recycled water feasibility study - City of Pleasanton

Carollo Engineers assumes no responsibility for CAD drawings or other electronic documents that have been modified or reused for any other purpose or project. Electronic documents are not Contract Documents. These electronic documents are being furnished as a convenience for information and background purposes only, without any guarantee as to hardcopy compatibility.

pton0713r1-8889.psd

Recycled WaterFeasibility StudyJuly 2013

FINAL

2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 300 • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • P. 925.932.1710 • F. 925.930.0208 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/CovTOC (F)

City of Pleasanton

RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL

July 2013

July 2013 i pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/CovTOC (F)

City of Pleasanton

Recycled Water Feasibility Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SPONSOR ....................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Statement of Problem ................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Report Outline and Crosswalk .................................................................... 1-4

1.2 HYDROLOGIC FEATURES ................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 BENEFICIAL USES AND WATER QUALITY ......................................................... 1-8 1.4 CLIMATE .............................................................................................................. 1-10

1.4.1 Climate Action Plan .................................................................................. 1-11 1.5 LAND USE AND POPULATION ........................................................................... 1-12

CHAPTER 2 - WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES 2.1 WATER SOURCES AND NEEDS .......................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Natural Sustainable Yield from the Main Basin .......................................... 2-1 2.2 WATER USE TRENDS AND DEMANDS ............................................................... 2-2 2.3 QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIES .......................................................................... 2-4 2.4 WATER FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 2-5

CHAPTER 3 - WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES 3.1 WASTEWATER ENTITIES AND FACILITIES ........................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Future Wastewater Facilities ...................................................................... 3-3 3.2 EXISTING RECYCLED WATER USERS ............................................................... 3-3 3.3 RECYCLED WATER RIGHTS ............................................................................... 3-4 3.4 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF RECYCLED WATER ................................................ 3-4

3.4.1 DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA) Source................... 3-4 3.4.2 Livermore Water Reclamation Plant Source ............................................... 3-7 3.4.3 DSRSD Sources ....................................................................................... 3-10

CHAPTER 4 - TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE AND REUSE 4.1 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 4-1 4.2 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 4-1 4.3 WATER QUALITY-RELATED REQUIREMENTS................................................... 4-2 4.4 SALT/NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANS ............................................................ 4-2 4.5 GENERAL USE GUIDELINES ............................................................................... 4-3

4.5.1 Title 22 Use Area Requirements ................................................................. 4-3 4.5.2 General Irrigation Use Guidelines............................................................... 4-4

July 2013 ii pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/CovTOC (F)

CHAPTER 5 - RECYCLED WATER MARKET

5.1 RECYCLED WATER MARKET ASSESSMENT..................................................... 5-1 5.2 OUTREACH WITH POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS .................................................... 5-6

5.2.1 Customer Letters of Interest ....................................................................... 5-6 5.2.2 Recycled Water Supplier Meetings ............................................................. 5-6 5.2.3 Stakeholder Informational Meeting ............................................................. 5-6

5.3 CUSTOMER INCENTIVES .................................................................................... 5-7

CHAPTER 6 - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

6.1 WATER RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 6-1 6.2 PLANNING AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................... 6-1 6.3 SUPPLY/TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 6-3

6.3.1 Filtration Technologies ............................................................................... 6-3 6.3.2 Disinfection Technologies ........................................................................... 6-3 6.3.3 Alternatives Analysis................................................................................... 6-5 6.3.4 Decentralized Satellite Facility .................................................................... 6-7

6.4 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM .................................................................................... 6-13 6.5 COST OF OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 6-17

6.5.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................. 6-17 6.5.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates by Alternative ................................................ 6-22

6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 6-24 6.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 6-25 6.8 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 6-27

6.8.1 Long-Term Delta Fix ................................................................................. 6-29 6.8.2 Bay Area Regional Desalination Project ................................................... 6-29 6.8.3 Long-Term Non-State Water Project Lease or Transfer ........................... 6-30

6.9 FULLY EXPANDED PROJECT ............................................................................ 6-31

CHAPTER 7 - RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PROJECT PLAN

7.1 RECOMMENDED PROJECT ................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.1 Potential Customers and Pipeline Alignment .............................................. 7-1 7.1.2 Pump Station Sizing ................................................................................... 7-5 7.1.3 Storage Sizing ............................................................................................ 7-6 7.1.4 Storage as Potential Supply Supplement ................................................... 7-8 7.1.5 Preliminary Cost Estimate ........................................................................ 7-12 7.1.6 Supply Reliability ...................................................................................... 7-16

7.2 INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERMITTING ..................................... 7-16 7.2.1 Legal Issues ............................................................................................. 7-17 7.2.2 Discharge Requirements .......................................................................... 7-21 7.2.3 Permitting Procedures .............................................................................. 7-21

7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 7-22 7.3.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 7-22 7.3.2 Recommendations .................................................................................... 7-23

7.4 GROUNDWATER BASINS .................................................................................. 7-23 7.5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................... 7-23

7.5.1 Recycled Water State Policy .................................................................... 7-26 7.6 RESEARCH NEEDS ............................................................................................ 7-26

July 2013 iii pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/CovTOC (F)

CHAPTER 8 - CONSTRUCTION FINANCING PLAN AND REVENUE PROGRAM

8.1 FUNDING SOURCES AND CONSIDERATIONS ................................................... 8-1 8.2 FUNDING SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ................................................................. 8-2

8.2.1 Pay-As-You-Go Financing .......................................................................... 8-2 8.2.2 Debt Financing ........................................................................................... 8-3 8.2.3 Grants and Loans ....................................................................................... 8-4 8.2.4 Funding Source and Timing Summary ....................................................... 8-8

8.3 RECYCLED WATER PRICING POLICY ................................................................ 8-9 8.3.1 Capital Cost Recovery ................................................................................ 8-9 8.3.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost Recovery ........................................... 8-10 8.3.3 Repair and Replacement (R&R) Cost Recovery ...................................... 8-11 8.3.4 Costs Allocated to Potable Water ............................................................. 8-11 8.3.5 Recycled Water Pricing Summary ............................................................ 8-11

8.4 ANNUAL COST PROJECTIONS ......................................................................... 8-12 8.4.1 Capital Costs ............................................................................................ 8-12 8.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs ......................................................... 8-13 8.4.3 Repair and Rehabilitation Costs ............................................................... 8-13 8.4.4 Total Annual Project Expenses................................................................. 8-14 8.4.5 Recycled Water Use Projections and Unit Costs ...................................... 8-15 8.4.6 Preliminary Recycled Water Price ............................................................ 8-16 8.4.7 Comparison to Water Prices ..................................................................... 8-17 8.4.8 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................... 8-17 8.4.9 Recommended Project Benefit-Cost Analysis .......................................... 8-17

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SWRCB Recommended Planning Outline for Water Recycling Projects APPENDIX B Summary of References APPENDIX C DERWA - San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program Map APPENDIX D Potential Customers Lists APPENDIX E Customer Letters of Interest, Stakeholder Meeting Hand-Out/Sign-In APPENDIX F Customer Incentive Program Examples APPENDIX G Cost Estimate Details APPENDIX H Climate Action Plan APPENDIX I Environmental Issues and Constraints Report APPENDIX J Prop 218 Information and Cash Flow Analysis

July 2013 iv pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/CovTOC (F)

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Title XVI Feasibility Study Report Contents Crosswalk .............................. 1-5 Table 1.2 Climate Data for the City of Pleasanton .................................................... 1-11 Table 1.3 Historical and Projected Population(1) ....................................................... 1-13 Table 2.1 City of Pleasanton’s Actual and Projected Water Supply Sources ............. 2-2 Table 2.2 Sustainable Yield and 2011 Water Year Extractions from Livermore

Valley Groundwater Basin .......................................................................... 2-3 Table 2.3 Pleasanton’s 2010 Water Demand by Customer Sector ............................ 2-3 Table 2.4 Pleasanton’s 2010 Water Demand Projections (2012-2035) ...................... 2-4 Table 2.5 System-Wide Water Quality in Pleasanton’s Service Area ......................... 2-5 Table 3.1 Historic and Projected Wastewater Flows .................................................. 3-3 Table 3.2 DSRSD-DERWA Water Reclamation Facilities .......................................... 3-7 Table 3.3 Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) ............................................. 3-8 Table 4.1 Effluent Limitations for Conventional Pollutants ......................................... 4-2 Table 4.2 Comparison of Water Quality ...................................................................... 4-5 Table 6.1 Planning Criteria Summary ......................................................................... 6-2 Table 6.2 Comparison of Filtration Technologies ....................................................... 6-4 Table 6.3 Comparison of Disinfection Technologies .................................................. 6-4 Table 6.4 Supply/Treatment Alternatives .................................................................... 6-5 Table 6.5 Facilities Not Included in Separate Site Layouts ........................................ 6-7 Table 6.6 Summary of Potential Customer Demands .............................................. 6-15 Table 6.7 Cost Estimating Class Estimates .............................................................. 6-19 Table 6.8 General Cost Estimating Assumptions ..................................................... 6-20 Table 6.9 Unit Construction Cost .............................................................................. 6-21 Table 6.10 Preliminary Costs for Treatment Alternatives ........................................... 6-22 Table 6.11 Preliminary Costs for Distribution System Pipeline Alternatives ............... 6-23 Table 6.12 Summary of Cost-Benefit Comparison of Alternatives ............................. 6-26 Table 6.13 Summary Comparison of No Project Alternatives(1) .................................. 6-28 Table 7.1 Summary of Recommended Alternative Customer Demands .................... 7-3 Table 7.2 Recommended Alternative Pipeline Lengths .............................................. 7-4 Table 7.3 Pump Station Sizing by Phase ................................................................... 7-5 Table 7.4 Recommended Storage Sizing ................................................................... 7-8 Table 7.5 Demands and Operational Storage Requirements ..................................... 7-9 Table 7.6 Potential Supply Reduction due to Storage Utilization (City Only) ............. 7-9 Table 7.7 Potential Supply Reduction due to Storage Utilization (City and

DERWA) ................................................................................................... 7-10 Table 7.8 Preliminary Costs Estimates – Preferred Alternative ................................ 7-13 Table 7.9 Preliminary Costs Estimates – Recommended Project ............................ 7-14 Table 7.10 Significant Terms and Conditions Included in Existing Agreements

Between the City of Pleasanton and Water and Wastewater Agencies Related to Water Reuse ........................................................................... 7-18

Table 7.11 Planned Implementation Schedule for Recommended Project ................ 7-26 Table 8.1 Funding Summary ...................................................................................... 8-5 Table 8.2 Funding Source Summary .......................................................................... 8-9 Table 8.3 Funding Source Summary ........................................................................ 8-12 Table 8.4 Operations and Maintenance Cost Summary ........................................... 8-13 Table 8.5 Recommended Project Annual Cost Summary and Allocation ................. 8-14 Table 8.6 Summary of Unit Costs ............................................................................. 8-15 Table 8.7 Price of Recycled Water for Repayment of Capital Costs ........................ 8-16 Table 8.8 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................... 8-18

July 2013 v pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/CovTOC (F)

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 City of Pleasanton Study Area .................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1.2 Location of Zone 7 Water Retailers ............................................................ 1-3 Figure 1.3 Topography and Hydrology ........................................................................ 1-7 Figure 1.4 General Plan Land Use Map .................................................................... 1-14 Figure 3.1 Wastewater/Recycled Water Producers ..................................................... 3-2 Figure 3.2 DSRSD Tertiary Treatment Process Schematic ......................................... 3-6 Figure 3.3 LWRP Tertiary Treatment Process Schematic ........................................... 3-9 Figure 5.1 Initially Identified Potential Customers ........................................................ 5-2 Figure 5.2 Selected Hacienda Meters and Parcels...................................................... 5-4 Figure 5.3 Screened Potential Recycled Water Customers ......................................... 5-5 Figure 6.1 Location of Supply Alternatives .................................................................. 6-6 Figure 6.2 Preliminary Site Plan for Treatment Alternative 2A .................................... 6-8 Figure 6.3 Preliminary Site Plan for Treatment Alternative 2B .................................... 6-9 Figure 6.4 Preliminary Site Plan for Treatment Alternative 2C .................................. 6-10 Figure 6.5 Preliminary Site Plan for Treatment Alternative 3A .................................. 6-11 Figure 6.6 Preliminary Site Plan for Treatment Alternative 3B .................................. 6-12 Figure 6.7 Fully Expanded Project Potential Customers and Pipeline Alignment ...... 6-14 Figure 7.1 Recommended Project ............................................................................... 7-2 Figure 7.2 Storage Sizing ............................................................................................ 7-7 Figure 7.3 Reservoir Supply Balance for City Only (2010 Conditions) ...................... 7-11 Figure 7.4 Approximated Cost by Phase ................................................................... 7-15 Figure 7.5 Potential Customers Overlying Main Basin .............................................. 7-24 Figure 7.6 Groundwater Subbasins within Service Area ........................................... 7-25

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/AbbrevList.docx

List of Abbreviations

AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating

af Acre Feet

ac Acre

AFY Acre Feet per Year

City City of Pleasanton

EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District

ENR Engineering News Record

DERWA DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority

DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District

ft Feet

ft/kft Feet per Thousand Feet

ft/sec Feet per Second

gpm Gallons per Minute

gpq Groundwater pumping quota

GW Groundwater

M million

Max Maximum

MG Million Gallons

mgd Million Gallons per Day

Min Minimum

Mod Moderate

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

psi Pounds per Square Inch

RW Recycled Water

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/AbbrevList.docx

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan

SMP Salt Management Plan

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

July 2013 1-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/Ch01 (Final)

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SPONSOR

The purpose of this Recycled Water Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) is to demonstrate the feasibility of constructing the City of Pleasanton (City) Recycled Water Project. The development of recycled water service within the City will lessen the demand for Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) potable water supplies and help the City meet the State of California’s Water Conservation Act of 2009, which requires a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by the year 2020. Furthermore, the addition of recycled water to the City’s water supply portfolio will increase its water system’s reliability since recycled water is a local supply within the City’s control and is drought-proof.

The project sponsor is the City of Pleasanton. Pleasanton is situated in Alameda County in the eastern portion of the Bay Area in Northern California. Figure 1.1 shows the location of the City of Pleasanton and the boundaries of its water service area. The City’s water service area encompasses an area of approximately 22 square miles, which includes the area within the City boundaries, Pleasanton Ridge, and unincorporated Alameda County just north of the town of Sunol. Ninety-nine percent of Pleasanton’s water connections and water demands fall within the City boundaries. The study area is defined by the water service area boundary shaded on Figure 1.1. More information about the City and the study area can be found in the following sections.

The City contracted with Carollo Engineers (Carollo) to provide engineering services on the Feasibility Study. The City is partnered with Zone 7 on this project. Zone 7 is the water wholesaler for the Tri-Valley Area, which includes the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin, and a portion of San Ramon; therefore, Zone 7 has an interest in the management of potable water demand in the region. Figure 1.2 shows the location of Zone 7’s water retailers in relation to Pleasanton. Furthermore, Zone 7 also manages the local groundwater basin (the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin), and therefore is interested in the potential impacts of expanded recycled water use for irrigation in the Tri-Valley Area.

1.1.1 Statement of Problem

Approximately eighty percent of Pleasanton’s potable water supply is provided by Zone 7 Water Agency, which imports eighty percent of its water supply from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) through the State Water Project (SWP). For example, in 2010, the City of Pleasanton consumed a total of 16,179 acre-feet (AF) of water: 12,672 AF supplied from Zone 7 and 3,507 AF from pumping City owned wells. The future reliability of the SWP supply is uncertain due to legal and environmental constraints in the Delta and potentially increased hydrologic variability due to climate change. While Zone 7 has a water supply contract with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to receive an amount up to

Figure 1.1STUDY AREA

RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDYCITY OF PLEASANTON

pton1112f3-8889.ai

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/Figure 1.1

LOCATION OF ZONE 7 WATER RETAILERS

FIGURE 1.2

CITY OF PLEASANTON RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY


80,619 AF per year (commonly referred to as ‘Table A’ amount) from the SWP, the actual amount of water allocated to Zone 7 every year varies based on current hydrologic conditions, water demands of other SWP contractors, SWP facilities capacity, and environmental/regulatory restrictions. According to DWR’s 2011 Delivery Reliability Report (2012), the long-term yield from the SWP is projected to be only 60 percent of Table A amounts.

Presently during short-term SWP supply disruptions, Zone 7 ramps up groundwater well supply and requests a voluntary water reduction equally among its water retailers. Pleasanton’s response after such a request is the suspension of irrigation of all City parks and the City golf course. During periods of heavy heat, damage has occurred to some fields as a result of the irrigation shut off. Given the unreliability of the City’s main water supply source, recycled water will help improve the reliability and sustainability of the City’s overall water supply by providing a local and drought-proof supply for the City for generations to come.

1.1.2 Report Outline and Crosswalk

The Feasibility Study received planning grant support from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Proposition 13 Water Recycling Grant Program and the US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Title XVI Water Reclamation and ReuseProgram. This report follows the SWRCB Water Recycling Program Funding Guidelines (Appendix A – Recommended Planning Outline for Water Recycling Projects)1

The following chapters discuss the City’s water supply characteristics and facilities (Chapter 2), wastewater characteristics and facilities (Chapter 3), treatment requirements for discharge and reuse (Chapter 4), potential recycled water market (Chapter 5), project alternative analysis (Chapter 6), recommended facilities project plan (Chapter 7), and construction financing plan and revenue program (Chapter 8). Numerous reports were used to provide a basis of background information. A summary of references reviewed is provided in Appendix B.

. It also complies with Reclamation’s Title XVI requirements. A Title XVI Feasibility Study Report Contents Crosswalk is shown in Table 1.1.

1.2 HYDROLOGIC FEATURES

The City of Pleasanton lies predominantly on flat land formed by alluvial deposits from prehistoric streams flowing through the Livermore, Amador, and San Ramon Valleys to the San Francisco Bay. The majority of Pleasanton occupies the Valley floor, which ranges in elevation from approximately 320 feet to 400 feet (ft.). Pleasanton is enclosed by hills on the west and southeast. The Pleasanton and Mai Ridges on the west rise sharply to elevations of 1,500 ft.

1http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/docs/final_wrfpguidelines071508.pdf


Table 1.1 Title XVI Feasibility Study Report Contents Crosswalk Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Reclamation Manual Outline

Abbreviated Directives and Standards Section Title

Corresponding Report Location

1 INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION

1a Non-Federal project sponsor Sec. 1.1

1b Study area description Sec. 1.1 & Fig 1.1

1c Site specific project area Sec. 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 & 3.2

2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND NEEDS

2a Problem and need Sec. 1.1.1

2b Current and projected water supplies Sec. 2.1 & 2.4

2c Current and projected water demands Sec. 2.2

2d Water quality concerns Sec. 2.3

2e Current and projected wastewater and disposal options, and new wastewater facilities Sec. 3.1 & 3.1.1

3 WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE OPPORTUNITIES

3a Uses for reclaimed water Sec. 5.1

3bi Potential users, peak use, conversion costs, letters of intent

Sec. 5.1, Fig. 5.1, App. E

3bii Consultation with potential recycled water customers Sec. 5.2

3biii Market assessment procedures Sec. 5.1

3c Discussion of considerations, community incentives Sec. 5.3

3d Water and wastewater agencies jurisdictions Sec. 2.1 Sec. 3.1 & 3.3

3e Sources of water to be reclaimed Sec. 3.4 in entirety

3f Source water facilities Sec. 3.4.1 & 3.4.2

3g Current water reuse taking place Sec. 3.2

3h Reuse technologies currently in use Sec. 3.4.1 & 3.4.2

4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

4a Non-federal funding condition Sec. 8.2.4 & 8.4

4b Objective of alternatives Sec. 6.1

4c(i) Other water supply alternatives: description Sec. 6.3 in entirety Sec. 6.4 in entirety

4c(ii) Other water supply alternatives: cost details Table 6.10 & App. G

4d(i) Proposed project: complete description Chapter 7

4d(ii) Proposed project: assumptions Sec. 6.2 & 6.5.1


Table 1.1 Title XVI Feasibility Study Report Contents Crosswalk Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Reclamation Manual Outline

Abbreviated Directives and Standards Section Title

Corresponding Report Location

4e Waste stream discharge Sec. 3.1 & 7.2.2

4f List of alternative measures or technologies Sec. 6.3 in entirety

5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

5a With and without project econ analysis Sec. 6.7 & 6.8

5b Comparison of alternatives Sec. 6.5.2

5c Benefits in term of alternative costs Sec. 6.5.2 & 6.7

5d Qualitative benefits Sec 6.7

6 SELECTION OF PROPOSED TITLE XVI PROJECT

6a(i-iv) Reduction, postponement, or elimination of new supplies, exist diversions, Fed supplies, ww facilities Sec. 7.1, 7.1.4, & 7.2

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS

7a Environmental discussion on each alternative Sec. 6.6 & 6.7

7a(i-v) & (vii) Environmental discussion of proposed project App. I

7a(vi) Public involvement with study Sec. 5.2

7b If recommended to congress, meet NEPA Sec. 7.3

8 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

8a Water rights analysis Sec 7.2 & 7.2.1.1

8b Legal and institutional requirements Sec. 7.2

8c Need for interagency agreements Sec. 7.2.1.2 & 7.2.1.3

8d Permitting Procedures Sec. 7.2.3

8e Unresolved issues Sec. 7.2.1.3

8f Current and Projected wastewater discharge requirements Sec. 7.2.2

8g Rights to wastewater discharges Sec. 7.2.1.2

9 FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF SPONSOR

9a Schedule Sec. 7.5 & Table 7.11

9b Willingness to pay Sec. 8.3

9c Funding Plan Sec. 8.3 & 8.4 in entirety

9d Sources of funding Sec. 8.2 in entirety

10 RESEARCH NEEDS Sec. 7.6

Figure 1.3TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY


pton1112f4-8889.ai


The City’s service area lies within the Alameda Creek Watershed, a drainage basin covering about 675 miles between Mount Hamilton and Mount Diablo. Major streams in the service area include the Arroyo del Valle, Arroyo Mocho, Alamo Canal, and Tassajara Creek, as shown on Figure 1.3. Both the Arroyo del Valle and Arroyo Mocho originate in the woodland forests of the Burnt Hills region in Santa Clara County, in the sub-watershed above Lake Del Valle. The Arroyo del Valle and Arroyo Mocho have the largest drainage areas within the area.

The Arroyo del Valle flows into Lake Del Valle above Lang Canyon, and then continues its journey below the Del Valle Dam and flows westerly through a regional park on the southern border of Livermore before it reaches Pleasanton. The Arroyo del Valle then flows southwesterly through the historic downtown region of Pleasanton and joins the Arroyo de la Laguna.

The Arroyo Mocho remains a natural waterway as it flows southwest through the oak woodlands east of Livermore, and then flows through the southern portion of Livermore; from there, it becomes an improved channel and proceeds through the gravel mining area west of Livermore and meets the Arroyo Las Positas northeast of Pleasanton. Tassajara Creek also meets the Arroyo Mocho in northern Pleasanton. The Arroyo Mocho is a major component of Zone 7’s groundwater recharge program. At the request of Zone 7, the DWR releases water into both Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo del Valle for groundwater recharge purposes; the water releases also provide secondary aesthetic and environmental benefits.

The Arroyo Las Positas mainly flows westerly along I-580, and is fed by the Arroyo Seco, Altamont Creek, Cayetano Creek, Collier Canyon Creek, and Cottonwood Creek. It joins the Arroyo Mocho northeast of Pleasanton, where the streambed becomes a wide, trapezoidal-shaped flood control channel. The Arroyo Mocho then flows into the Arroyo de la Laguna, which is a tributary of Alameda Creek.

Much of the City overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2-10), and, in particular, the main basin, which is the portion that contains high-yielding aquifers and groundwater of good quality for water supply purposes. Wells that supply the Tri-Valley Area are located in the main basin, including three wells owned and operated by the City. Collectively, the Castle, Bernal, Amador, and Mocho II sub-basins make up the main basin. Pleasanton’s wells tap into the Bernal and Amador sub-basins, providing approximately 20 percent of Pleasanton’s water supply. Some geologic structures restrict the lateral movement of groundwater, but the general groundwater gradient is from east to west.

1.3 BENEFICIAL USES AND WATER QUALITY

The City of Pleasanton purchases approximately 80 percent of its water from Zone 7. The remaining 20 percent is produced from three groundwater wells that are owned and operated by the City of Pleasanton. Chlorine, ammonia, and fluoride are added to groundwater at the well sites prior to entering the water distribution system. Zone 7 supplies


a blend of both treated surface water and groundwater to Pleasanton. Imported surface water constitutes over 80 percent of Zone 7’s water source. The portion of water supply that is ultimately collected as wastewater effluent is discussed in Chapter 3.

1.3.1 Surface Water

Surface water in the Tri-Valley Area includes local streams crossing Pleasanton’s service area as listed in Section 1.2, as well as the Arroyo de la Laguna, which conveys a mixture of outflow from Alamo Canal, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo del Valle, and groundwater from the Bernal sub-basin. Beneficial uses for the inland streams include municipal and domestic supply (MUN), agricultural supply (AGR), industrial process supply (PRO), groundwater recharge (GWR), and wildlife habitat (WILD). Other major surface water features are 1) mining discharges from several quarry ponds, which are periodically discharged into local streams and 2) releases of water from the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and Lake Del Valle2

TDS levels in the Arroyo del Valle and Arroyo Mocho are general below 400-500 mg/L

into the Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo del Valle for environmental and artificial recharge purposes. Zone 7 monitors surface water quality in the Tri-Valley Area, with particular interest in levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), as these have a direct impact on TDS and hardness levels in the main basin. As discussed in Section 1.3.2, TDS and hardness are of concern in the main basin. Other surface water quality parameters (e.g., pH, metals) are generally found within normal ranges.

3

3

, but can vary widely depending on the source of water at the time of measurement. Water quality in the Arroyo Las Positas includes elevated TDS levels that can exceed 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) , mainly due to groundwater contribution and runoff from marine sediments in the Altamont Hills in the northern portion of the area, as well as evaporation of shallow groundwater. Water quality in the Arroyo de la Laguna varies widely depending upon the source(s) of water at the time of the measurement. TDS levels in the quarry ponds vary from below 300 mg/L in the ponds along the Arroyo del Valle to over 1,000 mg/L in Cope Lake. Water released from the SBA and Lake Del Valle generally has TDS levels of 150 - 400 mg/L and 170-275 mg/L4

1.3.2 Groundwater

, respectively.

The Tri-Valley Area overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin; also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR 2-12 in Bulletin 118). The Livermore Valley Groundwater basin has been divided into two major parts: (1) the Main Basin and (2) the fringe basins. The Main Basin consists of approximately 17,000 acres of the highest-

2 The SBA conveys water imported from the State Water Project (SWP). Water in Lake Del Valle is a combination of imported SWP water and local runoff from the Del Valle watershed. 3 Zone 7 Water Agency, 2009. Surface Water Monitoring Annual Report: 2008 Water Year. 4 Department of Water Resources data: 1998-2011. http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/waterquality/station_county/index.cfm

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/waterquality/station_county/index.cfm�


yielding aquifers and good water quality, while the fringe basins have lower yields and water quality.

Recognized beneficial uses for the groundwater basin include MUN, PRO, IND, and AGR; however, elevated levels of nitrate, boron, and organic compounds exist in some localized areas. Furthermore, while the groundwater in the Main Basin continues to provide a safe drinking water supply, rising levels of salts (measured as TDS and hardness) have been observed in the Main Basin over the decades. The main sources of salt loading to the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin are landscape irrigation with potable water and recycled water, recharge operations using surface water from the SWP, and runoff from the local arroyos. Salts may also be naturally leached from the marine sediments in the northwestern area of the Valley.

1.3.2.1 Salt Management

Zone 7 developed a Salt Management Plan (SMP)5

Zone 7 is planning to install a second groundwater demineralization facility to remove additional salts from the Main Basin. The timing and size of this installation will be determined based on the performance of the Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Facility and additional analysis planned as part of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) update to be completed by Zone 7 by early 2014.

, which was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2004, to address increasing TDS and hardness levels. As part of this SMP, Zone 7 completed construction of a 6.1 million gallons per day (mgd) wellhead demineralization facility (Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Facility) in 2009. Employing a reverse osmosis membrane-based treatment system, this facility simultaneously allows for the removal and export of salts from the Main Basin, while delivering treated water with reduced TDS and hardness levels to customers.

1.4 CLIMATE

Pleasanton’s climate is characteristically Mediterranean with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Table 1.2 presents climate data in the area (as measured by California Irrigation Management Information System [CIMIS] weather Station 191 in Pleasanton from 2004 to 2010), including average values of temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration. The average annual precipitation is approximately 17 inches of water, while the total evapotranspiration is approximately 50 inches of water, and average monthly temperatures vary from 46 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit over the year.

5 Zone 7 Water Agency, 2004. Salt Management Plan (see http://www.zone7water.com/publications-

reports/water-reportsplanning-documents/158-salt-management-plan-2004).

http://www.zone7water.com/publications-reports/water-reportsplanning-documents/158-salt-management-plan-2004�

http://www.zone7water.com/publications-reports/water-reportsplanning-documents/158-salt-management-plan-2004�


Table 1.2 Climate Data for the City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Climate Parameter

Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

ETo, inches of water 1.4 (1)(2) 1.8 3.7 4.6 6.1 6.9 7.4 6.5 4.9 3.3 1.8 1.3 49.8

Average Temperature degrees F

46.4 (2)

50.3 53.0 55.1 61.0 65.9 70.1 68.6 66.1 59.4 52.6 46.7 --

Average Rainfall, inches of water

3.4 (2)

2.5 2.8 1.6 0.5 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.01 1.6 1.1 3.8 17.3

Notes(1) ETo = evapotranspiration based on standard grass as reference.

:

(2) Data for CIMIS Station 191 from October 2004 to September 2010, downloaded from www.cimis.water.ca.gov.

1.4.1 Climate Action Plan

The City of Pleasanton’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted by City Council in February of 2012. The plan serves to outline strategies, goals, and actions for reducing municipal and community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; taking into account the City’s 2005-2025 General Plan goal of becoming the “greenest” city in California. Another key goal of the plan is to help ensure the City meets the mandates of California’s Global Warming Solutions of 2006 (AB 32), which directs the state to reduce state-wide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. To reach these reductions, the California Air Resources Board recommends that local governments target their 2020 emissions at 15 percent below 2005 levels. Pleasanton’s 2005 GHG Emissions Inventory6 baseline is 770,844 metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MT CO2e). To meet its goal, the City must reduce its annual community-wide emissions to approximately 655,000 MT CO2e per year by the year 2020.7

6 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol from WRI/WBCSD (2008) forms the basis for most GHG accounting

protocols, available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/

7 Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1, published May 2010, available at: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/local-government-operations-protocol/

http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/�


Reducing emissions associated with the upstream water collection, conveyance, and treatment is an important component of the strategies outline in the CAP. Emissions associated with water and wastewater treatment represent 4.4 percent of the 2005 citywide baseline. Establishing the use of reclaimed and/or grey water systems in Pleasanton is projected to contribute to an annual GHG Reduction of 98 MT CO2e.8 The expected total annual GHG reduction with implementation of all of the approved water and wastewater strategies outlined in the City’s CAP is 371 MT CO2e

1.5 LAND USE AND POPULATION

.

Pleasanton is a community of about 70,000. By 2030, the total population is projected to grow to approximately 82,300 people9

The City land use is predominantly composed of open space, followed by residential areas, commercial office parks, and a small industrial sector. Much of the City is urbanized, with the exception of several vineyards at the eastern edge of the City and livestock grazing on Pleasanton Ridge and in the Southeastern Hills. The City is a family-oriented community that offers a variety of environments and lifestyles. Most neighborhoods have a diversity of uses, such as a local park, an elementary school, street trees, sidewalks, and bicycle paths. Currently Pleasanton is in the process of updating the Land Use Element within the City’s General Plan to allow for the rezoning of approximately 69 acres for high density residential area.

. Table 1.3 lists Pleasanton’s historical and projected population from 1980 to 2035.

Prior to 1980, Pleasanton was predominately a residential community with limited employment opportunities. Since 1980, the development of several major business parks, a regional shopping mall (Stoneridge Shopping Center), five major hotels, and a variety of retail, office, and service centers have brought significant employment within Pleasanton. Examples of major commercial employers in Pleasanton include Oracle, Safeway, Workday, Inc., and Macy’s. Land use from the City of Pleasanton’s General Plan is illustrated on Figure 1.4.

8 City of Pleasanton Climate Action Plan, February 2012. 9 City of Pleasanton 2010 Urban Water Management Plan


Table 1.3 Historical and Projected PopulationRecycled Water Feasibility Study

(1)

City of Pleasanton

Year Population

1980 35,160

1990 50,553

2000 63,654

2010 69,300

2015 72,200

2020 75,600

2025 78,800

2030 82,300

2035 85,600 (2)

Notes(1) Source: City of Pleasanton 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

:

(2) 2035 data was added onto source data. Projection came from the same data source as used to develop the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan population projections.

PleasantonRidge

RegionalPark

AugustinBernalPark

CastlewoodCountry Club

Happy Valley Rd

Hayward AreaRec. District

PleasantonRidge

RegionalPark

ES

ES

HS ES

MS

HS

ES

CIVICCENTER

ES

MS ES

ES

ES ES

BARTBART

Planning Area Boundary




Foothill Rd

Bernal Av.

Stoneridge Dr

W. Las Positas Dr

Stoneridge Dr

Busch Rd

Valley Av.

Stanley Blvd

Vineyard Av.

Vineyard Av.

Main

St

Berna

l Av

Suno

l Blvd

Fairgrounds

84

84

580

680

680

580

ResidentialRURAL DENSITY 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres

**Oak Grove max 51 units

LOW DENSITY Less than 2 dwelling units per gross acres*Austin Property 8 units max

LOW DENSITY

Happy Valley Specific Plan1 dwelling unit per 2 gross acres, with 1 unit per 1.5 gross acres when developedin conjunction with major open space landor agriculture/open-space easement dedication

MEDIUM DENSITY 2 to 8 dwelling units per gross acreHIGH DENSITY Greater than 8 dwelling units per gross acres

Industrial, Commercial & OfficesRETAIL /HIGHWAY /SERVICE COMMERCIALBUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICESGENERAL AND LIMITED INDUSTRIALLAKE-SAND AND GRAVEL HARVESTINBUSINESS PARK (Industrial/Commercial and Office)

Community FacilitiesELEMENTARY SCHOOLMIDDLE SCHOOLHIGH SCHOOLOTHER PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL

Mixed UseMIXED USE

Open SpacePARKS AND RECREATIONAGRICULTURE AND GRAZINGPUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYWILDLAND OVERLAYWATER MANAGEMENT & RECREATION

CirculationBART STATIONFREEWAYARTERIALLOCAL/COLLECTOR STREETSRAILROADTRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR

Special Planning AreasSPECIFIC PLAN AREAURBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

Pleasanton General PlanLand Use Map

2005-2025(Adopted July 21, 2009)

BART

General Plan AmendmentResolution No. 12-494 - Jan 4th, 2012


Chapter 2

WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES

2.1 WATER SOURCES AND NEEDS Since the late 1960s, Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has provided most of the City of Pleasanton’s (City or Pleasanton) potable water supply. This arrangement is expected to continue indefinitely into the future. Zone 7 and the City will be renewing their contract for a municipal and industrial water supply. In the interim, the City and Zone 7 follow an agreement that serves as the acting contract. This agreement ensures an equitable, reliable, and high-quality water service for Pleasanton customers.

The agreement states that the City shall purchase from Zone 7 all water required by the City for use within Pleasanton’s service area, with the key exceptions that 1) the City may extract up to 3,500 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater (referred to as the City’s Groundwater Pumping Quota or GPQ) from the Main Basin in any calendar year, and 2) the City may procure recycled water supplies. Unused GPQ of up to 700 AF can be carried over by the City from one year to another. Pleasanton may pump more than 3,500 AF in one year if the City pays Zone 7 a recharge fee for recharging the main basin for the excess amount.

Currently, the City purchases approximately 80 percent of its water from Zone 7, and the remaining portion is pumped by the City from the Main Basin in accordance with its GPQ. Pleasanton plans to start using recycled water in its service area in the next few years. The potential amounts of recycled water supply to be developed in Pleasanton over the coming years are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 and 6.

The City’s actual and projected water supply sources are summarized in Table 2.1. These amounts reflect the water supply needs of Pleasanton’s service area. Currently, Pleasanton does not have recycled water supply, but plans to start using it in its service area in the next few years. The recycled water projections presented below were developed prior to the inception of the City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Feasibility Study. The latest projections of recycled water demand derived from this study are located in Chapter 5.

2.1.1 As mentioned in Section 1.3.2, Pleasanton overlies portions of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which is not adjudicated, and DWR has not identified it as either in overdraft or expected to be in overdraft. The long-term natural sustainable yield

Natural Sustainable Yield from the Main Basin

1 for the Main Basin has been documented to be approximately 13,400 AFA.2

1 The Main Basin’s natural, sustainable, groundwater yield is defined as the amount of water than

can annually be pumped from the groundwater basin and replenished by average annual natural recharge.

.

2 Jones & Stokes, 2005. Groundwater Management Plan for the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin.


Table 2.1 City of Pleasanton’s Actual and Projected Water Supply Sources Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Source

Year

2010 (actual AF)

2015 (AF)

2020 (AF)

2025 (AF)

2030 (AF)

2035 (AF)

Zone 7 Water Agency 12,672 13,310 14,222 14,983 15,743 16,003

Main Basin-Groundwater 3,507 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

Recycled Water -- (1) 140 447 447 447 447

Total Water Supply 16,179 16,950 18,169 18,930 19,690 19,950

Notes

(1) Currently, Pleasanton does not have recycled water service. Pleasanton plans to start using recycled water in its service area in the next few years. This recycled water demand does not reflect the recommended alternative phasing of this study.

: Source: City of Pleasanton 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

The four Tri-Valley retailers, along with Zone 7 have agreed to limit the combined extraction to approximately 7,245 AFA. Zone 7 does not utilize the natural sustainable yield from the basin, but extracts groundwater that was previously artificially recharged from Zone 7’s surface water supplies. Table 2.2 compares the quantity of the natural sustainable yield normally extracted to the quantity extracted within the 2011 water year by all users.

2.2 WATER USE TRENDS AND DEMANDS As of 2010, Pleasanton was supplying potable water to 21,664 residential, commercial, landscape irrigation, and industrial customers within the City boundaries, Pleasanton Ridge, and in unincorporated Alameda County areas along Kilkare Canyon Road just north of the town of Sunol. Table 2.3 presents the City’s 2010 water demand by customer sector. As shown in this table, Pleasanton’s customers are primarily single-family residential connections, which represent 87 percent of total connections. However, based on water consumption, residential customers (single-family and multi-family) represent only 56 percent of demands. Irrigation or landscape customers, with only 5 percent of the connections, represent a significant portion of potable water consumption at over 25 percent; these are the customers being targeted for the future potable water replacement with recycled water beginning around 2015.


Table 2.2 Sustainable Yield and 2011 Water Year Extractions from Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Groundwater User Normal/Quota

(AF/Y) 2011 Water Year

(AF)

Municipal Pumping

City of Pleasanton 3,500 3,435 (1)

Cal Water Service 3,069 2,673

DSRSD 645 646

City of Livermore 31 0 (2)

Other Local Groundwater Users 1,186 (3) 1,058

Agricultural Pumping 400 93

Incidental Mining Area Evaporation 3,200 1,905

Groundwater Losses by Gravel Mining Activities 1,400 4,977

Total 13,400 14,787 (4)

NotesSource: Zone 7, Annual Report for the Groundwater Management Program 2011 WY.

:

(1) Pleasanton’s water supply agreement with Zone 7 provides for a carryover of 700 AF of unused pumping quota from one year to another.

(2) Not used. (3) Other local groundwater users include SFWD, Alameda County Fairgrounds, golf courses, and

domestic supply. (4) Excludes City of Livermore’s unused 31 afy quota.

Table 2.3 Pleasanton’s 2010 Water Demand by Customer Sector Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Customer Sector Number of

Connections Percent of Total

Connections

Water Consumed

(AF)

Percent of Total Water

Consumption

Residential: Single Family 18,766 87 8,326 52

Residential: Multi-Family 311 1.40 722 4

Residential: Lower Income 374 1.70 120 1

Commercial 1,163 5.40 1,759 11

Institutional/Governmental 58 0.03 50 0

Irrigation: Landscape 987 4.60 4,015 25

Industrial 5 0.02 57 0

System Flushing, Leaks, and Unaccounted for Water -- -- 1,082 7

Total 21,664 100 16,131 100

Note: Source: City of Pleasanton 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.


The projected water demands by customer sector for the City service area from 2015 to 2035 are summarized in Table 2.4. Compared to 2010 levels, water consumption in acre-feet (AF) is projected to increase by 2,610 AF, or 16 percent, by 2035. These demand projections incorporate assumed reductions in per capita water consumption required for Pleasanton to comply with the Water Conservation Act of 2009; as well as the introduction of recycled water in 2015. The recycled water projections noted here were estimated prior to this studies inception; current study projections are presented in Chapter 5.

Table 2.4 Pleasanton’s 2010 Water Demand Projections (2012-2035) Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Year

Customer Sector 2015 (AF)

2020 (AF)

2025 (AF)

2030 (AF)

2035 (AF)

Residential: Single Family 8,696 8,301 8,863 9,463 10,063

Residential: Multi-Family 846 893 969 1,077 1,185

Commercial 1,792 1,815 1,891 1,966 2,041

Institutional/Governmental 52 56 60 60 60

Irrigation: Landscape 4,068 3,964 3,985 4,005 4,025

Industrial 57 57 57 57 57

System Flushing, Leaks, and Unaccounted for Water 1,031 985 942 902 863

Subtotal – Potable Water 16,542 16,071 16,767 17,530 18,294 Recycled Water 140 (1) 447 447 447 447

Total 16,682 16,518 17,214 17,977 18,741 Notes

(1) Recycled Water demands do not reflect updated recycled water planning associated with this study.

: Source: City of Pleasanton 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

2.3 QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIES As described in Section 2.1, much of Pleasanton’s supply is derived from Zone 7 Water Agency, with the remaining 20 percent provided by Pleasanton’s groundwater pumping. Water supplied by Zone 7 is a blend of groundwater and treated surface water from the Delta or from Lake Del Valle. Water quality varies based on the location of the turnout3

3 Customers located closer to the City’s or Zone 7’s groundwater wells receive a higher proportion of

groundwater.

, and varies over time depending on the blend of groundwater and surface water, and the source of the surface water. Pleasanton’s water complies with all drinking water regulations.


Two water quality parameters of particular interest in the service area—primarily from an aesthetic point of view—are total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness; elevated levels of these two parameters are associated with groundwater. Values of these parameters for 2005 to 2010 are shown in Table 2.5. Note that 2007 to 2009 were drought years, resulting in decreased surface water availability and higher groundwater proportions, and therefore higher TDS and hardness levels.

Table 2.5 System-Wide Water Quality in Pleasanton’s Service Area Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Year

Annual Average Concentration in Potable Water Distribution System

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3

2005

)

346 188

2006 306 217

2007 361 204

2008 413 173

2009 435 246

2010 385 236

2.4 WATER FACILITIES As noted in Section 2.1, the City purchases approximately 80 percent of its water from Zone 7, while the remaining 20 percent is produced from three groundwater wells that are owned and operated by the City. Chlorine, ammonia, and fluoride are added to the water from the City’s wells prior to entering into the water distribution system. Water from Zone 7, which contains a chloramine disinfectant residual, enters the City’s water system at seven different turnout locations; this water is fluoridated by Pleasanton prior to distribution.

The City’s water distribution system currently consists of 306 miles of pipelines, approximately 21,700 water service connections, 14 pump stations, and 22 water storage reservoirs. One of the City’s existing storage reservoirs, Tassajara Reservoir, is being considered for conversion to recycled water storage as discussed in Chapter 6. There are 14 different pressure zones within the City’s service area.

Pleasanton has two existing pipeline interties with Dublin San Ramon Services District for rapid emergency response. There are plans for a third intertie with the City of Livermore that will be installed with the Staples Ranch development located in east Pleasanton near I-580 at El Charro Road. These interties are strictly for emergency conditions, such as a major pipeline break, supply contamination, or interruption of deliveries due to earthquake, flood, or other disaster.

The City currently has no plans for additional facility development.

July 2013 3-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/Ch03 (D)

Chapter 3

WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES

3.1 WASTEWATER ENTITIES AND FACILITIES The City of Pleasanton (City) sends effluent to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) regional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located in Pleasanton. DSRSD owns and operates the WWTP. In 1992, the Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services was entered into between the City and DSRSD, which outlines the requirements for the City’s and DSRSD’s wastewater treatment and disposal. The DSRSD regional plant is a full secondary treatment facility that operates under an NPDES permit that discharges to the San Francisco Bay via a shared export pipeline through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) referred to as Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA). The City owns and operates all of the sewer pipelines and pumping stations within Pleasanton that are required to deliver the City’s wastewater to the DSRSD treatment plant.

In 1990, DSRSD and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate the joint development of a recycled water program for the San Ramon and Livermore-Amador Valleys. In 1995, the entities entered into a JPA Agreement that formed DERWA - DSRSD/EMBUD Recycled Water Authority. Tertiary recycled water facilities, producing Title 22 disinfected tertiary unrestricted use water, were then constructed at the DSRSD treatment plant site under the DERWA Agreement. In 2003, DSRSD and DERWA executed an Agreement for the sale of recycled water by DERWA to DSRSD and EMBUD. The tertiary recycled water facilities located at the DSRSD WWTP are owned and operated by DSRSD. DSRSD and DERWA are both being considered for recycled water production for the City.

The use of recycled water is also being considered from the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) located adjacent to and east of the City. The LWRP also produces tertiary recycled water that meets California Title 22 requirements and serves over 30 irrigation/process customers in Livermore. Figure 3.1 shows the City boundary, the DSRSD WWTP, and LWRP locations.

A summary of the City’s actual and projected wastewater flows from 2009 to 2040 are shown in Table 3.1.

As shown in Table 3.1, the City is anticipating moderate growth, with projected wastewater flows anticipated to increase by less than 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd), from 5.80 mgd to 8.13 mgd, between 2011 and 2040.

O

0 3,000 6,000Feet

Legend

DSRSD WWTP

LWRP

City Limits

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 3.1 Wastewater Recycled Water Producers.mxd

Figure 3.1

WASTEWATER/RECYCLED

WATER LOCATIONS


CITY OF PLEASANTON

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

LWRP

Stanley Blvd

Foothill R

d

Stoneridge Dr

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

Jeep Trl

Mohr Ave

Vallecitos Rd

W Las Positas Blvd

el Charro R

d

Sunol Ridge Trl

1st St

Santa Rita Rd

Vineyard Dr

Busch Rd

Kilkare Rd

Owens D

r

Isabel Ave

Alden Ln

Black Ave

Bernal Ave

Vineyard Ave

Las Positas Blvd

Jeep

W Ruby Hill D

r

Sunol Blvd

Dublin Blvd

Minnie St

Collier Canyon Rd

el Caminito

Evia

Hansen D

r

Hearst Dr

Concannon Blvd

Kilkare

Castlewood Dr

Fairlands Dr

Touriga Dr

Murri eta Bl vd

Rocky Ridge

Portola Ave

Palomares Rd

Wagoner Dr

Dennis Dr

Laurel Creek Dr

Tehan Canyon

Junipero St

Piemonte Dr

Happy Val

ley Rd

Lilienthal Rd

Longview

Dr

Rutan Dr

Pietronave Ln

Vogel Ln Jerlin Pl

Little Valley Rd

Hagemann Dr

Olive D

r

Lupine C

t

Knob Hl

Via Espada

Orloff Dr

Clara Ln

Yolo W

ay

Robin Ct

Raboli St

1st St

Kilkare R

d

Dublin Blvd


Table 3.1 Historic and Projected Wastewater Flows Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Service Area

Average Dry Weather Wastewater Flow (mgd) 2009

– 2011 2012(1) 2013(2) 2014(2) 2015 (2) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040(3)

City Service Area

(3)

5.80 (4)

5.89 6.00 6.15 6.24 6.63 7.00 7.38 7.76 8.13

DSRSD 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.0 9.1 10.2 10.6 10.6 10.6

Notes

(1) Average historical flow for 2009, 2010, and 2011.

: Source: City staff provided City service area projections; DSRSD flows from DSRSD 2010 UWMP and communications with DSRSD staff.

(2) DSRSD flow projections for 2012 through 2014 linearly interpolated from flows for 2011 and predicted flow for 2015 and confirmed with DSRSD staff.

(3) DSRSD flows beyond 2030 assumed to remain constant due to build-out conditions. (4) It should be noted that historic flows and projections presented here include

approximately 0.30 mgd of wastewater flow from the City’s service area which is discharged into DSRSD’s trunk main.

3.1.1 Future Wastewater Facilities

An approximately 1,000-acre area in eastern Pleasanton, referred to as the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP) area, was until recently mined for sand and gravel as part of the Livermore-Amador Valley Quarry Lands. With the recent completion of mining in the EPSP portion of the Quarry Lands, this area has become the subject of planning interest for future reuse and conservation. A draft East Pleasanton Specific Plan document is currently under development to address these interests. Within the background discussion of this plan, the City has identified the need for additional improvements to the existing collection and pumping system, including a new sewer lift station to handle the increased flows from the eastern areas of Pleasanton. This planning document is currently too early in its development to reliably provide an estimate of cost for the future wastewater facilities additions and improvements.

3.2 EXISTING RECYCLED WATER USERS The City currently has no recycled water users.


3.3 RECYCLED WATER RIGHTS Pleasanton and DSRSD each own 8.5 mgd of secondary treatment capacity at the DSRSD WWTP. Pleasanton maintains the first right to use the secondary effluent produced from wastewater emanating from the City’s wastewater collection system for recycling. DSRSD maintains the first right to use secondary effluent produced from the DSRSD collection system for recycling. According to the 2003 DERWA Water Sales Agreement, all recycled water produced by DSRSD is delivered to DERWA for subsequent wheeling to the EBMUD and DSRSD water service areas. The DSRSD tertiary treatment capacity is 9.7 mgd and is divided between DSRSD and EBMUD as 3.3 mgd (3730 AFY) and 2.4 mgd (2690 AFY), respectively. The anticipated maximum day DSRSD tertiary capacity to serve the DERWA program is 16.5 mgd; 9.57 mgd allocated to DSRSD and 6.96 mgd allocated to EBMUD. Recycled water produced by DSRSD is delivered by DERWA to EBMUD and DSRSD on a first-come-first-serve basis.

In past Supplemental Agreements, Pleasanton has allowed DSRSD to use the City’s secondary effluent to produce recycled water for transmission by DERWA. The most recent Supplemental Agreement with this condition expired on December 31, 2011. The City may choose to extend this condition as needed periodically.

Livermore owns the rights to their tertiary effluent and would be able to enter into an Agreement with the City as needed.

3.4 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF RECYCLED WATER The City has four potential sources for recycled water, namely:

• DERWA (from DSRSD tertiary treatment plant);

• The Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP),

• Expansion of DSRSD tertiary treatment plant;

• City owned tertiary treatment satellite plant.

DSRSD or DERWA could provide recycled water to the City through existing or expanded DSRSD tertiary facilities at the DSRSD WWTP or the City could construct a new, City-owned tertiary satellite treatment facility. These sources could be used solely or combined if needed. The existing sources of DSRSD and LWRP have Title 22 tertiary treatment facilities and serve existing recycled water users (i.e., DSRSD treatment facilities serve DSRSD and EBMUD customers through DERWA). These sources are further described below.

