Loading...
Water Master Plan - 2004TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... i STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i OVERVIEW OF CITY WATER SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Distribution System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii WATER QUALITY ..................................................... ii EXISTING WATER SUPPLY ............................................ iii Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Local Surface Water from Lopez Reservoir ............................ iv State Wate r Project ............................................... iv FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES ............................................ iv Supply Redundancy ................................................ v EXISTING AND FUTURE WATER DEMAND ............................... v MEETING FUTURE WATER SUPPLY NEEDS .............................. v WATER STORAGE .................................................... vi WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ........................................ vi Zone Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vn CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1-1 SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 CHAPTER 2 -STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS .............................. 2-1 LAND USE AND POPULATION ........................................ 2-1 GROWTH RA TE ANALYSIS ........................................... 2-2 .. CHAPTER 3 -EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ...................... 3-1 WATER SUPPLY ..................................................... 3-1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM .............................................. 3-1 Distribution Zones ............................................... 3-1 Bello .................................................... 3-2 Pismo Oaks .............................................. 3-5 Pacific Estates ............................................ 3-5 Heights 2 ................................................. 3-5 Heights 3 ................................................ 3-5 Shell Beach 1 ............................................. 3-5 Shell Beach 2 ............................................. 3-6 CHAPTER 4-WATER QUALITY ............................................. 4-1 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS ...................................... 4-1 Water Quality Parameters ......................................... 4-1 FUTURE REGULATIONS .............................................. 4-4 Disinfecta nt/Disinfec ti on Byproduct Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Waterworks Standards ............................................ 4-5 CHAPTER 5 -WATER SUPPLY ............................................... 5-1 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY ........................................... 5-1 Groundwater ................................................... 5-1 Meadow Creek Water Basin W ell s ............................ 5-2 ~ Cobalt-Garrison W ells ...................................... 5-2 Local Surface Water from Lopez Reservoir ........................... 5-2 State W a ter Project .............................................. 5-2 FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES ........................................... 5-3 Prior Water Supply Analysis ....................................... 5-4 Supply Redundancy .............................................. 5-5 CHAPTER 6 -WATER DEMAND AND STORAGE ............................... 6-1 HISTORICAL DEMAND ............................................... 6-1 WATER DEMAND FACTORS .......................................... 6-2 Water Demand Categories ......................................... 6-2 Hydraulic Demand Parameters ..................................... 6-2 Average Day Demand (ADD) ................................ 6-2 Maximum Day Demand (MDD) .............................. 6-3 Peak Hour Demand (PHD) .................................. 6-3 FUTURE WATER DEMAND ........................................... 6-4 Prior Water Demand Analysis ...................................... 6-6 EXISTING WATER STORAGE FACILITIES ............................... 6-7 Bello and Charles Street Reservoir Conditi on .......................... 6 -8 STORAGE ANALYSIS ................................................ 6-8 Emergency Storage .............................................. 6-9 Fire Storage .................................................... 6-9 Operational Storage ............................................. 6-11 Storage Recommendation O verview ................................ 6-12 STORAGE RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 6-12 Bello Distribution Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14 Bello Z one (not consolidated with the Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zone) . . . . . . . 6 -14 Consolidation of the Bello and Shell B each 1 Distribution Zones ... 6-14 Shell Beach 1 Dis tribution Zone (not consolidated with B ello zone) ....... 6-14 Shell Beach 2 Distribution Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 ~ Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates Distribution Zones .................... 6-1 5 Heights 2 and 3 Distribution Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 Summary of Future Storage Recommendations ....................... 6-1 S CHAPTER 7 -WATER DISTRIBUTION ........................................ 7-1 EXISTING FACILITIES ................................................ 7-1 DESIGN REQUIRE MENTS ............................................. 7-4 Fire Flow ...................................................... 7-4 Maximum Day Demand ........................................... 7-5 Peak Hour Demand .............................................. 7-5 Average Day Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 HYDRAULIC EVALUATION ........................................... 7-6 System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 Bello .................................................... 7-7 Pismo Oaks ............................................. 7-10 Pacific Estates ........................................... 7-10 Heights 2 ............................................... 7-10 Heights 3 ............................................... 7-10 Shell Beach 1 ............................................ 7-10 Shell Beach 2 ............................................ 7-11 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ................. 7-11 FIRST PRIORJTY CAPITAL IMPROV EMENT PROJECTS .................. 7-11 Bello Distribution Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11 Pomeroy Avenue Upgrade .................................. 7-11 Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zone ................................... 7-14 Shell Beach Road Upgrade ................................. 7-14 Mattie Road 12-inch Water Main Project ...................... 7-14 Heights 2 Distribution Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14 Longview: H2 Upgrade ................ : ................... 7-14 Heights 2 Booster Station Upgrade ........................... 7-14 Heights 3 Distribution Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15 Longview: H3 Upgrade .................................... 7-15 Longview: HP3 Upgrade ................................... 7-15 Heights 3 Booster Station Upgrade ........................... 7-15 SECOND PRIORITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ............... 7-15 Entire System .................................................. 7-15 Fire Hydrant Upgrade ..................................... 7-15 Bello Distribution Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16 Ocean View Avenue and Highway 101 Upgrade ................ 7-16 Wadsworth Avenue and Bello Street Upgrade .................. 7-16 Price Canyon Road and Del Court Addition .................... 7-16 Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase I ............................. 7-16 Bello Street Upgrade: Phase I ............................... 7-16 Five Cities Drive Upgrade .................................. 7-16 4th Street Addition ........................................ 7-17 Well Piping Upgrade ...................................... 7-17 THIRD PRIORITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ................. 7-17 Bello Distribution Zone .......................................... 7-17 Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase II ............................. 7-17 Park Avenue Upgrade ..................................... 7-17 Hinds A venue Upgrade .................................... 7-1 7 Hollister A venue Upgrade .................................. 7-17 Wadsworth Avenue Upgrade: Phase I ......................... 7-18 San Luis Avenue Upgrade .................................. 7-18 Stimson A venue Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18 Frady Lane Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18 Bello Street Upgrade: Phase II ............................... 7-18 Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18 Ocean Way Upgrade-Private ................................ 7-18 Wilmar Avenue Upgrade ................................... 7-18 Harbor View Street Upgrade ................................ 7-18 Shell Beach 2 Distribution Zone ................................... 7-18 Miramar Lane Upgrade .................................... 7-18 Brisa Court Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19 Shell Beach Road and Coburn Lane Upgrade ................... 7-19 Heights 2 Distribution Zone ....................................... 7-19 Taft Street Upgrade ....................................... 7-19 Bakersfield Street Upgrade .................................. 7-19 Fresno Street Upgrade ..................................... 7-19 Stratford Street Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19 Wadsworth A venue Upgrade: Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19 Baxter Lane Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19 Shaffer Lane Upgrade ..................................... 