HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2015 SS1 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy - Council Reading File
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of San Luis Obispo
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System
Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
Prepared for:
Prepared Under the Responsible Charge of:
Joshua H. Reynolds
California R.C.E. No. 65400, Expires 9/30/2015
4/15/2015
City of San Luis Obispo Acknowledgements
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
Acknowledgements
The City of San Luis Obispo Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy was
prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. The primary authors are listed below.
Joshua Reynolds, P.E.
Jeroen Olthof, P.E
Daniel Heimel, P.E.
Spencer Waterman
Yana Genchanok, E.I.T.
Penfield & Smith were instrumental in collecting and processing the survey data for the collection system.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the City of San
Luis Obispo (City), including the following City staff.
Jennifer Metz
Bud Nance
Dave Hix
Randy Stevenson
Dawn Hutchinson
City of San Luis Obispo Table of Contents
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Glossary of Terms.......................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Relationship to Other Documents ................................................................................................ 6
Infrastructure Renewal Strategy ................................................................................................... 6
System Overview and Information Management ..................................................................... 8
System Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 8
Maintenance Activities and Programs ........................................................................................ 13
Data Systems and Information Management ............................................................................. 18
Flow Projections ...................................................................................................................... 22
Flow Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 22
Flow Allocation ............................................................................................................................ 24
Flow Summary ............................................................................................................................ 34
Hydraulic Model Development and System Evaluation Criteria ............................................. 35
Model Development ................................................................................................................... 35
Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 36
Capacity Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 39
Capacity Results .......................................................................................................................... 39
Capacity Constrained Pipeline Projects ...................................................................................... 41
Capacity Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 45
Lift Station Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 46
Condition Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 47
Current City Process for Using Condition to Establish WWC CIP ................................................ 47
Condition Rating System ............................................................................................................. 51
Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation ........................................................................................... 58
City of San Luis Obispo Table of Contents
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
ii
Sewer Laterals as a Source of I/I ................................................................................................. 59
Lateral Rehabilitation Program Options ..................................................................................... 60
City Department Responsibility for Laterals ............................................................................... 63
Modeled I/I Reduction Evaluation .............................................................................................. 63
Renewal Strategy .................................................................................................................... 67
Establishing Rate of Replacement ............................................................................................... 67
Method to Establish Pipeline Prioritization ................................................................................ 72
Establish Focused Monitoring Program ...................................................................................... 73
Biannual Adaptive Renewal Strategy Process Summary ............................................................ 73
Recommended Projects for Next 20 years ................................................................................. 76
Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions .................................................................................. 78
Pipeline Cost................................................................................................................................ 79
Recommended Projects ...................................................................................................... 80
References .......................................................................................................................... 84
Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum ........................................................ A
Pipelines Exceeding Capacity Criteria ....................................................................................... B
Capacity Upgrade Requirements Table .................................................................................... C
Example I/I Ordinances ............................................................................................................ D
R&R Pipeline Condition Ratings ................................................................................................ E
Proposed Renewal Projects Scheduled by Year ........................................................................ F
City of San Luis Obispo List of Tables
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
iii
List of Tables
Table 1‐1. Renewal Strategy Performance Monitoring ............................................................................... 3
Table 3‐1. Lift Station Summary Table (2) .................................................................................................. 12
Table 3‐2. Predictive Maintenance Frequency (2) ..................................................................................... 17
Table 3‐3. Annual Sanitary Sewer Overflows, 2003‐2013 (2) .................................................................... 18
Table 3‐4. Information Systems Used for Collection System Management ............................................... 19
Table 4‐1. Land Use Flow Category Wastewater Generation Factors ........................................................ 26
Table 4‐2. Land Use Flow Category Wastewater Generation Factors ........................................................ 26
Table 4‐3. Renewal Strategy Land Use Flow Categories ............................................................................. 28
Table 4‐4. ADWF Flows by Land Use Flow Category ................................................................................... 31
Table 4‐5. PWWF Factors ............................................................................................................................ 33
Table 4‐6. Collection System Flow Summary ............................................................................................. 34
Table 4‐7. Collection System Flow Summary .............................................................................................. 34
Table 5‐1. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Flow Projections............................................ 36
Table 5‐2. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Gravity Pipelines ........................................... 37
Table 5‐3. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Force Mains................................................... 38
Table 5‐4. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Lift Stations ................................................... 38
Table 6‐1. Capacity Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 42
Table 6‐2. Lift Station Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 46
Table 7‐1. Assigned Scores .......................................................................................................................... 51
Table 7‐2. Catchment Average Condition Rankings Compared to I/I Indexes ............................................ 55
Table 7‐3. Condition Ratings of CIP Projects ............................................................................................... 56
Table 7‐4. Pipelines Exceeding the Condition Ranking Threshold of 32 ..................................................... 57
Table 8‐1. I/I Reduction Evaluation Scenarios ........................................................................................... 64
Table 8‐2. I/I Reduction Evaluation Results ............................................................................................... 64
Table 8‐3. Potential I/I Reduction Impacts on Peak Flow at WRRF ............................................................ 65
Table 9‐1. Renewal Strategy Performance Monitoring ............................................................................. 73
Table 10‐1. Pipe R/R Unit Costs ($/ft) ........................................................................................................ 79
Table 11‐1. Recommended Renewal Strategey Pipeline Replacements .................................................... 80
Table 11‐2. Annual I/I reduction, Lateral Rehabilitation and Monitoring Programs .................................. 83
City of San Luis Obispo List of Figures
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1‐1. Gravity Pipe Length by Year Placed in Service ........................................................................... 1
Figure 1‐2. Age Based R/R Alternative 2 ‐ Two Miles per Year ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3‐1. Pipe Length by Diameter in Inches ............................................................................................. 9
Figure 3‐2. Pipe Length by Material as Percent of System ......................................................................... 10
Figure 3‐3. Gravity Pipe Length by Year Placed in Service .......................................................................... 11
Figure 3‐4. CCTV Inspections Performed Over Time ................................................................................... 14
Figure 3‐5. Gravity Pipes Inspected Using CCTV ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 3‐6. Most Common Observation Types from CCTV Inspections ...................................................... 16
Figure 3‐7. Data Flow between City Information Systems ......................................................................... 20
Figure 4‐1. Flow Monitoring Catchments ................................................................................................... 22
Figure 4‐2. ADWF Monitoring Period Rainfall ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 4‐3. Wastewater Flow, Water Consumption, & Rainfall Comparison ............................................. 24
Figure 4‐4. Spatial Allocation and Flow Projection Process ........................................................................ 25
Figure 4‐5. Land Use Diagram from 2014 General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element ...................... 27
Figure 4‐6. Future Flow Projection Process ................................................................................................ 30
Figure 6‐1. Pipes Over Capacity – Existing PWWF .................................................................................... 40
Figure 6‐2. Capacity Constrained Pipeline Projects ................................................................................... 45
Figure 7‐1. Grade 4 and 5 Observations ..................................................................................................... 49
Figure 7‐2. Cumulative Miles of Gravity Main with Calculated Total Score .............................................. 52
Figure 7‐3. Gravity Mains and Their Total Scores ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 8‐1. Typical Sources of I/I ................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 8‐2. Laterlals Inspected or Pending Inspection for Building Permit as of April 2015 ..................... 61
Figure 8‐3. I/I Reduction Evaluation Map (Baseline & Scenario 1) ............................................................ 65
Figure 9‐1. Accumulated Miles of Age Based Deficient pipe ...................................................................... 69
Figure 9‐2. Age Based R/R Alternative 1 ‐ One Mile per Year ..................................................................... 70
Figure 9‐3. Age Based R/R Alternative 2 ‐ Two Miles per Year ................................................................... 70
Figure 9‐4. Age Based R/R Alternative 3 ‐ Three Miles per Year ................................................................ 71
Figure 9‐5. Biannual Adaptive Renewal Strategy Process .......................................................................... 74
City of San Luis Obispo Glossary of Terms
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
v
Glossary of Terms
For the purposes of this report, the following defined terms are used:
Average Annual Flow (AAF) ‐ The average daily sewage flow as measured at the City of San Luis Obispo
Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), calculated by totalizing the flow over a year and dividing by
365 days in a year.
Average Daily Flow (ADF) ‐ Used primarily in reference to the average sewage flow measured by the
flow meters in preparation of the 2012 Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Inflow/Infiltration Study (2012
I/I Study). ADF is calculated by dividing the total amount of flow by the number of days totalized.
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) – The average sewage flow during the months of May and October.
These two months are selected because they are typically dry months with little to no rainfall and
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) is in session full time during those
two months. The WRRF upgrade project is using ADWFCP (ADWF with Cal Poly) to represent average
flows at the WRRF. ADWFCP is calculated using the three lowest flow months at the WRRF (typically
June, July and August) and adding the average daily flow metered at Cal Poly. The resulting flows from
these two methods are similar with existing flows of 3.72 million gallons per day (mgd) as ADWF and 3.5
mgd as ADWFCP. Future flows are projected at 5.48 mgd ADWF, compared to 5.4 mgd ADWFCP. ADWF
as defined in this report is intended to represent the average base flow that will be present in the
collection system 9 months out of the year.
Collection System ‐ The collection system is the term used to collectively describe the physical assets
used to move sewage (wastewater) from the point of generation (houses, businesses, offices, etc.) to
the Wastewater Resources Recovery Facility (WRRF) for treatment. The collection system is formed by
the publicly owned gravity sewer pipelines, manholes, sewage lift stations, force mains, and privately
owned sewer service laterals.
Consumption ‐ The amount of billed metered water consumed by customers. Used to create sewer flow
factors.
Demand ‐ The amount of water distributed through the water system, calculated based on consumption
and production.
Flow ‐ Generically used to represent sewage flowing in a pipeline as opposed to demand, which is
generally reserved for referring to potable water.
Flow Factor ‐ The calculated amount of sewage generated per unit (e.g. acre, sqft, dwelling unit, etc.) for
each land use category, see Section 4 for additional information.
Geographic Information System (GIS) – A database that includes geographical data. In this report, the
database is the geographical representation of the City’s sewer collection system.
I/I – abbreviation for Infiltration and Inflow
Infiltration ‐ The water entering a sewer system and service connections from groundwater, through
such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Infiltration does not include
inflow and is typically relatively constant over a period of days, weeks, or even months as high
groundwater conditions persist.
City of San Luis Obispo Glossary of Terms
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
vi
Inflow ‐ The water discharged into a sewer system and service connections from such sources as roof
drains, cellar, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling water discharges, drains from springs and
swampy areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers, catch basins, storm water,
surface runoff, or drainage. Inflow does not include infiltration and varies rapidly with rainfall
conditions, with flows rising and falling within minutes or hours of a severe storm event.
Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) – The maximum sewage flow the collection system will experience
during dry weather; typically defined as being sustained for one hour.
Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) ‐ The maximum sewage flow the collection system will experience
during wet weather; defined as being sustained for one hour. PWWF is used to size pipelines and lift
stations. It represents ADWF plus I/I contributions from a design storm.
Production ‐ The amount of water produced from City supply sources and put into the City’s distribution
system, based on metered flows at each source.
City of San Luis Obispo Executive Summary
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
1
Executive Summary
The City provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the residents, businesses, and visitors
of the City. With limited exceptions, sewer service is provided only to properties within the city
limits, including Cal Poly and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. The City’s wastewater collection
system includes approximately 136 miles of gravity sewer mains and 2,900 manholes, as well as nine
sewage lift stations with three miles of force main. Approximately 80 percent of the system is
comprised of 6‐inch and 8‐inch pipes. There are more than 14,000 private sewer laterals in the City. If
each sewer lateral has an average length of 65 feet that equates to more than 172 miles of sewer lateral
in the City.
The Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (Renewal Strategy) will present a
strategy to guide policy, operations, and asset management planning decisions in an efficient and cost
effective manner. The Renewal Strategy features an adaptable framework that will be updated on a
regular basis to keep the guidance relevant to the evolving needs of the City. The key issues addressed
by the Renewal Strategy are the aging collection system, storm flows, and capacity assurance.
Aging Collection System. The collection system has nearly 18 miles of pipe that is more than 75 years
old, with the oldest pipes exceeding 100 years of age. Based on a nominal design life of 75 years, pipes
installed before 1940 may be approaching the end of their useful life and are shown in red in Figure 1‐1.
The Renewal Strategy will guide the City’s decisions on prioritizing pipeline rehabilitation.
Figure 1‐1. Gravity Pipe Length by Year Placed in Service
Storm Flow. Prior studies and City experience indicate the collection system suffers from extensive I/I,
with flow increasing from 3.72 million gallons per day (mgd) to 36.3 mgd during a 10‐year 24‐hour
storm. The City has identified private sewer laterals as a primary source of I/I in the City. The Renewal
Strategy will recommend I/I reduction programs in targeted areas.
10%
18%
14%
11%11%
9%
10%
3%
0%0%
4%
0%
9%
0%
‐
5
10
15
20
25
30
1890
and
Before
1891 ‐
1900
1901 ‐
1910
1911 ‐
1920
1921 ‐
1930
1931 ‐
1940
1941 ‐
1950
1951 ‐
1960
1961 ‐
1970
1971 ‐
1980
1981 ‐
1990
1991 ‐
2000
2001 ‐
2010
2011 ‐
2020
Mi
l
e
s
of
Pi
p
e
Miles Installed Miles Installed before 1940
17.7 miles installed
prior to 1940
City of San Luis Obispo Executive Summary
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
2
Capacity Assurance. The City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) requires the City to assure that
the collection system has adequate capacity to convey peak wet weather sewage flows. The City has
been making that assurance through aggressive operations, inspection and maintenance programs. The
Renewal Strategy includes development of a hydraulic model of the collection system to evaluate and
identify capacity constrained pipelines.
Recommendations
The following sections present the set of goals established by the project team for the Renewal Strategy
and the associated recommendations.
Determine the length of pipeline the City should rehabilitate/upgrade each year to keep the collection
system functional, assure capacity, and minimize Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs).
Based on an assumed useful life of 75‐years, an age based Replacement/Rehabilitation model was
developed to show accumulated miles of pipeline that will exceed the assumed useful life over time.
With no pipeline rehabilitation, the City’s collection system would eventually cease to function. WSC
evaluated three alternatives for pipeline rehabilitation rates: one, two, or three miles per year. It was
determined that rehabilitating only one mile per year would not be sufficient to improve the overall
condition of the collection system. In order to maintain the collection system in its current state, a
minimum of two miles per year should be rehabilitated. As shown by the orange line in Figure 1‐2, the
City currently has about 17 miles of pipe that are past due for rehabilitation. By replacing two miles per
year, the City will reduce the accrued backlog of aged pipelines.
Figure 1‐2. Age Based R/R Alternative 2 ‐ Two Miles per Year
City of San Luis Obispo Executive Summary
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
3
Develop a method the City can use to identify and prioritize pipelines for rehabilitation.
The Renewal Strategy has several key elements to assist the City in planning for pipeline rehabilitation:
1. Continue Predictive Maintenance/ Preventative Maintenance Program.
2. Continuously update data management systems with: ongoing closed circuit television (CCTV)
inspections, updated asset information as new pipelines are installed, and cleaning frequency.
3. Develop a pipeline condition ranking database the City can use to determine which pipelines
require rehabilitation.
4. Routinely update the pipeline condition ranking database using current data to guide future
capital planning decisions.
Identify programs the City can implement to reduce I/I, especially I/I from private sewer laterals.
WSC identified nine potential programs the City could use to encourage and assist property owners to
replace private sewer laterals when needed. Those programs include strategies such as requiring
inspection of laterals upon sale of a property, low interest loan assistance for lateral replacement, and
inspection prior to obtaining a building permit.
To evaluate I/I contribution from inflow, the City should implement an expanded smoke testing program
to identify sources of inflow in the system, and program defective structures for rehabilitation.
I/I intensity is incorporated in the Renewal Strategy as one of the weighting criteria in the prioritization
process for determining which pipeline should receive rehabilitation. Focusing on high I/I basins is
anticipated to reduce I/I contribution from old pipelines, but is not a targeted I/I reduction method.
Recommend monitoring to assess the performance of the Renewal Strategy to assure the money being
spent is achieving the desired goals.
Table 1‐1 presents a set of performance monitoring metrics the City can use to determine if the Renewal
Strategy is effective and adapt the strategy to changing conditions and goals in the City.
Table 1‐1. Renewal Strategy Performance Monitoring
Objective Monitoring Method Goal
Condition Improvement Track installed age of pipe Reduce average system age
Condition Improvement Update condition rating every
other year
Improve average condition rating
Condition Improvement Track feet of pipe on predictive
maintenance program
Reduction in feet of predictive
maintenance each year with no
increase in SSOs
Capacity Assurance Monitor flow in system and use
smart manhole covers to track
surcharge levels
Eliminate SSOs caused by insufficient
pipeline capacity
I/I Reduction Monitor flow in targeted areas of
collection system after performing
rehabilitation in that area
Reduce I/I and evaluate cost
effectiveness of specific I/I reduction
methods
I/I Reduction Monitor flow at the WRRF, and
overall spend on I/I reduction
Compare dollars spent on I/I reduction
to gallons of flow reduced at the
WRRF and evaluate cost effectiveness
of overall I/I reduction program
City of San Luis Obispo Executive Summary
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
4
The Renewal Strategy meets the City’s goals for projects to meet the triple bottom line to provide
economic, social, and environmental value to the community.
Economic
Supports economic development and growth in the City.
Set measurable goals to evaluate cost effectiveness of the program.
Social
Equitably share in the cost of replacing private sewer laterals.
Protect the health and welfare of the community by providing safe reliable conveyance of
sewage.
Environmental
Reduces sanitary sewage overflows to maintain compliance with state regulations.
Reliably convey sewage to the WRRF for recovery.
Summary of Costs
Fiscal Year
Renewal
Strategy
Year
Condition
Rehabilitation
Capacity
Upgrades
I/I
Reduction
Total Annual
Cost
2014‐2015 1 $1,752,000 $72,000 $1,824,000
2015‐2016 2 $1,663,000 ‐ $1,663,000
2016‐2017 3 $1,305,000 $1,037,000 $2,324,000
2017‐2018 4 $1,327,000 $753,000 $2,080,000
2018‐2019 5 $1,238,000 $545,000 $1,748,000
2019‐2021 6‐7 $1,047,000 $3,875,000 $4,935,000
2021‐2024 8‐10 $1,260,000 $994,000 $2,254,000
2024‐2034 11‐20 $611,000 $1,675,000 $2,285,000
City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
5
Introduction
The City provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the residents, businesses, and visitors
of the City. With limited exceptions, sewer service is provided only to properties within the city
limits. The City serves Cal Poly and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. The numbers of sewer
service connections, or laterals, in 2014 is estimated to be 14,000. The entire sewer lateral
including the connection at the sewer main is owned by the property owner.
The City’s Utilities Department Wastewater Collection staff has developed a detailed database on
the components of the collection system over the past 20 years. The database, which is linked to
the City’s GIS, is utilized and updated daily by Wastewater Collection staff and informs the Sewer
System Management Plan and Predictive/Preventive Maintenance programs. The database has
been instrumental in preparation of the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal
Strategy. The last system‐wide wastewater collection system hydraulic model and system analysis
was performed in 1989. Additional information on the City’s asset management protocol is contained
in Section 3.
The City has a 2014 population of approximately 45,000 people with an expected 2035 population
of 56,000. The topography of the City is generally hilly with close surrounding mountains and an
alluvial plain interspersed with hills. There are numerous seasonal and perennial creeks and
streams and a lake. The geology includes alluvial deposits, volcanic outcrops and areas of
fragmented rocky soils. The geology, topography, and soils could potentially lead to shortened
pipeline lifetime and increased I/I into the collection system. Prior studies and City experience
indicate the collection system suffers from extensive I/I, with flow increasing from 3.72 mgd to 36.3
mgd during a 10‐year 24‐hour storm. (1)
The City is in the planning stages for an upgrade to the WRRF, the City’s wastewater treatment
plant. The WRRF is rated for 5.1 mgd maximum daily flow and treats an average of 3.9 mgd average
annual flow according to 2009 to 2013 flow data. After being treated, the water is either
discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek or distributed as recycled water.
Objectives
The City Utilities Department selected Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) to develop a Wastewater
Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (Renewal Strategy) to guide the City’s planned capital
project expenditures and asset management in an efficient and cost effective manner. Specifically, the
City has the following objectives:
Incorporate the 2014 updates to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element into the
flow projections and hydraulic model
Plan for infill development and densification growth expected in the City
Plan for expansion of service to new areas in the City to support economic development
Develop an accurate hydraulic model of the collection system
Identify existing and future system deficiencies
Develop a prioritized replacement program, including anticipated costs, to address the
deficiencies and assure capacity of the collection system
City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
6
Create an Infrastructure Renewal Strategy the City can update regularly using the ongoing CCTV
inspections, sewer main cleaning, and infrastructure rehabilitation
Recommend several potential options for reducing I/I in the system contributed by private
sewer laterals
Establish benchmarks to measure performance of recommended Renewal Strategy and I/I
reduction programs
Relationship to Other Documents
The Renewal Strategy forms only one piece of the City’s long range planning process and ongoing
operations of the collection system. Other documents were referenced during the preparation of the
Renewal Strategy, and the Renewal Strategy is likely to be relied upon when other planning documents
are updated. A partial list of related documents is included here and a supplemental list of references is
included in Section 12.
2014 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Update (SSMP) ‐ The City’s General Waste Discharge Permit
requires the City prepare an SSMP to establish goals to properly manage, operate, and maintain all
parts of its wastewater collection system in order to reduce and prevent SSOs, as well as to mitigate
any SSOs that occur. The SSMP shall be updated every five years at a minimum. The Renewal
Strategy is an important aspect of the capacity assurance requirement for the SSMP. In turn, the
SSMP informs the condition evaluation in the Renewal Strategy since the methods outlined in the
SSMP govern the data collection and maintenance program used in the condition evaluation.
2012 I/I Study ‐ The 2012 I/I Study was prepared by V&A for the City and includes two years of data
collection on sanitary sewer flow throughout the City. The study presents I/I results for flow
monitored catchment areas that form the basis for the wet weather flow loading in the Renewal
Strategy hydraulic model. The dry weather flow monitoring was used in addition to the wet
weather flows to calibrate the hydraulic model. Finally, the 2012 I/I Study presents some
recommendations for lateral rehabilitation and next steps to identify sources of inflow in the
system. The lateral rehabilitation recommendations are further elaborated upon in the Renewal
Strategy report.
2015 Wastewater Collection System Capital Improvement Program (2015 WWC CIP) ‐ The Renewal
Strategy includes the condition pipelines identified for rehabilitation in the 2015 WWC CIP, and
supports the findings of the collection system staff in their recommendations for pipelines to receive
rehabilitation. Future WWC CIP will build on the results of the Renewal Strategy.
Water Resource Recovery Facility Draft Facilities Plan ‐ The work performed in the Renewal Strategy
to prepare a hydraulic model with wet weather flow peaking, was used in the WRRF Facilities Plan to
evaluate peak flows at the facility. The hydraulic model was used to develop influent hydrographs
at the WRRF for a 10‐year, 24‐hour design storm at buildout. The hydrograph was used to evaluate
wet weather flow equalization and size downstream treatment capacity.
Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
The remainder of this report includes the supporting methodology for the creation of the hydraulic
model used to evaluate the collection system capacity. The report also presents the process for creation
of a condition evaluation model based on historic asset information to rank the condition of each pipe in
the collection system. Together, these two models, along with targeted long range condition
City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
7
assessment and expected useful life curves, were used to help identify and prioritize capacity, condition
and I/I reduction programs for the City’s next 20 years of wastewater collections capital projects.
The Renewal Strategy is a multi‐tiered approach comprised of:
1. Condition Evaluation
2. Capacity Evaluation
3. I/I Evaluation
The Renewal Strategy will answer the questions:
1. What length of pipeline should the City seek to rehabilitate/upgrade each year to keep the
collection system functional, assure capacity, and minimize SSOs?
2. How should the City identify which pipelines should receive attention for renewal?
3. Are there large scale programs the City can implement to reduce I/I, especially I/I from private
sewer laterals?
4. How should the City monitor performance of the initiatives set in the Renewal Strategy to
assure the money being spent is achieving the desired goals?
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
8
System Overview and Information Management
The City is located in the central region of California about 10 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The City’s
wastewater collection system, which has portions that are over 100 years old, includes approximately
136 miles of gravity sewer mains, 2,900 manholes, three miles of force mains, and nine lift stations. One
of the existing pump stations, the Madonna lift station, will be replaced as a private lift station serving
the Madonna Inn in 2015. The pipeline materials consist of terra cotta salt glazed pipe, vitrified clay
pipe (VCP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE), steel (STL), and cast iron (CI).
Given its age and material, the collection system requires a significant amount of maintenance and
repair. Wastewater collection staff perform regular maintenance (such as root removal and jetting) and
repairs to assure capacity and reduce the probability of SSOs.
This section summarizes the collection system inventory, the City’s ongoing maintenance activities, and
the information systems used by the City to manage inventory and maintenance data for the collection
system assets.
System Inventory
Gravity Pipes and Manholes
Most parts of the service area drain to the WRRF by gravity. The gravity portion of the City’s
wastewater collection system includes approximately 136 miles of gravity sewer mains and 2,900
manholes. The distribution of pipe length by pipe diameter is shown in 3‐1. Approximately 80 percent
of the system is comprised of 6‐inch and 8‐inch pipes.
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
9
Figure 3‐1. Pipe Length by Diameter in Inches
The portion of the gravity system length associated with each pipe material is shown in Figure 3‐2.
During much of the City’s history, VCP was the preferred material for new sewer construction. More
recent projects have used PVC or HDPE.
6
47%
8
33%
10
7%
12
3%
15
3%
16
0%18
3%
20
0%
21
1%24
1%
27
0%
30
1%36
1%
48
0%
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
10
Figure 3‐2. Pipe Length by Material as Percent of System
Cast
Iron
0%
Cured in Place
2%
Ductile Iron
0%
Fiber Reinforced
Plastic
2%
High Density
Polyethylene
3%
Polyvinyl Chloride
26%
Vitrified Clay
67%
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
11
Figure 3‐3 shows the pipe length by year placed in service. The oldest parts of the system were installed
more than 100 years ago. Based on a nominal design life of 75 years, the pipes installed before 1940 are
shown in a different color since they may be approaching the end of their useful life.
Figure 3‐3. Gravity Pipe Length by Year Placed in Service
Private Sewer Laterals
Although not a part of the City’s asset inventory, laterals are an important part of the collection system
and will be addressed by this Renewal Strategy. Sewer laterals are owned by the property owner from
the building to the main in the street, including the connection to the main. There are more than 14,000
private sewer laterals in the City. If each sewer lateral has an average length of 65 feet, there are more
than 172 miles of sewer lateral in the City. Pipe materials common in private sewer laterals in the City
are Orangeberg pipe (a coal tar impregnated wood fiber pipe), salt glazed terra cotta clay pipe, vitrified
clay pipe (VCP), and plastic, including PVC, HDPE, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). According
to collections staff more than 90% of inspected laterals that are not plastic pipe fail inspection and
require rehabilitation or replacement. Plastic pipe was not commonly used for sewer laterals until the
late 1970s or early 1980s. Therefore the majority of sewer laterals in the City are expected to be
constructed of non‐plastic pipe materials because most development within the City occurred prior this
time period. According to observations of laterals during storm events, the private sewer laterals in the
City are a primary source of I/I in the collection system (2) and in order to reduce I/I in the City, private
sewer laterals must be addressed. Section 8.1 presents additional information on sewer laterals in the
City, including programs designed to address condition and I/I from private sewer laterals.
10%
18%
14%
11%11%
9%
10%
3%
0%0%
4%
0%
9%
0%
‐
5
10
15
20
25
30
1890
and
Before
1891 ‐
1900
1901 ‐
1910
1911 ‐
1920
1921 ‐
1930
1931 ‐
1940
1941 ‐
1950
1951 ‐
1960
1961 ‐
1970
1971 ‐
1980
1981 ‐
1990
1991 ‐
2000
2001 ‐
2010
2011 ‐
2020
Mi
l
e
s
of
Pi
p
e
Miles Installed Miles Installed before 1940
17.7 miles installed
prior to 1940
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
12
Lift Stations and Force Main
As of 2014, the City has nine lift stations and three miles of force main. Table 3‐1 provides summary
information on the City’s existing and planned lift stations. Generally when the City upgrades a lift
station they have upgrade the associated force main.
Table 3‐1. Lift Station Summary Table (2)
Lift Station # Pumps/Pump Capacity
(gpm)/
Total Dynamic Head (feet) /
Horsepower (hp)
Notes
Foothill 2 pumps / 300 gpm / 65 feet /
15 hp
Installed in 1986 with prefabricated drywell/pumps relocated
from another site. Planned for replacement in 2017.
Calle Joaquin 2 pumps / 660 gpm / 60 feet /
15 hp
Installed in 1967, an upgrade of this station is in the design phase.
Planned for replacement in 2015.
Laguna 3 pumps / 2200 gpm / 54 feet A replacement (Laguna 3) is complete. Largest of the City’s lift
stations. The Silver City, Calle Joaquin and Prefumo pump to the
Laguna lift station. It also receives gravity flow from the Laguna
Lake area.
Madonna 2 pumps / 260 gpm / 70 feet /
15 hp
Installed in 1963; serves the Madonna Inn and adjacent
development. There is some steel deterioration noted in the
station’s floor and can. Although the wet well is small, the station
has sufficient pumping capacity. Planned for replacement with a
private lift station serving the Madonna Inn in 2015.
Margarita 2 pumps / 400 gpm / 31 feet / 5
hp
Installed in 1971 near the intersection of Margarita and South
Higuera Street. The lift station needs an auxiliary power backup
system. It will serve future annexation areas. Planned for
replacement in 2015.
Silver City 2 pumps/ 450 gpm / 43 feet /
18.5 hp
Installed in 1971 within the adjacent trailer park. Station needs
back up controllers or an auxiliary power system. It will serve
future annexation areas. Planned for replacement in 2019.
Tank Farm 4 pumps / 2,000 gpm / NA / 35
hp
Installed in 2009; receives flow from the Airport lift station. Will
serve portions of the Airport and Margarita Specific Plan areas.
Prefumo 2 pumps / 35 gpm / NA / 3.9 hp Installed in 2003. Serves limited population/area. No backup
power available due to limited service availability.
Airport 2 pumps / 240 gpm / NA / 5 hp City took over operation/maintenance from the County in 2000.
Serves the airport and adjacent development. Pumps to Tank
Farm lift station flow basin. Planned for replacement in 2018
Buckley TBD Planned facility to serve portions of the Airport Specific Plan area.
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
13
Maintenance Activities and Programs
Sewer line stoppages are caused when obstructions or debris (for example, roots or grease) build up in
the pipeline, reducing the capacity of the sewer line. If the capacity is reduced to less than the flow in
the line, an SSO can occur. Other common causes of SSOs include flat sewers and deteriorating pipes.
Routine cleaning of sewer lines reduces the chance of a stoppage forming. The City uses focused
intensive cleaning and inspection programs to deter SSOs. The City has two sets of priorities for cleaning
pipelines in the system, predictive maintenance and preventative maintenance. The predictive
maintenance pipelines have been identified through inspections and work efforts as being more prone
to failure than typical pipes, and therefore receive additional cleaning. The City has found that this
intensive cleaning program reduces SSOs and improves system reliability. Discussion of the inspection
process and maintenance program is presented in this section.
Visual/CCTV Inspections
The ongoing maintenance of the wastewater collection system is driven by data collection obtained
from CCTV inspections of the sewer collection system.
The City performs CCTV inspection of its gravity sewer pipelines to identify structural defects or
maintenance issues that need to be addressed. The results of these inspections include a video record
of the inspection and a database recording the defects that were observed. Defect observations are
gathered using the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) defect coding system that is
maintained by the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO). The CCTV inspections
are used to evaluate several aspects of collection system operations; these programs include: (2)
SSO Inspections
Predictive/ Preventative Maintenance inspections
I/I Inspections
Basin Inspections
WWC CIP mainline replacement ‐ including pipeline rehabilitation and point repair
New construction
The City uses a program called ITpipes to manage the information from the CCTV inspections. ITpipes
interfaces with CityWorks, the City’s computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). These
systems are discussed further in Section 3.4.
The City provided a copy of the ITpipes database in July 2013 and updated copies in August 2014 and
January 2015 for this project. The database includes records of over 3,000 video inspections that have
been performed. The number of CCTV inspections over time and the pipes that had an inspection
record in the ITpipes database are shown in Figure 3‐4 and Figure 3‐5, respectively.
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
14
Figure 3‐4. CCTV Inspections Performed Over Time
‐
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1980 and
Before
1981 ‐ 19851986 ‐ 19901991 ‐ 19951996 ‐ 20002001 ‐ 20052006 ‐ 20102011 ‐ 2015
CC
T
V
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
15
Figure 3‐5. Gravity Pipes Inspected Using CCTV
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
16
During each inspection, field crews made observations using the PACP defect coding system. The most
common observations are shown in Figure 3‐6.
Figure 3‐6. Most Common Observation Types from CCTV Inspections
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
17
Predictive Maintenance and Preventative Maintenance Programs
In order to assure capacity of the collection system and reduce or eliminate SSOs, the Wastewater
Collection Section has implemented an aggressive maintenance schedule for the aging collection
system. The maintenance work follows two primary schedules known as Predictive Maintenance and
Preventative Maintenance, which are defined as follows: (2)
Predictive Maintenance: Sections of the collection system prone to stoppages are addressed
through cleaning of specific pipes at intervals ranging from 2 months to 2 years between cleanings,
with the focus on preventing SSOs and keeping lines in operation. Wastewater Collections staff
identify and add pipes to Predictive Maintenance frequency based on long term experience and
understanding of specific issues in the collection system. About 178,000 feet of sewer main is
included in the Predictive Maintenance program. See Table 3‐2. Predictive Maintenance Frequency
for the frequency and length of pipe cleaned by Predictive Maintenance.
Preventative Maintenance: There is a potential for stoppages to occur at any point in the collection
system so the City established a goal to clean the entire collection system every three to five years
in order to assure overall system capacity and prevent SSOs.
With this aggressive proactive maintenance program the City has nearly eliminated the need for
unplanned reactive maintenance. The City has demonstrated the effectiveness of the maintenance
program by the reduction in SSOs in the collection system. However, even with the aggressive focused
cleaning effort, the City is not able to completely eliminate SSOs and has averaged about 10 SSOs per
year since 2003, as shown in Table 3‐3. Annual Sanitary Sewer Overflows, 2003‐2013Table 3‐3.
Table 3‐2. Predictive Maintenance Frequency (2)
Frequency Length of Pipe (in feet)
2 month * 16,551
3 month 4,832
4 month 14,454
5 month 4,883
6 month 69,716
8 month 2,153
9 month 15,659
10 month 365
12 month 46,284
16 month 755
18 month 384
24 month 1,804
Total 177,840 feet
* Includes 15,142 feet of sewer lines located in the
City’s downtown that require hydro‐cleaning every two
months due to grease build up.
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
18
Table 3‐3. Annual Sanitary Sewer Overflows, 2003‐2013 (2)
Year # of SSOs # of SSOs to Reach
Surface Water
2003 11 7
2004 17 10
2005 8 3
2006 14 6
2007 12 3
2008 10 3
2009 11 7
2010 8 3
2011 5 3
2012 8 5
2013 4 4
Average 9.8 5.0
Data Systems and Information Management
The City maintains multiple data systems to organize and analyze information on the condition and
maintenance requirements of its collection system. The City’s existing databases are supporting the on‐
going maintenance of the collection system, and provide a strong foundation for the Renewal Strategy
project. Table 3‐4 presents a summary of the information systems that are used by the City to help
manage the collection system and additional information on key systems is presented in the following
subsections. The data flow between the systems is shown in Figure 3‐7.
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
19
Table 3‐4. Information Systems Used for Collection System Management
Name Contents Comments
GIS A database that includes a
geographical representation of the
assets in the collection system
(gravity mains, manholes, laterals,
cleanouts, lift stations, and force
mains) and data tables with different
attributes (such as size, material, and
year constructed) for each type of
asset.
The GIS database is considered
the primary location for asset
information. Additional GPS
survey data (e.g., accurate
invert elevations from a field
survey), was gathered and
entered in the GIS database to
facilitate hydraulic model
development.
CityWorks The City’s CMMS is used to plan,
schedule, and track collection system
maintenance, inspection, and repairs.
In 2013, 23 years of
maintenance history was
migrated from the City’s
previous CMMS (Hansen) into
the CityWorks CMMS
database.
ITpipes Records of CCTV inspections
performed on gravity mains.
Observations noted during the
inspections are recorded in a
database.
Defects are coded using the
PACP defect codes published
by NASSCO.
SewerGEMS WSC developed a hydraulic model of
the collection system using
SewerGEMS as part of the Renewal
Strategy. The model provides
estimates of dry weather and wet
weather flow throughout the
collection system, under existing
(2014) and future land use
conditions.
During development of the
SewerGEMS model, the City
has been actively updating the
City GIS database to reflect
new mapping, and
configuration information
discovered during the model
building process.
Woolpert Infrastructure
Optimization (IO) Tools
This toolset can be used to help
assign a likelihood of failure and a
consequence of failure to all assets in
the collection system. This
information can then be used to
prioritize future maintenance,
inspection, and rehabilitation work
based on the risk of failure.
The City has not yet
implemented IO for the
collection system. WSC has
provided hydraulic ranking
criteria and hydraulic model
output for the City’s future use
in implementing IO.
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
20
GIS
(asset
inventory)
CityWorks
(maintenance
history)
SewerGEMS
(hydraulic
capacity)
ITPipes
(physical
condition)
Hansen
(historical)
GPS Survey
Data IO Condition
Analysis
CCTV
Inspection
Results
Completed
Rehabilitation
and Repair
Record
Drawings
Figure 3‐7. Data Flow between City Information Systems
GIS Database
In discussions with City staff, the GIS database was identified as the primary source of the asset
inventory and was the primary source of information used in the development of this Renewal Strategy.
The City’s GIS database includes 2,994 gravity pipe segments and 2,900 manholes. Key attributes for
each pipe segment include the diameter, length, material, and year of construction. The upstream and
downstream manholes for each pipe segment are also identified in the gravity pipes attribute table.
Manholes are identified using a map book numbering system that combines the atlas page with a
sequential identifier (e.g., E12‐35 for manhole 35 on atlas page E12). The upstream and downstream
manhole numbers for each pipe segment are combined to generate a pipe segment identifier (e.g., E12‐
35‐F13‐8 for a pipe that runs from manhole E12‐35 to manhole F13‐8). Each pipe segment is also
assigned a unique identifier called the AssetID, which is used as the link between GIS and other systems.
Another unique identifier code, the COMPKEY, is also stored in the attribute table for reference.
The diameter attribute is populated for all the pipe segments in the GIS database. The pipe attribute
table also includes a field called YearPl that shows the year the pipe segment was placed into service.
Finally, the pipe attribute table includes the identification of mains that have been scheduled for
replacement or rehabilitation through a future capital project.
23 yrs of maintenance history
was migrated to CityWorks
Asset
data
moved
to GIS
City of San Luis Obispo System Overview and Information Management
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
21
ITpipes
The ITpipes database includes CCTV inspection results for approximately 75% of the gravity pipes. Each
inspection record is linked to a main line record in the ITpipes database, and each mainline record in the
ITpipes database includes an ML_Name attribute. This ML_Name attribute can be linked to the AssetID
in the pipes GIS database.
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
22
Flow Projections
Flow Monitoring
To help analyze sewer flows within the City’s collection system, the hydraulic model was developed in
SewerGEMS using observed flow data. Sewer flow data collected as part of the City’s 2012 I/I Study was
used to establish dry weather and wet weather flow conditions for different sections of the collection
system. To perform the study, the City hired V&A to monitor sewer flows for select periods from 2010
to 2011 at 37 different locations (1). Figure 4‐1 shows a map of the flow monitoring catchments, which
are numbered with a letter followed by a number.