3.4.1 DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA) Source

The DERWA system consists of a tertiary treatment facility (9.7 mgd), high lift system service pump station (16.6 mgd), 18.9 mile (16 inches to 36 inches) backbone transmission pipeline, 2 pump stations (5.8 mgd and 3.2 mgd), and 2 storage reservoirs (both 4.5 million


gallons [MG]) that provides recycled water to EBMUD and DSRSD for distribution to customers in northeast Alameda and southern Contra Costa Counties. DSRSD and EBMUD recycled water distribution lines that currently serve Dublin and San Ramon connect at various locations to the DERWA backbone system. EBMUD is looking to expand supply into Danville and Blackhawk in the future and DSRSD is planning expansion in Dublin and San Ramon. The tertiary treatment facilities meet Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water standards and are suitable for irrigation of food crops, landscape irrigation, commercial/process uses, and non-restricted recreational impoundments. The recycled water tertiary treatment facility and distribution system meets the requirements of General Water Reuse Order 96-011, issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.

DSRSD operates the DERWA transmission and storage system, and DSRSD owns the tertiary treatment plant and high lift system service pump station that are the supply portion of the DERWA system. DERWA owns the two reservoirs, and two pump stations as well as most of the backbone transmission pipeline. In the DSRSD service area, in addition to the 55 mile distribution system, DSRSD has an additional 2 reservoirs and 3 pump stations. Expansion by EBMUD to add pump stations and reservoirs to the EBMUD 13 mile distribution system in the EBMUD service area is expected as funding becomes available. EBMUD and DSRSD supplies recycled water, received from DERWA as the wholesaler, to 60 customers at 224 locations. All of the DSRSD reuse sites, except one, were new development sites and did not involve any retrofits. DSRSD is currently expanding the distribution system to serve seven retrofit customers. All EBMUD reuse sites are retrofit sites.

A facilities location map of the DERWA San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program is contained in Appendix C.

Figure 3.2 shows a process schematic of the DSRSD tertiary treatment plant. The tertiary process makes use of coagulation, flocculation, sand filters, and ultraviolet (SF-UV) light disinfection to treat secondary effluent at flows between 2.5 to 9.7 mgd, during periods of high demand. Microfiltration combined with ultraviolet light disinfection (MF-UV) is used during periods of low demand when daily demand falls below 2 mgd, mostly during the months of November to February. The MF-UV flow capacity is limited to 3 mgd. The systems cannot be used concurrently at their maximum capacities and still meet the CDPH redundant process requirements. Table 3.2 shows a summary of existing flows for the DSRSD secondary and tertiary facilities.

If Pleasanton chooses to use DERWA as the source for their recycled water, a service agreement would be needed to buy into and possibly expand the existing tertiary facilities. Currently DERWA is not using all of their tertiary capacity and could contract with Pleasanton for the unused portion up to the 9.7 mgd limit. Assuming the max day demand remains constant for DERWA, then the City could have about 3.7 mgd (9.7 – 5.98 = 3.7)

Figure 3.2DSRSD TERTIARY TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC


SF/UV TREATMENT

Secondary WWTP

UV Disinfection

Static Screen Rapid

Mix Flocculation Filtration

WWTP Chlorine Contact

Tank

MF Transfer Pump Station

MF Feed Pump

System

UV Disinfection

Reject to Plant Drain

Offspec Water to

HB4

Emergency Bypass to

HB4

Strainers

Microfiltration

Diurnal Storage

and Wetwell

MF/UV TREATMENT

pton1112f1-8889.ai


available in the near term without any added facilities. Above this 9.7 mgd limit, added facilities would need to be constructed.

3.4.2 Livermore Water Reclamation Plant Source

The Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) processes, on average, 7 mgd of wastewater and has a NPDES permitted capacity of 9.5 mgd. The City of Livermore’s recycled water distribution system consists of 14 miles of pipeline and 3.8 million gallons (MG) of storage and serves over 30 customers in the City of Livermore. The LWRP effluent meets Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water standards and is suitable for irrigation of food crops, landscape irrigation, commercial/process uses, and non-restricted recreational impoundments. Table 3.3 shows a summary of existing average and peak flows for the LWRP.

Table 3.2 DSRSD-DERWA Water Reclamation Facilities Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Description DERWA

mgd Notes DSRSD WWTP Secondary Treatment Permitted Capacity

17.0 DSRSD and Pleasanton each own 8.5 mgd

(2)

DSRSD WWTP Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)

11.2 From City of Pleasanton and DSRSD service areas

(1)(3)

- City of Pleasanton ADWF 5.5 (1) - DSRSD Service Area ADWF 5.7 (1)

DSRSD WWTP Average Annual Flow 11.2 (1)(3) DSRSD Tertiary Treatment Firm Capacity

- SF-UV System Firm Capacity 9.7 SF = sand filtration (2) - MF-UV System Firm Capacity 3 MF = membrane filtration (2)

Recycled Water Pump Station (RWPS) Firm Capacity DERWA Reservoirs and Distribution System Permitted Capacity

9.7

(2)

16.0Two pumps at 4.9 mgd each (1)

Average Annual Recycled Water Demand 2.24 (1)

Recycled Water Demand (Maximum Month) 5.98 (1)

Recycled Water Storage Capacity, MG 10.5 Two DERWA reservoirs and Two DSRSD reservoirs

(1)(4)

Notes: (1) DERWA Report of Operations (Jan - Dec 2011) (2) 2007 Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Planning Report (DSRSD, 2007) (3) Pleasanton owns approximately half of the secondary effluent flow from the DSRSD

facility. (4) DERWA storage capacity: 8.72 mgd, DSRSD storage capacity in supply area: 1.79 mgd


Table 3.3 Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Description

LWRP

mgd Notes

NPDES Secondary Treatment Capacity 9.5 (1)

ADWF 8.5 (1)

Average Annual Flow 7 (1)

Tertiary Filters Firm Capacity 10 At 5 gpm per ft(1)

UV Disinfection System Firm Capacity

2 (1)

6 (1)

RWPS Firm Capacity 5.2 Expandable to 6 mgd(1)

Average Annual Recycled Water Demand

(1)

1.4 (2)

Recycled Water Demand (Maximum Month) 2.5 (1)

Zone 1 build out Demand (Maximum Month) 1 Total Maximum month demand: 3.5 mgd

(1)

Recycled Water Storage Capacity, MG 3.8 Total for two reservoirs (1) Notes(1) Livermore Recycled Water Master Plan, Phase 1 (Carollo Engineers, 2011)

:

(2) City of Livermore Preferred Recycled Water Options Summary (Carollo Engineers, 2011)

The LWRP uses the activated sludge process for secondary treatment. After secondary treatment, a portion of the flow is directed towards the tertiary treatment process while the remaining flow continues to the secondary effluent chlorine contact tank before being discharged from the plant via the LAVWMA Export System. The LWRP tertiary treatment process schematic is shown in Figure 3.3. The secondary effluent is pumped to two flocculation tanks where polymer is added before entering the granular filters. Filtered water is then conveyed through the UV channels for tertiary disinfection.

If the LWRP operates at the maximum current RWPS treatment capacity of 5.2 mgd, and the maximum monthly recycled water demand of 3.5 mgd (including projected demand for zone 1 build out) is met; the volume of recycled water that could be available for reuse by the City of Pleasanton is approximately 1.7 mgd for the max month. An Agreement would be needed between the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton for the use of the LWRP’s recycled water.

pton1112f2-8889.ai

FromTertiary

DiversionBox

(See Figure 1.5) FilterBypass

Manhole

FilterSupplyPumps

FilterBackwash

Pumps

FlowMeter

FlowMeter

Mono MediaFilters

UltravioletDisinfection

Flow-ThroughBasin

EffluentBypass

Structure

RecycledWater

PumpingStation

RecycledWater

Pumps

FlocculationBasins

Figure 3.3LIVERMORE WRP TERTIARY TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC


M

M

FlowMeter

ToRecycledWaterDistributionSystem

ToRecycled

WaterReservoir

To3W

System

M

EffluentOverflow Structure

LAVWMA Chlorine Contact Tank

ToLAVWMA Export

Pump Station

Applied Water

Pumping StationWet Well

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Reference%20Material\Agencies\liv310f7-8145(fig1.7).pdf�


3.4.3 DSRSD Sources

3.4.3.1

This source option is similar to using DERWA as a recycled water source, except that contracting and agreements would be between DSRSD and Pleasanton. This option is possible since DSRSD owns and operates the tertiary recycled water treatment facilities used by DERWA and located at the DSRSD WWTP. The capacities of the existing facilities are defined above in Table 3.2.

Expansion of DSRSD Existing Reuse Facilities

3.4.3.2

Since the City maintains the first right of use for the effluent produced within Pleasanton, they could capture and extract their portion of the secondary effluent, currently estimated at 5.8 mgd in Table 3.1, and construct a tertiary treatment satellite facility in close proximity to the DSRSD WWTP. This option would require, at a minimum, a pump station and pipeline to the new site, filtration and disinfection facilities, associated chemical facilities, and a pump station to pump to an off-site storage tank. Additional needs would also be required to be met such as parking, bathrooms, laboratory for samples and analysis, electrical facilities, and staff offices. Trained staff would also be needed to collect the samples, monitor the plant and water quality, and for general services such as operations and maintenance.

City of Pleasanton New Tertiary Treatment Satellite Facility


Chapter 4

TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE AND REUSE

4.1 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The primary regulation governing recycled water use is the California Water Code of Regulations, Title 22. The treatment requirement for this project would be tertiary treated recycled water, unrestricted use. The City of Pleasanton (City) is located in the San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also have regulatory authority along with the Department of Public Health (DPH) over projects using recycled water. The roles of the SWRCB, RWQCB, and DPH are further discussed in the following paragraph.

The SWRCB establishes general policies governing the permitting of recycled water projects consistent with its role of protecting water quality and sustaining water supplies. The SWRCB also exercises general oversight over recycled water projects, including review of RWQCB permitting practices. The DPH is charged with protection of public health and drinking water supplies and with the development of uniform water recycling criteria appropriate to particular uses of water. The RWQCB is charged with protection of surface and groundwater resources and with the issuance of permits that implement DPH recommendations.

Both of the currently existing sources of recycled water supply, the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) and Dublin San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utility District (DSRSD/EBMUD) Recycled Water Authority (DERWA-WRF), Water Recycling Facility meet Title 22 tertiary requirements. Both facilities have numerous existing customers of similar use, mainly irrigation, and some process and commercial uses. Tertiary treated recycled water is approved for irrigation of all turf, landscape, food crops and pastures for milk animals, commercial uses such as toilet/urinal flushing, process uses such as in cooling towers, supply for impoundments, and many more.

4.2 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS Pleasanton is part of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement defined as Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) between the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and DSRSD. LAVWMA is a joint powers agency and came into being in 1974. LAVWMA owns, operates and maintains an export pipeline and related facilities for wastewater effluent disposal. Effluent is conveyed through LAVWMA’s 16-mile export pipeline from LAVWMA’s export pump station located in Pleasanton to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro, where it is ultimately discharged through a deep-water outfall into lower San Francisco Bay. The export pipeline and associated facilities have a peak wet weather flow capacity of 41.2 million gallons per day (mgd). The allocation between agencies is:


• Livermore – 41.46 percent

• Pleasanton – 35.73 percent

• DSRSD – 22.71 percent

The DSRSD WWTP is discharging under Order No. R2-2006-0054 and NPDES Permit No. CA 0037613. In December 1993, DSRSD was issued a Master Water Recycling Permit by the San Francisco RWQCB. In January 2002, DSRSD submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) that was approved to transfer the Master Permit to the Water Board’s General Water Reuse Order No. 96-011. On September 24, 2004 the Executive Officer approved the Zone 7’s Salt Management Plan dated May 2004.

Effluent limitations for conventional pollutants are shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Effluent Limitations for Conventional Pollutants

Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Parameter Units Average Monthly

Average Weekly

Max Daily

Instantaneous Minimum

Instantaneous Maximum

CBOD mg/L 5 25 40 -- -- --

TSS mg/L 30 45 -- -- --

Oil and Grease mg/L 10 -- 20 -- --

pH Standard unit -- -- -- 6.0 9.0

Total Chlorine Residual

mg/L -- -- -- -- 0.0

NotesCBOD

: 5 =Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen demand 5-day @ 20o

TSS = Total Suspended Solids C

4.3 WATER QUALITY-RELATED REQUIREMENTS Water quality related requirements of the RWQCB to protect surface or groundwater from problems resulting from recycled water use are discussed herein. Potential groundwater quality impacts are a consideration for this project since the City of Pleasanton overlays the main drinking water basin.

4.4 SALT/NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANS As manager of the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin, Zone 7 developed a Salt Management Plan (SMP) in 2004 to address the increasing concentrations of salt in the


groundwater basin, and to protect the long-term water quality of the Main Basin into the future. The adoption and implementation of an approved SMP was required under Provision D.1.c.ii of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “Master Water Recycling Permit,” Order No. 93-159. Zone 7’s Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plant, which was completed in 2009, was one of the salt management strategies that were selected in the SMP.

In 2005, Zone 7 prepared and adopted a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP). It consisted mostly of a compilation of all of Zone 7’s then-current groundwater management policies, programs, and practices but also provided basin management objectives and included stakeholders and the public during its adoption process. The SMP was incorporated into the GWMP since it dealt with managing the sustainability of the groundwater basin’s water quality.

In 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a new Recycled Water Policy (SWRCB Res No. 2009-0011). It mandated that a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) be prepared for basins where recycled water was to be used, and required it include plans for Constituents of Emerging Concern (CEC) monitoring. The plans are to be completed by May 2014, and include collaboration from local water, wastewater, and contributing stakeholders. Zone 7’s current SMP does not address either nutrient management or the CEC monitoring requirements.

Starting in 2011, Zone 7 began working on the update of its SMP to incorporate the recent regulatory requirements. The key goals and objectives of the update effort include: 1) verifying strategies for reducing salt loading in the Main Basin, 2) addressing nutrient and CEC monitoring requirements, 3) assessing the potential salinity impacts of the water supply “portfolios” outlined in Zone 7’s 2011 Water Supply Evaluation, including increased recycled water use in the region, and 4) updating future salt and nutrient management plans.

The City’s recycled water permit will ultimately incorporate findings from the updated Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, which is expected to be completed in 2014.

4.5 GENERAL USE GUIDELINES

4.5.1 Title 22 Use Area Requirements

Title 22 has two main requirements that will affect the City and will need to be considered during the design phase of the project. There are a number of drinking water wells that exist throughout the study area owned by the City and also by Zone 7 Water Agency. Per Title 22, no irrigation with disinfected tertiary recycled water shall take place within 50 feet of any domestic water supply well unless the well meets certain criteria such as:

• An annular seal.

• Well housing to prevent recycled water spray from contacting the wellhead.


• The City approves of the elimination of the buffer zone, etc.

Also per Title 22, no impoundment of disinfected tertiary recycled water shall occur within 100 feet of any domestic water supply well. This will need to be considered during design.

4.5.2 General Irrigation Use Guidelines

The successful long-term use of irrigation water depends more on rainfall, leaching, soil drainage, irrigation water management, salt tolerance of plants, and soil management practices than upon water quality itself.

Since salinity problems may eventually develop from the use of any water, the following guidelines are given, should they be needed, to assist water users to better manage salinity in either agricultural or community-based irrigation:

• Irrigate more frequently to maintain an adequate soil water supply.

• Select plants that are tolerant of an existing or potential salinity level.

• Routinely use extra water to satisfy the leaching requirements.

• If possible, direct the spray pattern of sprinklers away from foliage. To reduce foliar absorption, try not to water during periods of high temperature and low humidity or during windy periods. Change time of irrigation to early morning, late afternoon, or night.

• Maintain good downward water percolation by using deep tillage or artificial drainage to prevent the development of a perched water table.

• Salinity may be easier to control under sprinkler and drip irrigation than under surface irrigation. However, sprinkler and drip irrigation may not be adapted to all qualities of water and all conditions of soil, climate, or plants.

General management/use guidelines were developed for landscape and crop irrigation based on the average constituent quantity. These constituents and management/use guidelines, in addition to recycled water data from DERWA-WRF and LWRP, are summarized in Table 4.2. When comparing the information in Table 4.2, it can be seen that the DERWA-WRF and the LWRP effluent have comparable quality. Most parameters in Table 4.2 show that recycled water from DERWA-WRF and LWRP will have a slight to moderate degree of restriction on use. However, the Combined Nitrogen parameter from the LWRP effluent exceeded the threshold that would permit the recycled water to have a slight to moderate degree of restriction on use, and fell within the range of severe degree of restriction on use. A higher nitrogen level is acceptable and preferred for turf and landscape irrigation as this allows the customer to reduce their fertilizer application. However, high nitrogen is not preferred for several crops, such as grapes, as the nitrogen tends to grow more leaves than fruit.


Table 4.2 Comparison of Water Quality Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Parameter Units

Established Criteria DERWA-

WRF Effluent

LWRP Effluent (6)

Degree of Use Restriction(3) None

(1,2) Slight Severe

Salinity Electrical Conductance ds/m <0.7 0.7-3.0 >3.0 1.3 1.3 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L <450 450-2000 >2000 658 577

Permeability aSAR = 0 - 3 and EC >0.7 0.7-0.2 <0.2 --- ---

= 3 - 6 and EC

>1.2 1.2-0.3 <0.3 aSAR=4.3 aSAR = 4.6

EC = 1.3 EC = 1.3

= 6 - 12 and EC >1.9 1.9-.5 <0.5 --- ---

= 12 - 20 and EC >2.9 2.9-1.9 <1.9 --- ---

= 20 - 40 and EC >5.0 5.0-2.9 <2.9 --- --- Sodium

Root Absorption SAR <3 3-9 >9 3.8 6.0 Foliar Absorption mg/L <70 >70 139 130

Chloride Root Absorption mg/L <140 140-355 >365 158 168 Foliar Absorption mg/L <100 >100 158 168

Boron mg/L <0.7 0.7-3.0 >3.0 0.5 1 pH – 6.5-8.4 (normal range) 7.4 7.7 Ammonia (NH4 mg/L ) (see combined N values below) 31.8 34 Nitrate (as NO3 mg/L ) (see combined N values below) N/A N/A Nitrate (as N) mg/L (see combined N values below) 1.2 0.4 Combined Nitrogen (N) mg/L (4) <5 5-30 >30 27 37 Bicarbonate (HCO3) mg/L (5) <90 90-500 >500 293 270 Notes(1) Adapted from University of California Committee of Consultants (1974) and Water Quality for

Agriculture (Ayers and Westcot 1984).

:

(2) Definition of the "Degree of Use Restriction" terms: None = Reclaimed water can be used similar to the best available irrigation water. Slight = Some additional management will be required above that with the best available irrigation

water in terms of leaching salts from the root zone and/or choice of plants. Severe = Typically cannot be used due to limitations imposed by the specific parameters.

(3) The LWRP effluent data is the average effluent quality from 2006 through 2008. (4) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. (5) Presence of bicarbonate can result in unsightly foliar deposits. (6) San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program Report. 2010 Recycled Water Quality Annual Report.


Chapter 5

RECYCLED WATER MARKET

5.1 RECYCLED WATER MARKET ASSESSMENT

Categories of recycled water use are limited in the City of Pleasanton (City ). For example, since Pleasanton is mainly a residential area, there are very limited locations for environmental restoration or fish/wildlife enhancements or agricultural irrigation. There are also no power plants or industrial areas to serve. The use of recycled water for groundwater recharge is not anticipated at this time beyond incidental recharge associated with irrigation project uses. Any change in that approach in the future would be under the jurisdiction of both the Regional Board and the water wholesaler and groundwater basin manager, Zone 7, who would have to first evaluate its benefits and impacts as part of a Salt/Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) update since that is a condition of the regional recycled water permitting process. Therefore, the main uses targeted for recycled water include urban irrigation sites and some cooling tower use. Dual plumbing within buildings could be considered as a future potential use if it is located nearby to a recycled water pipeline.

The recycled water market assessment was approached from two different directions for this project. First, Carollo identified over 70 potential irrigation customers based on aerial and GIS maps. These sites were then mapped and reviewed with the City. The sites consist of parks, schoolyards, golf courses, and multi-purpose facilities (e.g., County fairgrounds, medical center, and shopping centers). Their corresponding acreages were noted and tabulated to approximately 3,500 acres total; assuming about 2,500 acres are irrigable.

Following this effort, the City developed a database of potential use sites by reviewing customer irrigation billing records. The City consolidated the irrigation meters into about 120 groups of customers/areas and these were cross-referenced with the sites Carollo identified. The Hacienda Business Park was grouped into one large customer site, when in reality it is a large number of individual sites. All potential customers, including those later screened out, are listed in Table D.1 of Appendix D, with locations shown on Figure 5.1.

With the exception of Staples Ranch, all of the sites identified are currently served by City irrigation meters that could offset the current use of potable water. Since the meters are dedicated irrigation meters, it is assumed that on-site conversion/retrofit costs would be minimal. The existing irrigation meter can be reused, just disconnected from the potable water, and reconnected to the recycled water system. Retrofit costs would mainly consist of signage, labeling the valves and valve boxes, changing hose bibs to quick coupling disconnects, training, and meeting future monitoring requirements. A few of the park irrigation sites contain drinking fountains, which are separate from the irrigation system, but are within the irrigation areas. These sites would have a bit more extensive retrofits to revise the drinking fountains to California Department of Public Health (CDPH) approved

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 5.1 Initially Identified Potential Customers.mxd

Figure 5.1

INITIALLY IDENTIFIEDPOTENTIAL CUSTOMERS


CITY OF PLEASANTON

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

kjTassajaraReservoir8 MG

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

OSC

Amador

Danbury

Sycamore

Rosepark

Ironwood

Downtown

Case Ave

Via Siena

Kottinger

Fairlands

Del Prado

Deer Oaks

Sunol Blvd

Ruby Hills

Adobe Park

Sports Park

Orloff Park

Moller Park

Las Positas

Laguna Oaks

Hansen Park

Amaral Park

Amador Park

Walnut Hills

Walnut Grove

Oakhill Park

Nielson Park

Moller Ranch

Meadows Park

Laurel Creek

Laguna Vista

Laguna Creek

Harvest Park

Golden Eagle

Country Fair

Civic CenterVintage Hills

Staples Ranch

Shadow Cliffs

Pimlico Plaza& Shopping

Muirwood Park

Mission Hills

Gatewood Apts

Dublin Canyon

Cemetery City &Private

Val Vista Park

Tennis Complex

Kottinger Park

Hopyard Center

Del Prado Park

Creekside Park

Woodthrush Park

Vineyard Avenue

Suttergate Park

Stoneridge Park

Stoneridge Mall

Meadowlark Park

Kottinger Ranch

Heritage Valley

Foothill Knolls

Fawn Hills Park

Commerce Circle

Upper Playfields

Stoneridge Place

Heatherlark Park

BernalBall Park

Stoneridge Square

Civic Square Apts

Bicentennial Park

Valley Trails Park

Hart MiddleSchool

StonedaleTownhomes

Koll Center Parkway

HarvestPark School

Valley Business Park

Gold CreekTownhomes

Foothill High School

Callippe Golf Course

Valley PlazaShopping

Stanley Business/

Commercial Park

Rose PavilionShopping

HaciendaBusiness Park

California Reflections

Amador Center Shopping

Pleasanton Middle School

Hearst Elementary School

DonlonElementarySchool

Alisal Elementary School

ValleyCare Medical Center

Amador Valley

High School

Santa RitaSquare Shopping

Santa Rita Industrial Park

LydiksenElementarySchool

Valley View Elementary School

Mohr Elementary School

AmberwoodTownhomes

Village High School

WalnutGrove School

Mission Hills Park

Walnut Grove Park

Aquatic Center

Fairlands Park

Harvest Square

27' '

16''

16''

1st St

State Hwy 84

Stanley Blvd

Dublin B

lvd

Stoneridge Dr

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

4th St

Mohr Ave

Hol mes St

Arroyo Rd

el Charro R

d

Fallon Rd

Gleason Dr

Vallecitos Rd

Portola Ave

Central Pkwy

Vineyard Dr

Foothill R

d

5th St

Doolan Rd

8th St

Owens Dr

Isabel Ave

Tassajar a Rd

Alden Ln

Hansen Rd

N P St

Bernal Ave

Vineyard Ave

Koll n St

Croak Rd

Kilkare Rd

12th St Hartman Rd

Pine S

t

San Ramon Rd

2nd St

East Ave

Las Positas Blvd

W Ruby Hill D

r

Village Pkwy

Sunol Blvd

Minnie St

el Caminito

S Livermore Ave

Las Positas

Rd

Marina Ave

Collier Canyon Rd

Muirwood Dr

Hartford Ave

Hansen D

r

Hearst Dr

E Vineyard Ave

Kottinger D

r

Kitty Hawk Rd

Rose A

ve

E Stanley Blvd

Olivina Ave

Murrieta Blvd

Murdel l Ln

Wetmore Rd

Sierra Ct

Santos Ranch Rd Division S

t

Grafton St

Sebi lle Rd

Bess Ave

Dennis Dr

Laurel Creek D

r

E Airway Blvd

Rosewood Dr

Junipero St

Rheem

Dr

Piemonte Dr

Happy Valley Rd

Wente St

Veterans Rd

Westbrid

ge Ln

N Mines Rd

Lilienthal Rd

Palom

ares Rd

Longview

Dr

Selby Ln

Chateau Way

Lido Dr

Yale Way

Superior Dr

Via Di Sa

lerno

Penn Dr

Regency D

r

Jerlin Pl

Ruby Rd

Camelia Dr

Marwick D

r

Brittany Dr

Montevino Dr

Monterey Dr

Florence Rd

Cll Alta

mira

Digital Dr

Roma St

S G St

Las Colinas Rd

Prince Dr

Cindy Clara Ln

Covey Way

Via Madrid

Cameron Ave

Sonic AveMorse Dr

Robin Ct

Harvest Cir

Lund Ranch Rd

Sparrow St

Canyon Way

Montrose Pl

Lennox Ln

Whitney Dr

Foothill Pl

Castle

down Rd

Dublin Blvd

Stoneridge Dr

24''

24''

24''

O

0 3,500 7,000Feet

Legend

kj Tank

WWTP

Customer Meters Feasible

After Initial Screening

!( Yes

!( Optional

!( No

Existing Pipelines Available for

Use in Recycled Water System

20" and Larger

16" - 18" Parcels

City Limits


fountains. The City is also planning to work with the sites by providing incentives to make the project as user friendly and cost effective as possible.

In the future, process/industrial sites, such as cooling towers, can be added on if they are identified and located along the recycled water pipeline routes.

Several sites were considered not feasible to serve for various reasons:

• Site was located at a higher elevation.

• Site was known to be cross connected and not easily separated from potable.

• Site was too small AND far from the pipeline location.

The only non-preexisting site evaluated, until recently, was the Staples Ranch development, recently built and currently connected to the City of Livermore’s recycled water distribution system. Demands for this potential customer were obtained from the City of Livermore Recycled Water Master Plan, which in turn based demands on the Staples Ranch Specific Plan.

Demands for the top ten customer groups were summarized and compared against the total demand of all of the sites and found to represent about 60 percent of the entire demand. The top 20 customers were then compared against the total demand and found to represent just over 70 percent of the total City’s irrigation demand. The top 20 customer groups were mapped and locations considered in order to optimize the pipeline routes selected. The route to serve the majority of the top 20 groups of customers was used as the basis for the logical service area. Other possible users located along the pipeline route were added in at this time. The draft pipeline routes, along with potential implementation phasing are shown on Figure 5.1.

The Hacienda Business Park represents the largest demand, and is relatively close to the DSRSD WWTP. The potential customers included in this business park were evaluated individually by City staff to determine the feasibility of connection. The resulting parcels included in the 2.98 mgd MDD for Hacienda Business Park are shown on Figure 5.2 along with an initial pipeline alignment for service of Hacienda Business Park.

Following these efforts, the customer list was further refined through detailed discussions with City staff. A total of 77 customer groups were identified with an annual average demand of 4,336 AFY, which equates to 3.7 mgd of average day demand. It should be noted that since the potential customer demands are based on billing records, unaccounted for water is not included in these demand estimates.

The screened potential reuse sites are shown on Figure 5.3 labeled by ID; corresponding names and demands are listed in Table D.2 of Appendix D.

O

0 750 1,500Feet

Legend

Hacienda Business Park

Irrigation Meters

! Included

! Excluded

! Phased Later

Existing Pipeline

Proposed Phase 1 Pipeline

Hacienda ParcelsServed RW (2.98 mgd)

Parcels

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 5.2 Hacienda Parcels.mxd

Figure 5.2

SELECTED HACIENDA

METERS AND PARCELS


CITY OF PLEASANTON

! !

!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !!

!

!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! !! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

DSRSDWWTP

%&n( I- 580

Stoneridge Dr

Owens Dr

Hopyard Rd

W Las Positas Blvd

Willow Rd

Santa Rita Rd

Mohr Ave

Chabot Dr

Johnson Dr

Parkside Dr

I- 580EInterstate 580 E

Gibraltar Dr

Rosewood Dr

Denker Dr

Gibraltar Dr N

Fairlands Dr

Rheem Dr

Churchill Dr

Gibraltar Dr S

Florian St

Dorman Rd

Eil ene Dr

Payne Rd

Tassajar a Rd

Belleza Dr

Alvord Way

Inglewood Dr

Sutter Gate Ave

Mason St

Tanager Dr

Scarlett Ct

Andrews Dr

Franklin Dr

Holland Dr

Woodthrush Rd

Diavila Ave

Arthur Dr

Suffolk Way

Rockingham Dr

Kamp Dr

Page Ct

Owens Ct

Springhouse Dr

Marilyn Ct

Raven Rd

Harvey Ct

Navajo Ct

Georgis Pl

Omega C

ir

Johnson Ct

Hopyard Rd

Gibraltar Dr

Santa Rita Rd

W Las Positas Blvd

Rosewood Dr

Legend

Screened PotentialRecycled WaterCustomers

WWTP

Parcels

City LimitsO

0 2,500 5,000Feet

Figure 5.3

SCREENED POTENTIAL RECYCLED

WATER CUSTOMERS


CITY OF PLEASANTON

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 5.3 Screened Potential Recycled Water Customers.mxd

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

94

I- 680

Stoneridge Dr

Foothill R

d

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

W Las P

ositas B

lvd

Mohr Ave

1st St

Santa Rita Rd

Owens Dr

Dublin B

lvd

Black Ave

Bernal Ave

Kilka

re Rd

Willow Rd

Sunol Blvd

Hacienda Dr

Kottinger Dr

Chabot Dr

Main St

Rose Ave

Johnson Dr

Vine St

Stanley Blvd

Kamp Dr

Parks

ide Dr

Martin Ave

Santos Ranch Rd

Vineyard Ave

Harvest Rd

Case Ave

Gibraltar D

r

Busch Rd

Denker D

r

Junipero St

Rheem

Dr

Happy Valley Rd

Longvie

w Dr

Hearst D

r

Churc

hill Dr

Golf R

d

Payne Rd

del Valle Pkwy

Blackbird Dr

Clubhouse Dr

Sycamore Rd

Mavis Dr

Regency D

r

Golden Eagle Way

Laguna Creek L

n

Valley Trails

Dr

Dorm

an Rd

Mason St

Campus Dr

Concord St

Flagst

one Dr

Singalong Way

Stoneridge Mall R

d

Greens Ln

Olive D

r

Norton Way

Oak L

n

Deer Oaks D

r

Sien

a St

Park Pl

Diavila

Ave

War G

lory P

l

Ashwood Dr

Addi son W

ay

Inspiration Te

r

Pleasanton Sunol R

d

Haci enda Dr

Rosewood Dr

Santa Rita Rd

Tassajara Rd

Fallon Rd

4092

87

80

91

60

29

109

42

29

49

77

85

76

102

38

100107

22

28

14

97

5358

104

99

6

35

83

39

13

5

3

7824

66

48

44

59

75

2

19

4

18

18

51

9

110

46

37

7

32

10

81

23

55

54

111

74

55

106

63

108

116

101

72

16

17

21

45114

51

115

30

114

117

15

90

966895

94


5.2 OUTREACH WITH POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS

5.2.1 Customer Letters of Interest

After identifying the main City irrigation demand areas, letters (sent electronically), were provided to the large potential customers informing them that the City is embarking on a recycled water study and would like their involvement. This introductory letter was sent first since most of the potential customer contacts are well known by the City’s Project Manager, who also serves as the City’s Water Conservation lead. Additionally, the letter provided the City’s Project Manager contact information, should the potential customers have questions. Email replies defining potential customer’s interest in recycled water are contained in Appendix E. The majority of potential users contacted are familiar with the use and safety of recycled water since it is commonly used by the cities bordering Pleasanton. To date, all of the parties contacted have expressed interest in using recycled water. The main concern noted at this time is cost.

5.2.2 Recycled Water Supplier Meetings

As mentioned in Chapter 3, meetings were also conducted with the wastewater suppliers, namely DSRSD, DERWA, and City of Livermore. The purpose of these meetings was to inform them of the City’s recycled water study/content/timeline and ask for their involvement, inform them that Zone 7 is a partner on the City’s study, and to gather and brainstorm any ideas or opportunities considering the entire Valley for recycled water. All of the meetings were well received by the agencies and their interest and potential partnering noted and discussed. All of the agencies realize the value and benefits of recycled water and keeping it in the Valley as a valuable water resource.

5.2.3 Stakeholder Informational Meeting

An informational meeting was held with interested potential customers on September 29, 2012. Over 50 possible customers were invited to attend the meeting, however only about a dozen actually attended to hear about the City’s planned recycled water program. A presentation was given by the City’s Director of Operations and then questions followed. The main questions asked were:

• Can the sites all irrigate at the same time or will there be timing/delivery restrictions?

• Does the backflow prevention need a new certification?

• What is the timing and how soon can they convert to recycled water?

• There is a water feature at our site – can it use recycled water?

• What is the added cost to the sites for retrofits?


The handout provided at the meeting to summarize the project is contained in Appendix E. The Director thanked the attendees, introduced his staff, and told the attendees to please call them with any added questions they may have.

5.3 CUSTOMER INCENTIVES Recycled water projects can be costly and burdensome to residents and customers, so in many instances incentives are used to help attract the customer to convert to the use of recycled water. Since most water and wastewater systems already exist, and were developed with federal clean water funds years ago, the cost for a new reuse system can be overwhelming when placed entirely on a community or worse yet, on one large customer. Below summarizes some common incentive concepts that are seen when recycled water projects are constructed, retrofit, and/or operated. Customer incentive program examples for the Irvine Ranch Water District and San Diego County Water Authority are contained in Appendix F. The following list also summarizes some of the incentives that can be put into place.

• Lower unit cost than the next best water supply alternatives. This can be seen when recycled water is compared to current and future Zone 7 or City water rates. The City could look at whether any of the other agencies are moving towards marginal rates, which could dramatically change the cost of water, making use of recycled water far more attractive for non-potable use.

• Loan programs to pay for customer retrofit costs. This could be built into the rate structure or be provided through another department that benefits from water offsets. Retrofit payback programs should also be considered and are usually proposed for many customers who need help in funding the on-site upgrades needed to accept recycled water. This is a common approach for schools and public facilities with extremely limited funds.

• Grants or other programs to help customers with retrofit costs. Some grants are available to communities when combined with other programs such as water conservation, energy savings/conversion to solar, low-income areas of a City, City greening programs, etc.

• Waiving connection fees. And perhaps for customers that eliminate irrigation meters or eliminate their water meters, there could perhaps be a return of part of their original connection fee (assuming they paid one and proof of payment exists).

• Recycled Water Use Ordinances. These are more along the line of a requirement, but can be used to promote and enforce more use.

The City intends to implement a mandatory Recycled Water Use Ordinance in the future instead of individual customer agreements. The intention of the use ordinance will be to define the user site requirements and those needing to connect to the recycled water system.


Chapter 6

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

6.1 WATER RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES Water recycling alternatives for this project consist of using the same customers and pipeline route based on the top 20 water irrigation use sites as discussed in Chapter 5, different sources of recycled water supply as discussed in Chapter 3, and varying pressure zones as needed. The main goal and commonality in all the alternatives considered is to maximize use of the existing 8 million gallon (MG) Tassajara Reservoir tank, and phasing in the routes and projects as time, money, and political will allow. The Tassajara Reservoir was built in 1993 and currently serves as part of the potable water distribution system. The City has determined that the Reservoir and a portion of its supply line can be easily removed from the potable system and converted to serve the recycled water system. Converting the existing reservoir and part of the supply pipeline allows the project to realize a larger savings.

Pipeline routes were briefly mentioned in Chapter 5 and are further discussed herein under distribution system alternatives. Six supply/treatment alternatives were considered and are also discussed below. The supply alternatives are represented by three site locations and the treatment alternatives by various combinations of treatment technologies. Once the routes, supply, and treatment alternatives were selected, City staff cross-checked the projected wastewater effluent available by year (as presented in Chapter 3), to define when actual site retrofit and implementation could occur. The timing helped set the preferred alternative and project phasing. The preferred pipeline route and preferred supply/treatment technologies were then combined to form the recommended project discussed in Chapter 7. The No Project alternative is also discussed below.

6.2 PLANNING AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS The capacity and elements of the City’s recycled water system were planned based on the projected flows and planning and design criteria defined in this chapter. The developed criteria address the recycled water system capacity, pipe roughness, and maximum velocity. The planning and design criteria used for the recycled water system are presented in Table 6.1. The planning and design criteria were then used to develop the distribution system alternatives as well as the treatment alternatives, both described below.

Several of the criteria listed in Table 6.1 represent conservative planning assumptions. During more detailed design, and as the commitment of potential customers becomes more certain, these planning and evaluation criteria may be further refined.


Table 6.1 Planning Criteria Summary Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Category Criteria Storage

Operational Storage (PHDmgd-MDDmgd ) x (8 hours) x (1 day/24 hours)

Pipelines

Velocity (1)

12-inch diameter and smaller 6 fps

16-inch diameter and larger 4 fps

Roughness Coefficient

New pipelines 130

Existing re-purposed pipelines 100

Service Pressure

Minimum Pressure During PHD 40 psi

Peaking Factors Seasonal Peaking Factor

Minimum Month Demand 0.18 x Average Day Demand

Maximum Day Demand 2.50 x Average Day Demand

Hourly Peaking Factor (Landscape Irrigation)

Peak Hour Demand 3.00 x Maximum Day Demand

Irrigation Hours 8-hours per day

Note(1) The pipeline velocity criteria was applied to proposed pipelines, and was not applied to

existing repurposed pipelines, for which predicted headloss (calculated in terms of service pressures) was used to size the system.

:

As noted in Table 6.1, velocity criteria were assumed for sizing of future pipelines, but this also focused on economizing the cost of the recycled water distribution system through the repurposing of existing unused or abandoned pipelines. Since the diameter of the existing pipelines is set, a velocity criteria was not applied to the existing pipelines. Rather, the delivery pressures were used as the basis for whether a pipeline could be repurposed.

Seasonal peaking was calculated from approximately 1,000 irrigation meters using billing data for calendar year 2008, and averaged 2.1 across the evaluated records, ranging from about 1.3 to 3.5 on an individual meter basis. However, billing data represents bi-monthly averages at best, and will not incorporate the maximum day demand peaking. Typically, seasonal peaking factors for recycled water systems are higher than those for


corresponding potable water systems, due to the prevalence of irrigation in the demand makeup of recycled water systems. For this study, it was decided to use a more conservative seasonal peaking factor of 2.5, similar to that used in the neighboring City of Livermore as a part of its Recycled Water Master Plan.

Since the City does not currently supply recycled water within its service area, actual diurnal information for recycled water meters was not available. The average daily usage pattern for landscape irrigation users is assumed to be continuous between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., corresponding to an hourly peaking factor of 3.0. It should be noted that if the majority of recycled water customers take their full daily demand within a shorter period, much lower pressures could be observed within the recycled water system. For example, if sprinklers are set by irrigation for most customers to be active between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., the hourly peaking factor would be 24.0 instead of 3.0. Sizing the distribution system for an hourly peaking factor of 24.0 would be prohibitively expensive. Some potential measures that can help mitigate the effect of short irrigation times include staggering irrigation times over the 8-hour period on a customer by customer basis, assigning customers different days of the week, or pricing incentives to reduce peak irrigation demand flows. The City may want to take this into account when coordinating with their City Parks Department and connecting new recycled water customers.

6.3 SUPPLY/TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Before the supply/treatment alternatives were discussed, a summary of filtration and disinfection technologies and associated considerations was presented to the City and Zone 7.

6.3.1 Filtration Technologies

Filtration technologies considered consisted of sand filters, cloth filters, and membrane filters. Table 6.2 summarizes the filtration technologies and considerations. For filtration, it was found that the cloth filters were not compatible with the DSRSD effluent water quality to readily meet Title 22 tertiary reuse requirements. The group selected sand filters and membrane filters for filtration technologies to be considered in the alternatives analysis.

As shown in Table 6.2, the primary advantages associated with membrane filtration is smaller footprint, while depth filters use, by comparison, less energy and require less operator attention.

6.3.2 Disinfection Technologies

The disinfection technologies considered consisted of ozone, ultraviolet (UV) light, pasteurization, and chlorination. Table 6.3 summarizes the disinfection technologies and considerations.


Table 6.2 Comparison of Filtration Technologies Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Filtration Technology

Media/Depth Filters(e.g., sand filters)

Surface Filters (e.g., cloth

filters)

Membrane Filtration

Submerged Pressurized

Compatible with Pleasanton’s Secondary Effluent Characteristics

Small Footprint Minimize Required Pumping Minimize Energy Use Minimal Amount of Operator Attention Required Table 6.3 Comparison of Disinfection Technologies


Disinfection Technology Ozone UV

Disinfection Pasteurization Chlorination

Achieve 5-Log or Greater Reduction of Poliovirus

Small Footprint Minimal Amount of Operator Attention Required

No Hazardous Waste Disposal No Air Emissions Permits Required

Produce Electricity and Excess Heat for In-Plant Use (Requires Heat Source)

Potential Chlorine Residual Cost Savings

Cost (1 = Lowest, 4 = Highest) 4 3 2 1


For disinfection, it was agreed that ozone was not needed for the type of reuse in Pleasanton (i.e., irrigation) and also that pasteurization would not work due to lack of a readily-available heat source. The group selected UV and chlorination for disinfection technologies to be considered in the alternatives analysis.

6.3.3 Alternatives Analysis

The alternatives presented herein consider various combinations of the filtration and disinfection technologies recommended above.

The alternatives consider three site locations to produce and supply tertiary recycled water, namely, 1) the DERWA tertiary system at DSRSD WWTP, 2) the vacant lot across from the DSRSD WWTP and south of Stoneridge Drive, near Val Vista Park, and 3) the commuter Park & Ride lot north of Stoneridge Drive and west of Johnson Drive. These three sites are shown on Figure 6.1. Table 6.4 summarizes the components of each alternative as far as site location, filtration and disinfection processes.

The City of Livermore WRP is also considered as a partial source as it can help support reuse on the east side of Pleasanton. The ‘unused’ recycled water capacity at the Livermore WRP would not have the capacity to supply all of the Pleasanton Phase 1 sites during the maximum month demands. The use of the Livermore WRP effluent in Pleasanton could help to make a more reliable, sustainable Valley-wide solution

Table 6.4 Supply/Treatment Alternatives Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Name Site Filtration Process Disinfection

Process

Alternative 1 DSRSD WWTP On-site Sand Filters UV

Alternative 2A Near Val Vista Park (south of Stoneridge Dr.)

Media Filters UV

Alternative 2B Near Val Vista Park (south of Stoneridge Dr.)

Membrane Filtration UV

Alternative 2C Near Val Vista Park (south of Stoneridge Dr.)

Membrane Filtration Hipox (Ozone)

Alternative 3A Example - Commuter Lot(1) Media Filters (west of Johnson Dr.)

UV

Alternative 3B Example - Commuter Lot(west of Johnson Dr.)

(1) Membrane Filtration UV

Note: (1) Park and Ride Lot is owned by DSRSD.

DSRSDWWTP

%&p(Supply Option 1 -

DSRSD

Supply Option 2 -.55 Acre Parcel

Supply Option 3 -.80 Acre Parcel

I- 680

Stoneridge Dr

Hopyard Rd

Denker D

r

Muirw

ood Dr

Chabot Dr

Stonedale Dr

Payne Rd

Johnson Dr

Interstate 680 S

Springdale A

ve

Dorm

an Rd

Alvord Way

Mayw

ood D

r

Inglewood

Dr

Mason St

Holland Dr

W La

s Positas B

lvd

Flagst

one DrF

orest H

ill Dr

Foothill R

d

Single

tree Way

Highland Oaks Dr

Arthur Dr

Franklin Dr

Drywood St

Hillsdale

Dr

Coronado Ln

Morse Dr

Robin Ct

Sandalwood Dr

Stonerid

ge M

all R

d

Garner Ct

Hillcre

st Way

Chapman W

ay

Crest C

t

Fairoaks D

r

Empire

Ct

Addison W

ay

Ruxton C

t

Virg

il Cir

Guyson Ct

Menlo

Ct

Hillview

Ct

Allbrook Cir

Jefferso

n Ct

Roseda

le Ct

Bradley Dr

Payne C

t

Downing Ct

Echo Ct

Riverdale Ct

Corday Ct

Chestnu

t Way

Wade Ct

Hillsdale Ct

Lynbrook Ct

Garland Ct

W Las Positas Blvd

Hopyard Rd

Stoneridge Dr

Interstate 680 S

Legend

Supply Options

Option 1: DSRSD

Option 2

Option 3

Parcels

O

Figure 6.1Supply Locations

Recycled Water Feasibility StudyCity of Pleasanton

0 500 1,000Feet


Site layouts for Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, and 3B are shown respectively in Figures 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6. The site/treatment alternatives are all shown on the site plans based on a maximum Phase 2 capacity of 5.5 mgd. It was found that up to 5.5 mgd of tertiary and associated facilities could fit on both the site near Val Vista Park and in the commuter lot. However, some of the alternatives would require a two-story building. The City also indicated that the site near Val Vista Park is considered as a ‘gateway to Pleasanton’ and therefore would need to not only be functional, but also have a welcoming/pleasing look to it. Table 6.5 lists potential facilities not included in the preliminary site layouts.

Table 6.5 Facilities Not Included in Separate Site Layouts Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

• Staff offices

• Staff bathrooms

• Laboratory or sample storage area

• General equipment / maintenance / storage

• Secondary effluent pump station

• Waste (filtration) conveyance, treatment, and disposal

• Ancillary electrical facilities

• Monitoring and sampling locations

• Vehicle parking

Note(1) Access roads are included; parking is assumed to be along access roads.

:

6.3.4 Decentralized Satellite Facility

In addition to the treatment alternatives analyzed above, a small-localized decentralized scalping facility was considered and briefly reviewed to serve the City’s single largest water user, the Callippe Golf Course (Callippe). This site is located the furthest from the regional wastewater sources and at one of the higher elevations in the City. The demand at Callippe has varied from 0.8 mgd in 2008 down to 0.6 mgd in 2011. There are currently two 4-inch water meters that supply the irrigation water to a 7.2 ac-ft (2.35 MG) storage pond on the golf course. The useable (i.e., operating) capacity of the pond is 3 ac-ft, or 1 MG. At current demands, the pond is capable of supplying up to two to three days of irrigation needs.

Option 2A: Conv. Floc/Filter + UV5.5 MGD

Figure 6.2PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 2A


pton1112f7-8889.ai

Note: Option 2A: Conv. Floc/Filter + UV5.5 MGD

Note: White rectangles are part of background map.

Option 2B: MF+ UV5.5 MGD

Figure 6.3PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 2B


pton1112f8-8889.ai

Note: Option 2B: MF + UV5.5 MGD


Option 2C: MF+ HIPOX5.5 MGD

Figure 6.4PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 2C


pton1112f9-8889.ai

Note: Option 2C: MF + HIPOX5.5 MGD


Figure 6.5PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 3A


pton1112f10-8889.ai

Note: Option 3A: Conv. Floc/Filter + UV5.5 MGD


Figure 6.6PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 3B


pton1112f11-8889.ai

Note: Option 3B: MF+ UV5.5 MGD



The City reviewed their Sewer System Master Plan and found that wastewater could be scalped from sewer basins 5D and 5E. Basin 5D encompasses areas generally bounded by: south of Bernal Avenue (between Sunol Boulevard and Amanda Place), east of Sunol Boulevard, and south of City limit. Basin 5E is a small service area just north of Basin 5D, serving a portion of the downtown area and a relatively small portion of the Vintage Hill area. Based on 2004 city-wide flow monitoring data, basins 5D and 5E produced an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 0.94 mgd, minimum dry weather flow of 0.43 mgd, and a maximum dry weather flow of 1.57 mgd. This flow could also possibly supply irrigation demands from other nearby sites such as the future Bernal Park, an industrial user, and a middle school. The distance from the pump station for basins 5D and 5E is about 3.75 miles from Callippe. However, the City has an existing pipeline that can be used to transport the recycled water all but 2 miles of the 3.75-mile distance. Land acquisition would not be needed, as the City owns the land where the satellite facility could go. Therefore, a decentralized facility would include a 1 mgd satellite treatment facility (primary, secondary, and tertiary with redundant tertiary capacity) and a two-mile pipeline.

Planning level costs for a 1 mgd decentralized treatment facility can range from about $15-$20/gallon depending on facility requirements for items such as building aesthetics, odor and noise control, site constraints, environmental considerations, public input, etc. The satellite plant would scalp the raw wastewater flow and return the solids back to the sewer system. Therefore, the 1-mgd satellite facility is estimated to have a direct cost of about $15,000,000, and with all contingencies (20 percent general contingency, 20 percent engineering, 5 percent legal, and 5 percent administration) total just under $24,000,000. The 2-mile pipeline is estimated at $2 million (assuming an 8-inch diameter pipeline sized for 6 fps under a flow of 0.94 mgd delivered constantly).

Therefore, a remote satellite plant was not considered further at this time since:

• The cost of a new remote satellite WWTP would be too great, and

• The timing due to siting and public acceptance would be farther into the future.

6.4 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The main goal of the distribution system is to connect the supply/treatment location to the Tassajara Reservoir and as many of the high demand water users along this route as is possible. As discussed in Chapter 5, preliminary pipeline routes were determined based on the top 20 customers with the highest irrigation water demands. The main route was determined to reach as many of the top water users as possible. Other sites along and near the route were then added into the alignment. The City Utilities Superintendent located the exact meter locations for each Hacienda Business Park site based on City GIS maps, which made selecting pipe routes even more precise. The main pipeline alignments for the customer groups are shown in Figure 6.7.