7-19 Heights 3 Distribution Zone ....................................... 7-19 Merced Street Upgrade .................................... 7-20 Delano Street Upgrade ..................................... 7-20 Tulare Street Upgrade ..................................... 7-20 Visalia Street Upgrade ..................................... 7-20 ZONE CONSOLIDATION ............................................. 7-20 Bello and Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zones .......................... 7-20 Bello Zone .................................................... 7-20 Shell Beach 1 .................................................. 7-21 Zone Alternatives ............................................... 7-22 Alternative A ............................................ 7-22 Alternative B ............................................ 7-25 Alternative C ............................................ 7-27 Alternative D ............................................ 7-29 Summary of Findings ...................................... 7-33 Final Recommendation .................................... 7-34 Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates Distribution Zones .................... 7-35 Supply ................................................. 7-35 Available Storage ......................................... 7-35 Decommissioning Storage .................................. 7-35 Reliability of the Distribution System ......................... 7-36 System Pressure .......................................... 7-36 Cost ................................................... 7-36 FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ..................................... 7-36 POTENTIAL PROJECT ISSUES ........................................ 7-37 CHAPTER 8 -SYSTEM OPERATIONS ......................................... 8-1 EXISTING OPERATIONS .............................................. 8-1 Staffing Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 Daily Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 FUTURE OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 Staffing Levels .................................................. 8-2 Staffing Levels Due to Population Increase within City Limits ......................................... 8-2 Staffing Levels Due to Population Increase within the Sphere of Influence ................................ 8-2 Water Main Upgrades ...................................... 8-2 Zone Consolidation ........................................ 8-2 Water Meter Upgrades ...................................... 8 -3 ALTERNATIVE METER READING TECHNOLOGY ....................... 8-3 Option 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4 Option 2 ....................................................... 8-4 Option 3 ....................................................... 8-5 Option 4 ....................................................... 8-5 Summary and Recommendations ............... : .................... 8-6 CHAPTER 9 -SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAP IT AL IMPROVEMENTS ........ : ........................ 9-1 BASIS OF CAP IT AL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COSTS .................... 9-1 SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ................ 9-1 First Priority .................................................... 9-1 1-1 Heights 3 Booster Station Upgrade ......................... 9-1 1-2 Longview: H2 Upgrade .................................. 9-2 1-3 Heights 2 Booster Station Upgrade ......................... 9-2 1-4 Longview: H3 Upgrade .................................. 9-2 1-5 Longview: HP3 Upgrade ................................. 9-2 1-6 Demoli sh Shell Beach 1 Reservoir ......................... 9-2 1-7 New 2.53 mg Shell Beach 1 Reservoir ...................... 9-2 1-8 Bay Street and Dolliver Addition .......................... 9-2 1-9 Mattie Road 12" Water Main Proj ect ....................... 9-2 1-10 Pomeroy Avenue Upgrade ............................... 9-3 1-11 Shell Beach Road Upgrade .............................. 9-3 Second Priority Capital Improvement P roj ects ......................... 9-3 2-1 Decommission B ello Reservoir ............................ 9-3 2-2 Decommission Charles Street Reservoir ..................... 9-3 2-3 Heights 2 Reservoir Upgrade .............................. 9-3 2-4 Decommission Bay Street Booster Station .-.................. 9-3 2 -5 Ocean View Avenue and Highway 101 Upgrade .............. 9-3 2-6 Price Canyon Road and Del Court Addition .................. 9-3 2-7 Wadsworth Avenue and Bello Street Upgrade ................ 9-3 2-8 Bello Street Upgrade: Phase I ............................. 9-4 2-9 Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase I ........................... 9-4 2-10 Five Cities Drive Upgrade ............................... 9-4 2-11 4th Street Addition ..................................... 9-4 2-12 Fire Hydrant Installations ............................... 9-4 2-13 Well Piping Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4 Third Priority Capital Improvement Projects ........................... 9-4 3-1 Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase II ........................... 9-4 3-2 Park Avenue Upgrade ................................... 9-5 3-3 Hinds Avenue Upgrade .................................. 9-5 3-4 Hollister Avenue Upgrade ................................ 9-5 3-5 Wadsworth Avenue Upgrade: Phase I ....................... 9-5 3-6 San Luis Avenue Upgrade ................................ 9-5 3-7 Stimson Avenue Upgrade ................................ 9-5 3-8 Frady Lane Upgrade .................................... 9-5 3-9 Bello Street Upgrade: Phase II ............................. 9-5 3-10 Ocean Way Upgrade -Private ............................ 9-5 3-11 Wilmar A venue Upgrade ................................ 9-5 3-12 Harbor View Sn·eet Upgrade ............................. 9-5 3-13 Miramar Lane Upgrade ................................. 9-6 3-14 Brisa Court Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6 3-15 Shell Beach Road and Coburn Lane Upgrade ................ 9-6 3-16 Taft Street Upgrade .................................... 9-6 3-17 Bakersfield Street Upgrade .............................. 9-6 3-18 Fresno Street Upgrade .................................. 9-6 3-19 Stratford Street Upgrade ................................ 9-6 3-20 Wadsworth Avenue Upgrade: Phase II ..................... 9-6 3-21 Bax ter Lane Upgrade ................................... 9-6 3-22 Shaffer Lane Upgrade .................................. 9-6 3-23 Merced Street Upgrade ................................. 9-6 3-24 Delano Street Upgrade .................................. 9-6 3-25 Tulare Street Upgrade .................................. 9-7 3-26 Visalia Street Upgrade .................................. 9-7 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Distribution Zone Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Table ES-2 Existing Water Supplies .............................................. iv Table ES-3 Future Water Supply .................................................. v Table ES-4 First Priority Capital Improvement Projects .............................. viii Table ES-5 Second Priority Capital Improvement Projects ............................. ix Table ES-6 Third Priority Capital lrnprovement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Table 2-1 Existing and Future Land Use and Population ............................. 2-2 Table 3-1 Distribution Zone Summary ........................................... 3-2 Table 4-1Year2002 Water Quality Report for The City of Pismo Beach ................ 4-2 Table 5-1 Existing Well Supply ................................................. 5-1 Table 5-2 Existing Water Supply ................................................ 5-3 Table 5-3 Future Water Supply ................................................. 5-4 Table 5-4 Future Water Supply-1997 NCE Study .................................. 5-5 Table 5-5 Supply Redundancy .................................................. 5-6 Table 6-1 Historical Water Demand ............................................. 6-1 Table 6-2 Water Demand Factors ............................................... 6-3 Table 6-3 Hydraulic Demand Parameters ......................................... 6-4 Table 6-4 Future Water Demand ................................................ 6-5 Table 6-5 Comparison of Water Demands, JLWA and NCE Reports .................... 6-6 Table 6-6 Existing Water Storage Facilities ....................................... 6-7 Table 6-7 Emergency Storage ................................................. 6-10 T able 6-8 Fire Suppression Storage ............................................. 6-11 Table 6-9 Operational Storage ................................................. 6-12 Table 6-10 Water Storage Recommendations ..................................... 6-13 Table 6-11 Summary of Future Storage Recommendations .......................... 6-16 Table 7-1 Existing Pipeline Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Table 7-2 Existing Pipeline Material ............................................. 7-1 Table 7-3 Existing Booster Station Inventory ...................................... 7-5 Table 7-4 Summary of Hydraulic Parameters and Design Criteria ...................... 7-7 Tabl e 7-5 Fire Hydrant Testing and Calibration Results .............................. 7-8 Table 7-6 Life Cycle Costs ................................................... 7-33 Table 7-7 Pacific Estates/Pismo Oaks Zone Consolidation Summary .................. 7-37 Table 9-1 First Priority Capital Improvement Projects ............................... 9-8 Table 9-2 Second Priority Capital Improvement Projects ............................. 9-9 Table 9-3 Third Priority Capital Improvement Projects ............................. 9-10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Population Growth Projection ......................................... 2-3 Figure 3-1 Existing Distribution Zones ........................