Figure 4‐1. Flow Monitoring Catchments
Average Dry Weather Flow
During preparation of the 2012 I/I Study, V&A developed estimates of ADWF for the 37 flow monitoring
locations using flow data collected from October 20th to November 9th 2010. Typically, this time of year
is dry and would include contributions from students attending class at Cal Poly. However, during the
ADWF flow monitoring period, several precipitation events did occur. V&A determined these minor
rainfall events did not have a significant impact on the results (1); therefore, they will be relied upon in
this evaluation. Figure 4‐2 shows the rainfall record at the San Luis Obispo California Irrigation
Management Information System (CIMIS) Station #52 and the observed flow at the City’s WRRF.
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
23
Figure 4‐2. ADWF Monitoring Period Rainfall
The 2012 I/I Study flow monitoring did not include monitoring for the entire collection system. To
develop estimates for system wide ADWF, WSC reviewed influent wastewater flow data at the WRRF.
Due to the influence of I/I in the wet winter months, decreased population served in the summer
months (when Cal Poly is out of session), and previous analysis completed by the City, the months of
October and May were selected to represent the ADWF for the collection system. The average monthly
flow for May and October from 2010 to May 2014 was 3.72 MGD and is used as the ADWF in this
Renewal Strategy.
Peak Wet Weather Flow
The PWWF scenarios in the model were developed using 10‐yr, 24‐hour design storm response
estimates developed in the 2012 I/I Study. Using synthetic hydrographs, V&A was able to estimate the
peak flows from a 10‐yr, 24‐hour storm for each of the monitored catchments. The 2012 I/I Study flow
monitoring identified significant increases in peak flows compared to ADWF flows in many of the
monitored catchments. The PWWF factors, equal to the ratio of observed peak flow to ADWF, ranged
from 2.2 to 13.7 during the flow monitoring study.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
10
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
10
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
1
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
2
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
3
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
5
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
6
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
8
/
2
0
1
0
11
/
9
/
2
0
1
0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Fl
o
w
(M
G
D
)
Date
Precip (in)Adjusted Daily Influent Flow (MGD)
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
24
Flow Allocation
The City provided water consumption data, GIS water meter location data, and WRRF wastewater flow
data to support development of spatially allocated flow allocations that could be used to load the
hydraulic model with wastewater flows.
Average Dry Weather Flow Allocation
To select the appropriate water consumption data for representing wastewater generation, WSC
compared monthly water consumption data from January 2010‐August 2013, monthly rainfall, and
monthly and annual average sewer flow at the WRRF, as shown in Figure 4‐3. Water consumption
records from irrigation meters were filtered out based on the assumption that irrigation meter water is
100% outdoor use and would not return to the wastewater collection system. Additionally, metered
sewage flows from Cal Poly were available and were used instead of water consumption records to
develop the flow estimates from the campus.
Figure 4‐3. Wastewater Flow, Water Consumption, & Rainfall Comparison
Based on an analysis of the water consumption, WRRF wastewater flow, and precipitation data, along
with input from City staff, January 2011 data was identified as the most representative water
consumption data for use in developing ADWF allocations for the collection system. Winter water use is
typically more closely related to sanitary wastewater flow than summer water use, since city wide
summer water use will include a significant outdoor irrigation use component. Being a winter month
with significant rainfall, water use in January 2011 was low, indicating minimal outdoor water use.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Ja
n
‐10
Ma
r
‐10
Ma
y
‐10
Ju
l
‐10
Se
p
‐10
No
v
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ma
r
‐11
Ma
y
‐11
Ju
l
‐11
Se
p
‐11
No
v
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ma
r
‐12
Ma
y
‐12
Ju
l
‐12
Se
p
‐12
No
v
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ma
r
‐13
Ma
y
‐13
Ju
l
‐13
Se
p
‐13
No
v
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ma
r
‐14
Ma
y
‐14
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(i
n
)
Co
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
/
W
R
R
F
Fl
o
w
(M
G
D
)
Rainfall (in)Monthly Average Water Consumption (MGD)
Monthly Average WWTP Sewer Flow (MGD)ADWF (MGD)
AAF ( MGD)
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
25
Therefore, it is assumed that all of the water use occurred indoors and was returned to the collection
system.
As described in Section 4.1.1, the months of October and May were selected to represent the ADWF for
the collection system at the WRRF. Since the ADWF varies from year to year, the ADWF at the WRRF
from May and October for the years of 2010 through 2014 was selected as the representative ADWF for
use in this study. Since January water and sewer demands are different from May and October flows,
the January 2011 water consumption was scaled to match the representative WRRF ADWF for future
flow factors and flow projections. The scaling factor was calculated by dividing the WRRF ADWF influent
flow (3.72 MGD) less the measured flows for Cal Poly (0.36 MGD), by the January 2011 water
consumption (3.14 MGD). The scaling factor of approximately 1.07 was applied to the January 2011
water consumption to yield normalized ADWF used for the purposes of projecting future flows.
Spatial Allocation
The winter water consumption and water meter location GIS data were used for the purposes of
developing and spatially allocating ADWF estimates within the collection system. Utilizing common
identifiers and spatial locations, WSC linked January 2011 consumption data with the appropriate parcel
and its underlying land use. This provided a spatially allocated dataset, which included estimated ADWF,
the associated land use, and the area for each parcel. This dataset was used to input spatial flow
estimates into the model and to develop wastewater generation factors for projected future flows. The
process used to develop wastewater generation factors for future flow projections is shown in Figure
4‐4 and described further in the following sections.
Figure 4‐4. Spatial Allocation and Flow Projection Process
Wastewater Generation Factors
The City has established wastewater generation factors which are used to project wastewater
generation for generalized land use categories as shown in Table 4‐1. These factors were established
based on representative flows from existing uses and they characterize wastewater flow in gallons per
day (gpd) per dwelling unit (DU), per room, or thousand square feet (k‐sqft). These factors can be
applied to known areas of future development with estimated units to project future wastewater flow.
•Associate ADWF data to
GIS meter data
Spatially Allocate
ADWF Data
•Associate spatially
allocated ADWF data to
parcel and land use data
Incorporate Parcel and
Land Use Data •Calculate and
summarize ADWF per
land use flow category
•Calculate ADWF per unit
(acre, DU, sqft)
Develop Wastewater
Generation Factors
•Apply wastewater
generation factors to
future development
units
Apply Wastewater
Generation Factors to
Project Wastewater Flows
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
26
For future development areas without estimated units, wastewater generation factors based on land
use and acreage were developed and are discussed below.
Table 4‐1. Land Use Flow Category Wastewater Generation Factors
City Generation Factor Categories Flow Rate Units
Single Family 150 gpd/DU
Multi‐Family Residential 105 gpd/DU
Industrial/Manufacturing 54 gpd/k‐sqft of gross floor area
Business Park 54 gpd/k‐sqft of gross floor area
Commercial 60 gpd/k‐sqft of gross floor area
Motel/Hotel 70 gpd/room
As described in Section 4.2.1, the ADWF for each customer was associated with parcel land use and
acreage, based on the 2014 General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, shown in Figure 4‐5. Each
land use category was assigned to a Land Use Flow Category, which is described in more detail in Table
4‐3. Wastewater generation factors were calculated for each Land Use Flow Category in units of gpd per
acre. Table 4‐2 shows the wastewater generation factors by Land Use Flow Category. These factors can
be applied to land use areas where specific planned future development units are unavailable in order
to project future wastewater flows.
Table 4‐2. Land Use Flow Category Wastewater Generation Factors
Land Use Flow
Category Code
Land Use Flow
Category Description
January
2011
Count
of
Meters
January 2011
Customer
Consumption
(gpd)
Normalized
ADWF
(gpd)1
January
2011
Served
Acres
January
2011
Factor
(gpd/acre)
Residential Zones
Single Family
Dwelling
Single Family Dwelling 7,169 1,037,592 1,109,480 1,377 806
Multi‐Family
Dwelling
Multi‐Family Dwelling 5,342 1,244,153 1,330,352 763 1,743
Non‐residential Zones
Manufacturing Manufacturing 821 161,226 172,396 410 421
Motel/Hotel Motel/Hotel 55 128,415 137,312 42 3,278
Office/Public Office 547 197,457 211,138 572 369
Retail Retail 757 353,861 378,377 316 1,197
N/A2 N/A 49 19,106 20,430 264 0
Cal Poly3 Cal Poly 360,000 360,000 563 0
Total 14,740 3,501,809 3,719,485 4,307 N/A
1 Normalized ADWF was calculated for all land use flow categories by applying a scaling factor of 1.07 as discussed in 4.2.1.
2 Accounts in this category are assumed to use only irrigation water that does not return to the wastewater collection system.
3 Cal Poly flows reflect metered flows rather than water consumption.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Flow Projections
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
27
Fi
g
u
r
e
4‐5.
La
n
d
Us
e
Di
a
g
r
a
m
fr
o
m
20
1
4
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
28
Future Flows
The best available data sources for future development were used to estimate future flow projections,
including the data sources described below:
‐ Specific Plan areas and areas of known future development, hereafter referred to as the Future
Development Spreadsheet
‐ City of San Luis Obispo 2010 General Plan Housing Element Table M: Summary of Residential
Capacity by Parcel, by Subarea, hereafter referred to as the 2010 Housing Element
‐ City of San Luis Obispo 2014 General Plan Land Use Element data, hereafter referred to as Land Use
Parcel data
‐ 2010 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) data, the 2010 TAZ data is used a source of tabularized
information representing the state of parcel specific land use data in conformance with the 2010
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element. Traffic projection information was not used, only
the underlying land use data was (parcel size, building square footage, occupancy, etc.). This data
will be referred to as 2010 Land Use.
Often, the various data sources had differing land use based categorizations and units of projected
development. A category equivalency matrix was developed to equate each data source’s categories to
Renewal Strategy Land Use Flow Categories as shown in Table 4‐3.
Table 4‐3. Renewal Strategy Land Use Flow Categories
Renewal
Strategy Land
Use Flow
Category
City
Wastewater
Generation
Categories
2010 Housing
Element Zoning
Categories
2010 Land Use
Categories
(as used in TAZ)
Land Use Parcel
Categories (2014
General Plan)
Single Family
Dwelling
Single Family Depends on DU
Density
Single Family Residential Low Density
Residential; Rural
Residential; Suburban
Residential
Multi‐Family
Dwelling
Multi‐Family
Residential
Depends on DU
Density
Multi‐Family Residential High Density; Medium
Density; Medium‐high
Density Residential
Retail Commercial ‐ Drive In; High
Generation; Medium
Generation; Low
Generation Retail
Community
Commercial; General
Retail; Tourist
Commercial
Manufacturing Industrial/
Manufacturing
‐ Heavy Industrial; Light
Industrial
Services &
Manufacturing
Office/Public Business Park ‐ General Office; Religious
Org. and Meeting Halls;
General Service;
Hospitals; Airport
Business Park; Office;
Public
Motel/Hotel Motel/Hotel ‐ Motels and Hotels ‐
N/A ‐ ‐ Beach Resorts; Parks &
Rec.; Agricultural;
Undeveloped; Schools;
CalPoly Students; CalPoly
Employees
Agriculture; Open
Space; Park;
Recreation;
Residential
Neighborhood
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
29
Four steps were utilized to develop projected wastewater flows using the best available future
development data sources, as shown in Figure 4‐6.
The Future Development Spreadsheet was considered the most accurate and reliable information
available for future development, so it was incorporated into future flow projections as the first step.
The City’s Wastewater Generation Factors were applied to projected development units to yield
projected future ADWF. WSC compared the Future Development Spreadsheet with the existing ADWF
by parcel. If a parcel had an existing flow, the existing flow was used. If a parcel did not have an existing
flow, the Future Development Spreadsheet estimated flow was used.
For the second step, parcels without a future flow identified in the Future Development Spreadsheet
were assigned flows based on the General Plan Housing Element and the City’s Wastewater Generation
Factors. A total of 25 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) from the General Plan Housing Element were
projected to have less than 48,000 gpd, or 0.9%, of projected flow did not match an APN in the
parcels/meter GIS databases. It was assumed that the missing parcels would be accounted for in the
fourth step described below and were omitted from this step. APNs with an identified existing flow and
future load based on the General Plan Housing Element were flagged with a note stating “assumed infill
loading in addition to existing”.
For the third step, the City’s Wastewater Generation Factors were applied to Traffic Analysis
development units data for 2035. The total units and flow for each Land Use Flow Category for each
Traffic Analysis Zone were compared with the total units and flow derived from steps one and two.
Based on comparison of the Traffic Analysis Zone and the other data for each Land Use Flow Category, it
was assumed that the Traffic Analysis data should only be incorporated into the projected future flows
for the Retail category and the portion of the Office/Public category located around downtown.
In the fourth step, remaining parcels without an identified existing flow or future flow located within the
City Limits were selected and visually checked and revised for errors (i.e., master meters accounted for
an adjacent parcel or group of parcels, etc.). The Land Use Flow Category Wastewater Generation
Factors were applied to vacant parcels’ acreages to estimate future flows for the remaining parcels.
Table 4‐4 shows the ADWF for existing flows along with the calculated future flows by land use.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Flow Projections
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
30
Fi
g
u
r
e
4‐6.
Fu
t
u
r
e
Fl
o
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
31
Table 4‐4. ADWF Flows by Land Use Flow Category
Flow (MGD)
Existing Flows
Cal Poly 360,000
Manufacturing 172,396
Motel/Hotel 137,312
Multi‐Family Dwelling 1,330,352
N/A 20,430
Office/Public 211,138
Retail 378,377
Single Family Dwelling 1,109,480
Existing Flow Total 3,719,485
Incremental Future Flows
Cal Poly 110,000
Manufacturing 323,873
Motel/Hotel 72,520
Multi‐Family Dwelling 347,681
N/A 0
Office/Public 130,182
Retail 188,495
Single Family Dwelling 590,174
Incremental Future Flow Total 1,762,925
Total Future Flow 5,482,410
Peak Flows
Estimates of peak flows within the City’s collection system were developed from the flow monitoring
results from 2012 I/I Study.
4.2.5.1 Peak Dry Weather Flow
Based on their analysis of the observed ADWF and the PDWF, V&A developed PDWF factor estimates for
each of the flow monitoring catchments. These estimates were applied to the spatially allocated ADWF
sewer flows developed from customer consumption data for each catchment to develop the PDWF flow
scenarios within the model. The peaking factors for the un‐monitored (UM) locations and the projected
future flows within the collection system were applied a peaking factor equal to the average of all the
monitored locations. The PDWF peaking factors ranged from 1.4 to 2.7 between the catchments, with
an average of 1.9.
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
32
4.2.5.2 Peak Wet Weather Flow
Flow data collected during rain events was utilized to develop I/I contributions from a 10‐yr, 24‐hr storm
event and to develop the PWWF estimates. To allocate the I/I contributions within the collection
system, an Extended Period Simulation (EPS) model was developed that could be calibrated using the
storm flow data collected during the 2012 I/I Study. The EPS model was calibrated by adjusting
individual catchment rainfall response factors so that flows within the model mimic observed flows for a
given storm event. Once the EPS model was calibrated to the observed storm events, it was used to
develop flow estimates for a 10‐yr, 24‐hr storm event. Additional information about the development
and calibration of the EPS model is contained in Appendix A.
The I/I loading with the EPS model was done at the catchment level and did not contribute flows to the
individual manholes. Therefore, to utilize the EPS model for analyzing the entire collection system, the
I/I flows for each catchment for the 10‐yr, 24‐hr storm event were divided by the number of manholes
within the catchment to develop catchment specific I/I rates (gpd/manhole). Because of the relatively
uniform distribution of manholes throughout the system, assigning a consistent I/I flow to each manhole
in a catchment was considered to be a reasonable allocation technique. These I/I loading rates were
then imported into a steady state model for the collection system capacity analysis. The steady state
model does not include a time element, therefore the peak flows from each basin occur at the same
time resulting in a modeled PWWF at the WRRF that is greater in the steady state model then the EPS
model. This creates an inherently conservative model for long term collection system planning. The
PWWF peak factors range from 1.0 to 36.3, with an average of 10.5. Table 4‐5 summarizes the amount
of I/I from a 10‐yr, 24‐hr storm even and the associated PWWF factors for each catchment.
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
33
Table 4‐5. PWWF Factors
Flow
Monitoring
Catchment
Incremental Basin Wet
Weather Flow
(MGD)
Peak Wet Weather Flow
Factor
A.1 3.87 19.8
A.2 0.24 26.2
A.3 0.07 24.1
A.4 0.22 6.9
B.1 1.68 5.6
B.2 0.05 2.0
B.3 0.06 3.8
C.1 4.27 5.2
C.2 1.11 11.1
D.1 0.41 12.7
D.2 0.19 10.6
E.1 0.72 4.7
E.2 1.11 11.0
F.1 0.10 2.0
F.2 0.87 28.0
G.1 0.29 6.2
H.1 0.07 1.0
H.2 3.13 32.9
H.3 0.58 20.9
I.1 0.80 3.3
I.2 0.27 7.7
J.1 0.51 1.5
J.2 1.07 23.7
L.1 0.12 1.9
L.2 0.76 4.6
M.1 0.91 1.9
M.2 1.06 12.4
N.1 0.13 3.6
N.2 0.04 6.4
O.1 1.19 4.6
O.2 0.04 1.5
P.1 0.09 1.3
P.2 0.58 13.2
Q.1 0.65 18.1
Q.2 0.12 7.2
R.1 0.45 13.6
R.2 0.80 36.3
Un-Monitored 2.47 1.8
City of San Luis Obispo Flow Projections
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
34
Flow Summary
As described previously, the following scenarios were developed within the model: ADWF; PDWF; and
PWWF for the existing (2010‐2014 average flow) and future conditions. Table 4‐6 below lists the loading
rates included in the model for the 2014 and future conditions.
Existing ‐ The existing flow and load condition is based on average flow at the WRRF from 2010
to 2014 that has been spatially located according to January 2011 water meter information as
described in Section 4.2.1.
Future ‐ The future flow and load condition is based on the build‐out land use data from the
several land use sources described in Section 4.2.4.
Table 4‐6. Collection System Flow Summary
Existing Flow
(mgd)
Incremental
Future Flow
(mgd)
Total Future
Flow (mgd)
Load ‐ ADWF 3.72 1.76 5.48
Load ‐ PDWF 6.93 3.40 10.34
Load ‐ PWWF1 34.83 ‐ 36.59
Note: These numbers represent the wastewater flow loaded to the model. Actual flow in the pipelines vary in
the model depending on the number, status, and location of lift stations which act to delay flow when pumps
are off and then peak sewage flow when the pumps are on.
Table 4‐7 lists the flow rates predicted by the steady state model at the WRRF for the existing and future
conditions. In the steady state model, the calculated flow rates at the WRRF are higher than the sum of
the assigned loads because the steady state model assumes all lift stations are on concurrently and all of
the lift stations discharge a pumped flow that is greater than the incoming peak flow.
Table 4‐7. Collection System Flow Summary
Modeled Existing
Flow at WRRF
(mgd)
Modeled Future
Flow at WRRF
(mgd)
PDWF 12.12 13.11
PWWF 36.28 36.80
Note: In the steady state model,the calculated flow rates at the WRRF are higher than
the sum of the assigned loads because the steady state model assumes all lift stations
are on concurrently and all of the lift stations discharge a pumped flow that is greater
than the incoming peak flow.
1 PWWF loading derived using the extended period model developed for calculation of WRRF flow rates
City of San Luis Obispo Hydraulic Model Development and System
Evaluation Criteria
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
35
Hydraulic Model Development and System Evaluation
Criteria
Model Development
To develop the model for the City’s collection system, WSC used information from the City’s GIS
databases and information from City staff to develop a steady state GIS‐based hydraulic model in
Bentley’s SewerGEMS® software program. City Staff frequently updates its GIS dataset and stated that
it accurately represents the 2014 collection system. Information on the City’s lift stations was obtained
from the City’s SSMP. Additional information on the model development is contained in Appendix A.
Manhole Surveying
WSC contracted with Penfield & Smith to perform a high accuracy (<=0.2 ft vertically) survey of 650 out
of 2,928 manholes within the collection system. The 650 manholes were identified through a ranking
process that incorporated pipeline diameter, existing and future flow rates, presence of jumper
manholes (which are manholes with two outlet pipes, one higher than the other allowing high flows to
jump to another pipeline), required preventative maintenance frequency, and ground surface slope.
Elevation data for an additional 129 manholes was identified in record drawings from recent projects
and provided to WSC for use in developing the model.
The manhole survey was completed primarily using real time Global Positioning System (GPS)
techniques. Invert and pipe size data was measured using a fiberglass invert rod and Pipe‐Mic extension
tool. Additional information on the manhole surveying is contained in Appendix A.
Model Calibration
An evaluation of the ability of the model to represent observed conditions within the collection system
or calibration was performed by comparing the observed and estimated flow depths for each of the
monitoring locations against the modeled flow depths for the ADWF. To test calibration of the PWWF
scenarios, an EPS model was used to compare modeled flow rates against two rain storm events
observed during the 2012 I/I Study. The calibration identified that the model was able to reasonably
match the observed flow conditions for most of the monitoring locations. Additional information on the
model calibration is contained in Appendix A.
City of San Luis Obispo Hydraulic Model Development and System
Evaluation Criteria
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
36
Evaluation Criteria
In planning for future sewer infrastructure improvements, accepted engineering standards and practices
are utilized to evaluate the existing and proposed facilities. For the Renewal Strategy project, the
evaluation criteria for the sewer system has been organized into four categories: Flow Projections;
Gravity Pipelines; Force Mains; and Lift Stations.
Flow Projections
The flow projection’s evaluation criteria is summarized in Table 5‐1 below.
Table 5‐1. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Flow Projections
Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria
Peak Wet Weather Flow 2012 I/I Study Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow (PWWF)
equals the simulated flow rate during a
10‐YR, 24‐Hour Storm Event
Future System Flows City’s General Plan Housing
Element, Land Use
Element, and Citywide
Travel Model
Calculate wastewater flows at buildout
from:
(1) Development specific City
wastewater flow factor estimates
(2) Housing Element Residential
Capacity by Parcel and City
wastewater flow factor estimates
(3) Buildout land use from City’s
Land Use Element and
wastewater flow factors by land
use type
(4) Neighborhood Transportation
Analysis Zones (TAZ) and
wastewater flow factors by land
use type compared with planning
criteria items 1 through 3
City of San Luis Obispo Hydraulic Model Development and System
Evaluation Criteria
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
37
Gravity Pipelines
The evaluation criteria for gravity pipes is outlined in Table 5‐2. For the evaluation, WSC reviewed pipe
velocities, d/D ratio, new pipe slope and diameter.
Table 5‐2. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Gravity Pipelines
Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria
Pipe Velocities Recommended Standards
for Wastewater Facilities (4);
Civil Engineering Reference
Manual (5)
Maintain minimum velocity of 2 fps at
Average Daily Flow (ADF) and a
maximum velocity of 10 fps at PWWF
d/D Survey of utility sewer
design standards; Engineer’s
Judgment
Maximum depth/Diameter (d/D):
0.50 for pipes with diameter 8” or less
0.75 for pipes with diameter greater
than or equal to 10”
New Sewer Mains
Minimum Slope
City Engineering Standards
(2010)
Sewer main slope shall be sufficient to
provide 3 ft per second minimum
velocity flowing half‐full
Minimum Slope
New Sewer Mains
Pipe Diameter
City Engineering Standards
(2010)
Minimum sewer main size shall be 8
inches; except 6 inch minimum size
main may be allowed for the last run
which ends in a manhole and cannot be
later extended to serve other
properties
City of San Luis Obispo Hydraulic Model Development and System
Evaluation Criteria
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
38
Force Mains
WSC also evaluated the force mains within the collection system. The criteria used for force mains is
outlined in Table 5‐3.
Table 5‐3. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Force Mains
Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria
Pipe Velocities Pumping Station Design1 Design new mains to operate at velocity
of 3 to 4 fps; Maintain velocity as close
to 3 fps as possible for existing mains
Hazen Williams Roughness
Value for Analysis
Civil Engineering Reference
Manual2
Pipe Material Hazen‐Williams
Constant
UNKN 130
1 Lindeburg, Michael R. Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam 8th ed.Belmont: Professional
Publications, Inc., 2001. ISBN 1‐888577‐66‐5.
2 Jones, Garr M. Editor‐in‐Chief. Pumping Station Design Revised 3rd ed. Burlington: Elsevier, Inc., 2008. ISBN
978‐1‐85617‐513‐5.
Lift Stations
The last category reviewed was the collection system’s lift stations. Table 5‐4 outlines the criteria used.
Table 5‐4. Sewer System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Lift Stations
Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria
Pump Capacity Accepted Engineering
Practice
Capacity should be sufficient to meet
PWWF, with one pump available as a
back up
Backup Power Generation Accepted Engineering
Practice
Each lift station site should have
sufficient backup power capability to
meet PWWF (either standby or trailer
mounted)
In regards to the backup power criteria, the City will have stationary electrical power installed at all lift
stations once the on‐going replacement program is completed.
City of San Luis Obispo Capacity Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
39
Capacity Evaluation
Capacity Results
The hydraulic model was used to analyze existing and future capacity deficiencies within the City’s
collection system. Pipelines that exceed the gravity pipeline evaluation criteria, described in Table 5‐2,
during modeled 2014 and future ADWF and PWWF conditions were identified as being capacity‐
constrained. Only pipelines with updated invert elevation data (i.e. survey or record drawing elevation
data) were included in the capacity analysis. Existing and future flow conditions are defined in Section
4.3 and repeated here for reference:
Existing ‐ The existing flow and load condition is based on average flow at the WRRF from 2010
to 2014 that has been spatially located according to January 2011 water meter information as
described in Section 4.2.1.
Future ‐ The future flow and load condition is based on the build‐out land use data from the
several land use sources described in Section 4.2.4.
Existing ADWF
Analysis of the collection system under existing ADWF conditions identified 27 pipelines that exceed the
capacity criteria. Further review of these pipelines determined that a significant number of the pipelines
identified as capacity constrained under Existing ADWF were shown as having slightly negative slopes. It
is possible that their exceedance of the capacity criteria could be attributed to vertical datum
discrepancies. These pipelines are recommended for further investigation to determine if there is an
issue related to the quality of the elevation data or if they do have flat/negative slopes contributing to
limited capacity. A summary of the pipelines that exceeded the capacity criteria is contained in
Appendix B.
Existing PWWF
Under Existing PWWF, 245 of the pipelines were identified as exceeding the capacity criteria. These
pipe segments are shown in Figure 6‐1. The large number of pipelines that exceed the established
capacity criteria under PWWF, as compared to current PWDF, is expected since the City’s collection
system is known to have significant flow contribution from I/I. A summary of the pipelines that
exceeded the capacity criteria is contained in Appendix B.
Future ADWF
Analysis of the collection system under future ADWF identified 28 total pipelines, or one additional
pipeline compared to the Existing ADWF scenario, that were capacity constrained under future
conditions. A summary of the pipelines that exceeded the capacity criteria is contained in Appendix B.
Future PWWF
Under future PWWF, a total of 251, or 6 additional pipeline segments compared to Existing PWWF
conditions, were identified as exceeding the capacity criteria. These Future PWWF impacted pipelines
are shown in Figure 6‐1. A summary of the pipelines that exceeded the capacity criteria is contained in
Appendix B.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Capacity Evaluation
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
40
Fi
g
u
r
e
6‐1.
Pi
p
e
s
Ov
e
r
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
– Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
PW
W
F
City of San Luis Obispo Capacity Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
41
Capacity Constrained Pipeline Projects
Utilizing the results from Section 6.1, the pipeline sections that exceeded the capacity criteria were
grouped into a series of Capacity Projects based on the their connectivity and proximity to other
pipelines that were identified as capacity constrained. This grouping resulted in the development of 14
potential Capacity Projects. These projects were then ranked based on a series of criteria (surcharge
potential and d/D rating) that evaluated potential for the flow to exceed the capacity of the pipelines in
each project (i.e. projects with the pipelines that showed the highest potential for flows to exceed
capacity were ranked highest). The rankings were developed to provide a starting point for evaluating
the priority of the proposed Capacity Projects, but additional analysis should be performed to confirm
the capacity constraints and to identify highest priority projects for incorporating into the City’s CIP.
These Capacity Projects, their capacity ranking, upgrades required to allow the pipelines to meet the
capacity criteria, and capacity failure reason are summarized in Table 6‐1 and displayed in Figure 6‐2.
Additional detail, including: specific pipeline IDs, d/D ratios, manhole numbers, and flow rates can be
found in Appendix B and a larger map in Appendix C.
The pipelines within the Capacity Projects outlined within this report were identified as exceeding the
capacity criteria established for existing and future PWWF. While these pipelines have been identified
as being potentially capacity constrained, it is recommended that additional investigation be performed
before they are programmed into the City’s WWC CIP. This recommendation is based on the following
assumptions:
Historic data indicates that most of the City’s SSOs are not directly attributable to capacity
constraints.
Renewal of aged and/or deteriorated pipelines will assist in limiting peak flow rates and SSOs by
reducing I/I and blockages.
Replacement and rehabilitation of private laterals in poor condition will help reduce I/I in the
collection system and peak flow rates.
For the capacity constrained pipelines, it is recommended that the City establish a flow monitoring
program that will allow them to further evaluate and confirm that capacity upgrades are required. This
program should include evaluation of available pipeline capacity prior to and after any efforts to reduce
I/I in the upstream sections of the collection system have been completed. Once confirmed that the
pipeline is capacity constrained and that I/I reduction efforts will not sufficiently reduce peak flow rates,
the pipelines should be programmed into the City’s WWC CIP, in conjunction with condition upgrade
and I/I reduction projects.
However, pipelines that have been identified by City staff as being at risk for overflowing due to limited
capacity should be considered for near‐term inclusion in the City’s WWC CIP.
City of San Luis Obispo Capacity Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
42
Table 6‐1. Capacity Project Summary
Capacity
Project
Identification
Number
Project
Location/Name
Upgraded
Pipeline
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft) Capacity Failure Reason
1 Foothill and Chorro 8 911 Fifty‐seven (57) pipeline sections, ranging from
6 to 18 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Forty‐nine (49) of the pipeline sections have
been identified as at risk for potentially
surcharging. Sections of pipeline are in
backyard easements increasing the cost of
maintenance.
10 2,431
12 173
15 1,822
18 2,866
21 2,446
24 3,729
2 Jeffery, Daly and
Cerro Romauldo
8 1,143 Twenty‐One (21) pipeline sections, ranging
from 6 to 10 in, were identified in this area as
being capacity constrained under PWWF
conditions. Fifteen (15) of the pipeline
sections have been identified as at risk for
potentially surcharging. The City is looking to
perform and I/I reduction study in this area
that could identify opportunities to reduce the
pipeline upgrades identified to address the
existing capacity deficiencies.
10 2,027
12 1,346
15 576
3 Branch, South and
misc.
8 1,492 Twenty‐One (21) pipeline sections, ranging
from 6 to 12 in, were identified in this area as
being capacity constrained under PWWF
conditions. Ten (10) of the pipeline sections
have been identified as at risk for potentially
surcharging.
10 2,309
12 1,060
15 54
18 1,331
4 Beebee, Buchon,
Islay and George
8 1,429 Seventeen (17) pipeline sections, ranging from
6 to 36 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Ten (10) of the pipeline sections have been
identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
10 2,316
12 1,052
15 502
42 594
5 Santa Rosa,
Meinecke and misc.
8 263 Seventeen (17) pipeline sections, ranging from
6 to 15 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Eleven (11) of the pipeline sections have been
identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
10 1,239
12 358
15 1,439
21 576
6 Del Campo, Santa
Clara, Helena and
misc.
8 84 Eighteen (18) pipeline sections, ranging from 6
to 18 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Nine (9) of the pipeline sections have been
identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
10 2,694
15 325
21 781
City of San Luis Obispo Capacity Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
43
Capacity
Project
Identification
Number
Project
Location/Name
Upgraded
Pipeline
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft) Capacity Failure Reason
7 Johnson and
Buchon
8 676 Eleven (11) pipeline sections, ranging from 6 to
8 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Five (5) of the pipeline sections have been
identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
10 1,685
8 San Luis Drive 10 2,931 Eleven (11) pipeline sections, ranging from 6 to
8 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Nine (9) of the pipeline sections have been
identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
Capacity constrained pipeline sections on the
downstream portion of San Luis Drive, near the
intersection with Johnson Avenue create
potential for significant surcharging in the
upstream pipeline sections under PWWF flow
conditions.
12 224
9 Oceanaire, Coral,
agriculture fields,
and misc.
10 3,356 Twenty‐eight (28) pipeline sections, ranging
from 8 to 15 in, were identified in this area as
being capacity constrained under PWWF
conditions. Thirteen (13) of the pipeline
sections have been identified as at risk for
potentially surcharging.
12 117
18 476
21 2,974
10 Vista Lago, Laguna,
LOVR and
Oceanaire
10 1,517 Eleven (11) pipeline sections, ranging from 8 to
15 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Four (4) of the pipeline sections have been
identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
15 736
18 231
11 Prado and Elks 27 116 Eleven (11) pipeline sections, ranging from 21
to 48 in, were identified in this area as being
capacity constrained under PWWF conditions.
Nine (9) of the pipeline sections have been
identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
Given the proximity of these pipelines to the
WWRF, they are convey flows from a
significant portion of the collection system. It
is recommended that the City further evaluate
the effectiveness of their I/I reduction efforts
prior to programing this project into the CIP.
36 14
42 660
48 3,179
12 Miscellaneous 8 119 Four (4) pipeline sections, ranging from 6 to 36
in, were identified throughout the collection 21 526
City of San Luis Obispo Capacity Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
44
Capacity
Project
Identification
Number
Project
Location/Name
Upgraded
Pipeline
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft) Capacity Failure Reason
42 396 system as being capacity constrained under
PWWF conditions. One (1) of the pipeline
sections have been identified as at risk for
potentially surcharging.
13 South Broad and
Capitolio
10 430 One (1) pipeline section on Capitolio exceeds
the capacity criteria under future PWWF
conditions, but not under existing PWWF
conditions.
14 Foothill 10 2,653 Ten (10) pipeline sections, ranging from 6 to 8
in, were identified in this area as being capacity
constrained under PWWF conditions. Nine (9)
of the pipeline sections been identified as at
risk for potentially surcharging. The pipelines
downstream of the Foothill lift station is
significantly impacted by the lift stations
current pumping rate. The City is designing an
upgrade for this lift station, which is schedule
for replacement in 2017. It is anticipated that
the upgraded pump station will have a lower
pumping rate and alleviate the impact on the
downstream pipelines.
City of San Luis Obispo Capacity Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
45
Figure 6‐2. Capacity Constrained Pipeline Projects
Capacity Monitoring
The City should evaluate the use of “smart manhole covers” equipped with ultrasonic level sensing and
cellular connectivity to monitor and report the level of the sewage flow in manholes of concern. The
smart covers can be placed in capacity constrained pipelines at the manhole most likely to surcharge in a
PWWF event. The data can be collected and analyzed to determine if the anticipated surcharging is
occurring, how frequently the surcharge event happens, if there is a correlation between rainfall events
and time of max surcharge (to determine if the surcharge is inflow or infiltration dependent), and to
develop a trend to evaluate if the surcharging is getting worse (requiring action), improving (indicating
successful I/I reduction), or staying the same.
City of San Luis Obispo Capacity Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
46
Lift Station Evaluation
To analyze the capacity of the City’s lift stations to handle PWWF, WSC compared incoming flow rates
against each of the lift stations’ capacities. Table 6‐2 summaries the results of the capacity evaluation
and the recommendations.
Table 6‐2. Lift Station Capacity Analysis
Lift Station Reliable
Capacity
(gpm)
Existing
PWWF
Inflow
(gpm)
Future
PWWF
Inflow
(gpm)
Results/Recommendations
Foothill 300 233 234 Sufficient capacity. Lift station is scheduled to be replaced in FY
2016/17 due to poor condition.
Calle Joaquin 660 735 809 Lift station is in the process of being upgraded.
Laguna 4,000 2,782 2,888 Sufficient capacity. Lift station is new as of 2014.
Madonna 260 NA NA Limited data on inflow. Lift station is in the process abandoned
and flow is to be rerouted.
Margarita 400 107 163 Sufficient capacity. Lift station is scheduled to be replaced in FY
2015/16 due to poor condition.
Silver City 450 190 205 Sufficient capacity. Lift station is scheduled to be replaced in FY
2018/19 due to poor condition.
Tank Farm 2,000 1,203 1,740 Sufficient capacity. Lift station is relatively new, continue
monitoring performance and maintaining condition of lift station.
Prefumo 35 36 37 City has not experienced any capacity issues at this lift station.
Although the model shows a minor exceedance, it is not enough
to be of concern and is within the tolerance of the model and
pump curve. Small lift station in decent condition, City to
continue monitoring.
Airport 240 159 242 Insufficient capacity. Lift station is scheduled to be replaced in FY
2018/19 due to poor condition.
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
47
Condition Evaluation
Current City Process for Using Condition to Establish WWC CIP
As discussed in Section 3.3.1, the City performs CCTV inspection of its gravity sewer pipelines to identify
structural defects or maintenance issues that need to be addressed. The defect observations for each
pipe segment can be combined to assign a grade to the pipe segment. This grade can then be used as
an indicator of whether the pipe segment should be rehabilitated or replaced. Some utilities have
developed their own grading systems and decision processes for selecting pipes for repair and for
assigning priorities. In the City’s case, decisions about rehabilitation are made using a variety of
information collected during CCTV inspections, including defect codes, pipe alignment, and predictive
maintenance schedules.
When determining if a pipeline requires rehabilitation, the wastewater collections staff evaluates a
number of factors associated with operations of the pipeline and prevention of SSOs. The continued
historic presence of roots are one of the collection staff’s highest concerns, followed by deteriorated
pipeline condition. The wastewater collections CCTV inspection program discovers and confirms the
presence of these defects, and if root intrusion or grease buildup are a problem, staff may escalate the
pipe’s ranking on the predictive maintenance schedule to ensure more frequent cleaning.
Discovery of single structural defects, such as a missing pipe, offset joint, or a broken bell within a line
normally do not go in the WWC CIP. Pipelines with this type of defect are flagged as “point repairs” and,
as long as the remainder of the line passes inspection, the line will not be considered for rehabilitation
in the WWC CIP, but the defect will be slated for a point repair.
To prepare the annual WWC CIP, the wastewater collections staff run a series of reports from the
ITpipes and CityWorks databases to determine the pipelines with the most severe root and or structural
defect problems. The preliminary list of the worst pipes are then evaluated by experienced collections
system operators in order to prioritize the need for rehabilitation such as accessibility, hours spent on
maintenance (actually cleaning line), the ability to clean or bypass the pipeline during an emergency
(impediments such as railroad, creek or freeway crossings will elevate the priority) and concerns about
pipeline slope, will raise the pipeline in the preliminary CIP prioritization effort and determine which line
presents the most benefit to the City if rehabilitated.
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
48
Pipeline Condition Evaluation Using CCTV
During the CCTV inspections, the City uses the NASSCO grading system to evaluate each pipe segment.
These grades are input to the database during inspections and a pipeline condition score can then be
calculated by the ITpipes software to rank the condition of each pipe segment. The segment rankings
and individual defect grades from ITPipes were provided to WSC to prepare this analysis. The NASSCO
PACP system has an associated grade for every defect input, ranging from 1 to 5. Separate grades are
assigned for structural conditions and maintenance conditions. The numbers are generally defined as:
5 – Most significant defect grade
4 – Significant
3 – Moderate defect grade
2 – Minor to Moderate
1 – Minor defect grade
A pipe rating can be calculated for each segment by summing all of the defects and their associated
grades. A Structural Pipe Rating (SPR) is calculated for the structural defects, and an O&M Pipe Rating
(MPR) is calculated for the O&M defects. Each of these ratings is the sum of the defect grades for those
defects that were recorded during the inspection. The Overall Pipe Rating (OPR) is the sum of the SPR
and the MPR.