O

0 1,500 3,000Feet

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 6.7 Fully Expanded Project Potential Customers and Pipeline Alignment.mxd

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

TassajaraReservoir

Stoneridge Dr

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

W Las Positas Blvd

Mohr Ave

Santa Rita Rd

Owens Dr

Dublin Blvd

Black Ave

Willow Rd

Hacienda Dr

Chabot Dr

Main St

Rose Ave

Johnson Dr

Kamp Dr

Parkside Dr

Martin Ave

Santos Ranch Rd

Harvest Rd

Gibraltar Dr

Busch Rd

Denker Dr

Rheem

Dr

Churchill Dr

Payne Rd

del Valle Pkwy

Blackbird Dr

Valley Trails

Dr

Dorman Rd

Mason St

Campus Dr

Flagstone Dr

Stoneridge Mall Rd

Olive Dr

Siena St

Park Pl

Stoneridge Dr

Ashwood Dr

Addison Way

Dublin Blvd

Hacienda Dr

Rosewood Dr

Santa Rita Rd

Tassajara Rd

San Ramon Rd

Hopyard Rd

Valley Ave

Foothill Rd

Dublin Blvd

Dougherty R

d

Fallon Rd

102

40

30” pipeline replaces existing 24” pipeline in Phase 1B

87

40

100

6

83

5

3

42

48

49

4

9

37

2

32

85

110

23

107

74106

72

90

9668

95

94

92

38

104

91

35

61

34

61

88/89

8613

20

60

29

44

27

29

75

25

77

71

62

51

7

76

81

8

69

63

43

41

116

26

64

21

73

45114

12

51

119

115

30

98

70

47

12''

8''

6''

30''

16''

18''

4''

6''

16''

8''

12''

16''

4''

16''

8''

16''

4''

4''

12''

8''

4''

8''

4''

16''

4''

4''

4''

30''

8''

16''

4''

8''

16''

16''

16''

12'' 8''

16''

6''

4''

4''

12' '

8''8''

4''

12''

4''

8''

12''

12''

4''

12''

12''

4''

12''

4''

12''

4''

16''4''

6''

6''

8''

4''

12''

6''

16''

16''

16''

12''

8''

8''

4''

4''

16''

4''

4''

8''

8''

8'' 8''

4''

4''

12''

4''

4''

12''

16''

6''

8''

6''

16''

4''

8''

16''

16''

16''

6''

4''

16''

8''

12''

16''

4''

4''

4''

16''

4' '

12''

4''6''

4''

4''

12''

6''

12''

4' '

12''

4''

4''

8''

6''

4''8''

12''

6''

16''

4''

6''

4''

12' '

12''

12''

6''

16''

16''

4''

8''

8''

16''

8''

30''

4''

12' '

4''

4''

18''

27''

16'' 16''

16''

Figure 6.7

FULLY EXPANDED PROJECT POTENTIAL

CUSTOMERS AND PIPELINE ALIGNMENT


CITY OF PLEASANTON

Legend

DSRSD Facilities

WWTP

Recycled WaterPump Station

Recycled Water Pipelines

Existing

Phase 1A

Phase 1B

Phase 2

East Option

West Option

Potential Users

Served by Phase1A Alignment

Served by Phase1B Alignment

Served by Phase2 Alignment

East Option – StaplesRanch area

West Option –Stoneridge mall area

Potential Customers notConsidered Feasibleat this time

Parcels

Waterbody

I.D. Customer NameMax Day

(mgd)

40 Hacienda Business Park 2.01

42 Hart Middle School 0.08

87 Sports Park 0.54

100 Tennis Complex 0.09

102 Val Vista Park 0.15

107 Valley Trails Park 0.04

2.91


0.93

2 Alisal Elementary School 0.02

3 Amador 0.01

4 Amador Center Shopping 0.02

5 Amador Park 0.05

6 Amador Valley High School 0.12

9 Aquatic Center 0.10

23 Danbury 0.01

32 Fairlands Park 0.11

37 Gatewood Apts 0.06

48 Heritage Valley 0.00

49 Hopyard Center 0.01

72 Nielson Park 0.04

74 Orloff Park 0.05

83 Santa Rita Industrial Park 0.04

85 Santa Rita Square Shopping 0.02

106 Valley Plaza Shopping 0.02

110 Via Siena 0.03

0.71

7 Amaral Park 0.04

68 Mohr Elementary School < 0.01

90 Staples Ranch 0.31

94 Stoneridge Park 0.01

95 Stoneridge Place 0.07

96 Stoneridge Square 0.05

0.48

38 Gold Creek Townhomes 0.03

92 Stoneridge Mall 0.45

0.48

5.51

West Option

West Option Subtotal

Total

Phase 1B

Phase 1B Total

East Option Subtotal

Phase 1A

Phase 1A Total

Phase 2

Phase 2 Subtotal

East Option


Next, the conceptual system was modeled to determine if the elevation of the tank was sufficient to supply all of the sites and locations and if not, to determine the pressure zone limitation. The pressure zone limitation defines the extent of the system that can be realized without the addition of booster pump stations, and still supply enough system pressure to a site to ‘pop’ sprinkler heads. This limitation, along with the projected effluent flows and reuse demands, was used to define the extent of the feasible project and initial phasing.

A summary of the potential customer demands (i.e.: average annual demand and max month demands) is shown in Table 6.6. A complete potential customer list, including the eliminated sites, is included in Table D.2 of Appendix D. Table 6.6 Summary of Potential Customer Demands


Phase

Phase Average Annual

Demand (afy)

Phase Maximum

Day Demand (mgd)

Cumulative Maximum

Day Demand (mgd)

Cumulative Maximum

Day Supply(1)

Phase 1A – Hacienda Area

(mgd)

1,303 2.9 2.9 3.0

Phase 1B – Hacienda Area 417 0.9 3.8 4.0

Phase 2 – Remaining Feasible Customers

318 0.7 4.5 4.7

West Option – Stoneridge Mall Area

214 0.5 5.0 5.2

East Option – Staples Ranch Area

201 0.4 5.5 5.7

Total 2,453 5.5 5.5 5.7

Note(1) Includes additional 4-percent factor to account for water loss.

:

As shown in Figure 6.7, the feasible sites at this time are basically along the northern side of the City, extending from west to east city limits, and south along Santa Rita Road to just south of Valley Avenue. Sizing of the recycled water distribution system assumes constant delivery of recycled water at maximum day supplies to the recycled water distribution system, with supply from the recycled water pump station replenishing the Tassajara Reservoir during non-peak hours and supplying one-third of the total recycled water demand during irrigation hours. As noted in the planning and evaluation criteria, all customers were assumed to irrigate over a constant 8-hour period each day.

Preliminary phasing is listed in Table 6.6 and shown in Figure 6.7 and is divided into two phases and two potential options. The initial phase (Phase 1) was sized for a supply


capacity of 4 mgd based on unused tertiary capacity at the DSRSD WWTP. Phase 1 was further divided into Phase 1A and Phase 1B to reduce initial capital costs associated with the distribution system. Phase 1A establishes the backbone system, connecting existing pipelines repurposed from the potable water system in Stoneridge Drive, Santa Rita Road, and Tassajara Road while focusing on the largest anchor customers. Phase 1B will extend the backbone to connect several of the smaller customers on the north side of Hacienda Business Park and in the center to bring the total system capacity up to about 4 mgd. Phase 2 would be completed after the next WWTP expansions, and will extend the recycled water distribution system south along Santa Rita Road to connect larger demands in the center of the City’s service area.

In addition, two options were developed to include some potentially less feasible customers. The East Option extends the recycled water distribution system east to Staples Ranch, and could include a potential connection to the City of Livermore recycled water distribution system. Staples Ranch, with an estimated demand of 140 afy would be the anchor customer for this extension, and, if the extension were not implemented, could be fed from the City of Livermore’s recycled water distribution system. The sizing of this pipeline could be increased to use the supply from the City of Livermore as an alternate or primary supply, depending on decisions regarding the City’s long-range recycled water supply. In addition, an existing unused pipeline extends from DSRSD’s distribution system (from the DSRSD WWTP) to the north boundary of the Staples Ranch site, which could potentially be incorporated into the recycled water distribution system. Given the range of potential supply and distribution options associated with Staples Ranch, supply to these sites was established as an optional phase.

The West Option extends the recycled water distribution system west across Interstate 680 to Stoneridge Mall, and could potentially supply some townhouses in the vicinity of the mall. The anchor customer for this extension would be the mall, which, based on potable billing data has a significant demand of 200 afy for the irrigable area of the site. City staff extensively evaluated the customer billing data and no errors were found. It was noted that the City is planning to conduct a water conservation evaluation in the future for this customer, which may further refine the potential recycled water demand. If the irrigation demand associated with this customer is reduced, this option may not be cost-effective. This extension would require either trenchless construction or attaching the recycled water pipeline to the Stoneridge Drive overpass. Given the additional costs of this construction and the potential reduction in demand, it was decided to include this extension in an optional phase to avoid including this uncertainty in Phase 2. For conservative planning purposes, costs for jack and bore construction were included in the cost estimate for this option.

If both the East and West Option are implemented, pressures are predicted to fall slightly below the 40-psi low-pressure criteria. This analysis is based on assuming one third of the supply during peak hour demand conditions is provided by the recycled water pump station


and two-thirds of the supply is provided by the Tassajara Reservoir. Given this constraint, increasing the head of the pump station will not resolve the pressure deficiencies.

For this analysis, a low-pressure booster pumping station was placed at Tassajara Reservoir to boost pressures by approximately 20 psi under peak demand conditions. With this pump station in place, pressures at customer sites are predicted to range between 56 psi and 74 psi during irrigation hours under maximum day demand conditions.

A potential alternative would be to accommodate some diurnal storage at the WWTP, upstream of the recycled water pump station, with an associated increase in capacity of the recycled water pump station. In order to evaluate this sizing and feasibility, the hourly variation in tertiary supply and associated equalization capacity would need to be evaluated. This sizing would need to be done in cooperation with DERWA, as their use of the equalization basin capacity would need to be considered in order to avoid impacting their supplies.

Another alternative would be to work with customers on demand management to potentially move some customers (likely with restricted public access or on-site supervision capabilities) to daytime irrigation.

It is recommended that the City evaluate actual diurnal variation after implementation of Phase 1A to determine actual system peaking and use that information to determine the necessity of this infrastructure. Incorporating smart meters, with the capabilities of recording usage on an hourly (or finer) basis at the customer level, into the implementation of the recycled water system, may be a good way to provide this data to inform future design of phases of the recycled water distribution system.

6.5 COST OF OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES Planning level cost estimates were developed based on the information prepared as a part of this study. Assumptions regarding costs are discussed, followed by a presentation of the costs for each alternative.

6.5.1 Assumptions

Several assumptions were used in the development of cost estimates. Scope and anticipated range of accuracy are discussed, followed by a discussion of the markups and contingencies and a presentation of the unit costs used in this study.

6.5.1.1

The cost estimating criteria presented herein develop a consistent methodology for comparing alternatives. This methodology allows for different alternatives to be evaluated on the same cost basis.

Scope and Accuracy Range


Cost estimates presented in this master plan are based on the Engineering and News Record (ENR) San Francisco cost index of 10,370 published in March 2012. Future adjustments of cost estimates presented in this report can be estimated by increasing the estimated capital cost by the ratio of the future ENR to 10,370.

The cost estimates presented in this study have been prepared for feasibility study purposes and for guidance in project evaluation and implementation. The actual costs of a project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors such as preliminary alignment generation, detailed utility surveys, and environmental and local considerations.

The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines an order-of-magnitude estimate for master plan studies as an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data. It is normally expected that an estimate of this type would be accurate within +100 percent to -50 percent. This section presents the assumptions used in developing order of magnitude cost estimates for recommended facilities.

The AACE International defines five different class estimate categories as summarized in Table 6.7.

The costs developed in this study shall be considered Class 4 estimates, unless noted otherwise. A definition of the Class 4 estimate is described below.

Class 4. This estimate is prepared based on information where the preliminary engineering is 1 to 5 percent complete. Detailed strategic planning, business development, project screening, alternative scheme analysis, confirmation of economic and/or technical feasibility, and preliminary budget approval are needed to proceed with this class estimate. Examples of estimating methods used would include equipment and/or system process factors, scale-up factors, as well as parametric and modeling techniques. This estimate requires more time to develop. The typical expected accuracy range for this class estimate is -15 to -30 percent on the low side and +20 to +50 percent on the high side.

A Class 4 estimate may also be justified by the methods presented for this cost evaluation if suitable definitions of project components, individual consideration of special project components/conditions, and independent cost verifications are conducted. Commensurate reductions in project contingencies should also be considered for the Class 4 estimate.


Table 6.7 Cost Estimating Class Estimates Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Class Status of Design

Accuracy Range

Low Side High Side

5 N/A -20% to -50% +30% to +100%

4 1% to 5% -15% to -30% +20% to +50%

3 10% to 40% -10% to -20% +10% to +30%

2 30% to 70% -5% to -15% +5% to +20%

1 80% to 110% -3% to -10% +3% to +15%

5 Rough Order-of-Magnitude Planning Estimate

4 Detailed Planning Level Estimate

3 Project Budget Estimate

2 Detailed Project Control Estimate

1 Bid Check Estimate

Percentages are based on the construction cost value and not on an incremental subtotal after each percentage category

Note:

All classes of cost estimates described, and any resulting conclusions on project financial or economic feasibility or funding requirements, are prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation. The final costs of the project, and resulting feasibility, will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, actual site conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, continuity of personnel and engineering, and other variable factors. Therefore, the final project costs will vary from the estimate developed using the information in this master plan. Because of these factors, project feasibility, cost-benefit ratios, risks, and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing project budgets to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.

This evaluation is concerned with alternatives analysis and project screening, as well as technical feasibility. Therefore, Class 4 estimates have been developed. For the development of the project costs, a construction cost contingency, estimating contingency, and other markups will be applied consistent with Table 6.8. The markups are intended to account for costs of engineering, design, administration, and legal efforts associated with implementing the project. It should be noted that construction contingency, estimating contingency, and markups are applied incrementally; that is, the percentage for each component is applied to the previous subtotal.


Table 6.8 General Cost Estimating Assumptions Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Description Percent of

Construction CostConstruction Cost

(1) 100%

Construction Cost Contingency 20% (2) Subtotal: Construction Cost + Construction Contingency 120% Engineering and Design 20% Project Administration 5% Legal 5% Subtotal of Total Markups 30% Total Project Cost 156%

(1) Percentages are based on the construction cost value and an incremental subtotal after each category for contingencies and total markup cost. Total Project Cost = Construction Cost x (1 + (Construction Cost Contingency x Estimating Contingency)) x (1 + Total Markups).

Notes:

(2) A Construction Cost Contingency of 30 percent was used for Phase 2, East, and West Options, as these cost estimates were prepared to a lesser level of detail and would be completed further in the future.

6.5.1.2

The cost estimates are based on current perceptions of conditions at the project locations. These estimates reflect Carollo’s professional opinion of costs at this time and are subject to change as the project details are defined. Carollo has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor’s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding, or market conditions, practices, or bidding strategies. Carollo cannot, and does not, warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary for the costs presented as shown.

Markups and Contingency

6.5.1.3

The construction cost estimates presented in this report are based on the unit construction costs listed in

Unit Construction Costs

Table 6.9. Construction costs for recycled water system pipelines include pipe material, valves, appurtenances, excavation, installation, bedding material, backfill material, transport, and paving where applicable.


Table 6.9 Unit Construction Cost Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Category Unit Construction Cost Pipelines $/lineal ft

4-inch diameter 78 6-inch diameter 98 8-inch diameter 131 12-inch diameter 172 16-inch diameter 213 20-inch diameter 266 24-inch diameter 320 36-inch diameter 369

Special Pipeline Construction Markup (%) or $/lineal ft Jack and Bore $1,200 /lineal ft

6.5.1.4

There are several other components that may be needed to support the development of major recycled water supply facilities. Since most of these items are unique and project specific, they should be applied on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, no unit costs were included in

Excluded Costs

Table 6.9 for the following items:

• Easement acquisition. The cost of acquiring easements was not evaluated.

• Power transmission lines. The cost of these to support a major pumping or treatment facility is often on a shared cost basis with the power utility.

• Maintenance roads. If pipelines are installed in remote areas, maintenance roads are sometimes required to access the facilities.

• Overall program management. If the sheer magnitude of the capital cost program exceeds the capacity of the City staff to manage all of the work, then the services of a program management team may be required.

• Public information program. Depending on the relative public acceptability of a major recycled water facility or a group of facilities, there may be a need for a public information program, which could take many different shapes.

• Customer retrofits. Retrofit costs are associated with separating the customer’s existing potable water system from a new recycled water system. An example would be a park where restroom and drinking fountain water supply pipes would need to be isolated from an existing irrigation system. Additional costs include posting signage, which identifies where recycled water is being used. Customer retrofits are one-time costs and are dependent upon the complexity of existing irrigation systems at each individual site. This cost estimate excludes cost of customer retrofits.


• Foundation requirements. Foundation reinforcement or support requirements are very site specific with regard to necessary method and type, and a geotechnical study is typically needed to determine such requirements. These costs, therefore, have not been included in any of the unit cost curves.

• Other costs. These costs may be necessary on some projects and could include environmental mitigation and permitting costs; special legal, administrative, or financial assistance; easements or rights-of-way and land acquisition costs; and expediting costs, such as separate material procurement contracts. These other costs typically range from 5 to 15 percent of construction cost.

Land acquisition costs are not included in the unit costs as land acquisition is not anticipated to be required for this project.

It is assumed that the individual potential customers are responsible for their customer laterals and conversion of their irrigation systems from potable to recycled water.

6.5.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates by Alternative

Table 6.10 presents preliminary costs for the treatment/site alternatives. A life cycle cost comparison was developed in order to compare the alternatives on a long-term basis. The cost comparison considers capital and O&M costs for a project term of 30 years and a debt rate of 6 percent to determine the treatment unit cost in dollars per AF.

Table 6.10 Preliminary Costs for Treatment Alternatives Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Name Capacity

(mgd)

Annual Yield (afy)

Construction Cost ($M)

Project Cost ($M)

O&M (Annual

$M)

Treatment Unit Cost

($/af) (1)

Alternative 1 - Expand Tertiary Process at DSRSD

4.0 (2)

1,717 $1.5 $1.9 $0.6 $382

Alternative 2A - Media Filtration / UV 4.0 1,717 $7.0 $10.9 $0.7 $707

Alternative 2B - Membrane Filtration / UV 4.0 1,717 $7.5 $11.7 $0.7 $760

Alternative 2C - Membrane Filtration / HiPox (Two Story Layout)

5.5 2,505 $10.7 $16.7 $1.0 $743

Alternative 3A - Media Filtration / UV 5.5 2,505 $8.4 $15.3 $1.0 $703

Alternative 3B - Membrane Filtration / UV 5.5 2,505 $11.6 $18.1 $1.1 $789

Notes(1) Includes annual O&M and amortized capital cost, assuming debt rate of 6% and 30-year payback

period. This was later refined to 3 percent for the Recommended Alternative in Chapter 7.

:

(2) Cost assumed Pleasanton would “borrow” existing unused DSRSD capacity and would only install UV + filter equipment in existing basins. Would likely require additional existing facility buy-in cost.


The costs for Alternatives 1, 2A, and 2B are based on a preliminary Phase 1A and Phase 1B capacity of 4.0 mgd while the costs for Alternatives 2C, 3A, and 3B are based on a preliminary overall Phase 2 capacity of 5.5 mgd. Alternative 1 and 2A have the same treatment and planned capacity, but a clear advantage in the cost can be seen when siting with existing facilities versus building at a new site.

A breakdown of details regarding the cost estimates are provided in Appendix G. Table 6.11 presents costs for the distribution system, by phase, which would be common to all the site/treatment alternatives (some slight differences in costs for the alignment of the pipeline from the recycled water pump station to the distribution system are assumed negligible for this comparison).

Table 6.11 Preliminary Costs for Distribution System Pipeline Alternatives Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Name Capacity

(mgd)

Annual Yield (afy)

Pipeline Length

(mi)

Distribution System Project Cost(1) ($M)

Distribution System Unit

Cost

($/af) Phase 1A 3.0 1,303 9.3 $11.6 $454

Phase 1B 1.0 417 4.7 $5.7 $701

Phase 2 0.7 318 3.6 $4.5 $715

West Option 0.5 214 2.3 $5.1 $1,206

East Option 0.5 201 2.0 $4.8 $1,221

Total 5.7 2,453 26.6 $31.7 $658

Notes: (1) Markups for contingency and design are added in as discussed in Section 6.5.1. (2) Includes amortized capital cost, assuming debt rate of 3% and 30-year payback

period.

As shown in Table 6.11, capital costs for the distribution system would add $454 per AF if just Phase 1A is implemented, and an estimated $658 per AF if all phases and options are implemented. The treatment and distribution costs will be added together for the components of the recommended alternative in Chapter 7.

For simplification, implementing the distribution system consisting of all of the phases shown in Table 6.11 will be referred to as the fully expanded project. As will be discussed in Chapter 7, implementing Phases 1A and 1B is considered feasible at this time and will be referred to as the recommended project.


6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A preliminary environmental issues and constraints evaluation was conducted to add to the alternatives comparison. The potential temporary and short-term construction influences in general and at all three sites are summarized below. In general, the environmental considerations include:

• Aesthetics/Visual Resources – Short-term visual impacts are expected to occur as a result of construction

activities and equipment in any of the options and would vary in intensity, duration, and scope.

• Air Quality: – Short-term increased fugitive dust and mobile source emissions from

construction sites and mobile source emissions from trucks and construction equipment.

• Construction Equipment and Storage: – Staging areas would be required for the storage of equipment and materials

that would be used for the construction. The location and size of these areas will be defined as engineering progresses.

• Cultural Resources: – Subsurface archeological resources may be encountered during construction.

• Noise: – Project construction activities could have short-term noise and vibration effects

on receptors in the immediate vicinity of the construction site.

• Traffic and Circulation: – Potential access and circulation impacts from construction activity may result

from temporary lane closures or the narrowing of lanes, causing traffic to detour around or slow down near the construction site.

• Utilities: – Existing utility pipes, conduits, cables, lines, and poles could be impacted by

construction activities. Construction could require relocating, abandoning, or otherwise avoiding some of this infrastructure.

• Water Quality: – Construction impacts to water quality could vary from none to moderate.

Qualitative short-term construction impacts to water quality would not be permanent and they would be kept to a minimum using construction BMPs, consistent with state standards.


Basically, all potential temporary and short-term construction impacts can or should be able to be reduced to “less-than significant” levels with the incorporation of standard environmental and construction mitigation measures.

Site specific issues and considerations include:

• DSRSD WWTP On-Site Location: – No other identified environmental issues or constraints at this time. – No state or federal biological resources and/or sensitive species appear to

occur or be an issue.

• Near Val Vista Park Location: – No other identified environmental issues or constraints at this time. – No state or federal biological resources and/or sensitive species appear to


• Commuter Lot Location: – Probably should assume the need for replacing the entire Park and Ride facility:

∗ Construction activities and staging will likely take up entire location temporarily.

∗ After construction there may not be enough left over spots to be an effective Park and Ride Location.

∗ Potential State (Caltrans) issues.

∗ Potential Federal (Land Ownership) issues.

∗ Limited options exist near 680 and 580 Interchange. – No state or federal biological resources and/or sensitive species appear to


6.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The six alternatives are compared on their technical and non-technical merits and shown in Table 6.12. Since all of the customers remain the same for Phase 1, the alternatives comparison is based on the supply, treatment, and site considerations.

The environmental impacts for Alternative 1 would be minimal and almost nonexistent since the construction would be on site at the existing DSRSD WWTP. The highest impacts would occur on the commuter lot sites, Alternatives 3A and 3B, since a new site would need to be identified and implemented for a Park & Ride.


Table 6.12 Summary of Cost-Benefit Comparison of Alternatives Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Environmental

Impacts Cost

Impacts Energy Impacts

Ease of Implementation Footprint

Meets City’s

Climate Change Initiative

Alternative 1 ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++

Alternative 2A + - + - - +

Alternative 2B + - - - + +

Alternative 2C + - - - + +

Alternative 3A - - + - - +

Alternative 3B - - - - + + Note: A (+) indicates a significant improvement or advantage while a (-) indicates a disadvantage or possible worse condition when compared to the other alternatives.

Cost impacts would be minimal for the DSRSD WWTP site alternative when compared to constructing a new tertiary satellite facility. Also, cost sharing occurs when using the DSRSD WWTP site in Alternative 1.

Energy impacts would be lowest on the DSRSD WWTP site alternative since energy would be shared among 3 entities. Additionally, sand filtration uses less energy than membrane filtration. The highest energy use would be on the combined membrane and UV treatment options, Alternatives 2B, 2C, and 3B.

Ease of implementation would be the easiest on the DSRSD WWTP site alternative, provided an agreement can be reached between DERWA and Pleasanton. This is especially true since Pleasanton maintains the first right of refusal of use of their effluent. The other alternatives would all need a new tertiary WWTP and new trained staff for operations, monitoring, sampling, etc. Plus the alternatives located near Val Vista Park, Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C, would have to consider major site improvements since the site is considered as a gateway to the City. This would in turn also add costs to the project.

The footprint is also minimized when considering a site that already has treatment constructed and assigned for this purpose as is with the DSRSD WWTP alternative. Otherwise, the higher footprint comes into play when using sand filters versus membrane filtration.

As discussed in Section 1.4.1, all of the alternatives would meet the City’s Climate Action Plan adopted in February 2012 since they all account for recycled water use, reducing the need to supply and convey fresh water from groundwater or far away reservoirs. However, Alternatives 2-3 would result in additional emission generation due to using energy to power


new facilities, thus offsetting some of the green house gas reduction benefit of using recycled water. A summary of the Climate Action Plan adoption can be seen in Appendix H.

Therefore, based on this qualitative comparison, it is clearly evident that Alternative 1 has numerous benefits and minimal costs for producing and serving recycled water in the City of Pleasanton.

6.8 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES This section discusses what would happen if the City does not implement a recycled water supply project. As discussed in Chapter 2, Pleasanton receives most of its water supply (currently at 80 percent) from Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7); the remaining portion is pumped by the City from the Main Basin in accordance with its groundwater pumping quota (GPQ), which is capped at 3,500 AF per year (with a limited carryover of 700 AF of unused pumping quota from one year to another). Under the same customer water demand levels, any recycled water supply developed by the City would essentially reduce the amount of potable water supply required from Zone 7. If the City does not implement recycled water, there are two alternative scenarios: 1) the City reduces its demand through conservation or 2) Zone 7 meets the full portion of the City’s demand that is not met by the City’s GPQ through the procurement of other water supplies.

Currently, Pleasanton implements (either independently or in regional partnership with Zone 7), twelve water conservation programs directed towards customers. The City also maintains a tiered water rate structure, and the continuous monitoring of suspicious consumption possibly indicating a considerable water leak for all accounts. As reported in Pleasanton’s 2010 UWMP, the estimated measurable savings from 2009 water-efficiency programs (a total of eight customer directed programs at that time) was approximately 184 AF. It is not possible for water conservation to reduce the potable water demand to match or exceed the estimated 1,720 AFY reduction from converting potable irrigation demand to recycled water.

To address the demand not reduced by water conservation efforts, the following sections describe the major water supply alternatives that Zone 7 is currently considering, along with their costs and environmental considerations. They were evaluated in Zone 7’s 2011 Water Supply Evaluation, where more details can be found. Note that the costs presented below are based on 2010 Engineering News-Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index; amortized costs assume a 6 percent interest rate for 30 years.

A summary of the No Project Alternatives is presented in Table 6.13.


Table 6.13 Summary Comparison of No Project AlternativesRecycled Water Feasibility Study

(1)

City of Pleasanton

No Project Alternatives

Potential Annual Yield (afy)

Estimated Cost Per AF ($/AF)

Major Environmental Considerations (2)

Conservation/potable water demand reduction

184 $890 Avoided impacts associated with water supply, including energy and chemical consumption

Alternative Water Supplies – Potable Water Long-Term Delta Fix 12,100

(average yield) $600-900 Ability to address

concerns over threatened and endangered species protection, potential impacts on water quality in the Delta, and impacts of the construction of a new canal/tunnel system

Bay Area Regional Desalination Project

5,600 (under all hydrologic conditions, or only during normal/wet

years)

$1,400-$2,000 Impacts of diverting water from Suisun Bay on fisheries, the impacts of brine discharge on water quality in Suisun Bay, and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the BARDP’s energy consumption

(3)

Long-Term Non-State Water Project Lease or Transfer

Depends on the market

$900-1,400/AF Varies depending on the source of the water lease or transfer

(3)

Notes(1) These alternatives are described in more detail in the 2011 Water Supply Evaluation

(Zone 7 Water Agency, 2011).

:

(2) Based on 2010 Engineering News-Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index; amortized costs assume a 6% interest rate for 30 years.

(3) This does not include the cost of a new intertie that would be required to deliver water from EBMUD (or another agency) to Zone 7.


6.8.1 Long-Term Delta Fix

Zone 7 currently has a long-term contract with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for a maximum annual amount of 80,619 AF of Table A water from the State Water Project (SWP). The SWP represents over 80 percent of Zone 7’s water supply. Each year, DWR allocates a portion of this annual amount—up to 100 percent—depending on hydrologic conditions, DWR’s operation of the SWP, and legal and environmental constraints. Over the years, the reliability of SWP water supply (average yield percent of the maximum Table A amount) has been decreasing; between 2005 and 2009, reliability dropped from 75 percent to 60 percent, with Zone 7 losing approximately 12,100 AFA ([75 percent-60 percent] x 80,619 AFA) in reliable water supplies primarily due to pumping restrictions arising from concerns over threatened and endangered species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Through the development of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (DHCCP), a diverse stakeholder group is working together on a long-term “Delta Fix” that simultaneously addresses threatened and endangered species protection and the restoration of the reliability of water traveling through the Delta. Current plans indicate a goal of having a new Delta isolated conveyance system in place between 2020 and 2030. For planning purposes, Zone 7 has assumed a new system to be available by 2025 that would restore SWP long-term water supply reliability to 2005 conditions at approximately 75 percent reliability (i.e., restore 12,100 AFA of lost supplies). In addition to improved reliability, the isolated conveyance option is expected to result in lower salinity levels, as well as other improved water quality parameters (e.g., total dissolved organic carbon), for SWP supply. Furthermore, in case of levee failures, an isolated conveyance facility will better protect the SWP supply from salinity and organic carbon spikes, and other potentially drastic water quality impacts.

The estimated capital cost to Zone 7 for this water supply alternative ranges from $100 to $140 million, with annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs estimated at $380,000 to $420,000. The total amortized cost is estimated at $600-900/AF.

Major environmental considerations for the long-term Delta Fix are: 1) its ability to address concerns over threatened and endangered species protection, 2) impacts on water quality in the Delta, and 3) impacts of the construction of a new canal/tunnel system.

6.8.2 Bay Area Regional Desalination Project

Since 2003, the Bay Area’s four largest water agencies—Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)—have been working together to evaluate the feasibility of a regional desalination facility to improve water supply reliability for the more than five million people served by these agencies. The project is referred to as the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project (BARDP).


In May 2010, Zone 7 officially joined the BARDP. As a partner, Zone 7 is evaluating the feasibility of receiving up to 5,600 AFA under all hydrologic conditions, or only during normal/wet years. For Zone 7, desalinated water offers the significant benefits of providing a drought-resistant supply and diversifying Zone 7’s water supply portfolio, both of which increase Zone 7’s system reliability.

At this time, the most likely location for a desalination facility is in eastern Contra Costa County, where CCWD has existing water rights and other water rights may be available for purchase. Brackish water would be diverted from Suisun Bay. The desalination plant under evaluation would produce up to 20 MGD of desalinated water eleven months out of the year, depending on the water rights obtained. Desalinated water would have to be wheeled through EBMUD for delivery to Zone 7 via a new intertie. If the partners choose to proceed, the plan would be to have a facility online around 2020.

Zone 7’s share of the capital cost is estimated at $42 million (does not include the intertie), with annual O&M costs estimated at $2.6-4.4 million depending on the amount of water that Zone 7 receives. The wheeling cost through EBMUD is currently estimated at $600 to $1,000 /AF; this cost is being refined as part of a study to be completed in spring 2013. The total amortized cost is currently estimated at $1,400-$2,000/AF.

Major environmental considerations for this alternative are the impacts of diverting water from Suisun Bay on fisheries, the impacts of brine discharge on water quality in Suisun Bay, and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the BARDP’s energy consumption.

6.8.3 Long-Term Non-State Water Project Lease or Transfer

This water supply alternative involves the purchase or long-term transfer of water from a non- SWP contractor. This transaction would be similar to the contract Zone 7 holds with the Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID), which provides a minimum water supply of 2,000 AFA to Zone 7 with a potential to purchase up to 5,000 AFA. This is a 20-year contract, renewable every five years up to a total of 30 years. However, unlike the water from the BBID contract, which is delivered to Zone 7 through the South Bay Aqueduct of the SWP, Zone 7 would seek water that can be delivered via a new intertie with another major agency (e.g., East Bay Municipal Utility District). This would have the benefit of diversifying Zone 7’s portfolio while increasing its supplies.

The availability of other transfers similar to the BBID contract depends on the willingness of other contractors to sell and the price Zone 7 is willing to pay. Based on discussions with other agencies, a long-term lease could cost about $200-300/AF, an amount that would be paid annually based on deliveries. There will also be a wheeling cost for conveying water to Zone 7 via a new intertie. For planning-level purposes, the wheeling cost range of $600-1,000/AF was based on assumptions provided via participation in the BARDP. The amortized cost, not including the intertie construction, is estimated at $900-1,400/AF.


The environmental considerations associated with this water supply alternative would depend on the source of the water lease or transfer.

6.9 FULLY EXPANDED PROJECT As noted in the previous section, Pleasanton’s wholesale water supplier, Zone 7, is currently pursuing a number of potable water supply alternatives. The addition of recycled water to Pleasanton’s water supply portfolio has some significant benefits. Introducing recycled water to Pleasanton would help improve the reliability and sustainability of Pleasanton’s water supply by providing a locally-controlled and drought-proof supply; reduce Zone 7’s overall potable water supply procurement needs; and finally, help Pleasanton meet its per capita potable water consumption reduction target as required by the California Water Conservation Act of 2009. For these reasons, the implementation of recycled water in Pleasanton is recommended.

Based on the above considerations of treatment, distribution, environmental, institutional, and the benefits and costs summary, the fully expanded project includes:

• Buying into the existing DERWA tertiary facilities located at the DSRSD Regional Treatment Plant,

• Planning a distribution system across the northern top area of the City extending from the DSRSD WWTP to the existing Tassajara Reservoir. Future Phases include a Phase 2 option to extend to the southern part of the City, western option to serve the Stoneridge Mall area, and an option to the east to serve the Staples Ranch area, and

• Implementing a fast-track demonstration project at Val Vista Park adjacent to the treatment plant to begin reuse in Pleasanton by fall 2013.

The fully expanded project is shown in Figure 6.7. The recommended project is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

July 2013 7-1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/Ch07.DTWRD.docx (Final)

Chapter 7

RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PROJECT PLAN

7.1 RECOMMENDED PROJECT The recommended recycled water project was selected among the various alternatives detailed in Chapter 6 based on the following characteristics: the available supply from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) tertiary treatment facilities, a preferred route through the Hacienda Business Park to the Tassajara Reservoir, and financing considerations. Joining into the existing DSRSD’s tertiary treatment facilities meets several project objectives including serving recycled water to help offset as much of the City of Pleasanton’s (City) potable water demand as possible. This project would allow the City to supply the maximum recycled water demand located near the existing DSRSD facilities, such as the Hacienda Business Park and a few large City sports fields. The recommended project is also the most cost effective alternative. As mentioned previously, a recycled water project in the City would help reduce the development of new or expanded water supplies, including reducing the amount of water from the Delta needed to meet the City’s water demands; and as will be discussed further in this chapter, potentially provide a number of regional benefits through the agreements formed with the recycled water provider.

Treatment for the recommended project includes buying into the existing DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA) tertiary facilities. DSRSD will be responsible for the treatment O&M, while the City will be responsible for the distribution system O&M. Back up water, if and when needed, will be supplied by the potable water at the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).

As will be discussed, the recommended alternative is divided into two phases, with the initial phase consisting of supplying about 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) Maximum Day Demand (MDD) of recycled water. The first phase is subdivided into a Phase 1A and Phase 1B to allow service of the largest recycled water demands in Hacienda Business Park initially without needing to increase the size of the large diameter pipeline in Santa Rita Road in the initial phase. All users are current irrigation customers that would be converted from potable to recycled water use. In addition to the two phases, two potential options (east and west) could be added to serve surrounding projects for which feasibility was dependent upon a single anchor customer. If both phases and both options are served, the total supply is anticipated to be approximately 5.7 mgd under MDD conditions.

7.1.1 Potential Customers and Pipeline Alignment

The potential recycled water customers included in the recommended alternative are presented in Figure 7.1, along with their predicted maximum day demands and the recycled water distribution system pipeline alignment and sizing. The demands are summarized by phase in Table 7.1.

O

0 1,500 3,000Feet

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 7.1 Recommended Project Potential Customers and Pipeline Alignment

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

TassajaraReservoir

40

30” pipeline replaces existing 24” pipeline in Phase 1B

Stoneridge Dr

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

W Las Positas Blvd

Mohr AveSanta Rita Rd

Owens Dr

Dublin B

lvd

Willow Rd

Hacienda Dr

Chabot DrJ

ohnson Dr

Kamp Dr

Parkside Dr

Martin Ave

Harvest Rd

Gibraltar Dr

Busch Rd

Denker Dr

Rheem

Dr

Churchill Dr

Payne Rd

Blackbird Dr

Valley Trails

Dr

Dorman Rd

Mason St

Campus Dr

Flagstone Dr

Stoneridge Mall Rd

Olive Dr

Siena St

Park Pl

Stoneridge Dr

Addison Way

Dublin Blvd

Hacienda Dr

Rosewood Dr

Santa Rita Rd

Tassajara Rd

San Ramon Rd

Hopyard Rd

Foothill Rd

Dublin Blvd

Dougherty R

d

102

107

42

87

40

100

12''

6''

30''

8''

16''

4''

4''

6''

8''

12' '

6''

6''

8''

12''

12''

4''

4''

4''

4''

6''

4''

4''

12''

12''

30''

8''

16''

6''

16''

4''

4''

16''

12''

4''

16''

16''

16''

4''

4''

8''

12''

12''

12''

16''

4''

12''

4''

4''

8''

4''

8''12''

4''

16''

8''

4''

16''

4''

6''

6''

12''

6''

16''

12''

8''

4''

4''

4''

4''

16''

4' ' 16

''

12''

12''

8''

4''

12''

4''

8''

8''

4''

4''

30''

4''

12''

4''

12''

6''

16''

4''

8''

8''

4'' 12' '

12''

6''

8''

16''

16''

4''

6''

6''

8''

8''

4''

4''

4''

27''

16''

24''

16''

16''

Figure 7.1

RECOMMENDED PROJECT POTENTIAL

CUSTOMERS AND PIPELINE ALIGNMENT


CITY OF PLEASANTON

Legend

DSRSD Facilities

WWTP


Recycled Water Pipelines

Existing

Phase 1A

Phase 1B

Potential Users

Served by Phase 1A Alignment

Served by Phase 1B Alignment

Parcels

Waterbody

I.D. Customer NameMax Day

(mgd)


42 Hart Middle School 0.08

87 Sports Park 0.54

100 Tennis Complex 0.09

102 Val Vista Park 0.15

107 Valley Trails Park 0.04

2.91


0.93

3.84Total

Phase 1A

Phase 1A Total

Phase 1B

Phase 1B Total


Table 7.1 Summary of Recommended Alternative Customer Demands Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Phase

Phase Average Annual

Demand (AFY)

Phase Maximum

Day Demand (mgd)

Cumulative Maximum

Day Demand (mgd)

Cumulative Maximum

Day Supply(1)

(mgd)

Phase 1A - Hacienda Area 1,303 2.9 2.9 3.0

Phase 1B - Hacienda Area 417 0.9 3.8 4.0 Phase 2 – Remaining Feasible Customers

318 0.7 4.5 4.7

West Option – Stoneridge Mall Area

214 0.5 5.0 5.2

East Option – Staples Ranch Area

201 0.4 5.5 5.7

Total 2,453 5.5 5.5 5.7

Note(1) Includes additional 4 percent factor to account for water loss.

:

As shown in Table 7.1, average annual demand is estimated at 1,720 acre feet per year (AFY) for the first phase and 2,453 AFY if all phases and options are implemented. Note that this does not account for or include water loss, however the cumulative maximum day supply does.

As shown in Figure 7.1, the recycled water distribution system connects DSRSD’s WWTP to Tassajara Reservoir. The pipeline alignment follows Stoneridge Drive into the Hacienda Business Park.

A looped pipeline network is used through Hacienda Business Park to maximize the number of potential customers while minimizing potential water quality issues related to dead ends. A transmission main is routed along the southern edge of the Hacienda Business Park in West Las Positas Boulevard. The various loops meet up in Santa Rita Road, where the pipeline is routed north across Interstate 580 along Tassajara Road to the 8.0 million gallons (MG) Tassajara Reservoir.

A summary of the pipeline lengths associated with the alignment shown in Figure 7.1 are presented in Table 7.2.

As shown in Table 7.2, the proposed recycled water system includes 24.3 miles of new recycled water pipelines ranging between 4 and 30-inches in diameter. To help reduce


Table 7.2 Recommended Alternative Pipeline Lengths Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Phase Diameter

(in) Length

(ft) Length

(mi)

Phase 1A – Hacienda Area

New Pipeline 6 - 16 49,100 9.3

Existing - Santa Rita Road 24 4,000 0.8

Existing - Tassajara Rd. 27 8,200 1.6

Existing - Stoneridge Dr. 16 2,200 0.4

Phase 1B – Hacienda Area

New Pipeline 4 - 16 20,700 3.9

Santa Rita Road Pipeline(2) 30 4,000 0.8

Phase 2 – Remaining Feasible Customers

New Pipeline 4 - 16 18,800 3.6

West Option - Stoneridge Mall Area

New Pipeline 4 - 16 12,100 2.3

East Option - Staples Ranch Area

New Pipeline 6 - 18 10,500 2.0

Existing – Stoneridge Dr. 18 2,100 0.4

Subtotal – New Pipeline 115,200 21.9

Subtotal – Repurposed Pipelines 12,500 2.4

Total 127,700 24.3

Note(1) Laterals to individual customer parcels are assumed to be the responsibility of the

potential recycled water customer and are not included in these lengths.

:

(2) Model predictions for Phase 1B show low pressures due to headloss in the pipeline segment along Santa Rita Road. The velocities in this pipeline are directly affected by the assumed diurnal pattern of the recycled water distribution system. The headloss within this segment should be reevaluated following implementation of Phase 1A (after acquiring data on actual diurnal patterns of the users) in order to determine whether increasing the diameter of this segment is warranted.


construction costs, the pipeline is planned to include several pipeline segments repurposed from abandoned or potable pipelines. A total of approximately 127,700 feet, or 24.3 miles, of pipeline is included in the fully expanded project, with approximately 73,800 feet, or 14.0 miles included in the recommended alignment (Phases 1A and 1B) shown in Figure 7.1.

In addition to the segments shown above, an existing 24-inch diameter pipeline in Santa Rita Road between Interstate 580 and West Las Positas Boulevard could be utilized as a part of the recycled water distribution system. The hydraulic model predicted that given the Phase 1B demands, a 24-inch diameter pipeline would create enough headloss during irrigation hours under maximum day demand conditions to bring customer sites below 40 pounds per square inch (psi) to about 35 psi. If demand, or observed peaking, is observed to be lower than the assumptions used in this study, this pipeline may be sufficient for conveying at least part of the flow from the Tassajara Reservoir.

As discussed in Chapter 6, a second existing unused pipeline, currently owned by DSRSD, is routed from Santa Rita Road to the north side of Staples Ranch, and could potentially be used as a part of the recycled water distribution system.

7.1.2 Pump Station Sizing

A single pump station is included in the alignment shown in Figure 7.1 at the DSRSD WWTP. The DSRSD pump station will supply recycled water to the distribution system and the Tassajara Reservoir on a continuous basis, sized for maximum day demand, and the WWTP has sufficient equalization capacity to balance out diurnal variation in the wastewater flows supplying the WWTP. The recommended sizing for this pump station is presented in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Pump Station Sizing by Phase Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Phase MDD (mgd)

Head (ft)

Total MDD Flow (gpm)

Elevation Served(1) (ft-msl)

Power(2) (hp)

1A 3.0 146 2,101 320 – 347 44

1A + 1B 4.0 145 2,773 320 – 353 58

2 4.7 152 3,286 320 – 353 70

1A + 1B + 2 + W + E

5.7 183 3,955 320 – 358 105

Notes(1) Based on interpolated elevation of allocated model junction; elevation of customer

parcel not evaluated.

:

(2) Assumes total pump efficiency of 70 percent; represents utilization under MDD (not rounded to sizing of pumps).


Based on a recent Recycled Water Treatment and Delivery Agreement between DERWA and the City of Pleasanton, the City can utilize the existing DSRSD recycled water pump station for the initial phase.

By the time of the second phase, it is anticipated that DERWA would require the existing recycled water pump station capacity for demands within their own systems, thus, costs for a complete recycled water pump station are included in Phase 2 as a part of expansion of the treatment facility.

As shown in Table 7.3, additional head will be required under MDD conditions, due to higher headloss across the system given the increased demands and increased utilization of the pipeline supplying the system from Tassajara Reservoir. Pump station head was sized within the hydraulic model, based on the assumption that the recycled water pump station would deliver supply on a constant basis throughout the day, delivering one third of the flow during irrigation hours (since irrigation hours are assumed to be 8-hours in duration). Given this constraint, pressures at customer sites during irrigation hours are predicted to fall below 40 psi if both the East Option and West Option are implemented after Phase 2.

For this analysis, a low-pressure booster pumping station was placed at Tassajara Reservoir to boost pressures by approximately 20 psi under peak demand conditions. With this pump station in place, pressures at customer sites are predicted to range between 57 psi and 77 psi during irrigation hours under maximum day demand conditions. After the initial recycled water customers have been connected to the system the City will evaluate observed irrigation hours, actual demands, and storage and equalization basin availability to determine if this condition will be realized.

The elevation at the DSRSD WWTP is approximately 330 feet above mean sea level (ft-msl), while Tassajara Reservoir’s floor elevation is 491 ft-msl and the reservoir is 24-feet in height.

7.1.3 Storage Sizing

Storage for the City’s recycled water distribution system is anticipated to consist of the 8.0 MG Tassajara Reservoir. Storage for recycled water systems typically consists of two components, operational storage and emergency storage.

Operational storage consists of the storage volume necessary to accommodate the typical peaking that occurs during a single day. Based on the assumptions outlined in the design criteria section of Chapter 6, it is assumed that the City’s landscape irrigation demands will occur between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. daily at a continuous rate. This calculation is illustrated in Figure 7.2 for Phase 1 (Phase 1A and 1B combined), and summarized for each phase in Table 7.4.

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Dem

and

(gpm

)

Maximum Day Demand

Average Day Demand

Peak Hour Demand

Required Operational Storage3.67 MG

Figure 7.2Phase 1+2 Required Operational Storage

Recycled Water Feasibility StudyCity of Pleasanton

0

Hour

Average Day Demand

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Galt/8100B00/Data/Recycled Water Calculations.xlsx.xls


Table 7.4 Recommended Storage Sizing Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Phase Operational Storage

(MG) Emergency Storage

(MG) Total Storage

(MG)

1 2.67 0.00 2.67

2 0.53 0.00 0.53

West + East 0.47 0.00 0.47

Total 3.67 0.00 3.67

Emergency storage consists of storage required for supplying the recycled water system during outages of the recycled water supply, and can vary from agency to agency depending on their supply needs and customer base. Emergency storage can be sized to give the agency staff sufficient time for activating a backup supply.

Some recycled water systems include a third component of storage, fire flow storage. This component is necessary for recycled water distribution systems supplying fire hydrants and would be sized based on the fire flow requirement of specific users. It is not anticipated that the City’s recycled water distribution system will include fire hydrants.

As shown in Table 7.4, recommended storage for the initial phase is 2.67 MG, while recommended storage if both phases and both options are implemented would be 3.67 MG. At this time, it is assumed that emergency storage will be replaced with either interconnections to neighboring agencies or a potable water supplement as a backup supply.

7.1.4 Storage as Potential Supply Supplement

Since the Tassajara Reservoir capacity is 8 MG, it is oversized for the currently feasible potential recycled water demands. The City investigated the feasibility of using excess storage within the reservoir to meet some recycled water supply needs during peak demand periods in the summer months within the City and the DERWA recycled water system. Specifically, Carollo prepared an analysis estimating how much maximum daily supply can be reduced through the use of the excess storage in Tassajara Reservoir.

As discussed in Section 7.1.3, the required storage to meet Pleasanton’s peak hour demand based on pump station sizing for MDD is 2.7 MG under Phase 1 and a total of 3.7 MG under Phase 2 plus West and East options. The resulting available or excess storage is shown in Table 7.5. Given the anticipated timing of the phases, Phase 1 is used for this analysis, with an anticipated available storage within Tassajara Reservoir of 5.3 MG (8.0 MG – 2.7 MG = 5.3 MG).


Table 7.5 Demands and Operational Storage Requirements Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Phase

Maximum Day Demand(1)

(mgd)

Average Day

Demand

(mgd)

Storage Needed for Pleasanton’s

Diurnal Peaking(2) (MG)

Excess / Available Storage within

Tassajara Reservoir (MG)

Phase 1 4.0 1.6 2.7 5.3

Phase 2 1.5 0.6 1.0 -

Total 5.5 2.2 3.7 5.3

Notes(1) Since the Pleasanton RWFS market assessment was based on billing data, a factor has

been added in to account for water loss.

:

(2) Assumes RWPS supplies Pleasanton’s system with MDD; based on assumed flat 8-hr irrigation pattern (9 pm to 5 am) with no daytime irrigation.

The Pleasanton demands used for this analysis correspond to the first phase, with an anticipated average day demand (ADD) of 1.6 mgd. Daily demand variation from DSRSD’s distribution system for 2010 and 2011 were assumed to be replicated under the ADD of 1.6 mgd.

Since the reservoir balance is highly dependent on the demand variation throughout the year, demand schedules for 2010 and 2011 are both shown for each reservoir balance analysis. Future demand schedules will be dependent on the weather in individual years, and demand schedule may vary from those observed in 2010 and 2011.

A reservoir balance for the year was developed, with excess supplies filling the reservoir until the capacity of 5.3 MG was reached. Under this balance, when demands exceeded the supply capacity, the demands were satisfied with stored recycled water from the reservoir. Supply was adjusted until no storage deficits were predicted. Analysis results are shown in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6 Potential Supply Reduction due to Storage Utilization (City Only) Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Demand Schedule

Average Day

Demand (mgd)

Maximum Day Demand

(mgd)

Required Supply w/ Storage

Utilization (mgd)

Contribution on Maximum Day from

Storage (mgd)

2010 1.6 4.6 3.7 0.9

2011 1.6 4.3 3.5 0.8


As shown in Table 7.6, utilization of the seasonal storage depends on the shape of demands through the year. If the daily demands followed the distribution that occurred in DSRSD’s distribution system in 2011, a supply of 3.5 mgd could be adequate, while under 2010 conditions, slightly more supply would be necessary (for the same average annual demands). Based on this analysis and the given assumptions, the contribution of seasonal storage is around 0.8 mgd. The reservoir and supply balance is illustrated on Figure 7.3 for 2010 conditions. A reduction of the City’s maximum daily recycled water demand by 0.8 mgd would make an additional 0.8 mgd available for future City or DERWA recycled water customers.

In addition, the use of Tassajara Reservoir to supplement the regional recycled water systems was evaluated. The DERWA demands used for this analysis correspond to the Intermediate Term Scenario (no Dublin Crossing), with an anticipated ADD of 4.3 mgd for DERWA plus 1.6 mgd for Pleasanton Phase 1, resulting in a total ADD of 5.9 mgd. Daily demand variation for 2010 and 2011 were assumed to be replicated under the ADD of 5.9 mgd.

A reservoir balance for the year was developed, with excess supplies filling the reservoir until the capacity of 5.3 MG was reached. Under this balance, when demands exceeded the supply capacity, the demands were satisfied with stored recycled water from the reservoir. Supply was adjusted until no storage deficits were predicted. Analysis results are shown in Table 7.7.

Table 7.7 Potential Supply Reduction due to Storage Utilization (City and DERWA) Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Demand Schedule

Average Day Demand

(mgd)

Maximum Day

Demand (mgd)

Required Supply w/ Storage

Utilization (mgd)

Contribution on Maximum Day from

Storage (mgd)

2010 5.9 17.3 14.4 2.9

2011 5.9 15.8 13.5 2.3

As shown in Table 7.7, storage utilization depends largely on the shape of demands through the year. If the daily demands followed the distribution that occurred in 2010, a supply of 13.5 mgd could be adequate, while under 2011 conditions, a supply of about 14.5 mgd would be necessary (for the same average annual demands). Based on this analysis and the given assumptions, the contribution of storage to supply is around 2 to 3 mgd.

It should be noted that this scenario assumes that water from Tassajara Reservoir could be utilized to satisfy demands anywhere in DERWA’s recycled water system. This would require additional infrastructure not considered in this evaluation. In addition, the maximum

Figure 7.3STORAGE SUPPLY SUPPLEMENT


pton1112f5-8889.ai

Note: City 2010.


day demand occurred in both 2010 and 2011 at times when the reservoir is predicted to be full, allowing maximization of utilization of storage to provide supply. Assuming this peaking behavior is representative of future behavior of demands as well, storage could provide a significant enhancement to required supply capacity. Specifically, a reduction of the City’s and DERWA’s maximum day demand by 2 to 3 mgd would make this water available for future recycled water customers.

