) was expressed as a wet weather peaking factor (ratio of peak I/I flow to average dry weather flow) for each flow meter tributary area. The wet weather peaking factors ranged from about 1.5 to 5, with most areas having peaking factors less than 4 . While these values certainly indicate that the system is subject to I/I, the values are lower than man y other San Francisco Bay Area systems . Based on the results of the capacity assessment, the City does not consider I/I to be excessive and warranting a targeted I/I investigation program, but it will continue to monitor flows (at its key pump stations and influent to the DSRSD treatment plant, and through future flow monitoring programs) and re -visit the need for a focused I/I program in the future .

8.4: Impacts of Climate Change
It is generally accepted that storm frequency and intensity will increase in the future as a result of climate change. Already, published rainfall statistics (e.g., NOAA Atlas 14) are likely out-of-date and are currently being updated. NOAA Atlas 15 is anticipated to be released in 2026. At that time, the City will re -evaluate its design storm and make adjustments if warranted in the capacity assessment . The City will continue to monitor conditions in the system during large wet weather events and take future action if observations indicate increased flows or risk of spills due to insufficient capacity during such events.

8.5: Project Funding
The City conducts sewer rate and connection fee studies on a periodic basis to assess the funding needs to support CIP, as well as O&M programs. The next sewer rate and connection fee study is scheduled to be complete as shown in Section 1.2 .

8.6: References
• WDR Attachment – Section 8
• Sewer Capacity Evaluation Report , November 2024
• NOAA Atlas 14

Element 9 – Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting System
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 34

9.0: Element 9 – Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting
System
The SSMP must include an Adaptive Management section that addresses SSMP implementation effectiveness and the steps for necessary SSMP improvement, including:
a. Maintaining relevant information, including audit findings, to establish and prioritize appropriate Plan activities.
b. Monitoring the implementation and measuring the effectiveness of each element of the Plan.
c. Assessing the success of the preventative operation and maintenance activities. d. Updating Plan procedures and activities, as appropriate, based on monitoring and performance evaluation .
e. Identifying and illustrating spill trends, including spill frequency, locations, and estimated volumes .

9.1: Adaptive Management
The City regularly tracks and updates the performance results of its sanitary sewer program. I n March of each year , the SWRCB requires that the City prepare and submit an Annual Report of its findings in CIWQS. During preparation and prior to certification of the Annual Report, the City will also perform the following related activities:
• Review the SERP for effectiveness and make any changes to ensure proper and timely responses.
• Evaluates the SSMP Audit Report ’s corrective actions to monitor implementation status.
• Report on key performance indicat ors summarized in Table 9 -1 and update performance tracking graphs (see Appendix B).
• Document any required SSMP changes in the SSMP Change Log.

9.2: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 9
• Appendix B – Spill and Operational Performance Tracking

Element 9 – Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting System
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 35 Table 9–1: Key Performance Indicator Targets per Calendar Year Key Performance Indicator Target
Regulatory Compliance
• Number of Spills 5
• Spill Reports Completed on Time 100%
• Annual Report Completed on Time 100%
• SSMP Audit Completed on Time 100%
• SSMP Update Completed on Time 100%
Spill Response
Response Time (receipt of call to arrival at site)
• During Business Hours Less than 30 min 95% of the time • After Business Hours Less than 90 min 95% of the time Spill Recovery Volume (average) 75%
Spill Reduction
Number of Repeat Spills 0
Inspections & Maintenance
• Gravity Mains & Manhole Cleaning and Inspections
Completed
7-Year Cycle
(190,000 linear feet/year of piping and
respective manholes)
• Lift Station Inspections Completed 75%
• Force Main Inspections Completed
o Yearly Alignment Walks
o Quarterly Vault/ARVs

100%
75%
• Open vs. Total Work Orders 25%

Element 10 – SSMP Audits
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 36

10.0: Element 10 – SSMP Audits
The Plan shall include internal audit procedures, appropriate to the size and performance of the system, for the Enrollee to comply with section 5.4 the General Order.