A pipe ratings index can also be calculated to indicate the distribution of defect severity. The pipe
ratings index is the pipe rating divided by the number of defects. A Structural Pipe Ratings Index (SPRI)
is the SPR divided by the number of structural defects in the pipe segment, and the O&M Pipe Ratings
Index (MPRI) is the MPR divided by the number of O&M defects in the pipe segment. The index helps to
show whether a high pipe rating is due to one or two major defects or a large number of minor defects.
The Overall Pipe Rating Index (OPRI) is the OPR divided by the number of structural and maintenance
defects in the pipe segment.
The ratings and indices can be calculated within the ITPipes software using the CCTV data inputs and can
be used as an indicator of pipes requiring additional attention. However, the ratings and indices do not
account for other factors, such as the pipe’s hydraulic capacity, history of overflows, or maintenance
history. Therefore, most utilities do not make rehabilitation decisions based solely on the ratings and
indices calculated from the CCTV defects.
WSC reviewed the defect observations to identify the higher grade defects that have been observed in
the City’s system. There are 233 observations in the City’s database with a grade of 5 (the most
significant defects), the most common being a broken pipe. Some of the defects include a note in the
database that repair is needed. In general, grade 5 defects are evaluated by the City individually and, if
warranted, are assigned to receive point repairs. The breakdown of defect observations with a grade of
4 or 5 are shown in Figure 7‐1. The higher‐grade defects seen in the City’s system are typically related to
fractures, roots, broken pipes, or sags (high grade sags are typically noted by a Camera Underwater
observation in the CCTV data).
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
49
Figure 7‐1. Grade 4 and 5 Observations
Condition Rating Strategy
WSC worked with the City to define a process for rating gravity mains. This process includes the City’s
current practice of performing CCTV inspection and scheduling repairs promptly for defects that are
considered in need of immediate attention. The City’s data sources are integral to the condition rating
process. Without the data being collected by the City for the previous 20+ years, this analysis would not
be possible. The data sources include the GIS database, CMMS (CityWorks), ITpipes CCTV repository,
the SewerGEMS hydraulic model, and the history SSOs. The information used from each of these
sources is described below:
7.1.2.1 CCTV Inspection Data
In August 2014 and January 2015, the City provided an updated CCTV inspection database in the PACP
database format.
7.1.2.2 SSO Data
WSC downloaded the history of SSOs from the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS)
database. The data included a total of 68 events from late 2007 through mid‐2014. Each SSO record
included a location in the form of a street address and/or latitude and longitude. WSC associated each
SSO with the pipe segment where the SSO originated. This association was performed in GIS; in most
cases, the pipe segment immediately downstream of the spill location was selected. WSC also used the
City’s records of SSOs to provide additional information; the City has recorded details for SSO events
since 1989.
Alignment
1%
Broken Pipe
13%
Camera Underwater
13%Crack
2%
Deformed
0%
Deposits
1%
Fracture
32%
Hole
4%
Infiltration
3%
Obstacle
2%
Repair Defective
0%
Roots
29%
Sag
0%
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
50
7.1.2.3 CityWorks
As part of the City’s ongoing sewer maintenance program described in Section 3.2, each pipe is assigned
a maintenance frequency. These frequencies are adjusted as needed based on crew experience with
the individual pipes. As a result, the current maintenance frequency is considered an indicator of the
pipe’s history of issues related to grease, roots, and debris. Pipes on the predictive maintenance
program can have a cleaning and inspection frequency of 2 to 24 months. These frequencies have been
migrated from CityWorks into the City’s GIS database. For this project, WSC queried the maintenance
frequency that was stored in the GIS database for each pipe segment.
7.1.2.4 SewerGEMS
WSC developed a computer hydraulic model of the City’s collection system using the SewerGEMS
modeling software package. That model is being used to identify potential hydraulic capacity
deficiencies and evaluate potential system improvements. If a capacity deficiency is identified, a
recommended improvement project will be developed to address the issue. Therefore, hydraulic
capacity results were not incorporated into the scoring process. Instead, it is expected that the
condition and maintenance based scores can be used to help prioritize capacity improvement projects.
Capacity projects are flagged in the ranking list for reference.
7.1.2.5 GIS
Pipes crossing creeks and railroads are considered higher risk by the City due to inaccessibility for
maintenance. The City’s GIS database includes a field to identify pipes that cross streams. Creek
crossings in this field are labeled as “Buried”, “Exposed/Encased”, and “Suspended”. The database
currently identifies 12,627 feet of pipe as “Buried”, 711 feet as “Exposed/Encased”, and 522 feet as
“Suspended”. The GIS database was also used as the source of information for when each pipe segment
was placed in service. In addition, WSC performed a GIS intersection of the City’s sewer mains with the
route of the Union Pacific Railroad to identify pipe segments that cross under the railroad.
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
51
Condition Rating System
WSC developed an Access database that included links to each of the data sources described above.
Within the Access database, WSC developed queries to organize and compile the information and assign
scores to each pipe segment. These scores can be used to identify and prioritize pipes that could be
candidates for maintenance, inspection, or rehabilitation.
Within the queries there are six criteria: age, maintenance frequency, CCTV inspection data (structural
and maintenance defects), creek crossings, and railroad crossings. The scores were assigned over a
range of 0 to 9 to be consistent with the scores used in I/O (an asset management system the City is
evaluating for future use). The assigned scores are shown in Table 7‐1.
Table 7‐1. Assigned Scores
Assigned Value
Attribute 0 3 5 7 9
Year Placed in
Service
After 1990 1960 – 1990 Before 1960
Maintenance
Frequency
More than 12
months
6 – 12 months 6 months or
less
Structural Pipe
Rating Index (SPRI)
0 ‐ 1 1 ‐ 2 2 ‐ 3 3 ‐ 4 Over 4
Maintenance Pipe
Rating Index (MPRI)
0 ‐ 1 1 ‐ 2 2 ‐ 3 3 ‐ 4 Over 4
Creek Crossing Type None Buried
Exposed /
Encased
Suspended
Railroad Crossing None Pipe crosses
under railroad
Each pipe was assigned a score from 0 to 9 for each of the six criteria. A total score was calculated for
each segment using the formula:
Total Score = Age Score + 2 * Maintenance Frequency Score + 2 * Structural Index Score +
Maintenance Index Score + Creek Crossing Score + Railroad Crossing Score
A higher score indicates and higher priority for rehabilitation. The highest score a pipe could receive is
72, but the highest actual score for a segment was 49. However, most segments were considerably
lower. The cumulative miles of gravity main by total score is shown in Figure 7‐2.
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
52
Figure 7‐2. Cumulative Miles of Gravity Main with Calculated Total Score
The scores were associated with the pipe segments in the GIS database so that the higher‐scoring pipes
could be seen visually on a map. These results are shown in Figure 7‐3. This figure shows that areas
with high‐scoring segments are generally in older areas of the City, close to creeks, and in areas with a
history of maintenance issues.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Condition Evaluation
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015 53
Fi
g
u
r
e
7‐3.
Gr
a
v
i
t
y
Ma
i
n
s
an
d
Th
e
i
r
To
t
a
l
Sc
o
r
e
s
A la
r
g
e
sc
a
l
e
ve
r
s
i
o
n
of
th
i
s
ma
p
is
en
c
l
o
s
e
d
as
Pl
a
t
e
_
_
_
_
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
54
Ranking Algorithm Calibration
The following series of tables compares the condition ranking criteria with a series of other benchmarks
to determine if the proposed condition ranking process presents a realistic interpretation of the overall
condition of the collection system. The tables are:
Table 7‐2. Catchment Average Condition Rankings Compared to I/I Indexes shows the average pipeline
condition for each catchment with the I/I ranking categories developed by WSC (I/I Intensity) and the
Rainfall Dependent Infiltration (RDI), Inflow, and Combined I/I values presented in the 2012 I/I Study. As
expected, there is generally a relationship between I/I ranking and catchment pipeline condition, the
catchments with the higher (worst) average scores having higher I/I rankings than catchments with
lower average (better) pipe condition scores. However, there are a few exceptions as noted in the table.
This supports the theory that poor pipe condition increases I/I. The top eight I/I rankings in each
category are highlighted. The catchments with one or more cells highlighted have the worst I/I.
Table 7‐3. Condition Ratings of CIP Projects shows the average condition rating scores of the City’s 2015
to 2020 planned WWC CIP projects. The average pipe condition for the entire City is 14 as of 2014,
compared to 26 for planned CIPs. The planned WWC CIPs contain some pipeline projects slated for
rehabilitation to address capacity concerns and these segments generally have a much better condition
ranking then the pipelines slated for condition based rehabilitation by the City. The table is arranged by
pipeline location, and may not be a direct correlation with the annual pipeline rehabilitation package.
Table 7‐4. Pipelines Exceeding the Condition Ranking Threshold of 32 shows all pipes in the collection
system, by catchment, with a condition score greater than 32. This represent about 13.2 miles of pipe
(9.3% of the system). A threshold of 32 was selected based on the expected amount of pipe beyond its
useful life. The quantity of pipe with a rating greater than 32 has a correlation with the quantity of pipe
that has exceeded its useful life. See Section 9 for additional information.
The condition rating outcome was then discussed with collection systems operators with field
experience cleaning, inspecting and maintaining the pipelines. There was general consensus that
ranking criteria produced results that were representative of the current condition of the collection
system, and known problem pipes received a high ranking as expected.
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
55
Table 7‐2. Catchment Average Condition Rankings Compared to I/I Indexes
Catchment
Average
Condition
Rating
I/I
Intensity
Ranking
Rainfall
Dependent
Infiltration
Ranking
Inflow
Ranking
Combined
I/I
Ranking Notes
A.3 34.4 22 3 13 7
A.2 26.9 9 24 1 7
D.2 24.4 18 25 10 23
C.2 24.1 6 9 14 12
F.2 22.6 12 15 3 6
E.2 20.0 13 18 7 16
D.1 19.2 17 4 3 3
A.1 19.0 7 5 18 9
B.1 19.0 5 2 2 2
R.2 18.8 3 20 16 22
P.1 Upper 18.8 34 30 26 32
Q.1 18.4 2 7 8 4
R.1 18.2 7 1 8 1
F.1 17.7 36 22 32 31
B.3 17.7 33 14 20 16
H.2 17.0 1 2 12 24
P.2 16.5 15 17 24 21
G.1 15.9 22 29 22 29
Q.2 15.7 19 10 14 12
P.1 15.7 31 30 26 32
I.1 15.6 24 23 37 27
E.1 14.8 16 16 27 18
UM 14.6 27 37 36 38
H.1 14.3 30 25 25 20
C.1 14.3 10 12 21 14
B.2 14.2 36 36 16 30
H.3 13.2 4 5 6 4 Requires investigation
I.2 12.9 28 8 10 11 RDI could be from laterals
J.1 12.8 26 19 23 15
N.2 12.0 14 36 36 37
J.2 11.1 11 10 5 1 Candidate for smoke testing
A.4 10.9 25 13 19 18
M.2 10.5 21 28 33 27
L.1 10.1 35 33 31 33
M.1 9.9 31 21 34 25
L.2 8.7 20 34 35 36
O.1 7.2 28 31 27 26
N.1 6.8 38 34 29 34
O.2 4.1 39 32 30 34
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
56
Table 7‐3. Condition Ratings of CIP Projects
CIP Project
Average CIP
Condition Rating
Albert to McCollum 27
Benton Easement 32
Buchon ‐ Beach to High 15
Buena Vista to Santa Ynez 37
Calle Joaquin 18
Chorro 34
Foothill to Rougeot 36
Garden to Marsh 32
Highland‐ End to Jeffery 15
Highland to Patricia 36
Jeffery to Foothill 23
Jennifer RR Crossing 18
Johnson Buchon to Marsh 20
Longview Bond Chaplin 26
Los Robles to Patricia 26
Luneta to Ramona 27
Marsh to Monterey 27
Meinecke to Murray 28
Mill Santa Rosa to Morro 38
Mission to Broad 34
Oakridge Ease 30
Oakridge to Highland 35
Patricia‐ End to Daly 19
Phillips to Walnut 27
Pismo Archer to S Higuera 19
Pismo Nipomo to Beach 38
Princeton to Highland 20
R/R repair at Iris 38
Rachel 18
RR Crossing/ Rachel 35
S Rosa Palm to Monterey 34
San Luis Drive 14
Santa Barbara Church Osos 19
Serrano to Broad 28
Stafford to RR Crossing 25
Walnut 35
Wilding Lizzie to Johnson 28
Average CIP 26.2
City of San Luis Obispo Condition Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
57
Table 7‐4. Pipelines Exceeding the Condition Ranking Threshold of 32
Catchment
Average
Diameter
Average with
Condition
Score >=32
Total Length
with Condition
Score >=32
UM 7 37.2 11,756
A.1 6 35.9 7,799
C.2 6 36.2 5,055
F.2 6 37.0 3,854
E.2 6 35.0 3,387
H.2 7 36.9 3,123
B.1 7 36.0 2,726
J.1 6 37.8 2,699
I.1 6 37.3 2,663
A.3 6 36.9 2,293
C.1 6 36.6 2,091
G.1 6 38.0 2,019
H.1 6 36.7 1,995
F.1 6 35.4 1,939
P.2 6 34.9 1,816
D.2 6 38.0 1,632
R.2 6 34.0 1,580
A.2 6 40.7 1,534
D.1 6 37.9 1,192
E.1 6 36.8 1,187
R.1 6 34.0 919
O.1 6 32.5 878
J.2 6 34.7 801
B.3 6 35.3 609
Q.1 7 39.0 585
M.1 7 33.5 479
B.2 6 33.3 409
N.1 8 34.0 399
P.1 Upper 6 34.0 356
H.3 6 34.0 346
L.1 10 36.0 328
M.2 10 34.0 310
P.1 6 32.0 289
Q.2 6 32.0 208
I.2 6 36.0 139
Grand Total 6.35 36.4 69,395
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
58
Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
The City’s 2012 I/I Study measured sewer flows at 37 different locations over the course of two
sequential years beginning in January 2010. Gravity flow meters were deployed at 19 sites from January
2010 through March 2010. The following winter, 18 gravity flow meters were deployed from January
2011 to March 2011. Dry weather flow was established during the 2012 I/I Study using gravity flow
meters deployed in October and November 2010. Using the flow data collected during wet and dry
weather flow conditions, V&A was able to analyze the sewer collection flows and make some
conclusions and recommendations regarding I/I in the City. The main recommendation from the 2012
I/I Study was that the City should focus I/I reduction programs on reducing inflow in to the system since
inflow leads to larger peak flows at the WRRF than RDI does. The 2012 I/I Study also ranked each
catchment by a variety of I/I metrics, some of which are utilized in this report, see Table 7‐2.
As shown in Figure 8‐1, there are distinct defect types in the collection system that can contribute to
inflow (shown in green) and to infiltration (shown in blue). The City’s ongoing efforts to rehabilitate
aged sewer mains will not, nor is it intended to, correct inflow into the sewer system. The Wastewater
Collection Section’s sewer main rehabilitation program is a balance of correcting several problems
including infiltration, potential for stoppages, root intrusion, broken pipes and reducing system
maintenance. As stated by Wastewater Collections staff, “90% of maintenance effort is spent on 30% of
the system”. Sewer main rehabilitation, although not specifically or exclusively directed at reducing I/I,
will correct infiltration into the system that is occurring through broken or cracked sewer main pipes. As
can be seen in Figure 8‐1, deteriorated sewer mains are not the only source of infiltration into the sewer
system. Other sources of infiltration include deteriorated manholes and private sewer laterals.
Figure 8‐1. Typical Sources of I/I
Image from City of
Bryan, TX web page. (9)
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
59
Sewer Laterals as a Source of I/I
In the early 1990s, the City evaluated private sewer laterals connected to the wastewater collection
system and discovered that the sewer laterals contributed significantly to the City’s I/I problem. (2)
Laterals contributed I/I in a variety of ways such as pipe joint failure, pipe material failure (i.e.
Orangeburg pipe material), from surface cleanouts, or pipe structural failure. The 2012 I/I Study
addresses lateral replacement as an integral part of reducing overall I/I in the City. (1) In response to the
1990s I/I evaluation, the City implemented a Voluntary Service Lateral Replacement Program (VSLRP) in
1997. During the years the VSLRP was in effect (1997 to 2003 and 2007 to 2011) private sewer lateral
owners (for single family residential homes only) could receive as reimbursement up to one‐half the cost
of the lateral replacement. The VSLRP had a limit of $1,000, which was raised over the course of the
program. The VSLRP helped replace approximately 1,000 sewer laterals; however, there are more than
14,000 private sewer laterals in the City. If each sewer lateral has an average length of 65 feet, that is
more than 172 miles of sewer lateral in the City. Comparing the length of private sewer laterals to the
136 miles of gravity sewer main, it is clear the City needs to focus on engaging private sewer lateral
owners in the maintenance program.
The discovery in the early 1990s that private sewer laterals are a major source of I/I in the City is not a
surprise when considering the length of sewer lateral in the City, and the numerous defects that can
plague a sewer lateral leading to either inflow or infiltration. Defective work, such as missing cleanout
caps, poor joints construction, and inadvertent connection of house drains to the laterals, can all lead to
I/I. Similar to the sewer collection system, the private sewer laterals will deteriorate over time leading
to broken pipes, offset joints, and intrusion of roots into sewer lateral joints. All of these items can lead
to I/I into the collection system through the private sewer laterals.
The responsibility for private sewer laterals is defined in Municipal Code 13.08.010, 13.08.080. The
responsibility of the private property owners to maintain the sewer lateral and control I/I is defined in
General Plan Policy B4.2.1 and Programs B4.3.1 and B4.3.2. (2)
Sewer Lateral Materials of Construction
The private sewer laterals in the City are constructed of a few materials installed over the course of the
City’s history. One common lateral material within the City is Orangeburg pipe (Coal Tar Impregnated
Wood Fibre Pipe), which is cellulose fiber impregnated with coal tar formed into a pipe (similar to a
cardboard tube coated in asphalt). The pipe was manufactured from the late 1800s into the 1970s, with
primary use as a gravity sewer pipe beginning in the 1940s and ending in 1972 when the Orangeburg
plant closed. (6) Orangeburg pipe is very susceptible to failure from crushing, or root penetration. The
quantity of Orangeburg pipe in the City is not known, but the popularity of the material as a sewer
lateral in the City combined with the growth of the City from 8,881 in 1940 to 34,252 in 1980 (7),
suggests there is a large percentage of laterals in the system using Orangeburg pipe. This is consistent
with the Wastewater Collection Section staff experience.
Other pipe materials common in private sewer laterals in the City are salt glazed terra cotta clay pipe,
VCP, and plastic (PVC, HDPE, ABS). According to collections staff, more than 90% of inspected laterals
that are not plastic pipe fail inspection and require rehabilitation or replacement.
According to these observations, the private sewer laterals in the City are a primary source of I/I in the
collection system and in order to reduce I/I in the City, private sewer laterals must be addressed.
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
60
Lateral Rehabilitation Program Options
As documented by previous I/I studies, the repair or replacement of privately owned sewer laterals is a
crucial element in the City’s effort to reduce I/I. (2) (1) Numerous lateral rehabilitation strategies were
reviewed for this document and the following subsections summarize potential lateral rehabilitation
programs for the City’s consideration.. The City should carefully consider the options and assess the
combination of options that best fits the City’s needs for integration into a comprehensive I/I reduction
program combined with the sewer main renewal strategy. Comprehensive rehabilitation of sewer mains
and private laterals is required to address the City’s I/I problem.
Inspection of Sewer Laterals Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Develop an ordinance or policy requiring inspection and testing of sewer laterals prior to issuing a
building permit. If the inspection concludes that repair or replacement of the sewer lateral is necessary,
the City would include the remediation effort as a condition of the permit. The City has been requiring
inspection of laterals prior to issuance of building permits since April 2014. During that time, 20 laterals
have been inspected and 13 required replacement. There are 59 laterals on the list pending inspection
as of April 2015. The lateral inspected or pending inspection under this program are shown in Figure
8‐2. If necessary to continue implementation of the program, example ordinances are provided in the
2012 I/I Study, and reproduced here in Appendix D ‐ Attachment A. (1)
Inspection of Sewer Laterals upon Property Sale
Develop an ordinance or policy requiring inspection and testing of sewer laterals as part of the home
inspection process prior to the sale of a property. If repairs or replacements are required, the monies
for remediation can be held in an escrow account and released upon completion of the required
remediation.
Conduct Public Education and Community Outreach Regarding Sewer Laterals
Conduct community outreach via the City’s website, public events, and in conjunction with adjacent
public works projects. One option is to tie the outreach to the City’s Pavement Management System
schedule to specifically inform customers in areas that will receive pavement rehabilitation in the near
future. Provide limited windows of opportunity for waiver of encroachment fees and possible pavement
repair costs depending on the required pavement rehabilitation options.
Public education and outreach can continue throughout the year to encourage homeowners to
participate in any of the City’s other I/I reduction programs. This is also an opportunity to coordinate
with the proposed WRRF Interpretive Center to provide education on the wastewater collection system,
I/I and the role the public has in the health of the collection system.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
In
f
l
o
w
an
d
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Evaluation
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
61
Fi
g
u
r
e
8‐2.
La
t
e
r
l
a
l
s
In
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
or
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
fo
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
as
of
Ap
r
i
l
20
1
5
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
62
Public/Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Partnerships
As capital improvement projects for mainline sewer replacements or rehabilitations are implemented,
the City could recommend the selected low bid general contractor provide a cost to adjacent properties
for replacement of the private sewer lateral concurrent with the mainline work. To encourage
cooperation with the general contractor, the City could provide a reimbursement allotment for property
owners that participate concurrent with the mainline sewer rehabilitation work. Reimbursement could
be up to a certain percentage of the installed cost (with a defined maximum allowance), or a fixed dollar
amount. The City should consider participating in the outreach process to lend legitimacy to the
approach from the general contractor.
Another option is to act as an intermediary between the general contractor and the property owner.
The City can request a bid item from the general contractor for replacement of sewer laterals, setting
the price to be paid by property owners. The general contractor can then coordinate with the City and
the property owner to get the lateral repaired. The City can pay the general contractor and then enter
into a reimbursement agreement with the property owner for re‐payment of the lateral repair. This can
be combined with other programs such as loan assistance or reimbursements.
A third option is to inspect all laterals within the limits of a mainline sewer rehabilitation project and if
replacement or repair is warranted, require the work be performed. The City could pay the upfront cost
but could then apply a surcharge to the homeowner’s monthly utility bill to cover a certain percentage
of the installed cost over a set payback period.
Sewer Lateral Reimbursement Grant Program
Institute a revamped voluntary sewer lateral reimbursement grant program to encourage property
owners to inspect and repair or replace deficient sewer laterals. The program would be modeled after
the VSLRP program with additional checks and balances to ensure contractor prices do not artificially
inflate to take advantage of the program. The reimbursement program can be coordinated with other
efforts such as Public/Private Partnerships, Encroachment Permit Fee Waivers, Contractor Pre‐
qualifications, and Loan Assistance. Sample Lateral Grant Programs are provided in the 2012 I/I Study,
and are reproduced here in Appendix D ‐ Attachment B, along with an additional example. (1)
Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Loan Assistance Program
In order to help property owners with the upfront costs associated with repairing or replacing private
sewer laterals, the City could offer a low interest loan program to assist with the cost of rehabilitating
sewer laterals. The Loan Assistance program could provide customers the upfront funds to repair or
replace their lateral with repayment through the monthly utility bill or via annual payment through the
property tax bill. The loan would be structured with a low interest rate and friendly payback terms to
encourage repair of sewer laterals. The program could be coordinated with other sewer lateral
replacement programs such as the Public/Private Partnership or Encroachment Fee Waivers. A sample
Loan Assistance Program is provided in Appendix D ‐ Attachment C.
Encroachment Permit Fee Waiver
To facilitate the replacement of private sewer laterals, the City could offer encroachment fee waivers for
lateral replacement projects. The encroachment permit process for sewer lateral replacement could be
simplified and streamlined to encourage lateral replacement. One option for streamlining is to create
an online web‐based method to obtain an encroachment permit for lateral repair. This program could
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
63
be combined with any of the other programs to incentivize lateral repair. In practice, the Sewer Fund
reimburses the General Fund the cost of the encroachment permit since the cost of issuing and
enforcing the permit is funded by the General Fund.
Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Insurance Program
A very different approach is to create an “insurance program” whereby property owners can participate
in the program by being charged a nominal monthly fee. In return, if they have a sewer lateral failure or
need a repair, the City would fund the repairs up to a pre‐established amount. This is more of a service
to private sewer lateral owners then an effort to proactively encourage inspection and rehabilitation of
sewer laterals. A sample Insurance Program is provided in Appendix D ‐ Attachment D.
Contractor Pre‐Qualification and Inspection Waiver Program
Implement a contractor pre‐qualification process such that homeowners could select and contract with
a contractor from the City’s pre‐qualified list. The contractor would perform the work according to the
standards and specifications set by the City and be required to document the work and pressure testing
as proof of workmanship. The City should monitor performance of contractors and remove any
contractor from the pre‐qualified list if they are not meeting quality and documentation guidelines. This
program, if combined with a waiver of inspections, would require dedicated management of the pre‐
qualifications list and review of the documentation submitted by contractors. This option is not
recommended unless extenuating circumstances arise during performance of other programs.
City Department Responsibility for Laterals
As discussed previously, the sewer laterals in the City are owned by the property owner. The
responsibility to maintain the sewer laterals is therefore the sole responsibility of the property owner.
The ownership of the sewer lateral extends from the house or building all the way to the point of
connection at the sewer main and includes the wye at the main. However, City Department
responsibility is not as well defined. WSC understands that the Building Division is responsible for
inspection from the house or building to the public right‐of‐way. At the public right‐of‐way,
responsibility transitions from the Building Division to the Public Works Department. It may streamline
inspection and enforcement of private sewer laterals if only one City Department was responsible for
the task. The City should evaluate how responsibility for private sewer laterals is shared and consider
assigning responsibility for the entire lateral to one department. Considering the normal function of the
Building Department requires extensive communication and interaction with property owners improving
buildings, it may be most effective to extend responsibility for inspection and enforcement of the entire
lateral to the Building Department.
Modeled I/I Reduction Evaluation
The flow monitoring completed with the 2012 I/I Study identified numerous catchments within the
City’s collection system that experience significant I/I and have resulting increased peak flow rates.
These high peak flows under Existing and Future PWWF conditions cause many of the City’s pipelines to
exceed the City’s capacity criteria as established in Section 5. Upsizing or installing parallel pipelines to
address these capacity deficiencies will require a significant investment by the City. To evaluate
potential alternative strategies to limit the number of pipelines that exceed the City’s capacity criteria,
WSC performed an evaluation on the potential to reduce I/I within targeted catchments to assess the
impacts to capacity constrained pipelines by reducing peak flow rates within the collection system.
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
64
Analysis
WSC’s analysis of the potential benefit of I/I reduction on reducing capacity constrained pipelines within
the collection system was performed using the EPS model and adjusting the I/I for eight of the
catchments contributing significant PWWF flow. WSC compared three different scenarios: Baseline;
Scenario 1 (50% reduction in R‐Values); and Scenario 2 (75% reduction in R‐Values). R‐Values in the
model represent the percentage of rainfall that becomes rainfall derived I/I. The specific parameters for
each of the scenarios are outlined in Table 8‐1.
Table 8‐1. I/I Reduction Evaluation Scenarios
Scenario I/I Rate Catchments Evaluated
Baseline Baseline (no change to I/I rates) None
#1 50% Reduction in R‐Values A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, B.3, F.2, P.2, Q.1
#2 75% Reduction in R‐Values A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, B.3, F.2, P.2, Q.1
Collection System Capacity Project Results
The results of the I/I reduction evaluation are include in Table 8‐2. Reducing the R‐Value by 50%
corresponded to a 23% and 22% reduction in surcharged pipelines and pipes > 75% full, respectively. A
75% reduction in the R‐Value corresponded to a 31% and 20% reduction in surcharge and pipes > 75%
full, respectively. The number of pipes > 75% full increased in Scenario 2 from Scenario 1 because, as
flow in the surcharged pipes was reduced, several of the pipelines moved down to the > 75% full
category. Figure 8‐3 presents a visual comparison of the Baseline and Scenario 1 results. As shown, the
capacity constrained pipelines are nearly the same in both scenarios, which indicates that a focused I/I
reduction program may not significantly reduce the number of pipelines requiring upgrades to increase
capacity.
Table 8‐2. I/I Reduction Evaluation Results
Scenario I/I Rate Surcharged
Pipelines
Pipes > 75%
Full
Total No. of Segments
Exceeding Criteria
Baseline Baseline (no change
to I/I rates)
65 45 110
#1 50% Reduction in R‐
Values
50 35 85
#2 75% Reduction in R‐
Values
45 36 79
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
65
Figure 8‐3. I/I Reduction Evaluation Map (Baseline & Scenario 1)
Peak Flow Reduction at WRRF
The reduction of I/I in the 8 largest basins resulted in a peak flow reduction at the WRRF, as shown in
Table 8‐3.
Table 8‐3. Potential I/I Reduction Impacts on Peak Flow at WRRF
Scenario Peak Flow at the WRRF
(mgd)
Baseline Scenario 32.2
I/I Response of 8 Basins Reduced by 50% 28.3
I/I Response of 8 Basins Reduced by 75% 27.6
Obtaining the theoretical reductions in I/I will require an unknown amount of pipeline
replacement/rehabilitation (R/R) and private lateral replacements. The required improvements cannot
be quantified because, to date, the City has not been able to document reduction of I/I on the level
required to reduce I/I at the WRRF. The cost to achieve the required reductions cannot be estimated
without a significant focused effort to reduce I/I using different methods in different catchments and
then measuring the response of the system to the rehabilitation efforts.
City of San Luis Obispo Inflow and Infiltration Evaluation
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
66
To complete this work, the City would need to allocate several years of pipeline R/R and lateral
replacement into one season, focus different methods and combinations of methods in specific
catchments (i.e. one basin gets all mainlines only R/R, another basin gets only private laterals replaced,
and a third could have both) and then measure the response of the catchments to rainfall over the next
winter. The performance measurements can then be used to project the required spend and determine
the most effective methods to achieve the desired reduction in I/I. WSC cannot guarantee the City will
be able to achieve the desired I/I reduction. The City should evaluate the potential benefit at the WRRF
with the modeled reduction shown in Table 8‐3 and, depending on the potential life cycle cost and
benefits at the WRRF, determine if pursuit of additional I/I reduction is warranted.
Relying on I/I reduction to size WRRF components requires that numerous basins receive large
reductions in I/I over a relatively very short time frame. Therefore I/I reduction to reduce WRRF
component size is not considered feasible at this time. The City will monitor the performance of focused
rehabilitation efforts and lateral replacement to determine the effectiveness of I/I reduction over time
to determine if assumptions used to assess the I/I reduction are reasonable.
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
67
Renewal Strategy
There are three facets to the Renewal Strategy:
Capacity Evaluation ‐ The City must assure the capacity of the collection system, prevent SSOs, and
provide for the continued economic growth of the City.
Condition Evaluation ‐ The City has a sewer collection system with some pipelines more than 100
years old and 13% of the mains in excess of expected pipe life of 75 years. Understanding the
condition of the mains allows focused intelligent spend on renewal. Keeping the collection system
in working condition prevents SSOs, and reduces effort to keep pipelines clean and in working
condition. Preventing SSOs protects the environment.
I/I Evaluation‐ The City suffers from intensive I/I. This has been well documented in this report, in
the 2012 I/I Study and in prior work by the Wastewater Collections Section. The I/I appears to be
coming, in part, from private sewer laterals. Creation of a series of programs to address the poor
condition of private laterals in the City will reduce peak flow in the collection system, and helps
assure the capacity of both the collection system and the WRRF. Rehabilitation of old pipelines will
help with I/I, but without addressing laterals, the problem cannot be fully corrected. There are also
collection system defects that pipeline rehabilitation cannot correct, such as leaky manholes, or
cross connections to storm drain systems. Smoke testing and inspection are required to address
these deficiencies. Equitable share of this work requires private lateral owners to correct their
problem concurrent with the City addressing pipeline capacity and condition. By equitably sharing
in the cost of system upgrades, the City can meet the social aspect of triple bottom line planning, as
well as reduce the cost of downstream upgrades, further reducing economic impact to the
community.
Finding the ideal ratio of projects is not a trivial matter and must be accomplished through an adaptive
process that can be flexible to meet changing needs of the City. All three components of the renewal
strategy are important, and inter‐related. The first step is to establish how much pipeline should be
replaced each year. Once that has been determined, the City can then use the condition rating and
capacity evaluation to program pipelines for rehabilitation. Since much of the focused I/I reduction
comes from smoke testing and private lateral rehabilitation, pipeline rehabilitation projects will not
specifically be selected for I/I reduction. However, the poor condition of pipelines, and the location of
poor condition pipelines in catchments with high rates of I/I means rehabilitation of the collection
system will necessarily reduce I/I.
Establishing Rate of Replacement
The condition evaluation strategy described in Section 7 allows the City to calculate a score for each
gravity main segment in the collection system. Pipes with a higher score have more of the typical
indicators that the pipe is at risk for pipe failure (i.e., stoppage or structural failure). The scoring
structure can be adjusted in the future to incorporate different score values or include additional
criteria. The threshold rating of 32 is used for this report to set the pipelines to receive and
prioritization for rehabilitation. However, as the City’s rehabilitation program progresses and the worst
condition pipes are replaced, this threshold should be adjusted to align with the relative condition of the
collection system in future years.
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
68
WSC recommends that the City use the condition scores to help plan future inspection work. Pipes with
a high score should be inspected more frequently so that issues with the potential to lead to pipe failure
or a stoppage can be addressed in a timely manner.
At this time, WSC is not recommending that the City identify pipes for rehabilitation or replacement
based solely on the scores. For example, a potential strategy would be to program pipes for a capital
improvement project when they have a score higher than the threshold. However, since the industry
has still not developed a robust understanding of how sewer pipes degrade over time, such an approach
would likely lead to some pipes being replaced while they still had some useful life remaining. . WSC
recommends using the scores to prioritize inspections, but to make the actual decision to rehabilitate or
replace on a case‐by‐case basis. While making these case‐by‐case decisions, the City needs to plan for
the steady funding that will be needed to rehabilitate and replace pipes as they reach the end of their
useful life. WSC and the City have settled on an average expected lifetime of 75 years for gravity sewer
mains.
Age‐Based R&R Funding
WSC used the year placed into service for each gravity main to plot the miles placed into service each
year. WSC then assumed that each segment had an estimated life of 75 years. This value is a budgetary
estimate; it is expected that some segments will continue to provide adequate service for more than 75
years, while other segments will require rehabilitation before the 75‐year point.
The anticipated need for R/R each year in the future is based on the length of pipe reaching 75 years of
age in that year. In the graph below, the light blue line represents the new need for R/R each year. The
orange line represents the cumulative total of pipe expected to need R/R within the timeframe shown.
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
69
Figure 9‐1. Accumulated Miles of Age Based Deficient pipe
WSC developed alternatives that involved different amounts of R/R activity beginning in 2016. For each
alternative, the annual miles of pipe to be rehabilitated or replaced are shown by the light gray line in
the following figures. The amount of R/R each year is subtracted from the accumulated need, resulting
in variations in the trends for the orange line showing accumulated need.
Alternative 1, shown in Figure 9‐2, evaluates R/R of approximately one mile of pipe per year. Under this
alternative, there would be no reduction in the accumulated need for R/R. Therefore the City should
expect to rehabilitate more than one mile of pipe per year to prevent the accumulated backlog of
deficient pipe from continuing to escalate.
Alternative 2, shown in Figure 9‐3, evaluates the impact from R/R of approximately 2 miles of pipe per
year. This level would need to be maintained for approximately 50 years to catch up with the
accumulated backlog, at which point the annual R/R could be reduced to 1.5 miles per year to maintain
a stable average system age. The accumulated need would fall in the short term, and then would rise to
approximately 18 miles at its high point around 2037. Based on the age of the average pipe in the
system, this will keep the collection system in a condition that is similar to its current state until 2037, at
which point it will begin to improve.
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
70
Figure 9‐2. Age Based R/R Alternative 1 ‐ One Mile per Year
Figure 9‐3. Age Based R/R Alternative 2 ‐ Two Miles per Year
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
71
Alternative 3, shown in Figure 9‐4, evaluates R/R of approximately 3 miles of pipe per year. This
alternative focuses on more quickly reducing the backlog of pipes that have been in service for more
than 75 years. After six years of funding 3 miles per year of R/R, the backlog of deficient pipelines would
be essentially eliminated. From that point on, the annual R/R funding could vary between one and three
miles per year to maintain the accumulated backlog at an acceptable level.
This R/R strategy, combined with an aggressive lateral rehabilitation program comprised numerous
options listed in Section 8, would be required to have a meaningful reduction in I/I to support a decrease
of component size at the WRRF. Actual response of the system to this aggressive R/R strategy has not
yet been proven. The lack of rain the last two winters has prevented the collections department from
gathering data from several recent rehabilitation projects to determine if the projects had a
measureable impact on I/I that could be extrapolated to future R/R work.
Figure 9‐4. Age Based R/R Alternative 3 ‐ Three Miles per Year
The expected costs of these alternatives depends on the mix of open‐cut replacement, cured in place
pipe (CIPP) rehabilitation and pipe bursting that is required. A high level planning estimate for this type
of work is $1,000,000 per mile. Therefore, these three alternatives can be considered to represent an
initial range of $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 per year in R/R funding.
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
72
WSC recommends the City establish a minimum goal to rehabilitate two miles of pipe per year to
prevent the accumulated backlog of deficient pipes from growing and maintain the status quo. If
possible, rehabilitating three miles of pipe per year will improve the overall condition of the system.
Method to Establish Pipeline Prioritization
With a goal of two miles of pipe for R/R each year, the City then needs to know when to upgrade which
pipes. There are several sources of information to help with this determination as discussed in detail in
prior sections of this report. The City can rely on the condition, capacity, and I/I evaluation of the
collection system to determine the most beneficial method to renew the collection system. Here are
three options:
1. Start with worst condition pipelines and work through list.
2. Start in worst I/I basins, and focus the R/R spend on those basins.
3. Start upstream of critical capacity project(s).
There are pros and cons to each method, but the best approach is to incorporate aspects of each
method into the final Renewal Strategy. Since the overall goal of collection systems management is to
assure capacity and reduce SSOs, the worst pipes in the system should be corrected first. The worst
pipes may not be the highest rated using the condition rating criteria developed for this report, but the
worst pipes should be identified from the list of pipelines that exceed the rating threshold (a score of 32
is used for this report). From this list, City staff makes the determination of which pipelines are the
worst and should be programmed into the WWC CIP for R/R is based on high risk flags, I/I intensity and
capacity constraints. This is convenient because the City has already established a list of the worst
pipelines in the system and slated them for R/R in the existing planned WWC CIP. Furthermore, it has
been established in Section 7 that the condition rating method agrees with the planned WWC CIP.
Therefore, the City should proceed through replacement and rehabilitation of the projects already
identified as condition based failures in the WWC CIP. One change is recommended. Projects identified
as capacity constrained in the WWC CIP should be re‐evaluated in light of the capacity analysis
presented in Section 5.
Once the initial list of the worst pipes has been cleared, the City can then focus a portion of the annual
spend (two miles of pipe) on pipeline R/R in the basins with the highest I/I. This, combined with a
private sewer lateral replacement program or programs, will allow the City to monitor performance of
R/R, I/I reduction and lateral replacement effectiveness.