7.1.5 Preliminary Cost Estimate

Development of preliminary cost estimates were discussed in Chapter 6, and associated preliminary costs for the recommended alternative are presented in Table 7.8.

Assuming the City will utilize DSRSD’s tertiary plant for Phase 2 and beyond, the City will need to participate in the future expansion of the tertiary processes along with DERWA. In order to estimate this future cost, the costs for the initial phase of the DSRSD WWTP were updated to 2012 dollars and adapted to approximate costs of a future expansion based on what processes would need to be expanded. It was assumed that processes which initially had included sitework and concrete structure for future phases (e.g., pony walls) would cost about 80 percent of the original cost for expansion. The breakdown of these costs are included in Appendix G, with the share of Pleasanton’s future demand of 5.7 mgd over the full capacity of the treatment plant being used as Pleasanton’s portion of the costs. The approximation of these costs are included in Phase 2 within Table 7.8. It is assumed that the expansion would be sized for both options for this analysis. It is likely that DERWA will also require Pleasanton to participate in a buy-in of the initial phase of the tertiary plant. Buying into the initial phase of the tertiary plant cost is not included in the cost estimates herein, but was estimated at approximately $4.5 M for a 4 mgd buy-in share for Pleasanton (see Appendix G for 4.0 and 5.7 mgd Pleasanton planning level initial phase buy-in costs). These costs were not included since the City is negotiating with DERWA, and costs were assumed to be zero dollars due to other negotiating factors. At this time, a final Agreement for initial phase buy-in cost sharing has not been signed.

Costs of expansion of the DSRSD tertiary facilities for a Pleasanton recycled water distribution system of 4.0 mgd instead of 5.7 mgd were also developed and are included in Appendix G. A summary of costs for only implementing Phase 1A and 1B (without participating in potential expansion of the WWTP) is shown in Table 7.9. At this time, the Recommended Project consists only of Phases 1A and 1B due to financing considerations.

As stated before, the costs for treatment alternatives are based on approximations of cost sharing arrangements and will likely vary based on the ultimate agreements reached with other agencies. Figure 7.4 depicts approximated costs by phase for both the recommended alternative and the preferred alternative. A breakdown of details regarding the cost estimates are provided in Appendix G.

July 2013 7-13

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/Ch07.DTWRD.docx (Final)

Table 7.8 Preliminary Costs Estimates – Preferred Alternative Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Name

Required Treatment

Plant Capacity

(mgd)

Annual Yield (AFY)

Distribution System Pre-Contingency

Construction Cost(2) ($M)

Distribution System Construction Cost with

Contingency(3) ($M)

Distribution System Project

Cost(4) ($M)

Treatment Project Cost(5) ($M)

Total Project Cost(6) ($M)

Phase 1A 3.0 1,303 $7.4 $8.9 $11.6 $1.9 $13.49

Phase 1B 1.0 417 $3.7 $4.4 $5.7 - $5.73

Phase 2(1) 0.7 318 $2.6 $3.4 $4.5 $6.9 $11.40

West Option 0.5 214 $3.0 $3.9 $5.1 - $5.07

East Option 0.5 201 $2.8 $3.7 $4.8 - $4.80

Total 5.7 2,453 $19.6 $24.3 $31.7 $8.8 $40.50

Notes(1) Phase 2 is based on expanding the DSRSD WWTP and adding pipelines rather than a new satellite plant.

:

(2) Unit cost applied to pipeline length; does not include construction contingency. (3) Includes construction contingency; for Phases 1A and 1B construction contingency of 20% is used. For Phase 2 and options, construction contingency of 30%

is used due to higher level of planning. (4) Includes markups for design, engineering, administrative, and legal (total of 30%). (5) Would likely require additional existing facility buy-in cost (not included). (6) Sum of distribution system project cost and treatment project cost; does not include O&M cost.

July 2013 7-14


Table 7.9 Preliminary Costs Estimates – Recommended Project Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Name

Required Treatment

Plant Capacity

(mgd)

Annual Yield (AFY)

Distribution System Pre-Contingency

Construction Cost(1) ($M)

Distribution System Construction Cost with

Contingency(2) ($M)

Distribution System Project

Cost(3) ($M)

Treatment Project Cost(4) ($M)

Total Project Cost(5) ($M)

Phase 1A 3.0 1,303 $7.4 $8.9 $11.6 $1.9 $13.5

Phase 1B 1.0 417 $3.7 $4.4 $5.7 - $5.7

Total 4.0 1,720 $11.1 $13.3 $17.3 $1.9 $19.2

Notes(1) Unit cost applied to pipeline length; does not include construction contingency.

:

(2) Includes construction contingency of 20%. (3) Includes markups for design, engineering, administrative, and legal (total of 30%). (4) Would likely require additional existing facility buy-in cost (not included). (5) Sum of distribution system project cost and treatment project cost; does not include O&M cost. (6) Includes amortized capital cost and annual O&M costs, assuming debt rate of 3% and 30-year payback period.

Figure 7.4COST BY PHASE


pton113f1-8889.ai


7.1.6 Supply Reliability Given the recommended alternative includes a single source of supply, the supply represents a single point of failure in the City’s recycled water distribution system. Although recycled water is anticipated to be used primarily for landscape irrigation, and thus does not represent a critical water supply, potential customers will be used to the reliability of potable water systems, and will likely not be prepared for extended outages. Two potential facilities could increase supply reliability: interconnections with neighboring agencies and potable water supplement connections.

Since the City’s single proposed recycled water distribution system pressure zone is floating on Tassajara Reservoir, the reservoir would be a good place for a potable water backup connection. In event of an outage at the DSRSD WWTP, potable water supplement could be added at Tassajara Reservoir through an air gap, in compliance with the applicable regulations, without the need for a pump station. An additional potable water supplement connection could be located at the DSRSD WWTP recycled water pump station clearwell, but would require the pump station to be functional for utilization.

Additional interconnections with the neighboring agencies could be used to supply recycled water in event of an emergency scenario. The City of Livermore and DSRSD are both neighboring agencies with existing recycled water distribution systems near the City’s proposed recycled water distribution system. While DSRSD’s recycled water system is supplied by DSRSD’s WWTP, it could potentially provide supply from tanks or be used to route supply through in event of a pipeline outage in the City’s recycled water distribution system.

7.2 INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERMITTING The City of Pleasanton currently provides water and wastewater utility services to residents and businesses within its service area in cooperation with three other area water and wastewater agencies. These agencies also play key roles in the implementation of the proposed water recycling project:

• Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) is the wholesale potable water supplier to the City of Pleasanton as well as most of the Tri-Valley area including Livermore, and Dublin, and a portion of San Ramon. Zone 7 is also a co-funder of the present Feasibility Study.

• Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is a public agency that provides wastewater treatment service in the cities of Pleasanton and Dublin and southern San Ramon, and is the retail water service provider to the City of Dublin and a portion of San Ramon.

• Livermore-Amador Valley Wastewater Management Association (LAVWMA) is a joint powers agency created by DSRSD and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton


that conveys treated wastewater for discharge to San Francisco Bay through a pipeline connection to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) system.

In addition to these three agencies, the City of Pleasanton is negotiating agreements with two other agencies involved in the provision of recycled water to the neighboring communities of Dublin and San Ramon.

• East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is a public utility that provides drinking water to 1.3 million customers in Alameda and Contra Costa counties and provides wastewater treatment service to 650,000 customers in the City of Oakland and neighboring communities. EBMUD also distributes recycled water to customers in Richmond, and Oakland, and to customers in San Ramon through the DERWA joint powers agency.

• DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA) is a joint powers agency between DSRSD and EBMUD that enables those agencies to supply recycled water to over 200 sites in their respective service areas, including the cities of Dublin and San Ramon.

As shown in Table 7.10 below, the City of Pleasanton coordinates its services through various interagency agreements. Table 7.10 below lists the City’s water and wastewater service partners along with their agreements and the pertinent activities they define. Since Pleasanton’s wastewater currently receives only secondary treatment by agreement with DSRSD, implementation of the proposed project will require a new agreement with DERWA to treat a limited amount of Pleasanton’s secondary effluent to tertiary (Title 22) standards through their operating agreement with DSRSD, as well as an agreement with DSRSD directly to provide additional treatment capacity in existing and new tertiary facilities. Both agreements, which are explained in further detail below, have been prepared in draft form following extensive negotiations between the principal parties and are currently being reviewed by their respective counsels.

7.2.1 Legal Issues

7.2.1.1

The City of Pleasanton has retained all rights to use recycled water produced from wastewater originating in its service area. Section 9(b), “Recycled Water Rights” of the 1992

Water and Wastewater Rights

Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services between Pleasanton and DSRSD states:

“Recycled Water Rights shall be allocated to the parties in the same proportion that the sum of their respective Disposal Capacity Rights in the Sewerage Facilities of LAVMA, TWA and such other Joint Use Facilities as may provide Disposal Capacity Rights bears to the total Disposal Capacity Rights in the Sewerage Facilities of LAVMA, TWA and such other Joint Case Facilities.”


Table 7.10 Significant Terms and Conditions Included in Existing Agreements Between the City of Pleasanton and Water and Wastewater Agencies Related to Water Reuse Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Right or Service

Partner Agency Terms Reference Agreements

Wastewater Treatment--Capacity

DSRSD

DSRSD shall treat up to 8.5 mgd of wastewater from Pleasanton at a regional treatment plant owned and operated by DSRSD.

Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services (1992) Sec 8(a); Second Supplemental Agreement (2000) Sec.3

Wastewater Treatment--Payment

DSRSD Pleasanton shall share in capital and O&M costs through payment of Regional Connection Fees and Regional Service Charges.

Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services (1992) Sec.10 (a) and (b)

Wastewater Treatment—Disposal

LAVWMA LAVWMA shall convey up to 16.4 mgd of treated wastewater originating within Pleasanton’s service area after treatment by DSRSD’s Regional Sewerage Facilities to the EBDA pipeline for discharge to San Francisco Bay.

DSRSD Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services (1992) Sec 8(a); LAVWMA Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (1997) Sec.13; Second Supp. Agreement (2000) Sec.3;

Wastewater Treatment—Water Rights

DSRSD Pleasanton shall retain rights to use recycled water from wastewater originating in its service area.

Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services (1992) Sec 9(b); Third Supplemental Agreement (2002) Sec. 3(a)


DSRSD DSRSD shall have the right to use up to 2.5 mgd of recycled water from wastewater originating in Pleasanton’s service area through 12/31/11 provided that Pleasanton has not used it or transferred usage rights

Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services (1992) Sec 9(b); Third Supplemental Agreement (2002) Sec.3; Sec 6(a) and (b); Fourth Supplemental Agreement (2009) Sec.1 and 2.


DERWA DSRSD shall supply DERWA with up to 5.73 mgd of recycled water (6,420 AFY) in part through its exercise of the right to use up to 2.5 mgd of Pleasanton’s recycled water.

Water Supply Agreement between DSRSD and DERWA (2003). 3.A.(2)

Recycled Water—Production and Distribution

DERWA DSRSD shall own and operate tertiary treatment facilities to supply DERWA with recycled water; DERWA to supply EBMUD and DSRSD with Title 22 recycled water; EBMUD and DSRSD to distribute recycled water to customers in their respective service areas.

Agreement for the Sale of Recycled Water by DERWA to DSRSD and EBMUD (2003) Recital #4 p.1 (see also B.8.) and Operations Agreement between DSRSD, DERWA and EBMUD (2005)


This allocation of recycled water rights based on wastewater treatment or disposal capacity was modified in Section 3(a) of the 2002 Third Supplemental Agreement:

“District has the sole right to utilize District's Secondary Effluent and City has sole right to utilize City's Secondary Effluent for the production of Recycled Water. Notwithstanding Sections 5(b) and 9(b) of the Basic Agreement between District and City of Pleasanton, Recycled Water Rights shall be allocated to the parties in proportion to the wastewater emanating from their respective service areas.”

The 2002 Third Supplemental Agreement also modified the parties’ original rights to assign water rights to others. According to Section 9(b) of the 1992 Agreement, both Pleasanton and DSRSD had the right to “convey, lease, assign, license, permit, or otherwise transfer the right to use Recycled Water in an amount or amounts corresponding to the Recycled Water Rights allocated to them, respectively” provided that the supply of recycled water (produced by DSRSD under the terms of that agreement) was understood to be interruptible. The Third Supplemental Agreement preserved this right in the face of DSRSD’s imminent distribution of recycled water by stipulating:

Except as provided in Section 6(b) herein, neither party may convey, lease, assign, license, permit, utilize or transfer Secondary Effluent or Recycled Water Rights of the other party without the written agreement of the other party. The parties agree it is in their best interests to jointly identify and implement ways to recycle water. Any party's future use of the other party's Secondary Effluent shall only occur by mutual agreement of the parties. [Emphasis added]

Section 6(b) cited in the above clause of the Third Supplemental Agreement embodied Pleasanton’s first assignment to DSRSD of limited rights to use its recycled water by allowing that from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2009 “on any given day District has the right to utilize up to two and one half (2.5) million gallons per day of City's Secondary Effluent to meet the requirements of the DERWA Program.” Insofar as Pleasanton had no other use for its secondary effluent at that time, this provision enabled Pleasanton to make its share of the secondary effluent “available for…landscape and agricultural irrigation recycling” as agreed in the recitals to the Third Supplemental Agreement. The allocation of rights to up to 2.5 mgd of Pleasanton’s effluent was further extended to December 31, 2011 by Section 2 of the Fourth Supplemental Agreement (2009).

Since the DSRSD treatment plant that serves the Pleasanton community discharges to saline San Francisco Bay, the diversion of treated effluent for reuse as a result of the proposed project does not affect any downstream wastewater rights.

7.2.1.2

While its rights to the use of recycled water from wastewater originating within its service area have been secured through the agreements referenced above, the City of Pleasanton

Multi-Jurisdictional Agreements


is committed to develop its recycled water program in a manner that maximizes regional water reuse. To accomplish this goal, the City is negotiating additional agreements to coordinate its use of recycled water with DSRSD and EBMUD’s recycled water programs. The relationship between their recycled water program and the DSRSD/EBMUD DERWA program is described below.

In 1995, DSRSD and EBMUD formed DERWA in anticipation of their intent to supply nonpotable recycled water for irrigation and other appropriate uses within their respective service areas. A joint powers authority was established specifically to facilitate the further treatment of secondary effluent from the DSRSD regional wastewater treatment facility and its wholesale distribution as tertiary (Title 22) recycled water to EBMUD and DSRSD for distribution to customers in their respective service areas. In 2003, DSRSD and EBMUD executed an Agreement for the Sale of Recycled Water by DERWA to DSRSD and EBMUD which assigned to DSRSD responsibility for providing Title 22 recycled water to DERWA. According to the terms of this agreement (Article II. Responsibilities, Sections A-C), DSRSD owns and operates recycled water treatment facilities, while EBMUD and DSRSD each designed and built distribution pipelines they operate, but which are owned by DERWA. DSRSD currently produces nonpotable recycled water by directing a portion of its secondary effluent to either of two tertiary units: a 9.7 mgd sand filtration (SF) system and a 3 mgd microfiltration (MF) unit, each followed by appropriately sized ultraviolet disinfection (UV) units to produce recycled water that meets California Department of Public Health standards for unrestricted use. The three agencies also executed a Water Supply Agreement between DSRSD and DERWA (2003) which stipulates the amount of recycled water to be provided to DERWA, including the use of Pleasanton’s recycled water as allowed by their Third Supplemental Agreement (2002).

While demand has steadily increased since 2006 when DERWA began delivering recycled water to customers, it has rarely exceeded the amount of recycled water produced from DSRSD’s wastewater. According to the DERWA 2011 Operations Report, “On a total of nine (9) days during 2011 the production of recycled water exceeded the quantity of sewage generated by Dublin and South San Ramon, so on these days a small portion of the wastewater that originated as sewage from the residents of the City of Pleasanton was utilized to meet DERWA's recycled water demands.” In fact, with the exception of one day in which a pump failure subsequently required the transfer of over 3 mgd to make up for the previous day’s shortage, DSRSD’s use of Pleasanton’s treated effluent never exceeded 1.1 mgd, always leaving at least 4 mgd available for customers of the proposed program.

7.2.1.3

Notwithstanding the relatively small amount of Pleasanton water utilized to date by DERWA, the proposed Pleasanton Recycled Water Project has been carefully coordinated with both DSRSD and DERWA through two proposed agreements. The purpose of these agreements is to ensure that all agencies have sufficient recycled water to supply area nonpotable demands, now and in the future. Pleasanton and DERWA have reached an

Unresolved Implementation Issues


agreement in principle (“Agreement to Provide Recycled Water Treatment and Delivery Services”) whereby DERWA will provide Pleasanton up to 500 AFY of recycled water for distribution within its service area, in exchange for which DERWA will have the ability to use “excess” wastewater from Pleasanton’s service area. Pleasanton and DSRSD have reached a similar agreement in principle (“Agreement for Recycled Water Capacity Rights through DSRSD”) whereby DSRSD will allocate to Pleasanton rights to treat up to 1.5 mgd of secondary effluent to tertiary standards through an existing MF/UV facility, and the rights to produce an additional 4.0 mgd of recycled water through two new sand filters to be constructed, complete with appropriate UV disinfection modules. In exchange for these considerations, the proposed agreement confirms DSRSD’s right to “operate the plant as needed for the benefit of all users to the extent that unused capacity is available” and to use “any wastewater treatment plant effluent emanating from the Pleasanton wastewater collection service area not utilized by Pleasanton… provided that such use does not reduce the reliability or quality of recycled water required by Pleasanton’s recycled water program.”

Both contracts have been prepared in draft form, and are currently being reviewed with respect to both form and content by the respective counsels and are expected to be executed prior to the start of construction of the proposed project. In the event that these issues remain unresolved, the City of Pleasanton could need to accelerate design and construction of its own tertiary treatment facilities, as a result of which the DERWA agencies (DSRSD and EBMUD) would need to secure an additional source of water to meet peak demands.

7.2.2 Discharge Requirements

Since Pleasanton’s utilization of recycled water for nonpotable purposes will reduce the amount of secondary effluent pumped into the LAVWMA Pipeline for discharge by EBDA, the proposed project will not result in any increased wastewater discharge requirements. Additional suspended solids and other material removed through tertiary treatment (MF/UV or SF/UV) are not expected to materially affect the quality of secondary effluent.

7.2.3 Permitting Procedures

Construction and operation of the proposed project within the City of Pleasanton will result in no significant impacts on the urban environment. Measurable impacts to air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology, noise and traffic will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through the use of various best management practices as discussed further in Appendix I, ”Environmental Issues and Constraints Report.” In order to speed up the environmental permitting process, the City may develop an “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” for the project concurrently with the final project design, thereby accelerating the CEQA public review and disclosure process and moving up the date by which the environmental review can be completed.


Before the proposed project can begin distributing recycled water to customers in the Pleasanton service area, it will also require a permit from either the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Recycling Permit or Master Reclamation Permit) or the State Water Resources Control Board (General Permit). In either case, project operation will be regulated by the same state and local rules, including recycled water treatment (California Code of Regulations Title 22, Chapter 4 Environmental Health), recycled water pipeline construction standards (Health and Safety Code Division 104, Environmental Health Services, Part 12, Drinking Water; American Water Works Association - Manual M24- Dual Distribution Systems and California –Nevada Section AWWA – Guidelines for Distribution of Nonpotable Water); requirements for construction of onsite improvements (Title 22 Chapters 5 through 9; Uniform Plumbing Code, Section 16) and others. These and other water reuse regulations are described in more detail in Chapter 4.

The City of Pleasanton intends to supply recycled water to Val Vista Park as a demonstration project under the authority of the DSRSD Recycled Water Program, according to the terms of San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order 96-011, General Water Reuse Requirements for Municipal Wastewater and Water Agencies. Authority to supply recycled water to additional customers may be contained in a similar permit issued to the City of Pleasanton at a subsequent time.

7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Appendix I provides a cursory review and analysis of the major environmental issues that may be a factor, or a result of, the construction and/or operation of the City’s proposed Recycled Water Project. The information developed is designed to assist the City, USBR, and/or the State Board to determine what the major potential environmental impacts are to comply with CEQA, NEPA and/or CEQA-plus requirements. For this analysis, we reviewed prior and relevant existing environmental documentation and have used a modified CEQA environmental checklist to assess the potential impacts on endangered/threatened species, public health or safety, natural resources, regulated waters, and cultural resources, among others to include and address specific issues associated with CEQA as well as NEPA. No protocol-level site-specific surveys were conducted for this investigation.

7.3.1 Conclusions

Based on our findings, most of the potential environmental issues appear to be short-term/temporary impacts due to construction activities which can be avoided and/or mitigated to less-than-significant levels. For any potentially significant impact(s) identified, we identified appropriate mitigation measures and strategies to attempt to avoid and/or reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on our findings and analysis, it does not appear that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required to comply with CEQA. Instead, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document should be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and save the City a significant amount of time and money. To receive federal or state grants, the City will have to work with the other


potential lead agencies such as Reclamation and/or the State Board to prepare the equivalent NEPA and CEQA-Plus documents, either jointly or separately. As this was a preliminary evaluation, additional analysis and effort may be required to fully comply with CEQA, NEPA and/or CEQA-Plus procedural requirements.

7.3.2 Recommendations

If City Council decides to move forward with the Proposed Project/Action as described in Chapter 7 of this document and summarized in Chapter 2 of Appendix I, the City will use this information as a basis for developing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and go through the CEQA public review and disclosure process and procedures. In addition, City staff will initiate contact as soon as possible with any and all potential funding agencies such as Reclamation and/or the State Board to investigate their specific requirements and procedures that they need to follow to meet NEPA and/or CEQA-Plus requirements and support the City’s funding requests. This document should be a good framework for those discussions and help the City, Reclamation, and/or the State Board develop a plan for moving forward.

7.4 GROUNDWATER BASINS The majority of potential recycled water customers included in the recommended alternative overly the Main Basin, as shown in Figure 7.5. Each of the groundwater subbasins underlying the City’s service area are shown on Figure 7.6.

7.5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The City will need to address the following project components in implementing the recycled water project (listed in no specific order):

• Design and construct the recommended alternative.

• Receive commitments and Agreements from use sites to use recycled water OR implement a Mandatory Use Ordinance.

• Obtain permits and clearances from applicable regulatory agencies (RWQCB, CDPH, etc). Also includes the RW Policy Salt/Nutrient Management Plan development (defined in section 4.1.3).

• Conduct environmental process (CEQA) and develop compliance documents.

• Prepare a cost of service rate study.

An implementation schedule for Phase 1 could be defined by the timelines outlined in Table 7.11.

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

Main Basin

Doug

herty R

d

Fallon Rd

7Stoneridge Dr

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

W Las P

ositas B

lvd

Mohr Ave

Santa Rita Rd

Owens Dr

Dublin B

lvd

Black Ave

Willow Rd

Hacienda Dr

Chabot Dr

Main St

Rose Ave

Johnson Dr

Vine St

Kamp Dr

Parks

ide Dr

Martin Ave

Santos Ranch Rd

Vineyard Ave

Harvest Rd

Gibraltar D

r

Busch Rd

Denker D

r

Rheem

Dr

Churc

hill Dr

Payne Rd

del Valle Pkwy

Blackbird Dr

Valley Trails

Dr

Dorm

an Rd

Mason St

Campus Dr

Flagst

one Dr

Stoneridge Mall R

d

Olive D

r

Sien

a St

Park Pl

Diavila

Ave

Ashwood Dr

Addison W

ay

Dublin Blvd

Haci enda Dr

Rosewood Dr

Santa Rita Rd

Tassajara Rd

San Ramon Rd

Hopyard Rd

Valley Ave

Foothill R

d

102

87

40

100

6

83

5

3

42

48

49

4

9

37

2

32

85

110

23

107

74106

72

90

9668

95

94

92

38

63

Legend

Main Basin

WWTP

Parcels

Potential Customers

Served by Phase 1Alignment




O

0 1,500 3,000Feet

Figure 7.5

POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS

OVERLYING MAIN BASIN


CITY OF PLEASANTON

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 7.5 Potential Customers Overlaying Main Basin.mxd

Legend

Parcels

City Limits

WWTP

Potential Customers

Groundwater Subbasins

Amador

Bernal

Camp

Castle

Dublin

O

0 2,500 5,000Feet

Figure 7.6

GROUNDWATER SUBBASINS

WITHIN SERVICE AREA


CITY OF PLEASANTON

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

7

I- 680

Stoneridge Dr

Footh

ill Rd

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

W Las P

osita

s Blvd

Mohr Ave

1st S

t

Santa

Rita

Rd

Owens Dr

Dublin Blvd

Black Ave

Bernal Ave

Kilka

re R

d

Will

ow

Rd

Sunol B

lvd

Hacie

nda D

r

Kottinger Dr

Chabot D

r

Main

St

Rose Ave

Johnson D

r

Vine St

Stanley Blvd

Kam

p D

r

Parkside Dr M

artin

Ave

Santos Ranch Rd

Vineyard Ave

Harv

est R

d

Case

Ave

Gib

ralta

r Dr

Busch Rd

Denker D

r

Junipero St

Rheem

Dr

Happy Valley Rd

Long

view D

r

Hearst D

r

Church

ill Dr

Golf R

d

Payne R

d

del Valle Pkwy

Blackbird Dr

Clu

bhouse D

r

Sycamore Rd

Mavis Dr

Regency D

r

Golde

n Eag

le W

ay

Laguna

Cree

k Ln

Valley Trails Dr

Dorm

an R

d

Mason S

t

Cam

pus D

r

Conco

rd S

t

Flagstone Dr

Singalong Way

Sto

nerid

ge M

all R

d

Gre

ens L

n

Olive Dr

Norton W

ay

Oak Ln

Deer O

aks D

r

Siena

St

Park Pl

Diavila Ave

War G

lory Pl

Ashw

ood D

r

Addi s

on W

ay

Inspira

tion Te

r

Dublin Blvd

Ple

asanto

n S

unol R

d

Haci e

nda D

rRos

ewoo

d Dr

Santa

Rita

Rd

Tassaja

ra R

d

Fall o

n R

d

102

87

40

100

6

83

5

42

48

4

3

49

2

32

9

85

110 37

23

10774106

72

90

96689594

92

38

Amador Subbasin

Bernal Subbasin

Dublin Subbasin

Camp Subbasin

Castle Subbasin

pw:\\PHX-POP-PW.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\Pleasanton\8889A00\Data\GIS\Figure 7.6 Groundwater Subbasins Within Service Area.mxd


Table 7.11 Planned Implementation Schedule for Recommended Project Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Item Description Start Year End Year

Technical Design/Construction 2013 2019

Environmental Compliance (CEQA) 2013 2014

Regulatory 2013 2014

Institutional (Customer Agreements or Use Ordinance) 2013 2019

Financial 2012 2019

7.5.1 Recycled Water State Policy

The SWRCB recognizes that a burdensome and inconsistent permitting process can impede the implementation of recycled water projects. The SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances.

The newly adopted RW Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 200,000 AFY by 2020, and by at least 300,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for stormwater reuse, conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed both on recycled water purveyors and potential users.

Absent unusual circumstances, the RW Policy puts forth that recycled water irrigation projects that meet CDPH requirements and other State or Local regulations, be adopted by Regional Boards within 120 days. These streamlined projects will not be required to include a monitoring component.

The current status of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan as defined in the RW Policy for the Livermore Valley is defined in Chapter 4.

7.6 RESEARCH NEEDS Reclamation requires a statement on whether the proposed water reclamation and reuse project includes basic research needs, and the extent that the proposed Title XVI project will use proven technologies and conventional system components. The recommended project is planned to use proven reuse technologies including sand filtration, microfiltration, and UV disinfection. No research is needed to implement this valuable recycled water supply project.


Chapter 8

CONSTRUCTION FINANCING PLAN AND REVENUE PROGRAM

8.1 FUNDING SOURCES AND CONSIDERATIONS The adequate funding of capital costs is a primary constraint in implementing any construction project, especially water recycling projects. Recycled water projects generally have some State, Federal, and local funding sources available.

This chapter describes potential funding opportunities and financing mechanisms for capital and operations costs, including an outline of current applicable grants and loan opportunities. The term “funding” refers to the method of collecting funds; the term “financing” refers to methods of addressing cash flow needs.

The recommended recycled water project is attractive for funding agencies for two primary reasons.

1. The project provides integrated benefits and meets various objectives:

a. Helps meet State recycled water objectives.

b. Protects surface water resources through both reduced potable water demand and the reduction of secondary effluent discharge to San Francisco Bay.

c. Reduces the amount of water from the Delta needed to meet the City of Pleasanton’s (City) water demands.

d. Demonstrates regional cooperation.

2. The project involves regional partnerships and provides benefits to numerous stakeholders, as detailed in Chapter 7:

a. City of Pleasanton (City).

b. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).

c. City of Livermore.

d. DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA).

e. Zone 7 Water Agency.

The pursuance of alternate funding is highly competitive. Competitive funding programs require enhanced recycled water programs to meet as many of the following objectives as possible:

• Regional partnerships.

• Integrated project benefits.

• Water conservation.

• Renewable energy improvements.


• Economic stimulus:

– Job creation.

– Job preservation.

8.2 FUNDING SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Costs of the City’s recycled water project consist of two components – capital cost for construction of distribution facilities and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the treatment and distribution systems.

The funding sources available range from traditional funding options such as pay-as-you go funding and bond funding to non-traditional funding sources such as grants and loans and market based programs. The sections that follow outline the mechanisms available to recover both capital and O&M costs.

The main instruments available for funding the capital costs include:

• Pay-as-you-go financing or upfront collection of project costs from existing and new users for future capital improvement projects.

• Debt financing or the acquisition of funds through borrowing mechanisms.

• Grants and loans or alternative sources of funds at no or minimal interest cost. Examples include federal, state, and local programs that provide funding at zero interest for projects that meet select criteria.

• Market based programs that refer to financing through funds obtained from tax credits, purchase agreements, voluntary programs, and trading and offset programs.

All of these funding sources are discussed in additional detail in the following sections.

8.2.1 Pay-As-You-Go Financing

Pay-as-you-go financing involves periodic collection of capital charges or assessments from customers within the utility’s jurisdiction for funding future capital improvements. These revenues are accumulated in a capital reserve fund and are used for capital projects in future years. Pay-as-you-go financing can be used to finance 100 percent or only a portion of a given project.

One of the primary advantages of pay-as-you-go financing is that it avoids the transaction costs (e.g., legal fees, underwriters’ discounts, etc.) associated with debt financing alternatives, such as revenue bonds. However, there are two common disadvantages associated with this method. First, it is difficult to raise the required capital within the allowable time without charging existing users elevated rates. Second, it may result in inequities in that existing residents would be paying for facilities that would be utilized by, and benefit, future residents.


8.2.1.1

Utility fees or benefit assessments, sometimes called service fees or user fees, consist of a fee imposed on each property in proportion to the service provided to that property. They are inherently flexible in that the City can select any assessment method that equitably relates the amount charged to the service provided. Benefit assessment fees are usually included as a separate line item on the annual property tax bill sent to each property owner.

Utility Fees and Benefit Assessment Fees

Utility fees in the City are billed on a bi-monthly interval. In all other respects, benefit assessments, utility fees and service charges are essentially identical. A utility has the authority to collect a benefit assessment fee, but only after approval by a majority of the voters, affected property owners, or ratepayers.

8.2.1.2

The system development charges/connection fees/impact fees represent the cost of providing regional conveyance and treatment facilities to serve new recycled water customers. They are one-time fees charged to customers at the time of system connection approval or permit/contract issuance. The charges for individual properties may be based on whatever assessment measures the City desires for equity.

Development Charges/Connection Fees

A disadvantage to utilizing impact fees is that the fees cannot be collected until the system constructions permit stage at the earliest. The amount collected each year depends solely on the rate of growth of the recycled water system. Consequently, funds may not be available to construct new facilities at the time it is needed.

8.2.2 Debt Financing

There are several different options for debt financing of recycled water projects, ranging from issuance of short- or long-term bonds.

8.2.2.1

Revenue bonds are historically the principal method of incurring long-term debt. This method of debt obligation requires specific non-tax revenues such as user charges, facility income, and other funds, pledged to guarantee repayment. There is often no legal limitation on the amount of authorized revenue bonds that may be issued, but from a practical standpoint, the size of the issue must be limited to an amount where annual interest and principal payments are well within the revenues available for debt service on the bonds. Revenue bond covenants generally include coverage provisions, which require that revenue from fees minus operating expenses be greater than debt service costs.

Revenue Bonds

In the case of this project, based on policy decisions made regarding cost of service, any revenue bonds obtained would require proof of financial capacity to repay, using the City revenue sources that do not inequitably burden customers.


8.2.2.2

Certificates of participation provide long-term financing through a lease agreement that does not require voter approval. The legislative body of the issuing agency is required to approve the lease arrangement by a resolution. The lessee (City) is required to make payments typically from revenues derived from the operation of the facilities. The amount financed may include reserves and capitalized interest for the period that facilities will be under construction. One disadvantage with certificates of participation, as compared with revenue bonds, is that interest rates can be slightly higher due to the insecurity associated with the obligation to make lease payments.

Certificates of Participation

8.2.2.3

General obligation (GO) bonds are municipal securities secured by the issuer’s pledge of its full faith, credit, and taxing power. GO bonds are backed by the general taxing authority of local governments and are often repaid using utility revenues when issued in support of a sewer or water enterprise fund. In the event that GO bonds are issued for this project, the tax revenue will need to be used to back the bonds.

General Obligation Bonds

8.2.2.4

Financing by this method involves initiating assessment proceedings. Assessment proceedings are documents in “Assessment Acts” and “Bond Acts.” An assessment act specifies a procedure for the formation of a district (boundaries), the ordering, and making of an acquisition or improvement, and the levy and confirmation of an assessment secured by liens on land. A bond act provides the procedure for issuance of bonds to represent liens resulting from proceedings taken under an assessment act. Procedural acts include the Municipal Improvements Acts of 1911 and 1913. The commonly used bond acts are the 1911 Act and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The procedure most prevalent currently is a combination of the 1913 Improvement Act with the 1915 Bond Act. Charges for debt service can be included as a special assessment on the annual property tax bill. The procedure necessary to establish an assessment district may vary depending on the acts under which it is established and the district size.

Assessment District Bonds

8.2.3 Grants and Loans

Grant and loan programs can be utilized to finance the recommended recycled water project alternative. These grants and loans are further discussed as state and federal funding sources in the succeeding sections. Table 8.1 provides a summary of the available state and federal funding sources. The grant and loan options presented herein are accurate as of December 2012. Please refer to the contact or website for the most up to date information for each of these grants and loans.

There are numerous factors that should be considered in the pursuance of grant funding. Several factors that should be noted in pursuance of grant funding include:


Table 8.1 Funding Summary Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Program Agency Type Description

State

Water Recycling Funding Program

State Water Resources and Control Board

Grant/Loan Funding is available for projects in the following categories:

1. Category I projects will offset state water supplies and increase water to the Delta. 2. Category II projects will offset state water use, but do not provide benefits to the Delta. 3. Category III projects use recycled water to supplement local water supplies but have no impact on the state water supply or the Delta. 4. Category IV projects will treat and reuse groundwater contaminated by human activity. 5. Category V projects will treat and dispose wastewater to meet waste discharge regulations. 6. Category VI captures miscellaneous projects that do not fall into other categories and have no benefits to state or local water supplies.

The maximum award for construction grants for Category I through IV projects is the lesser value of $5 million per project or 25 percent of construction costs.

Category V and VI projects are only eligible for SRF loans. Loans are capped at $50 million per agency per year.

Integrated Regional Water Management Grants Program (Prop 84)

Department of Water Resources

Grants Grants are available for projects that support IRWM Plans and are related to water supply reliability, groundwater recharge, water quality enhancement etc.

Federal

Title XVI U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Grants Eligible projects include recycled water feasibility, demonstration, and construction projects. The program provides as much as 25 percent of construction costs with a maximum of $20 million. To meet eligibility requirements a project must have a Bureau of Reclamation approved feasibility study, comply with environmental regulations, and demonstrate the ability to pay the remainder of the construction costs.


• Grant applications require demonstration of the ability to construct, operate, and maintain the project without grant funding.

• Grant award or funding authorization is NOT a promise of grant reimbursement:

– Most grants are reimbursements and not cash up front. This requires that a source of funding be available for the construction of the project.

– Grant reimbursements are subject to annual budget and appropriations process and thus disbursement of grant funds on schedule is not guaranteed.

– It may take several years after project completion to receive reimbursements, especially in difficult economic times.

– Most grants require a minimum cost share by project sponsor.

– Federal grants typically require investment of additional resources to obtain lobbying support.

Despite the competitive nature of alternate funding, available funding sources should be considered to minimize ratepayer impacts. The following sections summarize available state and federal funding options.

8.2.3.1

Several state funding sources are applicable to the recycled water project alternatives. Due to the California state budget difficulties, some of these programs may be suspended or not have funding available when the City is ready to move to construction.

State Funding

8.2.3.1.1 Water Recycling Funding Program

One option for financing the Recycled Water Project is the Water Recycling Funding Program administered by the State Water Resources Control Board. The program offers funding for research, feasibility studies, planning, and construction. The program is financed through Propositions 13, 50, and the State Revolving Fund (SRF).

• Recycling projects are categorized by their potential benefits to state and local communities, which in turn determine which funding sources are applicable.

• Category I projects will offset state water supplies and increase water to the Delta.

• Category II projects will offset state water use, but do not provide benefits to the Delta.

• Category III projects use recycled water to supplement local water supplies but have no impact on the state water supply or the Delta.

• Category IV projects will treat and reuse groundwater contaminated by human activity.


• Category V projects will treat and dispose wastewater to meet waste discharge regulations.

Category VI captures miscellaneous projects that do not fall into other categories and have no benefits to state or local water supplies.

The recycled water alternatives fall into Category I as it should offset state water supplies and increase water to the Delta.

The source of available funding varies with the category in which the project is classified. The maximum award for construction grants for Category I through IV projects is the lesser value of $5 million per project or 25 percent of construction costs.

Category V and VI projects are only eligible for SRF loans. Loans are capped at $50 million per agency per year. The SRF interest rate is set at one-half of the state general obligation bond rate and has historically averaged around 2.5 percent.

The SWRCB provides one application package for both construction grants and SRF recycled water loans. The application package consists of:

• Financial Assistance Application.

• Facilities Plan composed of:

– Project report.

– Environmental documents including CEQA documents.

– Construction Financing Plan.

– Recycled Water Market Assurances documenting user participation in the project.

– Authorized Representative Resolution (Legal Authority).

• Water Conservation Plan demonstrating that the applicant has a water conservation program in effect or has signed onto the California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Memorandum of Understanding.

The SWRCB will review the application package and assess eligibility. Once the SWRCB receives and reviews the final plans and specs, it will issue project performance standards. Once performance standards are agreed to and the applicant chooses a contractor, the parties sign a funding agreement. The applicant must also have an Urban Water Management Plan filed with the Department of Water Resources to receive funds.


8.2.3.1.2 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant Program

Grants are available for projects that support IRWM Plans and are related to water supply reliability, groundwater recharge, water quality enhancement etc.

In transitioning from Prop 50 funding to Prop 84 funding, the DWR altered several of the standards it uses to evaluate regions including governance requirements, acknowledgement of water conflicts, and potential climate change requirements. To facilitate this change, DWR has allowed regions with standing IRWM plans to also receive funds under Prop 84 to comply with the new standards and to develop new projects. Projects seeking funding through this grant process generally submit a project summary to the respective local IRWM management group to review and assess the merits of a project and its ability to fulfill the intent of the IRWM plan. Once approved through this process, a project may be included in the region’s implementation grant application.

8.2.3.2

Pleasanton is currently a member of the Western Recycled Water Coalition and is seeking Federal authorization for its recycled water project as part of the coalition.

Federal Funding

8.2.3.2.1 Title XVI

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation administers funds for recycled water feasibility, demonstration, and construction projects through the Water Reclamation and Reuse Program authorized by the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Title XVI) and its amendments. The program provides as much as 25 percent of construction costs with a maximum of $20 million. To meet eligibility requirements a project must have a feasibility study, comply with environmental regulations, and demonstrate the ability to pay the remainder of the construction costs. Projects are authorized by Congress and recommended in the President’s annual budget request by the Bureau of Reclamation. Congress then appropriates funds and the Bureau ranks and prioritizes projects and disburses the money on a competitive basis each year. Prioritized projects are those that postpone the development of new water supplies, reduce diversions from natural watercourses, reduce demand on federal water supply facilities, or that have a regional or watershed perspective.

8.2.4 Funding Source and Timing Summary

The City proposes to utilize a combination of funding sources to construct the recycled water project. The priority of the funding will be to secure grants where available, pursue low interest loans such as the SRF loans, and then finally obtain debt financing in the form of GO or revenue bonds for the cost of the project not covered by grants and low interest loans. These funding options are summarized in Table 8.2. Typically, the anticipated sources of repayment for any loans consist of water, wastewater, and recycled water revenues.


Table 8.2 Funding Source Summary Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Funding Source Use Amount Timing

SRF Grants and Loans Design/Construction Up To $19.2 million 2013 (1)

Other Federal and State Grants and Loans

Construction TBD 2013

Debt Construction Cost not recovered by alternate supplies up to

$19.2 million

2013

Note(1) Although SRF funding and grants have not yet been secured, the City plans to pursue

grants and low interest loans for the construction of the recycled water facilities to the maximum extent possible.

:

8.3 RECYCLED WATER PRICING POLICY Typically, the cost of recycled water projects is recovered through a combination of methods where costs are shared amongst recycled water customers, potable water customers, and wastewater customers. As estimated and planned herein, the City is fully aware of the potential costs for the recycled water system - capital, O&M and replacement. City management and staff have a clear directive from the City Council to implement a recycled water system in the city limits as soon as practical, and is therefore fully willing and able to pay for its share of all costs incurred. The City has provided information as to their preferred cost recovery methods, which are contained in the financial analysis outlined below.

In April 2010, City staff received Council authorization to mail the Prop 218 rate increase Notice of Public Hearing in June 2010 for a recycled water surcharge. The rate increase passed. The staff report, Council meeting notes, and the Prop 218 notice are contained in Appendix J.

Several recycled water cost recovery alternatives were considered relative to capital, O&M, and repair and replacement (R&R) costs. Dependent on the preferred cost recovery strategy, the corresponding pricing alternatives were developed.

8.3.1 Capital Cost Recovery

The capital costs associated with Phase 1A and 1B of the recycled water system will consist of pipelines. Although the City would buy into the existing DSRSD WWTP and expansions, no additional treatment infrastructure would be required until the DSRSD tertiary plant reaches capacity. Additionally, the City has an existing storage tank, currently used for potable water storage that will be converted to store recycled water. The City also


has a number of pipe segments that are planned to be repurposed and used for this project to deliver recycled water.

Implementation of expansive recycled water projects requires large up-front capital. The current project implementation plan proposes to finance the construction of the recommended project through a combination of SRF loans, as well as the issuance of debt. There are several alternatives by which the associated debt service can be recovered. These include:

• Consumption based service charges where water, wastewater, and recycled water users are assessed their fair share of the annual debt service of the recycled water project based on their quantity of potable or recycled water used.

• System connection fees where users connecting to the water, wastewater, and recycled water systems pay a one-time fee for the system capacity utilized.

The construction of the recycled water distribution system reduces reliance on the use of increasingly regulated Delta water, provides increased reliability, reduces the need for perhaps more costly future water supplies, utilizes an underutilized local resource, and facilitates compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan since it accounts for recycled water use, thereby reducing the need to supply and convey fresh water from groundwater or far away reservoirs. As such, the City will continue to allocate a portion of the recycled water system’s capital costs to water customers via the Recycled Water Surcharge. The remaining costs will be recovered through a recycled water user charge and possible buy-in (connection) charge.

8.3.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost Recovery

The O&M costs associated with the recycled water system will consist of treatment and distribution components.

The City is negotiating with DSRSD and DERWA to treat Pleasanton’s secondary effluent to tertiary standards, suitable for distribution by Pleasanton as recycled water. Therefore, assumptions have been made for the purpose of completing the financial analysis. These should be revised once the final Agreements are developed.

The wholesale rate is assumed to be the actual cost of recycled water treatment and pressurization, plus related DERWA overhead, as determined annually.

In addition to the cost of supply and associated treatment costs, the City will incur costs related to annual administration and distribution. Whereas the treatment cost is variable and a function of demand, the distribution and administrative costs are fixed and will be incurred annually, independent of recycled water demand.

O&M costs are most typically recovered using user charges. Similar to capital costs, it is possible for the City to recover its O&M costs using land based, consumption based, or a


combination of methods. As the causation of the City’s O&M costs are directly correlated to increased reliability, efficient use of resources, and increased economic forecasting, the pricing policy proposes to recover the O&M costs on a consumption basis from water users (via a Recycled Water Surcharge) and recycled water customers.

At this time, no purchase agreements are in place between the City and the recycled water users as the City plans to implement a Use Ordinance in place of User Agreements. As the ordinance is further developed, the O&M pricing strategy will be modified to appropriately allocate and recover fixed and variable costs amongst users.

8.3.3 Repair and Replacement (R&R) Cost Recovery

Similar to O&M costs, the R&R costs can also be recovered using land based, consumption based, or a combination of methods. Although no R&R costs were included, the proposed recycled water pricing policy will recover annual R&R costs from its users through a system service and consumption based fee with the assumption that any R&R required is a result of system use and availability.

8.3.4 Costs Allocated to Potable Water

Implementation of the recycled water project may facilitate compliance with the 2009 CA Water Conservation Act to reduce urban water use by 20 percent by 2020. Additionally, the project may help reduce the need for potentially more costly water supplies and water system capital improvements.

The recommended project will not result in sizable potable water offsets until the completion of Phase 1A. Nearly 76 percent of the recommended projects projected 1,720 annual acre-foot demand is captured in Phase 1A.

Although adequate potable water supplies are available, the recycled water system will provide increased supply reliability and mitigate future costs of increasingly expensive purchased water. Therefore, the City will continue to allocate a portion of the recycled water system’s capital costs to water customers via the Recycled Water Surcharge. The remaining costs will be recovered through a recycled water user charge and possible buy-in (connection) charge.

8.3.5 Recycled Water Pricing Summary

The recycled water pricing summary for the various project cost elements is summarized in Table 8.3. The City plans to conduct a cost of service study in the future to appropriately and equitably determine the impacts to water, wastewater, and recycled water rates.


Table 8.3 Funding Source Summary Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Cost Description Allocation Cost Unit

Capital Cost

(1)

Water / Recycled Water $ per hcf or af

O&M and R&R Cost

(1)

Treatment – Water / Recycled Water Distribution - Recycled Water

$ per hcf or af(1)

Note(1) Cost recovery strategy of consumption based charges was determined to be most

appropriate at this stage of the recycled water project. Rates and charges would be set to recover the annual debt service, O&M, and R&R costs from water and recycled water users as appropriate.

:

8.4 ANNUAL COST PROJECTIONS

8.4.1 Capital Costs

The total project cost for the recommended project (i.e., Phases 1A and 1B) is estimated to be approximately $19.2 million. Construction of the fully expanded project, (i.e., 1A, 1B, 2, East, and West) is estimated to cost$40.5 million (project cost). The estimated costs do not include retrofit costs or costs associated with piping required within the individual users’ property lines.

For planning purposes each project phase is funded through a 20-year State Revolving Fund loan. Annual debt service was calculated using a 3.0 percent interest rate over a 20-year period, with payments beginning at the end of construction.

The annual cash flow projections for assuming debt financing is presented in Appendix J. It was assumed that the annual payments collected from water and recycled water revenues will be greater than the annual debt service.

8.4.1.1

In the last three years, the City has spent approximately $200,000 (i.e.: approximately 50 percent of the $200,000 was funded by Reclamation) on this engineering feasibility study and report, public outreach, CEQA review, and preliminary engineering to promote recycled water use within its service area.

Sunk Costs

The estimated indebtedness for construction of necessary facilities related to the recommended project is $19.2 million. The costs associated with project planning and construction will also be sunk costs, by both the City and Reclamation, upon project completion.


8.4.1.2

The salvage value of the system at the end of the debt period was calculated assuming an average useful life of 50 years for the system. Engineering, legal, and administrative costs were assumed to have no salvage value. The salvage value of the distribution system is estimated at $295,600 (present value of $158,900) for the recommended project and $622,700 (present value of $334,700) for the fully expanded project.

Salvage Value

8.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs

It is currently assumed that the majority of O&M costs associated with the recycled water program will be dependent upon the volume of recycled water demand. In addition, potential annual administrative and distribution costs may include:

• Salaries and benefits,

• Inspections costs,

• Metering and meter reading costs,

• Billing costs,

• System cleaning and maintenance costs, and

• Public outreach costs.

Table 8.4 summarizes the estimated annual O&M costs of the system. Table 8.4 Operations and Maintenance Cost Summary


Description Annual Cost (2012 Dollars)

Annual O&M (Treatment) (Phase 1A - 1,303 AF) $560,300

Annual O&M (Treatment) (Phase 1B - 417 AF) $179,300

Estimated O&M and Admin (1.50 FTE) $254,200

Total $993,800

Note

: Annual O&M (Treatment) are assumed at $430 per acre foot and will increase to reflect additional treated water.

8.4.3 Repair and Rehabilitation Costs

Currently no costs for annual R&R are assumed.


8.4.4 Total Annual Project Expenses

Table 8.5 presents a summary of the estimated project costs for the recommended project and the allocation of costs to water, wastewater, and recycled water customers. Since project implementation helps reduce the necessity of future water supply needs, the City water enterprise may opt to recover the costs allocated to the water system from future water customers. Similarly, the City’s wastewater enterprise may opt to allocate costs to both existing and future customers. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that annual debt service allocated to water and recycled water will be recovered from existing and future customers. As there are no existing recycled water users, 100 percent of the costs assigned to recycled water are allocated to future users. Table 8.5 Recommended Project Annual Cost Summary and Allocation


Expense Type

Total Annual

Expense

Water Customers

Wastewater Customers

(1)

Recycled Water

Customers (1)

Capital (Debt Service/Loan Repayment)

(1)

(2)

Phase 1A - Hacienda Area $906,000 $148,960 $- $757,040

Phase 1B - Hacienda Area $385,000 $63,300 $- $321,700

Operating Expense

Treatment O&M

(3)

Phase 1A - Hacienda Area $560,290 $92,120 $- $468,170

Phase 1B - Hacienda Area $179,310 $29,481 $- $149,829

Distribution O&M $254,231 $41,799 $- $212,432

Capital Replacement

Annual R&R $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Annual Revenue Requirement $2,284,831 $375,661 $- $1,909,170 Notes(1) Based on existing recycled water surcharge. Amount will vary based on actual annual

water and recycled water demands and surcharge rate.

:

(2) The debt service presented is the debt service associated with a 20-year term and 3 percent interest.

(3) Treatment O&M expenses are assumed at $430 per acre foot.

A cash flow forecast was developed over a 30-year period for the recycled water project assuming that Phase 1A design and construction will begin in 2014 with completion in 2015. Two years later, in 2016, Phase 1B is forecasted to begin design and construction with completion in 2017. Throughout the construction, recycled water customers will be connected as the appropriate infrastructure becomes available. A summary of the cash flows for this scenario is presented in Appendix J.


8.4.5 Recycled Water Use Projections and Unit Costs

The projected recycled water use for the recommended project (based on acreage and land use) is 1,720 acre-feet (AF) per year. All projected recycled water use is anticipated to be for irrigation.

Preliminary unit costs for each user category were developed using the proposed cost recovery strategy. Table 8.6 presents a summary of the unit costs. These unit costs are preliminary and are not based on a detailed cost of service study. The allocation of costs, unit costs, and rates for water, wastewater and recycled will be developed to recover the cost of construction and operation through the cost of service study. Table 8.6 Summary of Unit Costs


Expense Type Total Annual

Expense

Unit Cost

Water

(1)

Wastewater(2) Recycled Water(3)

Capital Costs

(4)

Annual Debt Service $1,291,000 (5)

$0.14 per hcf $0.00 per hcf $1.12 per hcf

$61.59 per acre-foot

$0.00 per acre-foot


Operating Costs

Treatment and Distribution O&M $993,831

$0.11 per hcf $0.00 per hcf $0.86 per hcf


$0.00 per acre-foot


Capital Repair and Replacement Costs

Annual R&R $0 $0.00 per hcf $0.00 per hcf $0.00 per hcf

$0.00 per acre-foot

$0.00 per acre-foot

$0.00 per acre-foot

Notes(1) Unit costs are based on full build out of Phase 1A and 1B (1720 acre feet).