10.1: City SSMP Audit Procedures
The City shall perform internal audits of the SSMP on a triennial (every 3 years) basis per the requirements of the General Order and a certified Audit Report will be completed, certified and uploaded to CIWQS no later than six (6) months following the end of the three- year audit period. If the results of the audit require updates or changes to the sewer program, the content and timeline to complete those change s will be described in the audit correctives action plan , and as the changes are mad e, they will be tracked in the SSMP Change Log.

The milestone for the next SSMP audit is included in Section 1.2.

10.2: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 10
• SSMP Audit Report : 8/2/21 to 8/2/24

Element 11 – Communication Program
City of Pleasanton Sewer System Management Plan, July 2025 37

11.0: Element 11 – Communication Program
The SSMP must include procedures for the Enrollee to communicate with:
a. The public for spills and discharges resulting in closures of public areas, or that enter a source of drinking water, and t he development, implementation, and update of its Plan, including opportunities for public input to Plan implementation and updates. b. Owners/operators of systems that connect into the Enrollee’s system, including satellite systems, for system operation, maintenance, and capital improvement -related activities.

11.1: Communication Program
The SSMP Update shall be adopted by City Council at a City Council meeting prior to upload to CIWQS. To facilitate the City Council meeting , staff will include a draft version of the SSMP and prepare a staff report and presentation that provides background on regulatory requirements, SSMP purpose and content, and relationship to existing City policies and programs. The draft SSMP and staff report will be available to the public through posting of the City Council meeting agenda on the City’s website . The City Council meeting will be open to the public and include a period for public comment. The final and adopted SSMP will incorporate input from the City Council meeting. Any significant changes to the adopted SSMP in the future will be approved by City Council through a s imilar process.

The SSMP Update report (including referenced SERP) that is adopted and uploaded to CIWQS will be posted on the City’s Utilit ies Division webpage (see link in Section 11.2).

Any changes to the SSMP Update report will be made in the report, documented in the SSMP change log, and then reposted to the City’s Utilities Division webpage. Note that unless the changes are significant, the SSMP Update report will not be resubmitted to CIWQS until the next 6-year due date.

Other communication efforts of the sewer program will include annual check -ins with City Council on KPIs, and public outreach on SSOs and the sewer pipe blockage control plan as described in those programs.

11.2: References
• WDR Attachment D – Section 11
• Utilities Division Website

Appendix A: SSMP City Council Adoption Documents

RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 036

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TO APPROVE THE 2025 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton owns and operates a sewer collection system; and WHEREAS. the State Water Resources Control Board on December 6, 2022. adopted the Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements General Order WQ 2022- 0103- DWQ ( Order), which became effective June 5. 2023 and established updated regulatory requirements for sewer collections systems within California; and
WHEREAS. the Order requires the preparation of a Sewer System Management Plan SSMP) by all agencies enrolled under the Order:

WHEREAS, the Order requires that the SSMP be approved by the governing body of the agency at a public meeting.

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

SECTION 1. The City of Pleasanton approves the 2025 SSMP.

SECTION 2. The City' s Legally Responsible Official, as designated in the SSMP. is authorized to submit the SSMP to the State Water Resources Control Board.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on June 17. 2025
I. Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton. California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17' day of June 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher. Gaidos, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Balch Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

I- L ,A
J e yn Kw g,
6ty
Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Appendix B: Spill and Operational Performance Tracking

Spill Performance Results

5 53214 4543473 3 3120123456782008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Annual Spill Events 0123456782008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Annual Spills by Spill CategoryCat 1Cat 2Cat 3Cat 4

0123456782008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Annual Spills by CauseRootsGreaseDebrisother 0200040006000800010000120002008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Comparison of Annual Spill Volumes, Recovered and to WatersSpill VolumeRecovered VolVolume to waters

5863292810035178379831175787235498034510 063809162876882420924510204060801001202008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Pwecentage of Annua; Spill VolumeComparison of Receovered versus To WatersPercent RecoveredPercent to Waters2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Pleasanton1.92 1.92 1.15 0.77 0.38 1.54 1.54 1.92 1.54 1.15 1.54 2.69 1.15 1.15 0.77 0.38 0.77State6.16 5.81 5.33 5.06 4.97 4.86 5.08 4.41 4.05 3.62 3.22 3.24 4.02 3.59 1.67 3.29 1.37RWQCB210.71 9.53 8.36 7.62 6.79 5.77 6.5 4.86 5.21 4.88 3.84 4.23 3.18 4.66 1.87 3.06 1.93024681012Annual Comparison of SSO Rate/100 Miles