Concurrently, the City should install flow meters downstream of the highest priority capacity projects to
validate the need for capacity upgrades, and estimate on a case by case basis the potential impact I/I
reduction could have on the projects. WSC analyzed the potential capacity reduction that could be
achieved by reducing I/I in several key basins, this work generally reflects the findings of the 2012 I/I
Study.
Adaptation to Changing Conditions. To allow the City to adapt to changing system needs, it is
recommended that the condition ranking be revisited on a 2‐year cycle and that a 5‐year look ahead be
developed at each 2‐year cycle. The City’s databases should continuously be updated as new pipes are
installed, as R/R projects are completed, and as maintenance frequencies are adjusted. This data should
be imported into the condition ranking database to generate new pipeline ranking scores based on
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
73
then‐current collection system condition. If needed, the threshold score to identify top priority projects
can be adjusted to capture a sizeable set of pipelines for R/R consideration. As a comparison, a
threshold of 32 captures approximately 9% of the pipes in the City’s system as of 2014. This cycle will
allow the City to clearly define WWC CIP projects that are prioritized for the following 2 years and
develop a 5‐year look ahead that will identify a set of additional high priority pipelines that should be
closely monitored until the condition ranking process is repeated in 2 years.
Establish Focused Monitoring Program
As discussed in several areas in this report, the City should establish a focused monitoring effort to
determine if money being spent on rehabilitation is reducing system I/I. The City should continue to
identify and group projects within catchment basins to be able to measure response to the
rehabilitation work. Since the data indicates that much of the collection system I/I is coming from
privately owned sewer laterals, a pilot project to focus lateral replacement followed by monitoring of
the flow to determine the benefits achieved will improve understanding of the situation.
The City can also evaluate capacity constrained pipelines using flow monitoring to determine the priority
of replacement or benefits of I/I reduction and rehabilitation in upstream pipelines. This will help the
City determine when to elevate a capacity constrained pipeline to the WWC CIP.
Table 9‐1 presents a set of performance monitoring metrics the City can use to determine if the Renewal
Strategy is effective and adapt the strategy to changing conditions and goals in the City.
Table 9‐1. Renewal Strategy Performance Monitoring
Objective Monitoring Method Goal
Condition Improvement Track installed age of pipe Reduce average system age
Condition Improvement Update condition rating every
other year
Improve average condition rating
Condition Improvement Track feet of pipe on preventative
maintenance program
Reduction in feet of preventative
maintenance each year with no
increase in SSOs
Capacity Assurance Monitor flow in system and use
smart manhole covers to track
surcharge levels
Eliminate SSOs caused by insufficient
pipeline capacity
I/I Reduction Monitor flow in targeted areas of
collection system after performing
rehabilitation in that area
Reduce I/I and evaluate cost
effectiveness of specific I/I reduction
methods
I/I Reduction Monitor flow at the WRRF, and
overall spend on I/I reduction
Compare dollars spent on I/I reduction
to gallons of flow reduced at the
WRRF and evaluate cost effectiveness
of overall I/I reduction program
Biannual Adaptive Renewal Strategy Process Summary
Figure 9‐5 presents a flow chart summarixing the recommended Biannual Renewal Strategy Process.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Renewal Strategy
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015 74
Fi
g
u
r
e
9‐5.
Bi
a
n
n
u
a
l
Ad
a
p
t
i
v
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Renewal Strategy
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015 75
Th
i
s
pa
g
e
in
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
bl
a
n
k
.
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
76
Recommended Projects for Next 20 years
WSC recommends the City plan to rehabilitate an average of 2 miles of pipe per year as discussed in
Section 9.1.1. Detailed recommendations and costs for the planned projects is presented in Section 11.
There are other programs the City should pursue such as I/I reduction pilot studies, smoke testing and I/I
investigations, and ongoing flow monitoring to evaluate system response.
I/I Reduction Pilot on Jeffrey Drive
The City intends to install a flow meter downstream of the planned Jeffery Dr. sewer upgrade project.
During the upgrade project, the City will replace the undersized pipe and evaluate and upgrade
connecting laterals. During the project, the City intends to document the number and condition of
laterals encountered. After the project is completed, the City will re‐install flow meters and evaluate
any observed reduction in I/I.
I/I Public/Private Lateral Replacement Partnership Pilot
The City intends to try a public/private lateral replacement partnership project when the ”Sewerline
Replacement Marsh/Higuera/California” WWC CIP is constructed in 2015. The City intends to encourage
the contractor to reach out to all properties along the pipeline alignment for lateral inspection and
replacement if required. The actual mechanism to contract for and implement the inspection and
replacement is still being developed. The City intends to monitor the before and after wet weather flow
for the catchment after the CIP project is implemented. If possible, the City should consider
coordinating the program trial with one of the other programs, such as the grant, or loan assistance
program. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of lateral replacement, the more laterals that can be
inspected and replaced the better. Lessons learned from the pilot can then be used to consider a larger
scale program for the City.
Smoke Testing and Dye Trace Studies
Considering the importance placed on reduction of inflow in the 2012 I/I Study, the City should initiate a
program to smoke test and follow up with dye trace studies as required. The first candidate for smoke
testing should be Catchment J.2. Catchment J.2 has a very high ranking for overall I/I intensity (Number
1), inflow intensity (Number 5 in intensity) combined with a relatively low RDI ranking (Number 10). This
seems to indicate the source of I/I is primarily from inflow. Smoke testing this area could lead to some
simple fixes with reduction in inflow leading to high peak flows in the system. Depending on the
outcome of the initial smoke testing, the City could continue with an annual allowance and investigation
of other catchments suspected of contributing inflow to the system.
Smart Manhole Covers
The City should evaluate the use of smart manhole covers to monitor critical capacity constrained
pipelines. After an initial deployment of two or three covers, the City can evaluate the effectiveness of
the covers as a tool to manage the collection system. If the covers are providing valuable feedback for
operations and maintenance decisions, the program could be expanded. Refer to Section 6.3 for a
discussion of the need.
City of San Luis Obispo Renewal Strategy
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
77
Maintain Hydraulic Model
The City will have the SewerGEMS hydraulic model available for assessment of proposed developments
and evaluation of potential operational changes in the collections system. The model has been
established with a one to one link to GIS and using that link the City can update the model on a regular
basis as collection system improvements are completed. The City can also verify the loading and
calibration of the model as additional flow monitoring and storm response data is collected.
City of San Luis Obispo Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
78
Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions
The cost opinions (estimates) included in this Renewal Strategy are prepared in conformance with
industry practice and, as planning level cost opinions, will be ranked as a Class 4 Conceptual Opinion of
Probable Construction Cost as developed by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
(AACE) Cost Estimate Classification System (7). The AACE classification system is intended to classify the
expected accuracy of planning level cost opinions, and is not a reflection on the effort or accuracy of the
actual cost opinions prepared for the master plan update. According to AACE, a Class 4 Estimate is to
intended to provide a planning level conceptual effort with an accuracy that will range from ‐30% to
+50% and includes an appropriate contingency for planning and feasibility studies. The conceptual
nature of the design concepts and associated costs presented in this CIP are based upon limited design
information available at this stage of the projects. These cost estimates have been developed using a
combination of data from RS Means CostWorks®, recent bids, experience with similar projects, current
and foreseeable regulatory requirements and an understanding of the necessary project components.
As specific projects progress, the design and associated costs could vary significantly from the project
components identified in this CIP.
The recommended projects and these cost opinions are based on the following assumptions:
1. For projects where applicable cost data is available in RS Means CostWorks® (e.g. pipeline
installation), cost data released in Quarter 3 of 2014, adjusted for San Luis Obispo, is used.
Material prices were further adjusted in some cases to provide estimates that align closer with
actual local bid results.
2. For projects where RS Means CostWorks® data is not available, cost opinions are generally
derived from bid prices from similar projects, vendor quotes, material prices, and labor
estimates, with adjustments for inflation, size, complexity and location.
3. Cost opinions are in 2014 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 9870.12 for September 2014).
When budgeting for future years, appropriate escalation factors should be applied. The past 5
year average increase of the ENR CCI 20 City Average is considered a reasonable factor to use
for escalation.
4. Cost opinions are “planning‐level” and may not fully account for site‐specific conditions that will
affect the actual costs, such as soil conditions and utility conflicts.
5. Construction Costs include the following mark‐up items:
a. 25% construction contingency based on construction sub‐total.
6. Total Project Costs include the following allowances:
a. 15% of Construction Total for project development, including administration,
alternatives analysis, planning, engineering, surveying, etc.
b. 10% of Construction Total for construction phase support services, including
administration, inspection, materials testing, office engineering, construction
administration, etc.
City of San Luis Obispo Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
79
Pipeline Cost
The cost opinions for this Renewal Strategy depend on the mix of CIPP rehabilitation, pipe bursting, and
open‐cut replacement that is required. The cost opinions presented are based on an assumed ratio of
50% CIPP, 25% Pipe Burst, and 25% Open Trench. Table 10‐1 presents a summary of the estimated unit
cost of the various construction types and the blended unit cost based on the assumed ratio.
Table 10‐1. Pipe R/R Unit Costs ($/ft)
Pipe
Dia. (in) Open Trench $/ft CIPP $/ft
Pipe Burst
$/ft
Typical Cost per Foot for
Annual Rehabilitation Work
for Small Diameter Pipe
(50% CIPP, 25% Pipe Burst,
25% Open Trench)
6 $265 $125 $186 $175
8 $275 $100 $193 $167
10 $300 $125 $210 $190
12 $315 $150 $221 $209
15 $340 ‐ ‐ ‐
18 $370 ‐ ‐ ‐
21 $475 ‐ ‐ ‐
24 $525 ‐ ‐ ‐
36 $800 ‐ ‐ ‐
42 $950 ‐ ‐ ‐
48 $1,020 ‐ ‐ ‐
The cost for each pipeline is based on the following assumptions:
Manholes are spaced at 325‐ft.
The sewer is at 8‐ft of cover.
Laterals occur once every 25 feet.
There is a $500 allowance per lateral.
Costs include allowances for contractor mobilization, SWPPP compliance, basic traffic control,
bypass pumping, surveying, cleaning, and pressure testing.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Recommended Projects
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
80
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ta
b
l
e
11
‐1.
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
e
y
Pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ye
a
r
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ju
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
t
)
[m
i
l
e
s
]
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(in) Estimated Cost Estimated Total Annual Cost
1
14
/
1
5
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
7‐Jo
h
n
s
o
n
an
d
Bu
c
h
o
n
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
by
WW
C
as
hi
g
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
SS
O
.
26
4
ft
[0
.
0
5
mi
]
8 $72,000 $1,824,000
R/
R
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
pi
p
e
s
in
Mu
r
r
a
y
,
St
a
f
f
o
r
d
,
Hi
g
h
,
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
,
Ca
l
l
e
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
,
et
c
.
9,
9
3
1
ft
[1
.
8
8
mi
]
6, 8, 12 $1,752,000
2
15
/
1
6
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
No
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
by
WW
C
as
hi
g
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
SS
O
.
‐
‐ ‐ $1,663,000
R/
R
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
pi
p
e
s
in
Mu
r
r
a
y
,
Me
i
n
e
c
k
e
,
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
,
Br
o
a
d
,
Ma
r
s
h
,
et
c
.
9,
5
7
4
ft
[1
.
8
1
mi
]
6, 8 $1,663,000
3
16
/
1
7
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
2‐Je
f
f
e
r
y
,
Da
l
y
an
d
Ce
r
r
o
Re
n
a
l
d
o
6‐De
l
Ca
m
p
o
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
,
He
l
e
n
a
an
d
mi
s
c
.
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
in
hi
g
h
I/
I
ba
s
i
n
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
>3
2
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
3,
4
9
5
ft
[0
.
6
6
mi
]
8,
10, 12 $1,037,000 $2,342,000
R/
R
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
pi
p
e
s
in
We
s
t
m
o
n
t
,
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
,
He
l
e
n
a
,
Sy
d
n
e
y
,
et
c
.
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
>3
2
in
hi
g
h
I/
I
ca
t
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fo
c
u
s
on
A.
1
,
A.
2
,
R.
1
,
an
d
R.
2
.
7,
0
4
1
ft
[1
.
3
3
mi
]
6, 8 $1,305,000
4
17
/
1
8
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
1‐Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
6‐De
l
Ca
m
p
o
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
,
He
l
e
n
a
an
d
mi
s
c
.
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
in
hi
g
h
I/
I
ba
s
i
n
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
>3
2
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
2,
2
8
0
ft
[0
.
4
3
mi
]
10, 18 $753,000 $2,080,000
R/
R
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
pi
p
e
s
in
Se
r
r
a
n
o
,
Me
i
n
e
c
k
e
,
Mu
r
r
a
y
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
,
He
l
e
n
a
,
et
c
.
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
>3
2
in
hi
g
h
I/
I
ca
t
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fo
c
u
s
on
R.
1
,
B.
1
,
D.
1
an
d
D.
2
.
7,
5
4
0
ft
[1
.
4
3
mi
]
6, 8, 10 $1,327,000
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Recommended Projects
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
81
Ta
b
l
e
11
‐1.
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
e
y
Pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ye
a
r
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ju
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
t
)
[m
i
l
e
s
]
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(in) Estimated Cost Estimated Total Annual Cost
5
18
/
1
9
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
1‐Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
4‐Be
e
b
e
e
,
Bu
c
h
o
n
,
Is
l
a
y
an
d
Ge
o
r
g
e
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
in
hi
g
h
I/
I
ba
s
i
n
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
>3
2
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
1,
9
9
0
ft
[0
.
3
8
mi
]
8, 10 $545,000 $1,784,000
R/
R
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
pi
p
e
s
in
Ch
o
r
r
o
,
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
,
Is
l
a
y
,
Me
a
d
o
w
,
et
c
.
Po
o
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
pi
p
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
>3
2
in
hi
g
h
I/
I
ca
t
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fo
c
u
s
on
A.
1
,
Q.
1
,
J.
1
,
an
d
J.
2
7,
0
7
2
ft
[1
.
3
4
mi
]
6 $1,239,000
6‐7
19
/
2
0
‐
20
/
2
1
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
1‐Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
2‐Je
f
f
e
r
y
,
Da
l
y
an
d
Ce
r
r
o
Re
n
a
l
d
o
3‐
Br
a
n
c
h
,
So
u
t
h
an
d
mi
s
c
.
Pi
p
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
by
WW
C
as
pr
o
b
l
e
m
ar
e
a
s
,
or
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
gr
o
w
t
h
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
11
,
3
3
5
ft
[1
mi
/
y
r
]
8,
10, 12,
15
,
18, 21, 24 $7,775,000 $4,935,000 (per year for 2 years)
R/
R
Mi
s
c
.
Pi
p
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
>3
2
,
in
me
d
i
u
m
to
hi
g
h
I/
I
ca
t
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
i.
e
.
A.
1
,
A.
2
,
A.
3
,
C.
2
,
D.
1
(a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
s
)
.
11
,
5
0
7
ft
[1
mi
/
y
r
]
6,
8, 10, 15 $2,094,000
8‐10
21
/
2
2
‐
23
/
2
4
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
1‐
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
an
d
Ch
o
r
r
o
6‐
De
l
Ca
m
p
o
,
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
,
He
l
e
n
a
an
d
mi
s
c
.
7‐
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
an
d
Bu
c
h
o
n
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
pi
p
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
in
ca
t
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
wi
t
h
me
d
i
u
m
to
hi
g
h
I/
I
.
6,
8
7
4
ft
[0
.
4
4
mi
/
y
r
]
8,
10, 12,
15
,
21, 24 $2,977,000 $2,254,000 (per year for 3 years)
R/
R
Mi
s
c
.
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
sc
o
r
e
s
> 32
in
me
d
i
u
m
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
I/
I
ca
t
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
.
21
,
5
7
8
[1
.
3
6
mi
/
y
r
]
6,
8, 10, 12 $3,784,000
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Recommended Projects
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
82
Ta
b
l
e
11
‐1.
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
e
y
Pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ye
a
r
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ju
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
t
)
[m
i
l
e
s
]
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(in) Estimated Cost Estimated Total Annual Cost
11
‐20
24
/
2
5
‐
33
/
3
4
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
3‐
Br
a
n
c
h
,
So
u
t
h
an
d
mi
s
c
.
4‐
Be
e
b
e
e
,
Bu
c
h
o
n
,
Is
l
a
y
an
d
Ge
o
r
g
e
5‐
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
7‐
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
an
d
Bu
c
h
o
n
8‐
Sa
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
,
Me
i
n
e
c
k
e
an
d
mi
s
c
.
9‐Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
,
Co
r
a
l
,
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
fi
e
l
d
s
,
an
d
mi
s
c
10
‐
Vi
s
t
a
La
g
o
,
La
g
u
n
a
,
LO
V
R
an
d
Oc
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
11
‐
Pr
a
d
o
an
d
El
k
s
12
‐
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
13
‐
So
u
t
h
Br
o
a
d
an
d
Ca
p
i
t
o
l
i
o
14
‐
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Dr
i
v
e
15
‐
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
pi
p
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
40
,
0
0
3
ft
[0
.
7
5
mi
/
y
r
]
8,
10, 12,
15
,
21, 27,
30
,
36, 42, 48 $16,746,000 $2,285,500 (per year for 10 years)
R/
R
Mi
s
c
.
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
wi
t
h
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
sc
o
r
e
s
> 32
.
31
,
4
8
6
[0
.
6
mi
/
y
r
]
6,
8, 10,
12
,
15, 30 $6,109,000
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
Recommended Projects
Dr
a
f
t
‐
Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4/15/2015
83
Ta
b
l
e
11
‐2.
An
n
u
a
l
I/
I
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
La
t
e
r
a
l
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
An
n
u
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Na
m
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ju
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Estimated Cost
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
La
t
e
r
a
l
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
La
t
e
r
a
l
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
To
Be
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
Re
d
u
c
e
I/
I
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
an
d
re
n
e
w
th
e
ag
e
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
se
w
e
r
la
t
e
r
a
l
s
Cost depends on program.
An
n
u
a
l
Sm
o
k
e
Te
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
I/
I
So
u
r
c
e
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
an
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
I/
I
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
in
f
l
o
w
us
i
n
g
sm
o
k
e
te
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
dy
e
tr
a
c
e
st
u
d
i
e
s
as
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Lo
c
a
t
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
in
f
l
o
w
wi
l
l
re
d
u
c
e
pe
a
k
fl
o
w
in
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
an
d
sa
v
e
mo
n
e
y
by
de
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
th
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
up
g
r
a
d
e
s
an
d
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
th
e
vo
l
u
m
e
of
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
e
d
at
th
e
WR
R
F
Evaluation: $25,000 to $50,000 Repairs: TBD
Sm
a
r
t
Ma
n
h
o
l
e
Co
v
e
r
s
to
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
Sy
s
t
e
m
Su
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
In
s
t
a
l
l
tw
o
or
th
r
e
e
sm
a
r
t
ma
n
h
o
l
e
co
v
e
r
s
an
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
da
t
a
ob
t
a
i
n
e
d
to
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
if
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
Al
l
o
w
s
Ci
t
y
to
re
p
l
a
c
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
on
l
y
wh
e
n
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
ca
p
i
t
a
l
to
be
sp
e
n
t
on
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
I/
I
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Installation: Monitor and Evaluate:
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
Fl
o
w
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Co
l
l
e
c
t
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
fl
o
w
da
t
a
to
mo
n
i
t
o
r
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
of
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
an
d
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
to
I/
I
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
ef
f
o
r
t
s
.
Al
l
o
w
s
Ci
t
y
to
mo
n
i
t
o
r
an
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
of
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
re
n
e
w
a
l
ef
f
o
r
t
s
.
$20,000 to $50,000 annually (depends on number of locations and responsiveness of weather)
City of San Luis Obispo References
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
84
References
1. V&A. Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and inflow/Infilration Study. 2012.
2. City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department. 2014 Sewer System Management Plan Update. San Luis
Obispo : City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
3. Wastewater Committe of the great Lakes‐Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provinvial
Health and Environmental Managers. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten State
Standards). Albany : Health Research, Inc, 2004.
4. Lindeburg, Michael R. Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam 8th ed. Belmont :
Professional Publications, Inc., 2001. ISBN 1‐888577‐66‐5.
5. Sewer History Organization. www.sewerhistory.org. [Online] April 10, 2015.
http://www.sewerhistory.org/articles/compon/orangeburg/orangeburg.htm.
6. California Department of Finance. CA DoF Historic Census Data. [Online] CA DoF, 4 10, 2015.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDc
QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dof.ca.gov%2Fhtml%2Fdemograp%2Freportspapers%2Fcensussurv
eys%2Fcensus‐historical%2Fdocuments%2Fcalhist2.xls&ei=Zx4oVcj2H4n1oATQuYC4Bg&usg=AFQ.
7. Brown and Caldwell. City of San Luis Obispo Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan. May 6, 2011.
8. City of Bryan, Texas. City of Bryan. [Online] City of Bryan, 04 10, 2015.
http://www.bryantx.gov/water‐services/wastewater‐treatment‐and‐compliance/.
City of San Luis Obispo Appendix A
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
A
HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Technical Memorandum
4/7/2015 Page 1 of 7
Hydraulic Model Development TM_WCSIRS_Final_v1.docx
Date: 4/7/2015
To: Jennifer Metz Phone: (805) 929‐1133
Utilities Department
City of San Luis Obispo
CC: Bud Nance
Prepared by: Spencer Waterman;Daniel Heimel, P.E.
Reviewed by: Joshua Reynolds, P.E. Jeroen Olthof, P.E.
Project: Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
Subject: DRAFT Hydraulic Model Development TM
This Technical Memorandum (TM) describes Water Systems Consulting Inc.’s (WSC’s) development of a
sewer system hydraulic model for the City of San Luis Obispo (City) as part of the Wastewater Collection
System Infrastructure Renewal project (WCSIRS).
WSC developed an all‐pipes hydraulic model to evaluate the capacity of the collection system pipelines to
deliver existing and projected future flows. Information on the capacity constrained pipelines will be
combined with results of WSC’s pipeline condition assessment to develop recommendations for future
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).
This TM is organized in the following sections:
Section 1. Model Development ...................................................................................................................... 1
Section 2. Calibration ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Section 3. References ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Attachment #1. WRRF Hydrograph Development Technical Memorandum .................................................... 7
Section 1. Model Development
To identify the software package for developing the hydraulic model, WSC reviewed the available data and
discussed the options available with City staff. SewerGEMS, a GIS based hydraulic modeling platform
marketed by Bentley® was selected for the project.
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
DRAFT Hydraulic Model Development TM
4/7/2015 Page 2 of 6
Hydraulic Model Development TM_WCSIRS_Final_v1.docx
The assets in the model were generated by importing the asset information contained in the City’s GIS
databases into the model. The City frequently updates its GIS dataset and stated that it accurately
represents the current collection system.
The manhole, cleanout and lift station features from the GIS were imported to create the point features
within the model. The City’s unique identifier was used to maintain the connection between the GIS and
model features. The GravityMain and Forcemain features were imported to create the pipeline features in
the model. During the development of the model, WSC reviewed the features from the City’s GIS to
identify elements in the GIS to be excluded from the model (e.g. private sewer pipes, dead‐end pipes, etc.).
Lift stations in the model were developed using information obtained from the City’s Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP). The SSMP contains information on the number of pumps and the rated capacity
of each lift station.
1.1. Surveying
To assist the City in obtaining highly accurate elevation data for its collection system, WSC contracted
Penfield & Smith to perform a high accuracy (<=0.2 ft vertically) survey of 650 out of 2,928 manholes within
the collection system. Accurate elevation data is necessary to be able to evaluate the capacity of the
pipelines within the collection system.
To identify the highest priority manholes and pipeline segments for inclusion in the survey program, WSC
identified a set of ranking criteria that could be applied to each pipeline segment. These criteria included
pipeline diameter, current and future flow rates, presence of jumper manholes, required preventative
maintenance frequency and ground surface slope. These criteria, along with input from City staff, were
utilized to select the 650 manholes to be included in the survey program. Elevation data for an additional
129 manholes was identified in record drawings from recent projects and provided to WSC for use in
developing the model.
The manhole survey was completed primarily using real time Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques.
Beginning in December 2013, Penfield & Smith performed a static Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
control survey in preparation for the location & elevation collection system survey. Control was established
on two reference base stations to allow for Real Time Kinematic (RTK) survey to collect location and
elevation on manhole lid/rims. All invert depths and pipe sizes were manually observed. The control survey
consisted of static GNSS utilizing 3 Trimble R8 Model 2 GNSS receiver units that were used to realize the
City of San Luis Obispo Horizontal Control Network (North American Datum of 1983, epoch 1991.35) and
the City of San Luis Obispo Bench Mark System (North American Vertical Datum of 1988). Six horizontal
points and six vertical points from the City’s networks were observed for a minimum of 30 minutes and up
to one hour sessions. Data was post‐processed along with the City's continuously operating base station
GIS_GNSS and a stationary backup base in a minimally constrained least squares adjustment. One
horizontal control point and two vertical control points were treated as outliers and freed in a fully
constrained adjustment. The resulting coordinates for the base stations had residuals less than or equal to
0.018 feet horizontally and 0.027 feet vertically.
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
DRAFT Hydraulic Model Development TM
4/7/2015 Page 3 of 6
Hydraulic Model Development TM_WCSIRS_Final_v1.docx
The RTK survey used GIS_GNSS station or the backup station as a reference base for all observations and
Trimble R8 Model 2 units as rovers. A tolerance of 0.2' was set for data collection; any point with an RTK
vector at or outside that tolerance was re‐observed by RTK until satisfactory or located by conventional
total station traversing. City horizontal and vertical benchmarks were checked into at a minimum at the
start and end of each work day with additional benchmark observation as convenient. Invert and pipe size
data was measured using a fiberglass invert rod and Pipe‐Mic extension tool. Original field notes and
observations are kept by Penfield & Smith.
Section 2. Calibration
An evaluation of the ability of the model to represent observed conditions within the collection system or
calibration was performed by comparing the observed and estimated flow depths for each of the
monitoring locations against the modeled flow depths for the ADWF. To test calibration of the PWWF
scenarios an Extended Period Simulation model was used to compared modeled flow rates against two rain
storm events observed during the 2012 I/I Study. The calibration identified that the model was able to
reasonably match the observed flow conditions for most of the monitoring locations. However, there were
some locations where the model did not match the observed condition. The discrepancies between the
model and the observed conditions could be related to several potential factors, which are listed below:
To develop the estimates of ADWF sewer flows, WSC utilized water customer records for January
2011. Some customers may have used water for landscape irrigation demand or some other
consumptive use that did not enter the collection system.
During the ADWF flow monitoring data collection there were several rain events. These events
could contribute I/I flows to the collection system that would not be captured in the winter water
consumption data used to develop the ADWF spatial allocation.
Blockages or flow constrictions in the pipelines are not included in the model and could contribute
differing flow depths in the model compared to the observed conditions in the field.
There are numerous diversion manholes within the collection system that are difficult to model
with high level of accuracy due to their unique hydraulic configurations.
However, even with these potential differences the modeled flow depths are in reasonable agreement with
the observed data.
2.1. Average Dry Weather Flow
To test the calibration of the model under dry weather conditions, the flows depths under ADWF within the
model were compared against the observed ADWF flow depths for each of the locations monitored during
the I/I study. Locations where survey invert elevation data was not collected were excluded from the
calibration analysis. Figure 2‐1 shows a comparison of the observed and modeled flow depths under ADWF
conditions.
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
DRAFT Hydraulic Model Development TM
4/7/2015 Page 4 of 6
Hydraulic Model Development TM_WCSIRS_Final_v1.docx
Figure 2‐1. ADWF Calibration
2.2. Peak Wet Weather Flow
The PWWF calibration was performed using the EPS model and two observed rain events from the 2012 I/I
Study completed by the City: the March 19th‐20th, 2011 rainfall event (4.38 inches of rain over 48 hours)
and the January 1st‐5th; 2011 rainfall event (2.6 inches of rain over the first 48 hours). The modeled flow
rates were then compared to the observed flow values at the WRRF and are shown in Figure 2‐2 through
Figure 2‐5. Additional information on the WWF calibration is contained in Attachment #1.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Mo
d
e
l
e
d
AD
W
F
De
p
t
h
(f
t
)
Observed ADWF Depth (ft)
Flow Depth
Y=X
+/‐ 0.2 ft
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
DRAFT Hydraulic Model Development TM
4/7/2015 Page 5 of 6
Hydraulic Model Development TM_WCSIRS_Final_v1.docx
Figure 2‐2. Observed and Modeled Flow at the WRRF for January, 2011 Event using Basin‐Specific RTK Sets
Figure 2‐3. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for January, 2011 Event using Basin‐Specific RTK Sets
0
1
2
30
5
10
15
20
020406080100120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
January 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
020406080100120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Fl
o
w
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
Observed
Modeled
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
DRAFT Hydraulic Model Development TM
4/7/2015 Page 6 of 6
Hydraulic Model Development TM_WCSIRS_Final_v1.docx
Figure 2‐4. Observed and Modeled Flow at the WRRF for March, 2011 Event using Basin‐Specific RTK Sets
Figure 2‐5. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for March, 2011 Event using Basin‐Specific RTK Sets
Section 3. References
1. V&A. Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study. 2012.
2. Brown and Caldwell. City of San Luis Obispo Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan. May 6, 2011.
0
1
2
3
4
50
5
10
15
20
25
020406080100120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
March, 2011
March 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
020406080100120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Fl
o
w
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ga
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
March, 2011
Modeled
Observed
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
DRAFT Hydraulic Model Development TM
Attachment #1. WRRF Hydrograph Development
Technical Memorandum
Date: 11/4/2014
To: Carrie Mattingly Phone: (805) 781-7205
Utilities Director
879 Morro St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CC: Dave Hix; Howard Brewen; Pam Ouellette
Prepared by: Jeanine Genchanok, EIT
Reviewed by: Jeroen Olthof, PE; Jeffery Szytel, PE; Lianne Williams, PE
Project: Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project
SUBJECT: INFLUENT HYDROGRAPH SIMULATION FOR THE WRRF - FINAL
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) is undertaking a series of upgrades to the Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WRRF) located on Prado Road in San Luis Obispo, CA. These upgrades, collectively referred to
as the WRRF Project, represent a significant community investment and will help the City implement its
long-term strategy for resource management. In addition, as part of the Wastewater Collection System
Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS), Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) has developed a
hydraulic model to evaluate the capacity of the collection system pipelines. This Technical
Memorandum (TM) describes WSC’s development and calibration of the sewer system hydraulic model
to simulate the influent hydrograph at the WRRF under various conditions.
The purpose of this TM is to describe the modeling process and provide the calculated influent
hydrograph at the WRRF for the 10-yr, 24-hour design storm.
This TM is organized in the following sections:
Contents
Section 1. Model Development and Calibration ........................................................................................... 2
Section 2. Modeled Hydrographs at the WRRF: System-Wide RTK Values .................................................. 4
Section 3. Modeled Hydrographs at the WRRF: Basin Specific RTKs .......................................................... 10
Section 4. 10-Year, 24-Hour Design Storm ................................................................................................. 14
Section 5. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 17
Section 6. References .................................................................................................................................. 17
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 2 of 17
Section 1. Model Development and Calibration
The hydraulic model of the City’s collection system was updated in SewerGEMS (Bentley®) to include
elevations for manhole inverts that had not been previously surveyed. Missing invert elevations were
interpolated between surveyed values or estimated using an assumed minimum slope. Basins were
defined in the model, using the flow monitor basins defined in the 2012 V&A Sanitary Sewer Flow
Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study. In some cases the basin boundaries were adjusted based on
updated collection system information gathered as part of the WCSIRS project. Each basin was assigned
an outlet manhole where the basin’s flow was added to the system.
Figure 1 provides a sample observed hydrograph for monitoring location A.2 (manhole HO6-5: 269 Craig
Way) corresponding to the inflow for basin A.2. On the graph, rainfall is shown in the blue bars on an
inverted scale. The solid black line represents the total observed flow at the meter. The dashed black
line is the estimated dry weather flow at the monitoring site, based on measurements taken during
periods with no rain. The area between the solid black line and the dashed black line represents the
rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow and is shaded a light green.
Figure 1. Sample Rainfall and Flow Data Provided by V&A
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 3 of 17
The hydraulic model was used to simulate the collection system’s response to rainfall events. For the
WRRF Project, the team developed sets of response factors using the three-triangle R-T-K method. This
method involves creating a synthetic unit hydrograph based on the summation of three triangles. The
first RTK triangle corresponds to rapid inflow, the second to moderate infiltration, and the third to slow
infiltration. Each triangle is defined by three variables:
R is the percentage of rainfall that becomes rainfall derived inflow and infiltration (RDII)
T is the time from when the rain falls to the peak of the RDII
K is a lag coefficient that describes how long RDII continues to enter the system. The time from
the peak RDII until the end of the RDII is equal to K * T
An illustration of a synthetic unit hydrograph derived from three triangles is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Example Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Using R-T-K Triangles
The unit hydrograph is used to simulate the response to a unit (one inch) of rainfall. For each of the
three triangles, T is the time in hours until the peak of the triangle; the recession limb of the triangle has
a duration of K * T; and the area under the triangle is R. With three factors (R, T, and K) for each of
three triangles, a total of nine factors define a set of response factors.
Through iterative model simulations, WSC developed sets of response factors to calculate a hydrograph
of expected flow in response to a rainfall event. Figure 3 illustrates an example of RTK values assigned
for a basin within SewerGEMS.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fl
o
w
i
n
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
U
n
i
t
o
f
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
Time (Hours)
Triangle 1 Triangle 2 Triangle 3 Combined Unit Hydrograph
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 4 of 17
Figure 3. Sample Basin Parameters
The four rainfall events from the V&A study were applied to the hydraulic model, and hydrographs were
generated for each basin and for the influent hydrograph to the WRRF. WSC also used the model to
simulate additional rainfall events in January and March of 2011.
Section 2. Modeled Hydrographs at the WRRF: System-Wide RTK
Values
Initially WSC focused on developing a system-wide set of RTK values that could be used to calculate a
response hydrograph from all the basin’s. WSC ran an extended simulation for a five-day period. WSC
first simulated dry weather flow to the WRRF. The modeled hydrograph for dry weather flow was
compared to observed dry-weather flow data from April 7-11, 2014 as shown in Figure 4.
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 5 of 17
Figure 4. Observed and Modeled Dry Weather Flow at the WRRF
Figure 5. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Dry Weather Flow at the WRRF
There was generally good agreement between the modeled and observed dry weather flows.
WSC then ran the model to simulate two rainfall events: the March 19th-20th, 2011 rainfall event (4.38
inches of rain over 48 hours) and the January 1st-5th, 2011 rainfall event (2.6 inches of rain over the first
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
MG
D
Time (hours)
Modeled Observed
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
l
o
w
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
Modeled
Observed
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 6 of 17
48 hours). The calculated hydrographs at the plant for present conditions were compared to observed
flow values that were transcribed from the circle chart data by HDR.
Table 1 lists RTK values that were found to best match modeled and observed flows for the March 2011
rainfall event.
Table 1. RTK Set 1
R1 0.008 R2 0.008 R3 0.025
T1 1 T2 6 T3 24
K1 1 K2 2 K3 3
The model results using RTK Set 1 appeared to be in reasonable agreement with the observed flows
from the March 2011 event and for the first part of the January 2011 event. However, the January 2011
event showed an extended response of elevated flows for several days after the peak rainfall, with no
additional rainfall recorded. It is not clear if these results are due to inaccurate flow measurements or if
elevated groundwater levels due to the wet winter caused an extended response. WSC developed a
second set of RTK values to generate a modeled response that matched the observed response for the
January 2011 event. These values are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. RTK Set 2
R1 0.01 R2 0.01 R3 0.04
T1 2 T2 6 T3 24
K1 1 K2 2 K3 3
A flow comparison and a cumulative flow analysis for each RTK set are illustrated in the figures below.
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 7 of 17
Figure 6. Observed and Modeled Flow at the WRRF for the March, 2011 Rainfall Event using RTK Set 1
Figure 7. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for the March, 2011 Rainfall Event
using RTK Set 1
0
1
2
3
4
50
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
March 2011
March 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
l
o
w
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
March, 2011
Modeled
Observed
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 8 of 17
Figure 8. Observed and Modeled Flow for the January, 2011 Rainfall Event using RTK Set 1
Figure 9. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for the January, 2011 Rainfall Event
using RTK Set 1
0
1
2
30
5
10
15
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
January 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
l
o
w
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
Observed
Modeled
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 9 of 17
Figure 10. Observed and Modeled Flow at the WRRF for January, 2011 Event using RTK Set 2
Figure 11. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for January, 2011 Event using RTK Set
2
0
1
2
30
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
January 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
l
o
w
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
Observed
Modeled
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 10 of 17
Figure 12. Observed and Modeled Flow at the WRRF for March, 2011 Event using RTK Set 2
Figure 13. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for March, 2011 Event using RTK Set
2
Section 3. Modeled Hydrographs at the WRRF: Basin-Specific RTK
Sets
After reviewing and discussing the results obtained with the system-wide RTK sets, WSC developed
individual RTK sets for each basin to better simulate the response to varying storm events within each
basin. For each basin, WSC developed a set of response factors that best matched the observed
response across both of the storm events as presented in the basin-specific hydrographs prepared by
V&A. Basins are illustrated in Figure 14 below. In addition, constant values of groundwater infiltration
were added to select basins to model elevated flows not related to a specific storm event. The
calculated hydrographs using the basin-specific RTK values are shown in the following figures.
0
1
2
3
4
50
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
March 2011
March 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
l
o
w
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
March, 2011
Modeled
Observed
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 11 of 17
Figure 14. Basin Areas Map
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 12 of 17
Figure 15. Observed and Modeled Flow at the WRRF for January, 2011 Event using Basin-Specific RTK
Sets
Figure 16. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for January, 2011 Event using Basin-
Specific RTK Sets
0
1
2
30
5
10
15
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
January 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
l
o
w
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
January, 2011
Observed
Modeled
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 13 of 17
Figure 17. Observed and Modeled Flow at the WRRF for March, 2011 Event using Basin-Specific RTK
Sets
Figure 18. Observed and Modeled Cumulative Flow at the WRRF for March, 2011 Event using Basin-
Specific RTK Sets
0
1
2
3
4
50
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
March, 2011
March 2011 Rainfall
Modeled Flow at the WRRF
Observed Flow at the WRRF
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
F
l
o
w
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Time (hours)
March, 2011
Modeled
Observed
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 14 of 17
Section 4. 10-Year, 24-Hour Design Storm
The calibrated model was used to generate a hydrograph at the WRRF for the 10-yr, 24-hr design storm.
The design storm precipitation profile was developed by V&A and is shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19. 10-yr, 24-hr Design Storm Precipitation Profile (V&A)
The model was run using current development and build-out conditions (as defined for the capacity
analysis in the WCSIRS project). A summary of peak flows for dry and wet weather for present and
future (build-out) conditions using the three different RTK sets is shown in Table 3 and illustrated in
Figures 20-22. A comparison of the hydrographs calculated using different RTK parameters is illustrated
in Figure 23.