:

(2) Water unit cost is allocated as a surcharge on unit water sales (per hcf), not unit recycled water sales.

(3) No costs, at this time, have been allocated to wastewater. (4) Recycled water unit costs are presented based on use of full build out of Phase 1,

1,720 acre-feet per year for the total annual cost. (5) Assumes a 20-year term with an interest rate of 3.0 percent.


8.4.6 Preliminary Recycled Water Price

The cost recovery strategy proposed to recover the cost associated with capital infrastructure and recycled water system operation is through a combination of water and recycled water rates.

As previously discussed, the repayment of the project costs is anticipated to be spread across all project beneficiaries. Table 8.7 summarizes the estimates of project costs per acre and per acre-foot of consumption. Table 8.7 Price of Recycled Water for Repayment of Capital Costs


Cost Summary Project Cost $19,214,520 (1)

Annual O&M Costs $993,831

Annual R&R Costs $0

Consumption Summary

Projected Annual Consumption 1,720

Price Summary

Unit Price of Project Construction $751 (2)

Unit Price of Delivered Water $865 (3)

Unit Price of Project over 20 Years $955 (4) Notes(1) Project costs include estimating contingencies and estimates for engineering, legal,

administrative, and environmental costs.

:

(2) Price presented is for annual capital and debt related costs associated with the recommended project (Phase 1A and 1B).

(3) Price per acre-foot is applicable to only metered recycled water customers and is net of the assumed water surcharge. This price is based on annual use of 1,720 acre-feet per year and includes both annual O&M and annual R&R costs.

(4) The unit price shown was calculated using the SWRCB present worth analysis methodology. The present worth analysis was conducted on the projected cash flows over a 20-year period using a present worth factor of 3.0 percent.


8.4.7 Comparison to Water Prices

Based on the City’s most current utility rate sheet, the monthly service charge for a residential 3/4-inch water connection is $23.55. The unit consumption consists of four residential tiers and a uniform rate for commercial and irrigation. Appendix J provides the City’s most recent utility rate information.

In comparison, the unit recycled water price, using total annual cost and the estimated recycled water delivery is $1.95 per hcf for the first operational year (2015). The forecasted 2015 unit recycled water price is roughly 85 percent of the 2012 irrigation unit water price. Furthermore, this trend should continue as the total cost of the project is expected to be allocated to all project beneficiaries, including water and recycled water customers, the recycled water customer price will be lower than the potable unit price. This rate assumes a continuation and escalation of the existing recycled water surcharge.

8.4.8 Sensitivity Analysis

It is possible that the actual recycled water consumption maybe above or below the projected assumed recycled water consumption. As higher consumption will decrease the unit cost, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of lower consumption on unit recycled water price. Table 8.8 summarizes this recommended project’s sensitivity analysis.

8.4.9 Recommended Project Benefit-Cost Analysis

In order to calculate the quantitative cost-benefits of the project cost, a present worth analysis was conducted on the projected cash flows over a 20-year period using a present worth factor of 3.0 percent. The unit cost of the recommended project was estimated using the present value of the project capital and O&M costs as well as recycled water consumption. The estimated unit cost was $955 (present value cost over the life of the project – See Table 8.7, Note 4) per acre-foot. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix J.

Qualitative costs of the project include short-term construction impacts such as noise, environmental, and aesthetic nuisance. Qualitative benefits of the recommended project include the following:

• The promotion of sustainability through the availability of the new drought proof supply.

• Alternate disposal of treated effluent through irrigation use.

• Facilitation of compliance with the 2009 CA Water Conservation Act goal to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban water consumption by 2020.

• The avoided use of ground and surface water resources in the region.

• Local control of a portion of water supply.

July 2013 8-18


Table 8.8 Sensitivity Analysis Recycled Water Feasibility Study City of Pleasanton

Price @ No Change in Consumption

Price @ 5% Less Consumption



Annual Recycled Water Consumption 1,720 AFY 1,634 AFY 1,548 AFY 1,290 AFY

Capital Costs (1)

Price per Acre-Foot $500 $527 $556 $667

O&M and R&R Costs

Price per Acre-Foot $578 $608 $642 $770

Note(1) Capital costs are based on estimated debt service for a 20-year term at 3 percent interest.

:

July 2013 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/AppCov

City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX A – SWRCB RECOMMENDED PLANNING OUTLINE FOR WATER RECYCLING PROJECTS


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX B – SUMMARY OF REFERENCES

July 2013 1 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/App B References.docx

City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX B – SUMMARY OF REFERENCES

1. Final Report, Dublin San Ramon Services District 2007 Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Planning Report, Whitley Burchett, Oct 2007

2. Joint Exercise of Power Agreement for LAVWMA, Sept 1997

3. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, DERWA, Jun 1995

4. DERWA Operations Agreement, May 2005

5. DSRSD, LAVWMA, EBDA NPDES Permit CA 0037613, Aug 2006

6. DERWA Sales Agreement, Jul 2003

7. DERWA Water Supply Agreement, Jul 2003

8. DERWA – SRVRWP Facilities Map, Jul 2011

9. Draft Report, City of Livermore Recycled Water Master Plan, Carollo Engineers, Jan 2011

10. City of Pleasanton Official website www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us

11. Zone 7, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Jan 2011

12. Zone 7, 2011 Water Supply Evaluation Report & Appendices, Jul 2011

13. DERWA-DSRSD Order 96-011 Recycled Water Permit

14. Draft Report, Dublin San Ramon Services District Assessment of Cope Lake for Recycled Water Storage, Dodson, Dec 2003

15. City of Pleasanton, Urban Water Management Plan, 2010


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX C – DERWA SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM MAP


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX D - POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS LISTS

Table D.1 Full List of Potential Recycled Water CustomersCity of PleasantonRecycled Water Feasibility Study

Rank in

Use Customer NameMap ID(1)

Average Annual

Demand(2)

(afy)

Maximum Month

Demand(3)

(MG)

Maximum Month

Demand (mgd)

Maximum Month Demand

Incorporating Irrigation Hours

(gph)



(gpm)1 Hacienda Business Park 40 1,249.66 69.43 2.24 279,981 4,666.42 C lli G lf C 14 353 03 22 44 0 72 90 501 1 508 32 Callippe Golf Course 14 353.03 22.44 0.72 90,501 1,508.33 Sports Park 87 219.41 12.71 0.41 51,252 854.24 Stoneridge Mall 92 169.18 8.94 0.29 36,056 600.95 Ruby Hills 82 147.57 8.79 0.28 35,443 590.76 Koll Center Parkway 53 130.99 7.60 0.25 30,662 511.07 Val Vista Park 102 99.65 4.91 0.16 19,809 330.18 Sunol Blvd 97 83.44 5.24 0.17 21,136 352.39 Valley Business Park 104 75.15 4.06 0.13 16,382 273.0

10 ValleyCare Medical Center 109 74.97 3.68 0.12 14,831 247.211 Vintage Hills 113 58.43 3.62 0.12 14,606 243.4g12 Downtown 28 58.10 3.12 0.10 12,593 209.913 Civic Center 18 56.03 3.26 0.11 13,135 218.914 Ironwood 51 51.77 2.94 0.09 11,835 197.215 Laguna Oaks 58 51.55 3.42 0.11 13,809 230.216 Foothill High School 34 51.06 2.70 0.09 10,881 181.317 Golden Eagle 39 50.14 3.20 0.10 12,889 214.818 Amador Valley High School 6 48.05 2.44 0.08 9,849 164.219 Rose Pavilion Shopping 80 46.74 2.34 0.08 9,453 157.520 Fairlands Park 32 44.21 2.97 0.10 11,992 199.921 Kottinger 54 38.95 2.29 0.07 9,214 153.621 Kottinger 54 38.95 2.29 0.07 9,214 153.622 Walnut Hills 117 38.21 2.39 0.08 9,629 160.523 Tennis Complex 100 36.41 2.19 0.07 8,814 146.924 Aquatic Center 9 35.99 2.13 0.07 8,578 143.025 Vineyard Avenue 112 35.71 2.05 0.07 8,263 137.726 Laurel Creek 61 33.51 1.95 0.06 7,854 130.927 Donlon Elementary School 27 32.95 2.10 0.07 8,481 141.328 Harvest Park School 44 30.79 1.77 0.06 7,155 119.329 Pleasanton Middle School 78 30.19 2.16 0.07 8,695 144.930 Hart Middle School 42 29.72 1.96 0.06 7,892 131.531 Creekside Park 22 28 60 1 57 0 05 6 344 105 731 Creekside Park 22 28.60 1.57 0.05 6,344 105.732 Las Positas 60 28.43 1.89 0.06 7,605 126.833 Stoneridge Place 95 27.20 1.53 0.05 6,157 102.634 Kottinger Ranch 56 25.30 1.51 0.05 6,081 101.435 Muirwood Park 71 24.92 1.60 0.05 6,465 107.736 Bernal Ball Park 10 23.87 1.46 0.05 5,882 98.037 Mission Hills 66 23.37 1.40 0.05 5,645 94.138 Gatewood Apts 37 23.16 1.15 0.04 4,657 77.639 Fairlands 30 22.81 1.37 0.04 5,531 92.240 Orloff Park 74 21.53 1.41 0.05 5,683 94.741 Stanley Business Park 88 20 45 1 10 0 04 4 428 73 841 Stanley Business Park 88 20.45 1.10 0.04 4,428 73.842 Shadow Cliffs 86 19.88 1.37 0.04 5,531 92.243 Dublin Canyon 29 19.66 1.09 0.04 4,385 73.144 Mission Hills Park 67 19.55 1.25 0.04 5,036 83.945 Civic Square Apts 19 18.60 0.95 0.03 3,819 63.646 Amador Park 5 18.15 1.02 0.03 4,096 68.347 Stoneridge Square 96 18.14 1.00 0.03 4,027 67.148 Fawn Hills Park 33 17.27 1.10 0.04 4,432 73.949 Case Ave 15 16.50 0.88 0.03 3,568 59.550 Nielson Park 72 15.88 1.00 0.03 4,028 67.151 Sycamore 99 15.68 0.92 0.03 3,697 61.652 Valley Trails Park 107 15.46 0.95 0.03 3,839 64.053 Stonedale Townhomes 91 15.31 0.94 0.03 3,795 63.354 Meadowlark Park 63 15.06 0.95 0.03 3,821 63.755 Amaral Park 7 15.03 1.04 0.03 4,194 69.956 California Reflections 13 14.57 0.83 0.03 3,335 55.657 Hansen Park 41 14.48 0.94 0.03 3,784 63.158 Santa Rita Industrial Park 83 14.42 0.74 0.02 2,965 49.459 Moller Ranch 70 14.10 0.83 0.03 3,339 55.660 Meadows Park 64 13.84 0.93 0.03 3,744 62.460 Meadows Park 64 13.84 0.93 0.03 3,744 62.461 Moller Park 69 13.73 0.93 0.03 3,732 62.262 Del Prado Park 26 12.89 0.87 0.03 3,525 58.863 Lydiksen Elementary School 62 12.52 0.71 0.02 2,861 47.7

Table D.1 Full List of Potential Recycled Water Customers (Continued)City of PleasantonRecycled Water Feasibility Study

Rank in

Use Customer NameMap ID(1)

Average Annual

Demand (afy)

Maximum Month

Demand (MG)

Maximum Month

Demand (mgd)



(gph)



(gpm)64 Walnut Grove Park 115 12.19 0.83 0.03 3,344 55.765 Gold Creek Townhomes 38 12 12 0 68 0 02 2 757 46 065 Gold Creek Townhomes 38 12.12 0.68 0.02 2,757 46.066 Oakhill Park 73 12.00 0.75 0.02 3,009 50.267 Upper Playfields 101 10.98 0.66 0.02 2,653 44.268 Amberwood Townhomes 8 10.95 0.69 0.02 2,797 46.669 Del Prado 25 10.56 0.60 0.02 2,410 40.270 Via Siena 110 10.34 0.59 0.02 2,365 39.471 Walnut Grove 114 10.11 0.55 0.02 2,213 36.972 Valley Median 105 9.21 0.55 0.02 2,223 37.173 Woodthrush Park 119 9.03 0.55 0.02 2,209 36.874 Ridge 79 8.86 0.52 0.02 2,111 35.275 Pimlico Plaza Shopping 77 8 48 0 40 0 01 1 630 27 275 Pimlico Plaza Shopping 77 8.48 0.40 0.01 1,630 27.276 Amador Center Shopping 4 8.47 0.51 0.02 2,037 34.077 Rosepark 81 8.08 0.48 0.02 1,924 32.178 Stoneridge Median 93 7.92 0.67 0.02 2,711 45.279 Valley Plaza Shopping 106 7.28 0.40 0.01 1,594 26.680 Suttergate Park 98 6.89 0.44 0.01 1,764 29.481 Santa Rita Square Shopping 85 6.86 0.41 0.01 1,669 27.882 Bicentennial Park 12 6.68 0.41 0.01 1,669 27.883 Country Fair 21 6.55 0.37 0.01 1,505 25.184 Walnut Grove School 116 6.51 0.36 0.01 1,442 24.085 Laguna Creek 57 6 30 0 41 0 01 1 634 27 285 Laguna Creek 57 6.30 0.41 0.01 1,634 27.286 Hearst Elementary School 46 6.25 0.42 0.01 1,688 28.187 Alisal Elementary School 2 6.22 0.40 0.01 1,625 27.188 Stanley Commercial Park 89 5.65 0.31 0.01 1,245 20.789 OSC 75 5.53 0.36 0.01 1,460 24.390 Valley View Elementary School 108 5.43 0.34 0.01 1,360 22.791 Harvest Park 43 5.07 0.35 0.01 1,391 23.292 Bernal Median 11 4.70 0.27 0.01 1,094 18.293 Hopyard Center 49 4.55 0.23 0.01 938 15.694 Foothill Median 36 4.47 0.30 0.01 1,208 20.195 Village High School 111 4 12 0 28 0 01 1 142 19 095 Village High School 111 4.12 0.28 0.01 1,142 19.096 Valley Avenue Median 103 4.04 0.22 0.01 901 15.097 West Las Positas Median 118 3.88 0.20 0.01 815 13.698 Danbury 23 3.73 0.22 0.01 872 14.599 Stoneridge Park 94 3.45 0.21 0.01 834 13.9

100 Tennis Complex 100 3.25 0.21 0.01 864 14.4101 Amador 3 2.92 0.15 <0.01 602 10.0102 Fairlands Median 31 2.68 0.17 0.01 704 11.7103 Heatherlark Park 47 2.62 0.16 0.01 638 10.6104 Harvest Square 45 2.45 0.13 <0.01 530 8.8105 K tti P k 55 2 34 0 13 <0 01 534 8 9105 Kottinger Park 55 2.34 0.13 <0.01 534 8.9106 Staples Ranch 90 2.18 0.19 0.01 760 12.7107 Hopyard Median 50 2.12 0.13 <0.01 510 8.5108 Foothill Knolls 35 1.83 0.10 <0.01 422 7.0109 Mohr Elementary School 68 1.62 0.08 <0.01 331 5.5110 Cemetery Private 17 1.47 0.07 <0.01 276 4.6111 Heritage Valley 48 1.27 0.07 <0.01 293 4.9112 Laguna Vista 59 1.26 0.08 <0.01 314 5.2113 Adobe Park 1 1.20 0.10 <0.01 403 6.7114 Pimlico Plaza 76 1.13 0.09 <0.01 354 5.9115 C t Cit 16 0 98 0 06 0 01 240 4 0115 Cemetery City 16 0.98 0.06 <0.01 240 4.0116 Deer Oaks 24 0.86 0.06 <0.01 224 3.7117 Commerce Circle 20 0.75 0.03 <0.01 138 2.3118 Santa Rita Median 84 0.59 0.05 <0.01 221 3.7119 Kilkare 52 0.29 0.02 <0.01 71 1.2120 Median 65 0.04 0.00 <0.01 12 0.2

Total 4,379.23 254.04 8.19 1,024,388 17,073.1Notes:

(1) For those customers not screened out, ID corresponds to the Map ID used in Table D.2 and the maps in the report.(2) Demands are based on average of 2008 through 2011 customer billing data, read on a bi-monthly basis.(3) Maximum month demands are based on the maximum demand in billing data and do not account for maximum daily peaking beyond that seen in the bi-monthly average; as discussed in Chapter 6, a seasonal peaking factor of 2.5 was used for sizing the distribution system.

Table D.2 Screened Potential Customer ListTable D.2 City of PleasantonTable D.2 Recycled Water Feasibility Study

I.D. Customer Name (mgd) (afy) (mgd) (mgd) (gpm)2 Alisal Elementary School 0.01 7 < 0.01 0.02 35

Peak Hour Demand(5)

Average Day Demand(1)

Average Annual Demand(2)

Min Month Demand(3)

Max. Day Demand(4)

3 Amador < 0.01 5 < 0.01 0.01 214 Amador Center Shopping 0.01 9 < 0.01 0.02 405 Amador Park 0.02 20 < 0.01 0.05 956 Amador Valley High School 0.05 55 0.01 0.12 2577 Amaral Park 0.01 17 < 0.01 0.04 789 Aquatic Center 0.04 45 0.01 0.10 207

10 Bernal Ball Park 0.01 9 < 0.01 0.02 4213 California Reflections 0.01 15 < 0.01 0.03 7114 Callippe Golf Course 0 40 452 0 07 1 01 2 10414 Callippe Golf Course 0.40 452 0.07 1.01 2,10415 Case Ave 0.02 18 < 0.01 0.04 8316 Cemetery City < 0.01 1 < 0.01 0.00 517 Cemetery Private < 0.01 2 < 0.01 0.00 918 Civic Center 0.06 67 0.01 0.15 31219 Civic Square Apts 0.02 21 < 0.01 0.05 9721 Country Fair 0.01 7 < 0.01 0.02 3322 Creekside Park 0.03 32 0.01 0.07 15023 Danbury < 0.01 3 < 0.01 0.01 12y24 Deer Oaks < 0.01 1 < 0.01 0.00 428 Downtown 0.07 73 0.01 0.16 34029 Dublin Canyon 0.02 24 < 0.01 0.05 10930 Fairlands 0.02 27 < 0.01 0.06 12532 Fairlands Park 0.04 50 0.01 0.11 23335 Foothill Knolls < 0.01 2 < 0.01 0.01 1137 Gatewood Apts 0.02 27 < 0.01 0.06 12538 Gold Creek Townhomes 0.01 15 < 0.01 0.03 6939 Golden Eagle 0 04 48 0 01 0 11 22539 Golden Eagle 0.04 48 0.01 0.11 22540 Hacienda Business Park 1.19 1,336 0.21 2.98 6,20842 Hart Middle School 0.03 35 0.01 0.08 16244 Harvest Park School 0.04 40 0.01 0.09 18745 Harvest Square < 0.01 3 < 0.01 0.01 1346 Hearst Elementary School 0.01 8 < 0.01 0.02 3748 Heritage Valley < 0.01 1 < 0.01 0.00 449 Hopyard Center < 0.01 4 < 0.01 0.01 2051 Ironwood 0.06 63 0.01 0.14 29551 Ironwood 0.06 63 0.01 0.14 29553 Koll Center Parkway 0.14 159 0.03 0.36 74054 Kottinger 0.04 43 0.01 0.10 20155 Kottinger Park < 0.01 3 < 0.01 0.01 1358 Laguna Oaks 0.05 61 0.01 0.14 28559 Laguna Vista < 0.01 2 < 0.01 0.00 960 Las Positas 0.03 36 0.01 0.08 16763 Meadowlark Park 0.02 18 < 0.01 0.04 8566 Mission Hills 0.03 29 < 0.01 0.07 13668 M h El t S h l 0 01 2 0 01 0 00 968 Mohr Elementary School < 0.01 2 < 0.01 0.00 972 Nielson Park 0.02 19 < 0.01 0.04 9074 Orloff Park 0.02 25 < 0.01 0.05 11475 OSC < 0.01 5 < 0.01 0.01 2576 Pimlico Plaza < 0.01 2 < 0.01 0.00 877 Pimlico Plaza Shopping 0.01 11 < 0.01 0.02 4978 Pleasanton Middle School 0.04 43 0.01 0.10 20180 Rose Pavilion Shopping 0.06 64 0.01 0.14 29781 Rosepark 0 01 10 < 0 01 0 02 4581 Rosepark 0.01 10 < 0.01 0.02 4583 Santa Rita Industrial Park 0.02 20 < 0.01 0.04 9185 Santa Rita Square Shopping 0.01 9 < 0.01 0.02 42

Table D.2 Screened Potential Customer List (Continued)Table D.2 City of PleasantonTable D.2 Recycled Water Feasibility Study

I.D. Customer Name (mgd) (afy) (mgd) (mgd) (gpm)87 Sports Park 0.22 251 0.04 0.56 1,169

Peak Hour Demand(5)

Average Day Demand(1)

Average Annual Demand(2)

Min Month Demand(3)

Max. Day Demand(4)

90 Staples Ranch 0.12 140 0.02 0.31 64691 Stonedale Townhomes 0.02 18 < 0.01 0.04 8592 Stoneridge Mall 0.18 200 0.03 0.45 92994 Stoneridge Park < 0.01 4 < 0.01 0.01 1995 Stoneridge Place 0.03 33 0.01 0.07 15596 Stoneridge Square 0.02 21 < 0.01 0.05 9997 Sunol Blvd 0.09 101 0.02 0.23 47199 Sycamore 0.02 19 < 0.01 0.04 90100 Tennis Complex 0 04 41 0 01 0 09 193100 Tennis Complex 0.04 41 0.01 0.09 193101 Upper Playfields 0.01 12 < 0.01 0.03 57102 Val Vista Park 0.08 89 0.01 0.20 412104 Valley Business Park 0.08 84 0.01 0.19 392106 Valley Plaza Shopping 0.01 8 < 0.01 0.02 38107 Valley Trails Park 0.02 19 < 0.01 0.04 89108 Valley View Elementary School 0.01 7 < 0.01 0.01 31109 ValleyCare Medical Center 0.08 84 0.01 0.19 392110 Via Siena 0.01 12 < 0.01 0.03 56111 Village High School < 0.01 5 < 0.01 0.01 25114 Walnut Grove 0.01 12 < 0.01 0.03 58115 Walnut Grove Park 0.01 14 < 0.01 0.03 67116 Walnut Grove School 0.01 8 < 0.01 0.02 36117 Walnut Hills 0.04 48 0.01 0.11 223Total 3.87 4,336 0.70 9.67 20,156Notes:(1) Average Day Demand (ADD) = Average Annual Demand / 366 Days.(2) Average Annual Demand developed from City Water Meter Data (2008).( ) g p y ( )(3) Minimum Month Demand to Average Day Demand Peaking Factor = 0.18 (MinMD= ADD x 0.18).(4) Maximum Day Demand to Average Day Demand Peaking factor= 2.5 (MDD = ADD x 2.5), assumed based on neighboring recycled

water distribution system.(5) Peak Hour Demand to Maximum Day Demand Peaking Factor = 3.0 (PHD= MDD x 3.0), assumed based on irrigation demands taking place

on average constantly over an 8-hour period each day.


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX E –CUSTOMER LETTERS OF INTEREST, STAKEHOLDER MEETING HAND-OUT/SIGN-IN

DATE: 04/05/2011

Jim Gorman

Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

4300 Hacienda Drive

Pleasanton CA, 94588

Re: Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. Interest and Intention to Convert from Potable Water to Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation Purposes

Dear Mr. Daniel Smith,

Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. wishes to express its support for the need to develop recycled water supplies within the City of Pleasanton to increase the water supply reliability in the Tri-Valley area. The implementation of a recycled water system will lessen the potable water demands on the State Water Project, as well as the local groundwater supply. We support the efforts of the City of Pleasanton to develop a recycled water system to help conserve our potable water supply.

We currently irrigate approximately 15 acres of land. As the recycled water program is developed, we believe that we can likely participate by replacing potable water with recycled water for irrigation purposes.

Sin~ a Gorman Facilities Manager

Cc: Rita Di Candia, Water Conservation Coordinator

C:\Documents and Settings\jlardizabal\Desktop\Pleasanton Rpt\App E CustomerMeetingHandout.doc 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON


Stakeholder Informational Meeting

October 2012

STUDY OVERVIEW This Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) evaluates the feasibility of serving recycled water throughout the City for irrigation purposes. The objective of this study is to identify an implementable long-term action plan for achieving the following goals:

• Reducing potable water use by supplying recycled water when appropriate

• Helping to meet the City’s Climate Action Plan (adopted February 2012)

• Helping to meet the State Water Conservation Act of 2009

• Optimizing the recycled water system configuration

The study area for this study is defined as the City of Pleasanton. The source of recycled water will be the Dublin San Ramon Services District’s (DSRSD) Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has successfully served a number of irrigation and commercial use sites in Dublin and San Ramon for several years. Numerous possible customers have been identified in Pleasanton and will be discussed at the meeting.

TIMELINE Pleasanton expects to be serving recycled water to Val Vista Park as soon as summer of 2013, with more sites to follow shortly after. Hacienda Business Park is planned to be one of the earlier areas to be served recycled water. A complete timeline for recycled water system implementation has not yet been developed. A proposed timeline will be available at study completion.

COSTS

Pleasanton applied for and received two grants to help pay for the costs of planning for the study – one federal grant from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and one state grant from the State Water Resources Control Board. Also, the City has been collecting a recycled water surcharge to help cover implementation costs for the project.

C:\Documents and Settings\jlardizabal\Desktop\Pleasanton Rpt\App E CustomerMeetingHandout.doc 2

The RWFS is in its draft final stage, with a draft document planned for internal City review in November 2012. The expected cost of the system and cost of the water is currently being developed. California Water Law states that - ”the recycled water may be furnished for these uses at a reasonable cost to the user… and shall find that the cost of supplying the treated recycled water is comparable to, or less than, the cost of supplying potable domestic water.” - thus the delivered recycled water will at most be equivalent to the potable water rate.

RULES AND REGULATIONS All recycled water produced and distributed in the State of California must adhere to the applicable laws. Title 22, California Administrative Code, and Water Recycling Criteria provide direction on acceptable uses of recycled water and direct the minimum water quality requirements of the recycled water for specific use.

The recycled water produced at the DSRSD WWTP meets disinfected tertiary standards and is approved for irrigation, impoundment, and industrial uses (cooling towers, etc).

QUESTIONS/CONCERNS The City is interested in your input, questions, and possible concerns with using recycled water. Some concerns in other areas of the country have included items such as:

• Cost

• Water quality

• Conversion issues (e.g. separation of irrigation lines from restrooms and drinking fountains, retrofit of existing system)

• Corrosion

• Water availability/reliability

• Runoff

• Potential for fines

• Institutional process to convert


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX F - CUSTOMER INCENTIVE PROGRAM EXAMPLES

LOCAL WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

INFORMATION/APPLICATION PACKAGE

FOR

RECYCLED WATER

PREPARED BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

LAST REVISED

August 2010

2

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY LOCAL WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

INFORMATION/APPLICATION PACKAGE

FOR

RECYCLED WATER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Page

I. BACKGROUND 4

II. PURPOSE 5

III. DEFINITIONS 5

IV. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 7

1. New Water Supply 2. Financial Need 3. Project Sponsor 4. Compliance with Regulatory Requirements and Laws 5. California Environmental Quality Act 6. Technical Development

V. CALCULATION OF CONTRIBUTION RATE AND 9

METHOD OF PAYMENT

1. Agreement 2. Maximum Contribution Rate 3. Contribution Rate 4. Calculation of Contribution Rate 5. Addition of Earnings/Cost of Funds to Cumulative Net Balance 6. Return of Excess Contributions 7. Method of Invoicing and Payment 8. Financial Assistance Program (FAP) Reimbursement 9. One-time Capital Contribution 10. Eligible Project Costs 11. Eligible Project Revenues

VI. ANNUAL FINANCIAL REVIEW AND RECORD KEEPING 13

3

1. Annual Review 2. Record Retention

VII. PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS 14

VIII. TERM AND AMENDMENTS 14

IX. INDEMINITY – HOLD HARMLESS 15

X. PROJECT APPLICATION 15

ATTACHMENTS 16 A. Engineering Report Outline B. Project Fact Sheet C. Expenditure and Revenue Worksheets D. Internal Control Questionnaire

4

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY LOCAL WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

I.

BACKGROUND

The San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) was founded in 1944 to import supplemental water to the San Diego region. The Water Authority is comprised of 24 member agencies, which either directly or indirectly purchase water for use at the retail level. H istorically, the Water Authority has provided between 70 to 95 percent of the region’s water supplies through purchases from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). R emaining supplies are produced by Water Authority member agencies from local reservoirs, groundwater basins and water recycling facilities. The Water Authority and its member agencies are engaged in a long-term effort to reduce regional reliance on imported water supplies. The Water Authority anticipates the development of approximately 40,000 acre-feet of recycled water demand within its service area by the year 2015. In 1991 the Water Authority established the Reclaimed Water Development Fund (RWDF). The RWDF provided agencies an initial financial contribution of up to $100 per acre-foot of recycled water produced and beneficially reused within the Water Authority’s service area. In September 2005, the RWDF incentive level was increased to $147.00/AF to reflect an inflation factor based on a compounded annual inflation rate of 3 percent (based on an interest accrual period from FY 1993 through FY 2005). In November 2006, the RWDF Program was further modified to provide up to $200 per acre-foot of recycled water and potable water produced from brackish or otherwise contaminated groundwater. The inclusion of funding for groundwater recovery projects necessitated a change in the Water Authority’s financial incentive Program from the RWDF Program to the Local Water Supply Development (LWSD) Program. In February 2008, the LWSD Program was again amended to expand eligibility to include seawater desalination projects and adopt program guidelines and funding principles to govern the determination of member agency financial need for seawater and brackish groundwater desalination projects. A separate application package titled “Information/Application Package for Desalination Projects” was developed for these types of projects seeking LWSD funding. The LWSD Program was initially designed to supplement financial incentives from Metropolitan’s Local Resources Program (LRP). Through the LRP, Metropolitan provided qualifying projects from $0 to $250 for each acre-foot of reuse up to a maximum of 25 years. Metropolitan’s past financial assistance programs, the Local Projects Program (LPP), the Groundwater Recovery Program (GRP), and the Temporary Local Resources Program (TLRP) have been phased out and replaced by the Local Resources Program (LRP). In September 2005, the Water Authority Board of

5

Directors approved recommending eliminating the requirement that award of RWDF incentives was contingent upon receiving LRP incentive funding. In July 2007, MWD released its revised LRP Funding Application Package which eliminated the competitive request for proposal process, and instead employed an open process to accept and review project applications on a continuous basis for the development of 174,000 acre-feet per year of local resources. The LWSD Program is a discretionary program of the Water Authority. After determination of eligibility, including determination of a financial need according to the program guidelines, each potential project requires the approval of the Water Authority Board of Directors. II.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the LWSD Program is to promote the development of cost-effective water recycling projects that prevent, or reduce a demand for, imported water and improve regional water supply reliability. III.

DEFINITIONS

Recycled Water:

is treated wastewater that is subject to water quality standards and regulatory agency oversight and approval, and is usable for designated non-potable, beneficial uses such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, industrial processes, and commercial applications.

Project:

means the Project for production and/or delivery of Recycled Water.

Agency:

is the public agency that owns and operates, or proposes to own and operate, the Project. The Agency may or may not be a member agency of the Water Authority.

Project Sponsor:

is the member agency of the Water Authority whose service area is served by the Project.

End User:

is each of the ultimate users that purchase the Recycled Water produced by the Project.

Beneficial Use:

means the use of Recycled Water supplied by the Project and utilized by an End User that provides benefit to the region. These benefits include, but are not limited to, landscape irrigation for parks, campgrounds, golf courses, freeway medians, community greenbelts, school athletic fields; irrigation for agricultural food crops and nursery stock; recreational and aesthetic enjoyment associated with the replenishment of lakes, ponds and ornamental fountains; dust control at construction sites; makeup water for cooling tower use; and other industrial and commercial purposes.

6

Recycled Water Rate:

means the rate used to calculate revenues from recycled water sales. If the Agency is a retail water agency, the Recycled Water Rate is the higher of: 1) Agency’s recycled water rate(s) for sales to End Users; or 2) eighty-five percent (85%) of the lowest applicable potable water rate of the Agency for the End User served by the Project. A participating retail water agency has the prerogative to charge its customers less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the lowest applicable potable water rate of the Agency for the End User served by the Project. However, the Agency will continue to be analyzed on the basis of charging eighty-five (85%) of the lowest applicable potable water rate of the Agency for the End User served by the Project for LWSD Program incentive calculation purposes. If the Agency is not a retail water agency, the Recycled Water Rate is the higher of the Agency’s rate for each class of recycled water service, or 85% of the Project Sponsor’s rate for each equivalent class of potable water service. An agency that is not a retail water agency has the prerogative to charge its customers less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the Project Sponsor’s rate for each equivalent class of potable water service. However, the non-retail agency will continue to be analyzed on the basis of charging eighty-five (85%) of the Project Sponsor’s rate for each equivalent class of potable water service for LWSD Program incentive calculation purposes. For purposes of this definition, applicable potable water rate shall mean the commodity charge for the class of service associated with the End User being served by the Project.

Allowable Project Yield:

means the actual amount of recycled water, measured in acre-feet, which is sold and delivered to the End Users by the Project in any given year, and which is used within the Water Authority’s service area. Allowable Project Yield (Yield) shall exclude any non-revenue generating Recycled Water, which is used within the wastewater treatment/water recycling plant property for on-site plant uses such as, filter backwash, cooling, process water, wash-down, including landscape irrigation and other uses that will not reduce a demand for potable water from the Water Authority, as these uses would not have existed without the existence of the wastewater/water recycling plant and the requirement to comply with wastewater discharge permits. Yield shall also exclude any potable water used to supplement or replace the Recycled Water provided to the End Users. If an Agency determines that Yield delivered to any End User will not result in the collection of revenue, the Agency will calculate the cost per AF value of that Yield at the rate generally charged to customers of the recycled water system but in no event less than 85% of the lowest applicable potable water rate for End Users served. The Agency will clearly track and report this Yield on a monthly billing basis. This Yield will be used in the calculation of revenue to annually determine the Water Authority’s LWSD Program incentive contribution.

Project Revenues:

means revenues from recycled water sales, plus any other revenues, which offset the costs of recycled water production or distribution. These additional revenues may include Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) incentives (such as Local Resources Program incentives), federal and state grants, contributions from other agencies, connection fees, capacity charges, meter charges, special assessments, interest earnings on debt service reserves, and tax revenues.

7

Project Costs:

means the actual Project cost to produce an acre-foot of Recycled Water beneficially reused by Project End Users and is comprised of three components: Annualized Capital Costs, Annualized Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs and Annualized Replacement Costs. Project Costs exclude the cost of existing facilities, the cost of those Project components necessary to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) and Waste Discharge Permit requirements, the costs of primary and secondary treatment facilities, and the cost of those Project components funded by grants or contributions from private or public agencies. Project Costs may include costs incurred by Agency for the retrofitting of private water systems to the extent necessary to permit the attainment of Yield.

Capital Cost Values:

means the actual cost of the development of the tertiary water treatment facility, the distribution system, and the debt service associated with the construction of these facilities.

Contribution Rate:

means the current per acre-foot of Yield determined and paid in accordance with Section V.

LWSD Program:

means the San Diego County Water Authority’s Local Water Supply Development Program.

IV.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

To qualify for LWSD Program incentives, an Agency must meet the following eligibility criteria: 1.

New Water Supply

The Agency must demonstrate that the Project will result in a new water supply, which will reduce demands on t he Water Authority for imported water. R ecycled water production that will not reduce demands on the Water Authority (e.g. recycled water deliveries that reduce or replace groundwater usage) do not qualify for LWSD Program incentives. Metering devices shall be installed and owned, operated and maintained by Agency for the purpose of measuring Yield. Each meter shall be read in accordance with the Agency's or the Water Authority’s regular billing cycle for purposes of billing and accounting between the Parties to determine at the beginning of each billing cycle the quantity of Recycled Water billed to End Users during the preceding billing cycle. If the Agency’s customer is a Wholesale Customer(s), Agency will ensure metering devices shall be installed and owned, operated and maintained by the Wholesale Customer(s) for the purpose of measuring Project Yield from their respective End-users. The Agency meter, that supplies the recycled water to the Wholesale Customer, will be the meter that will be used to measure eligible Agency Project Yield.

8

Agency shall install metering devices at the Recycled Water storage reservoirs or water reclamation plant(s) to determine the quantity of raw or potable water, if any, that was blended with Recycled Water and delivered to End Users during each billing cycle. The Agency will be responsible for ensuring that all metering devices are properly installed, calibrated, and maintained. The Agency shall be solely responsible for the accuracy of the meter readings. The Water Authority reserves the right to review the meter readings and may request independent meter accuracy testing. The costs of any independent meter test will be divided equally between the Water Authority and the Agency. 2.

Financial Need

The Agency must demonstrate that the Project requires additional funding to be financially feasible. A Project is assumed to demonstrate a financial need when cumulative Project Costs (including a proposal share of the agency’s general overhead costs) exceed cumulative Project Revenues during the initial years of Project operation. Once the Project has demonstrated financial need a nd the Water Authority funding commences, the Agency shall make available for inspection by the Water Authority, upon reasonable advance notice, all records, books and other documents relating to the operation of the Project. Additionally, the Water Authority, at its sole discretion, may conduct an a nnual financial review of the Project to determine whether the Project continues to meet the financial need criteria (see Section VI). 3.

Project Sponsor

An Agency that is not a member agency of the Water Authority must be sponsored by a Water Authority member agency (or agencies) within whose service area(s) the Project is located. The Project Sponsor will be party to any agreement approved by the Water Authority Board of Directors (Board). LWSD Program incentives will be provided as a credit on the Project Sponsor’s water bill, or, at the Water Authority’s discretion, a reimbursement check will be issued directly to the Agency. 4.

Compliance with Regulatory Requirements and Laws

The Agency shall ensure, either directly or by contract with End Users, that all recycled water produced, treated, and delivered by the Project is used in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, regulations and other requirements, and s hall further ensure that connections to the recycled system are properly designed and constructed. A dditionally, the Agency must demonstrate that appropriate regulatory and public health permits have been, or will be, obtained. The agency shall also demonstrate compliance with all applicable laws and regulations associated with the extraction, replenishment, management, treatment, and distribution of groundwater.

9

5.

California Environmental Quality Act

Agency shall ensure that the Project complies with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Water Authority shall not be obligated to make any payments for Yield from any component of a Project that does not comply with CEQA requirements. 6.

Technical Development

Prior to applying for LWSD Program incentives, the Agency must complete a sufficient level of technical and financial planning to allow Water Authority staff to determine whether the Project complies with the eligibility criteria outlined above. V.

CALCULATION OF CONTRIBUTION RATE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT

The following conditions govern the calculation of the Contribution Rate and the payment of incentives: 1.

Agreement

The Agency and Project Sponsor, if applicable, must enter into an agreement with the Water Authority prior to the allocation of any funds under the LWSD Program. The agreement will establish the terms governing the payment of LWSD Program incentives, the role of the Agency and Project Sponsor, liability clause, and other related matters. The term of the agreement will be 25 years from the date the Project begins deliveries. The Agency will be eligible to receive funding during each of the 25 years, or until the Project no longer qualifies to receive LWSD Program incentives. If the Project does not demonstrate a financial need in any given year, then funding will not be allocated for that specific year. 2.

Maximum Contribution Rate

The Maximum Contribution Rate is currently set at $200 per acre-foot of Yield. The Maximum Contribution Rate may be adjusted periodically by the Water Authority Board of Directors, and is based upon the Water Authority’s actual and projected costs of acquiring additional water supplies. 3.

Contribution Rate

The Contribution Rate for an acre-foot of Yield will be established annually by the Water Authority for each Project deemed eligible for LWSD Program incentives. The Contribution Rate will be determined based on the specific financial need of the Project and may be less than the Maximum Contribution Rate.

10

4.

Calculation of Contribution Rate

At the end of each fiscal year, the Water Authority will conduct a financial review of the Project to determine the Project’s cumulative net balance, (i.e., the difference between cumulative Project Revenues and cumulative Project Costs, for the coming fiscal year). The Project will be eligible to receive Contribution Rate disbursements if the cumulative net balance for the coming fiscal year is projected to be less than zero (i.e. if cumulative Project Costs exceed cumulative Project Revenues). The Contribution Rate disbursements for a Project will be established in such a manner as to maintain a cumulative Project balance of $0, provided, however, that the Contribution Rate may not exceed the Maximum Contribution Rate. The Water Authority will include an allowance for its foregone interest earnings in the calculation of the Project’s cumulative net balance. 5.

Addition of Earnings/Cost of Funds to Cumulative Net Balance

For the purpose of computing the Cumulative Net Balance in any given fiscal year, there shall be added to Project Costs the annual cost of funds to the Agency for carrying any negative Cumulative Net Balance from the first day of the fiscal year the Project begins deliveries of Recycled Water to an End User through the last day of the fiscal year under consideration. For the purpose of computing the Cumulative Net Balance in any given fiscal year, there shall be added to Project Revenues the estimated earnings of the Agency on any positive Cumulative Net Balance from the first day of the fiscal year the Project begins deliveries of Recycled Water to an End user through the last day of the fiscal year under consideration. See the following example: First Year

of Delivery Second Year of Delivery

Third Year of Delivery

Project Revenue

$100

$400

$1,200

Project Cost

$500

$500

$500

Balance

($400)

($100)

$700

Cumulative Net Balance

($400)

($520)

$154

Cost of Funds/ Interest Adjustment*

($20)

($26)

$8

Adjusted Cumulative Net Balance

($420)

($546)

$162

*Assumes 5% of Cumulative Net Balance

11

6.

Return of Excess Contributions

In the event that the Project has a positive cumulative net balance at the end of any fiscal year, the Agency will return to the Water Authority the amount of any contributions made during that year so as to achieve a cumulative net balance of $0. The policy of the Water Authority is not to provide contributions for projects that can maintain a positive cumulative net balance without a Water Authority contribution. 7.

Method of Invoicing and Payment

The Agency shall invoice the Water Authority monthly for the Yield, based upon the quantities billed to End Users during the previous month. Billings shall be based upon meter readings at each and every connection of the Project to an End User. Contribution Rate disbursements will be paid monthly based on the actual Yield during the previous billing cycle and the Actual Contribution Rate for the Project. Incentives to the member agencies will be provided in the form of a credit on their monthly Statement of Water Deliveries and Charges. If the Agency receiving the credit is not a Water Authority member agency, a reimbursement check will be issued directly to the Agency by the Water Authority. 10. “Annualized Capital Costs” shall be computed using only the following incurred costs by the Agency for the Project:

Eligible Project Costs

• Design and construction management service fees. • Planning (excluding LISA-funded planning costs), design, and construction

costs of the Project facilities; these costs may include a recycled water distribution system of varying diameter recycled water pipeline, pump stations, and storage facilities. The tertiary treatment facilities shall not be used for wastewater disposal purposes.

• Agency administration of the Project planning (excluding LISA-funded planning costs), design, construction, and start-up costs. These costs represent a reasonable overhead allocation that must be agreed upon with the Water Authority.

• Land, right-of-way and easements for the Project and Recycled Water system facilities.

• Environmental documentation (excluding LISA-funded costs) and mitigation measures directly related to the implementation or operation of the Project and required to comply with applicable environmental permits and laws, including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, AB32 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts. Environmental documentation costs shall commence with the Notice of Preparation and conclude with the filing of the Notice of Determination.

• Annual debt service expense.

12

• All other costs not specified in the above section shall be excluded, unless previously approved by the Water Authority.

• All contributions (e.g. Metropolitan and Water Authority incentives, grants, fees, charges, etc.) shall be offset "or netted" against the capital cost values for the purpose of computing the Annualized Capital Costs component.

“Operation and Maintenance Costs” for the applicable fiscal year shall be computed using only the following incurred costs by the Agency for the Project:

• Professional consulting service fees for Project operation, maintenance and audit.

• Agency labor costs and/or contract costs (rate based on current market rate).

• Chemicals and supplies for the Project operation and maintenance. • Net electrical energy (recovery energy shall be deducted from energy

purchased) for eligible facilities and distribution system operations. The Water Authority shall not pay for electrical energy costs if the Agency fails to install metering devices.

• Contractor services and supplies for Project facilities, operation and maintenance, and repair to maintain reliable system operation and achieve regulatory compliance.

• Monitoring required by permits, including water quality sampling and analysis of Recycled Water produced by the Project.

• All other costs not specified in the above section shall be excluded, unless previously approved by the Water Authority.

• All contributions shall be offset against operating cost values for the purpose of computing the Operation and Maintenance Costs component.

“Replacement Costs” shall be computed on the following basis:

• Cost estimates for replacement of major Project parts exceeding

$100,000, will be subject to internal Water Authority staff review to determine the reasonableness of the submitted cost estimate.

• Project parts identified for replacement will have met or exceeded average lifecycles for that identified replacement part.

• Salvage value of replaced parts shall be offset against replacement costs. • All contributions shall be offset against replacement cost values for the

purpose of computing the Replacement Costs component. • All other costs not specified in the section above shall be excluded, unless

previously approved by the Water Authority.

Note: The Water Authority may request explanations or a review of the detailed costs included in the Agency’s submittal of eligible costs, however, the Water Authority’s determination as to the validity of the costs is final.

13

11. Eligible Project Revenues “Annual Revenue Sources” shall consist, but not be limited to, the following sources:

• Revenues from Recycled Water sales, plus any other revenues, which

offset the costs of Recycled Water production or distribution. • Metropolitan Local Resources Program (LRP) incentives. • Federal and state grants awarded to an Agency’s program. • Agency connection fees, capacity charges, meter charges, special

assessments, and tax revenues. • Interest earnings on debt service. • All other revenues not specified in the above section, but obtained after

the first fiscal year of operation, shall be included in the total revenue calculation of each subsequent fiscal year.

VI.

ANNUAL FINANCIAL REVIEW AND RECORD KEEPING

1.

Annual Review

The Water Authority will conduct an annual review of Eligible Project Costs and Eligible Project Revenues to determine the Contribution Rate for the Project. The Water Authority will send the appropriate reporting forms to the Agency by November 1st of each year which will require providing estimated Project Costs and Revenues for the current and upcoming fiscal year. The Water Agency will also provide actual Project Costs and Revenues from the prior fiscal year. These forms must be submitted to the Water Authority by January 31st of each year. For the purpose of projecting future year costs, inflation factors and interest rates will be determined by the Water Authority. The Water Authority (or its authorized agent) shall have the right to physically examine the accounting and Project records of the Agency to verify Project Costs and Project Revenues no less than every three years and will require an independent audit of those records. The Agency will submit all requested materials to the Water Authority no later than three weeks from the date of the initial request. Notwithstanding the formula described above, the Contribution Rate for any year may be adjusted: (a) to reflect the results of any review/audit by the Water Authority of the actual Project Costs and Project Revenue during previous Project operation years; and (b) to reduce the Contribution Rate by an amount equal to the Agency's obligation to repay any sum owed to the Water Authority under the Financial Assistance Program (FAP) for reclamation planning studies for this Project or any other Agency projects. 2.

Record Retention

The Agency shall establish and maintain accounting records of all revenue sources received and costs incurred for the construction, operation and maintenance, and replacement of parts for the Project as described in Section 10 - Eligible Project Costs,

14

and Section 11 - Eligible Project Revenues. Accounting for the Project shall utilize generally accepted accounting principles and be consistent with the terms of this Application Package. The Agency’s Project accounting records must clearly distinguish all costs for the Project from the Agency’s other water production, treatment, and distribution costs. These records shall also be adequate to determine Recycled Water and Yield in order to accomplish all cost calculations contemplated within the context of the Project. The Agency shall establish and maintain accounting records of all contributions including grants that offset “Eligible Project Costs.” The Agency shall collect Recycled Water and Yield data for each fiscal year of the Project and retain records of that data based on metering requirements. In addition, the Agency shall collect and retain records of the total annual amount of water conveyed outside the Agency’s service area using Project facilities. The Agency shall keep all Project records for at least three years following the termination of this Project Agreement. The Water Authority shall have the right to audit Recycled Water and Yield data relevant to the terms of any Agreement entered into for a period of three fiscal years following termination of the Project Agreement. The Water Authority may elect to have such reviews/audits conducted by its staff or by others, including independent accountants or engineers, as designated by the Water Authority. The Agency shall make available for inspection to the Water Authority or its designee, upon 30 days written notice, all records, books and other documents related to the determination of Project Yield. Based on the results of any independent review or audit, an adjustment for over or underpayment of Project Yield for each applicable fiscal year shall be paid by the Water Authority or the Agency within one year of determination after such adjustment. The costs of any independent review or audit shall be equally divided between the parties. VII.

PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS

The Water Authority reserves the right to terminate the Project if construction has not commenced or the Allowable Yield is not delivered by a mutually agreed upon date (subject to bi-annual review). The Water Authority, after consultation with Agency, may reduce its Contribution Rate by a factor equal to the percentage shortfall of the actual Allowable Project Yield to the Agency’s projected targeted Allowable Project Yield or in some other manner that reflects the realistically attainable Yield for the Project. VIII.

TERM AND AMENDMENTS

The term of the Agreement shall be for twenty-five (25) years from the date the Project commenced delivery of Recycled Water to an End User, unless agreed to otherwise. In the event that for any year the Contribution Rate equals more than zero, the Agreement shall not be terminated, and no funds shall be owed to the Agency by the Water Authority.

15

In the event of an Agreement breach, the Water Authority reserves the right to cease advancing current and future funds and may seek reimbursement for previously advanced funds. Additionally, the breach may prohibit the Agency from participating in any future cooperative Agreements with the Water Authority. The Agreement may be modified through bilateral agreement between the parties. Any modifications made to the Agreement shall be confirmed in writing prior to performance of the change. IX.

INDEMINITY - HOLD HARMLESS

The Agency agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Water Authority, its officers, and employees, from all damage, injury, claims, demands, losses, and liability to the extent that the same are the result of Agency conducting the Project, or the negligence or willful misconduct of the Agency or any of its officers, employees or any other person acting pursuant to its control in performing the work under this agreement. X.

PROJECT APPLICATION

To be considered for funding under the LWSD Program, an A gency must submit a completed application package prior to the start of the construction bid process. The following information and documents must be submitted as part of the LWSD Program application package: 1. A letter from the Agency’s General Manager requesting funding for the Project

under the LWSD Program. 2. Engineering Report (Attachment A) 3. Project Fact Sheet (Attachment B) 4. An Agency that is not a member agency of the Water Authority must also submit

a letter of sponsorship from the Water Authority member agency within whose service area the Project is located (Project Sponsor).

The information required for the LWSD Program is similar to that required for Metropolitan’s LRP. The same supporting information can be used for both program applications.

16

ATTACHMENT A

LOCAL WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ENGINEERING REPORT

The purpose of the Engineering Report is to verify that the Project meets all of the Qualifying Criteria. Each proposed Project is unique and, therefore, may require more or less information to support its viability for inclusion in the LWSD Program. In any case, the Engineering Report, at a minimum, must include the following: 1. The source and quality of the recycled water and its conformity with water quality

requirements and other pertinent regulations and permits; 2. A table summarizing the market analysis for the Project including the prospective

End Users’ names, annual demand projections, and types of use. If the Project is an expansion to an existing Project, provide above information for existing End Users as well. Existing recycled water End Users are those that already receive recycled water. All other users shall be considered Prospective End Users.