Operational Performance Results

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Pleasanton1.92 1.92 1.15 0.77 0.38 1.54 1.54 1.92 1.54 1.15 1.54 2.69 1.15 1.15 0.77 0.38 0.77State6.16 5.81 5.33 5.06 4.97 4.86 5.08 4.41 4.05 3.62 3.22 3.24 4.02 3.59 1.67 3.29 1.37RWQCB210.71 9.53 8.36 7.62 6.79 5.77 6.5 4.86 5.21 4.88 3.84 4.23 3.18 4.66 1.87 3.06 1.93024681012Annual Comparison of SSO Rate/100 Miles - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,0002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Calendar Year Line Cleaning, Linear Feet

6%2%6%4%2%1%7%5%2%2%13%16%8%16%3%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Calendar Year Line Cleaning, Percent of System - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,0002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Calendar Year CCTV, Linear Feet

5%4%2%5%2%1%2%3%0%0%7%11%8%30%2%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Calendar Year CCTV, Percent of the System

Appendix C: SSMP Change Log

SSMP CHANGE LOG
Date SSMP
Element # Description of Change / Revision Made
Person
Authorizing
Change

woodardcurran.com

City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan20-Year Plan -- Scenario 1 Maintain Long Term
Capital Projects Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 FY 35/36 - FY 44/45
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Priority A - Capacity & Reliability Improvement Projects Project 1B: Upsize Sunol Blvd Sewers preferred alt $1,600,000 790,000$ 810,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,600,000 $ -$ Project 2A: Bernal Ave Pipe Bridge preferred alt $3,330,000 -$ 400,000$ 2,930,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,330,000$ -$ Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of Stoneridge Mall
$3,660,000 -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$ -$
-$
-$
-$
3,660,000$
Project 4A: East Pleasanton Capacity Project A (Kiewit and Arroyo Lago) Note 1 $2,972,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ 222,275$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 222,275$ 2,749,725$ Project 4B: East Pleasanton Capacity Project B (Amazon, East Lakes, Site H)
Note 2 $4,314,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,314,000$ Priority A - Lift Station Projects
LS-02, -07, -08, -10 Improvements Note 3 $1,420,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,420,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,420,000 $ -$ LS-04, -12, -13, -15 Improvements Note 3 $940,000 -$ -$ 470,000$ 470,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 940,000$ -$ LS-05 Full Replacement Project Note 4 $6,120,000 -$ -$ 810,000$ 5,310,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,120,000$ -$ EARS and EALS Condition Assessment, Capacity Evaluation, and Predesign $500,000
166,700$ 166,700$ 166,700$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
500,000$ -$

Generator Replacement - Sewer and Storm Note 5 $9,860,000 150,000$ 1,710,000$ -$ 1,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ 1,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 9,860,000$ -$ Priority A - Condition Assessment Projects
Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $9,500,000 -$ 500,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,500,000$ -$ Amberwood Siphon
$3,330,000 -$
270,000$ 3,060,000$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$ -$
3,330,000$ -$

Priority A - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing $1,400,000 -$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$
-$ -$
-$
-$
1,400,000$ -$

Large Diameter Inspection Study $150,000 -$
150,000$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
150,000$ -$

Denker Road Sewer Replacement $1,650,000 150,000$ 1,500,000$ -$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
1,650,000$ -$

Cathodic Protection and I&I Studies $150,000 -$
150,000$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$ -$
-$
150,000$ -$

Cathodic Protection Installation $9,000,000 -$
-$
500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 5,000,000$ 9,000,000$ -$

Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections $704,000 104,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$ -$
-$
704,000$ -$