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Existing Hydraulic Profile ............................................ 3-4 Figure 7-1 a Existing Distribution System ......................................... 7-2 Figure 7-lb Existing Distribution System ......................................... 7-3 Figure 7-2a Existing System Average Day Demand Pressure Contours ................. 7-12 Figure 7-2b Existing System Average Day Demand Pressure Contours ................. 7-13 Figure 7-3a Capital Improvement Projects ....................................... 7-38 Figure 7-3b Capital Improvement Projects ....................................... 7-39 Figure 7-3c Capital Improvement Projects ....................................... 7-40 Figure 7-4 Future Distribution Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-41 Figure 7-5 Future Hydraulic Profile After Consolidation ............................ 7 -42 Appendix A -References Appendix B -City Memorandum Appendix C -Gentlemen's Agreement APPENDICES Appendix D -Bello Reservoir Structural Engineering Report Appendix E -Life Cycle Cost Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Pismo Beach (City) supplies its customers with domestic water service and fire protection, among other services. The City currently serves approximately 8,551 1 permanent residents, plus a large seasonal tourist population. The City must plan water services to not only meet current water demands, but to anticipate future growth to build-out. The City has implemented this water master plan and capital improvement program in order to facilitate the goals of the City and to provide a plan to meet the ultimate needs of the City's customers . STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City of Pismo Beach is located in the Southern portion of San Luis Obispo County, extending along the Paci.fie Ocean shoreline some seven miles. The City currently serves a population of 8,551. The dominant economic activity in Pismo Beach is tourism, and as a result the population of the City can more than double during summer holidays. The General Plan predicts a build-out population for the City of 13,000 persons and establishes a maximum allowable growth rate of 3 percent per year. The ultimate population includes the annexation of areas within the Sphere of Influence, or probable future City limits. Since the General Plan Update, the City has recently revised the build-out population estimate to be 11,122 persons within the current Sphere of Influence (9,414 persons within the current City limits). This estimate is reflected in the memorandum, provided by the City to JLWA, dated April 11, 2001 from Randy Bloom, Community Development Director to R. Dennis Delzeit, Public Services Director regarding the revised population projections for use in the sewer treatment plant expansion. Also included in this memorandum are estimates of potential future commercial and hotel/motel development. Over 58 acres of zoned commercial land is expected to develop over the coming years. All 58 acres are within the current City limits. Hotel/motel units are expected to increase by 965 units, or a 53 percent increase of current hotel/motel units. Similar to the commercial development, all future hotel/motel development will occur within the current City limits. The Growth Management Element of the General Plan stipulates a maximum growth rate of 3 percent for the City. Since the preparation of the General Plan in 1992, growth has occurred at a slower rate, with an average value of 1 percent. It will be assumed for the purposes of the master 1 Population information from the 2000 Census by the U.S. Census Bureau. Water Master Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 0012.30 May4, 2004 plan that the growth rate will remain at 1 percent, and therefore the City will be completely built-out by the year 2010 within the existing City limits, and by 2027 within the current Sphere of Influence. OVERVIEW OF CITY WATER SYSTEM The City's water system is complex in nature, and thus a brief overview of the City's water system is warranted. Distribution System The City's existing distribution system is comprised of 7 distribution zones and 11 pressure zones. These zones were created to serve the City's customers, accommodating a City which stretches over seven miles of coastline, with elevations ranging from near sea level to over 600 feet above sea level. The distribution zones and their pressure zones are listed as follows: • Bello • Pismo Oaks • Pacific Estates • Heights 2 • Upper Zone • Lower Zone • Heights 3 • Hydropneumatic Zone • Upper Zone • Lower Zone • Shell Beach 1 • Shell Beach 2 • Upper Zone • Sunset Palisades (Lower Zone) A list of each of the distribution zones and their defining features are presented in Table ES-1. WATER QUALITY The City's water supplies consistently meet all State and Federal primary and secondary drinking water standards. With groundwater as one of the City's main water supply sources, the City has implemented sampling/monitoring for trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs ). Any changes to surface water treatment requirements will be the responsibility of the water wholesalers in the area (Central Coast Water Authority/State Water; and County of San Luis Obispo/Lopez Water). Water Master Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 0012.30 11 May4, 2004 Table ES-1. Distribution Zone Summary Distribution supply Reservoir Zone From Booster Station Name Size (Gallons) Bello Turnout Charles Street 420,000 Bello Well#5 Bello Street 470,000 Well #23 ---- Pismo Oaks Turnout Pismo Oaks Bello Distribution Pismo Oaks Pismo Oaks 800,000 I Pacific Estates Bel lo Distribution Pacific Estates Pacific Estates 1 350,000 Pacific Estates 2 850,000 Heights 2 Bello Distribution Bello Street Heights 2 220,000 Heights 2 Distribution Heights 2 Heights 3 100,000 Heights 3 Heights 3 Distribution Heights 3 Hydropneumatic 3,000 Tank Shell Beach 1 Bello Distribution Vista Del Mar Turnout Bay Street Shell Beach 1 1,000,000 Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Distribution Shell Beach Shell Beach 2 1,000,000 Sunset Palisades T11rnrn 1t fN/r.1 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY The City receives water from three sources; Lopez Lake, State Water and ground water. The Lopez Lake and the State Water allocations are transmitted through four tum-outs. The Sunset Palisades Turnout is normally closed and is typically used for emergencies only. The groundwater is suppJied by two wells located in Grover Beach (well #5 and well #23). Groundwater The City currently extracts groundwater from the Arroyo Grande Plain of the Tri-Cities Mesa (AGP- TCP) sub-basin of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. In 1983 , the City entered into an informal agreement, often referred to as the "gentlemen's agreement", with three other urban entities: The City of Arroyo Grande, the City of Grover Beach, and the Oceana Conununity Services District. This agreement was formed to limit extractions from the basin. Each entity was assigned a yearly basin extraction based on a 1979 Groundwater Study performed by the Department of Water Resources, and groundwater use preceding the Lopez Project. Additional basin uses include Water Master Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 0012.30 111 May4, 2004 agriculture and subsurface flow to the Pacific Ocean. The City of Pismo Beach's entitlement was established at 7 00 acre-fe et per ye ar (A.FY). The City also has two wells in the Meadow Creek water basin. These wells were taken out of commission in 1994 because of high levels of iron, manganese and sulfide, which result in high treatment costs. Local Surface Water from Lopez Reservoir The Lopez Reservoir project provides a contractual supply of up to 896 AFY to the City of Pismo Beach. A surplus supply from the reservoir has also b een available for purchase in the past, but is not a reliable source for the City to plan on from year to year. State Water Project The California State Water Project (SWP) is operated by the California State Department of Water Resources. Treated water from the SWP is delivered to the region through the Coastal Branch of the aqueduct at the Lopez tum-out. The Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) treats and distributes the water directly to retailers who have contracts for service. The City of Pismo Beach has purchased water from the SWP. The City has an allocation of 1,240 A.FY, of which 140 AFY h as been allocated for Pismo Ranch. Therefore, the current allocation available to the City is 1,100 AFY. Table ES-2 summarizes the City's existing water supply. Table ES-2. Existing Water Supplies FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES There are several possible future water supply sources for the City of Pismo Beach, including: • Groundwater from Meadow Creek Basin (requires Treatment) • Recycled Water from Proposed New Wastewater Treatment Plant (will require tertiary component to "open up" market demands for reuse) • Desalination (not c onsidered cost- effective or practical) i Source Groundwater Lopez Reservoir State Water Project Pismo Ranch Allocation Total Allocation (AFY) 700 896 1,240 (140) 2 ,696 • Additional Groundwater Extractions (should Basin safe yield increase and the Gentlemen's Agreement be modified in the future) • Groundwa ter from the C obalt-Garrison well (may require treatment) Wa te r Master P lan/Executiv e Summary Proj ect No . 