3. All existing and proposed facilities which may be used to produce and distribute

water under the Project; 4. A 8.5” x 11” or 11” x 17” map clearly identifying Project facilities such as

conveyance, and treatment facilities; recycled water End Users, and source of supply (map should differentiate between the existing and proposed facilities and End Users);

5. Capital cost estimate delineating the cost of each Project component and other

related costs necessary to complete the construction of the Project. The cost estimate should be in enough detail to enable Water Authority staff to conduct an independent cost analysis;

5. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) cost estimate including the anticipated

annual costs for manpower and ad ministration, chemicals, power, contractor services and supplies, water quality sampling expenses, and other items required to properly operate and maintain the Project facilities and to serve customers. O&M costs for existing facilities and o perations if the proposed project is an expansion of an existing facility;

7. The interest rate and term of each funding component for Project construction,

(i.e., state loan programs, bonds, certificate or participation, etc.); 8. A cash flow analysis for the Project for the first 25 y ears of Project operation

including the annual yield, debt service, O&M costs, revenue from sale of recycled water, contributions received from other agencies, etc.;

17

9. A copy of the environmental document (i.e., Final Negative Declaration,

Environmental Impact Report, or Notice of Exemption), certificate of approval by the Project Sponsor, notice of determination filed with the State Clearinghouse and/or the local County Clerk;

10. A copy of pertinent permits such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

Permit (NPDES), Wastewater Discharge, Water Reclamation, Basin Plan Amendment, etc.;

11. A copy of any water purchase agreement or contract with other entities or

agencies for the purchase of recycled water produced by the Project, Project operation and maintenance, and any other matters related to the Project;

12. A copy of the agency’s Groundwater Management plan and any project references included as part of the management plan.

A suggested outline for the Engineering Report is presented on the following pages.

18

RECYCLED WATER ENGINEERING REPORT OUTLINE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY II. INTRODUCTION III. PROJECT WATER SUPPLY

- Existing Recycled Water Supply - Proposed Recycled Water Supply - Quality of Recycled Water

IV. MARKET ANALYSIS

- Existing Recycled Water End Users - Potential Recycled Water End Users - Recycled Water Demand - User Identification Map

V. PROJECT FACILITIES

- Existing - Proposed - Facilities Map

VI. COST ANALYSIS

- Capital Costs - Operation and Maintenance

VII. REVENUE ANALYSIS

- Potential Source(s) of Funding - Revenue Analysis

VIII. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

- Design - Environmental Documentation - Permits - Construction - Operation

IX. APPENDICES

- Environmental Documentation - Permits - Other Contracts

19

ATTACHMENT B

LOCAL WATER SUPPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT FACT SHEET

I.

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. Project Title: ______________________________________ B. Location: ______________________________________ II.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

A. Project Sponsor: ______________________________________ (SDCWA Member Agency) B. Agency: ______________________________________ C. Agency Contact and Title: _____________________________________ D. Mailing Address: _____________________________________ E. Telephone No.: __________________Fax No.:____________ F. E-Mail Address: _____________________________________ III.

PROJECT DATA:

A. Project Completion Date: ________________________________ B. Estimated Date Project Begins Deliveries: _______________

C. Maximum Yield (Acre Feet Per Year): ____________________ D. Engineer's Cost Estimate:________________________________

E. Major Proposed Funding Amounts and Sources:______________ ____________________________________________________________________________

I:\MGM\Recycled Water Development Fund\LWSD Application Package August 2010.Doc


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX G - COST ESTIMATE DETAILS

July 2013 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/8889A00/Deliverables/App_G-Cost_Estimate_Details-Cover_Sheet.docx

City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX G – COST ESTIMATE DETAILS The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our professional opinion of accurate costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Carollo Engineers has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor’s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Carollo Engineers cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein.

PROJECT SUMMARYEstimate

Class: Class 4Project: Recycled Water Master Plan PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: May 31, 2012Location: easa to , C Date: May 31, 2012Zip Code: 95488 ENR: 10370 By: BBAlternative: Option 1A DSRSD Tertiary Expansion LF: 1.179 Reviewed: TC

No. DSRSD Tertiary New Facilities for Pleasanton Expansion

Reference Criteria

Reference Cost

Proposed Criteria

March 2012 Estimate

1 EQUIP FILTRATION BASIN (EXPAND FILTER CAPACITY FROM 9.7 MGD TO 11.6 MGD)

9.7 mgd* for 5 basins

$2,095,163 1 basin $419,033

2 ADDITIONAL BANK IN EACH UV CHANNEL (EXPAND CAPACITY FROM 9.7 MGD TO 13.0 MGD)

2 banks $800,000

TOTAL DIRECT COST $1,219,000CONTINGENC $243,800

SUBTOTAL $1,460,000TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,460,000

ENGINEERING $292,000LEGAL $73,000

ADMINISTRATIVE $73,000TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,900,000

5%

20%

20%5%

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,900,000

ANNUAL FLOW (AFY) 1,717* Design loading rate of 10.2 mgd for output of 9.7 mgd (0.3 mgd reject water)

No.1 Labor (based on $142 per afy) $243,8982 Electricity (based on $59 per afy) $101 481

O&M Costs

2 Electricity (based on $59 per afy) $101,4813 Materials, Supplies, and Lab Expenses (based on $92 per afy) $158,4794 Pump Station Energy (average annual demand based on $0.10/kWh and 70% total plant efficiency) $55,000

ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST $559,000

PROJECT SUMMARYEstimate Class: Class 4

Project: Recycled Water Master Plan PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: March 21, 2012Zip Code: 95488 By: EG/BBAlt ti O ti 2A 4 0 d M di Filt ti / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KBAlternativeOption 2A 4.0 mgd Media Filtration / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KB

NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT NO OF UNITS UNIT COST TOTAL

1 Media FiltrationMedia Filters SF 900 $2,267 $2,040,300Media Filter Building SF 1,000 $290 $290,000Subtotal $2,330,300

2 UV System LS 1 $3,452,000 $3,452,000

3 Recycled Water Pump StationPumps EA 3 $35,000 $105,000Floor Slab CY 56.9 $600 $34,133Surge Tank EA 1 $50,000 $50,000VFDs EA 3 $30,000 $90,000MCC/Switchboard EA 1 $50,000 $50,000Walls SF 1,792 $25 $44,800Generator (100 kw) EA 1 $75,000 $75,000Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $75,000 $75,000Piping LS 1 $125,000 $125,000HVAC Allowance LS 1 $35,000 $35,000Monorail and Roofing Allowance LS 1 $75,000 $75,000Air Compressor LS 1 $15,000 $15,000Subtotal $773,933

4 Secondary Effluent Force Main20-inch Diameter Force Main LF 1,500 $266 $399,000Subtotal $399,000

Subtotal $6,955,233

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $6,955,233

Contingency 20.0% $1,391,500

CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY $8,346,733

Engineering, Legal & Administration Fees 30.0% $2,505,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $10,851,7331,717

No O&M CostsAnnual Flow (afy)

No.1 Labor (based on $173 per afy) $297,0582 Electricity (based on $58 per afy) $99,5923 Materials, Supplies, and Lab Expenses (based on $122 per afy) $209,4864 Pump Station Energy (average annual demand based on $0.10/kWh and 70% efficiency) $55,000


O&M Costs


Project: Recycled Water Master Plan PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: March 21, 2012Zip Code: 95488 By: EG/BBAlt ti O ti 2B 4 0 d MF / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KBAlternativeOption 2B 4.0 mgd MF / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KB


1 MF SystemMembranes RACK 3 $1,014,375 $3,043,125MF Building SF 2,000 $290 $580,000MF Electrical Building SF 1,000 $290 $290,000Subtotal $3 913 125Subtotal $3,913,125

2 UV System LS 1 $2,393,000 $2,393,000

3 Recycled Water Pump StationPumps EA 3 $35,000 $105,000Floor Slab CY 56.9 $600 $34,133Surge Tank EA 1 $50,000 $50,000VFDs EA 3 $30,000 $90,000MCC/Switchboard EA 1 $50,000 $50,000Walls SF 1,792 $25 $44,800Generator (100 kw) EA 1 $75,000 $75,000Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $75,000 $75,000Piping LS 1 $125,000 $125,000HVAC Allowance LS 1 $35,000 $35,000Monorail and Roofing Allowance LS 1 $75,000 $75,000Air Compressor LS 1 $15,000 $15,000Subtotal $773 933Subtotal $773,933


Subtotal $7,479,058


Contingency 20.0% $1,496,000



TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $11,668,0581 717Annual Flow (afy) 1,717



Annual Flow (afy)O&M Costs


Project: Recycled Water Master Plan PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: March 21, 2012Zip Code: 95488 By: EG/BBAlternativeOption 2C 5 5 mgd MF / HiPOx (Two Story) Reviewed: AS/NG/KBAlternativeOption 2C 5.5 mgd MF / HiPOx (Two Story) Reviewed: AS/NG/KB


1 MF SystemMembranes RACK 4 $1,014,375 $4,057,500MF Building SF 10,800 $290 $3,132,000MF Electrical Building SF 1,000 $290 $290,000Subtotal $7,479,500Subtotal $7,479,500

2 HiPOx Equipment LS 1 $1,100,000 $1,100,000Mechanical 15% $165,000Electrical 15% $165,000Installation 30% $330,000Subtotal $1,760,000

3 Recycled Water Pump StationPumps EA 4 $35 000 $140 000Pumps EA 4 $35,000 $140,000Floor Slab CY 71.0 $600 $42,600Surge Tank EA 1 $100,000 $100,000VFDs EA 4 $30,000 $120,000MCC/Switchboard EA 1 $75,000 $75,000Walls SF 2,016 $25 $50,400Generator (300 kw) EA 1 $150,000 $150,000Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Piping LS 1 $150,000 $150,000HVAC All LS 1 $50 000 $50 000HVAC Allowance LS 1 $50,000 $50,000Monorail and Roofing Allowance LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Air Compressor LS 1 $15,000 $15,000Subtotal $1,093,000


Subtotal $10,731,500


Contingency 20.0% $2,146,500


Engineering Legal & Administration Fees 30 0% $3 864 000Engineering, Legal & Administration Fees 30.0% $3,864,000


No.1 Labor (based on $173 per afy) $433,3652 Electricity (based on $86 per afy) $215,4303 Materials, Supplies, and Lab Expenses (based on $122 per afy) $305,6104 Adjustment for HiPOX (O&M for other alts based on actual data from DSRSD UV system) -$48,640


4 Adjustment for HiPOX (O&M for other alts based on actual data from DSRSD UV system) $48,6405 Pump Station Energy (average annual demand based on $0.10/kWh and 70% efficiency) $100,000

ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST $1,006,000


Project: Recycled Water Master Plan PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: March 21, 2012Zip Code: 95488 By: EG/BBAlt ti O ti 3A 5 5 d M di Filt ti / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KBAlternativeOption 3A 5.5 mgd Media Filtration / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KB


1 Media FiltrationMedia Filters SF 1,200 $2,267 $2,720,400Media Filter Building SF 1,000 $290 $290,000Subtotal $3,010,400

2 UV System LS 1 $4,038,000 $4,038,000.

3 Recycled Water Pump StationPumps EA 4 $35,000 $140,000Floor Slab CY 71.0 $600 $42,600Surge Tank EA 1 $100,000 $100,000VFDs EA 4 $30,000 $120,000MCC/Switchboard EA 1 $75,000 $75,000Walls SF 2,016 $25 $50,400Generator (300 kw) EA 1 $150,000 $150,000Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Piping LS 1 $150,000 $150,000HVAC Allowance LS 1 $50,000 $50,000Monorail and Roofing Allowance LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Air Compressor LS 1 $15,000 $15,000Subtotal $1,093,000

4 Secondary Effluent Force Main20-inch Diameter Force Main LF 900 $266 $239,400Subtotal $239,400

Subtotal $8,380,800


Contingency 20.0% $3,352,500




NoAnnual Flow (afy)

O&M CostsNo.1 Labor (based on $173 per afy) $433,3652 Electricity (based on $58 per afy) $145,2903 Materials, Supplies, and Lab Expenses (based on $122 per afy) $305,6104 Pump Station Energy (average annual demand based on $0.10/kWh and 70% efficiency) $100,000


O&M Costs


Project: Recycled Water Master Plan PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: March 21, 2012Zip Code: 95488 By: EG/BBAlt ti O ti 3B 5 5 d MF / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KBAlternativeOption 3B 5.5 mgd MF / UV Reviewed: AS/NG/KB


1 MF SystemMembranes RACK 4 $1,014,375 $4,057,500MF Building SF 10,800 $290 $3,132,000MF Electrical Building SF 1,000 $290 $290,000Subtotal $7 479 500Subtotal $7,479,500

2 UV System LS 1 $2,784,000 $2,784,000

3 Recycled Water Pump StationPumps EA 4 $35,000 $140,000Floor Slab CY 71.0 $600 $42,600Surge Tank EA 1 $100,000 $100,000VFDs EA 4 $30,000 $120,000MCC/Switchboard EA 1 $75,000 $75,000Walls SF 2,016 $25 $50,400Generator (300 kw) EA 1 $150,000 $150,000Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Piping LS 1 $150,000 $150,000HVAC Allowance LS 1 $50,000 $50,000Monorail and Roofing Allowance LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Air Compressor LS 1 $15,000 $15,000Subtotal $1 093 000Subtotal $1,093,000

4 Secondary Effluent Force Main20-inch Diameter Force Main LF 900 $266 $239,400Subtotal $239,400



Contingency 20.0% $2,319,500



TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $18,090,4002 505Annual Flow (afy) 2,505


ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST $1,054,000


Phase 1 Distribution System CostsEstimate Class: Class 4

Project: Recycled Water Feasibility Study PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: October 12, 2012Zip Code: 95482 By: BBZip Code: 95482 By: BBAlternative: Phase 1 Distribution System Costs Reviewed: TAC

NO. DESCRIPTION SIZE/LENGTH UNIT TOTAL

1 Distribution System Pipelines 6-inches in Diameter 35,900 ft $3,518,200 8-inches in Diameter 10,900 ft $1,427,900 12-inches in Diameter 19,600 ft $3,371,200

16 i h i Di t 18 300 ft $3 897 900 16-inches in Diameter 18,300 ft $3,897,900 36-inches in Diameter 13,200 ft $4,870,800Subtotal $17,086,000


Construction Contingency 20.0% $3,417,500

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST W/TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST W/ CONTINGENCY $20,503,500

Engineering and Design 20.0%

Administrative 5.0%

Legal 5.0%ega 5 0%

Subtotal Markups 30.0% $6,152,000


Phase 2 Distribution System CostsEstimate

Class: Class 4Project: Recycled Water Feasibility Study PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: October 12, 2012Zip Code: 95482 By: BBZip Code: 95482 By: BBAlternative: Phase 2 Distribution System Costs Reviewed: TAC

NO. DESCRIPTION SIZE/LENGTH UNIT/UNIT COST TOTAL

1 Distribution System Pipelines 4-inches in Diameter 7,600 ft $592,800

6-inches in Diameter 1 100 ft $107 800 6-inches in Diameter 1,100 ft $107,800 8-inches in Diameter 1,300 ft $170,300 12-inches in Diameter 5,300 ft $911,600 16-inches in Diameter 5,700 ft $1,214,100Subtotal $2,403,800

2 Recycled Water Pump StationPumps EA 4 $35,000 $140,000Floor Slab CY 71.0 $600 $42,600Surge Tank EA 1 $100 000 $100 000Surge Tank EA 1 $100,000 $100,000VFDs EA 4 $30,000 $120,000MCC/Switchboard EA 1 $75,000 $75,000Walls SF 2,016 $25 $50,400Generator (300 kw) EA 1 $150,000 $150,000Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Piping LS 1 $150,000 $150,000HVAC Allowance LS 1 $50,000 $50,000Monorail and Roofing Allowance LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Air Compressor LS 1 $15,000 $15,000Subtotal $1,093,000

Subtotal $3,496,800

Construction Contingency 20.0% $699,500

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST W/ CONTINGENCY $4,196,300CONTINGENCY $4,196,300


Administrative 5.0%

Legal 5.0%



West Option Distribution System CostsEstimate Class: Class 4

Project: Recycled Water Feasibility Study PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: October 12, 2012Zip Code: 95482 By: BBZip Code: 95482 By: BBAlternative: Option W Distribution System Costs Reviewed: TAC

NO. DESCRIPTION SIZE/LENGTH UNIT TOTAL

1 Distribution System Pipelines 4-inches in Diameter 1,000 ft $78,000 8-inches in Diameter 7,000 ft $917,000 12-inches in Diameter 1,700 ft $292,400

16 i h i Di t 2 400 ft $511 200 16-inches in Diameter 2,400 ft $511,200Subtotal $1,798,600

2 Jack-and-Bore Crossing 1,000 ft $1,200,000Subtotal $1,200,000

Subtotal $2,998,600

C t ti C ti 20 0% $600 000Construction Contingency 20.0% $600,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST W/ CONTINGENCY $3,598,600


Administrative 5.0%

Legal 5.0%


TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $4,678,600Notes:Implementation of Option W is predicted to cause low pressures in the distribution system; a pump stationImplementation of Option W is predicted to cause low pressures in the distribution system; a pump station is included in the costs for Option E to resolve these potential deficiencies.

East Option Distribution System CostsEstimate Class: Class 4

Project: Recycled Water Feasibility Study PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLocation: Pleasanton, CA Date: October 12, 2012Zip Code: 95482 By: BBAlternative: Optiom E Distribution System Costs Reviewed: TACAlternative: Optiom E Distribution System Costs Reviewed: TAC

NO. DESCRIPTION SIZE/LENGTH UNIT/UNIT COST TOTAL

1 Distribution System Pipelines 4-inches in Diameter 1,600 ft $124,800 16-inches in Diameter 6,200 ft $1,320,600 18-inches in Diameter 2,700 ft $648,000Subtotal $2,093,400Subtotal $2,093,400

2 Low Pressure Recycled Water Pump Station at TassajaraPumps EA 1 $35,000 $35,000Floor Slab CY 71.0 $600 $42,600Surge Tank EA 1 $100,000 $100,000VFDs EA 1 $30,000 $30,000MCC/Switchboard EA 1 $75,000 $75,000Walls SF 2,016 $25 $50,400Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $100 000 $100 000Isolation and Check Valves LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Piping LS 1 $150,000 $150,000HVAC Allowance LS 1 $50,000 $50,000Monorail and Roofing Allowance LS 1 $100,000 $100,000Air Compressor LS 1 $15,000 $15,000Subtotal $748,000

Subtotal $2,841,400

C t ti C ti 20 0% $568 500Construction Contingency 20.0% $568,500

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST W/ CONTINGENCY $3,409,900


Administrative 5.0%

Legal 5.0%




Project: City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Feasibility Study PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLoc: Pleasanton, CA Date: October 31, 2012Zip: 95488 ENR: 10370 By: BBAlt: Expansion of DSRSD Tertiary Facilities to 16.5 mgd

(4.0 mgd Pleasanton Share - Phase 1 Only)LF: 1.179 Reviewed: TC

No. DSRSD Tertiary New Facilities for Pleasanton Expansion Reference Criteria Reference Cost Proposed Criteria March 2012 Estimate1 YARDWORK/REMOVALS/DEMOLITION 15% of direct cost 15% of direct cost $1,781,1002 EXPAND TERTIARY INFLUENT PUMP STATION FROM 10.2 MGD TO 16.5 M10.2 mgd (3 units) $1,296,250 + 2 units $864,1673 ADD COMPRESSOR (EXPAND PROCESS TO 16.5 MGD) $50,0004 CONSTRUCT FLOCCULATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 10.2 MGD TO

16.5 MGD) [ASSUMED 80% OF COST SINCE BUILT ON STUBS]10.2 mgd (2 basins) $482,346 + 10.3 mgd (2 basins) $385,877

5 EQUIP FLOCCULATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 10.2 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 10.2 mgd (2 basins) $149,906 + 10.3 mgd (2 basins) $149,9066 CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASINS (ADD SIX BASINS) [ASSUMED 80%

OF COST SINCE BUILT ON STUBS]11.6 mgd (6 basins) $1,519,787 + 11.6 mgd (6 basins) $1,215,830

7 EQUIP FILTRATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 11.6 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,163 + 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,1637 EQUIP FILTRATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 11.6 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,163 + 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,1638 UV SYSTEM (EXPAND FROM 13.0 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 1 mgd $500,000 +3.5 mgd $1,750,0009 RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION 9.7 mgd (3 units) $1,810,398 + 2 units $1,206,932

10 ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION 20% of direct cost 20% of direct cost $2,374,800TOTAL DIRECT COST $11,874,000

CONTINGENCY $2,374,800SUBTOTAL $2,370,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY $14,244,000ENGINEERING $2,848,800

LEGAL $712,200ADMINISTRATIVE $712 200

20%

20%5%5%ADMINISTRATIVE $712,200

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $18,500,000CAPACITY (MGD) 16.5

PLEASANTON DEMAND (MGD) 4.0TOTAL ESTIMATED SHARE FOR PLEASANTON $4,484,848

5%


Project: City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Feasibility Study PIC: LCJob #: 8889A00 PM: TACLoc: Pleasanton, CA Date: October 31, 2012Zip: 95488 ENR: 10370 By: BBAlt: Expansion of DSRSD Tertiary Facilities to 16.5 mgd

(5.7 mgd Pleasanton Share - Phase 1 + 2 + Option E + W)LF: 1.179 Reviewed: TC

No. DSRSD Tertiary New Facilities for Pleasanton Expansion Reference Criteria Reference Cost Proposed Criteria March 2012 Estimate1 YARDWORK/REMOVALS/DEMOLITION 15% of direct cost 15% of direct cost $1,781,1002 EXPAND TERTIARY INFLUENT PUMP STATION FROM 10.2 MGD TO 16.5 M10.2 mgd (3 units) $1,296,250 + 2 units $864,1673 ADD COMPRESSOR (EXPAND PROCESS TO 16.5 MGD) $50,0004 CONSTRUCT FLOCCULATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 10.2 MGD TO

16.5 MGD) [ASSUMED 80% OF COST SINCE BUILT ON STUBS]10.2 mgd (2 basins) $482,346 + 10.3 mgd (2 basins) $385,877

5 EQUIP FLOCCULATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 10.2 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 10.2 mgd (2 basins) $149,906 + 10.3 mgd (2 basins) $149,9066 CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASINS (ADD SIX BASINS) [ASSUMED 80%

OF COST SINCE BUILT ON STUBS]11.6 mgd (6 basins) $1,519,787 + 11.6 mgd (6 basins) $1,215,830

7 EQUIP FILTRATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 11.6 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,163 + 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,1637 EQUIP FILTRATION BASINS (EXPAND FROM 11.6 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,163 + 9.7 mgd (5 basins) $2,095,1638 UV SYSTEM (EXPAND FROM 13.0 MGD TO 16.5 MGD) 1 mgd $500,000 +3.5 mgd $1,750,0009 RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION 9.7 mgd (3 units) $1,810,398 + 2 units $1,206,932

10 ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION 20% of direct cost 20% of direct cost $2,374,800TOTAL DIRECT COST $11,874,000

CONTINGENCY $2,374,800SUBTOTAL $2,370,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY $14,244,000ENGINEERING $2,848,800

LEGAL $712,200ADMINISTRATIVE $712 200

20%

20%5%5%ADMINISTRATIVE $712,200

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $18,500,000CAPACITY (MGD) 16.5

PLEASANTON DEMAND (MGD) 5.7TOTAL ESTIMATED SHARE FOR PLEASANTON $6,390,909

5%


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX H - CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

pw://Carollo/Documents/Error! Unknown document property name./Error! Unknown document property name.

City of Pleasanton Adopts Climate Action Plan 02.14.2012

Last night the City of Pleasanton officially adopted their Climate Action Plan – an accomplishment that marks the City’s commitment to sustainability and reducing community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. The Climate Action Plan, developed by ESA in close coordination with the City and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), meets the requirements for a “Qualified Greenhouse Reduction Plan” as specified by BAAQMD’s recently adopted CEQA guidelines. This is a milestone that will facilitate efforts by residents, businesses, and the local government to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for expected changes to the local climate. Completion of the Plan helps the City settle two lawsuits related to their recent General Plan Update. Above all, it serves to ensure that the City continues on its path as a sustainable and vibrant community!

“The City of Pleasanton undertook a monumental task to develop a Climate Action Plan that would be supported by local residents and businesses, and still meet the vigorous requirements necessary for a qualified plan,” noted Laura Ryan, Energy and Sustainability Manager for the City, “ESA not only possessed the technical experience and business acumen needed to develop an incredibly comprehensive plan, it was able to successfully engage the community and regulatory stakeholders in a meaningful and collaborative fashion. ESA was not just our consultant; its staff was with us every step of the way, providing sound technical advice and mentoring. We are delighted with the results, and we look forward to the opportunity to partner with ESA in the future.”

The Pleasanton Climate Action Plan includes an inventory of communitywide GHG emissions, a future reduction target, and emissions reduction measures prioritized by cost and effectiveness in meeting the target. Reduction measures include programs to improve energy efficiency and conservation, reduce solid waste, promote more sustainable land use and transportation patterns, and engage with the community to encourage more sustainable practices. A chapter dedicated to adaptation outlines what the City can do now to increase its resilience to projected changes in the local climate.


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX I – ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS REPORT

City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Project

Environmental Issues and Constraints Report

Prepared by:

SMB Environmental, Inc.

July 2012

City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Project Environmental Issues and Constraints Report

July 2012 i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Location and Background ..........................................................................1-2 1.2 Goal and Objective and Purpose and Need ...........................................................1-2 1.3 Document Organization and Review Process ........................................................1-3 Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives ................................................2-1 2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description......................................................................2-1 2.2 Construction Considerations ..................................................................................2-1 2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board’s Recycled Water Policy ..............2-4 2.4 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals ......................................................2-5 2.5 No Project/Action Alternative .................................................................................2-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences .......................................................3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ..............................................................................................................3-2 3.2 Agricultural Resources...........................................................................................3-4 3.3 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................3-5 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-11 3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3-14 3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 3-16 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 3-18 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 3-21 3.9 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................... 3-25 3.10 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................... 3-26 3.11 Noise ................................................................................................................... 3-27 3.12 Population and Housing ....................................................................................... 3-30 3.13 Public Services .................................................................................................... 3-31 3.14 Recreation ........................................................................................................... 3-32 3.15 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 3-33 3.16 Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................... 3-35 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................... 3-37 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 3-39 Chapter 4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................4-1 4.1 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................4-1 Chapter 5 Bibliography ........................................................................................................5-2

List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Segments by Phase ....................................... 2-3 Table 2: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project Facilities ... 2-5 Table 3: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions .............................................. 3-8

List of Figures Figure 1:General Location Map ........................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2:Proposed Project/Action Facilities ....................................................................... 2-2


July 2012 ii

Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality Emissions Calculations ............................................................... A-1


July 2012 iii

List of Abbreviations

ABWF average base wastewater flow

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Basin Bay Area Air Basin

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency

Cal/OSHA State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CAP Clean Air Plan

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CGS California Geological Survey

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society’s

CWA Federal Clean Water Act

dBA Outdoor Ambient Sound levels

DPM Diesel particulate matter

DTSC Department of Toxics Substances Control

EA Environmental Assessment

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan


July 2012 iv

I/I infiltration/inflow

ISA International Society of Arboriculture Standards

IS Initial Study

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

LU Landscape Unit

mgd million gallons per day

MND Mitigated Negative Declaration

MRZ Mineral Resource Zone 4

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBWRP North Bay Water Recycling Program

ND Negative Declaration

NEPA National Environmental Quality Act

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx Nitrous Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

PWWF Peak wet weather flow

ROG reactive organic gases

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SR State Route

SRF State Revolving Funds

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones

TSP Total Suspended Particles

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant


July 2012 1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction This document is a preliminary environmental issues and constraints evaluation report that addresses the

potential environmental impacts of the City of Pleasanton’s (City) proposed Recycled Water Project

(Proposed Project/Action and/or Preferred Alternative) as defined in the City’s Recycled Water Project

Feasibility Study. The purpose of the Proposed Project/Action is to augment the existing surface and

groundwater supplies within the City for the irrigation of landscape within the City.

Many successful water recycling programs receive funding assistance in the form of low‐interest loans

and in some instances, grants are available to reduce the financial burden of initial capital and

implementation costs. Funding programs are offered at times through the United States Department of

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the

California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), and/or the California Department of Water

Resources (DWR). In addition, local and regional programs, statewide, occasionally offer additional

incentives directed at actual deliveries to promote recycling as an offset to potable water demand. It is

anticipated that the City will pursue federal funding under the USBR’s Public Law 102-575, Title XVI

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program (Title XVI). In addition, the City may also seek funds from the

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program that is administered by the State Board on behalf of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would be subject to

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at a minimum where the City would be the CEQA

Lead Agency to ensure that all of the applicable state environmental regulations are adhered to. If Title

XVI funds are used, then USBR would be the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) to ensure that all federal environmental regulations are adhered to. Under the State Board’s SRF

Program, the State Board is responsible on behalf of the USEPA for ensuring that the project adheres to

federal environmental regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA) and the General Conformity Rule for the Clean Air Act (CAA), among others.

The USEPA has chosen to use the CEQA as the compliance base for California’s SRF Loan Program, in

addition to compliance with ESA, NHPA, and CAA. Collectively, the State Board calls these

requirements CEQA-Plus. Additional federal regulations may also apply.

What follows is a cursory review and analysis of the major state and federal environmental issues that

may be a factor as a result in the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project. For this analysis,

we have reviewed prior and relevant existing environmental documentation and have used a modified

CEQA environmental checklist to assess the potential impacts on endangered/threatened species, public

health or safety, natural resources, regulated waters, and cultural resources, among others to include

and address specific issues associated with CEQA as well as NEPA. No protocol-level site-specific

surveys were conducted for this investigation. Based on our experience with evaluating these kinds

of recycled water projects in California, most of the potential environmental issues appear to be short-

term/temporary impacts due to construction activities and which can be avoided and/or mitigated to less-

than-significant levels. For any potentially significant impact(s) identified, we have identified appropriate

mitigation measures and strategies to attempt to avoid and/or reduce those impacts to less-than-significant

levels. The information developed is designed to assist the City, USBR and/or the State Board determine

what the major potential environmental impacts are to comply with CEQA, NEPA and/or CEQA-plus

requirements. Additional analysis and effort will be required to fully comply with CEQA, NEPA and/or

CEQA-Plus procedural requirements.


July 2012 1-2

1.1 Project Location and Background The City of Pleasanton is located in Alameda County approximately 35 miles southeast of San Francisco,

situated at the junction of I-580 and I-680. As shown on Figure 1, the City’s water service area

encompasses an area of approximately 22 square miles; servicing city residents, commercial customers,

and approximately 250 customers in unincorporated Alameda County along Kilkare Road just north of

the town of Sunol.

As of 2010, Pleasanton supports a residential population of 69,300. By 2030 Pleasanton’s population is

projected to grow by another 19 percent to 82,300. The residential sector accounts for the City’s largest

water consuming sector (61percent), followed by landscape irrigation (27 percent), commercial (12

percent), and lastly industrial sector (<1percent). The importance of efficient and purposeful use of water

in California has come under legislative focus through the passage of the Water Conservation Bill of

2009. Under this law, Pleasanton has set the goal of achieving a twenty percent reduction in water

consumption by 2020. This equates to a “target” of 195 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), a twenty

percent reduction from a baseline of 244 gpcd.

Two sources of water supply Pleasanton’s service area: 1) local groundwater from three wells owned and

operated by the City (approximately 20% of the annual demand), and 2) the remaining portion of water

demand is supplied through the purchase of water from Zone 7. According to the City’s agreement with

Zone 7, Pleasanton pumps a maximum of 3,500 acre-feet per year from its wells, with a carryover of 700

Acre Feet of unused pumping quota from one year to another.

The City’s distribution system currently consists of 22 storage reservoirs with a maximum capacity of 37

million gallons. One of the City’s existing storage reservoirs, Tassajara Reservoir, is being considered for

conversion to a recycled water storage facility for this Proposed Project/Action. It also includes 14

pressure zones, 14 pump stations, 2,500 fire hydrants and 306 miles of pipelines. This system services

approximately 21,700 connections; of which 90 percent are residential customers, 5.5 percent are

commercial/institutional customers, 4.5 percent are irrigation customers (for commercial and multi-family

residential landscape meters), and less than 1percent are industrial customers.

1.2 Goal and Objective and Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Project/Action is to construct and operate a new recycled water system to

replace/augment existing irrigation supplies in the City’s service area. The development of recycled water

service within the City will lessen the demand for Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) potable water supplies

and help the City meet the State of California’s Water Conservation Act of 2009, which requires a

20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by the year 2020. Furthermore, the addition of recycled

water to the City’s water supply portfolio will increase its water system’s reliability since recycled water

is a local supply within the City’s control and is drought-proof.


July 2012 1-3

Figure 1

General Location Map

Location of Zone 7 Water Retailers RECYCLED WATER PROJECT

CITY OF PLEASANTON

1.3 Document Organization and Review Process This document is intended to provide a preliminary environmental investigation of the Proposed

Project/Action to determine if it may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This

document is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the background, goals and objectives of the

Proposed Project/Action, and document contents.


July 2012 1-4

Chapter 2, Project Description and Alternatives. Chapter 2 describes the major components of the

Proposed Project/Action and describes the No Project/Action Alternative.

Chapter 3, Environmental Review and Consequences. Chapter 3 discusses the potential

environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed

Project/Action. Each resource section of a modified CEQA checklist is followed by a discussion

of each potential impact listed in that section. It also presents corresponding mitigation measures

proposed to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. This

checklist has been modified to include additional topics to meet the requirements of NEPA.

Chapter 4, Conclusion and Recommendations. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the likelihood

that the Proposed Project/Action would have a significant adverse impact on the environment and

a recommendation as to the next steps to fully comply with CEQA, NEPA, and/or CEQA-Plus

requirements.

Chapter 5, Bibliography. Chapter 5 provides a list of reference materials and persons consulted

during the preparation of the environmental issues and constraints evaluation.


July 2012 2-1

Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives This chapter provides a detailed description of Proposed Project/Action including a discussion of the

construction considerations, compliance with the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and

State Board Requirements, operational plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary.

In addition, this section also describes the No Project/Action Alternative.

2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description As shown in Figure 2, the Proposed Project/Action includes the upgrade and expansion of DSRSD’s

existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to provide a recycled water supply of approximately 2,500

afy to meet recycled water demand in the City’s service area and offset deliveries from the city’s

groundwater supplies and water supply purchases from Zone 7. All of the WWTP plant upgrades

will be included within DSRSD’s existing WWTP location and within existing facilities that were

previously designed, sized, and constructed for this potential upgrade and expansion. All of the

recycled water will be produced by the Dublin San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal

Utilities District (DERWA). The Proposed Project/Action also includes the construction of up to

approximately 20- miles (103,100 linear feet) of pipeline ranging in diameter from 6-inches to 36-

inches. Table 1 provides a summary of the pipeline segments by construction phase. The pipeline

facilities would be located primarily in existing roadways. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action

will also include the conversion of the existing Tassajara Reservoir to a recycled water storage facility.

2.2 Construction Considerations Construction of the Proposed Project/Action facilities is expected to begin in the summer of 2013 and will

likely continue into the summer of 2017. Construction work will typically be done within normal

working hours, weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between the

hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The Proposed Project/Action would be constructed primarily within existing

roadways and any damages occurring during construction will be returned to the pre-construction

condition or better. Detailed below is a summary of the construction techniques and activities.

The upgrades to the tertiary filtration system would involve installing parallel filter cells in

existing facilities within DSRSD’s existing WWTP. As a result, no new construction and

excavation would occur.

The majority of the pipelines would be installed in existing roadways using conventional cut and

cover construction techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50

foot wide construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during

construction. However, in most places a 25 foot construction corridor could be realized,

especially for the smaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would range from

2-5 feet wide and would typically be no more than 6 feet deep.

Dewatering of the pipeline as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction as well as any

dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and/or

the sanitary sewer system and not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior

approval from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Construction activities for this kind of project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring

brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to characterize

and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that the project would be constructed by

DSRSDWWTP

%&n(

%&p(

TassajaraReservoir

Stoneridge Dr

Valley Ave

Hopyard Rd

W Las P

ositas B

lvd

Mohr Ave

1st St

Santa Rita Rd

Owens Dr

Dublin B

lvd

Black Ave

Bernal Ave

Willow Rd

Hacienda Dr

Kottinger Dr

Chabot Dr

Main St

Rose Ave

Johnson Dr

Vine St

Kamp Dr

Parks

ide Dr

Martin Ave

Santos Ranch Rd

Vineyard Ave

Harvest Rd

Gibraltar D

r

Busch Rd

Denker D

r

Rheem

Dr

Churc

hill Dr

Payne Rd

del Valle Pkwy

Blackbird Dr

Mavis Dr

Regency D

r

Valley Trails

Dr

Dorm

an Rd

Mason St

Campus Dr

Concord St

Flagst

one Dr

Stoneridge Mall R

d

Olive D

r

Norton Way

Sien

a St

Park Pl

Diavila

Ave

Ashwood Dr

Addison W

ay

Dublin Blvd

Hacienda Dr

Rosewood Dr

Santa Rita Rd

Tassaj ara Rd

San Ramon Rd

Hopyard Rd

Valley Ave

Foothill R

d

102

87

40

100

6

83

5

3

42

48

49

4

9

37

2

32

85

110

23

107

74106

72

90

9668

95

94

92

38

113

5358

104

91

35

61

34

61

88/89

86

112

13

20

60

29

44

27

29

75

25

77

71

62

18

51

7

76

81

8

1

55

54

69

63

43

41

108

116

26

64

21

73

45114

12

51

119

115

30

98

70

47

28

8''

12''

16''

36''

4''

20''

30''

24''

6''

24''

6''

12''

16''

8''

12''

12''

12''

16''

8''

8''

6''

6''

6'' 12''

6''

8''

12''

12' '

16''

20''

12''

16''

24''

6''

16''

12''

6''

16''

36''

20''

6''

6''

16''

8''

8''

16''

8''

6''

12''

24''

12''

24''

16''6''

24''

20''

6''

12''

12''

8''

12''

24''

8''

16''

24''

6''

6''

6''

6''

8''

6''

8''

6''

16''

6''

6''

12''

6''

6''

8''

6''

8''

12''

12''

6''

16''

16''

12''

12''

12''

16''

36''

16''

6''

12' '

12''

20''

12''

16''

6''

6''

12''

27''

16''

24' '

16''

Legend

DSRSD Facilities

WWTP


Proposed Recycled

Water Pipelines

20" and Larger

12" - 16"

8" and Smaller

Existing Recycled

Water Pipelines

20" and Larger

12" - 16"

Parcels

Potential Users





Potential Customers notConsidered Feasibleat this time O

Figure 2Proposed Project/Action Facilities

Environmental Issues and Constraints ReportRecycled Water Project

City of Pleasanton

0 1,500 3,000Feet


July 2012 2-3

Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Segments by Phase

Phase Diameter (in.) Length (ft.)

Length (miles)

Phase 1

Hacienda Area

6 17,700 3.35

8 10,900 2.06

12 21,100 4.00

16 7,900 1.50

20 2,900 0.54

24 4,300 0.82

30 2,400 0.46

36 3,800 0.72

Subtotal 71,000 13.45

Phase 2

Remaining Feasible Customers

6 1,000 0.19

8 2,100 0.40

12 2,800 0.53

16 2,800 0.53

20 3,000 0.57

Subtotal 11,700 2.12

East Option

Staples Ranch Area

6 800 0.15

16 7,700 1.46

Subtotal 8,500 1.61

West Option

Stoneridge Mall Area

8 6,900 1.31

16 4,000 0.76

36 1,000 0.19

Subtotal 11,900 2.25

Total 103,100 19.53

two (2) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of approximately 500-1,000 feet per

day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging areas for storage of pipe,

construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations (primarily empty parking lots)

that would minimize hauling distances and long-term disruption.

Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Project/Action.

Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-site during construction or

disposed of at a fill area authorized by the City. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for

this project. Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphalt-

concrete to the site. During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project/Action could

generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions for

this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may include,

but not limited to:

Track-mounted excavator

Backhoe

Grader

Crane


July 2012 2-4

Dozer

Compactor

Trencher/boring machine

End and bottom dump truck

Front-end loader

Water truck

Flat-bed delivery truck

Forklift

Compressor/jack hammer

Asphalt paver & roller

Street sweeper

It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific

details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor. However, this description

provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated with

construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are

generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the City’s design standards or

established ordinances, and does not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not

described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any minor

change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.

2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board’s Recycled Water Policy

The Proposed Project/Action will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable

requirements of CCR Title 22 and any other state or local legislation that is currently effective or may

become effective as it pertains to recycled water. The State Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW

Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to

streamline the permit application process in most instances. As part of that process, the State Board

prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the use of recycled water. The newly

adopted RW Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels

by at least 1,000,000 AFY by 2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for

storm water reuse, conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these

mandates and goals is placed both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Board has

designated the Regional Water Quality Control Boards as the regulating entities for the Recycled Water

Policy. In this case, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco

RWQCB) is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the San Francisco Bay Area

and including the City of Pleasanton.

The Proposed Project/Action will be provided high quality unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled water

from DSRSD and made available to users within the City. All irrigation systems will be operated in

accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Board Recycled Water Policy, and any

other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water and any

reclamation permits issued by the San Francisco RWQCB. Reclamation permits typically require the

following:

Irrigation rates will match the agronomic rates of the plants being irrigated;


July 2012 2-5

Control of incidental runoff through the proper design of irrigation facilities;

Implementation of a leak detection program to correct problems within 72 hours or prior to the

release of 1,000 gallons whichever occurs first;

Management of ponds containing recycled water to ensure no discharges; and

Irrigation will not occur within 50 feet of any domestic supply wells, unless certain conditions

have been met as defined in Title 22.

2.4 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals Table 2 below summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to

construction of the Proposed Project/Action. Additional local approvals and permits may also be required.

Table 2: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities

Agency Type of Approval

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities Recycled Water Use Permit Amendment

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Construction activities in compliance with CAL/OSHA safety requirements

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

Authority to Construct Permit to Operate

2.5 No Project/Action Alternative Under the No Project/Action Alternative, the City’s Proposed Project/Action would not be constructed

and therefore impacts as a result of this specific Proposed Project/Action as described here within this

document would not be encountered. For this analysis, it is assumed that the existing baseline condition

and the future No Project/Action condition are the same. This No Project/Action Alternative assumes that

none of the Proposed Project/Action facilities would be constructed. As a result, the impact description

and summary compares the Proposed Project/Action to the No Project/Action. With that said, if the City

does not implement the Proposed Project/Action, one of two scenarios will likely needed to be

implemented to meet the City’s future water supply demands: 1) meet increased demands through more

aggressive conservation measures or 2) have Zone 7 procure additional water supplies to meet the City’s

increased water supply demands. However, at this time, the specific details of these activities are not

known and therefore it would be difficult to have a meaningful discussion of their potential environmental

impacts in relation to the Proposed Project/Action and is out of the scope of this effort.


July 2012 3-1

Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences This chapter evaluates the potential for the Proposed Project/Action to have a significant effect on the

environment. Using a modified CEQA Environmental Checklist Form as presented in Appendix G of the

CEQA Guidelines as a framework, the checklist identifies the potential environmental impacts of the

Proposed Project/Action pursuant to both CEQA and NEPA. This document compares the Proposed

Project/Action against the No Project/Action Alternative as is required by CEQA and NEPA.

Environmental Impact Designations For this checklist, the following designations are used to distinguish between levels of significance of

potential impacts to each resource area:

Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to

be significant according to the threshold criteria identified for the resource, even after mitigation

strategies are applied and/or an adverse effect that could be significant and for which no

mitigation has been identified. If any resultant potentially significant impacts are identified, an

EIR/EIS may need to be prepared to meet CEQA and NEPA requirements, respectively.

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Adverse environmental consequences that have

the potential to be significant, but can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the

application of identified mitigation strategies that are not already been incorporated into the

Proposed Project/Action description.

Less-than-Significant Impact. Potential adverse environmental consequences have been

identified. However, they are not so adverse as to meet the significance threshold criteria for that

resource. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. No adverse environmental consequences have been identified for the resource or the

consequences are negligible or undetectable. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Environmental Resources Evaluated The following are the key environmental resources that were evaluated in this document.

Aesthetics Hazards/Hazardous Materials Population and Housing

Agriculture Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation

Air Quality Land Use / Planning Socioeconomics

Biological Resources Mineral Resources Transportation/Traffic

Cultural Resources Noise Utilities and Service Systems

Geology / Soils Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance


July 2012 3-2

3.1 Aesthetics Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Would the Proposed Project/Action:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,

but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character

or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare

which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas

and therefore would not have a substantial impact on a scenic vista. Specifically, scenic views in

the project vicinity are primarily limited to distant hills to north, west, and east. The construction

activities of the Proposed Project would not substantially interfere with views of these resources

from surrounding publicly accessible areas. No impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation

measures are required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located near or within a designated state scenic

highway and therefore would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The Proposed Project/Action’s

construction activities would not be located within any area that has been designated as a scenic

vista or scenic resource. The closest scenic highway to the project site is I-680, about 1 mile west.

Due to distance and substantial intervening urban development, the Proposed Project/Action

construction activities would not be visible from this or any other scenic highway and/or

resources. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action’s pipeline facilities

would be visible and would involve temporary negative aesthetic effects, including open trenches

as well as the presence of construction equipment and materials. Construction impacts of the

pipeline facilities would be temporary and are considered to be less-than-significant. Once built,

the pipeline facilities would be buried underground and not visible. Installation of the upgrades

and expansion of the DSRSD WWTP would occur within the existing DSRSD WWTP facilities

and would not have any significant visual impacts. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action

would not affect any visual resources. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific

mitigation measures are required.


July 2012 3-3

(d) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not create a new source of substantial light or

glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Proposed Project/Action

would not be constructed during nighttime hours and once constructed there would be no lights or

other sources of light or glare. Therefore no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-4

3.2 Agricultural Resources

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as

shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural

use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,

or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,

which, due to their location or nature, could result

in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural

use?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,

or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-

agricultural use. The Proposed Project/Action would be constructed within existing roadways

within the City. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action will not be located on any existing

agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would convert any

farmland to non-agricultural usage. No mitigation is required or necessary.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural

use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the Proposed Project/Action would be

constructed within existing roadways within the City. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action

will not be located on any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed

Project/Action would not conflict with agricultural practices and/or a Williamson Act Contract.

No mitigation is required or necessary.

(c) Less- than-Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project/Action would be

primarily constructed within existing roadways within the City. Therefore, the Proposed

Project/Action would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their

location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland or agricultural practices to non-

agricultural use. No mitigation is required or necessary.


July 2012 3-5

3.3 Air Quality Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality

violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase

of any criteria pollutant for which the Project

region is non-attainment under an applicable

federal or state ambient air quality standard

(including releasing emissions which exceed

quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly

or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on

the environment?

g) Conflict with an application plan, policy or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within the jurisdiction of

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to

regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. BAAQMD regulates air

quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its

planning and review process. The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

This Basin is currently designated “non-attainment” for the state 1-hour ozone standard. To meet

planning requirements related to this standard, the BAAQMD developed a regional air quality

plan, the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Program (CAP), the BAAQMD’s most recent triennial update

of the 1991 Clean Air Plan. A significant impact would occur if a project conflicted with the plan

by not mirroring assumptions of the plan regarding population growth and vehicle-miles-traveled.

The Proposed Project/Action could accommodate population growth because the Project would

provide recycled water, making potable supplies more available, and thus increasing the overall

supply of water. However, the addition of up to 2,500 acre-feet of recycled water for irrigation


July 2012 3-6

within the City would not significantly result in any increased growth or development. In

addition, to meet the Water Conservation Bill of 2009, the City has set the goal of achieving a

twenty percent reduction in water consumption by 2020. This equates to a “target” of 195 gallons

per capita per day (gpcd), a twenty percent reduction from a baseline of 244 gpcd. As a result, the

City is seeking to meet its current and planned future development through a reduced overall

water supply.

Once constructed, the Proposed Project/Action would not generate any new significant

operational vehicle trips. Any impacts are considered to be less-than-significant. No mitigation is

required or necessary.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is currently

designated “non-attainment” for the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards, the state 1-hour ozone

standard. The Bay Area is in “attainment” or “unclassified” with respect to the other ambient air

quality standards. As part of the effort to reach attainment of these standards, the BAAQMD has

established thresholds of significance for several criteria air pollutants associated with both the

construction and operation of projects1. Specifically, a project is considered to have a significant

regional air quality impact if it would result in an increase in emissions of 80 pounds per day or

15 tons per year of PM10, and/or of reactive organic gases (ROG) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). ROG

and NOX are both ozone precursors.

Construction activities at the project site would begin in the summer of 2013 and continue into

the summer of 2017 and would include excavation and grading activities. Overall construction

work would require the use of various types of mostly diesel-powered equipment, including

bulldozers, wheel loaders, excavators, and various kinds of trucks.

Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form of

fugitive dust from activities such as trenching and grading. Emissions of particulate matter vary

day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing

weather. Estimated construction emissions for the pipeline construction were generated using the

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s i.e. URBEMIS Construction

Emissions Model. (Note that this model was used because it has been recommended by

BAAQMD). The URBEMIS Construction Emissions Model is a Microsoft Excel worksheet

available to assess the emissions of linear construction projects. The estimated construction

equipment fleet mix and the acreage and soil volume were put into the URBEMIS model in order

to determine potential emissions. Table 3 summarizes the Proposed Project/Action’s estimated

construction related emissions output from the URBEMIS model in maximum pounds per day as

1 BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines were developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the

requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. These CEQA Guidelines were updated in June 2010

to include reference to thresholds of significance (“Thresholds”) adopted by the Air District Board on June 2, 2010. The

Guidelines were further updated in May 2011. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding

that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court did not determine whether the

Thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the Thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a

writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until BAAQMD had complied

with CEQA. In view of the court’s order, BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the Thresholds be used as a generally

applicable measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies will need to determine appropriate air quality

thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Although lead agencies may rely on BAAQMD’s CEQA

Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health

impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the Thresholds

and is no longer recommending that these Thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts.

Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and they may continue to make

determinations regarding the significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on the substantial evidence in the

record for that project.


July 2012 3-7

well as in estimated tons for the entire construction duration and compares that data with

BAAQMD’s daily and project/year thresholds. As shown in Table 3, the Proposed

Project/Action’s construction emissions do not exceed BAAQMD’s daily and/or annual

significance thresholds.

BAAQMD’s approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their BAAQMD CEQA

Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive basic construction

control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. With implementation of the

mitigation measures below, the Proposed Project/Action’s construction-related impacts would be

further reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Table 3: Estimated Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions

Construction Phase

Construction Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5*

Grubbing/Land Clearing 19.3 72.3 74.4 5.9 0.6

Grading/Excavation 18.7 74.4 74.0 5.9 0.6

Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 15.5 65.2 63.5 5.0 0.6

Paving 13.3 58.4 50.5 3.9 -

Maximum (lbs/day)** 19.3 74.4 74.4 5.3 0.6

Total Tons/Project/Year 4.8 36.3 18.6 1.3 0.15

BAAQMD’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance***

Pounds per Day 80 550 80 80 80

Tons per Project/Year 15 100 15 15 15

Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No No

Notes * BAAQMD does not have a threshold for PM2.5; however, the same threshold for PM10 is used herein.

**Maximum daily emissions refers to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Not all phases will be

occurring concurrently; therefore, the maximum daily emissions are not a summation of the daily emission rates of

all phases.

*** BAAQMD’s May 2011 Thresholds were invalidated by Alameda County Superior Court and BAAQMD

recommends using its 1999 Thresholds.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for

ALL Proposed Projects. During all phases of construction, the following procedures shall

be implemented:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and

unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be

covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using

wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power

sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as

possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding

or soil binders are used.


July 2012 3-8

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or

reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California

airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of

Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all

access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance

with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified

visible emissions evaluator.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the

lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective

action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to

ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for Projects

with Emissions over the Thresholds. During all phases of construction, the following

procedures shall be implemented:

All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil

moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture

probe.

All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average

wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively

disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air

porosity.

Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in

disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is

established.