$60,600,000 1,360,700$ 6,306,700$ 11,586,700$ 10,630,000$ 7,072,275$ 1,920,000$ 1,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 5,000,000$ 49,876,275$ 10,723,725$ Priority B - Lift Station Projects
Health and Safety Signage $10,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ -$ EALS R&R Note 7 $4,000,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 520,000$ 3,480,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,000,000$ -$ EARS LS Note 7 $8,412,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,093,560$ 7,318,440$ -$ 8,412,000$ -$ EARS LS Piping Note 7 $1,647,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 214,110$ 1,432,890$ -$ -$ 1,647,000$ -$ LS-03, -09, 11 Abandonment Note 8 $600,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ LS-06 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $2,890,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 375,700$ 2,514,300$ -$ -$ -$ 2,890,000$ -$ LS-08 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,120,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 405,600$ 2,714,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,120,000$ -$ LS-07 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,700,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 481,000$ 3,219,000$ -$ -$ -$ 3,700,000$ -$ Priority B - Condition Assessment Projects
Priority B - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $15,000,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ 15,000,000$ -$ Priority B - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $6,000,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000,000$ -$ Priority B - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,330,000$ 3,330,000$ -$ Force Main and Large Diameter Desktop Analysis and Inspections $750,000 -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
750,000$ -$
750,000$
Priority B - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $1,750,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ 1,750,000$ -$ $51,209,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,875,600$ 12,411,100$ 11,297,410$ 5,876,450$ 11,418,440$ 3,330,000$ 51,209,000$ -$ Priority C - Lift Station Projects11
LS-02 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $750,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $750,000 $750,000 -$ LS-04 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $810,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $810,000 $810,000 -$ LS-10 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $880,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $880,000 $880,000 -$ LS-12 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,230,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,230,000 $1,230,000 -$ LS-13 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,150,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,150,000 $1,150,000 -$ LS-15 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $710,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $710,000 $710,000 -$ Priority C - Condition Assessment Projects
Force Main and Large Diameter Desktop Analysis and Inspections Note 12 $750,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $750,000 $750,000 -$ Priority C - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $30,000,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $30,000,000 $30,000,000 -$ Priority C - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $12,000,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $12,000,000 $12,000,000 -$ Priority C - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $3,330,000 $3,330,000 -$ Project Deferral - Unplanned Repair Costs Note 13 $3,800,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $3,800,000 $3,800,000 -$ Priority C - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $3,500,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $3,500,000 $3,500,000 -$ $58,910,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,910,000 $58,910,000 -$ $1,360,700 $6,306,700 $11,586,700 $10,630,000 $7,072,275 $8,795,600 $13,911,100 $14,797,410 $6,376,450 $11,918,440 $67,240,000 $159,995,275 $10,723,725 Engineering/Administration FTE's Count 1 2 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 21 NA NA Engineering/Administration FTE's Cost $300,000 $600,000 $900,000 $900,000 $600,000 $600,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $6,300,000 NA NA Total CIP $1,660,700 $6,906,700 $12,486,700 $11,530,000 $7,672,275 $9,395,600 $14,811,100 $15,697,410 $7,276,450 $12,818,440 $73,540,000 $159,995,275 $10,723,725 Total Priority A Projects
Priority B Projects
Total Priority B Projects
Cost SharingNear Term Mid Term
Priority A Projects
Priority C Projects
Total Priority C Projects
Estimated Total Capital Cost
ATTACHMENT 2