0012.30 lV May 4, 2004 • State Water (140 AFY allocation from Pismo Ranch) or additional State Water Allocation Currently, the City's only readily feasible supplemental water supply is the 140 AFY allocation from Pismo Ranch. All other options may be revisited in future studies. Table ES-3 summarizes future water supply for the City of Pismo Beach. Supply Redundancy Table ES-3. Future Water Supply In the event of a reasonable system failure, it is recommended that the City maintain adequate production facilities to accommodate the future maximwn day demand (MDD). Redundancy/reliability was considered based on either the largest well out of service, or one turnout out of service. Based on this evaluation, it was determined that the City has sufficient supply redundancy under these conditions. Source Groundwater AGP-TCP Lopez Reservoir State Water Project Pismo Ranch Allocation Total EXISTING AND FUTURE WATER DEMAND Allocation (AFY) 700 896 1,100 140 2,836 In the water demand analysis, historical water production and consumption records were correlated with the memorandwn dated April 11 , 2001 from R. Dennis Delzeit to Randy Bloom, regarding the revised population projections for use in sewer treatment plant expansion analysis to obtain future design factors. These factors were then applied to future development to assess the build-out average daily water demand. The City has produced 2, 156 acre-feet per year in 2000. Unaccounted for water for the year 2000 was 9 .1 percent. Based on the demand study, i t is anticipated that the City's future water demand within the City's existing City Limits is 2,669 acre-feet and is 2,977 acre-feet within the current Sphere-of-Influence. MEETING FUTURE WATER SUPPLY NEEDS The future demand within the current City limits can be met with current water supplies. However, the projected demand is close to exceeding the City's current supply. This future demand surplus would also not be within the recommended 10 percent buffer stipulated by the Facilities Element, Policy F-36 of the General Plan. The demand for developments outside the City limits, but within Water Master Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 0012.30 v May4, 2004 the Sphere of Influence, will likely exceed the future supply available to the City without such developments providing incremental water supply to the City. It is concluded that the Pismo Ranch State Water allocation is a feasible means of acquiring additional supply. However, due to unknown future supply availability from the Santa Maria GroWldwater basin, and the Lopez Project, the additional 140 AFY of State Water allocation from Pismo Ranch would not guarantee adequate future water supply to meet projected demands outside of the current City limits. WATER STORAGE The City of Pismo Beach currently operates nine water storage reservoirs and one hydropneumatic tank in seven different distribution zones. The total combined storage of all ten reservoirs is 5.21 MG. To meet existing storage needs for operational, fire, and emergency storage, the total required storage is 5.43 MG, resulting in a present day deficit of 0.52 MG. At build-out, the deficit is expected to reach 1.44 MG. This evaluation was based on each zone taking care of its own storage needs. The storage evaluation for the various zones throughout the City shows that some distribution zones have a surplus of storage while other zones are deficient in storage. Opportunities to "share" storage from neighboring zones should be considered to minimize the amount of new storage required in the future. This evaluation concluded that the required future storage is 0.64 MG in the Bello zone and 0.15 MG in the Heights 2 zone, totaling 0.79 MG in the entire distribution system. Due to the recommendation to consolidate the Bello and Shell Beach 1 zone, the Charles Street and Bello Reservoirs will be decommissioned and all storage, 1.53 MG, for the Shell Beach I/Bello consolidated zone will be located at the Shell Beach 1 reservoir site. The Shell Beach 1 Reservoir site is constrained and therefore, the Shel] Beach I Reservoir will be demolished and a new 2.53 MG Reservoir will be constructed in the same footprint as the existing reservoir. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The City's water distribution system includes over 50 miles of water distribution pipelines, nine reservoirs, one hydropneumatic tank, two wells, seven distribution zones and eleven pressure zones. A detailed hydraulic water model was developed using WaterCAD for the City of Pismo Beach's water distribution system. The model was calibrated through field hydrant testing to accurately represent existing hydraulic characteristics. Once the model was calibrated accurately, model runs were simulated to assess system performance within each distribution zone. In the analysis of the existing distribution system, some areas in the network were found to experience substandard pressures and/or flows under fire flow conditions. The majority of the problems were found in the Bello, Heights 2 and Heights 3 zones. The various improvements needed to improve service pressures and fire flow demands are detailed in Chapter 7. In addition to water system hydraulics, there are other considerations to enhance and improve the City's water distribution system. Such considerations include pump station upgrades, water storage, and fire hydrant installations. Water Master Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 0012.30 Vl May4, 2004 Zone Consolidation To adequately serve all areas of the City, the City's distribution system includes 7 distribution zones and 11 pressure zones. The City is looking for ways to reduce the number of distribution zones, which ultimately reduces the complexity of the system. The configuration of the existing zones allows the City to consider consolidation of 7 distribution zones into 5 distribution zones. The two viable options for consolidation are to combine the Bello zone with the Shell Beach 1 zone, and the Pismo Oaks zone with the Pacific Estates zone. Evaluation of the reliability and cost to consolidate these zones resulted in a slight advantage to consolidate the Bello and Shell Beach 1 zone, and a recommendation to not consolidate the Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates zones at this time. The Pismo Oaks and the Pacific Estates zone consolidation could also be reconsidered upon completio n of the Los Robles Del Mar development. Evaluation ofthe Bello Street and Charles Street reservoirs along with several other capital improvements have been completed prior to the deciding to consolidate the Bello and Shell Beach 1 zones. Chapter 7 provides a detailed description of the issues involved in the decision to consolidate the two zones. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The capital improvement program for the City of Pismo Beach is presented on a first, second, third priority basis. First priority projects are a result of significant health and safety concerns, including severe substandard pressures, fire flows , and/or required storage needed to serve the customers in the City of Pismo Beach during any demand situation. Second priority projects address sections of the City which are experiencing slightly substandard pressures and/or fire flows, but are not as critical as first priority projects. Third priority projects include upgrades that are not critical in nature, but are recommended during routine future replacements. These upgrades are mainly short segments of undersized 4-inch and smaller water mains and dead-end 6-inch water mains which are able to deliver moderate fire flow, but are unable to deliver the required fire flow set forth b the fire department. Costs for each of the recommended improvements listed were calculated and are summarized in Tables ES -4, ES-5, and ES-6. The capital improvement project costs were developed based on engineering judgement, confirmed bid process for similar work in the Central Coast area, consultation with vendors and contractors, established budgetary unit prices for the work, and other reliable sources. Hard construction costs are escalated by a factor of 1.4, to allow for preliminary engineering, engineering, administration, construction management, and inspection costs. All CIP costs are expressed in September 2003 dollars, using an ENR Construction Cost Index 6741, and will need to be escalated to the year (midpoint of construction) scheduled for the work. The unit cost for pipe upgrades include new water services, valves, and hydrants where required. The unit cost for new pipe includes only the proposed pipeline, valves, and appurtenant connections, including new fire hydrants where required. Water Master Plan/Execu tive Summary Project No . 0012.30 Vll May4, 2004 Length Project# Title Description Quantity (ft ) Upgrade booster station to meet 1,500 gpm 1 -- Heights 3 Booster Station 1-1 Uoqrade Upgrade stand-by generator 1 -- Upgrade Pipe 3,100 1-2 Longview: H2 Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 300 Upgrade booster station to meet 1,500 gpm 1 -- Heights 2 Booster Station 1-3 Upqrade Upgrade s tand-by generator 1 - 1-4 Longview : H3 Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 2,300 Upgrade Pipe 535 1-5 Longview: HP3 Upgrade New Pipe 330 Demolish Shell Beach 1 Demolish Shell Beach 1 1-6 Reservoir Reservoir 1 --- New 2.53MG Shell Be ach 1-7 1 Reservoir New Reservoir 1 - Bay St. and Dolliver 1-8 Addition New Pipe 30 New Pipe 2 ,500 Mattie Road 12" Water 1-9 Main Project NewPRV 1 Upgrade Pipe 725 1-10 Pomeroy Ave. Ungrade Abandon Pipe 1 - Shell Beach Rd. 1-1 1 Upgrade** Upgrade Pipe 3,700 Table ES-4. First Priority Capital Improvement Projects City of Pismo Beach Ula New Diameter Diameter (in) (in) Street Location ----Lo ngview Ave. Heights 3 Booster Station ---Longview Ave. Heights 3 Booster Station Heights 2 Tan k to PRV/PSV near 6&8 12 Longview Ave. Judkins Middle Sch ool 6 8 Longview Ave. From Wadsworth to Hanford ----Longview Ave . Heights 2 Bo oster Statio n -----Longview Ave. Heights 2 Booster Station 6 12 Longview Ave. Heights 3 Reservoir to Visalia St. Base of loop to southern p oi nt of 6 12 Longview Ave. Heights 3 zone ---12 Longview Ave. Add to end of hydropneumatic zone ---Mattie Road Shell Be ach 1 Reservoir Site ------Mattie Road Shell Beach 1 Res ervoir Site At the i ntersecti on of B ay Street and --12 Bay Street Dolliver -12 Mattie Road From Foothill to Price Street Mattie Road At Price Street 6&8 12 Pomeroy Ave . Dolliver St. to the beach Between Main Street and Pomeroy 2 --A lley Avenue Vista Del Mar Ave. to jus t beyond Cliff 6 12 She ll Beach Rd. Ave. * Total includes constructi on cost plus prelimina ry engineering, design engin eerin g, administra tion , construc tion management a nd inspecti on costs ** Unit price of c on struction for this CIP Is increased