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 15 of 17
Table 3. Model Flow Summary
Current Peak Dry
Weather Flow (MGD)
5.80
Build Out Peak Dry
Weather Flow (MGD)
9.15
RTK Set 1 RTK Set 2 Basin-Specific RTK Sets
Current PWWF (MGD) 31.41 36.00 32.18
Build Out PWWF (MGD) 32.11 36.74 33.49
Figure 20. Modeled 10-Yr, 24-hr Design Storm using RTK Set 1
Figure 21. Modeled 10-Yr, 24-hr Design Storm using RTK Set 2
0
1
2
3
4
50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
10-yr, 24-hr Design Storm Rainfall
Modeled Current Conditions
Build_Out Conditions
Dry Weather Flow (Build Out Conditions)
Dry Weather Flow (Current Conditions)
0
1
2
3
4
50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
10-yr, 24-hr Design Storm Rainfall
Modeled Current Conditions
Build_Out Conditions
Dry Weather Flow (Build Out Conditions)
Dry Weather Flow (Current Conditions)
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 16 of 17
Figure 22. Modeled 10-Yr, 24-hr Design Storm using Basin-Specific RTK Sets
Figure 23. Comparison of Build Out Flows
0
1
2
3
4
50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
10-yr, 24-hr Design Storm Rainfall
Modeled Current Conditions
Build_Out Conditions
Dry Weather Flow (Build Out Conditions)
Dry Weather Flow (Current Conditions)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fl
o
w
(
M
G
D
)
Time (hours)
RTK Set 1, Build Out 10-Yr Storm
RTK Set 2- Build Out 10-Yr Storm
Basin Specific RTK Set, Build Out 10-Yr Storm
WRRF Project
Influent Hydrograph Simulation for the WRRF - FINAL
Page 17 of 17
Section 5. Recommendations
This TM describes two rounds of analysis to simulate wastewater flow responses at the WRRF. In Round
1, hydrographs were calculated using two different sets of RTK factors to simulate the wastewater flow
response to two specific rain events (January, 2011 and March, 2011). In Round 2, hydrographs were
calculated using unique RTK parameters for each basin rather than a uniform system-wide set. In
addition, Round 2 included the addition of groundwater infiltration to some basins to reflect higher
flows during the wet season that were not related to a specific storm event.
It is recommended that the City consider taking the following steps:
Perform additional flow monitoring this winter with a goal of capturing flow data for more
storm events.
Use the model with the basin-specific RTK sets for future analysis. The basin-specific RTK sets
were developed to match the observed response across multiple storm events. The calculated
hydrograph at the WRRF using the basin-specific RTK sets appears reasonable in light of
operator experience and previous studies.
Section 6. References
1. V&A. Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study. 2012
City of San Luis Obispo Appendix B
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
B
PIPELINES EXCEEDING CAPACITY CRITERIA
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
101 S
B
R
O
A
D
101 N
O
R
C
U
T
T
TANK
F
A
R
M
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
MILL
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
HIGU
E
R
A
PISM
O
MADO
N
N
A
FOOTHILL
MAR
S
H
HIGH
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
HIGHLAND
LEFF
FOOT
H
I
L
L
W
ISLA
Y
F
L
O
R
A
PR
A
D
O
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
T
O
R
O
SOUTH
O
S
O
S
BUC
H
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
M
O
R
R
O
PEAC
H
ELK
S
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
SAN
L
U
I
S
N
I
P
O
M
O
ELLA
LOOMIS
BISH
O
P
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
P
O
I
N
S
E
T
T
I
A
BRANCH
LA
U
R
E
L
PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
DIAB
L
O
B
U
L
L
O
C
K
H
I
L
L
LUNETA
G
A
R
D
E
N
D
E
L
R
I
O
O
C
E
A
N
A
I
R
E
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
FULLE
R
VAL
L
E
V
I
S
T
A
PALM
B
E
A
C
H
G
R
A
N
D
CA
L
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
ROY
A
L
S
A
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
LI
N
C
O
L
N
P
E
P
P
E
R
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
SUBURBAN
CA
S
A
LIZZ
I
E
WOODBRIDGE
MIOSS
I
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
OLIV
E
GAT
H
E
G
R
O
V
E
C
A
R
M
E
L
L
I
M
A
SANDERCOCK
SLACK
B
A
L
B
O
A
WALN
U
T
INDUS
T
R
I
A
L
CERRO ROMAULDO
TIBU
R
O
N
LO
N
G
BE
E
B
E
E
LAWRENCE
SYDN
E
Y
McCOLLUM
FREDERICKS
D
A
L
I
D
I
O
HAYS
NAS
E
L
L
A
DAN
A
HOPE
CHU
R
C
H
LA
W
T
O
N
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
SPAN
I
S
H
O
A
K
S
MARGARI
T
A
UPH
A
M
GOLDENROD
S
I
E
R
R
A
BRIDGE
IRIS
VI
A
L
A
G
U
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
SOUTHWOOD
H
U
A
S
N
A
G
U
L
F
HIND
G
A
L
L
E
O
N
F
E
R
R
I
N
I
OAK
HANSEN
IRONBARK
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
EL
M
TANGLE
W
O
O
D
SERRANO
CORRIDA
BOND
MURRAY
HOPKINS
MITCHELL
SAGE
MISSION
GR
A
V
E
S
WA
V
E
R
T
R
E
E
PRE
F
U
M
O
C
A
N
Y
O
N
KI
N
G
K
L
A
M
A
T
H
ISABELLA
H
E
L
E
N
A
SA
N
T
A
F
E
GRANADA
AL
-
H
I
L
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
LAG
U
N
A
OJAI
GEO
R
G
E
D
E
E
R
1
0
1
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
E
R
CAUDILL
T
O
N
I
N
I
DALY
CLARION
L
A
E
N
T
R
A
D
A
E
L
M
E
R
C
A
D
O
FELTON
M
I
R
A
D
A
AL
B
E
R
T
STONERIDGE
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
T
O
TRUCKEE
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
V
I
A
C
A
R
T
A
J
E
A
N
ZA
C
A
S
E
Q
U
O
I
A
CAPI
T
O
L
I
O
CO
R
R
A
L
I
T
O
S
HO
O
V
E
R
GA
R
I
B
A
L
D
I
FEL-MAR
NORTH PER
I
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
DEVA
U
L
R
A
N
C
H
DES
C
A
N
S
O
MON
T
A
L
B
A
N
MEINECKE
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
FERN
W
O
O
D
ALDER
MALIBU
CRAIG
FIERO
BO
Y
S
E
N
CU
E
S
T
A
PA
R
K
E
R
CENTE
R
SOUTH PER
I
M
E
T
E
R
PR
I
C
E
WILSON
ALR
I
T
A
FONTANA
B
I
N
N
S
K
E
R
R
Y
CHUMASHATAS
C
A
D
E
R
O
MA
P
L
E
VI
S
T
A
B
R
I
S
A
H
E
D
L
E
Y
STAFFORD
LE
O
N
A
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
RAMONA
HE
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
DEL SUR
T
H
E
L
M
A
GARFIELD
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
QUA
I
L
W
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
R
E
W
S
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
S
ST
O
R
Y
OAK
R
I
D
G
E
S
P
O
O
N
E
R
M
U
G
U
CROSS
POLY VI
E
W
101
N
O
F
F
VE
R
D
E
P
I
N
E
C
O
V
E
BIR
C
H
EL
L
E
N
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
H
O
L
L
Y
H
O
C
K
101
S
O
F
F
GAR
C
I
A
A
L
M
O
N
D
SH
O
R
T
HA
R
R
I
S
RA
C
H
E
L
ABBOTT
10
1
N
O
N
RA
F
A
E
L
PIN
E
FL
O
R
E
N
C
E
CO
N
E
J
O
ME
A
D
O
W
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
N
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
VI
S
T
A
L
A
G
O
S
T
A
N
F
O
R
D
SI
S
Q
U
O
C
VA
C
H
E
L
L
L
O
S
C
E
R
R
O
S
HAZ
E
L
CLOVE
R
PERK
I
N
S
WARREN
DEL NORTE
LOS VERDES
LO
S
P
A
L
O
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
HARMONY
DEL MAR
R
O
S
E
HU
T
T
O
N
C
A
P
I
S
T
R
A
N
O
I
L
E
N
E
CA
Z
A
D
E
R
O
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
J
A
N
E
KA
R
E
N
HILL
C
R
E
S
T
MEISSNER
WESTMONT
MA
R
I
P
O
S
A
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
A
V
A
L
O
N
FUNSTON
FRAN
C
I
S
MARLENE
VI
S
T
A
C
O
L
L
A
D
O
S
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
SANTA YNEZ
HER
M
O
S
A
POR
T
O
L
A
P
O
A
COR
D
O
V
A
C
O
U
P
E
R
CUYAMA
SA
W
L
E
A
F
ST
E
N
N
E
R
LA
C
A
N
A
D
A
BONETTI
JUNIPERO
CY
P
R
E
S
S
DU
N
C
A
N
BU
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
AERO
V
I
S
T
A
VIA LA PAZ
CHUPARROSA
EX
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
C
H
A
P
L
I
N
BL
U
E
R
O
C
K
W
A
L
K
E
R
SLENDER ROCK
P
A
R
K
L
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
TUL
I
P
BED
F
O
R
D
CACHUMA
VEGAFRA
M
B
U
E
S
A
VIA SAN
B
L
A
S
EM
P
L
E
O
BR
I
Z
Z
O
L
A
R
A
WEST
LA
R
K
S
P
U
R
L
E
M
O
N
RE
D
W
O
O
D
BAY LE
A
F
CALL
E
C
R
O
T
A
L
O
W NE
W
P
O
R
T
MOUN
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
SNAPDRAGON
S
U
N
S
E
T
EL CA
P
I
T
A
N
R
U
T
H
SEAW
A
R
D
F
A
I
R
W
A
Y
BE
E
C
H
T
A
H
O
E
CAS
T
I
L
L
O
RO
S
I
T
A
BE
N
T
O
N
E
L
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
CE
D
A
R
O
'
C
O
N
N
E
R
SA
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
D
E
L
C
A
M
P
O
BLUEBELL
OR
A
N
G
E
TOLOSA
M
U
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
E
L
T
I
G
R
E
GA
I
L
LAS
P
R
A
D
E
R
A
S
LOBELIA
P
A
C
H
E
C
O
W
A
Y
PAC
I
F
I
C
BU
S
H
N
E
L
L
PHIL
L
I
P
S
CORA
L
CAV
A
L
I
E
R
CO
L
I
N
A
JA
Y
C
E
E
TAFT
VENABLE
AL
T
A
KEN
T
W
O
O
D
BOUGA
I
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
EM
I
L
Y
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
SMIT
H
CA
L
L
E
M
A
L
V
A
E
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
ARALIA
F
E
R
N
A
N
D
E
Z
SE
N
D
E
R
O
RICA
R
D
O
L
A
P
O
S
A
D
A
LILY
CA
M
D
E
N
DRA
K
E
M
A
S
O
N
S
U
N
R
O
S
E
VIA E
S
T
E
B
A
N
PE
N
M
A
N
P
A
R
T
R
I
D
G
E
SY
C
A
M
O
R
E
LE
X
I
N
G
T
O
N
SAN
M
A
T
E
O
G
R
E
T
A
WA
R
D
SWE
E
N
E
Y
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
A
L
L
E
Y
S
W
E
E
T
B
A
Y
ROUGEOT
LO
M
P
O
C
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
G
L
O
R
Y
CHAPAR
R
A
L
C
A
R
O
L
Y
N
R
U
B
I
O
S
T
E
P
H
A
N
I
E
REB
A
MON
T
E
C
I
T
O
SA
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
C
L
E
A
R
V
I
E
W
SW
A
Z
E
Y
BRE
C
K
AUTO
P
A
R
K
CAYU
C
O
S
SU
E
L
D
O
LAK
E
V
I
E
W
AS
H
M
O
R
E
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
SAN JOSE
KENTUCKY ALLEY
BR
O
O
K
LYN
N
FEN
N
E
L
CA
L
L
E
J
A
Z
M
I
N
S
K
Y
L
A
R
K
LA
W
N
W
O
O
D
LA
C
I
T
A
LA L
O
M
A
AL
Y
S
S
U
M
FRO
O
M
R
A
N
C
H
VIL
L
A
OL
D
W
I
N
D
M
I
L
L
BA
H
I
A
BASIL
N
E
W
P
O
R
T
RIC
H
A
R
D
PASATIEMPO
CEC
E
L
I
A
MOUNTAIN
WILL
O
W
WOODL
A
N
D
LI
N
D
A
CARL
A
V
I
S
T
A
A
R
R
O
Y
O
LOM
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
BIANCHI
VIEW
M
O
N
T
J
E
N
N
I
F
E
R
D
O
N
E
G
A
L
NO
J
O
Q
U
I
C
O
U
R
T
KNOL
L
CAMPU
S
W
A
Y
STER
L
I
N
G
AZALE
A
F
A
R
R
I
E
R
BRIARWOOD
LA V
I
N
E
D
A
L
A
D
E
R
A
MONT
E
V
I
S
T
A
D
E
X
T
E
R
LA L
U
N
A
W
E
L
S
H
P
E
N
N
Y
BOXWOOD
GER
D
A
MUTS
U
H
I
T
O
SA
N
T
A
M
A
R
I
A
CR
E
S
T
V
I
E
W
EL
C
A
S
E
R
I
O
FELICIA
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
HO
W
A
R
D
F
O
R
E
M
A
N
A
L
M
O
N
D
A
L
L
E
Y
HUCK
L
E
B
E
R
R
Y
CORO
N
A
YAR
R
O
W
ALPH
O
N
S
O
CH
A
N
D
L
E
R
SE
R
R
A
N
O
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
CUCARAC
H
A
PISM
O
B
U
C
H
O
N
A
L
L
E
Y
MARIGOLD
CI
M
A
CALLE
D
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
S
SANTA C
L
A
R
A
ROS
E
M
A
R
Y
ALI
S
A
L
PALM
M
I
L
L
A
L
L
E
Y
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
K
I
L
A
R
N
E
Y
LE
R
O
Y
OLE
A
SAN
M
A
R
C
O
S
A
R
R
O
Y
O
DONNA
PURPLE SAGE
MORRISON
EL
C
E
N
T
R
O
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
VIA
E
N
S
E
N
A
D
A
PAULINE
VALECITO
M
U
R
L
MA
D
O
N
N
A
A
L
L
E
Y
C
A
S
I
T
A
S
CATALINA
TR
E
V
O
R
GAR
D
E
N
A
L
L
E
Y
MANZA
N
I
T
A
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
C
T
SP
R
I
N
G
LI
R
I
O
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
P
A
L
M
A
L
L
E
Y
SYLVIA
PEACH PHILLIPS ALLEY
B
R
I
T
T
A
N
Y
10
1
N
O
N
O
F
F
SONRISA
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
TU
R
N
E
R
EN
C
A
N
T
O
CE
R
R
O
MA
D
R
I
D
R
O
S
E
A
L
L
E
Y
CU
M
B
R
E
GREGORY
C
A
R
I
S
S
A
P
A
S
O
R
O
B
L
E
S
M
A
R
I
N
E
R
S
COR
N
U
S
GA
N
A
D
O
R
CORIANDER
10
1
S
O
N
MA
P
L
E
HIGU
E
R
A
BR
O
A
D
PALM
SLACK
10
1
S
O
N
SOU
T
H
W
O
O
D
10
1
N
O
N
10
1
N
O
F
F
101
N
O
N
CAUD
I
L
L
101
N
O
F
F
10
1
S
O
F
F
101 S ON
C
L
E
A
R
V
I
E
W
S
A
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
LAU
R
E
L
101
N
O
F
F
101
S
O
F
F
10
1
S
O
N
RAMONA
PHILLIPS
10
1
S
O
F
F
IRIS
101 N
O
F
F
EL
M
AN
D
R
E
W
S
CAMP
U
S
W
A
Y
101 S OFF
PHIL
L
I
P
S
EL
M
10
1
S
O
N
101
N
O
N
WESTMONT
CU
E
S
T
A
TAF
T
P
A
R
K
MADO
N
N
A
CEDAR
10
1
S
O
N
G
R
O
V
E
10
1
N
MURRAY
CE
N
T
E
R
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
B
R
O
A
D
C
U
E
S
T
A
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
LAW
R
E
N
C
E
SYDN
E
Y
KI
N
G
DALY
101 N OFF
10
1
N
O
N
TANGLEWOOD
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
101 S
O
F
F
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
PAC
I
F
I
C
Laguna Lake
S a n L u i s O b i s p o C r e e k
StennerCre
e
k
Perfumo C a n y o n
RS
V
R
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
P
e
r
f
u
m
o
C
r
e
e
k
FroomCreek
O l d G a r d en Creek
H a m p t o n C a n y on
B
r
i
z
z
i
o
l
a
r
i
C
r
e
e
k
W e s t C orraldePiedroCreek
F r oom C r e e k
Froom Creek
Da
t
e
:
4
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
t
h
:
W
:
\
G
I
S
\
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
\
W
C
S
I
R
S
\
C
I
P
_
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
2
2
x
3
4
.
m
x
d
Legend
City Limit
Railroad
Capacity Projects
1-Foothill and Chorro
2-Jeffery, Daly and Cerro Romauldo
3-Branch, South and misc.
4-Beebee, Buchon, Islay and George
5-South Broad
6-Del Campo, Santa Clara, Helena and misc.
7-Johnson and Buchon
8-Santa Rosa, Meinecke and misc.
9-Oceanaire, Coral, agriculture fields, and misc.
10-Vista Lago, Laguna, LOVR and Oceanaire
11-Prado and Elks
12-Miscellaneous
13-South Broad and Capitolio
14-San Luis Drive
15-Foothill
Existing Collection System
±0 0.5 10.25
MilesSLO WCSIRS
Appendix B. Figure 1. Capacity Projects
City of San Luis Obispo Appendix C
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
C
CAPACITY UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
Appendix C will contain tabularized output from the hydraulic model and is pending completion.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of San Luis Obispo Appendix D
Draft - Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
D
Appendix D. Sample In�low and In�iltration Reduction Programs &Ordinances
D1. SEWER LATERAL TESTING ORDINANCES
D1.1. City of Burlingame
D1.2. City of Richmond
D1.3. City of Alameda
D1.4. City of Oakland – Public Outreach
D2. LATERAL GRANT PROGRAMS
D2.1. Castro Valley Sanitary District
D2.2. West County Wastewater District
D2.3. Leucadia Wastewater District
D2.4. City of Paci�ica
D2.5. Ross Valley Sanitary District
D2.6. City of Sausalito
D3. SEWER LATERAL TESTING ORDINANCES
D3.1. City of Burlingame
D3.2. City of Richmond
D3.3. City of Alameda
D3.4. City of Oakland – Public Outreach
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Sewer Lateral Test Ordinance 1329
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.12.110
Click here for Sewer Lateral Ordinance Test Results
PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL AND TESTING PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS
Ordinance No. 1329, which was adopted July 7, 1986 and became effective August 7, 1986 and was modified by Ordinance 1623
on March 23, 2000, requires the abatement of sewer laterals and cleanouts which are found to contain leaks or separations;
laterals covered are from the building served to the cleanout in the City right-of-way. The ordinance also requires the testing and
repair of laterals prior to the sale of the property if the building was constructed 25 years or more before the date of sale. Date of
construction shall be the date the Building Permit was finaled. In addition, testing is required if two (2) or more plumbing fixture
units are added to a property. The following procedures and requirements are adopted to implement Ordinance No. 1329.
It shall be the owner's responsibility to determine if testing is needed. Contact the Building Department to determine the age of
the structure and if the lateral had been tested and/or repaired within the past ten (10) years. It can be assumed that testing and
repairs have not been done unless the property has been sold after August 1986. If the lateral needs testing, the property owner
shall obtain a contractor or plumber to perform the test. The test shall be performed as follows:
The test must be witnessed by a City representative to meet the ordinance requirements. The contractor or owner shall
first obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department in City Hall and pay the $303 testing fee.
Obtaining the permit can be done before or concurrently with scheduling an appointment but is required at the time of the
test. All arrangements and set up should be completed by the time the City representative arrives to witness the test. Call
(650) 558-7670 to schedule an appointment.
Each lateral is to have a cleanout located in the City right-of-way. If a cleanout does not exist, then one is required to be
installed. The private owner's contractor will install the cleanout with an Encroachment Permit from the Department of
Public Works. City personnel will spend a limited amount of time to assist in locating the cleanout or lateral. A cleanout
located adjacent to the building will be a help in testing and repairing and is also required by the Uniform Plumbing Code.
A Plumbing Permit from the Building Department is required for the cleanout adjacent to the building or for any work done
on private property.
Testing will be accomplished by either a water exfiltration test or an air test. The air test shall be used in hillside areas
where the hydraulic head pressures could damage the pipe.
Water Exfiltration Test: The contractor shall furnish all materials and equipment, except the calibrated bucket. The
contractor shall plug the lateral and riser at the City cleanout and then surcharge the line with water to a point equal to
the foundation grade (floor joist level) or slab floor level. The minimum height of the water level shall be two feet (2'-0")
above the lateral at the City cleanout. If there is any fixture inside the structure lower than the testing water level, the
contractor shall have to either plug the fixture or the lateral at the building. An approved backwater valve shall be
installed if there are any plumbing fixtures below the level of the City cleanout. A Plumbing Permit is required for this
work. The contractor may also install or use an existing cleanout near the structure at the foundation grade (floor joist
level) or slab floor level to establish the minimum two feet (2'-0") water level. (See Standard Drawing No. SS-2_3) [pdf]
The lateral shall be surcharged for 30 minutes and the amount of water lost shall be measured. The lateral shall be
considered acceptable if the amount of water lost is less than four (4) gallons. No increase or allowance is allowed for long
laterals or for laterals larger than the 4-inch minimum size.
Air Test: The contractor shall furnish all materials, equipment and labor for making the test, except the pressure test
gauge. Air test equipment shall be approved by the City. The contractor shall clean pipe and plug the lateral at the
building line and the City cleanout. (If a cleanout is within two feet (2'-0") of the building, the lateral may be plugged at
the cleanout.)
The leakage test of the lateral shall be conducted in the presence of the City in the following manner:
Air shall be slowly supplied to the plugged lateral until the internal air pressure reaches 4.0 pounds per square inch greater
than the average back pressure of any groundwater that may submerge the pipe. The air pressure shall be regulated by a
suitable regulator valve.
At least two minutes shall be allowed for temperature stabilization before proceeding further. The rate of air loss shall
then be determined by measuring the time interval for the internal pressure to decrease from 3.5 to 2.5 pounds per
square inch greater than the average back pressure of any groundwater that may submerge the pipe.
The lateral shall be considered acceptable if the time interval measured for the internal pressure to drop from 3.5 to 2.5
pounds per square inch is 10 seconds or greater. Air test data is on Standard Drawing No. SS-2-4. [pdf]
If the lateral passes the test, it shall be certified as acceptable and the sale can take place without any further action. The
certification shall be placed in the Building Department file. This certification shall be effective for ten (10) years.
If the lateral fails the test, the lateral shall be either repaired or replaced and retested until the lateral passes. There will
City of Burlingame CA : Sewer Lateral Test Ordinance 1329 http://www.burlingame.org/Index.aspx?page=351
1 of 2 1/31/2012 10:54 AM
be a $10 fee for the second retest and each retest thereafter, payable at the Department of Public Works. A Plumbing
Permit will be required for any repairs or replacement. A complete replacement from building to City cleanout is effective
for 25 years. A repaired and tested lateral is effective for ten (10) years.
The City neither has nor will make any determination as to who will pay for the testing and repairing. That is to be decided
between the parties involved in the sale.
Syed Murtuza, P.E.
City Engineer
(Rev. 3/9/03 new Encr. Permit fee)
(Rev. 4/14/00 Ten-Year)
(Rev. 3/2/93 Ordinance No. 1473 eff. 10/5/92)
(Rev. 7/19/88)
(Rev. 2/2/87 Enc. Per. Fee)
City of Burlingame CA : Sewer Lateral Test Ordinance 1329 http://www.burlingame.org/Index.aspx?page=351
2 of 2 1/31/2012 10:54 AM
09/29/11
CITY OF RICHMOND
MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT
SEWER LATERAL COMPLIANCE PLAN
Standards & Procedures
2011
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 1
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY 3
SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS 4
SECTION 3 – COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 6
● Repair of the Sewer Lateral 7
● Sale of Property 7
● Upgrades and Remodeling 7
● Issuance of a Building Permit 7
● Evidence of a improper sewer connection 7
● Home Owners Associations and Cooperatives 7
● Waiver of Inspections: 8
SECTION 4 – COMPLIANCE 9
● Properties in escrow 9
● Upgrades and Remodeling Extension 9
SECTION 5 – LATERAL WORK 10
● Shared Sewer Lateral Corrections 10
● Backflow valve or overflow device required 11
SECTION 6 – FEE, PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS 12
● Permits 12
● Inspection 12
● Right of entry 12
● Fees 12
SECTION 7 – CERTIFICATION OF SEWER LATERALS 13
● Certificate of Lateral Compliance 13
● Point of Sale 13
● General Requirements 13
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 2
● Exceptions 13
SECTION 8 – LONG TERM COMPLIANCE 14
SECTION 9 – APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S ASSESSMENT 14
SECTION 10 – FAILURE TO COMPLY 14
● General 14
SECTION 11 - NOTIFICATION TO PROPERTY OWNER 14
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 3
Section 1 – Purpose and Applicability
Overall this plan will reduce the leakage of sewage into public receiving waters and the
infiltration and inflow (I & I) of storm, ground and tidal waters from private laterals into
the City of Richmond’s (COR) publicly owned sanitary sewer collection system.
The primary result of a poorly operating or failed lateral allowing I & I is hydrological
overloading (surcharging) of the COR sanitary sewer collection system during rain
events contributing to sanitary sewer overflows. Additionally, the lack of their integrity
promotes ex-filtration causing standing sewage on private and public property,
discharges of sewage to the storm drains, public health, general nuisance and wellbeing
problems. There are approximately 18,000 private laterals in the Richmond Municipal
Sewer District, an estimated 2721 miles in total length. Following the guidelines from
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
(CRWQBSFB) Resolution number R2-2005-0059, “In Support of Program for Inspection
and Rehabilitation of Private Sewer Laterals,” and the direction of CRWQCBSFB
Resolution Number R2-2003-0095, “In Support of Collaboration between the Regional
Board and Bay Area Clean Water Agencies to Report and Manage Sanitary Sewer
Overflows,” is the purpose of this plan, and to collectively maintain the beneficial use of
all receiving waters.
The purpose of this plan is to establish fair and consistent policies and procedures for
the testing, repair, and replacement of all defective sewer laterals. To effect the
purposes of this plan, the COR may enter upon private property for inspecting, testing,
and repair of the sewer laterals.
A sewer lateral is defined as the portion of the sewer serving a property starting at the
structure or building and running to and including the connection to the COR’s main line.
The sewer lateral is owned by the property owner, who paid for the installation and
therefore is also responsible for its maintenance and repair; at no time has the COR
accepted transfer of the ownership of a private lateral. This plan does not reduce,
negate, change, modify, or eliminate this basic understanding.
1. Estimated 80 feet per lateral length average
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 4
Section 2 – Definitions
The following terms apply to this chapter and augment definitions found in the Uniform
Plumbing Code.
(a) “Backflow Valve” shall mean a valve that is opened by the flow of sewage exiting a
structure but closes when the flow reverses, preventing sewage from backing into the
structure. All backflow valves shall conform to the specifications set forth in the Uniform
Plumbing Code and all guidelines and policies established by the City Engineer to
implement this Chapter.
(b) “Building sewer” shall have the same meaning as “lateral,” defined below.
(c) “Certificate of Lateral Compliance” shall mean the certificate issued by the City Engineer
certifying that a lateral complies with the standards set forth in this Chapter. A Certificate
of Compliance is valid only for the lateral at the address specified in the Certificate and for
a period of fifteen (15) years.
(d) “City authorized representative” shall mean the City Engineer or his or her designee.
(e) “City of Richmond” or “City” shall mean the City of Richmond and shall include
Richmond Municipal Sewer District Number 1.
(f) “City’s fee and rate schedule” shall mean a list of all City of Richmond service, penalty,
interest, and permit fees, and hourly personnel and equipment rates, as amended from time
to time.
(g) “Cleanout” shall mean a segment of pipe connected to a sewer lateral and rising to the
surface, providing access to the lateral for purposes of inspection and removal of
obstructions. (See also “two-way cleanout,” defined below.)
(h) “Lateral,” “building sewer,” or “service lateral” shall mean the sewer pipeline conveying
wastewater from the premises of a user to the City’s sewer system.
(i) "Main” or “sewer main” shall mean any sewer pipe within a public or private street or
right-of-way receiving or intended to receive the discharges of one or more sewer lateral(s).
No sewer main constructed after the effective date of this Chapter shall be less than eight
inches (8”) in diameter nor be laid or constructed in any city street, easement or right-of-
way under the control of the City, except to the lines, grades, and specifications approved
by the City Engineer.
(j) “Maintenance” shall mean routine flushing or rodding of a sewer to maintain a free
flowing condition.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 5
(k) "Overflow device” shall mean a device designed to relieve the pressure created when a
gravity sewer is flowing full. All overflow devices require the approval of the City
Engineer for proper application before their installation.
(l) “Person” shall mean any individual, partnership, firm, company, corporation, association,
Joint Stock Company, trust, estate, governmental entity or any other legal entity, or their
legal representative, agents or assigns. The masculine gender shall include the feminine,
the singular shall include the plural where indicated by context.
(m) “Plumbing fixtures” shall mean sinks, baths, showers, toilets, bidets, and all fixtures and
appliances, such as dishwashers and washing machines, from which water or wastewater
are discharged.
(n) “Repair” shall mean physical exposure of a section of pipe and/or appurtenances for the
purpose of resuming proper operating condition.
(o) “Replacement” shall mean removal and replacement of existing pipe and/or appurtenances.
(p) “Sanitary sewer system” shall have the same meaning as “publicly owned treatment
works” as that term is defined at Richmond Municipal Code Section 12.18.020.
(q) “Service lateral” shall have the same meaning as “lateral,” defined above.
(r) "Sewage” shall mean water carrying wastes from residences, business buildings,
institutions and industrial establishments; together with such other waters as may be
present, or any combination of such wastes and water.
(s) “Sewer facilities” shall mean and include the sanitary and storm sewage collection systems
owned and operated by the City, all appurtenances thereto, and all portions thereof.
(t) “Storm sewer” or “storm drain” shall mean a pipe or conduit which carries storm and
surface waters and drainage, but excludes sewage and polluted industrial wastes.
(u) “Subdivide” shall mean to cause land to be divided into separate developed or developable
lots that are or may be owned by different persons.
(v) “Two-way cleanout” shall mean a “Y”- or “V”-shaped segment of pipe connected to a
sewer lateral and rising to the surface, providing access to the lateral in both directions for
purposes of inspection and removal of obstructions.
(w) “User” shall mean and include any person who causes or permits a discharge of sewage
into the City’s sanitary sewer system.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 6
Section 3 – Compliance Inspection
Testing may be accomplished by either a water ex-filtration test or an air test or Closed
Circuit Video recording observation. If a Closed Circuit Video recording observation is
selected as the preferred method of inspection then the video shall meet the following
requirements:
1) shall be in DVD format
2) shall be in color (any black & white, cloudy, fuzzy, or otherwise unclear video
will be returned for resubmission)
3) shall show the address of the lateral
4) shall show the date the video was taken
5) shall clearly show the cleanout or access point used to insert the cameral into
the lateral
6) shall have a running foot or time marker clearly visible on the screen
7) where joints are present, shall briefly stop the camera at each to clearly
indicate their integrity
8) shall have the date the DVD was submitted to the City written on the DVD
along with the address of the inspection site and telephone number for the
point of contact
At the City Engineer’s discretion, the video may be returned for resubmission in
accordance with the above requirements if any of the above requirements are not
strictly adhered to. The selected inspection method can be performed by contractors
who have a current state license. The City Engineer will notify the property owner(s) and
tenants regarding when a sewer lateral inspection is required except when it is required
due the sale of property, otherwise the inspection is initiated as part of all applicable
sections of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter (RMC) 12.17. The inspection of the
lateral may be initiated by any of the following:
● Capital Improvement Project Sewer Rehabilitation
The project-by-project inspection program will not preclude the COR from testing sewer
laterals in conjunction with other projects anywhere in the City of Richmond. It does not
preclude a property owner from testing their sewer lateral at any time and making
repairs at their expense.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 7
● Repair of the Sewer Lateral
Whenever a sewer lateral fails during normal usage or is broken into before making any
repair to the sewer lateral.
● Sale of Property
Whenever a property is to be sold or there is a transfer of title, a sewer Certificate of
Lateral Compliance” must be obtained. The procedures herein must be followed by the
property owner to obtain a Certificate of Lateral Compliance.
● Upgrades and Remodeling
Whenever property located in the City of Richmond is remodeled to include the addition
of two or more plumbing fixtures that discharge into a sanitary sewer system, the sewer
lateral(s) to the property shall be tested. Before final building inspection, all repairs or
replacements necessary to bring a lateral into compliance shall be performed.
● Issuance of a Building Permit
When a building permit is issued by the City or County requires compliance with all
applicable Codes
● Evidence of a improper sewer connection
Failure of the property owner to comply with RMC section 12.17.020 or 12.17.040 may
require them to conduct testing by direction of the City Engineer and obtain a Certificate
of Lateral Compliance at anytime. (RMC12.17.080)
● Home Owners Associations and Cooperatives
The City of Richmond Engineering Division has become aware of the need to clarify
sanitary sewer lateral inspections as it relates specifically to Homeowners Associations
and Cooperatives during property sales. Each property owner is responsible for
obtaining a Certificate of Lateral Compliance of a single family dwelling, or an
arrangement between the property owners and the cooperative or homeowners
association for ensuring compliance in the stated regulatory time frames for property
sales will need to be provided to the City Engineer. If the lateral is jointly shared then
an arrangement between the property owners and the cooperative or homeowners
association for ensuring compliance in the stated regulatory time frames for property
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 8
sales will need to be provided to the City Engineer. The mains servicing the
development will need to be tested every fifteen (15) years by an arrangement between
the property owners and the cooperative or homeowners association. All arrangements
between the cooperative or homeowners associations for compliance of this ordinance
need to be on record with the City Engineer.
As of March 20, 2007 arrangements between the property owners and the cooperative
or homeowners association for ensuring compliance in the stated regulatory time
frames for property sales will need to be provided to the City Engineer for review by
April 1, 2008. After a satisfactory review and approval of the arrangement the lateral
inspections and any subsequent repairs or required unified plumbing updates need to
be completed and the Certificate of Lateral Compliance obtained no later than April 1,
2009 and every fifteen year thereafter.
● Waiver of Inspections:
1. The house/dwelling/structure lateral was constructed within the last 15 years, and a
Certificate of Lateral Compliance was obtained within 5 years of its construction.
2. The lateral was completely replaced within the last 5 years.
(have the receipts/invoices from the contractor that show the repair/replacement
done.)
3. Have previously obtained a Certificate of Lateral Compliance
The waiver of inspection still requires the issuance of a Certificate of Lateral
Compliance to record the 15 year inspection requirement in the City’s database.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 9
Section 4 – Compliance
The sewer lateral will be evaluated based upon a review and evaluation of the test
results. COR designated staff will perform this evaluation and determine if the lateral
complies with RMC 12.17.070, “Lateral Certification.” Broken pipe, offset and/or
distorted joints, root intrusion, lack of cleanouts, all constitute deficiencies that do not
comply with Standard Specifications and will require either repair or replacement.
Repairs or replacements will be required prior to the close of escrow in the case of
property transfer, or within one month of the lateral test results.
● Properties in escrow
The COR has no intention of holding up sales transactions for properties in escrow.
However, an extension of 60 days to obtain a Certificate of Lateral Compliance will be
verbally granted by the City Engineer on a case by case need. The extension is
documented in the escrow addendum. The property owner is responsible to ensure the
documentation occurs stating who will complete the compliance action and the
timetable of compliance. Generally monies can be left in escrow by the seller to pay the
contractor’s fees for any necessary repairs.
If the buyer elects to assume all responsibility for obtaining a Certificate of Lateral
Compliance a notarized letter or a statement in the escrow addendum stating that the
requirements will be met sixty (60) days after the close of escrow is necessary.
A copy of the signed addendum or notarized letter must be received by the City
Engineer’s office no later than the close of escrow.
● Upgrades and Remodeling Extension
Currently extensions of up to one year to complete this requirement for upgrades or
remodeling are available upon approval by the City Engineer. This is the responsibility
of the property owner.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 10
Section 5 – Lateral Work
The property owner shall be responsible for making any and all repairs and
replacements of the sewer lateral. All work shall be done according to standards in the
latest edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code as adopted by the COR in its Standard
Specifications and Drawings, and any standards issued by the City Engineer. Repairs
must bring the lateral into full compliance with these standards.
● Shared Sewer Lateral Corrections
General:
When any repairs or replacements are done to those laterals that are jointly shared
by more than one building or structure from different properties, each shall require a
discrete connection to the City’s sanitary sewer main as part of the repair. If a
property with two buildings or structures with plumbing fixtures requiring drainage is
subdivided, each building or structures shall require a discrete connection to the
City’s sanitary sewer main as a condition of subdividing (RMC 12.17.050). At the
discretion of the City Engineer a statement of agreement between the subject
property owners will be filed with the escrow/title company, County Clerk or on
record with the deed stating who is responsible for any necessary repairs as
required by RMC. This statement of agreement, approved by the City Engineer can
supersede the requirement to install discrete connections.
If the sewer lateral is shared with other properties or structures, the necessary
repairs, separation of the system, or relocation of the system will be as approved by
the City Engineer.
Such work shall be done according to standards issued by the City Engineer, and in
the latest edition of the Unified Plumbing Code and COR’s Standard Specifications
and Drawings.
Exceptions:
If a letter of agreement exists with the property deed explaining that joint
responsibilities between property owners or the following:
The City will need to have a record of the notarized agreement that is filed with the
finalized deed. It is recommended the agreement should at least state:
1. The location of any private easement on the subject easement property
2. What section or sections of the joint lateral each property owner is responsible to
individually maintain and pay associated costs.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 11
3. What section or sections of the joint lateral that the maintenance and associated
costs are shared by both or all involved parties.
4. The duration of the agreement
5. The right to terminate the private easement agreement in writing and within a
reasonable timeframe for the purpose of property improvements or plumbing
relocation by the subject private easement property owner.
● Backflow valve or overflow device required
When any repairs are done to lateral that does not have an existing backflow valve or
overflow device, the property owner shall install the appropriate valve or device. It shall
be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the backflow valve or overflow
devise in proper operating condition (RMC 12.17.050).
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 12
Section 6 – Fee, Permits and Inspections
● Permits
The property owner, or property owner’s contractor, must obtain a Sewer Permit from
the COR before any work is done on sewer laterals. Failure to obtain the Permit shall
subject the property owner to a monetary penalty as set forth in the Richmond Municipal
Code and/or such further and different penalties as set forth by the City Engineer. The
property owner is responsible for obtaining permits. Encroachment Permits from the
City Engineer may also be needed if any work is performed in the public right-of-way.
● Inspection
Inspection procedures and requirements shall be according to standards issued by the
City Engineer and the COR’s Standard Specifications.
The City Engineer can require the inspection of a lateral at any time in order to protect,
sewage from entering receiving waters.
● Right of entry
The City Engineer will give written note to property owner and occupants ten (10)
business days to prior entering the property in order to conduct an inspection, or collect
wastewater samples and test any buildings, structures, or premises to secure
compliance or prevent a violation. (RMC 12.17.120)
● Fees
Fees and charges for the Permit, inspection, penalties, and issuance of “Certificates
Lateral of Compliance” shall be in accordance with the City’s fee and rate schedule.
This lists of all city services, penalty associations, interest, permit fees, and hourly
personnel and equipment rates and is kept on file with the City Clerk.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 13
Section 7 – Certification of Sewer Laterals
● Certificate of Lateral Compliance
A Certificate of Lateral Compliance will be issued by the City Engineer when a lateral
complies with Specifications as determined upon completion of a successful test.
The City will maintain a record of all certificates issued, including the date of issuance. A
Certificate will be valid until subsequent testing is performed and a new Certificate
issued for the following periods of time:
● Point of Sale
Not to exceed fifteen (15) years or more if constructed before this period of time. The
COR has no intentions of holding up the escrow process, and will allow extension of up
to 60 days past the close of escrow.