Project: City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan Capital Improvement Projects
20-Year Plan -- Scenario 1 Maintain
C
apital Improvement Project Notes:
1) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 9: Cost Sharing for Scenario 3 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerning the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume that development of the Kiewit property will contribute $222,275 in payment while balance will be funded by the Arroyo Lago development. 2) Estimated Total Capital Cost is derived from “Table 12: Pro-Rata Cost Sharing Scenario 6 CIP” from the Technical Memorandum dated February 11, 2025 concerning the East Pleasanton Annexation. Costs assume that Project 4B costs will be the Total of all developments (Kiewit North, Site H, East Lakes, Arroyo Lago, and Amazon) minus the Project 4A cost (Kiewit North and Arroyo Lago). The City will seek funding from developments as applications are processed or will seek construction of these projects from the first development with reimbursements made to others on a pro rata share basis as others connect. 3) Priority A Lift Station projects encompass all Criticality 2 and 3 improvements, while Priority B represents Criticality 1 (included in rehabilitation projects), as identified in the 2024 LS Condition Assessment TM. 4) At the time of this project, a redundant siphon will also be installed. Costs include demolition of existing station and assumes full replacement, including cutover costs from the old to new station. 5) Includes all sewer and stormwater generators identified in the TJC Report (2023). 6) Pipeline Replacement includes replacement and repair (R&R) of high priority pipes and an allowance for future R&R work, as well as CCTV inspection and Sewer AI for pipes. This money can also be spent on other high priority assets like force mains, siphons, or large diameter sewers as needed depending on the findings of condition assessment efforts. 7) City funded work to be performed by DSRSD. CIP assumes EALS will be rehabilitated, and the EARS LS and associated piping will be installed to supplement this rehabilitated lift station 8) Estimation of $200,000 for abandonment of Lift Stations currently not in service. 9) Major rehabilitation costs for lift stations were estimated based on the lift station's pump horse power and flow rate. A more refined cost estimate will be developed based on the extent of the rehabilitation required at each station prior to construction.
10) This line item is an allowance for the replacement or rehab of sewer siphons, forcemains, and large diameter sewers that are inspected as part of the Priority A analysis work. This cost will be refined as the analysis is completed 11) LS-14 Rehabilitation will take place under separate CIP funding, and therefore not included in this spreadsheet. 12) The SSMP will make subsequent recommendations about the scope and schedule of future condition assessment work, including CCTV, force main inspection, and manhole inspections. 13) Unplanned repair costs represent the risk associated with deferring capital projects. This cost is intended to account for potential emergency repairs that may arise if assets fail before they can be rehabilitated or replaced. To reflect this risk, a line item equal to 2.5% of City-funded capital projects is included in priority C, but spending would occur whenever an asset fails unexpectedly (in addition to the City’s O&M budget).

$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14 CIP Cost ($M)
CIP Implementation - Scenario 1
FTE Priority C Priority B Priority A