because of th e knowledge of con c rete underlying Sh ell Beach Road . Wate r Mas ter Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 00 12.30 Total Project Construction Cost Subtotal Cost Function ($ ($) ($)• Provide fire flow to the Heights 3 Hydro-pneuma tic Zone $250,000 LS $25 0 ,000 $350,000 Provide power to new booster station $25,000 LS $25,000 $3 5 ,00 0 Provide adequate fire flow to residential zone $150 LF $465,000 $651,000 Provide adequate fire flow to residenti al zone $9 0 LF $27 ,000 $37 ,800 Provide fire flow to the Heights 3 Z one $100,000 LS $100 ,000 $140,000 Provide p ower to new booster station $40,000 LS $4 0,000 $56 ,000 Provide adequate fi re flow to residential zone $150 LF $345,000 $483,00 0 Provide adequate fire flow to res idential zone $150 LF $80,250 $112,350 Increase pressure to residential zone $150 LF $49,500 $69,300 · Provide room for new re servoir $80,000 LS $80,000 $11 6,000 New storage for existing and future stroage d efi ciencies $1 ,750,000 LS $1 ,7 50,000 $2 ,537,500 Pr ovide looping for new conso lidate d s ys tem $150 LF $4 ,500 $6 ,525 Provide looping fo r new consol idated system $150 LF $375,000 $543,750 Reduce press ure between Shell Beach 2 and Shell Beach 1 $40,000 LS $4 0 ,000 $5 8 ,000 Fire Flow to Commercial Distri cVPier A rea $150 LF $108,750 $152 ,250 Abandon 2-inch and reconnect s ervices $7,50 0 LS $7,500 $10 ,500 Provide adequate fire flow to c ommerc ial zone $180 LF $666,000 $932,400 Total $6,291,375 May 4 , 2004 Project Length # Title Description Quantity (ft) Decommission Be ll o 2-1 Decommission Bello Reservoir Reservoir 1 --- Decommission Charles Street Decommission Charles 2-2 Reservoir Street Reservoir 1 -- 2-3 Heights 2 Reservoir Ugrade Increase Reservoir Capacity 150,000 - Decommission Bay Street Decommission Bay Street 2-4 Booster Station Booster Station 1 - Ocean View Ave. & Highway 2-5 101 Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 725 New Pipe 235 Price Canyon Road and Del Ct. 2 -6 Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 380 Upgrade P ipe 800 Wadsworth Ave. and Bello St. 2-7 Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 435 2-8 Bello Street Upgrade: Phase I Upgrade Pipe 855 Abandon Pipe 1 --- Upgrade Pipe 260 2-9 Cypress St. Uoarade: Phase I Upgrade Pipe 140 2-10 Five Cities Dr. Upgrade Upgrade P ipe 2,370 Abandon Pipe 1 --- 2-11 4th Street Addition New Pipe 4,000 2-12 Fire Hydrant Uoorade Meet Fire Hydrant Spacing 100 - Upgrade Pipe 5 ,800 2-13 Well Piping Uoarades Upgrade Pipe 1,900 Table ES-5. Second Priority Capital Improvement Projects City of Pismo Beach Old New Diameter Diameter (in) (in) Street Location ---Bello Street Bello Reservoir Site -----Charles Street Charles Street Reservoir Site -----Longview Ave. Heights 2 Reservoir ----Bay Street Bay Street Booster S tation Site Across Highway 1 (Jack & 6 12 Ocean View Dr. Bore) Extend 12" main from Solar ---12 Price Canyon Rd . Way to Dell Ct. Price Cyn. To end of cul-de- 4 8 Dell Ct. sac. 6 12 Bello St. Wadsworth Ave. to Main Ave. Across Highway 101 6 12 Wadsworth Ave. (Conventional open-cut) From Pomeroy to Stimson 4&6 12 Be llo St. Avenue 4 --Cypress St. Harloe St. to Wadsworth Ave. From San Luis Ave. to --8 Cypress St. Wadsworth Ave. Midway between San Luis Ave. and Wadsworth Ave. to San --·-8 Cypress St. Luis Ave. 8 12 Five Cities Dr. 4th St. to A Street 12 -Varies From Well #9 to Five Cities From Grand Ave. to Five Cities -12 4th Street Dr. -----Entire System Entire System From Well #23 to Atlantic 8 8 Varies Avenue From Well #5 to Atlantic 6 8 Varies Avenue * Total includes construction cost plus preliminary engineerinq, design engineering, administration, construction management and inspection costs Water Ma ster Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 00 12.30 Total Project Construction Cost Subtotal Cost Function ($) ($) ($)* Abandon Bello Reserovir in-situ due t o zone consolidation $45,000 LS $45,000 $65,250 Remove Charles Street Reservoir and sell property $70,000 LS $70,000 $101 ,500 Increase storage in Heights 2 zone $1.00 GAL $150,000 $210,000 Abandon Bay Street Booster Station $30,000 LS $30,000 $43,500 Adequate service pressures to northwest portion of Bello Zone $350 LF $253,750 $3 55,250 Adequate fire flow to res idential area $150 LF $35,250 $49,3 50 Elimi nate small-diameter main, and provide adeq uate fire flow $90 LF $34 ,20 0 $47,880 $1 50 LF $120,000 $168,000 Adequate service pressures to northwest portion of Bello Zone $150 LF $65,250 $91,350 Eliminate small-diameter mai n, and provide adequate fire flow $1 50 LF $128,250 $179,550 Eliminate sm all diameter main $5,000 LS $5,000 $7,000 Eliminate small diameter main, and provide adequate fire flow $90 LF $23,400 $32,760 Eliminate small diameter main, and provide adequate fire flow P roject Completed Fire Flow to Commercial District $150 LF $355,500 $497,700 Eliminate pipe through sensitive terrain $15,000 LS $15,000 $21,000 Provide looping from wells $150 LF $600,000 $840,0 00 Meet required fire hydrant spacing $3,500 EA $350,000 $490,000 Eliminate old cast iron pipe $90 LF $522,000 $730,800 Eliminate old cast iron p ipe $90 LF $17 1,000 $239,400 Total $4,170,290 May 4, 2004 Project Length Old # Description Quantity (ft ) Diameter (in' Abandon Pipe 1 930 2 Cypress Street Upgrade: 3-1 Phase II Upgrade Pipe 930 6 3-2 Parl< Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 375 4 3-3 Hinds Ave. Upi:irade Upgrade Pipe 500 4 3-4 Hollister Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 400 4 Wadsworth Ave. 3.5 Upgrade: Phase I Upgrade Pipe 350 4 3-6 San Luis Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 660 4 3-7 Stimson Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 350 4 3-8 Frady Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 985 6 Bello St. Upgrade: Phase 3-9 II Upgrade Pipe 700 6 Ocean Way Upgrade - 3-10 Private Upgrade Pipe 540 2 3-11 Wilmar Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 450 2 3-12 Harbor View St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 560 3 3-13 Miramar Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 415 6 3-14 Brisa Ct. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 200 6 Shell Beach Road and 3-15 Coburn Lane Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 2,900 8 3-16 Taft St. Upqrade Upgrade Pipe 1,000 6 3-17 Bakersfield St. Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 650 6 3-18 Fresno St. Upi:irade Upgrade Pipe 1, 100 6 3-19 Stratford St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 1,350 6 Wadsworth Ave. 3-20 Upgrade: Phase II Upgrade Pipe 590 6 3-21 Baxter Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 415 4 3-22 Shaffer Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 590 2 3-23 Merced St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 730 6 3-24 Delano St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 470 6 3-25 Tulare St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 500 4 3-26 Visalia St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 520 6 Table ES-6. Third Priority Capital Improvement Projects City of Pismo Beach New Diameter (in) Street Location Function Pomeroy Ave. to Ocean View ---Cypress St. Ave., abandon 2" main, move Eliminate small d iamete r main Pomeroy Ave. to Ocean View 8 Cypress St. Ave., abandon 2" main, move Eliminate small diameter main 8 Park Ave . Dolliver St. to Cypress St. Eliminate small diameter main 8 Hinds Ave. Dolliver St. to Price St. Eliminate small d iameter main 8 Hollister Ave. Dolliver St. to Price St. Eliminate small diameter main 8 Wadsworth Dolliver St. to Price St. Eliminate small diameter main 8 San Luis St. Price St. to Cypress St. Eliminate small diameter main Highway 101 going North 8 Stimson Ave. t owards Bello St. Eliminate small diameter main Highway 101 Overpass to Eliminate small d iameter dead- 8 Frady Ln. Corporation Yard end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8' Bello St. North of Ocean V iew Ave. end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Ocean Way Entire Street end main Eliminate small d iameter dead- 8 Wilmar Ave. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Harbor View St. Entire Street end main The east and the west cul-de-Eliminate small diameter dead· 8 Miramar Lane sac of Miramar Lane end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Brisa Ct. The east cul-de-sac end main Shell Beach Rd and Between Vista Del Mar and Eliminate small diameter main , 12 Coburn Lane Seacliff Lane and provide adequate fire flow Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Taft St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Bakersfield St Entire Street end main Elim inate small diameter dead- 8 Fresno St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Stratford St. Entire Street end main Eliminate s mall diameter dead- 8 Wadsworth Ave. The northwest cul-de-sac end main Eliminate small d iameter dead- 8 Baxter Lane The end of the street end main 8 Shaffer Lane From Wadsworth going north Eliminate small d iameter main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Merced St. Entire Street end main E liminate small diameter dead- 8 Delano St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Tulare St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Visalia St. Entire Street end main * Total includes construction cost plus preliminary engineerinQ, desiqn engineering, administration, construction management and inspection costs Water Master Plan/Executive Summary Project No. 0012.30 1ota1 Project Construction Cost Subtotal Cost ($) ($) ($)"' $7,500 LS $7,500 $10,500 $90 LF $83,700 $11 7,180 $90 LF $33,750 $47,250 $90 LF $45,000 $63,000 $90 LF $36 ,000 $50 ,400 $90 LF $31 ,5 00 $44,100 Project Completed $90 LF $31 ,500 $44,100 $90 LF $88,650 $124,110 $90 LF $63,000 $88,200 $90 LF $48,600 $68,040 $90 LF $40,500 $56,700 $90 LF $50,400 $70,560 $90 LF $37,350 $52,290 $90 LF $18,000 $25,200 $150 LF $435,0 00 $609 ,000 $90 LF $90,000 $126,000 $90 LF $58,500 $81,900 $90 LF $99,000 $138,600 $90 L F $121,500 $170,100 $90 LF $53,100 $74,340 $90 LF $37,350 $52,290 $90 LF $53,100 $74,340 $90 LF $65,700 $91 ,980 $90 L F $42,300 $59,220 $90 LF $45,000 $63,000 $90 LF $46,800 $65,520 Total $2,467,920 May 4, 20 04 CHAPTER! INTRODUCTION The City of Pismo Beach (City) supplies its customers with domestic water service and fire protection. The current City population is 8,551 and is expected to increase to 9,414 at build-out, within the City limits. As older infrastructure is replaced and new development projects are constructed, it is the City's intent to construct water improvements consistent with the ultimate needs of the system and the available water supply. In order to facilitate this goal, the City has elected to prepare a comprehensive Water Master Plan. SCOPE OF STUDY The City contracted with John L. Wallace & Associates (JL WA) to prepare a comprehensive Water Master Plan that would evaluate the existing system and water supply and recommend a program of improvements in order to provide for a well-planned program. The scope of the study includes the following: 1. Review the current Land Use Element of the City General Plan for land use zoning and population distribution within the City limits. 