● General Requirements
All properties shall be tested by the property owner at a minimum fifteen (15) years
unless the dwelling was a new construction within the previous two years.
A Certificate of Lateral Compliance will be issued after a sewer lateral has been
satisfactorily tested, without repair, or repaired and/or replaced. This Certificate will be
valid until a subsequent inspection is performed and a new Certificate issued, or fifteen
(15) years which ever comes first. Certificates will be filed with the COR Engineering
Services Department.
● Exceptions
If the property construction was completed and signed off within the last two (2) years
the certificate is issued at no cost since the fees were collected with the construction
permit.
9/30/2011
Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan ‐ 14
Section 8 – Long Term Compliance
It is the intent of the COR that the testing, repair, and replacement of the sewer laterals
are a continual and ongoing program. The COR may, at any time, evaluate the level of
infiltration and inflow from properties and, if it is determined that excessive infiltration
and inflow exists, all sewer laterals within the property requires compliance with
applicable RMC.
Section 9 – Appeal of City Engineer’s Assessment
All decisions of the City Engineer can be challenged in writing to the City Engineer
within two (2) days prior to the date required to complete the inspection and or repairs
and or subsequent citations. The appeal must be in writing and must state the basis of
the appeal.
Section 10 – Failure to Comply
● General
Should any property owner(s) fail to repair or replace their sanitary sewer lateral within
the time limits set forth by Section 7, the City Engineer is hereby authorized to proceed
with all necessary work to bring the lateral in compliance, including but not limited to
hiring of contractors, and entering upon private property.
Section 11 - Notification to Property Owner
Prior to proceeding with the necessary work, the City Engineer shall notify the owner of
the intent to proceed with such work. Such notice shall be served personally on the
owner or by mailing such notice to the owner addressed to the post office address last
shown on the Contra Costa County secured assessment rolls, and by positing a copy of
such notice on the property. Notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the
commencement of the work. No further notice need be given. (RMC 12.17.120)
Chapter 18 SEWER AND WATER
Section 18-5 ABATEMENT OF IMPROPER SEWER CONNECTIONS.
Subsection 18 -5-1 Improper Sewer Connections.
Subsection 18 -5-2 Resolution Declaring Nuisance.
Subsection 18 -5-3 Protests; Filing and Hearing.
Subsection 18 -5-4 Resolution Ordering Work.
Subsection 18 -5-5 Account and Report of Cost.
Subsection 18 -5-6 Notice of Hearing and Confirmation of Report.
Subsection 18 -5-7 Hearing and Confirmation of Assessment.
Subsection 18 -5-8 Collection on Tax Roll.
Subsection 18 -5-9 Payment of Assessments, Annual Installments, Interest.
Subsection 18 -5-10 Lateral Testing Upon Sale
Subsection 18 -5-11 Private Sewer Lateral Testing Procedure and Requirements.
Subsection 18 -5-12 Failure of Test.
Subsection 18 -5-13 Lateral Certification.
Subsection 18 -5-14 Condominium and Cooperative Apartment Buildings.
Page 1 of 1Section 18-5 ABATEMENT OF IMPROPER SEWER CONNECTIONS.
7/13/2005file://F:\Operations\Jobs\2004\04 -102 Morgan Hill I&I Study & Flow Mon 3 Sites 3 Mos\...
Section 18-5 ABATEMENT OF IMPROPER SEWER CONNECTIONS.
Subsection 18 -5-10 Lateral Testing Upon Sale
a. Whenever any property is to be transferred to or vested in any other person or entity by deed,
instrument or writing, by which any lands are sold, located in the City, are or is granted, assigned,
transferred or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, a purchaser or purchasers thereof, or any other person
or persons and the property includes any buildings or structures constructed more than twenty -five (25)
years prior to the sale of the property the sewer lateral(s) to the property shall be tested for infiltration
and all necessary repairs or replacements performed to prevent all infiltration. All testing procedures
must be approved by the Public Works Director, or authorized representative, and all repair or
replacement work completed and approved by the City prior to transfer of title. The property owner shall
retain the inspection card, signed by a City Inspector as approved, as proof of compliance.
b. Exceptions. This subsection shall not apply to:
1. Condominium or cooperative apartment buildings;
2. To all buildings where the Public Works Director, or authorized representative, determines that
testing and/or repairs have been performed to City standards within the last five (5) years;
3. To all buildings where the Public Works Director, or authorized representative, determines that
testing and replacement of lateral has been performed to City standards within the last twenty -five (25)
years;
4. If the Public Works Director, or authorized representative, otherwise determines testing is
unnecessary. (Ord. No. 2404 N.S.; Ord. No. 2537 N.S. §13)
Page 1 of 1Subsection 18 -5-10 Lateral Testing Upon Sale
7/13/2005file://F:\Operations\Jobs\2004\04 -102 Morgan Hill I&I Study & Flow Mon 3 Sites 3 Mos\...
Section 18-5 ABATEMENT OF IMPROPER SEWER CONNECTIONS.
Subsection 18 -5-11 Private Sewer Lateral Testing Procedure and Requirements.
The property owner, or his/her appointed contractor shall obtain a plumbing permit for sewer lateral
testing prior to commencing with the testing procedure. The test procedure shall be performed as
follows:
a. Each lateral is to have a two -way cast iron clean-out, as shown on Standard Drawing 8396-34 or
8397-34, located in the City right-of-way, on private property adjacent to the City right -of-way, or on a
Public Utility Easement. If one does not exist, a clean-out shall be installed prior to performing any
testing. Installation of the clean-out, if necessary, shall require a plumbing permit; shall be run to grade
and covered by a meter box and lid as detailed on standard drawing 8396-34. A clean-out located
adjacent to, (within 30" inches), the building will be a help in the test and repair of the lateral and is
required by the Uniform Plumbing Code for any new construction.
b. The test must be witnessed by a City Inspector. All arrangements and set up should be completed
by the time the City Inspector arrives to witness the test.
c. Testing may be accomplished by either a water exfiltration test or an air test.
1. Water Exfiltration Test. The owner's contractor shall furnish all materials and equipment at
owner's expense, except the calibrated bucket. The contract shall plug the lateral and riser at the City
clean-out, and surcharge the line with water to a point equal to the foundation grade (floor joist level) or
slab floor level. The minimum height of the water level shall be two (2') feet above the lateral invert at
the City clean -out. If there is any fixture inside the structure lower than the testing water level, the
contractor will have to either plug the fixture or the lateral at the building. An approved backwater valve
must be installed if there are any plumbing fixtures whose level is below the City clean-out. A plumbing
permit is required for this work.
The lateral shall be surcharged for thirty (30) minutes and the amount of water lost shall be measured.
The lateral shall be considered acceptable if the amount of water lost is less than four (4) gallons for a
four (4") inch lateral. On an individual basis, the amount of allowable water loss may be adjusted by the
City Engineer for a six (6") inch diameter lateral, or unusually long lateral lengths. See Standard
Drawing 8277-32, available from the City Engineer, for a visual procedure reference.
2. Air testing shall be conducted in accordance to Section 306-1.4.4 of the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction, American Public Works Association, latest edition, with the exception
that "Engineer" shall be replaced with "City Inspector" and "Contractor" with "Owner's Contractor"
respectively. (Ord. No. 2404 N.S.; Ord. No. 2533 N.S. §21)
Page 1 of 1Subsection 18 -5-11 Private Sewer Lateral Testing Procedure and Requirements.
7/13/2005file://F:\Operations\Jobs\2004\04 -102 Morgan Hill I&I Study & Flow Mon 3 Sites 3 Mos\...
Section 18-5 ABATEMENT OF IMPROPER SEWER CONNECTIONS.
Subsection 18 -5-12 Failure of Test.
Should the lateral fail the test as outlined in subsection 18-5.11, the lateral shall be either repaired or
replaced and retested; a plumbing permit will be required in order to perform the necessary repairs or
replacement. This process shall continue until the lateral passes the required test. (Ord. No. 2404 N.S.)
Page 1 of 1Subsection 18 -5-12 Failure of Test.
7/13/2005file://F:\Operations\Jobs\2004\04 -102 Morgan Hill I&I Study & Flow Mon 3 Sites 3 Mos\...
Section 18-5 ABATEMENT OF IMPROPER SEWER CONNECTIONS.
Subsection 18 -5-13 Lateral Certification.
Once the lateral has successfully passed the testing procedure in subsection 18-5.11 the City Inspector
witnessing the test will sign the permit inspection card as approved. (Ord. No. 2404 N.S.)
Page 1 of 1Subsection 18 -5-13 Lateral Certification.
7/13/2005file://F:\Operations\Jobs\2004\04 -102 Morgan Hill I&I Study & Flow Mon 3 Sites 3 Mos\...
http://homesinoaklandhills.com/2010/10/oakland-ca-sewer-lateral-ebmud-waste-water-
control-ordinance/
Oakland CA sewer lateral EBMUD waste
water control ordinance
October 21st, 2010
Update as of May 2011
As a home seller in Oakland or Piedmont California you will soon be obligated to conduct a sewer
lateral scope inspection and upon transfer of the home to a new Buyer someone will be obligated
to make any repairs needed to comply with the new city of Oakland sewer lateral ordinance and
the EBMUD waste water ordinance. If you are a Buyer considering a home prior to January 1,
2011 you would be well advised to perform your own camera inspection to make sure that you
are not unwittingly assuming someone else’s very expensive problem.
A number of East Bay Cities and Sanitary
Districts require that sewer laterals be
inspected and brought into conformance as
a part of the sale of property. A recent
court order will require the cities of
Oakland, Emeryville, Piedmont, Berkeley,
Alameda, Albany, Kensington, El Cerrito
and the Richmond Annex of the City of
Richmond to require homeowners to fix or
upgrade their sewer lines when a home is
sold or upgraded. The East Bay Municipal
Utility District (“EBMUD”) Wastewater
Control Ordinance will require property
owners in certain areas of the EBMUD
wastewater service area to obtain a
compliance certificate that shows their
private sewer laterals are without defects
and have proper connections. The private
sewer lateral program requirements for
property owners will be in effect on January
1, 2011. The ordinance specifies three
conditions which require property owners
to test and, if needed, repair or replace
their private sewer laterals:
1-Prior to selling the property
2-When obtaining any permit from the construction or modification of the property estimated to be
greater than $100,000
3-When increasing or decreasing EBMUD water service that requires a change in meter size.
These EBMUD requirements will only affect properties in the EBMUD wastewater service area in
Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont. The cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley and the Stege
Sanitary District (which serves KensiSellers and Buyers are advised to check with the local
Building Inspection Department or Sanitary District for more information.
PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL
REPLACEMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Policy and Guidelines
July 1, 2008
Approved:
John E. Hitt, City Manager Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Policy Summary ................................................................................................. 1
Typical Residential Sewer Diagram .................................................................. 2
Policy Rules ........................................................................................................ 3
Step by Step Guidelines .................................................................................... 5
Frequently Asked Questions ............................................................................ 6
Replacement Assistance Application .............................................................. 7
Price Quote Detail Sheet ................................................................................... 8
Proof of Contractor Payment ............................................................................ 9
Resolution .......................................................................................................... 10
1
Policy Summary
Old collapsing and leaky private sewer laterals contribute to surface damage, sink
holes, and potholes in the City’s streets. These old and failing pipes also contribute to
the inflow and infiltration problem that ground water has on the City wastewater
system. The City has developed this program to provide financial incentives to
encourage timely replacement of these sanitary sewer laterals.
The Private Sewer Lateral Replacement Assistance Program utilizes wastewater
funds budgeted to provide reimbursement of failed sanitary sewer lateral replacement
within the public right of way. The program will continue each year to the extent that
funding is available. The program only applies to private single family and two family
residential properties. This program only applies to those laterals which are replaced
in their entirety from the public sewer main to the residential structure(s).
Lebanon Municipal Code 13.04.210 places the responsibility for maintaining private
sewer laterals on the owner of the property it serves. Old collapsing and leaky private
sanitary sewer laterals contribute to surface damage, sink holes, and potholes in the
public streets and sidewalks. These failing pipes also contribute to the inflow and
infiltration problem in the Lebanon wastewater system.
3
Policy Rules
1. The program is effective as of July 1, 2008.
2. The program only applies to private single family and two (2) family residential
properties.
3. The assistance program is only in effect when funds are allocated for that
purpose within a given budget year.
4. Allocated funds are available on a first come first serve basis until allocated funds
are expended.
5. Construction of public sewer mains or new sewer connections will not be funded
by this program.
6. The property owner of the residential structure which the lateral serves shall be
reimbursed for the full cost of the lateral replacement within the right of way
including right of way permit costs.
7. Reimbursement shall not include the cost of work associated with lateral
replacement on private property.
8. Reimbursement shall not include the cost of obtaining easements.
9. Reimbursement only applies to those laterals that are replaced in their entirety
from the public sewer main to the residential structure(s). Exceptions to this may
be granted by the City Engineer.
10. Proof that lateral pipe failure is located in the public right of way must be
submitted and approved by the City Engineer. In addition to pipe failure,
reconstruction of any clay, concrete, and orangeburg laterals in the public right of
way are eligible for reimbursement.
11. The program will only fund those improvements necessary to meet the normal
costs associated with a private sewer lateral replacement less any rebates or
incentives offered by a contractor.
12. All private sewer lateral replacement assistance program applications must
include three (3) detailed price quotes from different contractors prequalified with
the City to perform this work in the public right of way. A list of prequalified
contractors is available from the City Engineering Division. The application and a
price quote detail sheet are shown on pages 6 and 7. The three (3) quotes will be
evaluated by the City and one of them will be approved for potential
reimbursement. Lump sum quotes will not be accepted. The City reserves the
right to refuse approval of any quote. The program will only reimburse the amount
indicated in the approved price quote detail sheet unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
4
13. Funds will only be reserved once permits have been issued. Permits will expire
and reserved funds will be made available to others if construction has not begun
within 60 days of permit issuance.
14. PLEASE NOTE: Reimbursement only applies to those property owners that
acquired all applicable permits, complied with all City, State, and Federal
standards, have obtained final inspection approval, and have returned a
complete “proof of contractor payment” form to the City (see form on page 9)
within 30 days from final inspection.
15. The property owner is the only person eligible to apply for this program and the
funds will only be released to the property owner of record.
5
Step by Step Guidelines
1. Thoroughly review the Private Sewer Lateral Replacement
Reimbursement Program Policy and Guide document.
2. Provide verification to the City Engineering Division that the sewer lateral
is damaged in the public right of way. This may be a recorded CD, DVD, or
VHS of an internal pipe inspection; or it may be a detailed description
provided by the individual “snaking” the line.
3. Submit a completed Sewer Lateral Replacement Reimbursement
application to the City Engineering Division.
4. Meet with a representative of the City Engineering Division to discuss
options to replace the sewer lateral.
5. Submit completed price quote detail sheets from three (3) different
contractors prequalified with the City to perform this work in the public right of
way. DO NOT contract with any contractor unless the City has approved that
contractor’s price quote detail sheet. The three (3) quotes will be evaluated by
the City and one of them will be approved for potential reimbursement. The
program will only reimburse the amount indicated in the approved price quote
detail sheet. A list of prequalified contractors is available from the City
Engineering Division. Additional contractors may become prequalified with the
City by completing a prequalification form and paying an annual fee at the
City Engineering Division.
6. Provide verification to the City Engineering Division that any necessary
easements have been obtained and are recorded with Linn County Records
Office.
7. Provide verification to the City Engineering Division that any necessary
permits have been obtained from other government agencies.
8. The contractor whose price quote detail sheet was approved by the City
must meet with a representative of the City Engineering Division to discuss
the project, and the reimbursement process.
9. Obtain a right of way permit from the City Engineering Division and pay
permit fee.
10. Obtain a building permit from the City Building Department and pay
permit fee.
11. Contractor must begin work within 60 days of permit issuance.
12. Submit a completed “proof of contractor payment” form to the City
Engineering Division within 30 days of final inspection.
6
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Why is the program limited to residential single family homes and duplexes?
A1: The City has been concerned about the residences that have ongoing trouble
and complaints about sewer service. Some residences have little means to provide
repairs.
Q2: If funds run out for this year, can I save my “proof of contractor payment” and
submit it for the next year’s funding?
A2: Return a complete “proof of contractor payment” form to the City within 30 days
from final inspection. If approved by the City Engineer, “proof of contractor payment”
forms may be held pending budget approval when further funds are allocated for the
next fiscal year beginning July 1. No obligation can be made against next year’s budget.
The amount of funding allocated for this annual replacement program is determined
each year during an annual budget process and can not be guaranteed.
Q3: If my contractor discovers something that costs more than the “approved detailed
quote”, will I get reimbursed for that too?
A3: To keep contracts from under bidding projects to get work then asking for more
money during actual construction, the program will only reimburse the amount indicated
in the approved price quote detail sheet unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
Q4: My contractor is not from this area and gave me a lump sum bid. Can I use this
contractor?
A4: Only itemized quotes submitted to the City on the “price quote detail sheet” will
be considered for approval. Lump sum quotes can not be accepted because they do not
provide any basis for evaluating how costs were distributed in public right of way versus
private property. The contractor would need to become a City approved prequalified
contractor before the price quote detail sheet could be considered for approval. City
prequalification of contractors provides a review process to determine qualifications and
insurance information which seeks to protect the property owner, public, and the City
government.
Castro Valley Sanitary District’s Lateral Replacement Grant Program (LRGP) will
cover 50% of the cost, up to a maximum of $2,000, provided you follow the guidelines.
For more information—and before you hire a contractor—look inside, or call CVSan at (510) 606-1300.
HOMEOWNERS:
NEED TO REPLACE
THAT LEAKY OLD
SEWER LATERAL?
Let CVSan help you pay for it!
Grants up to
$2,000 available.
LATERAL REPLACEMENT gRANT
PROgRAM gui DELi NES
Not all applications will be granted.
All applications are subject to a Condition Rating by CVSan.
2011/2012
WHAT iS A SEWER LATERAL?
Within the Castro Valley Sanitary District (CVSan), the
building lateral is defined as the portion of the sewer
system, beginning at the junction with the building
plumbing system, usually located within two (2) feet of
the foundation wall of the building, and extending to
and including the connection to the public sewer main
(see Figure #1, at right). The building lateral is the pri-
vate property of the property owner who is, therefore,
responsible for all costs relating to the installation, con-
nection, maintenance, repair, construction, alteration,
abandonment or removal of the building lateral.
These building laterals are often a significant source of
infiltration and inflow (“I/I”). The Lateral Replacement
Grant Program (LRGP), is designed to help defray a
portion of the costs when the property owner or their
agent is required to replace the entire lateral including
the connection to the main.
AMOuNT OF gRANT
The maximum amount of assistance for any one resi-
dential building lateral replacement or repair is 50% of
the approved cost up to a maximum reimbursement of
$2,000. Only complete replacement of the building
lateral or repair in excess of $2,000, that completely
eliminates infiltration and inflow is eligible for the
program. Not all applications will be granted. All ap-
plications are subject to a Condition Rating by CVSan.
The property owner is responsible for notifying their
selected contractor that their entire building lateral
must pass CVSan inspection requirements (even if only
a partial replacement was performed) in order to be eli-
gible for reimbursement. Grant payment shall be made
to the property owner(s).
Notice: All work for the LRGP must be performed by
a licensed contractor qualified by CVSan. For a list of
CVSan qualified contractors, please visit www.cvsan.org
or contact CVSan at 510-606-1300.
BEFORE BEgiNNiNg ANY CONSTRuCTiON WORK:
A. A video inspection must be performed by a contractor, and
witnessed by CVSan personnel.
B. Property owner must submit a completed application, including
price quotes from at least three (3) CVSan Qualified Contractors.
C. A Letter of Approval must be issued by CVSan to property owner.
iMPORTANT
REquiREMENTS
Warning: If the above requirements are not met prior to commencement of construction work, no funds will be
obligated to the property owner.
LR g P
CHECKLiST
LATERAL iNSPECTiNg
Lateral inspection must be performed prior to repair or
replacement of the building lateral in order for grant
funding to be considered. Inspecting and testing
methods shall include the following technique:
• Recorded Video Inspection
Video inspection shall reveal the condition of the lateral
and each service connection.
Video inspection shall be done by an independent
contractor and observed by CVSan personnel who shall
document the inspection.
The video inspection must be recorded and the lateral
fully viewable. Cleaning and/or de-clogging should be
performed prior to the inspection.
Schedule appointment - Beginning Tuesday, July
5, 2011 at 7:30 a.m., call (510) 606-1300, or visit
CVSan at 20211 Patio Drive, Suite 200, Castro
Valley, to schedule a lateral video inspection
appointment.
Lateral inspection observations will be
scheduled beginning the week of July 11, 2011.
Property owner submits application to CVSan
with three (3) valid quotations. Qualification is
determined after video inspection. All applica-
tions are subject to a Condition Rating by CVSan.
Not all applications will be granted. Applications
may NOT be submitted by Contractor.
A Letter of Approval must be issued by CVSan to
property owner.
Warning: If items A.-C. (see “Important Require-
ments” on previous page) are not met prior to
commencement of construction work, no funds will
be obligated to the property owner.
Property owner/Contractor obtains required
permit(s).
Property owner schedules work with contractor.
Construction inspection of repair work by CVSan
personnel prior to backfilling.
Property owner submits copy of paid-in-full invoice
to CVSan for the work performed by contractor.
CVSan processes application for payment. Pay-
ment will be made within four (4) to six (6) weeks.
2011/2012
APPLiCATiON
The property owner(s) shall submit a Lateral Re-
placement Grant application, provided by CVSan,
prior to commencement of work. The request will
be reviewed by CVSan, and the determination of eli-
gibility will be made by the designated representative
whose decision shall be final.
Grant funds are available for fiscal year 2011/12 starting
July 5, 2011 at 7:30 a.m. Funds will be obligated on
a first come, first qualified, first served basis, until all
funds are allocated or the end of the fiscal year
(June 30, 2012).
Funds will be obligated for a period not to exceed
ninety (90) days from approval. The obligation period
shall include all work, inspection, payment to Con-
tractor by property owner, and submission of paid
receipt(s) to CVSan.
Work not completed by June 30, 2012, will not be
eligible for payment and may result in disqualifica-
tion from the current program year.
For consideration of the FY 2011/12 LRGP, applica-
tions must be submitted as soon as the line qualifies.
Property owners must complete the current 2011/12
form. Applications accepted on a continual basis until
program is completed or all funds are allocated.
APPLiCATiON
How do I get an application for the Lateral
Replacement Grant Program?
Download an application at www.cvsan.org, pick one up at
CVSan’s Capital Improvement Project office located at 20211
Patio Drive, Suite 200, Castro Valley, or request a copy be
mailed to you by calling (510) 606-1300. Please be aware the
property owner is responsible for obtaining an application.
What do I do after I receive my application?
After you receive your application form, you will need to fill out
Sections I-III.
CCTV iNSPECTiON & PRiCE quOTES
From whom can I get price quotations?
You can get price quotations from CVSan Qualified Contractors.
How many quotes do I need to obtain?
You need to obtain three (3) quotes; however, CVSan
encourages you to obtain four (4) for better price comparison.
Can CVSan recommend licensed contractors?
Legally, CVSan may not recommend any contractors. However,
CVSan can supply you with a list of CVSan Qualified Contractors
who have worked in the District. For a list of CVSan qualified
contractors, please visit www.cvsan.org or contact CVSan at
510-606-1300.
What is a Condition Rating?
Condition rating is an assessment of the sewer lateral to
determine the degree of defects to the line. Condition ratings
take into consideration: pipe cracks, roots, water infiltration
evidence, and other defects. Each defect is given a numerical
designation (this is similar to the method used on public sanitary
sewer lines). Those laterals in poor condition (condition rating)
will receive grant funding.
Castro Valley Sanitary District
Capital Improvement Projects Office
20211 Patio Drive, Suite 200
Castro Valley, California 94546-6020
Phone: (510) 606-1300 | Fax: (510) 733-5011
www.cvsan.org
S:\Engineering\Programs\Program Info\LRGP\11-12 -LRGP Brochure.indd
APPROVAL & PERMiTS
How do I know if I have qualified for the LRGP?
When you receive a Letter of Approval from CVSan stating
that you have qualified and funds have been obligated for
your project.
Do I need any permits for this work?
Yes. You will need a repair permit from CVSan to perform
this work. You may also need an encroachment permit
from Alameda County Public Works if you are doing work in
the public roadway. All permits must be obtained prior to
commencement of construction work.
After I have received my Letter of Approval, what
happens next?
You will be able to commence work. You will have 90 days in
which to complete construction, inspection, pay contractor in
full, and submit copy of receipt to CVSan.
SiTE iNSPECTiON & PAYMENT
When do I need an inspection?
A site inspection is required by CVSan personnel after the
new sewer line has been installed, but prior to any backfilling.
CVSan personnel will witness testing of the entire line from
the building foundation to the connection to the main.
Testing will be performed by your contractor.
What happens after the site inspection?
Once inspection is complete, you need to submit a copy of
your paid-in-full invoice to CVSan for the work performed.
CVSan will then process your application for payment.
Payment will be made within four (4) to six (6) weeks.
FREquENTLY
ASKED
quESTiONS
S:\Engineering\Programs\LRGP\2011\LRGP 1112 APPLICATION.docx
2011-2012 LRGP #1112-
Page 1 of 2
CASTRO VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
Lateral Replacement Grant Program Application
SECTION I. General Information Please print clearly.
1. Grant Address:
2. Property Owner Name:
3. Property Owner Address:
(if different from above) Street City State Zip
4. Property Owner Phone/Fax:
________________ ________________ ________________ _______________
Home Work Cell Fax
Email Address:
I certify by signing this application that I am the legal owner of the property described herein . I
am aware the submission of this document does not constitute that a grant has been approved by
Castro Valley Sanitary District (CVSan). I have read the brochure discussing the requirements for the
Lateral Replacement Grant Program and am aware that a letter will be issued advising if funds have
been granted. Any repair work performed prior to receiving a letter of obligation from CVSan is
performed at my own risk and cost, and makes this application null and void. I understand not
all applications will be granted. I understand all applications are subject to a Condition Rating
approved by CVSan.
Signature: Date:
SECTION II: Site Information
1. State the nature of problem(s):
Tree Roots Collapsed Pipe Fats, Oils, and Grease Build-up
Other. If Other, please specify:
How many times has this occurred in the last 12 months?
2. Layout sketch provided showing the dwelling and building sewer including clean-outs, if
known. Yes No
3. Is there an insurance claim for this work?
Yes Please provide a copy of any claim information. No
Notes:
1. All Video Inspections must be observed by CVSan personnel.
2. Grant funds will not be obligated until after the inspection and price quotations have been
submitted.
Castro Valley Sanitary District, 20211 Patio Drive, Suite 200, Castro Valley, CA 94546
Phone: 510-606-1300 / Fax: 510-733-5011 / Website: www.cvsan.org
S:\Engineering\Programs\LRGP\2011\LRGP 1112 APPLICATION.docx
2011-2012 LRGP #1112-
Page 2 of 2
SECTION III: Video Inspection Information and Price Quotations
Video Contractor Name:
Please supply at lease three (3) price quotations from contractors listed on the CVSan Qualified
Contractors List and submit to CVSan for review.
1. Contractor Name: Quotation: $
Repair Method: Pipe Bursting or Open Trench
2. Contractor Name: Quotation: $
Repair Method: Pipe Bursting or Open Trench
3. Contractor Name: Quotation: $
Repair Method: Pipe Bursting or Open Trench
4. Contractor Name: Quotation: $
Repair Method: Pipe Bursting or Open Trench
Please be advised:
CVSan will review price quotations for reasonableness of scope and cost. CVSan will use
historical cost data to determine the reasonableness of a price quotation. Additional estimates
may be requested by CVSan.
Reminder:
Please submit your completed application to Castro Valley Sanitary District, 20211 Patio Drive,
Suite 200, Castro Valley, CA 94546.
Castro Valley Sanitary District, 20211 Patio Drive, Suite 200, Castro Valley, CA 94546
Phone: 510-606-1300 / Fax: 510-733-5011 / Website: ww.cvsan.org
ATLAS ENGINEERING, INC.BEYOND PLUMBING EPS INC.
1673 Albani Place 650 McClary Avenue 307 N. Amphlett Blvd.
Brentwood, CA 94513 Oakland, CA 94621-1915 San Mateo, CA 94401-1806
Phone: 925-727-6206 Phone: 510-867-0756 Phone: 800-246-6425
Fax: 925-240-0486 Fax: 510-638-9726 Fax: 650-343-8256
License #900824 License #810801 License #778428
Website: N/A Website: www.beyondplumbing.com Website: www.expressplumbing.com
Email: heathculbreath@sbcglobal.net Email: beyondplumbingcompany@yahoo.com Email: janet@expressplumbing.com
or nick@expressplumbing.com
ORTIZ CONSTRUCTION PLUMBING SQUAD ROTO ROOTER
4061 E. Castro Valley Blvd. #449 44850 Industrial Dr., Unit C 333 N. Canyons Parkway, Ste. 221
Castro Valley, CA 94552 Fremont, CA 94538 Livermore, CA 94551-9478
Phone: 510-538-9464 Phone: 510-943-2618 Phone: 510-278-0823
Fax: 510-538-2870 Fax: 510-257-5500 Fax: 925-605-4354
License #760739 License #917303 License #604196
Website: www.fortizconstruction.com Website: www.plumbingsquad.com Website: www.rotorooter.com
Email: ortizjr@gmail.com Email: info@plumbingsquad.com Email: d.nannini@sanacthq.com
SEWER CONNECTION, INC.SEWERS 4 LESS STAR ROOTER AND PLUMBING
P.O. Box 903 1862 Toulouse Lane P.O. Box 490
Pinole, CA 94564 Brentwood, CA 94513 San Lorenzo, CA 94580
Phone: 510-222-2002 Phone: 510-612-1560 Ed Phone: 510-377-4749 Fred
Fax: 510-758-4100 Fax: 925-240-5116 Fax: 510-481-1741
License #796452 License #668482 License #884481
Website: www.sewerconnectioninc.com Website: N/A Website: www.starrooter.com
Email: sewerconnection@comcast.net Email: N/A Email: fred@starrooter.com
STREAMLINE PLUMBING THE PLUMBING MINISTRY
20885 Redwood Road #406 1637 80TH Avenue
Castro Valley, CA 94546-5915 Oakland, CA 94621
Phone: 510-755-1893 Phone: 510-430-1853
Fax: 925-516-1994 Fax: 510-430-1290
License: 672250 License: 894946
Website: www.streamlineplumbingco.com Website: theplumbingministry.com
Email: streamlinegreg@comcast.net Email: plumbingministry@att.net
CVSan encourages you to check with the Contractors State License Board - Phone: 800-321-2752 / website: www.cslb.ca.gov
and the Better Business Bureau - Phone: 510-844-2000 / website: www.bbb.org prior to hiring a contractor.
The following list of Qualified Contractors is provided by Castro Valley Sanitary District (CVSan) as a service to its residents and may be
used for information purposes only. This list is comprised by the use of historical data. All contractors listed below are properly licensed,
do not have any outstanding matters with CVSan, and have not presented any misleading or confusing print media about the District's
LRGP. We do not warrant that the information is current, although every effort is made to ensure that it is kept as current as possible.
CVSan assumes no responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of or relating to the Contractors.
No advice or information given by CVSan shall create any warranty or liability.
List of CVSan Qualified Contractors
Fiscal Year 2011/2012
S:\Engineering\Programs\LRGP\2011\1112 CONTRACTOR LIST - 2011-06-10 1112 Updated 8/3/2010
2009-09-21 Page 1 of 2
Lateral Grant Application
Guidelines
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, California 94804
Introduction
In 2006, the City of Richmond adopted an ordinance requiring all private sewer mains and laterals to be
certified as meeting the standards set forth in Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 12.17. To obtain the
required “Certificate of Lateral Compliance,” many property owners must incur significant costs to repair
or replace private mains or laterals. To help defray the costs to property owners, the City has budgeted
$100,000 per fiscal year for ten years to be distributed as grants of up to $3,000 each to qualifying
applicants. Residents who own their homes and tax-exempt public service organizations owning property
within the Richmond Sanitary Sewer District may apply for a grant of up to $3,000 as reimbursement for
costs incurred to bring a private sewer main or lateral into compliance.
Eligibility Guidelines:
1. Eligible applicants own property served by the Richmond Sanitary Sewer District and they are
either (i) the occupying owner(s) of a residence, or (ii) a tax-exempt public service organization.
Owners of property within the City of Richmond served by the Stege Sanitary District or West
County Wastewater District are not eligible to receive City grants. Tax-exempt organizations must
attach proof of tax-exempt status to the grant application. Before awarding any grants, the City
will verify property ownership.
2. Prior to applying for a grant, the eligible applicant must have the private sewer main or lateral
inspected in accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Section 12.17.050. If the inspection
reveals that the private main or lateral requires repairs or replacement in order to meet the City’s
standards (set forth at RMC Chapter 12.17), then the property owner must seek competitive bids
from a minimum of three contractors duly licensed in California to perform the necessary work in
order to be eligible for a grant. Copies of at least three bids must be attached to the grant
application, unless the applicant received a Certificate of Lateral Compliance prior to May 16,
2008. If the applicant holds a valid Certificate of Lateral Compliance issued prior to May 16, 2008,
she or he must attach to the grant application a receipt from a duly licensed contractor for work
performed on the subject private main or lateral in order to bring it into compliance. Only the
property owner who paid for the work will be eligible for a grant; a person who acquired the
property after the Certificate of Lateral Compliance was issued will not be eligible for a grant.
Eligible property owners who received Certificates of Compliance prior to May 16, 2008 may
submit grant applications for a period of two years from the date of the Certificate of Lateral
Compliance.
3. Complete grant applications must be received by 5 pm on the published deadline. Each fiscal
year, the City will accept grant applications by mail or in person on the date and at the place
published in the Notice of Grant Availability. The Notice of Grant Availability will be minimally
posted on the City’s website, at the Engineering counter, and at the Building Services counter, and
it will be published in the West County Times. The City reserves the right to reject all incomplete
applications. Grant recipients will be notified by mail or, if an e-mail address is provided, by e-mail
within sixty days from receipt of the application.
2009-09-21 Page 2 of 2
4. Funds will be disbursed to grant recipients after they have received Certificates of Compliance.
Every grant recipient must complete the work necessary to bring the private sewer main or lateral
into compliance with Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 12.17 and receive a Certificate of
Compliance before the City will issue a check for the grant funds.
Award Limits:
1. Grants will not exceed one half of the lowest competitive bid for the required work, or, in the
case of applicants holding a Certificate of Lateral Compliance issued prior to May 1, 2008, one
half of actual costs incurred for the required work, up to a maximum award of $3,000.
2. Each fiscal year the City will provide $100,000 to be awarded in private sewer main or lateral
repair or replacement grants. Any funds remaining at the end of each fiscal year shall roll over to
the next fiscal year. Because funds are limited, it is possible that not every eligible applicant will
receive a grant. Persons not awarded a grant due to unavailability of funds may reapply the
following fiscal year. Each property owner is eligible for no more than one private sewer main or
lateral repair or replacement grant.
2008-04-16 Page 1 of 1
(To be completed by City staff)
Lateral GrantApplication
*Please type or print in blue or black ink*
ENGINEERING SERVICESDEPARTMENT Date and time received:
450CivicCenterPlaza
Richmond, California 94804
Subject Property Information
Address or location, including ZIP
Date of Inspection (attach copy of inspection
report)
Amount of bids received (attach copies of bids)
1. _____________________________
2. _____________________________
3. _____________________________
Brief description of work required to bring lateral into compliance with RMC Chapter 12.17
For applicants who repaired or replaced a private sewer main or lateral prior to May 16, 2008, date
Certificate of Lateral Compliance issued by City of Richmond: __________________________________
(Attach receipt from licensed contractor for work performed to bring main or lateral into compliance.)
Applicant Information
Name of Property Owner (If an organization,
attach proof of tax-exempt status)
Daytime telephone ______________________
E-mail ________________________________
Address (if different than above) City, State ZIP
By signing this application, I certify that (i) I am the legal owner or, if the owner is a tax-exempt public service
organization, the legal representative of the owner of the subject property described above; (ii) I have read the
“Lateral Grant Application Guidelines”; (iii) I recognize that acceptance of this grant application is not a guarantee or
promise by the City of Richmond to approve a grant of funds to aid in the repair or replacement of the private sewer
main or lateral at the above-described property; (iv) I must maintain the private sewer main or lateral at the above-
described property in compliance with Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 12.17 even if this grant application is not
approved; (v) I have not submitted a claim to the City or any other public agency for reimbursement of costs incurred
to make the repairs described above; (vi) Any funds granted by the City of Richmond in response to this application
will be used solely to cover costs incurred in repairing or replacing the main or lateral at the above described
property; and (vii) I understand that the City of Richmond does not guarantee the work of contractors on private
sewer mains and laterals. I hereby grant the City of Richmond all rights of access to the subject property necessary
to process this application, such rights to be exercised only during normal business hours and with reasonable
notice to occupants of the subject property.
Dated____________________________ Signed_____________________________
Print Name__________________________
City of Pacifica Sewer Lateral Replacement Program:
Program Guidelines
Background
The City of Pacifica municipal code requires that property owners or persons in possession of
property properly maintain side, or lateral, sewer lines connecting privately-owned buildings to
the City’s main sewer lines at the owners’ own costs.
On Oct. 17, 2011, City of Pacifica will begin their Sewer Lateral Replacement Program
(“Program”) to enable the City to (a) inspect potentially defective, leaking and/or failed laterals
connecting private residences to the City’s main sewer line, and (b) offer grants to reimburse
property owners a portion of the cost of replacing qualifying defective, leaking and/or failed
laterals. The Program will focus on areas that have shown to have the highest storm water
infiltration based on flow studies that were done last winter. Those studies showed the highest
infiltration rates in the lower Linda Mar area followed by Pedro Point, Vallemar and Fairway Park
(both East & West Fairway).
Eligibility
To be eligible for a lateral inspection under this Program:
1. the property must be a private, single-family primary residence or the property must be
owned and operated by a nonprofit organization, on a not-for-profit basis, as temporary
or transitional housing or related services for homeless persons;
2. the property must not have already received benefits through this Program;
3. the lateral must be at least ten years old or there must be a reasonable basis to believe
that the lateral is defective, leaking and/or failed, as determined by City staff.
To be eligible for a grant for lateral replacement reimbursement under this Program:
1. the above criteria for lateral inspection must be met;
2. the lateral must have been inspected through this Program;
3. the lateral must have been found by City staff to be leaking due to root infiltration,
breaks, cracks, failed pipe, “Orangeburg” pipe, or alignment problems;
4. the property owner must submit evidence that the lateral has been replaced in
conformance with current City codes and specifications, including receipt of required
permits, by a contractor licensed to perform such replacement;
5. the property owner must submit evidence of full payment to the contractor.
Award Limits
For each grant given under this Program, reimbursements are limited to $1,000 per property.
When the City has reached the maximum budget for the Program in any fiscal year, the
Program may be suspended until further funds are available. When the City has reached the
maximum aggregate budget for the Program, the Program may be terminated.