City of Pleasanton Sewer Capital Implementation Plan20-Year Plan -- Scenario 2 Projects Funded By Priority Long Term
Capital Projects Notes Estimated Total
Capital Cost FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 FY 32-33 FY 33-34 FY 34-35 FY 35/36 - FY 44/45
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Priority A - Capacity & Reliability Improvement Projects Project 1B: Upsize Sunol Blvd Sewers preferred alt $1,600,000 790,000$ 810,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,600,000$ -$ Project 2A: Bernal Ave Pipe Bridge preferred alt $3,330,000 - $ 400,000$ 2,930,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 3,330,000$ -$ Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of Stoneridge Mall $3,660,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ -$ 3,660,000$ Project 4A: East Pleasanton Capacity Project A (Kiewit and Arroyo Lago) Note 1 $2,972,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,275$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 222,275$ 2,749,725$ Project 4B: East Pleasanton Capacity Project B (Amazon, East Lakes, Site H)
Note 2 $4,314,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ -$ 4,314,000$ Priority A - Lift Station Projects
LS-02, -07, -08, -10 Improvements Note 3 $1,420,000 - $ - $ - $ 710,000$ 710,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,420,000$ -$ LS-04, -12, -13, -15 Improvements Note 3 $940,000 - $ - $ 470,000$ 470,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 940,000$ -$ LS-05 Full Replacement Project Note 4 $6,120,000 - $ - $ 810,000$ 5,310,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 6,120,000$ -$ EARS and EALS Condition Assessment, Capacity Evaluation, and Predesign $500,000 166,700$ 166,700$ 166,700$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 500,000$ -$ Generator Replacement - Sewer and Storm
Note 5 $9,860,000 150,000$ 1,710,000$ - $ 1,000,000$ 3,000,000$ - $ 1,000,000$ 3,000,000$ - $ - $ -$ 9,860,000$ -$ Priority A - Condition Assessment Projects
Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $12,900,000 - $ 900,000$ 6,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 12,900,000$ -$ Amberwood Siphon $3,330,000 - $ 270,000$ 3,060,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 3,330,000$ -$ Priority A - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing $1,400,000 - $ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,400,000$ -$ Large Diameter Inspection Study $150,000 - $ 150,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 150,000$ -$ Denker Road Sewer Replacement $1,650,000 150,000$ 1,500,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,650,000$ -$ Cathodic Protection and I&I Studies $150,000 - $ 150,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 150,000$ -$ Cathodic Protection Installation $18,000,000 - $ - $ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 18,000,000$ -$ Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections $704,000 104,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 704,000$ -$ $73,000,000 1,360,700$ 6,706,700$ 15,086,700$ 11,840,000$ 8,282,275$ 1,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 62,276,275$ 10,723,725$ Priority B - Lift Station Projects
Health and Safety Signage $10,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000$ - $ - $ - $ -$ 10,000$ -$ EALS R&R Note 7 $4,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 520,000$ 3,480,000$ - $ - $ - $ -$ 4,000,000$ -$ EARS LS Note 7 $8,412,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,093,560$ 7,318,440$ -$ 8,412,000$ -$ EARS LS Piping Note 7 $1,647,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 214,110$ 1,432,890$ - $ -$ 1,647,000$ -$ LS-03, -09, 11 Abandonment Note 8 $600,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 78,000$ 522,000$ - $ -$ 600,000$ -$ LS-06 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $2,890,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 375,700$ 2,514,300$ - $ - $ -$ 2,890,000$ -$ LS-08 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,120,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 405,600$ 2,714,400$ - $ - $ - $ -$ 3,120,000$ -$ LS-07 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $3,700,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 481,000$ 3,219,000$ - $ - $ -$ 3,700,000$ -$ Priority B - Condition Assessment Projects
Priority B - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $15,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ 15,000,000$ -$ Priority B - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $6,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ - $ - $ -$ 6,000,000$ -$ Priority B - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 432,900$ 2,897,100$ - $ -$ 3,330,000$ -$ Force Main Desktop Analysis and Inspections Note 11 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000$ -$ 750,000$ -$ Priority B - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $1,750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ 1,750,000$ -$ $51,209,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,275,600$ 12,411,100$ 11,808,310$ 9,295,550$ 11,418,440$ -$ 51,209,000$ -$ Priority C - Lift Station Projects11
LS-02 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $750,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $750,000 $750,000 -$ LS-04 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $810,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $810,000 $810,000 -$ LS-10 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $880,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $880,000 $880,000 -$ LS-12 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,230,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,230,000 $1,230,000 -$ LS-13 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $1,150,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,150,000 $1,150,000 -$ LS-15 Major Rehabilitation Note 9 $710,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $710,000 $710,000 -$ Priority C - Condition Assessment Projects
Force Main and Large Diameter Desktop Analysis and Inspections Note 12 $1,500,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $1,500,000 $1,500,000 -$ Priority C - Pipeline Replacement (1-2 mile of system) Note 6 $30,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $30,000,000 $30,000,000 -$ Priority C - Large Diameter Pipe and Force Main Rehab Note 10 $12,000,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $12,000,000 $12,000,000 -$ Priority C - Sewer Siphon Replacement Note 10 $3,330,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $3,330,000 $3,330,000 -$ Priority C - Annual Sewer System Improvements for Resurfacing Note 10 $3,500,000 - $ $3,500,000 $3,500,000 -$ $55,860,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,860,000 $55,860,000 -$ $1,360,700 $6,706,700 $15,086,700 $11,840,000 $8,282,275 $7,275,600 $14,411,100 $15,808,310 $10,295,550 $12,418,440 $65,860,000 $169,345,275 $10,723,725 Engineering/Administration FTE's Count 1 2 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 21 NA NA Engineering/Administration FTE's Cost $300,000 $600,000 $1,200,000 $900,000 $600,000 $600,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $900,000 $900,000 $6,000,000 NA NA Total CIP $1,660,700 $7,306,700 $16,286,700 $12,740,000 $8,882,275 $7,875,600 $15,611,100 $17,008,310 $11,195,550 $13,318,440 $71,860,000 $169,345,275 $10,723,725 Total Priority C Projects
Estimated Total Capital Cost
Cost Sharing
Total Priority A Projects
Priority B Projects
Total Priority B Projects
Priority C Projects
Near Term Mid Term
Priority A Projects