2. Identify the water use characteristics of the developed and undeveloped land areas for both existing and future build-out. 3. Discuss water quality issues associated with existing groundwater wells as they relate to applicable State Health requirements and system operation. 4. Discuss e xisting methods of disinfection and provide recommendations on alternative methods to enhance effectiveness while minimizing the generation for undesirable disinfection byproducts. 5. Evaluate the adequacy and reliability of existing water supplies including groundwater, Lopez water, and State Water, and identify potential future supply sources. 6. Review historical production and consumption records to estimate existing average day, maximum day, and peak hour demands and unaccounted for water for existing and future build-out demands. 7. Review City Fire Department requirements and other applicable codes to determine the required fire flows and duration throughout the City, and according to land use zoning. Wate r Master Plan/Ch apter 1 Project No . 0012.30 1-1 May4, 2004 8. Review the adequacy of the existing supply entitlement structure to meet existing and future demands under drought conditions .. 9. Evaluate the existing water storage system in the City and recommend water storage improvements to meet the ultimate build-out of the system. 10. Develop a computer model of the existing and proposed water systems in order to evaluate the adequacy of the distribution infrastructure. 11. Calibrate the distribution model with fire hydrant field tests conducted throughout the City in coordination with the Fire Department. 12. Identify existing system deficiencies based on the calibrated computer model and build-out flow requirements. Where deficiencies are found, recommend corrective improvements to the system. 13. Review the seven distribution zones and seven water booster stations in the City. Analyze the potential for distribution zone consolidation and booster station elimination. 14. Review the condition of the Bello Reservoir and Charles Street Reservoir for costs associated with maintaining the two sites. 15. Evaluate the need for future transmission and distribution mains to meet the ultimate system requirements. 16. Prepare budget level cost estimates for all recommended capital improvements. 17. Prioritize recommended improvements in coordination with City staff. 18. Review the existing operations and maintenance program, and provide recommendations for staffing levels. 19. Review the cost effectiveness of alternative meter reading technology. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS JL WA thanks and acknowledges the following City representatives for their efforts, involvement, input and assistance in preparing this engineering report and analysis: R. Dennis Delzeit, Public Works Director Greg Ray, Associate Engineer Rocky Rogers, Public Works Superintendent Water Master Plan/Chapter 1 Project No. 0012.30 1-2 May4, 2004 Tom Hembree, Water System Supervisor Pat Mills, Public Works Operator Bill Tyler, Public Works Operator Vern Hamilton, Interim City Fire Chief The following JL WA key team members were involved in the preparation of this water master plan report: Robert Miller, P.E., Principal Engineer Steven Tanaka, P.E., Director of Water Resources Kari Wagner, P .E., Professional Engineer Joshua Reynolds, P.E., Professional Engineer Water Master Plan/Chapter 1 Project No. 0012.30 1-3 May4, 2004 CHAPTER2 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS Chapter 2 describes the study area characteristics germane to this water master plan for the City of Pismo Beach. Included in this chapter is a description of the various land uses in the City, a definition of the City boundary, and land use development forecasts (and thus water demand projections) in the City. LAND USE AND POPULATION The City of Pismo Beach is located in the Southern portion of San Luis Obispo County, extending along the Pacific Ocean shoreline some seven miles. The City currently serves a population of 8,551 1• The dominant economic activity in Pismo Beach is tourism, and as a result the population of the City can more than double during summer holidays. The land u se zones within the City are established by the Land Use Element (LUE) of the Gen eral Plan & Local Coastal Plan, which was last updated in 1992. The Ge neral Plan predicts a build-out population for the City of 13 ,000 persons and establishes a maximum allowable growth rate of 3 percent per year. The ultimate population includes the annexation of areas within the Sphere of Influence, or probable future City limits. Since the General Plan Update, the City has revised the build-out population estimate to be 11,122 persons within the current Sphere of Influence (9,414 persons within the current City limit s). This estimate is reflected in the memorandum, provided by the City to JL WA, dated April 11, 2001 from Randy Bloom, Community Development Director to R. Dennis Delzeit, Public Services Director regarding the revised population projections for use in the sewer treatment plant expansion (see Appendix B). The memorandum assumes a household density of 2 .5 persons per household based on the General Plan. The estimate is conservative as compared to the 1990 and 2000 Census data, which states a household density of 2.0 persons per household. The City is anticipating an increase in household density based on the allowance of granny units and changes with occupancy patterns throughout the City. The household density factor is also designed to be conservative to ensure the City doesn't underestimate the needs for water in the future. Comparing a household density of2.0 to 2.5 persons per household, the total water demand difference is 35 AFY or only 1 % of the total future water demand. Therefore, a density factor of 2.5 persons per household and the number of future housing units stated in the memorandum will be used for future water demand projections. Also included in this memorandum are estimates of potential future commercial and hotel/motel 1 Population information from the 2000 Census by the U.S. Census Bureau. Water M aster Plan/Chapter 2 Project No . 0012.30 2 -1 May4, 2004 development. Table 2-1 summarizes the existing and future land use patterns within the C ity by development type. Table 2-1. Existing and Future Land Use and Population Existing Uses Future Uses Future Uses within within City Sphere of Influence Boundary Residential Dwelling Units 5,446 5,791 ~{_pc.flt/ Residential Population 8,551 9,4141 11,1221 Planned Future --135,0002 135,000 Commercial, sf (Building footprint) Future Commercial, sf 953,600 1,578,7003 1,578,7004 (Building footprint) Hotel/Motel Units 1,831 2,796 2,7964 1 Future population estimates based on 2.5 persons per household per the General Plan. 2 Current planned developments with pending entitlement actions ( 17 acres) as provided by the City (building footprint -135,000 sf) 3 Future commercial square footage based on 35% of building coverage over the total commercial acreage (58 acres) minus the current planned commercial development acreage (17 acres). 4 Land use outside City limits does not accommodate future commercial or hotel development. GROWTH RATE ANALYSIS The Growth Management Element of the General Plan stipulates a maximum growth rate of 3 percent for the City. Since the preparation of the General Plan in 1992, growth has occurred at a slower rate, with an average value of 1 percent. It will therefore be assumed for the purposes of the water master plan that the growth rate will remain at 1 percent, consistent with historical trends. Therefore, the City will be completely built-out by the year 2010 within the existing City limits, and by 2027 within the current Sphere of Influence. Figure 2-1 illustrates the population forecasts within the City and the current Sphere of Influence. Water Master Plan/Chapter 2 Project No . 0012.30 2-2 May4, 2004 CHAPTER3 EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM This chapter describes the features of the City of Pismo Beach's water supply and distribution system. Given that the water distribution system is relatively complex in nature, this chapter provides a general overview of the system. The details regarding the various water system features are then presented in subsequent chapters. WATER SUPPLY The City receives water from three sources; Lopez Lake, State Water and ground water. The Lopez Lake and the State Water allocations are transmitted through a single 18-inch diameter transmission main into the system via four turnouts located throughout the City. At this time, three of the turnouts are active. The remaining turnout is used for emergency purposes only. The groundwater is supplied by two wells located in Grover Beach (well #5 and well #23). The details regarding water supply will be further evaluated in Chapter 5 of this report. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM This section discusses the City's distribution system, which includes 11 pressure zones within 7 distribution z ones, storage reservoirs, pumping stations and over 50 miles of distribution mains. Distribution Zones The City's existing distribution system consists of7 distribution zones and 11 pressure zones. These zones were created to serve the City's customers, accommodating a City which stretches over seven miles of coastline, with elevations ranging from near sea level to over 600 feet above sea level. The distribution zones and their pressure zones are listed as follows: • Bello • Pismo Oaks • Pacific Estates • Heights 2 • Upper Zone • Lower Zone • Heights 3 • Hydropneumatic Zone • Upper Zone • Lower Zone Water Master Plan/Chapter 3 Project No . 0012. 30 May 4, 2004 3-1 • Shell Beach 1 • Shell Beach 2 • Upper Zone • Sunset Palisades (Lower Zone) Due to the complexity of the entire system, each distribution zone is analyzed separately and described in the following subsections. A list of each of the distribution zones and their defining features are presented in Table 3-1, and the locations are shown on Figure 3-1. The existing hydraulic profile of the City's system is shown on Figure 3-2. I Table 3-1. Distribution Zone Summary Distribution Supply Reservoir Zone From Booster Station Name Size (Gallons) Bello Turnout Charles Street 420,000 Bello Well#5 Bello Street 470,000 Well #23 ---- Pismo Oaks Turnout Pismo Oaks Bello Distribution Pismo Oaks Pismo Oaks 800,000 Pacific Estates Bello Distribution Pacific Estates Pacific Estates 1 350,000 Pacific Estates 2 850,000 Heights 2 Bello Distribution Bello Street Heights 2 220,000 Heights 2 D istribution Heights 2 Heights 3 100,000 Heights 3 Heights 3 Distribution Heights 3 Hydro-pneumatic 3,000 Tank Shell Beach 1 Bello Distribution Vista Del Mar Turnout Bay Street Shell Beach 1 1,000,000 Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Distribution Shell Beach Shell Beach 2 1,000,000 Sunset Palisades Turnout fN/C) Bello. The Bello distribution zone is essentially the main zone of the entire system. This zone serves downtown Pismo Beach, and supplies water to all of the other distribution zones. Thus, most of the water supplies feed directly into the Bello zone, with the exception of the Sunset Palisades turnout (n/c) and the Vista Del Mar Turnout. The zone has two reservoirs; Bello Street and Charles Street. The Charles Street Reservoir has a capacity of 420,000 Water Master Plan/Chapter 3 Project No. 0012.30 3-2 May4, 2004 gallons, and is located on Charles Street in Grover Beach. This reservoir is supplied by the two groundwater wells, also in Grover Beach. The Bello Street Reservoir has a capacity of 470,000 gallons, and is located on Bello Street near Hinds Avenue. The Bello Street reservoir is supplied by the Bello turnout, also located on Bello Street near the reservoir. The Pismo Oaks turnout is also located in the Bello zone. Pismo Oaks. The Pismo Oaks distribution zone is located in the eastern section of Pismo Beach. This zone is supplied by the Bello distribution zone through the Pismo Oaks Booster Station located off of Vista Pacific Circle. The Pismo Oaks distribution zone has one 800,000 gallon reservoir located on the hill above Ridge Road. The Pismo Oaks turnout has recently been put into continuous operation to reduce THM concentrations per the Disinfection Byproduct Rule. Pacific Estates. The Pacific Estates distribution zone is located west of the Pismo Oaks zone and north of the Bello zone. This zone is supplied by the Bello distribution zone through the Pacific Estates Booster Station located at the bottom of Highland Drive. This distribution zone has two reservoirs (350,000 and 800,000 gallons) located on the hill above Highland Drive. The Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks distribution zones are also inter-connected via a closed valve located near James Way and VentanaDrive. This valve allows water to flow from the Pacific Estates zone to the Pismo Oaks zone. Heights 2. The Heights 2 distribution zone extends from Bello Street to approximately two- thirds of the way up Longview Avenue. This zone is supplied by the Bello distribution zone through the Bello Booster Station located adjacent to the Bello Street Reservoir. The Heights 2 zone has one 220,000 gallon reservoir located on Longview A venue south of Merced Street. This zone contains two pressure zones, an upper and a lower zone, separated by a pressure reducing valve (PRV). The PRV is located near the intersection of Wadsworth A venue and Bay Street. Heights 3. The Heights 3 distribution zone starts approximately two-thirds of the way up Longview Avenue and contains the entire upper section of Longview A venue. This zone is supplied by the Heights 2 distribution zone through the Heights 2 Booster Station located adjacent to the Heights 2 Reservoir. This zone has one 100,000 gallon reservoir located at the base of the turnabout on Longview Avenue. The Heights 3 distribution zone contains three pressure zones, an upper zone, a lower zone and a hydro-pneumatic zone. The upper zone is fed by gravity via the Heights 3 Reservoir. The upper and the lower zones are separated by a pressure reducing valve located near the intersection of Longview A venue and Delano Street. The hydro-pneumatic zone is fed by the Heights 3 Booster Station (equipped with a hydro-pneumatic tank) located adjacent to the Heights 3 Reservoir. Shell Beach 1. The Shell Beach 1 distribution zone is bounded by Bay Street to the east, Highway 101 to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the south, and SeacliffDrive to the west. It is supplied by the second active Lopez turnout, Vista Del Mar, located at the intersection of Water Master Plan/Chapter 3 Project No. 0012.30 3-5 May 4, 2004 Vista Del Mar and Shell Beach Road. The Shell Beach 1 distribution zone is also supplied by the Bello distribution zone through the Bay Street Booster Station located at Bay Street and Price Street. The Shell B e ach I zone has a 1.0 million gallon reservoir located on the hill above Costa Bravo Road. Shel1 Beach 2. The Shell Beach 2 distribution zone contains two pressure zones, an upper zone and a lower zone (Sunset Palisades zone). The upper pressure zone is located north of the Shell Beach 1 distribution zone on the east side of Highway 101. Sunset Palisades is west of the Shell Beach 1 distribution zone, extending from Seacliff Drive to the north end of the City limits. The PRV is located at North Mattie Road and Spyglass Drive. The Shell Beach 2 distribution zone is supplied by the Shell Beach 1 zone through the Shell Beach Booster Station located adjacent to the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. The Shell Beach 2 distribution zone has a 1.0 million gallon reservoir located on the hill above the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. The Shell Beach 2 distribution zone is separated from Shell Beach I distribution zone via a closed valve and a PRV. The closed valve is located at SeacliffDrive and Coburn Lane. The PRV is located near South Mattie Road and Baycliff Drive. The PRV is currently active, but only allows enough flow to sustain the predetermined downstream pressure. Under average day demand and peak hour demand, the PRV is virtually inactive (a small unmeasurable amount of water flows through). During fire flow conditions the PRV fully activates. The Sunset Palisades turnout is located near El Portal Drive and Shell Beach Road. This turnout is normally closed and is ohly used for emergency purposes. Water Master Plan/Chapter 3 Project No. 0012.30 3-6 May 4, 2004 CHAPTER4 WATER QUALITY This chapter describes the w ater quality parameters associated with the City's water supplies. 1be City of Pismo Beach receives water from three sources: 1) State Water; 2) Lopez Lake water; and 3) local groundwater. This section describes the water quality of the City's available water supplies. DRL'iKING WATER STAL~DARDS Drinking water standards are established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by the California Department of Health Services. These federal and state agencies are responsible for ensuring that all public water systems are in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The State of California has been consistent in applying drinking w ater standards as they are adopted by the EPA. Moreover, California has established act ion levels for contaminants not on the federal list. Future water quality regulations germane to the City of Pismo Beach are discussed later in this chapter. Water Quality Parameters State and Federal water standards fall into two categories : • Primary Standards relate specifically to the health of the community as it might be affected by the water supply. Mandatory maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are established for specific constituents. • State Secondary Standards relate to aesthetic qualities of the water including taste, odor, color and some minerals. In California, maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are also established for these secondary constituents. Table 4 -1 lists the current MCLs which the City must meet, along with other water quality parameters (secondary aesthetic standards). The results indicate the City's water supplies meet primary and s econdary standards. Wa ter Master Plan/Chapter 4 Project No. 0012. 30 4-1 May 4, 2004 Table 4-1. Year 2002 Water Quality Report for The City of Pismo Beach SAMPLING RESULTS SHOWING THE DETECTION OF COLIFORM BACTERIA TABLE #1 LOPEZ W.T.P. STATE WATER CONT AMIN ANT I M .C.L. I MCLG PHG I RANGE I AVERAGE RANGE I AVERAGE Total Col ifo rm Bacteria I 5% of monthly s amples I 0 I 0-1 .6% I 0.16% 0 .0%-0.8% I 0.1% SAMPLE RES UL TS SHOWING THE DETECTION OF LEAD AND COPPER TABLE #2 NO. OF SAMPLES 90TH PERCENTI LE LEVEL NO. OF SITES EXCEEDING THE A.L. MCLG COLLECTED DETECTED ACTION LEVEL Cooooer (PPM ) 20 0.65 0 . 