City of Pacifica Sewer Lateral Replacement Program:
Application for Free Sewer Lateral Inspection
and Right of Entry for Inspection of Lateral
Property Address:
Name of Applicant:
This property is:
___ a private, single-family primary residence
___ owned and operated by a nonprofit organization, on a not-for-profit basis, as
temporary or transitional housing or related services for homeless persons
I am the legal owner of the property located at the above address. [_____] (initial here) or
I am a legal representative of the nonprofit organization that owns the property located at the
above address. [_____] (initial here)
The lateral on this property is at least 10 years old. [_____] (initial here) or
I have the following reasons to believe that the lateral located at the above-identified property is
defective, leaking and/or failed: [_____] (initial here)
AUTHORIZATIONS, WAIVERS, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AGREEMENTS
I hereby authorize and grant employees or agents of the City of Pacifica the right to enter the
above-identified property for purposes of inspecting the lateral connecting building(s) located on
the above-identified property to the City’s main sewer line at any time during regular business
hours, upon reasonable notice. [_____] (initial here)
I hereby acknowledge that lateral inspection may require the removal of plants and landscaping,
and authorize City employees or agents to remove plants and landscaping as necessary to
conduct the inspection. I understand that City employees or agents will return the plants and
landscaping to as close to their prior condition as practicable. [_____] (initial here)
I hereby acknowledge that lateral inspections may be performed by the use of closed-circuit
video cameras. If City employees or agents create a video recording of the inspection of any
lateral located on my property, such recording(s), as well as copies of any written reports on the
inspection, will be provided to me after City review and will belong to me. However, I will grant
the City reasonable access to such videos upon request. [_____] (initial here)
I hereby waive and agree not to assert any claim, demand or cause of action against the City,
its officers, employees, councilmembers, volunteers and agents arising from exercise of this
Right of Entry and/or performance of any lateral inspection on my property by City employees or
agents. [_____] (initial here)
I hereby acknowledge and agree that the entry of, and inspection by, any City employees or
agents does not relieve me of my legal responsibility for the maintenance, nor ownership, of the
inspected lateral. [_____] (initial here)
I hereby acknowledge and agree that completion of a lateral inspection by City employees or
agents does not qualify me or my property for any further City-provided benefits, including the
grant of funds for repair or replacement of the inspected lateral. [_____] (initial here)
_____________________________ _________________________
Print name here Mailing Address
_____________________________ _________________________
Signature Telephone Number(s)
_____________________________
Date
Applications may be submitted by mail or in person to: City of Pacifica Waste Water Treatment
Department, 700 Coast Highway, Pacifica, CA 94044, Attn: Sewer Lateral Replacement
Program
Note: To the extent possible, an employee or agent of the City of Pacifica will contact each
applicant within ten (10) days of receipt of this application to inform the applicant of the status of
their application.
____________________________________________________________________________
For City staff use only:
Application received on (date): _________________
Application reviewed by: _________________
Application decision made on (date): _________________
Application decision: ____ Application for inspection accepted
____ Application for inspection denied
Reason(s) for denial, if appropriate:
* * *
If application for inspection granted
Inspection performed by: _________________
Inspection performed on (date): _________________
Copy of video made: ____ Yes
____ No
Report completed on (date): _________________
Notes:
City of Pacifica Sewer Lateral Replacement Program:
Application for Grant to Reimburse for Costs of Lateral Replacement
Property Address:
Name of Applicant:
This property is:
___ a private, single-family primary residence
___ owned and operated by a nonprofit organization, on a not-for-profit basis, as
temporary or transitional housing or related services for homeless persons
I am the legal owner of the property located at the above address. [_____] (initial here) or
I am a legal representative of the nonprofit organization that owns the property located at the
above address. [_____] (initial here)
Date of lateral inspection through City of Pacifica Sewer Lateral Replacement Program (attach
written Property Evaluation Response report):
Date(s) of lateral replacement (attach invoice and any other available evidence that the lateral
has been replaced in conformance with current City codes and specifications.
WAIVERS , ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AGREEMENTS
I hereby waive and agree not to assert any claim, demand or cause of action against the City,
its officers, employees, councilmembers, volunteers and agents arising from the lateral
replacement at the above-identified property. [_____] (initial here)
I hereby acknowledge and agree that a grant from the City does not relieve me of my legal
responsibility for the maintenance, nor ownership, of the replaced lateral(s). [_____] (initial
here)
I hereby acknowledge and agree that I undertook the lateral replacement at my own risk and
that the City does not warrant work performed the contractor who performed the lateral
replacement. [_____] (initial here)
_____________________________ _________________________
Print name here Mailing Address
_____________________________ _________________________
Signature Telephone Number(s)
_____________________________
Date
Applications may be submitted by mail or in person to: City of Pacifica Waste Water Treatment
Department, 700 Coast Highway, Pacifica, CA 94044, Attn: Sewer Lateral Replacement
Program
Note: To the extent possible, an employee or agent of the City of Pacifica will contact each
applicant within ten (10) days of receipt of this application to inform the applicant of the status of
their application.
____________________________________________________________________________
For City staff use only:
Application received on (date): _________________
Application reviewed by: _________________
Application decision made on (date): _________________
Application decision: ____ Grant awarded in the amount of $______
____ Grant application denied
Reason(s) for denial, if appropriate:
* * *
If grant awarded
Reimbursement issued by: _________________
Reimbursement issued on (date): _________________
Notes:
Lateral Replacement Grant Program Guide
An Innovative Program to
Protect Human Health & the Environment
Ross Valley Sanitary District
The Ross Valley Sanitary District Board of Directors approved the
Lateral Replacement Grant Program on August 25, 2009.
Dear Customers:
Thank you for helping us protect the community by repairing your end of the pipe!
As you may have learned, nearly 50% of all sewer spills are caused by leaky lateral pipes on
private property. This program is designed to help encourage property owners like you to
repair your pipe and help protect our environment.
Here is how to take advantage of our innovative grant program:
•The District will fund either $4,000 or half of the total cost of the lowest bid to
replace your lateral pipe, whichever is less.
•Three bids from any of the District’s pre-qualified contractors must be submitted
to the district along with a DVD of the lateral inspection performed by a
contractor and observed by a District Inspector. You will need to coordinate the
video recording of your damaged pipe with our district staff so we can be on hand
for the inspection.
•Once the inspection is completed and you have your DVD and bids, you’ll
submit them to the district along with our Lateral Grant Application.
•The district will review the DVD, bids and your application then notify
you about the status of your grant funding request.
Aflow chart of these steps, an application and a list of pre-qualified contractors is included
on the following pages. Contractors who are interested in being added to the list should con-
tact the District or the local builder’s exchange.
Many contractors already understand the program and can assist you in applying for it.
Naturally we are more than happy to assist you as well.
Please contact us with your questions.
Sincerely,
Brett Richards
General Manager
Customer Service:(415) 259-2949
Inquiries & Suggestions:info@rvsd.org
Ross Valley Sanitary District
2960 Kerner Boulevard San Rafael,CA 94901
PROPERTY OWNER obtains CCTV inspection of
private lateral by RVSD qualified contractor, with
RVSD personnel present, and gets copy of DVD
PROPERTY OWNER submits completed application
to RVSD (this includes application form, at least 3
price quotes from RVSD qualified contractors, and
DVD). It is preferable if the RVSD Side Sewer
Repair Permit is included.
Letter of Approval must be issued by RVSD to
Property Owner
IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS
Before ANY work can begin
WARNING: If the above requirements are not met prior to commencement of construction work, than any repair work
performed prior to receiving a letter of obligation from the District is performed at homeowner’s own risk and cost
INSPECTION
APPLICATION
LETTER OF APPROVAL
RVSD LATERAL GRANT PROGRAM
Application to be reviewed by RVSD and
determination of eligibility will be made by the
General Manager or designee whose decision shall
be final
REVIEW for ELIGIBILITY
PROPERTY OWNER/Contractor obtain required
permit(s), including the RVSD Side Sewer Repair
Permit if not already submitted.
PROPERTY OWNER schedules work with
independent Contractor
Construction inspection of repair work by RVSD
personnel prior to backfilling
PROPERTY OWNER submits copy of paid in full
invoices to RVSD for work performed by
independent Contractor
OBTAIN PERMIT(S)
PERFORM WORK
SUBMIT INVOICES
INSPECT WORK
RVSD processes application for paymentPAYMENT
WORK MUST BE
PERFORMED
WITHIN 90 DAYS
of APPROVAL
ROSS VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
2960 Kerner Blvd
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 259-2949 ~ rvsd.org
List of RVSD Qualified Contractors FY 09/10 Page 1 of 2
The following list of Qualified Contractors is provided by Ross Valley Sanitary District (RVSD) of Marin County as a service to its residents and
may be used for information purposes only. This list is comprised of contractors by the use of historical data, whereby we have observed and
inspected their work in the field. The District makes no preference to the contractors listed herein. All contractors listed below are properly
licensed, do not have any outstanding matters with RVSD, and have not presented any misleading or confusing print media about the District’s
Lateral Replacement Grant Program (LRGP). We do not warrant that the information is current, although every effort is made to ensure that it is
kept as current as possible. RVSD assumes no responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of or
relating to the Contractors. No advice or information given by RVSD shall create any warranty or liability.
Contractor Address City Zip Phone Fax or email
License
#
A Plumbing Solution 107 Cora St San Francisco 94134 (415) 240-8223 damianhowai@gmail.com 848530
AB Plumbing 507 Oxford Street San Francisco 94134 (415) 333-5566 (415) 333-5568 876212
All Terrain Engineering PO Box 71098 Richmond 94807 (415) 459-1488 (415) 459-1074 827896
American Leak Detection 1201 Andersen Drive San Rafael 94901 (415) 883-1690 (415) 485-1250 662617
Amesos Plumbing Inc. 1525 Francisco Blvd. East San Rafael 94901 (415) 457-6363 (415) 457-6330 814542
ARS dba Rescue Rooter 825 Mahler Rd. Burlingame 94010 (650) 652-1050 (650) 652-1049 765155
Barcewski Inc
dba Sunshine Construction 4136 Redwood Hwy Ste 13 San Rafael 94903 (415) 479-5566 (415) 479-8002 315245
Ben Franklin Plumbing 517 Jacoby St San Rafael 94901 (415) 459-5909 kimba_barrios@yahoo.com 857357
Brown Construction 13767 N. Bloomfield Rd. Nevada City 95959 (415) 450-8473 alastairbrown@att.net 500600
California Dirt Inc. 1201 Andersen Dr., Unit 1 San Rafael 94901 (415) 256-1661 gerrysconcrete@aol.com 776015
City Front Plumbing 50 Tiburon Street Ste 25 San Rafael 94901 (415) 454-6737 (415) 454-6797 443156
Community Action Marin 29 Mary Street San Rafael 94901 (415) 526-7500 (415) 457-9677 685781
Condor Construction Inc. 18 Broadmoor Ave. San Anselmo 94960 (415) 456-8497 (415) 456-8497 619383
Doke’s Plumbing Inc 1201 Anderson Dr, Ste J San Rafael 94901 (415) 453-7508 (415) 453-7509 801049
Frank Thomas Plumbing Co 68 Medway Road San Anselmo 94960 (415) 686-4236 frankthomasplumbing@gmail.com 945065
Garris W. Chuba Construction 4889 Petaluma Hill Rd. Santa Rosa 95404 (707) 586-9798 (707) 874-1419 498262
Gene Burch Plumbing 14 Commercial Blvd. #133 Novato 94949 (415) 883-8135 387500
Gotelli Plumbing Co. 21 Lovell Ave. San Rafael 94901 (415) 457-1145 (415) 456-1744 254603
Grier Argall Plumbing Inc. 336 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo 94960 (415) 457-0748 (415) 456-3929 736901
Hardiman Construction 3 Heather Way Larkspur 94939 (415) 847-7650 hardimanconst@pacbell.net 611970
Harkin Services 644 Santana Rd Novato 94945 (415) 806-4586 (415) 897-5775 730482
H & R Plumbing & Drain Cleaning 3990 La Cima Rd El Sobrante 94803 (510) 222-5556 (510) 222-4627 878364
John’s Plumbing & Sewer Service 620 Eldridge Court Novato 94947 (415) 898-2867 (415) 898-1001 628703
Kilpatrick’s 6078 Della Court Rohnert Park 94928 (415) 265-1661 (707) 206-0860 587711
Linscott Engineering Contractors,
Inc. 397 Smith Ranch Rd. San Rafael 94903 (415) 492-1755 (415) 492-0301 477476
Marin H2O, Inc. 40 Paul Drive San Rafael 94903 (415) 479-8411 (415) 472-2766 839817
Marin Mechanical II, Inc. 3100 Kerner Blvd., Ste B1 San Rafael 94901 (415) 485-4472 (415) 485-4371 749299
Marin Plumbing 40 Montego Key Novato 94949 (415) 883-1243 Brian Cooke@Juno.com 611745
Mason Plumbing Inc. 80 Chester Ave Fairfax 94930 (415) 456-4554 (415) 456-4551 817803
Check with the Better Business Bureau – Phone 510-844-2000/ website: www.bbb.com
Note: Any contractor wishing to have their Company’s name added to this list should contact Ross Valley Sanitary District‘s
Engineering Department at 415-259-2949
Contractor List Updated on: 11/9/2011
ROSS VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
2960 Kerner Blvd
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 259-2949 ~ rvsd.org
List of RVSD Qualified Contractors FY 09/10 Page 2 of 2
The following list of Qualified Contractors is provided by Ross Valley Sanitary District (RVSD) of Marin County as a service to its residents
and may be used for information purposes only. This list is comprised of contractors by the use of historical data, whereby we have
observed and inspected their work in the field. The District makes no preference to the contractors listed herein. All contractors listed below
are properly licensed, do not have any outstanding matters with RVSD, and have not presented any misleading or confusing print media
about the District’s Lateral Replacement Grant Program (LRGP). We do not warrant that the information is current, although every effort is
made to ensure that it is kept as current as possible. RVSD assumes no responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential
damages arising out of or relating to the Contractors. No advice or information given by RVSD shall create any warranty or liability.
Contractor Address City Zip Phone Fax or email
License
#
Mc Mahon Plumbing 939 Oak Street Sonoma 95476 (707) 756-0113 (707) 996-8302 710248
Medina Plumbing 1625 Sir Francis Drake Fairfax 94930 (415) 455-8285 (415) 726-7569 cell 852184
Mike Testa Plumbing Inc. 4244 Redwood Hwy. San Rafael 94903 (415) 479-0110 (415) 479-5434 519618
Miksis Services, Inc. 55 Healdsburg Ave Healdsburg 95448 (707) 433-8053 (707) 433-8085 95448
Millsap, Degnan & Associates 4280 Redwood Hwy, Ste 10 San Rafael 94903 (415) 472-4244
ddegnan@millsapdegnan.com 777635
Mr Rooter Plumbing 131 Camino Dorado Napa 94558 (707) 252-6578 (707) 258-8662 511333
New Town Construction 3100 Kerner Blvd, Ste. V San Rafael 94901 (415) 342-7559 (415) 891-8724 577810
North Bay Construction, Inc 431 Payran Street Petaluma 94952 (707) 763-2891 (707) 765-6417 357560
Northstar Plumbing 1671 Northstar Drive Petaluma 94954 (707) 338-0094 sgplumber@comcast.net 953010
O’Connell Plumbing 18 Hill Avenue Fairfax 94930 (415) 457-8932 (415) 485-1991 841039
O’Fiaro Building &
Engineering 217 South 1st Street Richmond 94804 (510) 233-4292 ofiaro@sbcglobal.net 450916
Ongaro and Sons, Inc. 243 San Anselmo Ave. San Anselmo 94960 (415) 454-7400 (707) 579-0842 215233
Paul’s Plumbing Service 375 W. Cintura Ave Lagunitas 94938 (415) 488-9375 pdubdub@gmail.com 716272
Pedro Femenia & Sons PO Box 2196 Mill Valley 94942 (415) 721-7473 (415) 721-7411 392227
Pipe Spy PO Box 503 Larkspur 94977 (415) 927-0287 myles.pipespy@gmail.com 909818
Plumbing Pros PO Box 1182 Novato 94948 (415) 987-7767 plumbingpros@ymail.com 921603
Plumbing Repair Specialists 140 Gary Place San Rafael 94901 (415) 453-6682 (415) 454-6160 460208
Preferred Plumbing & Drain 1989 Olivera Rd, Ste F Concord 94520 (925) 677-0900 (925) 677-0917 848878
R.T. Wilson Plumbing PO Box 286 Forest Knolls 94933 (415) 488-1806 (415) 609-5903 cell 723535
Rapidflo dba Bragg Plumbing 354 Bel Marin Keys, Ste C Novato 94949 (415) 382-1215 (415) 382-1095 821844
Reggie’s Reliable Plumbing
Service 1627 Center Rd. Novato 94948 (415) 686-2440 (415) 532-1819 948155
Roto Rooter 885 Olive Ave, Suite D Novato 94945 (415) 898-2700 (415) 898-6074 288461
Roy’s Sewer Service Inc. 577 Portal Street Cotati 94931 (415) 892-5480 wwall@sonic.net 491815
R.V. Stitch Construction Inc. PO Box 1707 Richmond 94802 (415) 310-1355 (510) 412-8831 530135
Sewer Connection Inc. 5017 Appian Way El Sobrante 94564 (800) 655-7473 (510) 758-4100 796452
Starving Plumbers 12 E. Sir Francis Drake Larkspur 94939 (415) 925-1234 (415) 925-1802 759372
Team Ghilotti, Inc 2531 Petaluma Blvd. So. Petaluma 94952 (707) 763-8700 (707) 762-1430 895384
The Trenchless Co. 600 Broadway Ste #C Sacramento 95818 (916) 455-4433 (916) 454-4859 775703
Tight Access Excavation Inc 6804 Orchard Station Sebastopol 95472 (707) 792-0369 (707) 795-8975 687105
United Vi Plumbing. PO Box 5336 Novato 94948 (415) 320-9001 900215
W.R. Forde Associates 984 Hensley Street Richmond 94801 (510) 215-9338 (510) 215-9867 814744
White Water Plumbing 138 F. Hamilton Drive Novato 94949 (415) 902-5443 wwplumb@yahoo.com 875153
Wilson’s Plumbing 85 Alder Ave. San Anselmo 94960 (415) 457-6941 (415) 457-7509 623217
Check with the Better Business Bureau – Phone 510-844-2000/ website: www.bbb.com
Note: Any contractor wishing to have their Company’s name added to this list should contact Ross Valley Sanitary
District‘s Engineering Department at 415-259-2949
Contractor List Updated on: 11/9/2011
ROSS VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
Application.doc
Serving the Greater Ross Valley Area for 110 Years
2960 Kerner Boulevard San Rafael, Ca 94901
Ph: 415.259.2949 Fax: 415.460.2149
WWW.RVSD.ORG Brett N. Richards ~ General Manager
Directors: Marcia Johnson, President ~ Patrick Guasco, Treasurer ~ Peter Wm. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary ~ Sue Brown ~ Pamela Meigs
LATERAL REPLACEMENT GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
Fiscal Year: __________ LRGP#:_____________
I certify by signing this application that I am the legal owner of the property described herein. I am
aware the submission of this document does not constitute that a grant has been approved by the
District. I have read the brochure discussing the requirements for the Lateral Replacement Grant
Program and am aware that a letter will be issued advising if funds have been granted. Any repair
work performed prior to receiving a letter of obligation from the District is performed at my
own risk and cost. I understand not all applications will be granted. I understand all
applications are subject to a Condition Rating determined by the District that will determine
eligibility for funding.
Signature:____________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Owner(s) Name:
Property Address:
City/Town: ZIP:
Mailing Address:
City/Town: ZIP:
Phone: FAX or email:
Staff Use Only
Type of Connection: Residential / Commercial
RVSD Side Sewer Repair Permit provided? Y / N No.
CCTV Video Provided? Y / N
Condition Assessment Score and Rating
No. of Bids Received (Minimum of 3)
Pre-Qualified Contractors? Y / N
Lowest Pre-Qualified Contractor
Lowest Pre-Qualified Contractor Bid
Grant Amount (50% of lowest bid, up to $4,000)
Application Granted (Y / N) If no, Reason: _ ____________________________
Date: _____________________________
(Note: Expires ninety (90) calendar days from date issued, or cancelled by recipient or District.)
Serving: Bon Air Fairfax Greenbrae Kentfield Kent Woodlands Larkspur Murray Park Oak Manor Ross San Anselmo Sleepy Hollow San Quentin
S:\Lateral Grant Program_LRGP\LRGP FY09-10
Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance
Program
Rev. 0213 Page 6 of 6
Application
I certify by signing this application that I am (we are) the legal owner of the property described herein. I am (we are) aware
that the submission of this document does not constitute that Contractual Assessment Funds have been approved by LGVSD.
I have read the requirements for the Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance Program and am aware that a letter will
be issued advising if Contractual Assessment Funds have been approved. Any work performed prior to receiving a
letter of obligation from LGVSD is performed at my own risk and cost. I understand that not all applications
will be granted. I understand all applications are subject to a Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
(PACP) rating which will be reviewed by LGVSD in determining the eligibility for assistance.
Signature: ______________________________________ Date:_________________
Signature: ______________________________________ Date:_________________
Property Owner(s) Name(s):
Property Address:
Tax Assessor’s Parcel No:
Mailing Address (if different):
City: State: Zip Code:
Home Phone: Mobile: Email:
Amount you are requesting: Estimated date work will begin:
Is this a Late Application filed within 90 days of
completing the work?
YesNo Date work Completed:
(Late Application only)
Checklist for submission:
Quotes for Work
to be Performed:
Three Quotes for the Work to be
performed
Yes No If No
Why?
Emergency
Doing Work Myself
Work Already Completed:
Video Inspection: Executed licensed contractor or plumber which
clearly identifies the property address?
Yes No Your application will be rejected
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance Program
Approved by the Board of Directors on March 22, 2012
DISTRICT BOARD
Megan Clark
Rabi Elias
Russ Greenfield
Craig K. Murray
Judy Schriebman
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
Mark R. Williams,
General Manager
Michael Cortez,
District Engineer
Janice Mandler,
Collection System/Safety Manager
Susan McGuire,
Administrative Services Manager
Rev. 0213 Page 2 of 6
Dear Customers,
Broken sewer laterals can cause pollution which harms the environment and impact public
health.
The Board of Directors and the staff of the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD) wanted
to establish a program where property owners within its boundaries have an economical way to
repair and replace their laterals. LGVSD supported legislation that was passed in 2011,
California Assembly Bill 741, which allows agencies such as ours to advance funds to property
owners for the repairs and receive repayment through special assessments collected on the
property tax bills.
The basic guidelines of the Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance Program are as
follows:
Assistance is available to residential and commercial property owners within the District
The maximum amount of the assistance will be $10,000
Repayment will be over 10 years with an annual interest rate of 2%. Payments will be
collected through semi-annual property tax bills as a special assessment
The property owner must obtain a video inspection of the lateral performed
by a plumber that shows at least one NASSCO Pipeline Assessment
Certification Program (PACP) defect. This video needs to clearly show the
property owner’s street address at the curb or front of the building. The
repair work must be performed by a properly licensed contractor. See the
District’s website for a list of licensed contractors and plumbers who have
performed work in the District in the past.
The property owner must obtain three quotes from contractors to perform the work who
are bonded and licensed by the California’s Contractors State Licensing Board. The
property owner is not required to select the licensed contractor who provided the lowest
qualified bid used to determine the limit of the assistance. However, the District will only
provide funds for the amount of the lowest qualified bid.
Once the property owner has obtained a video inspection of the lateral, obtained three
quotes, and completed an application they should submit them to the District.
Applications will be taken on a first-come, first-serve basis. It is strongly recommended
that the assistance application be completed and approved prior to the work being
performed. However, a property owner may apply for a loan within 90 days of completing
DISTRICT BOARD
Megan Clark
Rabi Elias
Russ Greenfield
Craig K. Murray
Judy Schriebman
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
Mark R. Williams,
General Manager
Michael Cortez,
District Engineer
Janice Mandler,
Collection System/Safety Manager
Susan McGuire,
Administrative Services Manager
Rev. 0213 Page 3 of 6
the work. Post work applications are not guaranteed to be approved and the work is
performed at the owner’s risk and cost.
LGVSD staff will review the application package and notify the property owner about the
status of the assistance request.
If the application is approved and prior to paying the contractor, the property owner will
be required to sign a Contractual Assessment Agreement which will be recorded against
the property.
Attached is a chart of these steps with additional guidelines for the program and an application
form. In addition, the property owner may review the applicable District Ordinance in Title 2,
Chapter 8 of the Ordinance Code and the Contractual Assessment Agreement form at our
website: www.lgvsd.org.
Please contact us with your questions.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Williams
x:\lateral assistance program\final documents\lateral assistance program application property owner only rev 02 15 2013.docx
Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance
Program
Rev. 0213 Page 4 of 6
Be
f
o
r
e
A
n
y
W
o
r
k
B
e
g
i
n
s
Inspection
Obtain Quotes
Application
Staff Review
Approval Letter
Property owner obtains a video inspection..
The lateral line must have at least one Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) rated
defect.
The video inspection must clearly identify the location of the property and the lateral by recording the
address at the curb or on the property. Videos without this identification will be rejected.
The video inspection may be observed by LGVSD personnel.
Property owner is required to obtain three quotes from contractors who are bonded and licensed by the
California Contractor State Licensing Board to perform the work, or
If the property owner is a licensed plumber or contractor, they may submit the estimated cost of
materials and equipment to perform the work themselves.
Applications will be taken on a first-come, first serve basis.
It is strongly recommended that the assistance application be completed and approved prior to the
work being performed. However, the property owner may apply for assistance within 90 days of
completing the work. Post work applications are not guaranteed approval and the work is
performed at the owner’s risk and cost.
The District reserves the right to reject all incomplete applications.
Application and lateral video will be reviewed by LGVSD and determination of eligibility will be
made by the General Manager or designee whose decision shall be final.
LGVSD will verify the ownership of the property with the applicant.
The property shall not be encumbered with delinquent property taxes, special assessments or other
assessment loans. If delinquencies exist, the property owner must provide documents of special
payment arrangements to eliminate the delinquencies.
The assistance limit will be established, including any fees related to processing the application.
Letter of approval must be issued by LGVSD to Property Owner.
Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance
Program
Rev. 0213 Page 5 of 6
Wo
r
k
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
Obtain Permits
Property owner/contractor is required to obtain a permit from LGVSD which is available at no cost.
Property owner/contractor is responsible for obtaining all permits required by the City of San Rafael
and/or the County of Marin for street excavation work or any other applicable permits.
Perform Work
Property owner schedules the work.
Property owner is responsible for ensuring that the work is performed in accordance with LGVSD’s
specifications.
Property owner is responsible for managing the work, including the activities of the contractor,
permitting and inspection, restoration work, repairs, and claims for damages incurred.
Property owner to obtain approval from LGVSD for any additional work due to unforeseen
circumstances which would be reimbursed with Contractual Assessment Funds.
Property owner is required to perform the work, including inspections, within 90 days of
Approval Letter date and prior to the end of the fiscal year (June 30th), whichever is earlier.
Obtain Inspections
A post rehabilitation inspection by LGVSD must be obtained prior to burial of the lateral which is
available at no cost.
Schedule the LGVSD inspection at least 24 hours in advance of the desired inspection time.
Schedule any inspection required by the City of San Rafael and/or the County of Marin for street
excavation work or any other applicable inspections.
Payment
Property owners submits to LGVSD invoices and documentation including all necessary permits and
inspections, an itemized statement of costs and a signed release accepting the improvements and
authorizing payment.
LGVSD will authorize payment for the lesser of the amount in Approval Letter plus any previously
authorized additional work or the actual cost of the work performed.
LGVSD will execute a Contractual Assessment Agreement with the property owner which will be
recorded by LGVSD to secure repayment.
LGVSD will pay the contractor directly.
After the Project is Completed
Property owner shall retain all receipts, permits, inspection reports and other documents.
LGVSD will provide the property owner with a certificate showing that the lateral was
repaired/replaced and the date thereof.
Property owner will pay the Contractual Assessment as part of their semi-annual property tax bill.
Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance
Program
Rev. 0213 Page 6 of 6
Application
I certify by signing this application that I am (we are) the legal owner of the property described herein. I am (we are) aware
that the submission of this document does not constitute that Contractual Assessment Funds have been approved by LGVSD.
I have read the requirements for the Private Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Assistance Program and am aware that a letter will
be issued advising if Contractual Assessment Funds have been approved. Any work performed prior to receiving a
letter of obligation from LGVSD is performed at my own risk and cost. I understand that not all applications
will be granted. I understand all applications are subject to a Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
(PACP) rating which will be reviewed by LGVSD in determining the eligibility for assistance.
Signature: ______________________________________ Date:_________________
Signature: ______________________________________ Date:_________________
Property Owner(s) Name(s):
Property Address:
Tax Assessor’s Parcel No:
Mailing Address (if different):
City: State: Zip Code:
Home Phone: Mobile: Email:
Amount you are requesting: Estimated date work will begin:
Is this a Late Application filed within 90 days of
completing the work?
YesNo Date work Completed:
(Late Application only)
Checklist for submission:
Quotes for Work
to be Performed:
Three Quotes for the Work to be
performed
Yes No If No
Why?
Emergency
Doing Work Myself
Work Already Completed:
Video Inspection: Executed licensed contractor or plumber which
clearly identifies the property address?
Yes No Your application will be rejected
Modified 3/04/14
Rock Island sewer customers own the pipe (sewer lateral) that connects their properties to the City sewer system. The City of Rock
Island (City) offers the Sewer Lateral Repair Program (Program) as a way to protect customers from the unexpected financial b urden of
a sewer lateral repair. In addition, the Program relieves customers from the nuisance of finding and hiring a plumbing contra ctor on
short notice in the event of a sewer lateral failure.
If you participate in the Program and your sewer lateral f ails, the City will make the repairs according to the following regulations.
Program Eligibility
In order to enroll in the Program,
1.you must be the owner or contract purchaser of the property served by the sewer lateral,
2.the sewer lateral must be six (6)inches in diameter or less,
3.the sewer lateral may only serve residential property and
4.the sewer lateral must be in working order.
The City reserves the right to…
1.deny enrollment in the Program if your sewer lateral is defective,
2.deny enrollment in the Program due to unusual site conditions and
3.approve Program enrollment subject to site specific stipulations.
Program Charges
The charge for the Program is $9.00 per month per sewer lateral. The City may change the charge at its so le discretion after mailing
you a written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to the effective date of the change.
Program charges will be included on your regular utility bill from the City. If your payment is not sufficient to pay all the charges on the
bill, the payment will be distributed according to the following priority:
1.Storm Water Utility charges
2.Sewer Use charges
3.Water Sales charges
4.Water Service Repair Program payments (if enrolled)
5.Sewer Lateral Repair Program
Period of Protection
Program protection begins on the date of City Acceptance and continues as long as you make timely Program payments. Your
participation in the Program may be cancelled without notice if a Program payment is thirty -six (36) days past due.
If your participation in the Program ceases for any reason, you may re-enroll subject to the Program eligibility requirements and
payment of a service charge of $50.00. Participation in the Program is voluntary and failure to make Program payments will no t affect
continuation of your utility services.
Limit of Protection
In the event of a sewer lateral failure, the City has the following responsibilities:
1.The City will repair or replace the failed portions of the sewer lateral. For the purposes of this Program, the sewer lateral is the
pipeline extending from the outside wall of the building to the public sewer and includes the connection to the public sewer.
2.The City will reimburse you for the costs of hiring a sewer -cleaning contractor when efforts to reopen the clogged sewer lateral
are unsuccessful and when sewer lateral repairs are undertaken by the City under the terms of the Program.
3.The City will grade and sod all disturbed lawn areas. You will be responsible for watering the sod after it is placed.
4.The City will replace all public or private sidewalks, driveways and street pavements that are damaged and/or removed to
complete the sewer lateral repair. The sidewalk and street pavements belonging to the City will be replaced according to City
standards. The sidewalk and driveway pavements belonging to you will be replaced to match the pavements that were
removed.
The maximum obligation of the City for each sewer lateral repair under this Program is $8,000.
If a subsequent repair is undertaken within sixty (60) days after the prior covered repair is completed, it will be considered as a part of
that prior covered repair.
Sewer Lateral Repair Program Agreement
Modified 3/04/14
If the costs of the repair exceed the City obligations under the Program, you are responsible for the excess amount. You will be notified
when the City realizes that the repair costs are likely to exceed Program limitations so that you can make arrangements to pa y your
share.
The Sewer Lateral Repair Program Does Not Cover
1.The costs of sewer lateral cleaning unless the sewer -cleaning contractor is unable to reopen the sewer lateral and sewer
lateral repairs are undertaken by the City under the terms of the Program.
2.Damage to your sewer lateral incurred or existing prior to the beginning of the Period of Protection.
3.Damage to your sewer lateral caused by your negligence or the negligence of third parties.
4.Damage to your sewer lateral caused by natural disasters, or acts of nature, including, but not limited to earthquakes, flood s,
landslides, sinkholes or any other insurable cause.
5.Any consequential, incidental or special damages that you incur regardless of whether they are caused by delays, failure to
service or for conditions beyond the control of the City.
6.Restoration of landscaping other than sod.
7.Damage to finished or unfinished walls or surfaces inside your home necessary to access and repair your sewer lateral.
8.Repairs to any interior pipes.
9.Removal of debris necessary to access and repair your sewer lateral, including but not limited to old cars, trash, storage, r ocks
or materials.
10.Updating sewer lateral plumbing to meet code, law or ordinance requirements or changes thereto.
11.Repairs to underground irrigation systems.
Your Responsibilities
If your sewer lateral is plugged, you must hire a sewer -cleaning contractor to reopen the sewer lateral. If the sewer-cleaning contractor
is unable to reopen the sewer lateral, contact the Public Works Department at the following numbers.
If your sewer lateral is not plugged, but you suspect for some reason that it has failed (i.e. a sinkho le growing in the vicinity of the sewer
lateral), call the Public Works Department at the following numbers.
309-732-2200 on weekdays except holidays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
or
309-732-2311 at all other times
City Responsibilities
A first responder will meet you at the property within two (2) hours after you call the Public Works Department to investigate the
problem. The City may attempt to resolve the problem by cleaning your sewer lateral. If your sewer lateral has failed, a repa ir crew will
begin work within twenty-four (24) hours.
Cancellation
You may cancel this Program at any time by mailing a cancellation request to the City of Rock Island, Public Works Department,
ATTN: Sewer Lateral Repair Program, 1309 Mill Street, Rock Island, IL 6120 1.
If you cancel, the effective date of cancellation is the date the City receives the notice.
Limitation of Liability
In the event that your property is not eligible under the terms and conditions of the Program, the only City obligation is to refund any
Program payments you made to the City. Once this refund has been paid, your Program participation will be voided as of the d ate of
your initial Program payment.
The liability of the City, it’s officers, employees, contractors, and/or agents to you or to any other third party or person, for damages
resulting from the provision of, or failure to provide services under this Program, or as the result of any fault, failure, d efect, or
deficiency in any service, labor, material, work, or product furnished in connection with this Program shall not exceed the Limits of
Protection.
In no event, however, shall the City, employees, agents, and contractors have any liability for special, indirect, incidental , consequential
or punitive damages resulting from the provision of or failure to provide service under this Program, or from any fault failure, defect or
deficiency in any service, labor, material, work, or product furnished in connection with this Program. These limitations of and
exclusions from liability shall apply regardless of the nature of the claim or of the remedy sought.
The Sewer Lateral Repair Program is not an insurance contract or policy. The Program provides for the repair of sewer lateral s due to
normal wear and tear. This contract constitutes the entire agreement between the City and you and there are no other promises or
conditions in any other agreement whether written or oral.
Please keep this page for your records.