The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction

activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to

reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the

site.

Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12

inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to

public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.


July 2012 3-9

The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50

horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor

vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45

percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable

options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel

products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on

devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.

Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8,

Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).

Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with

Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.

Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB‘s most recent certification

standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.

Once operational, emission sources resulting from project operations would be associated with

primarily regular maintenance and inspection work. Operational impacts would be considered

less-than-significant. With respect to project conformity with the federal Clean Air Act, the

Proposed Project/Action’s potential emissions are well below minimum thresholds and are below

the area’s inventory specified for each criteria pollutant designated non-attainment or

maintenance for the Bay Area. As such, further general conformity analysis is not required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As stated above, the entire San Francisco Bay

Area is currently designated “non-attainment” for the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards, the state 1-

hour ozone standard. The Bay Area is in “attainment” or “unclassified” with respect to the other

ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD is active in establishing and enforcing air pollution

control rules and regulations in order to attain all state and federal ambient air quality standards

and to minimize public exposure to airborne toxins and nuisance odors. Air emissions would be

generated during construction of the Proposed Project/Action, which could increase criteria air

pollutants, including PM10. However, construction activities would be temporary and would

incorporate the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2 as identified above.

As mentioned above, upon completion of construction activities emission sources resulting from

Project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work. Given the

limited number of trips that would be required, only limited emissions would be generated; these

emissions would be expected to be well below BAAQMD guidelines. See Table 3 above. As

such, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of

any criteria air pollutants, and the impacts would be even less-than-significant with

implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2 as identified above.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Diesel emissions would result both from diesel-

powered construction vehicles and any diesel trucks associated with project operation. Diesel

particulate matter (DPM) has been classified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air

contaminant for the cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. Given

that construction would occur for a limited amount of time and that only a limited number of

diesel trucks would be associated with operation of the project, localized exposure to DPM would

be minimal. As a result, the cancer risks from the project associated with diesel emissions over a

70-year lifetime are very small. Therefore, the impacts related to DPM would be less-than-

significant. Likewise, as noted above, the project would not result in substantial emissions of any

criteria air pollutants either during construction or operation with the implementation of


July 2012 3-10

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2; therefore, the project would not expose sensitive

receptors, including residents in the project vicinity, to substantial pollutant concentrations. With

the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2, impacts to sensitive receptors

would be less-than-significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the Proposed Project/Action, the various

diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create minor odors. These odors are

not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area and, in addition, would be temporary and

short-lived in nature. Furthermore, the Proposed Project/Action does not include any expansion or

increase in wastewater coming into the plant and therefore would not result in any additional

odors coming from the DSRSD WWTP. In addition the use of recycled water would not produce

and objectionable odors. Therefore, odor impacts would be less-than-significant. No specific


(f) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. During construction of the Proposed

Project/Action, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could generate

greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, while BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of

significance for construction-related GHG emissions, the Proposed Project/Action would exceed

the thresholds for NOx which would generate greenhouse gas emissions that could be considered

significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce

any potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions to less-than-significant levels. No additional


(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with an application plan, policy or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No mitigation

is necessary or required.


July 2012 3-11

3.4 Biological Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Proposed Project/Action: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-

status species in local or regional plans, policies,

or regulations, or by the California Department of

Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies,

regulations or by the California Department of

Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,

marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct

removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other

means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife

nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation

Community Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion (a) Less-than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would be

primarily constructed within existing roadways within the City and within DSRSD’s existing

WWTP. While the Proposed Project/Action would occur within a highly urban area, the potential

exists that construction activities could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species

in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG and USFWS.


July 2012 3-12

A cursory review of the Proposed Project/Action area indicates that there is not suitable habitat

for special status plant species. However, there are many numerous mature trees within and

adjacent to the proposed pipeline construction activities. Mature trees can serve as perching or

nesting sites for migratory birds, including raptors, and that their removal can adversely affect

breeding behavior. In addition, construction activities could affect the western burrowing owl

(Athene cunicularia), a state-listed species of special concern that is known to exist in the area

and which is protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird

Treaty Act. Potential impacts to special status birds would be minimized to less-than-significant

levels with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Breeding Surveys. For construction activities

that occur between February 1 and August 31, preconstruction breeding bird surveys

shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to and within 10 days of any initial

ground-disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted within all suitable nesting

habitat within 250 feet of the activity. All active, non-status passerine nests identified at

that time should be protected by a 50-foot radius minimum exclusion zone. Active raptor

or special-status species nests should be protected by a buffer with a minimum radius of

200 feet. CDFG and USFWS recommend that a minimum 500-foot exclusion buffer be

established around active white-tailed kite and golden eagle nests. The following

considerations apply to this mitigation measure:

Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance

commence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. If no

breeding birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned.

Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, and

are generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone would

remain in place until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.

The non-breeding season is defined as September 1 to January 31. During this period,

breeding is not occurring and surveys are not required. However, if nesting birds are

encountered during work activities in the non-breeding season, disturbance activities

within a minimum of 50 feet of the nest should be postponed until the nest is

abandoned or young birds have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Nesting Surveys. For any construction activities

initiated between March 15 and September 1, surveys for nesting western burrowing owls

and/or raptors are required with 0.25 mile of areas of disturbance. If an active nest is

found, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest during construction activities within

0.25 mile of the nest to determine whether project construction may result in

abandonment. The monitor shall continue monitoring the nest until construction within

0.25 mile of the nest is completed, or until all chicks have completely fledged. If the

monitor determines that construction may result in abandonment of the nest, all

construction activities within 0.25 mile should be halted until the nest is abandoned or all

young have fledged.

The implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with the

Proposed Project/Action to a level of less-than-significant. No additional mitigation measures are

required

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,


July 2012 3-13

regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. As a result, no impact is expected and no specific

mitigation is required.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not have an adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited

to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or

other means. As a result, no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would not

interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As stated above, the Proposed

Project/Action would be constructed primarily within existing roadways within the City.

However, construction activities could adversely affect the western Burrowing Owl and non-

listed special-status nesting raptors. Many raptors are sensitive to loud construction noise such as

that associated with grading and demolition. Such activities could cause nest abandonment or

destruction of individual active raptor nests. Because the western burrowing owl as well as all

raptors and their nests are protected under 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, this

could result in a significant impact. As a result, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would

reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not expected to conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. As a

result, no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.

(f) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, there is no impact and no mitigation is

required.


July 2012 3-14

3.5 Cultural Resources



a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in

§15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a unique archaeological resource

pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geologic

feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource. No listed or historical properties exist within the Proposed

Project/Action Area. As a result, there is no impact and no specific mitigation is required.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. No known significant archaeological resources

are known to exist within the Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project/Action is not likely to

cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources.

Nevertheless, there is a slight chance that construction activities of the Proposed Project/Action

could result in accidentally discovering unique archaeological resources. However, to further

reduce this less-than-significant impact, the following mitigation measures are recommended:

Mitigation Measure CR-1: Halt work if cultural resources are discovered. In the

event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during

ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and

after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the

significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines

15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California

Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall

meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested

mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to

historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine

whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the


July 2012 3-15

find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other

appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other

parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological

resources is carried out.

With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project/Action would not result

in impacts to historical resources.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontologic resources are the fossilized

evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary

rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through

time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of

the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils – particularly vertebrate fossils – are considered to be

nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information they can provide,

fossils are highly significant records of ancient life.

No known significant paleontological resources exist within the Project area. Also, because the

Proposed Project/Action would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions, significant

paleontologic discovery would be unlikely. However, fossil discoveries can be made even in areas

of supposed low sensitivity. In the event a paleontologic resource is encountered during project

activities, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to

less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop work if paleontological remains are discovered. If

paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds,

or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that

area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the

significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in

consultation with the City.

With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project/Action would not

result in impacts to unique paleontological or geological resources.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no known burial sites within the

project area. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may

encounter undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation is proposed to reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less-than-

significant.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt work if human remains are found. If human remains

are encountered during excavation activities conducted for the Proposed Project/Action, all

work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the Alameda County Coroner’s office

shall be notified. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American in origin,

the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most

Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the

discovered human remains and any associated burial goods.


July 2012 3-16

3.6 Geology and Soils Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,

or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the

State Geologist for the area or based on other

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer

to Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,

or that would become unstable as a result of the

Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site

landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,

liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in

Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code

(1994), creating substantial risks to life or

property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the

use of septic tanks or alternative waste water

disposal systems where sewers are not available

for the disposal of waste water?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action consists primarily of a pipeline

system that would be constructed within and under existing roadways. In addition, the Proposed

Project/Action will involve minor upgrades to the existing DSRSD WWTP’s tertiary filtration


July 2012 3-17

system. However, the Proposed Project/Action does not expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss and injury due to a seismic event. The

proposed pipeline will not cross a known fault, but the project area is susceptible to strong

groundshaking during an earthquake which could occur along known faults in the region. However,

the Proposed Project/Action does not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss and injury due to a seismic event.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Proposed

Project/Action would involve excavation and earthmoving which could cause erosion or loss of

topsoil. Construction activities would involve excavation, moving, filling, and the temporary

stockpiling of soil. Earthwork associated with development construction could expose soils to

erosion. However, the Proposed Project/Action would be constructed in existing roadways and

utility corridors and would be covered and paved immediately after the pipeline has been installed.

As a result, any soil erosion or loss of top soil would be considered less-than-significant.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action may be located in

areas that consist of medium dense to dense fine granular soils. In addition, perched ground water

could be present. As such, the soil in some areas of the alignment may have a high susceptibility to

liquefaction during seismic shaking. Other portions of the Project may be less susceptible to

liquefaction and related damage. Lateral spreading, often associated with liquefaction, is less likely

because there are no steep banks or hard ground bordering the Project area, but could still

potentially be a hazard. As a result, the following mitigation is proposed:

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Perform Geotechnical Investigation. The City shall

require a design-level geotechnical study to be prepared prior to project implementation

to determine proper design and construction methods, including any cathodic protection

measures needed for installing the pipelines in these soils.

With the incorporation of this mitigation measure, any resulting impacts would be considered to be

less-than-significant.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action could be located on

expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). However, with

the incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 above, any impacts would be less-than-

significant.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not include the use of septic

tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, no adverse effects to soil resources

are expected. No mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-18

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action

would not involve the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials.

However, construction of the Proposed Project/Action could temporarily increase the transport


July 2012 3-19

of materials generally regarded as hazardous materials that are used in construction activities. It

is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline,

diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, paint, and other similarly related materials would be brought onto the

project site, used, and stored during the construction period. The types and quantities of materials

to be used could pose a significant risk to the public and/or the environment. In addition,

construction of the Proposed Project/Action could result in the exposure of construction workers

and residents to potentially contaminated soils. As a result the following mitigation measures are

proposed:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Store, Handle, Use Hazardous Materials in

Accordance with Applicable Laws. The City shall ensure that all construction-related

hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be stored, handled, and used in a manner

consistent with relevant and applicable federal, state, and local laws. In addition,

construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be staged and stored

away from stream channels and steep banks to keep these materials a safe distance from

near-by residents and prevent them from entering surface waters in the event of an

accidental release.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Properly Dispose of Contaminated Soil and/or

Groundwater. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered or if suspected

contaminated is encountered during project construction, work shall be halted in the area,

and the type and extent of the contamination shall be identified. A contingency plan to

dispose of any contaminated soil or groundwater will be developed through consultation

with appropriate regulatory agencies.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Properly Dispose of Hydrostatic Test Water. Dewatering and of the pipeline during hydrostatic testing during construction as well as

any dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to

land or the sanitary sewer system and not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and

shall require prior approval from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control

Board.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The operation of the Proposed Project/Action

could create an additional significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably

foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the

environment. As with all construction activities, the potential exists for accidents to occur, which

could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the incorporation of

Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 identified above, potential impacts are considered to

be less-than-significant.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of portions of the pipeline segments of the

Proposed Project/Action would be located within one-quarter mile of several schools. Although

construction activities would require the use of some hazardous materials, due to the short

duration and limited extent of construction activity, the potential for accidental release of

hazardous materials associated with construction activities to affect nearby school children would

be considered less-than-significant. No mitigation is required.

(d) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located on a site which is known to be included

on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and

therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Specifically, a

records search was conducted using the State of California Department of Toxic Substance


July 2012 3-20

Control’s Envirostor Database and GIS mapping system and no records of any identified

hazardous waste or materials was identified within the Proposed Project/Action Area. As a result,

no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within two miles of the

Livermore Municipal Airport. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed

Project/Action would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-

offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and

the control tower within the Project area. Any potential impacts are considered to be less-than-

significant. No specific mitigation is required.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within two miles of the

Livermore Municipal Airport. In addition, there might be private airstrips in the vicinity of the

Proposed Project/Action. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action

would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings,

flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower

within the Project area. Any potential impacts are considered to be less-than-significant. No

specific mitigation is required.

(g) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would not impair

implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency

evacuation plan. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. However,

when installing the pipelines in the existing roadways, the Proposed Project/Action could block

access to nearby roadways for emergency vehicles. With the incorporation of the following

mitigation, potential impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ -3: Develop and Maintain Emergency Access Strategies. In conjunction with Mitigation Measure Traffic-1: Develop a Traffic Control Plan

identified below in the Traffic and Transportation section, comprehensive strategies for

maintaining emergency access shall be developed. Strategies shall include, but not

limited to, maintaining steel trench plates at the construction sites to restore access across

open trenches and identification of alternate routing around construction zones. Also,

police, fire, and other emergency service providers shall be notified of the timing,

location, and duration of the construction activities and the location of detours and lane

closures.

(h) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would be located

within an urban setting and is not generally located in an area where there is the risk of wildland

fire. Specifically, a records search of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Fire Severity mapping system does not regard the Proposed Project/Action Area to be in an area

of moderate or high risk to wildfires. As a result, there is little potential to expose people or

structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Any potential

impacts are considered to be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-21

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (erosion potential)

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?


July 2012 3-22

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Excavation, grading, and construction

activities associated with the Proposed Project/Action could violate water quality as those

activities would expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation

in the Project area. Construction during the rainy season could result in increases in erosion,

station, and water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction

activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction

activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and

increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have

the potential to impact the creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a potentially

significant impact to water quality. With the incorporation of the following mitigation, any

potential impacts to water quality as a result of construction are reduced to less-than-significant

levels.

Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices.

To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected

contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and

implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the

San Francisco RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation

shall include the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during

inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access

points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips,

providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of

adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips;

stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm

drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water

generated by dewatering; and returning all drainage patterns to pre-existing conditions.

In addition, the operation of the Proposed Project/Action and application of recycled water will

increase salts and nutrient loadings on the soils which could result in significant impacts to

adjacent surface and groundwater resources. Rising levels of salts have been observed in the

Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Main Basin) over the past several decades and are

generally measured as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The main sources of salt loading to the

250,000 acre-foot capacity Main Basin are landscape irrigation with potable and recycled water,

recharge operations using surface water from the State Water Project (SWP), and runoff from the

local arroyos. Salts may also be naturally leached from the marine sediments in the northwestern

area of the Valley. The City’s existing potable water supply includes both groundwater and

surface water resources totaling approximately 16,500 afy and which currently has a combined

average TDS level of approximately 375 milligrams per liter (mg/l)2. At build out, the Proposed

Project/Action would offset approximately 2,500 afy of that supply with recycled water for

irrigation purposes. The proposed new recycled water supply would have an average TDS level

of approximately 597 mg/l3 which would result in an approximately 60 percent increase in salt

loading for the 2,500 afy of water to be used for irrigation purposes. It is assumed that with

proper irrigation best management practices, recycled water operations would have an 80 percent

2 City of Pleasanton. Administrative Draft Feasibility Study, Recycled Water Project. June 2012. 3 Dublin San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utilities District (DERWA). San Ramon Valley Recycled Water

Program, Recycled Water Quality Annual Report. June 2008.


July 2012 3-23

irrigation efficiency, meaning that 80 percent of the applied recycled water would be lost through

evapotranspiration and the remaining 20 percent of the flow would percolate through the root

zone. All of the applied salts are assumed to remain with the 20 percent flow and would

percolate into the groundwater as a result of winter rains. The increased salt loading would result

in approximately 675 tons per year. However, in context to the overall Main Basin which has a

capacity of 250,000 acre-feet, this incremental increase is not considered to be a significant

impact (i.e. 0.27 percent). Also, recycled water has higher amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and

potassium than potable supplies. Thus, recycled water would help alleviate the need to use

fertilizers which are more readily applied if potable supplies are used for irrigation and which are

not accounted for in its TDS calculations. Further, with the implementation of the following

recycled water best management practices, any of these impacts can be further reduced and

remain to be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: Implement Recycled Water Best Management

Practices. In order to help reduce the potential effects of increased salt loading potential

as a result of using recycled water, the City shall:

Apply water consistent with Title 22 requirements and in amounts (frequency and

intensity) which meet the demands of the plant (agronomic rates), but not in

excessive amounts such that salts buildup in the soil beyond the root zone and/or

otherwise are leached to groundwater;

Ensure that adequate soil drainage is maintained;

Ensure that salt-sensitive plants (e.g. Colonial bentgrass) are not to be spray wet;

Replace salt-sensitive plants with salt-tolerant plants (e.g, Bermudagrass), and

Addressing sodium and alkalinity concerns through addition of water and soil

amendments, including addition of gypsum.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2, any water quality

impacts as a result of the use of recycled water will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. No

additional mitigation measures or demineralization facilities would be required.

(b) No Impact. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not substantially

deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there

would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would be done primarily within existing roadways

and subsurface excavation would be limited to 3-6 feet below surface elevation and would not

interfere with groundwater supplies. Once constructed, the pipeline will also not adversely affect

groundwater supplies. In fact, the importation of approximately to 2,500 acre-feet of recycled

water per year has the potential to offset current groundwater pumping which has the potential to

increase local groundwater supplies through an in-lieu recharge basis. Therefore, no adverse

impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed

Project/Action would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result

in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site. As described in the Project Description, the

Proposed Project/Action would be located primarily within existing roadways. With the

implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, above, the Proposed Project/Action would not

significantly alter any existing drainage areas.


July 2012 3-24

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed

Project/Action would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result

in flooding on- or off-site. As described in the Project Description, the Proposed Project/Action

would be located within existing roadways. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure

HWQ-1, above, the Proposed Project/Action would not significantly alter any existing drainage

areas.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not result in any new significant impervious

surfaces and would not create new areas of low permeability. The Proposed Project/Action

would be located primarily within existing roadways. The Proposed Project/Action would be

returned to pre-construction conditions and would not increase the impervious surfaces and

therefore would not create new areas of low permeability. In addition, the construction of the

filtration upgrades would not create a new impervious layer that would significantly affect

permeability. As a result, no additional runoff is expected to be generated by the Proposed

Project/Action. Therefore, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in exceeding the

capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. No impacts would occur and no

mitigation is necessary.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would not

substantially affect water quality. As discussed earlier, the construction of the Proposed

Project/Action could result in minor, temporary, and highly localized soil erosion and siltation

issues. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 above, potential

impacts to water quality would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not redirect flood flows or otherwise place

housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required

or necessary.

(h) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would generally not place exposed structures within a

100-year flood hazard area. The pipeline facilities would be primarily located underground and

the filtration upgrades would be located at the existing DSRSD WWTP and out of the 100-year

flood hazard area. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required or necessary.

(i) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people or structures to a significant

risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding; including flooding as a result of a failure of a

levee or dam. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required or necessary.

(j) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people or structures to a significant

risk of loss, injury, or death involving a seiche or tsunami. In addition, the Proposed

Project/Action area is essentially level, with minimal to no potential hazards from mudflows. No

impact is expected and no mitigation is required or necessary.


July 2012 3-25

3.9 Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,

or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not physically divide an established community.

The Proposed Project/Action would be primarily constructed within and under existing roadways

within the City. The Proposed Project/Action would not result in a disruption, physical division,

or isolation of existing residential or open space areas. As a result, no impact is expected and no

mitigation is required or necessary.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would be constructed within and under existing

roadways within the City. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with any applicable

land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project area. In fact,

the City and DSRSD have developed strategic plans and policies to encourage the use of recycled

water. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As stated above, the Proposed Project/Action would

be constructed within existing roadways within the City. For this reason, no impacts are expected

and no mitigation is required or necessary.


July 2012 3-26

3.10 Mineral Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to the

region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-

important mineral resource recovery site

delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or

other land use plan?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action site is not located on a site that is identified as a

significant source of mineral resources. Specifically, the Proposed Project/Action is not located

in an area identified as containing mineral resources classified MRZ-2 by the State geologist that

would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As a result, the Proposed

Project/Action would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources; therefore,

no impact is expected. No mitigation is required.

(b) No Impact. The City’s General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resources or

recovery sites in the Proposed Project/Action’s area. Further, as discussed in (a), the Proposed

Project/Action would be unlikely to result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource deposit

that has been identified as a mineral resource of value. Therefore, no adverse impacts are

anticipated and no mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-27

3.11 Noise Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Would the Proposed Project/Action result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise

levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use

plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action has the potential

to generate noise during the construction phase through the use of equipment and construction

vehicle trips. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would generate temporary and

intermittent noise. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and

duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment.

Back-up beepers associated with trucks and equipment used for material loading and unloading at

the staging area would generate significantly increased noise levels over the ambient noise

environment in order to be discernable and protect construction worker safety as required by

OSHA (29 CFR 1926.601 and 29 CFR 1926.602). Residences and/or businesses in the vicinity of

the staging area would thus be exposed to these elevated noise levels.


July 2012 3-28

Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and related noise

impacts would be short-term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase

ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially

significant, albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. Compliance with the City noise

ordinance and implementation of the following mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts

related to construction noise, to a less-than-significant level. The following mitigation measures

are proposed:

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit Construction Hours. Construction activities will

be limited to the least noise-sensitive times and will comply with the City’s noise

ordinances. Construction, alteration, repair or land development activities shall be

allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., on Saturdays between the

hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Construction activities shall not exceed the outdoor ambient

sound level (dBA) of 86 dBA.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Locate Staging Areas away from Sensitive Receptors. The City’s construction specification shall require that the contractor select staging areas

as far as feasibly possible from sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Maintain Mufflers on Equipment. The City’s

construction specifications shall require the contractor to maintain all construction

equipment with manufacturer’s specified noise-muffling devices.

Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Idling Prohibition and Enforcement. The City shall

prohibit and enforce unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. In practice, this

would mean turning off equipment if it will not be used for five or more minutes.

Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all

stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far as

possible from homes and businesses.

With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, noise impacts as result of construction-

related activities of the Proposed Project/Action would be considered less-than-significant.

Once constructed, the Proposed Project/Action would not create any new sources of operational

noise. Therefore, operation of the pipeline would not result in any significant noise impacts. No


(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action

would not result in exposing people to or generating excessive groundborne vibration or noise

impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action could likely result in minor and temporary

increases in groundborne vibration or noise, however, construction activities would be temporary.

With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts associated with

the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise

levels would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

(c) No Impact. The operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not increase noise in and around

the Project area. Once constructed, the operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in any

noise. The Proposed Project/Action would not cause a permanent increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, no impacts

would occur and no mitigation is required.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Project construction activities may lead to a

temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without


July 2012 3-29

the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts

resulting in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant

level.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within two miles of the

Livermore Municipal Airport. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed

Project/Action would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-

offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and

the control tower within the Project area. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people

residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Any potential impacts are

considered to be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation is required.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within two miles of the

Livermore Municipal Airport. In addition, there might be private airstrips in the vicinity of the

Proposed Project/Action. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action

would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings,

flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower

within the Project area. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people residing or

working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Any potential impacts are considered to be

less-than-significant. No specific mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-30

3.12 Population and Housing Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new

homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,

through extension of roads or other

infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not induce population growth either directly or

indirectly. The Proposed Project/Action would be to serve the City with up to 2,500 afy of tertiary

treated recycled water for irrigation purposes. This would help supplement the City’s current

groundwater supplies, but would not be a sufficient supply to induce urban growth in the area. In

addition, construction, operation, and maintenance would not result in any substantial increase in

numbers of permanent workers/employees. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no


(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not result in displacing substantial numbers of

existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The

Proposed Project/Action would be constructed within existing roadways and/or utility corridors

within commercial, industrial, and residential zonings within the City. Construction of the

Proposed Project/Action would avoid the need to demolish any existing houses and would not

affect any other housing structures. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not displace

existing housing, and therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not displace substantial numbers of people

necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Proposed Project/Action

would be constructed within existing roadways within the City. Construction of the Proposed

Project/Action would avoid the need to demolish existing housing and other housing structures.

As a result, the Proposed Project/Action is not expected to displace people from their homes.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-31

3.13 Public Services Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse

physical impacts associated with the provision of

new or physically altered governmental facilities,

need for new or physically altered governmental

facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental impacts, in order to

maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,

or other performance objectives for any of the

public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action will not generate population growth and the operation

and maintenance of the Proposed Project/Action would not be labor intensive. In addition, the

Proposed Project/Action would not increase the demand for the kinds of public services that

would support new residents, such as schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities. As a

result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-32

3.14 Recreation Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

a) Would the Project increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical

deterioration of the facility would occur or be

accelerated?

b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or

require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities which might have an adverse

physical effect on the environment?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action will not contribute to population growth. Therefore,

the Proposed Project/Action will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks

or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would

occur or be accelerated. As a result, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action does not include or require construction or expansion

of recreational facilities. Furthermore, as discussed in (a), the Proposed Project/Action will not

increase the demand for recreational facilities. As a result, no impact is expected and no



July 2012 3-33

3.15 Socioeconomics Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Would the Project/Action:

a) Result in any adverse socioeconomic effects?

b) Conflict with Executive Order 12898

(Environmental Justice) policies?

c) Affect Indian Trust Assets?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not have any adverse socioeconomic effects.

The Proposed Project/Action would involve the construction and operation of a recycled water

system to supplement the City’s surface and groundwater supplies. This would ensure a reliable,

long-term water supply that would help support the existing and future irrigation activities within

the City and which would be considered a beneficial socioeconomic effect. The City is pursuing

several funding mechanisms which would include applying for state and federal grants and loans

to help reduce the cost of the project. In addition, the City would repay any loans by charging a

fee to users for the use of the recycled water. It is assumed that the project costs would result in

an increase in costs. However, the additional project costs would not adversely affect any

minority or low-income populations and/or adversely alter the socioeconomic conditions of

populations that reside within the City. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not have

any adverse socioeconomic effects.

(b) No Impact. Executive 12898 requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice as

part of its mission, by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human

health on environmental effects, including social and economic effects of its programs, policies,

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. The

Proposed Project/Action would involve the construction and operation of a recycled water system

to deliver supplemental water to the region to help protect and enhance the existing irrigation

practices within the City. The Proposed Project/Action would primarily occur in existing

roadways in a highly urbanized area. The Proposed Project/Action does not propose any features

that would result in disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects, have any

physical effects on minority or low-income populations, and/or alter socioeconomic conditions of

populations that reside or work within the City and vicinity.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not have any adverse effects on Indian Trust

Assets (ITA). ITAs are legal interests in property or rights held by the United States for Indian

Tribes or individuals. Trust status originates from rights imparted by treaties, statutes, or

executive orders. Examples of ITAs are lands, including reservations and public domain

allotments, minerals, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, or other natural resources, money or

claims. Assets can be real property, physical assets, or intangible property rights. ITAs cannot be

sold, leased, or otherwise alienated without federal approval. ITAs do not include things in which


July 2012 3-34

a tribe or individuals have no legal interest such as off-reservation sacred lands or archaeological

sites in which a tribe has no legal property interest. No ITAs have been identified within the City

and in the construction areas of the Proposed Project/Action. As a result, the Proposed/Action

would have no adverse effects on ITAs.


July 2012 3-35

3.16 Traffic and Transportation Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact


a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location which results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Discussion

(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would be

primarily constructed within existing roadways within the City. Construction would temporarily

disrupt transportation and circulation patterns in the vicinity of the project thus disrupting local

vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along the haul routes. Although construction-generated

traffic would be temporary during peak excavation and earthwork activities, average daily truck

trips would be 40 round-trip truck trips per day. The primary impacts from the movement of

trucks would include short-term and intermittent lessening of roadway capacities due to slower

movements and larger turning radii of the trucks compared to passenger vehicles. The following

mitigation measures are proposed:


July 2012 3-36

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prepare and Implement Traffic Control Plan. As is

consistent with existing policy, the City shall require the contractor to prepare and

implement effective traffic control plans to show specific methods for maintaining traffic

flows. Examples of traffic control measures to be considered include: 1) use of flaggers

to maintain alternating one-way traffic while working on one-half of the street; 2) use of

advance construction signs and other public notices to alert drivers of activity in the area;

3) use of “positive guidance” detour signing on alternate access streets to minimize

inconvenience to the driving public; 4) provisions for emergency access and passage; and

5) designated areas for construction worker parking.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Following

construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces that are damaged during

construction are returned to their pre-construction condition or better.

With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, potential temporary impacts are

considered to be less-than-significant.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above in (a), construction

activities of the Proposed Project/Action may result in increased vehicle trips. This could

temporarily exceed, either individually or cumulatively, existing level of service standards.

However, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in any long-term degradation in operating

conditions or level of service on any project roadways. With the implementation of Mitigation

Measure TRA-1 impacts associated with exceeding level of service standards would be reduced

to a less-than-significant level.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action does not involve use of air transit, nor is it expected to

cause any change in air traffic patterns. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required.

(d) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action does not propose to make changes to roadways that

would create road hazards or alter design features developed to mitigate such hazards. No

impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would have

temporary effects on traffic flow, due to added truck traffic during construction which could

result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project. Implementation of

Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require the contractor to establish methods for maintaining

traffic flow in the project vicinity and minimizing disruption to emergency vehicle access to land

uses along the truck route. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would also ensure

potential impacts associated with temporary effects on emergency access would be mitigated to a

less-than-significant level.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-related construction activities would require additional

parking for workers and equipment on a temporary basis. However, sufficient space exists within

the construction easement to accommodate parking needs for construction workers and

equipment. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(g) Less-than-Significant Impact. The construction activities associated with the Proposed

Project/Action would be short term and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs supporting alternative transportation. Also once constructed, the Proposed

Project/Action would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative

transportation. Any short-term effects would be considered less-than-significant.


July 2012 3-37

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems



a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water

or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve

the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the waste water

treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and

regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not exceed waste water treatment requirements

of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated

and no mitigation is required.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would involve the construction of a

water recycling system to serve the City. This would also include upgrading the tertiary filtration

system at DSRSD’s existing WWTP. However, any impacts associated with the construction

and/or operations are considered to be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.


July 2012 3-38

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not require or result in the construction of

additional off-site storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no


(d) Less-than-Significant Impact. Under the Proposed Project/Action the City will be receiving

tertiary treated water from DSRSD’s existing WWTP. This would be a new water supply and

would require the City purchasing this new water supply from DSRSD. However, any impacts are

considered to be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.

(e) Less-than-significant Impact. Under the Proposed Project/Action, the City will be receiving

tertiary treated water from DSRSD’s existing WWTP. This would require upgrading DSRSD’s

tertiary filtration system. However, any impacts are considered to be less-than-significant and no


(f) No Impact. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not generate a

significant amount of solid wastes. No impacts are expected to existing landfills and no


(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts and no



July 2012 3-39

3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact No Impact


a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of

the environment, substantially reduce the

habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a

fish or wildlife population to drop below

self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate

a plant or animal community, reduce the

number or restrict the range of a rare or

endangered plant or animal, or eliminate

important examples of the major periods of

California history or prehistory?

b) Have impacts that would be individually

limited, but cumulatively considerable?

(“Cumulatively considerable” means that

the incremental effects of a project are

considerable when viewed in connection

with the effects of past projects, the effects

of other current projects, and the effects of

probable future projects.)

c) Have environmental effects that would

cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion

(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. With the incorporation of the previously

identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project/Action will not substantially degrade the

quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,

reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate

important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any impacts from the

Proposed Project/Action in these areas are considered here to be less-than-significant with the

implementation and incorporation of the above mentioned mitigation measures.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. No direct project-specific significant effects were

identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures

incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative (as well as direct) impacts

associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the Proposed Project/Action does not have

impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.


July 2012 3-40

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As a result of mitigation included in this

environmental document, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in substantial adverse

effects to humans, either directly or indirectly.


July 2012 4-1

Chapter 4 Conclusions and Recommendations This environmental issues and constraints evaluation provides a cursory review and analysis of the major

environmental issues that may be a factor, or a result of, the construction and/or operation of the City’s

proposed Recycled Water Project. The information developed is designed to assist the City, USBR

and/or the State Board to determine what the major potential environmental impacts are to comply with

CEQA, NEPA and/or CEQA-plus requirements. For this analysis, we reviewed prior and relevant existing

environmental documentation and have used a modified CEQA environmental checklist to assess the

potential impacts on endangered/threatened species, public health or safety, natural resources,

regulated waters, and cultural resources, among others to include and address specific issues

associated with CEQA as well as NEPA. No protocol-level site-specific surveys were conducted for

this investigation.

4.1 Conclusions Based on our findings, most of the potential environmental issues appear to be short-term/temporary

impacts due to construction activities and which can be avoided and/or mitigated to less-than-significant

levels. For any potentially significant impact(s) identified, we identified appropriate mitigation measures

and strategies to attempt to avoid and/or reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on our

findings and analysis, it does not appear that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required to

comply with CEQA. Instead, we believe that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document

should be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and save the City a significant amount of time

and money. If the City desires to receive federal or state grants, then they will have to work with the

other potential lead agencies such as USBR and/or the State Board to prepare the equivalent NEPA and

CEQA-Plus documents, either jointly or separately. As this was a preliminary evaluation, additional

analysis and effort may be required to fully comply with CEQA, NEPA and/or CEQA-Plus procedural

requirements.

4.2 Recommendations We recommend that if the City decides to move forward with the Proposed Project/Action as described in

Chapter 7 of the City’s Recycled Water Project Feasibility Study and summarized in Chapter 2 of this

document, that it uses this information as a basis for developing an actual Initial Study/Mitigated

Negative Declaration and go through the CEQA public review and disclosure process and procedures. In

addition, we recommend that the City initiate contact as soon as possible with any and all potential

funding agencies such as USBR and/or the State Board to investigate their specific requirements and

procedures that they need to follow to meet NEPA and/or CEQA-Plus requirements and support the

City’s funding requests. This document should be a good framework for those discussions and help the

City, USBR, and/or the State Board develop a plan for moving forward.


July 2012 5-2

Chapter 5 Bibliography Detailed below are the sources consulted and reviewed during the preparation of this environmental issues

and constraints document.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guidelines. December 1999. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Severity Mapping. July 2012

California Department of Toxic Substances. Envirostor database and GIS System. July 2012

City of Pleasanton. Administrative Draft Feasibility Study, Recycled Water Project. June 2012.

City of Pleasanton. General Plan EIR. June 2009.

City of Pleasanton. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011

Dublin San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utilities District (DERWA). San

Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program, Final Impact Report. December 1996.

Dublin San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utilities District (DERWA). San

Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program, Recycled Water Quality Annual Report. June 2008.

State Water Resources Control Board. Staff Report and Certified Regulatory Program

Environmental Analysis for the State Water Resources Control Board’s Recycled Water Policy.

2009.

Zone 7 Water Agency. Salt Management Plan. May 2004.

Appendix A Air Quality Emissions Calculations

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2

Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)

Grubbing/Land Clearing 19.3 72.3 74.4 5.9 5.3 0.6 4.9 4.7 0.1 9,841.7 Grading/Excavation 18.7 74.4 74.0 5.9 5.3 0.6 4.9 4.7 0.1 10,377.2 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 15.5 65.2 63.5 5.0 4.4 0.6 4.1 4.0 0.1 9,612.7 Paving 13.3 58.4 50.5 3.9 3.9 - 3.5 3.5 - 7,830.7 Maximum (pounds/day) 19.3 74.4 74.4 5.9 5.3 0.6 4.9 4.7 0.1 10,377.2 Total (tons/construction project) 8.9 36.3 35.4 2.8 2.5 0.3 2.3 2.3 0.1 5,134.1

Notes: Project Start Year -> 2013Project Length (months) -> 48

Total Project Area (acres) -> 12Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)-> 20

Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust

Project Phases (Metric Units) ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)

Grubbing/Land Clearing 8.8 32.9 33.8 2.7 2.4 0.3 2.2 2.2 0.1 4,473.5 Grading/Excavation 8.5 33.8 33.6 2.7 2.4 0.3 2.2 2.2 0.1 4,716.9 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7.0 29.6 28.9 2.3 2.0 0.3 1.9 1.8 0.1 4,369.4 Paving 6.0 26.5 22.9 1.8 1.8 - 1.6 1.6 - 3,559.4 Maximum (kilograms/day) 8.8 33.8 33.8 2.7 2.4 0.3 2.2 2.2 0.1 4,716.9 Total (megagrams/construction project) 8.1 32.9 32.1 2.5 2.3 0.2 2.1 2.1 0.1 4,656.8

Notes: Project Start Year -> 2013Project Length (months) -> 48

Total Project Area (hectares) -> 5Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0

Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)-> 15

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.



PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.


City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX J – PROP 218 INFORMATION AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

MINUTES

CITY OF PLEASANTON

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

April 6, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Hosterman called the regular meeting to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m. Vice -MayorThorne led the Pledge of Allegiance, provided introductory remarks and recognized Elizabeth

Bailey- Wafflard.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Cook- Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman

Absent: None

CLOSSED SESSION REPORT

The City Attorney reported the Council met in Closed Session on existing litigation Urban

Habitat vs. City of Pleasanton and that no reportable action was taken.

AGENDA AMENDMENTS

Mayor Hosterman requested that the order of Public Hearing items be amended to hear Item 16

first, then Items 18, 15, and 17. The Council provided support.

Councilmember McGovern stated she is a member of Castlewood Country Club and recused

herself from Agenda Item 15.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Administrative Services

1. Approve regular meeting minutes March 16, 2010 Thorne abstained

City Manager

2. Accepted Commissioner Absences Report for the period July 1 through December 31,2009

Community Development

3. Accepted actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission

4. Approved plans and specifications, reviewed bids, awarded and authorized the CityManager to execute the construction contract with Granite Construction Company in the

amount of $399,429.50 for Bernal Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation (2009) project, CIP

No. 095026; authorized the Director of Community Development to approve and execute

change orders in an amount not to exceed $59,914; and authorized the transfer of

111,020 from the Annual Resurfacing project, CIP 095026 to fund project costs that

exceed the ARRA grant amount and the transfer of $370,000 from the same resurfacingproject to be used until funds are reimbursed from the ARRA grant

5. Accepted public improvements performed by Rosas Brothers Construction Company for

the Annual Curb and Gutter Replacement project, CIP No. 085009; authorized the CityClerk to file a notice of completion, the payment of retention in the amount of $15,257.70;and the transfer of the remaining funds in the amount of $40,578 to CIP No. 095003

Annual Resurfacing of Various City Streets.

6. Reviewed and rejected all bids for Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue WideningImprovements project, CIP No. 975039

7. Accepted public improvements performed by Rosas Brothers Construction Company for

the Annual Sidewalk Maintenance project, CIP No. 085012, authorized the City Clerk to

file a notice of completion; authorized payment of the retention in the amount of

17,241.80; and the transfer of the remaining funds in the amount of $240,238 to CIP No.

095012 Annual Sidewalk Maintenance

8. Accepted public improvements performed by C. F. Archibald Paving, Inc. for the Annual

Resurfacing of Various City Streets project, CIP No. 095003, authorized the City Clerk to

file a notice of completion; authorized payment of the project retention in the amount of

82,479 and authorized the transfer of $24,000 from the Crellin Road Speed Lumpreplacement project, CIP No. 095033, to pay for the speed lump replacement performedby C.F. Archibald as a contract change order

9. Approved and authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the

agreement with Laguna Oaks Pleasanton Homeowners Association (HOA) for the

maintenance of landscaping

Finance

10. Accepted the Monthly Disbursements and Investment Report for February 2010

11. Adopted Resolution No. 10 -347 approving the Investment Policy and Guidelines of the

City of Pleasanton

Parks and Community Services

12. Accepted the public art gift of an 'Opic Glass Bell' from Gary and Nancy Harrington for

installation in the Firehouse Arts Center; approved and authorized the City Manager to

execute a contract with artist Jack Storms and Sudio 7 Fine Arts in the of $34,925 for the

design, fabrication and installation of said art

MOTION: It was m/s by Cook Kallio /Sullivan to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted and

as noted.

Ayes: Councilmembers Cook Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman

Noes: None

Absent: None

City Council Minutes Page 2 of 22 April 6, 2010

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

13. Proclaim April 12 to April 16 Week of the Young Child

Vice -Mayor Thorne read and presented the proclamation to Betsey McClellan, Vice President of

the Friends of Gingerbread Preschool.

14. Public Comment

Steve Dowding read the names of the 19 soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the last

Council meeting.

Pat Murray noted she asked Council to consider a plastic bag ban.

Councilmember Sullivan said he serves on the Board of Alameda County Waste ManagementAuthority (ACWMA) where the issue has been discussed at length. When the City of Oakland

instituted a plastic shopping bag ban 1 year ago, it was sued by the plastics industry, and the

courts ruled that the City needed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to identify the impactsof such a ban. The ACWMA, along with the City of Oakland and several other East Bay cities, is

now preparing one environmental study to be used for all Alameda County cities as well as a

model ordinance to be instituted throughout the County, with the strategy being that a united

front would be more difficult to attack. He said the item would be agendized for the Council's

consideration as soon as that work is complete, which he anticipates to be in the next several

months.

Fred Norman stated that 104 American service men and women have been killed in Iraq and

Afghanistan this year and he invited the public to join Pleasantonians for Peace at its monthlyvigil on Wednesday, April 14 at 7 p.m. in front of the Museum on Main Street.

Margo Tarver addressed Council concerning Measure D and stated she is opposed to the

project.

Howard Neely, Cemetery Ad -Hoc Committee, voiced concern relative to the progress of the new

cemetery. He reported that improvements are progressing to a point that most completed sites

will be sold -out before the year is up and with this in mind future development needs to be

identified quickly. He noted the Creekside Memorial Park Cemetery plans on Tassajara Road

at the county line.

Paul Martens encouraged the public and Council to vote no on Measure D. He said his primaryissue is with the significant amount of dirt involved with the Oak Grove Project.

Judy Person said she met with the Cemetery Committee several times to express her desire for

increased maintenance and the suggestion that the cemetery receive the same status and

excellent care as the City's parks.

Chris Beratlis also addressed Council on the slow progression on improvements at the

cemetery.

Karen DeBaca Martens supported voting no on Measure D because it proposes to remove over

200 trees and cutting into, permanently removing, and destroying the City's ridgelines.


Karla Brown urged the public to vote no on Measure D in order to protect the natural contours of

the ridges and prevent 2.1 billion pounds of dirt removed.

Kay Ayala indicated she preferred a November election as it would have allowed for much more

education and conversation and urged the public to vote no on Measure D.

Peter Bailey, Amador Valley Historical Society, said the mission of the Historical Society is the

preservation and dissemination of historical information of significance to the City's heritage and

of interest to its residents. He also noted the Pioneer Cemetery Committee, the Amador ValleyHistorical Society, and citizens of this community. He strongly urged the Council to consider the

transition of this historical monument at the gateway of our community into a park like

atmosphere, which reflects the highest degree of pride indigenous to other parks in the City.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS

15. Consider a resolution regarding labor dispute between Castlewood Country Club and

Unite Here!, Hospitality Workers Union Local 2850

City Attorney Lowell presented the staff report, noting that Councilmember McGovern recused

herself from the item and stepped down from the dais. He explained that the labor dispute exists

over the payment for health benefits between the Castlewood County Club and HospitalityWorkers Union Local 2850. On March 16, 2010 impacted workers, some of whom are

Pleasanton residents, requested the Council's assistance in persuading their employer to allow

them to return to work and continue negotiations. As the Brown Act prevented the Council from

taking action at that time, the Council majority directed that the item be placed on tonight'sagenda and a draft resolution is prepared. In light of the employees' April 2 vote to continue

union representation, Mayor Hosterman had requested that the resolution be modified to reflect

this information and urged Castlewood employees to return work.

Vice -Mayor Thorne asked if the lockout has any affect on the safety, health, or welfare of the

public. Mr. Lowell said that is for the Council to determine after taking public comment.

Referring to the draft resolution, Vice -Mayor Thorne inquired about the basis of the claim that

this situation reflects poorly on the City. Mr. Lowell said that in light of the press coverage of this

incident, Pleasanton is in the news and probably not cast in the kindest light and indicated

Council had the ability to modify the resolution however it sees fit.

Vice -Mayor Thorne asked if the City has any standards by which to determine when and when

not to get involved in private labor disputes. Mr. Lowell said there have been no guidelinesadopted to that effect and each decision is made case by case.

Councilmember Cook- Kallio said the impetus of this was simply to request that employees be

allowed to return to work and that both parties engage in further discussion. She said no

judgment was made in terms of what that conversation should be, that she does not believe the

Council chose sides, and that a problem cannot be resolved if there is no discussion.

Vice -Mayor Thorne indicated the statement suggests that management should end the lockout

and re- employ workers, sounds very much like taking sides.

Mayor Hosterman clarified for the public that while Castlewood is clearly located within the

jurisdiction of Alameda County, the Council has historically heard from people from Castlewood


about the issues affecting them, just as the Council has also heard from residents of Sunol and

Happy Valley. The Council has always strived to be answerable and responsive, which is whythe Council decided in Vice -Mayor Thorne's absence to agendize the item.

Mayor Hosterman opened the hearing to public comments.

Public Comments:

Francisca Carranza stated she is one of the newest employees of Castlewood, when she spokeat the last Council meeting, her husband was in the hospital suffering from complicationsassociated with a heart condition and while he is now home, the doctors are still contemplatingsurgery. She noted she is the sole provider for her family and desperately needs to return to

work soon.

Adrianna Carranza addressed the Council concerning the lockout.

Marisol Gil thanked the Council for taking the time to consider the workers' request. She said

the lockout has had a tremendous financial impact on her family and asked the Council to

support the workers by getting them back to work as soon as possible.

Mildreth Gil said she is very proud and supportive of the fact that her mother is fighting for the

healthcare rights of her family and asked that the Council also support her by helping to end the

lockout.

Wei -Ling Huber, Unite Here! Local 2850, said she is the current and past negotiator on behalf of

the union workers at Castlewood. The union has had a very good working relationship with the

Club in the past and has always prioritized the skyrocketing costs of medical benefits. This time,

the Club's Bargaining Committee initially came forward with over 65 proposals, nearly all of

which were takeaways. She acknowledged that her schedule was exceptionally full over the

summer months and that negotiations started a bit late, but once begun, they successfullyreached over 50 tentative agreements in a relatively short period.

Ms. Huber said the union presented Castlewood with its final proposal on February 26, which

provided a result that cost $1000 less per month than the Club's own proposal. Castlewood has

yet to accept or even counter that proposal. She reported that on April 2 the union won the

vote for worker representation and was hopeful that would urge Castlewood to return to the

bargaining table but an email from their negotiating director has indicated they are not preparedto meet until April 27 the 62 day of the lockout. She requested the Council to send a strongmessage and pass the resolution.

Larry Ferderber said he is a 25 -year resident of Pleasanton and a 10 -year member of

Castlewood Country Club. He said he is motivated to speak tonight because when he attemptedto engage Club management regarding its policies and development procedures, he was told

this is a matter for the Executive Council and Negotiating Committee and not members. He said

anything the Council can do to assist the Club in taking actions to end the lockout and agree to

a reasonable benefits package would be very useful and is in the best interests of the Club

members, employees, and the community at large. He believed the Club's Board has let its

negotiating team become disconnected from its membership, the interests of those members

are not well represented, and egos have been caught up in negotiations. He requested the

Council's assistance in returning the focus to the current issues on the table.


Fred Norman said the Castlewood workers need the City's support and the Council's

assistance. He said they are not chattel nor indentured servants; they are human beings who

deserve a living wage and the opportunity to support themselves and their families. He has

attended their protest gatherings and had opportunity to speak with many, one of whom is an

82- year -old woman and 26 -year employee of Castlewood who is now locked out of her job and

deprived of an income and health care benefits. He cited the City's past aid efforts both national

and global and asked that the City now help those in its local area by giving them the

opportunity to resume contract negotiations.

Patricia Belding said she is a member of the Catholic Community of Pleasanton (CCOP) and

Citizens for a Caring Community. She said her heart is moved by the plight of these workers.

She was instrumental in requesting that her church issue a letter to Castlewood management to

ask that both parties return to the negotiating table but that the letter has received no response.

Another letter was issued following an inter -faith meeting, again with no response. She asked

the Council to intervene, either in the manner proposed by staff or by directly mediating this

situation, which has resulted in tremendous conflict and injustice.

Brenda Wood, American Federation of State, City, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)Council 57 and AFSCME Local 955, said she was sent by the Executive Board to request the

Council's support for these workers. She said they would ultimately like the Council to

encourage both parties to come back together to reach some sort of resolution, with both sides

being treated respectfully and a fair agreement negotiated for the workers.

Carlos Hernandez spoke through an interpreter, stating that he and his coworkers are here

tonight because of the economic and health impacts created by this lockout. He said locked out

workers have been marching in front of Castlewood not because they are being paid, but

because they are fighting for their families and their future.

Gustavo Nystrom said he is with CCOP and also led Pleasanton's 2006 Jewish Catholic

dialogue. This issue pertains to fair labor, something of great importance to both faiths and of

such importance to Catholics that it was addressed in both the first and second encyclicals ever

written by the church. He and the City's other religious leaders met recently to develop BreakingBread for Justice, a program involving both Castlewood management and the union. A

representative contacted the Club Manager, who declined to participate, stating that the matter

is a private affair. He said he is well aware of the impacts this recession has had on the Club,said 100 members have been lost, and that cutbacks are certainly in order, but that the cost of

this contract represents 33% of the average employee's take home pay. He would agree that

this is a private matter if the issue were over $12 versus $12.25 per hour, but 33% is significantenough to warrant intervention.

Diane Ravnik said she is a member of CCOP and the Social Justice Committee, the latter of

which initiated the correspondence requesting that Club management end the lockout, and that

she fully supports the moderate resolution proposed by staff. She acknowledged Vice -MayorThorne's concerns but said that without income or health benefits, workers become dependentupon the resources provided by the taxpayers; that makes it a matter of concern for the entire

community. She commended Councilmember Sullivan on his letter published in the Pleasanton

Weekly and concurred that the actions of Club management are draconian. She provided the

Council with a letter in support of the resolution from Bob Lane of the Trinity Lutheran Church

and urged the Council to support workers by adopting the resolution.

Mayor Hosterman closed the hearing to public comments.


Councilmember Cook Kallio said that one of the things asked of the Council at its last meetingwas to support workers in their quest to return to work. She said that a lockout, particularly when

no strike was eminent, is profound and that workers would like to return to the negotiating table.

Councilmember Sullivan said one can judge a community by the way it treats its least powerfulmembers. He said this sort of issue does not often arise in Pleasanton and it is an opportunityfor the Council to do the right thing. He said he has met with workers and the union, has walked

their picket line, and can say that all they wish to do is return to work and be able to negotiate in

good faith. He said it warms his heart to see so many come out and speak in support of this

resolution, particularly those not directly affected by the lockout.

Vice -Mayor Thorne voiced disappointment that the other side was not represented in publiccomments or in the staff report.

Mayor Hosterman said she met with the Club's general manager and others, making it clear that

the item would be heard at tonight's meeting and inviting them to attend and share their

position.

Councilmember Cook Kallio said she made three calls to the General Manager, none of which

have been returned. She makes no judgment on what the General Manager would say at the

negotiating table but reiterated that the problem cannot be resolved if no one is willing to talk

about it.

