CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PACKET 8-11-26

City of Pleasanton July 27, 2026 Page 2 Unfortunately, as you know, that did not occur. The District did not receive a copy of the June 3 Addendum that the City prepared for the Project until the agenda packet was published on the City's website. As you know, the District owns and operates the regional WWTP that provides wastewater treatment services, by contract, to customers within the City of Pleasanton. Thus, if the Local Agency Formation Commission approves the annexation of the Project site and the East Lakes Property into the City, these properties will become covered by the contract between the City and the District, and the District will become the wastewater services provider for these properties. The District also operates wastewater disposal and recycled water production facilities under contracts with Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency ("LAVWMA") and Dublin San Ramon Service District-East Bay Municipal Utilities District Recycled Water Authority ("DERWA"), respectively. The District is concerned about the environmental impacts associated with the annexation of the Project, which would result in the District treating additional wastewater fiow from the Project and other planned developments on the east side of Pleasanton (generally located within the area covered by the former East Pleasanton Speciflc Plan). As we understand the situation, both the Project site and another property, known as the East Lakes Property, are owned by Steelwave, and both properties are proposed to be annexed into the City. We understand the City Council has indicated an intent to move forward with annexation of both developments. Development of the Project in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable east side developments threatens to exceed the capacity of the District's regional WWTP to handle additional fiow and solids loading. The cumulative impacts to the WWTP resulting from the Project and other reasonably foreseeable developments in the east Pleasanton area proceeding and being annexed into the City on regional wastewater generation and fiows must be considered. Likewise, the EIR that the County prepared for this Project did not identify or analyze the environmental impacts associated with the infrastructure improvements needed to provide wastewater services to this site. To remedy these gaps in the analysis, the developer's representatives previously agreed that "In the event the Landowner, in cooperation with the City, moves forward with annexation, the Landowner will prepare or agree to fund preparation of additional utility analyses to determine the impacts on the District’s system." The District is disappointed that the City's Addendum utterly fails to mention this agreement and does not require the Landowner to fund the utility analyses that the District and the Landowner have already agreed are required. Page 157 of 373