City of San Luis Obispo Appendix E
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
E
R&R PIPELINE CONDITION RATINGS
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
43
38
35
39
40
34
32
42
4
7
37
3
6
41
45
44
4
8
49
33
4
6
3
2
3
8
4
0
40
38
34
38
34
36
3
6
3
2
36
35
3
4
38
38
34
343
4
40
36
40
3
4
36
34
34
42
42
40
38
40
42
34
34
3
8
34
38
32
38
38
3
434
34
36
34
40
43
43
3
4
32
36
36
38
34
35
42
3
2
40
34
38
32
34
32
3
4
3
4
32
39
38
4
2
32
38
34
38
34
34
38
35
35
34
34
3
2
3
4
3
4
32
3238
32
4
0
32
38
34
32
32
32
34
44
36
36
39
36
3
4
38
34
36
32
3
2
42
34
38
40
38
3
2
4
0
32
34
32
3
2
38
38
38
38
34
34
38
3
2
40
3
8
3
4
3
6
40
38
38
3
8
38
34
37
49
3
4
3
6
38
3
4
3
8
34
32
3
4
34
34
40
42
34
32
3
8
34
3
6
3
6
3
2
34
34
32
36
38
32
4
2
36
38
47 35
34
3
2
3
8
38
3
4
34
32
34
4238
38
35
3
4
34
3
4
4
0
34
32
36
10
1
S
B
R
O
A
D
101 N
TANK FARM
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
MILL
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
HIGU
E
R
A
PISM
O
O
R
C
U
T
T
MADO
N
N
A
FOOTHILL
MAR
S
H
HIGH
HIGHLAND
LEFF
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
W
ISLA
Y
F
L
O
R
A
PR
A
D
O
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
T
O
R
O
SOUTH
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
O
S
O
S
BUC
H
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
M
O
R
R
O
PEAC
H
ELK
S
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
SAN
L
U
I
S
N
I
P
O
M
O
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
ELLA
LOOMIS
BISH
O
P
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
P
O
I
N
S
E
T
T
I
A
BRANCH
LA
U
R
E
L
DIAB
L
O
B
U
L
L
O
C
K
H
I
L
L
LUNETA
HO
O
V
E
R
G
A
R
D
E
N
D
E
L
R
I
O
O
C
E
A
N
A
I
R
E
FULLE
R
VAL
L
E
V
I
S
T
A
VILLAG
E
PALM
VA
C
H
E
L
L
B
E
A
C
H
G
R
A
N
D
ROY
A
L
S
A
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
LI
N
C
O
L
N
P
E
P
P
E
R
M
O
U
N
T
B
I
S
H
O
P
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
SUBURBAN
CA
S
A
LIZZ
I
E
WOODBRIDGE
MIOSS
I
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
OLIV
E
GAT
H
E
G
R
O
V
E
AIR
P
O
R
T
C
A
R
M
E
L
L
I
M
A
SANDERCOCK
SLACK
B
A
L
B
O
A
WALN
U
T
INDUS
T
R
I
A
L
CERRO ROMAULDO
TIBU
R
O
N
LO
N
G
BE
E
B
E
E
LAWRENCE
SYDN
E
Y
McCOLLUM
D
A
L
I
D
I
O
HAYS
NAS
E
L
L
A
DAN
A
HOPE
CHU
R
C
H
LA
W
T
O
N
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
SPAN
I
S
H
O
A
K
S
MARGARI
T
A
UPH
A
M
GOLDENROD
S
I
E
R
R
A
BRIDGE
IRIS
VI
A
L
A
G
U
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
SOUTHWOOD
V
I
A
C
A
R
T
A
H
U
A
S
N
A
G
U
L
F
HIND
G
A
L
L
E
O
N
F
E
R
R
I
N
I
OAK
10
1
N
O
F
F
HANSEN
IRONBARK
EL
M
TANGLE
W
O
O
D
SA
N
T
A
F
E
CORRIDA
BOND
MURRAY
CA
L
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
HOPKINS
MITCHELL
SAGE
MISSION
GR
A
V
E
S
WA
V
E
R
T
R
E
E
PRE
F
U
M
O
C
A
N
Y
O
N
KI
N
G
K
L
A
M
A
T
H
ISABELLA
H
E
L
E
N
A
GRANADA
POL
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
AL
-
H
I
L
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
LAG
U
N
A
OJAI
GEO
R
G
E
D
E
E
R
1
0
1
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
E
R
CAUDILL
T
O
N
I
N
I
DALY
CLARION
L
A
E
N
T
R
A
D
A
E
L
M
E
R
C
A
D
O
FELTON
M
I
R
A
D
A
ALBE
R
T
STONERIDGE
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
T
O
TRUCKEE
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
J
E
A
N
ZA
C
A
S
E
Q
U
O
I
A
CAPITO
L
I
O
CO
R
R
A
L
I
T
O
S
CLOVE
R
GA
R
I
B
A
L
D
I
P
A
S
A
T
I
E
M
P
O
AER
O
NORTH PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
DEVA
U
L
R
A
N
C
H
DES
C
A
N
S
O
MON
T
A
L
B
A
N
MEINECKE
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
FE
R
N
W
O
O
D
ALDER
MALIBU
FIERO
BOY
S
E
N
C
U
E
S
T
A
PA
R
K
E
R
FARMHOUSE
CENTER
SOUTH P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
KENDALL
PR
I
C
E
WILSON
ALR
I
T
A
FONTANA
BI
N
N
S
K
E
R
R
Y
CHUMASH
A
L
L
E
N
E
ATAS
C
A
D
E
R
O
T
W
I
N
R
I
D
G
E
MA
P
L
E
VI
S
T
A
B
R
I
S
A
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
H
E
D
L
E
Y
LE
O
N
A
AERO
V
I
S
T
A
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
RAMONA
T
H
E
L
M
A
GARFIELD
QUA
I
L
LO
S
P
A
L
O
S
AN
D
R
E
W
S
ST
O
R
Y
SPO
O
N
E
R
M
U
G
U
CROSS
POLY
V
I
E
W
VE
R
D
E
P
I
N
E
C
O
V
E
BIR
C
H
EL
L
E
N
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
H
O
L
L
Y
H
O
C
K
101
S
O
F
F
GAR
C
I
A
A
L
M
O
N
D
SH
O
R
T
RA
C
H
E
L
ABBOTT
10
1
N
O
N
RA
F
A
E
L
PIN
E
F
L
O
R
E
N
C
E
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
N
PA
L
O
M
A
R
VI
S
T
A
L
A
G
O
SI
S
Q
U
O
C
L
O
S
C
E
R
R
O
S
HAZ
E
L
ES
P
E
R
A
N
Z
A
PERK
I
N
S
DEL NORTE
LO
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
HARMONY
DEL MAR
R
O
S
E
HU
T
T
O
N
CAPISTRAN
O
P
A
T
R
I
C
I
A
I
L
E
N
E
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
J
A
N
E
KA
R
E
N
MEISSNER
WESTMONT
MA
R
I
P
O
S
A
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
A
V
A
L
O
N
VI
S
T
A
C
O
L
L
A
D
O
S
SPIT
F
I
R
E
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
MONTR
O
S
E
POR
T
O
L
A
P
O
A
COR
D
O
V
A
CUYAMA
SA
W
L
E
A
F
ST
E
N
N
E
R
BONETTI
JUNIPERO
CY
P
R
E
S
S
DU
N
C
A
N
BU
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
VIA LA PAZ
CHUPARROSA
EX
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
C
H
A
P
L
I
N
BL
U
E
R
O
C
K
W
A
L
K
E
R
SLENDER
R
O
C
K
P
A
R
K
L
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
TUL
I
P
BED
F
O
R
D
CACHUMA
FRA
M
B
U
E
S
A
EM
P
L
E
O
BR
I
Z
Z
O
L
A
R
A
WEST
L
A
R
K
S
P
U
R
RE
D
W
O
O
D
BAY LE
A
F
CALL
E
C
R
O
T
A
L
O
MOUNT
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
SNAPDRAGON
EL CA
P
I
T
A
N
SEAW
A
R
D
F
A
I
R
W
A
Y
BE
E
C
H
VENTURE
T
A
H
O
E
CAS
T
I
L
L
O
RO
S
I
T
A
EL
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
CE
D
A
R
O
'
C
O
N
N
E
R
SA
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
D
E
L
C
A
M
P
O
BLUEBELL
TOLOSA
M
U
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
E
L
T
I
G
R
E
LAS PR
A
D
E
R
A
S
LOBELIA
P
A
C
H
E
C
O
W
A
Y
SPORTS COMPLEX A
C
C
E
S
S
PAC
I
F
I
C
BU
S
H
N
E
L
L
PHIL
L
I
P
S
CORA
L
CAV
A
L
I
E
R
CO
L
I
N
A
JA
Y
C
E
E
TAFT
VENABLE
KEN
T
W
O
O
D
BOUG
A
I
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
EM
I
L
Y
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
CA
L
L
E
M
A
L
V
A
E
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
ARALIA
F
E
R
N
A
N
D
E
Z
CALLE LUPITA
L
A
P
O
S
A
D
A
LILY
DRA
K
E
S
U
N
R
O
S
E
VIA E
S
T
E
B
A
N
P
A
R
T
R
I
D
G
E
SY
C
A
M
O
R
E
LE
X
I
N
G
T
O
N
GRET
A
WA
R
D
S
W
E
E
T
B
A
Y
ROUGEOT
LO
M
P
O
C
OLD SANTA FE
CHAPAR
R
A
L
SK
Y
L
I
N
E
PINN
A
C
L
E
S
C
A
R
O
L
Y
N
R
U
B
I
O
S
T
E
P
H
A
N
I
E
REB
A
MON
T
E
C
I
T
O
SA
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
C
L
E
A
R
V
I
E
W
SW
A
Z
E
Y
BRE
C
K
AUTO
P
A
R
K
CAYU
C
O
S
SU
E
L
D
O
LAK
E
V
I
E
W
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
BR
O
O
K
LYN
N
FE
N
N
E
L
CAN
Y
O
N
C
I
R
C
L
E
S
K
Y
L
A
R
K
LA
W
N
W
O
O
D
POP
P
Y
LA
L
O
M
A
AL
Y
S
S
U
M
FRO
O
M
R
A
N
C
H
OL
D
W
I
N
D
M
I
L
L
BASIL
N
E
W
P
O
R
T
MOUNTAIN
WOODLA
N
D
LI
N
D
A
CARL
A
C
E
R
R
O
V
I
S
T
A
C
I
R
C
L
E
LOM
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
BIANCHI
AL
I
C
I
T
A
VIEW
M
O
N
T
JE
N
N
I
F
E
R
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
O
U
R
T
KNO
L
L
CAMP
U
S
W
A
Y
STER
L
I
N
G
AZALE
A
F
A
R
R
I
E
R
L
A
D
E
R
A
LA L
U
N
A
W
E
L
S
H
BOXWOOD
MUTS
U
H
I
T
O
CR
E
S
T
V
I
E
W
EL
C
A
S
E
R
I
O
FELICIA
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
F
O
R
E
M
A
N
A
L
M
O
N
D
A
L
L
E
Y
HUCK
L
E
B
E
R
R
Y
DE
L
S
O
L
YAR
R
O
W
ALPH
O
N
S
O
SE
R
R
A
N
O
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
CUCARAC
H
A
PISM
O
B
U
C
H
O
N
A
L
L
E
Y
NIPO
M
O
A
L
L
E
Y
CALLE
D
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
S
ROS
E
M
A
R
Y
PALM
M
I
L
L
A
L
L
E
Y
K
I
L
A
R
N
E
Y
OLE
A
SAN
M
A
R
C
O
S
A
R
R
O
Y
O
PURPLE SAGE
MORRISON
PAULINE
VALECITO
M
U
R
L
MA
D
O
N
N
A
A
L
L
E
Y
EL
M
I
R
A
D
O
R
CATALINA
MANZA
N
I
T
A
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
C
T
SP
R
I
N
G
LI
R
I
O
M
A
R
I
A
N
SYLVIA
CA
M
E
L
L
I
A
SONRISA
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
TU
R
N
E
R
EN
C
A
N
T
O
MA
D
R
I
D
R
O
S
E
A
L
L
E
Y
LAW
R
E
N
C
E
PHILLIPS
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
ORCUTT
PAC
I
F
I
C
V
I
A
C
A
R
T
A
SA
N
T
A
F
E
10
1
N
O
N
IRIS
BR
O
A
D
RAMONA
MADO
N
N
A
10
1
S
O
F
F
SK
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
E
S
T
A
10
1
S
O
N
101 S ON
SLACK
LAU
R
E
L
CEDAR
10
1
N
O
F
F
101 S
O
F
F
CE
N
T
E
R
101
N
SYDN
E
Y
HIGU
E
R
A
KI
N
G
B
R
O
A
D
101
N
O
F
F
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
SOU
T
H
W
O
O
D
101 S ON
10
1
N
O
N
10
1
N
101
N
O
F
F
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
1
0
1
S
O
N
101 N
O
F
F
DALY
CAMP
U
S
W
A
Y
EL
M
101 N OFF
P
A
R
K
MADO
N
N
A
MA
P
L
E
C
U
E
S
T
A
PALM
Laguna Lake
SanLuisO bis p o C r e ek
PerfumoCanyon
StennerCre
ek
RS
V
R
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
P
e
rfu
m
o
Creek
B rizzi o l a r i C r e e k
Ha m p t o n Canyon
WestCorralde
Piedro
Creek
FroomCreek
OldGardenCreek
F r o o m Creek
Froom C r e e k
Da
t
e
:
4
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
t
h
:
W
:
\
G
I
S
\
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
\
W
C
S
I
R
S
\
C
I
P
_
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
_
R
a
t
i
n
g
s
_
2
2
x
3
4
.
m
x
d
Legend
City Limit
Railroad
R/R Score
0 - 14
15 - 31.9
32 - 49
±0 0.5 10.25
MilesSLO WCSIRS
Appendix E. Figure 1. Pipeline Condition Ratings
City of San Luis Obispo Appendix F
Draft ‐ Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 4/15/2015
F
PROPOSED RENEWAL PROJECTS SCHEDULED BY YEAR
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
101 S
B
R
O
A
D
101 N
O
R
C
U
T
T
TANK
F
A
R
M
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
MILL
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
HIGU
E
R
A
PISM
O
MADO
N
N
A
FOOTHILL
MAR
S
H
HIGH
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
HIGHLAND
LEFF
FOOT
H
I
L
L
W
ISLA
Y
F
L
O
R
A
PR
A
D
O
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
T
O
R
O
SOUTH
O
S
O
S
BUC
H
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
M
O
R
R
O
PEAC
H
ELK
S
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
SAN
L
U
I
S
N
I
P
O
M
O
ELLA
LOOMIS
BISH
O
P
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
P
O
I
N
S
E
T
T
I
A
BRANCH
LA
U
R
E
L
PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
DIAB
L
O
B
U
L
L
O
C
K
H
I
L
L
LUNETA
G
A
R
D
E
N
D
E
L
R
I
O
O
C
E
A
N
A
I
R
E
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
FULLE
R
VAL
L
E
V
I
S
T
A
PALM
B
E
A
C
H
G
R
A
N
D
CA
L
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
ROY
A
L
S
A
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
LI
N
C
O
L
N
P
E
P
P
E
R
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
SUBURBAN
CA
S
A
LIZZ
I
E
WOODBRIDGE
MIOSS
I
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
OLIV
E
GAT
H
E
G
R
O
V
E
C
A
R
M
E
L
L
I
M
A
SANDERCOCK
SLACK
B
A
L
B
O
A
WALN
U
T
INDUS
T
R
I
A
L
CERRO ROMAULDO
TIBU
R
O
N
LO
N
G
BE
E
B
E
E
LAWRENCE
SYDN
E
Y
McCOLLUM
FREDERICKS
D
A
L
I
D
I
O
HAYS
NAS
E
L
L
A
DAN
A
HOPE
CHU
R
C
H
LA
W
T
O
N
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
SPAN
I
S
H
O
A
K
S
MARGARI
T
A
UPH
A
M
GOLDENROD
S
I
E
R
R
A
BRIDGE
IRIS
VI
A
L
A
G
U
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
SOUTHWOOD
H
U
A
S
N
A
G
U
L
F
HIND
G
A
L
L
E
O
N
F
E
R
R
I
N
I
OAK
HANSEN
IRONBARK
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
EL
M
TANGLE
W
O
O
D
SERRANO
CORRIDA
BOND
MURRAY
HOPKINS
MITCHELL
SAGE
MISSION
GR
A
V
E
S
WA
V
E
R
T
R
E
E
PRE
F
U
M
O
C
A
N
Y
O
N
KI
N
G
K
L
A
M
A
T
H
ISABELLA
H
E
L
E
N
A
SA
N
T
A
F
E
GRANADA
AL
-
H
I
L
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
LAG
U
N
A
OJAI
GEO
R
G
E
D
E
E
R
1
0
1
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
E
R
CAUDILL
T
O
N
I
N
I
DALY
CLARION
L
A
E
N
T
R
A
D
A
E
L
M
E
R
C
A
D
O
FELTON
M
I
R
A
D
A
AL
B
E
R
T
STONERIDGE
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
T
O
TRUCKEE
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
V
I
A
C
A
R
T
A
J
E
A
N
ZA
C
A
S
E
Q
U
O
I
A
CAPI
T
O
L
I
O
CO
R
R
A
L
I
T
O
S
HO
O
V
E
R
GA
R
I
B
A
L
D
I
FEL-MAR
NORTH PER
I
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
DEVA
U
L
R
A
N
C
H
DES
C
A
N
S
O
MON
T
A
L
B
A
N
MEINECKE
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
FERN
W
O
O
D
ALDER
MALIBU
CRAIG
FIERO
BO
Y
S
E
N
CU
E
S
T
A
PA
R
K
E
R
CENTE
R
SOUTH PER
I
M
E
T
E
R
PR
I
C
E
WILSON
ALR
I
T
A
FONTANA
B
I
N
N
S
K
E
R
R
Y
CHUMASHATAS
C
A
D
E
R
O
MA
P
L
E
VI
S
T
A
B
R
I
S
A
H
E
D
L
E
Y
STAFFORD
LE
O
N
A
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
RAMONA
HE
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
DEL SUR
T
H
E
L
M
A
GARFIELD
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
QUA
I
L
W
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
R
E
W
S
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
S
ST
O
R
Y
OAK
R
I
D
G
E
S
P
O
O
N
E
R
M
U
G
U
CROSS
POLY VI
E
W
101
N
O
F
F
VE
R
D
E
P
I
N
E
C
O
V
E
BIR
C
H
EL
L
E
N
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
H
O
L
L
Y
H
O
C
K
101
S
O
F
F
GAR
C
I
A
A
L
M
O
N
D
SH
O
R
T
HA
R
R
I
S
RA
C
H
E
L
ABBOTT
10
1
N
O
N
RA
F
A
E
L
PIN
E
FL
O
R
E
N
C
E
CO
N
E
J
O
ME
A
D
O
W
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
N
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
VI
S
T
A
L
A
G
O
S
T
A
N
F
O
R
D
SI
S
Q
U
O
C
VA
C
H
E
L
L
L
O
S
C
E
R
R
O
S
HAZ
E
L
CLOVE
R
PERK
I
N
S
WARREN
DEL NORTE
LOS VERDES
LO
S
P
A
L
O
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
HARMONY
DEL MAR
R
O
S
E
HU
T
T
O
N
C
A
P
I
S
T
R
A
N
O
I
L
E
N
E
CA
Z
A
D
E
R
O
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
J
A
N
E
KA
R
E
N
HILL
C
R
E
S
T
MEISSNER
WESTMONT
MA
R
I
P
O
S
A
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
A
V
A
L
O
N
FUNSTON
FRAN
C
I
S
MARLENE
VI
S
T
A
C
O
L
L
A
D
O
S
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
SANTA YNEZ
HER
M
O
S
A
POR
T
O
L
A
P
O
A
COR
D
O
V
A
C
O
U
P
E
R
CUYAMA
SA
W
L
E
A
F
ST
E
N
N
E
R
LA
C
A
N
A
D
A
BONETTI
JUNIPERO
CY
P
R
E
S
S
DU
N
C
A
N
BU
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
AERO
V
I
S
T
A
VIA LA PAZ
CHUPARROSA
EX
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
C
H
A
P
L
I
N
BL
U
E
R
O
C
K
W
A
L
K
E
R
SLENDER ROCK
P
A
R
K
L
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
TUL
I
P
BED
F
O
R
D
CACHUMA
VEGAFRA
M
B
U
E
S
A
VIA SAN
B
L
A
S
EM
P
L
E
O
BR
I
Z
Z
O
L
A
R
A
WEST
LA
R
K
S
P
U
R
L
E
M
O
N
RE
D
W
O
O
D
BAY LE
A
F
CALL
E
C
R
O
T
A
L
O
W NE
W
P
O
R
T
MOUN
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
SNAPDRAGON
S
U
N
S
E
T
EL CA
P
I
T
A
N
R
U
T
H
SEAW
A
R
D
F
A
I
R
W
A
Y
BE
E
C
H
T
A
H
O
E
CAS
T
I
L
L
O
RO
S
I
T
A
BE
N
T
O
N
E
L
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
CE
D
A
R
O
'
C
O
N
N
E
R
SA
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
D
E
L
C
A
M
P
O
BLUEBELL
OR
A
N
G
E
TOLOSA
M
U
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
E
L
T
I
G
R
E
GA
I
L
LAS
P
R
A
D
E
R
A
S
LOBELIA
P
A
C
H
E
C
O
W
A
Y
PAC
I
F
I
C
BU
S
H
N
E
L
L
PHIL
L
I
P
S
CORA
L
CAV
A
L
I
E
R
CO
L
I
N
A
JA
Y
C
E
E
TAFT
VENABLE
AL
T
A
KEN
T
W
O
O
D
BOUGA
I
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
EM
I
L
Y
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
SMIT
H
CA
L
L
E
M
A
L
V
A
E
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
ARALIA
F
E
R
N
A
N
D
E
Z
SE
N
D
E
R
O
RICA
R
D
O
L
A
P
O
S
A
D
A
LILY
CA
M
D
E
N
DRA
K
E
M
A
S
O
N
S
U
N
R
O
S
E
VIA E
S
T
E
B
A
N
PE
N
M
A
N
P
A
R
T
R
I
D
G
E
SY
C
A
M
O
R
E
LE
X
I
N
G
T
O
N
SAN
M
A
T
E
O
G
R
E
T
A
WA
R
D
SWE
E
N
E
Y
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
A
L
L
E
Y
S
W
E
E
T
B
A
Y
ROUGEOT
LO
M
P
O
C
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
G
L
O
R
Y
CHAPAR
R
A
L
C
A
R
O
L
Y
N
R
U
B
I
O
S
T
E
P
H
A
N
I
E
REB
A
MON
T
E
C
I
T
O
SA
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
C
L
E
A
R
V
I
E
W
SW
A
Z
E
Y
BRE
C
K
AUTO
P
A
R
K
CAYU
C
O
S
SU
E
L
D
O
LAK
E
V
I
E
W
AS
H
M
O
R
E
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
SAN JOSE
KENTUCKY ALLEY
BR
O
O
K
LYN
N
FEN
N
E
L
CA
L
L
E
J
A
Z
M
I
N
S
K
Y
L
A
R
K
LA
W
N
W
O
O
D
LA
C
I
T
A
LA L
O
M
A
AL
Y
S
S
U
M
FRO
O
M
R
A
N
C
H
VIL
L
A
OL
D
W
I
N
D
M
I
L
L
BA
H
I
A
BASIL
N
E
W
P
O
R
T
RIC
H
A
R
D
PASATIEMPO
CEC
E
L
I
A
MOUNTAIN
WILL
O
W
WOODL
A
N
D
LI
N
D
A
CARL
A
V
I
S
T
A
A
R
R
O
Y
O
LOM
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
BIANCHI
VIEW
M
O
N
T
J
E
N
N
I
F
E
R
D
O
N
E
G
A
L
NO
J
O
Q
U
I
C
O
U
R
T
KNOL
L
CAMPU
S
W
A
Y
STER
L
I
N
G
AZALE
A
F
A
R
R
I
E
R
BRIARWOOD
LA V
I
N
E
D
A
L
A
D
E
R
A
MONT
E
V
I
S
T
A
D
E
X
T
E
R
LA L
U
N
A
W
E
L
S
H
P
E
N
N
Y
BOXWOOD
GER
D
A
MUTS
U
H
I
T
O
SA
N
T
A
M
A
R
I
A
CR
E
S
T
V
I
E
W
EL
C
A
S
E
R
I
O
FELICIA
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
HO
W
A
R
D
F
O
R
E
M
A
N
A
L
M
O
N
D
A
L
L
E
Y
HUCK
L
E
B
E
R
R
Y
CORO
N
A
YAR
R
O
W
ALPH
O
N
S
O
CH
A
N
D
L
E
R
SE
R
R
A
N
O
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
CUCARAC
H
A
PISM
O
B
U
C
H
O
N
A
L
L
E
Y
MARIGOLD
CI
M
A
CALLE
D
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
S
SANTA C
L
A
R
A
ROS
E
M
A
R
Y
ALI
S
A
L
PALM
M
I
L
L
A
L
L
E
Y
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
K
I
L
A
R
N
E
Y
LE
R
O
Y
OLE
A
SAN
M
A
R
C
O
S
A
R
R
O
Y
O
DONNA
PURPLE SAGE
MORRISON
EL
C
E
N
T
R
O
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
VIA
E
N
S
E
N
A
D
A
PAULINE
VALECITO
M
U
R
L
MA
D
O
N
N
A
A
L
L
E
Y
C
A
S
I
T
A
S
CATALINA
TR
E
V
O
R
GAR
D
E
N
A
L
L
E
Y
MANZA
N
I
T
A
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
C
T
SP
R
I
N
G
LI
R
I
O
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
P
A
L
M
A
L
L
E
Y
SYLVIA
PEACH PHILLIPS ALLEY
B
R
I
T
T
A
N
Y
10
1
N
O
N
O
F
F
SONRISA
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
TU
R
N
E
R
EN
C
A
N
T
O
CE
R
R
O
MA
D
R
I
D
R
O
S
E
A
L
L
E
Y
CU
M
B
R
E
GREGORY
C
A
R
I
S
S
A
P
A
S
O
R
O
B
L
E
S
M
A
R
I
N
E
R
S
COR
N
U
S
GA
N
A
D
O
R
CORIANDER
10
1
S
O
N
MA
P
L
E
HIGU
E
R
A
BR
O
A
D
PALM
SLACK
10
1
S
O
N
SOU
T
H
W
O
O
D
10
1
N
O
N
10
1
N
O
F
F
101
N
O
N
CAUD
I
L
L
101
N
O
F
F
10
1
S
O
F
F
101 S ON
C
L
E
A
R
V
I
E
W
S
A
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
LAU
R
E
L
101
N
O
F
F
101
S
O
F
F
10
1
S
O
N
RAMONA
PHILLIPS
10
1
S
O
F
F
IRIS
101 N
O
F
F
EL
M
AN
D
R
E
W
S
CAMP
U
S
W
A
Y
101 S OFF
PHIL
L
I
P
S
EL
M
10
1
S
O
N
101
N
O
N
WESTMONT
CU
E
S
T
A
TAF
T
P
A
R
K
MADO
N
N
A
CEDAR
10
1
S
O
N
G
R
O
V
E
10
1
N
MURRAY
CE
N
T
E
R
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
B
R
O
A
D
C
U
E
S
T
A
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
LAW
R
E
N
C
E
SYDN
E
Y
KI
N
G
DALY
101 N OFF
10
1
N
O
N
TANGLEWOOD
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
101 S
O
F
F
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
PAC
I
F
I
C
Laguna Lake
S a n L u i s O b i s p o C r e e k
StennerCre
e
k
Perfumo C a n y o n
RS
V
R
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
P
e
r
f
u
m
o
C
r
e
e
k
FroomCreek
O l d G a r d en Creek
H a m p t o n C a n y on
B
r
i
z
z
i
o
l
a
r
i
C
r
e
e
k
W e s t C orraldePiedroCreek
F r oom C r e e k
Froom Creek
Da
t
e
:
4
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
t
h
:
W
:
\
G
I
S
\
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
\
W
C
S
I
R
S
\
C
I
P
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
5
_
Y
e
a
r
_
2
2
x
3
4
.
m
x
d
Legend
City Limit
Railroad
Capacity Projects
1-Foothill and Chorro
2-Jeffery, Daly and Cerro Romauldo
3-Branch, South and misc.
4-Beebee, Buchon, Islay and George
5-South Broad
6-Del Campo, Santa Clara, Helena and misc.
7-Johnson and Buchon
8-Santa Rosa, Meinecke and misc.
9-Oceanaire, Coral, agriculture fields, and misc.
10-Vista Lago, Laguna, LOVR and Oceanaire
11-Prado and Elks
12-Miscellaneous
13-South Broad and Capitolio
14-San Luis Drive
15-Foothill
Existing Collection System
Program Year
1
2
3-5
±0 0.5 10.25
MilesSLO WCSIRS
Appendix F. Figure 1 – Renewal Strategy Projects: Years 1 - 5
101 S
B
R
O
A
D
101 N
O
R
C
U
T
T
TANK
F
A
R
M
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
MILL
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
HIGU
E
R
A
PISM
O
MADO
N
N
A
FOOTHILL
MAR
S
H
HIGH
HIG
U
E
R
A
S
HIGHLAND
LEFF
FOOT
H
I
L
L
W
ISLA
Y
F
L
O
R
A
PR
A
D
O
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
T
O
R
O
SOUTH
O
S
O
S
BUC
H
O
N
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
M
O
R
R
O
PEAC
H
ELK
S
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
SAN
L
U
I
S
N
I
P
O
M
O
ELLA
LOOMIS
BISH
O
P
A
U
G
U
S
T
A
P
O
I
N
S
E
T
T
I
A
BRANCH
LA
U
R
E
L
PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
DIAB
L
O
B
U
L
L
O
C
K
H
I
L
L
LUNETA
G
A
R
D
E
N
D
E
L
R
I
O
O
C
E
A
N
A
I
R
E
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
FULLE
R
VAL
L
E
V
I
S
T
A
PALM
B
E
A
C
H
G
R
A
N
D
CA
L
L
E
J
O
A
Q
U
I
N
ROY
A
L
S
A
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
LI
N
C
O
L
N
P
E
P
P
E
R
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
SUBURBAN
CA
S
A
LIZZ
I
E
WOODBRIDGE
MIOSS
I
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
OLIV
E
GAT
H
E
G
R
O
V
E
C
A
R
M
E
L
L
I
M
A
SANDERCOCK
SLACK
B
A
L
B
O
A
WALN
U
T
INDUS
T
R
I
A
L
CERRO ROMAULDO
TIBU
R
O
N
LO
N
G
BE
E
B
E
E
LAWRENCE
SYDN
E
Y
McCOLLUM
FREDERICKS
D
A
L
I
D
I
O
HAYS
NAS
E
L
L
A
DAN
A
HOPE
CHU
R
C
H
LA
W
T
O
N
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
SPAN
I
S
H
O
A
K
S
MARGARI
T
A
UPH
A
M
GOLDENROD
S
I
E
R
R
A
BRIDGE
IRIS
VI
A
L
A
G
U
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
SOUTHWOOD
H
U
A
S
N
A
G
U
L
F
HIND
G
A
L
L
E
O
N
F
E
R
R
I
N
I
OAK
HANSEN
IRONBARK
C
H
O
R
R
O
N
EL
M
TANGLE
W
O
O
D
SERRANO
CORRIDA
BOND
MURRAY
HOPKINS
MITCHELL
SAGE
MISSION
GR
A
V
E
S
WA
V
E
R
T
R
E
E
PRE
F
U
M
O
C
A
N
Y
O
N
KI
N
G
K
L
A
M
A
T
H
ISABELLA
H
E
L
E
N
A
SA
N
T
A
F
E
GRANADA
AL
-
H
I
L
V
I
C
E
N
T
E
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
LAG
U
N
A
OJAI
GEO
R
G
E
D
E
E
R
1
0
1
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
E
R
CAUDILL
T
O
N
I
N
I
DALY
CLARION
L
A
E
N
T
R
A
D
A
E
L
M
E
R
C
A
D
O
FELTON
M
I
R
A
D
A
AL
B
E
R
T
STONERIDGE
Mc
M
I
L
L
A
N
E
T
O
TRUCKEE
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
V
I
A
C
A
R
T
A
J
E
A
N
ZA
C
A
S
E
Q
U
O
I
A
CAPI
T
O
L
I
O
CO
R
R
A
L
I
T
O
S
HO
O
V
E
R
GA
R
I
B
A
L
D
I
FEL-MAR
NORTH PER
I
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
R
E
I
R
A
DEVA
U
L
R
A
N
C
H
DES
C
A
N
S
O
MON
T
A
L
B
A
N
MEINECKE
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
FERN
W
O
O
D
ALDER
MALIBU
CRAIG
FIERO
BO
Y
S
E
N
CU
E
S
T
A
PA
R
K
E
R
CENTE
R
SOUTH PER
I
M
E
T
E
R
PR
I
C
E
WILSON
ALR
I
T
A
FONTANA
B
I
N
N
S
K
E
R
R
Y
CHUMASHATAS
C
A
D
E
R
O
MA
P
L
E
VI
S
T
A
B
R
I
S
A
H
E
D
L
E
Y
STAFFORD
LE
O
N
A
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
RAMONA
HE
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
DEL SUR
T
H
E
L
M
A
GARFIELD
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
QUA
I
L
W
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
R
E
W
S
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
S
ST
O
R
Y
OAK
R
I
D
G
E
S
P
O
O
N
E
R
M
U
G
U
CROSS
POLY VI
E
W
101
N
O
F
F
VE
R
D
E
P
I
N
E
C
O
V
E
BIR
C
H
EL
L
E
N
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
H
O
L
L
Y
H
O
C
K
101
S
O
F
F
GAR
C
I
A
A
L
M
O
N
D
SH
O
R
T
HA
R
R
I
S
RA
C
H
E
L
ABBOTT
10
1
N
O
N
RA
F
A
E
L
PIN
E
FL
O
R
E
N
C
E
CO
N
E
J
O
ME
A
D
O
W
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
N
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
VI
S
T
A
L
A
G
O
S
T
A
N
F
O
R
D
SI
S
Q
U
O
C
VA
C
H
E
L
L
L
O
S
C
E
R
R
O
S
HAZ
E
L
CLOVE
R
PERK
I
N
S
WARREN
DEL NORTE
LOS VERDES
LO
S
P
A
L
O
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
HARMONY
DEL MAR
R
O
S
E
HU
T
T
O
N
C
A
P
I
S
T
R
A
N
O
I
L
E
N
E
CA
Z
A
D
E
R
O
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
J
A
N
E
KA
R
E
N
HILL
C
R
E
S
T
MEISSNER
WESTMONT
MA
R
I
P
O
S
A
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
A
V
A
L
O
N
FUNSTON
FRAN
C
I
S
MARLENE
VI
S
T
A
C
O
L
L
A
D
O
S
S
U
N
F
L
O
W
E
R
SANTA YNEZ
HER
M
O
S
A
POR
T
O
L
A
P
O
A
COR
D
O
V
A
C
O
U
P
E
R
CUYAMA
SA
W
L
E
A
F
ST
E
N
N
E
R
LA
C
A
N
A
D
A
BONETTI
JUNIPERO
CY
P
R
E
S
S
DU
N
C
A
N
BU
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
AERO
V
I
S
T
A
VIA LA PAZ
CHUPARROSA
EX
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
C
H
A
P
L
I
N
BL
U
E
R
O
C
K
W
A
L
K
E
R
SLENDER ROCK
P
A
R
K
L
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
TUL
I
P
BED
F
O
R
D
CACHUMA
VEGAFRA
M
B
U
E
S
A
VIA SAN
B
L
A
S
EM
P
L
E
O
BR
I
Z
Z
O
L
A
R
A
WEST
LA
R
K
S
P
U
R
L
E
M
O
N
RE
D
W
O
O
D
BAY LE
A
F
CALL
E
C
R
O
T
A
L
O
W NE
W
P
O
R
T
MOUN
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
SNAPDRAGON
S
U
N
S
E
T
EL CA
P
I
T
A
N
R
U
T
H
SEAW
A
R
D
F
A
I
R
W
A
Y
BE
E
C
H
T
A
H
O
E
CAS
T
I
L
L
O
RO
S
I
T
A
BE
N
T
O
N
E
L
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
CE
D
A
R
O
'
C
O
N
N
E
R
SA
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
D
E
L
C
A
M
P
O
BLUEBELL
OR
A
N
G
E
TOLOSA
M
U
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
E
L
T
I
G
R
E
GA
I
L
LAS
P
R
A
D
E
R
A
S
LOBELIA
P
A
C
H
E
C
O
W
A
Y
PAC
I
F
I
C
BU
S
H
N
E
L
L
PHIL
L
I
P
S
CORA
L
CAV
A
L
I
E
R
CO
L
I
N
A
JA
Y
C
E
E
TAFT
VENABLE
AL
T
A
KEN
T
W
O
O
D
BOUGA
I
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
EM
I
L
Y
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
SMIT
H
CA
L
L
E
M
A
L
V
A
E
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
ARALIA
F
E
R
N
A
N
D
E
Z
SE
N
D
E
R
O
RICA
R
D
O
L
A
P
O
S
A
D
A
LILY
CA
M
D
E
N
DRA
K
E
M
A
S
O
N
S
U
N
R
O
S
E
VIA E
S
T
E
B
A
N
PE
N
M
A
N
P
A
R
T
R
I
D
G
E
SY
C
A
M
O
R
E
LE
X
I
N
G
T
O
N
SAN
M
A
T
E
O
G
R
E
T
A
WA
R
D
SWE
E
N
E
Y
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
A
L
L
E
Y
S
W
E
E
T
B
A
Y
ROUGEOT
LO
M
P
O
C
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
G
L
O
R
Y
CHAPAR
R
A
L
C
A
R
O
L
Y
N
R
U
B
I
O
S
T
E
P
H
A
N
I
E
REB
A
MON
T
E
C
I
T
O
SA
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
C
L
E
A
R
V
I
E
W
SW
A
Z
E
Y
BRE
C
K
AUTO
P
A
R
K
CAYU
C
O
S
SU
E
L
D
O
LAK
E
V
I
E
W
AS
H
M
O
R
E
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
SAN JOSE
KENTUCKY ALLEY
BR
O
O
K
LYN
N
FEN
N
E
L
CA
L
L
E
J
A
Z
M
I
N
S
K
Y
L
A
R
K
LA
W
N
W
O
O
D
LA
C
I
T
A
LA L
O
M
A
AL
Y
S
S
U
M
FRO
O
M
R
A
N
C
H
VIL
L
A
OL
D
W
I
N
D
M
I
L
L
BA
H
I
A
BASIL
N
E
W
P
O
R
T
RIC
H
A
R
D
PASATIEMPO
CEC
E
L
I
A
MOUNTAIN
WILL
O
W
WOODL
A
N
D
LI
N
D
A
CARL
A
V
I
S
T
A
A
R
R
O
Y
O
LOM
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
BIANCHI
VIEW
M
O
N
T
J
E
N
N
I
F
E
R
D
O
N
E
G
A
L
NO
J
O
Q
U
I
C
O
U
R
T
KNOL
L
CAMPU
S
W
A
Y
STER
L
I
N
G
AZALE
A
F
A
R
R
I
E
R
BRIARWOOD
LA V
I
N
E
D
A
L
A
D
E
R
A
MONT
E
V
I
S
T
A
D
E
X
T
E
R
LA L
U
N
A
W
E
L
S
H
P
E
N
N
Y
BOXWOOD
GER
D
A
MUTS
U
H
I
T
O
SA
N
T
A
M
A
R
I
A
CR
E
S
T
V
I
E
W
EL
C
A
S
E
R
I
O
FELICIA
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
HO
W
A
R
D
F
O
R
E
M
A
N
A
L
M
O
N
D
A
L
L
E
Y
HUCK
L
E
B
E
R
R
Y
CORO
N
A
YAR
R
O
W
ALPH
O
N
S
O
CH
A
N
D
L
E
R
SE
R
R
A
N
O
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
CUCARAC
H
A
PISM
O
B
U
C
H
O
N
A
L
L
E
Y
MARIGOLD
CI
M
A
CALLE
D
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
S
SANTA C
L
A
R
A
ROS
E
M
A
R
Y
ALI
S
A
L
PALM
M
I
L
L
A
L
L
E
Y
C
A
R
P
E
N
T
E
R
K
I
L
A
R
N
E
Y
LE
R
O
Y
OLE
A
SAN
M
A
R
C
O
S
A
R
R
O
Y
O
DONNA
PURPLE SAGE
MORRISON
EL
C
E
N
T
R
O
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
VIA
E
N
S
E
N
A
D
A
PAULINE
VALECITO
M
U
R
L
MA
D
O
N
N
A
A
L
L
E
Y
C
A
S
I
T
A
S
CATALINA
TR
E
V
O
R
GAR
D
E
N
A
L
L
E
Y
MANZA
N
I
T
A
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
C
T
SP
R
I
N
G
LI
R
I
O
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
P
A
L
M
A
L
L
E
Y
SYLVIA
PEACH PHILLIPS ALLEY
B
R
I
T
T
A
N
Y
10
1
N
O
N
O
F
F
SONRISA
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
TU
R
N
E
R
EN
C
A
N
T
O
CE
R
R
O
MA
D
R
I
D
R
O
S
E
A
L
L
E
Y
CU
M
B
R
E
GREGORY
C
A
R
I
S
S
A
P
A
S
O
R
O
B
L
E
S
M
A
R
I
N
E
R
S
COR
N
U
S
GA
N
A
D
O
R
CORIANDER
10
1
S
O
N
MA
P
L
E
HIGU
E
R
A
BR
O
A
D
PALM
SLACK
10
1
S
O
N
SOU
T
H
W
O
O
D
10
1
N
O
N
10
1
N
O
F
F
101
N
O
N
CAUD
I
L
L
101
N
O
F
F
10
1
S
O
F
F
101 S ON
C
L
E
A
R
V
I
E
W
S
A
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
LAU
R
E
L
101
N
O
F
F
101
S
O
F
F
10
1
S
O
N
RAMONA
PHILLIPS
10
1
S
O
F
F
IRIS
101 N
O
F
F
EL
M
AN
D
R
E
W
S
CAMP
U
S
W
A
Y
101 S OFF
PHIL
L
I
P
S
EL
M
10
1
S
O
N
101
N
O
N
WESTMONT
CU
E
S
T
A
TAF
T
P
A
R
K
MADO
N
N
A
CEDAR
10
1
S
O
N
G
R
O
V
E
10
1
N
MURRAY
CE
N
T
E
R
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
B
R
O
A
D
C
U
E
S
T
A
HA
T
H
W
A
Y
LAW
R
E
N
C
E
SYDN
E
Y
KI
N
G
DALY
101 N OFF
10
1
N
O
N
TANGLEWOOD
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
101 S
O
F
F
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
PAC
I
F
I
C
Laguna Lake
S a n L u i s O b i s p o C r e e k
StennerCre
e
k
Perfumo C a n y o n
RS
V
R
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
P
e
r
f
u
m
o
C
r
e
e
k
FroomCreek
O l d G a r d en Creek
H a m p t o n C a n y on
B
r
i
z
z
i
o
l
a
r
i
C
r
e
e
k
W e s t C orraldePiedroCreek
F r oom C r e e k
Froom Creek
Da
t
e
:
4
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
t
h
:
W
:
\
G
I
S
\
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
\
W
C
S
I
R
S
\
C
I
P
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
B
y
_
Y
e
a
r
_
2
2
x
3
4
.
m
x
d
Legend
City Limit
Railroad
Capacity Projects
1-Foothill and Chorro
2-Jeffery, Daly and Cerro Romauldo
3-Branch, South and misc.
4-Beebee, Buchon, Islay and George
5-South Broad
6-Del Campo, Santa Clara, Helena and misc.
7-Johnson and Buchon
8-Santa Rosa, Meinecke and misc.
9-Oceanaire, Coral, agriculture fields, and misc.
10-Vista Lago, Laguna, LOVR and Oceanaire
11-Prado and Elks
12-Miscellaneous
13-South Broad and Capitolio
14-San Luis Drive
15-Foothill
Existing Collection System
Program Year
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-20
±0 0.5 10.25
MilesSLO WCSIRS
Appendix F. Figure 2 – Renewal Strategy Projects: 20 Year Outlook