My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Evaluation of Groundwater Supply Alternatives Within Bernal Subbasin
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2026
>
042126 REGULAR
>
Evaluation of Groundwater Supply Alternatives Within Bernal Subbasin
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/14/2026 10:07:54 AM
Creation date
4/14/2026 9:55:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/21/2026
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
582
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FACILITIES PROJECT <br />FEASIBILITY STUDY <br /> <br /> 25 Zone 7 Water Agency <br />December, 2025 <br /> <br />Operational Flexibility <br />and Resilience <br />Ability to maintain reliable operation under varying <br />conditions such as drought, equipment downtime, or <br />groundwater quality changes. Alternatives with <br />multiple wells and redundant capacity are more <br />favorable. <br />15% <br />Operations & <br />Maintenance Cost <br />Relative effort and cost of long-term operation and <br />maintenance, including power, staffing, treatment, <br />routine maintenance, and rehabilitation. Alternatives <br />with lower O&M burdens are more favorable. <br />25% <br /> <br />The distribution of project criteria weighting is illustrated in Figure 10. Financial factors such as Capital <br />Cost and O&M Cost make up half of the total score reflecting the emphasis on both initial investment and <br />long-term operating financial commitments. Operational Flexibility & Resilience and Implementation <br />Schedule together account for 30 percent, recognizing the importance of reliable performance and timely <br />delivery. The remaining 20 percent is allocated to Community & Environmental Impacts and Water <br />Quality/Treatment Impacts, ensuring that social and groundwater quality considerations are included in <br />the overall evaluation. <br />Figure 10. Project Alternative Weightings <br /> <br />4.1.3. Scoring Criteria <br />Each weighted project evaluation criterion was scored on a scale of 1 to 10, grouped into three scoring <br />bands to provide consistency and avoid over-interpretation. Scores of 1 to 3 represent low performance <br />with significant limitations relative to project objectives. Scores of 4 to 7 represent moderate performance <br />that meets minimum expectations but carry risks or tradeoffs. Scores of 8 to 10 represent high <br />performance, demonstrating a clear margin of benefit over other project alternatives. <br />Community & <br />Environmental Impacts <br />10% <br />Capital Cost <br />25% <br />Water Quality / <br />Treatment Impacts <br />10%Implementation Schedule <br />15% <br />Operational Flexibility <br />and Resilience <br />15% <br />Operations & <br />Maintenance Cost <br />25%
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.