Vice -Mayor Thorne said he did not disagree with the need to resume negotiations but that

asking management to end the lockout seems to be taking sides. He said a lockout is a

management strategy like a strike is a labor strategy and questioned if the Council would take

the same sort of action if this were a worker initiated strike. He is not comfortable, as a public

entity, with insisting that the Club end the lockout or with the comments stating that, the matter

has cast Pleasanton in a poor light, which he does not necessarily believe to be true. He

sincerely desires for both parties to resume negotiating in good faith and that, if the two

statements identified were to be removed, he could support the resolution.

Mayor Hosterman said the proposed language is a fair assessment of the current situation and

that it appropriately and strongly encourages management to invite the workers back to the

table and back to work. She requested suggestions from the Council or staff on how to bifurcate

the issue so that Vice -Mayor Thorne may vote in support of the general action but not

necessarily the language of the resolution.

Councilmember Sullivan said he could support eliminating the comments regarding how this

reflects on Pleasanton because while he believed it to be true, it may not be that important. He

said it is crucial to leave the wording requesting an end to the lockout because good faith

negotiations cannot occur in such an imbalanced situation. He is happy to take sides in the

matter and in fact has, but he does not believe that is what this resolution accomplishes.

Vice -Mayor Thorne said he might side with the laborers, both as an individual and a member of

CCOP, but that he is not comfortable doing so as a public entity by demanding that

management take a certain action.


MOTION: It was m/s by Cook Kallio /Sullivan to adopt the resolution regarding labor disputebetween Castlewood Country Club and Unite Here!, Hospitality Workers Union Local 2850, as

presented.

Ayes: Councilmembers Cook Kallio, Sullivan, Mayor Hosterman

Noes: Councilmember Thorne

Absent: None

Abstain: Councilmember McGovern

BREAK Mayor Hosterman called a brief recess and thereafter reconvened the meeting.

16. Consider a resolution in support of the Proposition 15, the California Fair Elections Act

The City Attorney stated that at the March 2 City Council meeting, Joe Ely asked the Council

to consider issuing a resolution in support of Proposition 15, a measure qualified for the June

ballot. The Council requested more information from staff and after review, a majority of the

Council indicated they would like to consider a resolution of Proposition 15.

Mayor Hosterman opened the hearing for public comments.

Public Comments:

Karen DeBaca Martens referred to the staff report, which indicated that the League of California

Cities has taken the stance that the measure does not have a clear impact on cities and further

study is unnecessary, and asked what the purpose of the resolution would be.

Councilmember Sullivan asked Mr. Lowell to provide a brief overview of the proposition, as well

as what is contained within the draft resolution.

Mr. Lowell explained that Proposition 15 will create a voluntary system for candidates for the

statewide position of Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant, provided theyagree to strict spending limits with equally strict reporting and accounting requirements and to

accept no private contributions. The State would fund the grant through annual fees levied upon

lobbyists and lobbying firms and is expecting to raise about $6 million per election. The programis a sort of trial program that would apply only to Secretary of State elections held in years 2014

and 2018.

He said he had previously indicated to the Council that staff was looking to the League of Cities

to learn its position on the matter. The League initially told staff it would be submitting the

proposition to its various policy committees before taking any action but it was later determined

at a staff level that the issue was not something that would apply or be important to cities and

the issue was not put before any committees or the League Board of Directors. The League had

also indicated that the proposition may pose a problem for lobbyists currently utilized by some of

the larger cities.

He explained that while the City of Pleasanton already has voluntary spending regulations in

place, staff feels the proposition may provide further guidance on those regulations in the future

and would like to see how this progresses. The resolution essentially states that the Council

supports the Fair Elections Act, which will put this matter on the ballot and establish a pilotprogram of public financing for the Secretary of State elections in 2014 and 2018.


Vice -Mayor Thorne said he assumed the hope is that this would one day be much more

widespread throughout the State. Mr. Lowell said he understands this to be a trial program that

could potentially serve as a model for other campaign spending regulations.

Vice -Mayor Thorne questioned whether $6 million was truly expected to finance all state

elections, and Mr. Lowell could not say.

Councilmember Sullivan asked if this would remove the prohibition on public financing of

municipal elections, as well. Mr. Lowell said it would with regard to this particular office, but it

was not his understanding it would affect any offices beyond that.

Joe Ely said this would in fact overturn the prohibition on public campaign financing for all

offices so that it may be expanded to other offices in the future without requiring another ballot

measure. He implored the Council to pass the resolution so that the State, and one day this

City, may take the first step in getting candidates and elected officials out of the fundraisinggame. He said he has repeatedly heard from elected officials that this is the least favorable

aspect of their job and they would prefer to spend time on what the voters put them in office to

do. He said this would open the political process so that not only the wealthiest candidates win

and would eliminate the very damaging appearance of conflicts of interest that is inherent in the

private campaign finance system currently in place. He said the proposition would also allow

non Charter General Law cities like Pleasanton to pass their own public campaign financinglaws, and urged the Council to pass the resolution.

Kay Ayala concurred with Mr. Ely's comments and acknowledged this is a small step but said it

is one worth taking if it allows the City to pass its own campaign finance laws.


Councilmember Sullivan thanked Mr. Ely for his comments and continued support of the issue.

He doubted anyone would disagree that campaign funding has a stranglehold on democracy at

a state, federal and local level and this will not solve the problem, it is a step in the rightdirection towards preserving representative government. He fully supports the resolution and

hopes the measure passes in June.

MOTION: It was m/s by Sullivan /McGovern to adopt the resolution in support of Proposition 15,

the California Fair Elections Act, as presented.

Councilmember McGovern said she appreciates that this provides a model for the future and for

these two elections, in particular. With the current economy, many individuals do not have the

means to contribute funds and this provides lobbyists with the opportunity to finance an election

for a change. She said it is certainly worth an attempt, particularly if it allows Pleasanton to

establish its own campaign revisions.

Councilmember Cook- Kallio said she is very interested in this as a pilot program and finds the

idea of lobbyist funding to be extraordinarily interesting, as well. In order for any sort of fair

public election financing to occur, it will certainly take more than a pilot program in this State and

that the Federal Supreme Court ruling that speech is money will remain in effect no matter what.

She said this is an opportunity to see whether such a program can work and whether or not $6

million is enough to support an electoral candidate in this State.


Vice -Mayor Thorne said he would support the measure but has concerns over how this will be

funded once the program is broadened. He has difficulty envisioning an election process funded

by tax dollars.

Councilmember Cook Kallio said one of the issues with a voluntary program like this is that

money will be driven into areas that cannot be identified. Without widespread reform in a

number of areas, that money may be driven underground. She indicated this is a pilot programand she will wait to see what happens.

Mayor Hosterman said she has the same concerns but is willing to support the pilot program.

MOTION: It was m/s by Cook Kallio /Sullivan to adopt the resolution in support of Proposition 15,the California Fair Elections Act, as presented.

Ayes: Councilmembers Cook Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman

Noes: None

Absent: None

16. Overview of Urban Habitat Litigation, effect of Judge's Order, and Potential Next Steps

City Attorney Lowell presented the staff report, stating that staff learned of the judge's order in

the Urban Habitat litigation on March 12, 2010. Staff, legal counsel, and the Council have been

reviewing the decision and have met in Closed Session on several occasions to determine how

to proceed. He said that both staff and the Council feel it is important to speak publicly on the

matter so that residents and concerned individuals can better understand the ruling, as well as

the decisions the Council is now facing. He advised that as there is still existing litigation, certain

aspects of the case still cannot be discussed in public. He introduced special defense counsel

Tom Brown of Hanson Bridgett.

Mr. Brown stated that the case is an intersection between local and state law, involving a

challenge to two of the City's fundamental growth management strategies the voter approvedhousing cap and the City's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) as well as to the legaladequacy of the 2003 Housing Element and the implementation of all land use laws. He

provided a history of the issue, stating that in 2006 the advocacy group, Urban Habitat, met with

the City Manager and former City Attorney to discuss the allegation that existing growthmanagement laws and the implementation of the Housing Element conflicted with state law

affordable housing obligations. The claim was made that the City's cap, the implementation of

that cap, and the GMO are inconsistent with the Housing Element law, which contains specificrequirements on what cities must do to identify sites that will be made available to

accommodate affordable housing allocations. He briefly reviewed the role of the Association of

Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the assignation of Regional Housing Needs Allocation

RHNA) numbers and explained that the claim was made that the City's housing cap and GMO

prevented the accommodation of third planning period RHNA numbers. In addition, a claim was

made that Housing Element Program 19.1 stated the City would accomplish rezonings to meet

RHNA requirements by July 2004. For a variety of reasons, the City was not able to accomplishthat but has always maintained its intent to carry that forward.

Mr. Brown stated that the City respectfully disagreed with Urban Habitat's claims and in

November 2006. A lawsuit was brought by both Urban Habitat and Sandra De Gregorio, a local

mother who claimed a need for affordable housing that was not being met by the City. Both

plaintiffs made the claims previously described as well as claims that the City had failed to carry


forward or implement Housing Element Program 34.5, which committed to amending the GMO

to account for RHNA. It was further maintained that because of these issues, the General Plan

and Housing Element were internally inconsistent and in violation of State law. Further, that the

Housing Element was, on its face, inadequate under State law, that failure to accomplish

Program 19.1 violated the State's Least Cost Zoning Law, and that the Council's favored

approval of certain senior developments over multi family developments violated both the Fair

Employment and Housing Act and Government Code Section 65008.

The City moved to dismiss the charges in early 2007, arguing that the claims were both time

barred and not ripe, meaning that the City had never applied these laws to prevent any

affordable housing, and that the plaintiff lacked standing for reasons that cannot be discussed.

He noted that at that time, the City had 2,700 to 3,000 housing units remaining before the cap

would be exhausted.

The Alameda County Superior Court initially sided with the City and dismissed the case. The

plaintiffs then brought a first amended complaint. The City made the same motion to dismiss

and the Superior Court again sided with the City and without leave to amend. The plaintiffs then

appealed to the Court of Appeals where the case remained until 2008 when the California Court

of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs on 6 of the 8 claims. The Court agreed with the City that 2 of

the claims were time barred but resurrected the other 6 and ordered the case back down to the

Alameda County Superior Court for resolution. The City took the case to the California SupremeCourt who declined, stating they could not find immediate error in the Court of Appeals' ruling.

Mr. Brown noted that in this time, the City received its RHNA numbers for the fourth planning

period (2007 -2014) and the plaintiffs immediately indicated their intent to amend the complaintto add claims arising from the new planning period. Concurrently, the City was updating its

General Plan and the Attorney General became interested in both the housing cap and the

lawsuit. The Attorney General indicated an interest in intervening and was granted permission

by the court to do so. The City then moved to dismiss both the amended complaint and the

Attorney General's complaint, claiming that the substantive claims being brought against the

City were not cognizable under the law as it is known. The Superior Court denied the motion

and set a trial date for December 2009.

Mr. Brown explained that this sort of case is known as a traditional writ of mandate case with the

exception of the 2 outstanding discrimination claims. The writ of mandate was brought under an

expedited process whereby both parties briefed the issue to the trial court and submitted

evidence in the form of declarations and exhibits. The matter was fully briefed and heard in

December 2009.

Prior to the trial, a determination was made by staff and approved by the Council that, under

Program 19.1, rezonings were appropriate for the Hacienda Business Park and could

accommodate unmet affordable RHNA numbers for the third planning period. The Council

adopted the rezoning of three sites at Hacienda Business Park and amended the GMO, as

required by the Housing Element and Program 34.5, in order to create an exception wherebythe Council would have the discretion to override the GMO to allow for RHNA requirements. He

noted that the same could not be done with the housing cap, as the Council does not have the

independent authority to amend or override a voter adopted measure.

The petitioners did not feel that the Council's action in accomplishing the rezonings satisfied

Program 19.1 as Section 5 of Ordinance No. 1998 deferred the processing of any development

application on those 3 sites pending completion of an amendment to the PUD process. The


ordinance said that to accomplish that amendment process, a task force would be appointedand would most likely last 1 year. Urban Habitat stated in its brief that the City did not satisfyProgram 19.1 and Section 5 applied a condition that was inconsistent with both Program 19.1

and the underlying requirements of the State's Housing Element and Least Cost Zoning laws.

The City learned on March 12, 2010 that the court ruled against the City on all but one claim,holding that the housing cap was inconsistent and in conflict with State law and that State law

trumps local law under preemption principles. The court also ruled that Section 5 of Ordinance

No. 1998 prevented satisfactory compliance with Program 19.1 and State law by creating an

impediment to the immediate development that is inherent in State law. The court held that the

good cause clause in this section was essentially elusory and that requiring a developer to

come to the Council in search of a good cause exemption was overly onerous and an

impediment to the purposes of State law. The only point on which the City prevailed was that, byvirtue of the amendment made last fall, the GMO satisfied State law.

The court ordered that the City accomplish the rezonings required to satisfy the unmet RHNA

for the third planning period without preconditions or the exercise of discretion, but did allow the

City the discretion to accomplish that rezoning anywhere it deems appropriate. Mr. Brown noted

there is outstanding dispute as to what that means, but the City's position is that the City is onlylimited in that it can no longer require the amendment of the PUD process and the rezoningdoes not have to be by right. With respect to the housing cap, the court ordered the City to

cease and desist with enforcement of the cap. He noted this is not immediately relevant as the

cap has never been enforced. What is immediately relevant is that the City was ordered to

remove land use sections of the General Plan, specifically Policy 24 and implementingprograms, which require that the cap be enforced in such a way that zoning and planningcannot occur in manner that would be inconsistent with the cap. Lastly, the court ordered that

the City's non residential permit authority be suspended until the City comes into full compliancewith the order.

Mr. Brown explained that he has met with the Council and staff at length regarding the City'soptions, which are to continue litigation, to comply with the order, or to negotiate a settlement

that would honor the City's commitment to an inclusive and transparent public process and

identify a growth management strategy that makes sense to both the public and plaintiffs. He

noted that continued litigation is both costly and problematic.

Mayor Hosterman asked Mr. Brown to explain the potential for other strategies and measures

the Council can employ in order to safeguard the development of the community. Mr. Brown

said many cities have adopted growth management strategies based on the given city's abilityto provide public services and infrastructure. These strategies have been tested and upheld in

court and both the Attorney General's Office and Urban Habitat candidly acknowledge the Cityhas many other options if the cap is overturned. He said that unlike any other city in the state,Pleasanton has what is known as a hard cap, which allows for no exception and will inevitablyconflict with state RHNA obligations.

Mayor Hosterman said there is clearly public confusion over the State's overriding interest and

she stressed that it is not the City's job to build houses, but that the State is forcing a rezoningto allow for housing to be built in the future. Mr. Brown confirmed that all State laws on

affordable housing are very clear in that local government has no obligation to use any publicresources to construct housing.


Councilmember Sullivan asked him to clarify the timeline on the judge's order. Mr. Brown said

the court has allowed the City 120 days from the date the writ of mandate is signed, which will

likely be from April 5`

Councilmember McGovern asked that, just as the housing cap was approved by the voters,would an amendment also require a vote of the public. Mr. Brown said he did not believe so

given that the action would be in compliance with court order. The same action prior to the court

ruling would have required a vote.

Councilmember McGovern said she would like the public to understand there are time

constraints associated with what the City would like to do in terms of compliance. She said there

has been question surrounding the validity of Measure PP, which specified what constitutes a

housing unit, given that it is a part of Policy 24. Mr. Brown said the court's ruling does not

distinguish but does invalidate the cap in its entirety and orders the City to eliminate Policy 24

and its programs in entirety. He said he does not believe the intent of the order is to sweep

away ridgeline protection and that it would be a reasonable and good faith reading of the order

to say that only those provisions of recent measures that recreate the cap are affected by the

ruling. Having said that, he stressed that the issue is not clear and may be subject to further

dispute.

Councilmember McGovern noted that Measure PP clearly stipulates that if any portion of its

content is struck down, the rest remains in place. Mr. Brown reiterated that he did not believe

the court ever intended to address those additional protections and that it would be extreme to

read the ruling otherwise.


Pat Murray said it is important to recall why the City voted to ban housing over a specifiednumber of units per year. She said it was not driven by a desire to prevent people from livinghere but rather an attempt to control what many viewed as runaway development that served

only to line the pockets of developers. She said that as a valley city, Pleasanton has been

impacted by cut through traffic and increased demand on its freeway systems, resulting in

unhealthy air quality in the valley. She strongly urged the Council to protect the citizens' rights to

pass ordinances that they deem necessary.

Michael O'Callaghan said he opposed continued litigation, which would kill an already troubled

commercial business community. He said the Council signed on to take care of its citizens and

must now resolve the situation. He said that rather than more elections and lawsuits, the Citymust channel its money to a better use. The Council is in a difficult position but must now find

some other way to comply with the wishes of its citizenry.

Becky Dennis introduced herself as a member of Citizens for a Caring Community, althoughconceded they had not met to discuss her comments. She asked the Council to remember that

Pleasanton has many long -time residents who support the City's vision for affordable workforce,

senior, and disabled housing and that while the views of the Council and housing advocates

have diverged in terms of social justice, she hopes the Council will proceed down the path of

negotiation. She asked them to do so in order to allow the City's affordable housing advocates a

role in developing a solution that represents the interests of the entire community, a control that

would not be afforded by narrowly implementing the court order. She concurred with

Councilmember Sullivan that one can tell the character of a community by how the concerns of


the less fortunate are addressed and said that housing is one area in which Pleasanton could

stand to improve.

Regarding Mr. Brown's comments on alternative growth management strategies, Ms. Dennis

said cities are routinely asked to address infrastructure shortages as part of their HousingElement. She urged the Council to tackle the issue head on and use this opportunity to

rebalance jobs and housing in a way that will alleviate the long -term RHNA issue.

Karen DeBaca Martens said she was overwhelmed by the amount of information presented this

evening and thanked staff for a thorough report. She asked that the Council uphold the staff

recommendation, which is to hold an additional public hearing in order to allow the public to

digest the significant amount of information and develop pertinent comments. She noted that to

date, litigation on this matter has cost the City $750,000; further litigation would increase those

costs and it does not appear to offer a successful outcome. She urged the Council to amend,not repeal, the housing cap in order to get the City up and running again swiftly and to negotiatea situation that does not require an immediate discussion of what housing should be in

Pleasanton.

Mark Triska, Colliers International, said he has worked as a commercial real estate broker for 21

years with an emphasis on attracting new businesses to Pleasanton and retaining businesses

within the Tri- Valley area. He said this ruling is particularly troublesome to this community and in

this economy. The primary issue is that companies coming into or relocating within Pleasanton

require certain tenant improvements, which of course cannot be done until the ban on non-

residential building permits is lifted. He cited several specific companies with active concerns

and said the inability to guarantee those improvements is a risk that businesses do not like and

cannot afford. He cautioned the Council that this much needed business may look to nearbycities that do not have this issue and strongly advised against further litigation. He asked the

Council to comply and /or negotiate a settlement and to express their intent as quickly as

possible.

Mayor Hosterman said there are many things that the Council is not at liberty to discuss at this

time, but she would like to quell any fears within the business community by assuring them that

the Council will continue to move forward with a resolution. She asked that anyone with permitor project application concerns speak directly with her or City staff. She acknowledged the

severity of the situation but stressed that, as a community, they could get through this.

Brad Hirst commended the Council on the success of the newly implemented recyclingprogram, which he was initially skeptical of. He is also a member of the Bloom Platoon and will

be performing in Monterey as well as the Cherry Blossom Festival on April 24 in Washington,DC. He encouraged the Council to reach a negotiated solution at the earliest possible time. The

business community is uncertain and fearful and the City stands to lose much needed revenue

and jobs. He cited personal experiences with current commercial vacancies, said people want to

locate in Pleasanton but do not know what the future holds, and again asked the Council to

resolve the matter expediently.

John Dalrymple, representing Electrical and Sheet Metal Workers Union members, said he is in

agreement with the business leaders who have already spoken. The enjoyment of Pleasanton is

dependent upon a vital local economy. He encouraged the Council to seek a negotiatedsettlement and to include the voice of housing advocates in that effort. He asked that the task

force be given a strong message to complete its work expediently, thanked the Council for its


hard work, and said union members look forward to enjoying a quality life than can only be

achieved by resolving this matter.

Darlene Besst echoed the comments of Mr. Dalrymple and cited her national and local business

affiliations. She said growth restricting policies lead to a strangled local economy and if

Pleasanton wishes to continue as the special and unique city that it is, the cap must be lifted to

allow for planned and responsible growth. She challenged Ms. Murray's comments, stating that

more and more residents wish to live and work in the same community and she urged the

Council to comply with the court order.

Jon Harvey, Greenbelt Alliance, said his organization works in the nine Bay Area counties to

protect open space and promote vibrant surroundings with the key goals being to protect three

million acres of open space and direct 85% of development to already urbanized areas. He

helps cities and counties adopt policies that prepare for future growth while preserving the

greenbelt, advocates for policies that create walk able and affordable neighborhoods, and

endorses urban development projects for people of all income levels. On behalf of Greenbelt

Alliance, he urged the City to continue working towards compliance with state law. He said the

housing cap is not serving a useful purpose, and it is time for Pleasanton to focus on methods

for increasing general employment and business activity.

Mayor Hosterman said it is important for the public to understand that while it has been nearlyone month since the ruling, the Council and staff has been working diligently and will continue to

do so.

Kay Ayala said it should be reiterated that in 1996, Pleasanton voters overwhelmingly passed a

housing cap based on the City's General Plan. She said the number was arrived at cautiouslyand based upon the infrastructure and funding in place. The careful work of a city of planned

progress has now been overturned by a State of planned crisis. She recalled her time on the

Council and ABAG Committee and said the RHNA numbers brought forward at that time were

preposterous and unfunded. She said she does not envy the Council's position, but asked that it

remember it works for the people of Pleasanton, that people voted for a housing cap in 1996,

reiterated that desire in 2008, and want a planned community that is economically stable.

Martin Inderbitzen strongly urged the Council against a course of action that would involve

continued litigation. He said it comes as no surprise to those in the real estate and legalcommunity that the cap was overturned, and he suggested that the prospects of a successful

appeal are slim. He recognized the importance of growth control and noted he was on the City'sfirst growth management committee. He confirmed the comments of Mr. Hirst and Mr. Triska,

stating that every property owner and developer in and around this community has followed this

case. They understand the implications, they are truly concerned, and property owners are

desperately looking to understand what is going on. He thanked the Mayor for the invitation to

speak with her personally, but said that is one more step than they would have to do in other

communities. In today's highly competitive environment, that is enough to have people lookingelsewhere. He asked Councilmembers to overcome whatever differences they may have as

individuals and come together in a 5 -0 vote to proceed with an expedient resolution. He said

that action would send a strong message to folks like himself and those they do business with

that this is a business friendly community.

David Stark said he wrote an op -ed piece for the Pleasanton Weekly four years ago that

discussed how much he enjoys the fact that he can both live and work here in town, somethingmade possible by appropriate jobs to housing ratio. In that same piece he referenced the then,


new litigation and voiced concern over this community losing local control and having land use

decisions made by a court. Even when writing that piece, he could not have imagined the veryserious implication of the court shutting down the issuance of non residential building permits.He voiced concern as a property owner, as a resident, and as someone who truly enjoys the

community. He asked that moving forward staff expand its analysis of the issue and that each

option include an analysis of the economic and service implications. He said Pleasanton has

often been on the cutting edge of things and it is unfortunate to now be on the cutting edge of

the implications associated with failure to comply with the State housing law. He wished the

Council luck and urged them to be sure they have all pertinent information before movingforward.

Scott Raty, Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, said that today is memorable as the date when

business, labor, and environmental groups are in agreement. He thanked the Council for usingthis hearing to educate the public, said it provided an outstanding overview, and asked if the

information might be made available in a PowerPoint presentation. He underscored the

economic impacts mentioned by others but said it goes beyond business and potentially effects

healthcare and other community groups, as well. He urged the Council to seek as swift a

resolution as possible and said he was encouraged to learn that it may be possible to adopt a

RHNA exception even with the cap in place. He noted the irony that the very vote the publicused to ensure local control is what has now taken that control away. He would like to think that

in time, an informed citizenry will recognize that perhaps the objectives of the State, that those

of this community are not polar opposites, and that there are healthy decisions to be discovered

as the needs of the community continue to evolve.

Peter MacDonald said that the 1996 General Plan's build -out projection was reasonable but

when the Council put that projection on the ballot, even a near miss became a liability. He said

the 2009 General Plan made it apparent that the few remaining developable parcels in

Pleasanton could lift that build -out from 29,000 to 31,500 units, but that Measure PP advocates

pushed to further restrict any flexibility in the cap by rigidly defining housing units. He said this

militant embrace of the cap is what doomed it to failure. He said the consequences of defendingthe indefensible cap have escalated dramatically, and will continue to escalate until the Cityaddresses the legal requirement to provide for its fair share of the regional housing need. He

cautioned that the already overdue Housing Element update would be hopeless with the

existing cap in place. He said an appeal would put Pleasanton's formerly good name at an

appellate court decision destined to be the definitive rejection of exclusionary local zoningpractices. That outcome would besmirch a long tradition of good and socially responsibleplanning in this City, and he recommended the Council comply with the court order and

negotiate a reasonable solution.

Mayor Hosterman closed the hearing to public comments and asked the City Manager to speakto the process going forward.

City Manager Fialho stated that the City has been engaging in global settlement discussions

with the petitioners and from the perspective of trying to identify what would be a possiblesolution to the issue at hand. He said the City has not tied its hands in terms of options and he

characterized it as a parallel track of 3 independent approaches. The next public hearing is set

for April 20` at which time staff will provide a comprehensive report, which spells out issues

related to the history of the cap, what RHNA means, how it applies to the third and fourth

planning periods, and its consequences on the City. By that time, staff also hopes to understand

more about what compliance means in the context of the court order or settlement, to share that


with the community, and to share options for alternative growth management strategies. Both

staff and the Council envision this to be a transparent process with public participation.

Councilmember Sullivan thanked the public for providing input and encouraged everyone

watching at home to come down to the next meeting and share his or her views.

Vice -Mayor Thorne thanked the public, as well, and said the input session helped him

tremendously.

Councilmember McGovern asked the public to take what they heard tonight and share their

concerns and ideas through the Council's email addresses. She said each point raised is an

important part of the decision- making process and she hopes to hear more.

Councilmember Cook- Kallio also thanked those in attendance as well as staff who have worked

on virtually nothing else in the past several weeks in an effort to provide the Council with the

basis to do the best possible job representing the community.

Mayor Hosterman also thanked the public. She said the Council will pursue a conclusion that

will retain as much local control as possible with as much enthusiasm as it defended the voter

approved cap.

17. Overview of water and sewer rates and authorization to mail the Proposition 218

notification of the public hearing on June 1, 2010

Director of Operations Services Smith provided a PowerPoint presentation and introduced the

City's Fiscal Officer, who has worked diligently the last few years to help evaluate and model the

City's rates, and the Utilities Superintendent.

Mr. Smith said that in preparing the water and sewer rate study, staff took into account the

current economic difficulties, increased environmental regulations, and state mandated water

conservation. The steadily increasing wholesale cost of purchased water combined with annual

inflation is now placing a strain on the City's water enterprise. He noted the City has not raised

rates since 2001 despite significant increases by Zone 7, the water wholesaler, and the Dublin

San Ramon Sanitary District (DSRSD).

He stressed that the City has always been sensitive to the environment as well as local

unemployment and business closures, and that these issues were kept at the forefront in

examining these rates. The proposed rate structures aim to encourage water conservation,maintain but restructure the senior and low- income discounts, and include funding for the City'srecycled water program.

He noted that in effort to improve efficiency and cut costs, the City has reorganized its utilitydivisions to cut down and reclassify positions, eliminated redundant standby personnel, and

leveraged SCATA and CMMS systems at the Operations Service Center (OSC).These efforts

have effectively reduced the proposed increase by half of what it would have been without this

due diligence.

Mr. Smith reviewed the proposed rates, which would mean an overall combined bill increase of

7.2% in 2010. This represents an average water rate increase of 12.57% despite a 54%

increase in costs for the City to obtain water from Zone 7 since 2001. In that time the City has


absorbed the increase rather than passing it along to consumers, but is not in the position to do

so any longer.

For comparative purposes, he noted that since 2001, the cost of gasoline has increased 70

eggs 63 and bread 33 He broke down the two elements of water rates, the first of which is

a fixed bimonthly meter charge used to fund the operations of the utility. Staff has proposed no

change to the meter charge until 2011, at which point it would increase annually based on the

Consumer Price Index (CPI). The second component of the water rate is usage based and staff

has proposed changing from a three to four tier system, with tier 1 using 0 -250 gallons of water

per day and tier 4 using over 750. In an effort to encourage conservation, tier 1 users would

purchase water at the wholesale rate, minus adjustments for pumping of the City's own

groundwater, totaling $1.82 per CCF. Tier 2 users represent the average residential user and

would pay the adjusted wholesale rate plus a distribution charge equal to the City's cost for

pumping and treating groundwater. In addition, staff proposed an annual CPI based sewer rate

increase beginning July 2011 as well as a pass through of any rate increases imposed by the

provider agencies.

He reviewed commercial and irrigation rates, which would increase from $1.63 to $2.16 perCCF for the former and an average of $1.75 to $2.29 for the latter. The current irrigation rate

structure utilizes a peak and off peak system, but staff found the off peak cost to be so low that

it offered no incentive for users to manage water use. This is where the greatest discretionaryreduction can take place and it is hoped that the new rate will help to encourage conservation.

Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed with Mr. Smith that commercials rates are

not tiered due to the wide variety of users. The Fiscal Officer also confirmed, explaining that

residential tiers are based on averages that are just not discernable in commercial applications.

Mr. Smith reviewed projected bill increases, which would mean an average monthly increase of

2.70 to $8.20 for residential users, $7.95 to $50 for commercial users, and $50 to $200 for

commercial irrigation users. He stressed that a relatively small percentage of revenues are

realized by the City, who in fact controls only a very small portion of the water rate. He also

compared the proposed rates to those of adjacent cities, all of whom are significantly higher.

He provided a summary of the proposed low- income and senior discounts, stating that most

agencies abandoned their programs after the passage of Proposition 218, which dictates that

one class of ratepayers cannot subsidize another. In order to continue that program, the Citymust subsidize that $700,000 annual cost with General Fund monies. The current programoffers seniors age 62 and over a 20% discount and low- income families a discount of 30 with

no limit on meter use. The practice would allow for very large houses using large amounts of

water to use that senior discount. Staff does not believe that to be the intent of the program and

has proposed increasing the minimum age to 65 for new participants and only allowing both

senior and low- income households to utilize the discount if they keep within the first 2 tiers. No

discount would be offered on the bill's sewer portion, as the City must reimburse itself as well as

DSRSD and the City of Livermore for that cost. The proposed changes would reduce the current

subsidy by about 50% and maintain the program at a viable level.

Mr. Smith stated that in order to keep rates down, it is important to encourage regional water

and sewer districts to use their rate stabilization reserves and increase operational efficiencies.

He said Pleasanton has been able to do so for the last 9 years and continually encouragesothers to do the same. He encouraged residents to attend local district budget meetings duringtheir rate increase proposals in order to share their feelings.


Vice -Mayor Thorne asked how much public input the various agencies actually receive from

Pleasanton when determining their rate increases. Mr. Smith used last year as an example and

said that Ms. Wagner spoke to them in detail about their recommendations but that only one

Pleasanton resident showed up to speak out.

Vice -Mayor Thorne asked if the meetings are well noticed, and Mr. Smith said they are

advertised, but one must know to look for it.

In closing, Mr. Smith stated that the City has exhausted all other options in terms of increasingefficiencies and utilizing reserves. When compared to others, the proposed changes still providea great rate although that may be ignored in tough economic times. He reiterated the need for

more community involvement relative to the actions of Zone 7 and DSRSD, said the City will

continue to provide the same sound fiscal management of its utility, and is committed to

promoting water conservation and reclaimed water.

He recommended that the Council approve mailing of the Proposition 218 notice to start the

public process. If approved, staff has scheduled workshops on May 6 at the OSC and May 20

at the senior center in order to speak with the public about the new proposed rate structure.

Following that, staff would return to the Council on June 1 for final evaluation.

Vice -Mayor Thorne explained that Zone 7 is comprised of an elected board, the makeup of

which Pleasanton does have a vote in. The City receives part of its water from Zone 7 and partfrom its own pumping wells. The City then processes and delivers the water to consumers

where once going down the drain, it is pumped to DSRSD. DSRSD is an elected board of

representatives elected by the residents of Dublin and San Ramon and with whom the Citycontracts to provide this service. Once DSRSD treats the waste, it is then pumped into a

Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) pipeline.

He said his understanding, both as a member of the LAVWMA board and in speaking with other

agencies is, that the Pleasanton public provides essentially no input on the cost of those

operations. From a business perspective, the number of agencies involved looks to be

incredibly redundant in terms of overhead. He said it seemed that much of the cost could be

reduced the entire process were restructured and asked where it would be appropriate to raise

such a political issue.

Mr. Fialho said it might be appropriate to begin the discussion with the various liaison

committees for which each Councilmember serves.

Vice -Mayor Thorne said LAVWMA meetings are held once every other month, rarely last more

than 15 minutes, and seem to be a function that could be just as easily done by another agency.

Mr. Fialho suggested that it could be spread between three, as the JPA is comprised of DSRSD,

Livermore, and Pleasanton. He said there has been internal discussion on the possibility of

splitting off those responsibilities so that DSRSD assumes the maintenance as it currently does,

Pleasanton would take over the financing and Livermore could represent the JPA from a legalperspective. In doing so, it is likely to save roughly $400,000 in operating costs.

Back to his original question, Mr. Fialho said the discussion begins at the liaison level. He said

staff level discussion has identified a number of legal issues associated with forming a new

agency and cautioned that the discussion could take several years to get through.



John Yue, Zone 7 Finance Officer, said that Mr. Smith was provided noticed and did attend last

year's meeting when retailers were presented with rate proposals and recommendations. He

also noted that all board and budget meetings are open and agendized.


Councilmember McGovern questioned and confirmed with Mr. Smith that Zone 7 water rates

increased 54% from 2001 to 2009. She asked if the increase occurred at once or annually. Mr.

Smith explained it was a series of annual increases adding up to 54

Councilmember McGovern asked if the increases were CPI based, and Mr. Smith said no. Zone

7 rates are based on the prepared budget forecasts.

Councilmember McGovern noted that Zone 7 rates are projected to increase another 45% from

2010 to 2015, totaling 95% over 14 years. The public deserves to know what it is paying for and

questioned what the nexus was for the increase. Mr. Smith said that is difficult to determine

relative to someone else's prepared budget, but that he has and will continue to ask them the

same thing. He conceded that certain costs do increase over time but it is difficult to acceptwhen the City can provide the same sort of service without raising rates the same amount. He

said he was not sure that a fair nexus could be made. He noted that DSRSD, with only 112

employees, has a larger human resources department than the City, which employs roughly 900

full- and part -time employees.

Councilmember McGovern said that question should be asked when the City meets with Zone 7

next. Mr. Fialho said he would sift through the justification and make that information available

the next time the item comes forward.

Councilmember McGovern said that the public as ratepayers deserve that answer. Water is an

enterprise fund, which means that funds collected go for paying not only for services but for

maintaining the system. The City's enterprise fund cannot put funds away to cover those costs

while absorbing these rate increases. She said she hopes Zone 7 would think carefully about its

next rate increase and help the community to understand the reasons behind it. The current

public perception is that if one conserves water, rates increase regardless, and she asked whyconservation does not help to keep those costs down.

Mr. Smith said conservation does help keep costs down, but agencies are currently strugglingwith the costs of operating very large systems; while conservation allows those systems to

reduce in size, many agencies have not been as successful as Pleasanton in reducingoverhead accordingly. He explained that rate structure is critical as well, because the less water

consumers use, the less money comes in to cover the fixed costs. He said a fine balance exists

between conservation and rates, and staff heard the Council's comments about not penalizingconsumers for conserving and specifically structured this not to do so.

Notwithstanding Councilmember McGovern's comments regarding the 54% increase,Councilmember Sullivan suggested that some of that may be related to the City's insistence that

the water quality be improved. The new well de- mineralizer and the buildings and systemsupgrade, which accomplished that, must factor into the cost at some point. He questionedwhether the rate structure is progressive enough to truly promote conservation. He noted that

the highest user's bill would increase by only about 60% while the same users PG &E bill would


most likely triple. He acknowledged staffs work, said it is clearly well thought -out, but wondered

if a review period might be in order.

Mr. Smith said he would anticipate having to return with an analysis of the structure's success.

He concurred that higher tiered rates would do more to encourage conservation but said the

timing could not be worse with the current economy.

Councilmember Sullivan agreed but said the increases still seem low and questioned whether a

difference of $8 per month would be much of an influence or financial hardship on heavy users.

He acknowledged the efforts to keep rates low for low level uses but said the burden of this

issue should be borne by excessive users and he does not feel $8 per month will solve this

problem. To that point, Mr. Fialho said he believed that benchmarking this over a two -year

period is a good step.

Mayor Hosterman concurred, as did Councilmember Sullivan who stressed that he did not wish

to take away from what staff has done.

Mayor Hosterman questioned what happened to the company that was going to assist the Citywith its marketing campaign. Mr. Smith said WEF is still a viable proposal, but that staff has

been involved in the rate increase and has not moved that forward. He said the outreach

program they had planned is very much in line with what staff will be doing more of over the

next few years.

MOTION: It was m/s by Thorne /McGovern to approve the staff recommendation.

Ayes: Councilmembers Cook- Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman

Noes: None

Absent: None

Councilmember McGovern said she hopes the outreach will provide the public with a discussion

on the maintenance of the City's water systems and information on how frequently lines must be

upgraded. Mr. Smith confirmed and said that staff also plans to discuss the maintenance

management system.

Mayor Hosterman apologized for not thanking OSC staff for putting together the video she

shared at the U.S. Conference of Mayors. She said it was well- received and plans to share it at

the next several meetings. She thanked staff again and requested a copy for each Council

member.

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL

Councilmember McGovern said she felt badly that the Gary and Nancy Harrington were not

recognized during approval of tonight's Consent Calendar. The Harrington's came forward with

an optic glass bell," an art piece for the Firehouse Arts Theater. She noted that Bob Maddows

of Brass Maddows Monument Company is donating a granite pedestal for the piece to rest on

in the lobby.

Mr. Fialho counted four items of public art donated by the Harrington's: the bronze sculpture in

front of the Veteran's building, the bronze sculpture that will be in front of the Theater, the glassmarquis at the Theater, and this piece for the lobby. He estimated their value at well over

200,000.


Mayor Hosterman asked that staff prepare a thank -you note for the Council to sign.

Councilmember McGovern said Harrington's have done so many good things for this communityand asked that they be publicly recognized at some community event. Mr. Fialho said there is

sincere interest on the part of the Civic Arts Commission and everyone involved with art and the

gallery to recognize them. They have proposed to name the art gallery portion of the theater

after the Harrington's, in recognition of their contributions to the City. The matter will be comingbefore the Council in the next several months.

COUNCIL REPORTS None

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m., with a tribute to our

nation's men and women serving in the military. We wish to honor the memories of those who

have died in past wars in defense of our country including those who have died in the current

conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Respec ully submi ed,

aren az

City Clerk


Cost Model Asumptions

City of PleasantonRecycled Water Feasibility Study User Input

Assumptions

Phase 1A ‐ Hacienda

Area

Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda

Area

Period of Analysis 50 years 50 yearsRecycled Water Market Price (per AF)Potable Water Replacement Factor (for RW) 1.0 1.0

Project Design Year 2014 2016Construction Year 2014 2016First Year of Operation 2015 2017

Project Last Year of Operation 2064 2066

Debt Payment Start Year 2016 2018

Demand Summary

Annual Average Demand (afy) 1,303 417 Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 2.90 0.90

Cumulative ‐ Annual Average Demand (afy) 1,303 1,720 Cumulative ‐ Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 2.90 3.80

Maximum Day Supply (mgd) 3.02 3.95

Estimated Costs

Treatment Construction Cost $ 1,210,000 $ ‐ Distribution System Construction Cost 7,432,000 3,675,000 Subtotal Construction Cost 8,642,000 3,675,000

Capital Cost Including Construction Contingency(1) 10,370,400 4,410,000 Total Project Costs (2) 13,481,520 5,733,000

O&M Cost per AF (Treatment) $ 430 $ 430 Annual O&M (Treatment) $ 560,290 $ 179,310 Distribution/Admin O&M ($/AF) $ 147.81 N/A Distribution/Admin O&M $ 254,231 $ ‐ Total Annual O&M $ 814,521 $ 179,310

Unit Cost ($/AF) $ 1,320.43 $ 1,353.26

Cumulative Cost ($/AF)

Financial and Rate Assumptions

Capital Cost Escalation 0.0% 0.0%

O&M Cost Escalation (Annual Inflation Rate) 3.0% 3.0%

Annual Interest Rate 1.5% 1.5%

Include Annual Rate Increase? TRUE TRUE

Annual Service Charge Rate Increase 3.0% 3.0%

Discount Rate 3.0% 3.0%

Beginning Fund Balance $ 492,593 492,593$

Loan/Debt Assumptions

Issue Debt? (PAYGO if no Check) TRUE TRUE

SRF Loan (Check Box if Yes) TRUE TRUE

Debt Term 20 Years 20 Years

Interest Rate 3.0% 3.0%

Annual Debt Service $906,000 $385,000

Payments Over Duration of Debt $18,120,000 $7,700,000

System Buy‐in (Sunk Costs)

Tassajara Tank and Pipeline to 580 3,170,560 ‐ 1500 Feet Pipeline (Stoneridge) 246,440 ‐

Total Buy‐In Costs $0 $0

Issue Debt? (PAYGO if no Check) TRUE

Notes:

(1) 20% contingency included for Phase 1A and 1B. 30% contingency is included for Phase 2, West Opti(2) Includes markups for design, engineering, administrative, and legal (total of 30%).

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes YesYes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cash Flow

Maximum Net Revenue 200,000$ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021RW Unit Cost $/HCF (Existing Irrigation Rate $2.29 ) 1.95$ 1.95$ 1.95$ 1.95$ 1.95$ 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.07$ 2.13$ 2.19$

($ ) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $Surcharge ($0.10 through 2015 via Prop. 218) 0.10$ 0.10$ 0.10$ 0.25$ 0.25$ 0.26$ 0.26$ 0.27$ 0.27$ 0.28$ * New 218 Notice

City of Pleasanton

Recycled Water Feasibility StudyRecycled Water Feasibility Study

Cash Flow Forecast

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $492,593 $878,467 $1,270,129 $1,768,777 $2,814,939 $2,980,094 $3,244,861 $3,090,890 $2,967,550 $2,876,288

SOURCES OF FUNDSSOURCES OF FUNDSPhase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area (AF) ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area (AF) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 417 417 417 417 417 Recycled Water Usage ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,303 1,303 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 y g , , , , , , ,

Recycled Water Rate ($/AF) $848 AF $848 AF $848 AF $848 AF $848 AF $873 AF $873 AF $900 AF $927 AF $954 AFRecycled Water Revenue ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 1,104,808$ 1,104,808$ 1,502,088$ 1,502,088$ 1,547,150$ 1,593,565$ 1,641,372$ Recycled Water Surcharge 375,661 375,661 375,661 797,256 797,256 774,405 774,405 797,638 821,567 846,214 Interest Income 10,213 16,001 122,987 34,148 85,842 46,372 47,197 45,132 43,535 42,426 TOTAL SOURCES $385,874 $391,662 $498,648 $1,936,211 $1,987,906 $2,322,865 $2,323,690 $2,389,920 $2,458,667 $2,530,012

8,616 8,616 8,616 7,314 US S O U SUSES OF FUNDSO&M

Distribution/Admin O&M ‐ ‐ ‐ 277,805 286,139 294,724 303,565 312,672 322,052 331,714 Phase 1A Hacienda Area 612 244 630 611 649 530 669 016 689 086 709 759 731 051Phase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ ‐ 612,244 630,611 649,530 669,016 689,086 709,759 731,051 Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 207,845 214,080 220,502 227,117 233,931

Debt ServicePhase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000Phase 1A Hacienda Area 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000

PAYGO Capital ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ TOTAL USES $0 $0 $0 $890,049 $1,822,751 $2,058,098 $2,477,661 $2,513,261 $2,549,928 $2,587,696

Net Revenue $385,874 $391,662 $498,648 $1,046,162 $165,155 $264,767 ($153,971) ($123,340) ($91,262) ($57,684)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ENDING FUND BALANCE $878,467 $1,270,129 $1,768,777 $2,814,939 $2,980,094 $3,244,861 $3,090,890 $2,967,550 $2,876,288 $2,818,604

Capital Funding Analysis

Bond/Loan Proceeds SOURCESBond/Loan Proceeds ‐ SOURCESPhase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ 13,481,520 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,733,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Sources $0 $0 $13,481,520 $0 $5,733,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Sources $0 $0 $13,481,520 $0 $5,733,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

CIP Program ‐ USES

Phase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ 13,481,520 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,733,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Sources ‐ ‐ 13,481,520 ‐ 5,733,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cash Flow

Maximum Net RevenueRW Unit Cost $/HCF (Existing Irrigation Rate $2.29 )

($ )

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 20312.26$ 2.32$ 2.39$ 2.47$ 2.54$ 2.62$ 2.69$ 2.69$ 2.78$ 2.78$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $Surcharge ($0.10 through 2015 via Prop. 218)

City of Pleasanton


0.29$ 0.30$ 0.31$ 0.32$ 0.33$ 0.34$ 0.35$ 0.35$ 0.36$ 0.36$


Cash Flow Forecast

FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE

SOURCES OF FUNDS

$2,818,604 $2,796,050 $2,810,231 $2,862,813 $2,955,516 $3,090,122 $3,268,475 $3,492,482 $3,671,648 $3,896,325

SOURCES OF FUNDSPhase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area (AF)Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area (AF)Recycled Water Usage

1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417 417

1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 y g

Recycled Water Rate ($/AF)Recycled Water RevenueRecycled Water Surcharge

, , , , , , , , , ,

$983 AF $1,012 AF $1,043 AF $1,074 AF $1,106 AF $1,140 AF $1,174 AF $1,174 AF $1,209 AF $1,209 AF1,690,613$ 1,741,331$ 1,793,571$ 1,847,379$ 1,902,800$ 1,959,884$ 2,018,680$ 2,018,680$ 2,079,241$ 2,079,241$ 871,600 897,748 924,681 952,421 980,994 1,010,423 1,040,736 1,040,736 1,071,958 1,071,958

Interest Income

TOTAL SOURCES

US S O U S

41,829 41,767 42,264 43,346 45,039 47,369 50,364 53,365 56,372 59,361 $2,604,043 $2,680,847 $2,760,516 $2,843,146 $2,928,832 $3,017,676 $3,109,781 $3,112,782 $3,207,571 $3,210,560

USES OF FUNDSO&M

Distribution/Admin O&MPhase 1A Hacienda Area

341,665 351,915 362,473 373,347 384,547 396,084 407,966 420,205 432,812 445,796 752 983 775 572 798 840 822 805 847 489 872 914 899 101 926 074 953 856 982 472Phase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area

Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda AreaDebt ServicePhase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area

752,983 775,572 798,840 822,805 847,489 872,914 899,101 926,074 953,856 982,472 240,949 248,177 255,623 263,291 271,190 279,326 287,705 296,337 305,227 314,383

906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000Phase 1A Hacienda AreaPhase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area

PAYGO CapitalTOTAL USES

906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 906,000 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000 385,000

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $2,626,597 $2,666,665 $2,707,935 $2,750,443 $2,794,226 $2,839,323 $2,885,773 $2,933,616 $2,982,894 $3,033,651

Net Revenue ($22,555) $14,182 $52,582 $92,703 $134,606 $178,353 $224,008 $179,166 $224,677 $176,909

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ENDING FUND BALANCE

Capital Funding Analysis

Bond/Loan Proceeds SOURCES

$2,796,050 $2,810,231 $2,862,813 $2,955,516 $3,090,122 $3,268,475 $3,492,482 $3,671,648 $3,896,325 $4,073,234

Bond/Loan Proceeds ‐ SOURCESPhase 1A ‐ Hacienda AreaPhase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area

Total Sources

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Sources

CIP Program ‐ USES

Phase 1A ‐ Hacienda Area

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Phase 1B ‐ Hacienda Area

Total Sources‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

RW Price

City of PleasantonRecycled Water Feasibility Study Recycled Water Price

Phase 1A ‐

Hacienda Area

Phase 1B ‐

Hacienda Area Total

Total Capital Cost $18,120,000 $7,700,000 $25,820,000Annual Recycled Water Consumption 1,303 AFY 417 AFY 1,720 AFYPrice per Acre-Foot $13,910 $18,470 $15,010Annualized $464 $616 $500

Total Annual O&M $814,521 $179,310 $993,831Annual Recycled Water Consumption 1,303 AFY 417 AFY 1,720 AFYPrice per Acre-Foot $625 $430 $578Price per HCF $1.43 $0.99 $1.33

Total Cost Per Acre-Foot $1,088.67 $1,045.67 $1,078.33

Sensitivity Analysis

Recycled Water Consumption 1,303 AFY 417 AFY 1,720 AFY5% Less 1,238 AFY 396 AFY 1,634 AFY

10% Less 1,173 AFY 375 AFY 1,548 AFY25% Less 977 AFY 313 AFY 1,290 AFY

Capital CostsPrice per Acre-Foot $464 $616 $500Price per Acre-Foot (-5%) $488 $648 $527Price per Acre-Foot (-10%) $515 $684 $556Price per Acre-Foot (-25%) $618 $821 $667

O&M and R&R CostsPrice per Acre-Foot $625 $430 $578Price per Acre-Foot (-5%) $658 $453 $608Price per Acre-Foot (-10%) $695 $478 $642Price per Acre-Foot (-25%) $833 $573 $770

City of PleasantonRecycled Water Feasibility Study Recycled Water Price

Year Reclaimed Design & O&M Costs, $ Salvage Discount Present Value of Costs, $Water Construction Value, FactorSales, Cost Fixed Variable $ Design & O & M Costs Salvage Total

AF $ Construction Fixed Variable Value/a/ /b/ /b/ /c/ 3.0% Cost

2014 - 13,481,520 - 1.00000 13,481,520 - - 13,481,520 2015 1,303 - 814,521 0.97087 - 790,797 - 790,797 2016 1,303 5,733,000 814,521 0.94260 5,403,902 767,764 - 6,171,667 2017 1,720 - 993,831 0.91514 - 909,496 - 909,496 2018 1,720 - 993,831 0.88849 - 883,006 - 883,006 2019 1,720 - 993,831 0.86261 - 857,287 - 857,287 2020 1,720 - 993,831 0.83748 - 832,318 - 832,318 2021 1,720 - 993,831 0.81309 - 808,076 - 808,076 2022 1,720 - 993,831 0.78941 - 784,539 - 784,539 2023 1,720 - 993,831 0.76642 - 761,689 - 761,689 2024 1,720 - 993,831 0.74409 - 739,504 - 739,504 2025 1,720 - 993,831 0.72242 - 717,965 - 717,965 2026 1,720 - 993,831 0.70138 - 697,053 - 697,053 2027 1,720 - 993,831 0.68095 - 676,751 - 676,751 2028 1,720 - 993,831 0.66112 - 657,039 - 657,039 2029 1,720 - 993,831 0.64186 - 637,902 - 637,902 2030 1,720 - 993,831 0.62317 - 619,323 - 619,323 2031 1,720 - 993,831 0.60502 - 601,284 - 601,284 2032 1,720 - 993,831 0.58739 - 583,771 - 583,771 2033 1,720 - 993,831 0.57029 - 566,768 - 566,768 2034 1,720 - 993,831 0.55368 - 550,260 - 550,260 2035 1,720 - 993,831 295,608 0.53755 - 534,233 - 158,904 375,329

Total 35,285 19,214,520 18,885,422 14,976,827 - 158,904 33,703,346

Unit Cost ($/AF) = (Total present value of costs)/(Total present value of sales) = $955 per acre-foot

/a/ All costs adjusted to 2012 dollars/b/ We assumed that fixed costs equals all costs except for the cost of water purchase./c/ Useful lives: Average useful life of 50 years assumed for the infrastructure. No salvage value for engineering, legal & administration costs.