1.3 0.17 Lead (PPM) 20 ND 0 15 2 SAMPLING RES UL TS FOR DETECTED CONTAMINANTS TABLE #3 PRIMARY STANDARDS LOPEZ W.T .P. STATE WATER WELL#5 WELL#23 CONTAMINANT M.C.L. (µg/I) MCLG RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE PHG Alu minum 1000 600 ND-380 120 ND-60 ND NIA NIA NI A N/A Antimony 6 6 NIA N/A NIA N/A <6 <6 <6 <6 Arsenic1 50 ----3 ---ND 6 .5 6.5 5.8 5.8 Fluoride 2000 1000 --4 00 -ND NIA NIA NIA N/A Gross Alpha Part icle A ctivity (pCil L) 15 0 --1.24 0 .78-2.98 1.46 ND ND 0.63-4.8 2 .54 Nitrate (as N03 ) 45 45 ---ND ---2.86 ND ND 3.1 3.1 Nitrate (as N) 10 10 -ND --0.65 N/A N/A N/A N/A T o ta l Trihalomethanes (PPB) 80 ---37 .9-81.1 61 .0 29-62 54 12-109 78 NI A NIA Zin c 5000 NI A NIA NIA N/A N/A ND ND 140 140 1 Arsenic MCL will be reduced to 10 µg/1 in January 2006 012/30/Report/Table 4-1 Water Quality Report 2000.xls Table 4-1. Year 2002 Water Quality Report for The City of Pismo Beach TABLE #4 SECONDARY STANDARDS LOPEZ W.T.P. STATE WATER WELL#S WELL #23 CONTAMINANT M.C.L. (µg/I) M.C.L. RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE Recommended (µg/I) Unner Aluminum (PPB) 200 -ND-380 120 ND-60 ND NIA N/A NIA NIA Chloride (PPM ) 500 ----24 50-138 89 77 7 7 85 85 Color (CU) 15 ----2 0-2 NIA NIA NIA NIA Corrosivity (LI) Non-Corrosive -0.5 --Non-Corrosive 0 .99 0.99 1.00 1.00 Iron 300 300 NIA NIA NIA NIA 120 120 750 750 Manganese 50 50 NIA N/A NIA NIA 31 31 35 35 Odor -Threshhold 3 3 --0.5 ----1 1 ND ND Specific Conductance (micromhos) 1600 ----660 --489 1200-1300 1250 1600 NIA Sulfate (PPM) 250 500 --120 --32 170 170 250 250 Total Dissol ved Solids 500 1000 ---420 ---230 710 710 820 820 Turbidity (NTU) 5 5 --0.18 0.04-0.07 0.06 NIA NIA NIA NIA TABLE #5 WITHOUT A STANDARD LOPEZ W.T.P. STATE WATER WELL#S WELL #23 CONTAMINANT RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE Alkalinity as CaC03 (PPM) -240 54-92 79 360 360 270 270 Calcium (P PM-) ---71 41-72 57 170 170 140 140 Magnesium (PPM) -38 --15 NIA NIA NIA NIA Sodium (PPM ) ---22 --53 50 50 79 7 9 Total Haloacetic Acids (PPB) 9.2-74.7 31 3-32 26 7-90 58 60 NI A Total Hardness (PPM) ---310 86-132 115 470-530 500 NIA N/A pH --7.75 7.8-8.9 8.2 6.7-7.2 7.2 6.5-8.5 N/A Potassium (PPM) --NIA ---2.5 N/A NIA N/A NIA SAMPLING RESULTS SHOWING TREATMENT OF SURFACE WATER SOURCES TABLE #6 TURBIDITY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS• TREATMENT TECHNIQUE FOR LOPEZ* TREATMENT TECHNIQUE FOR CCWA Lowest monthly % of samples that met Turbidity Performance Standar Highest single turbi dity measurement during the year The number violations of any su rface water treatment requirement Abbreviations : uglL = m icrograms per liter MCL = maximum contaminant leve l MCLG = MCL goal ND = not detected CU =colorim etric unit 012130/Report!Table 4-1 Water Quality Report 2000.xls PPT = parts per trillion pCi/c = picocuries per liter PPB = parts per billion NIA"' not applicable <=less than 98% 1.5 0 PPM = parts per million NTU = Nephelometric turbidity units LI = Langelier's index 100% 0 .24 0 FUTURE REGULATIONS Future water regulations must be incorporated into the City's overall water master planning, as new regulations could trigger capital improvements to meet new and changing standards. With the City receiving State water and Lopez water, surface water regulations will need to be addressed by the corresponding agencies that treat the surface water supplies. In addition, most anticipated federal and state drinking water regulations are directed toward surface water sources or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water, and therefore will most likely not impact the City. Groundwater is provided directly by the City's wells, and thus this section focuses on future requirements germane to the City of Pismo Beach groundwater supply. Based on conversations with the State Department ofEnvironmental Management, the Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproduct Rule and revised Waterworks Standards will pose the most significant regulatory issues to the City. Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproduct Rule The purpose of the Rule is monitoring and reduction, as necessary, of potentially carcinogenic disinfection byproducts. The discussion herein is based on the latest draft, submitted for internal review by the Department of Environmental Management as of June 2000. The final requirements will be issued in the final Rule. According to the latest draft, water systems with groundwater as their sole source will be required to begin sampling for trihalomethanes (THMs) and five specific haloacetic acids (HAA5) in their distribution system in January, 2004. Small groundwater systems (less than 10,000 people served) would collect a sample for measurement of total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and HAAS at the point in their distribution system with the longest residence time. If that sample exceeds the MCL (maximum contaminant limit) established in the California Code, samples must be repeated quarterly and a running yearly average computed. If this value exceeds the MCL, the Code will require notification of a violation to the Department of Environmental Management and to the public. The City has begun the sampling for THMs and HAA5. If the yearly sample does not exceed the MCL, the City may adopt a reduced monitoring program and sample once per year during the month of warmest water at the point in the system with longest residence time. Any subsequent sample that exceeds the MCL would activate quarterly monitoring requirements, calculation of an annual average, and notifications as discussed above. The TTHM and HAAS requirements could be a potential concern for the City in the future. However, it is expected that the local groundwater and the State/Lopez water supplies are low in organic carbon content. TTHM and HAA5 substances are formed by reactions between certain disinfectants (such as chlorine) and organic carbon. High concentrations of org anic carbon increase the potential for formation of THMs and HAAs. If system TIIMs and HAA5 approach the MCLs when the monitoring period begins, the City s hould consider implementing chloramination of well w ater at the well head, or pursue a system for THM Water Mas ter Plan/Chapter 4 Pr oject No. 001 2.30 4-4 May 4, 2004 reduction. The most effective approaches focus on removal of organic carbon from water sources. Best available technologies would include treatment with activated carbon, enhanced coagulation, or enhanced softening. Waterworks Standards According to the draft revision to the Wateiworks Standards submitted for State review on May 2003, new water systems must be designed to provide a minimum pressure of 40 psi throughout the distribution system and at all times (except under fire flow conditions). Since the City system has historically experienced pressures in and below this range, this requirement presents a significant concern. Options for providing reliable system pressures in excess of 30 psi are addressed in the distribution system section of the Water Master Plan. Water Master Plan/Chapter 4 Project No. 0012.30 4-5 May4, 2004 CHAPTERS WATER SUPPLY This chapter d escribes the water supplies available to the City of Pismo Beach, and the reliabi lity of these supplies under various modes of supply disruption. EXISTING WATER SUPPLY The City receives water from three water sources: local groundwater, Lopez Reservoir and the State Water Project. Each are described in the following subsections: Groundwater The City currently extracts groundwater from the Arroyo Grande Plain of the Tri-Cities Mesa (AGP- TCP) sub-basin of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. In 1983, the City entered into an informal agreement, often referred to as the "gentlemen's agreement" (See Appendix C), with three other urban entities: the City of Arroyo Grande, the City of Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District. This agreement was formed to limit extractions from the basin. Each entity was assigned a yearly basin extraction based on a 1979 Groundwater Study performed by the Department of Water Resources, and groundwater use prece ding the Lopez Project. Additional basin uses include Table 5-1. Existing Well Supply agriculture and subsurface flow to the Pacific Ocean. The City of Pismo Beach's entitlement was es tablished at 700 acre-feet per year (AFY). The City extracts water from the AGP-TCP via two wells located in Grover Beach. Well #5 is located at 8th Street and Grand A venue. This well produces approximately 600 gpm. Well #23 is located at the 900 block of Huber Street. This well produces approximately 950 gpm. Table 5-1 summarizes the existing City wells used for potable water supplies. The availability of the City's Well Production Year Casing Number Capacity1 Drilled Depth (gpm) (feet) 5 600 1973 500 23 950 1990 3 9 5 Totals Capacity of all Wells combined = 1,550 gpm Combined capacity with largest well (Well # 23) out of service = 600 gpm 1 Capacity= Historical flow rate when pumping groundwater ex traction allocation from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin may be in question in the future, as pending l awsuits and basin adjudication proceedings move forward. Specific details of what changes may occur, and how this may impact the City's current 700 AFY groundwater W ater Master Plan/Chapter 5 Project No . 0012.30 5-1 May4, 2003 entitlement, are not certain at this time. Other groundwater sources are described in the following paragraphs: Meadow Creek Water Basin Wells. The City has two wells in the Meadow Creek water basin. These wells were taken out of commission in 1994 because of high levels of iron, manganese and sulfide, which result in high treatment costs. Re-developing these wells in the future to augment the potable water supply is possible; however, the cost to do so must be considered. The aesthetics of a water treatment facility in this area may also be of concern given that the prior well building has been removed and the building pad has been covered over. Cobalt-Garrison Wells. In the Pismo Oaks Distribution Zone, there are two wells that were installed. The wells are located on a property known as the Los Robles Del Mar Property. These wells pump an estimated 250 gpm combined, or a total of 403 AFY. This well pump capacity is based on actual pumping tests in the field; however, this is not indicative of the sustained safe yield of these wells. The water quality of these wells is poor, with high levels of iron and manganese. These wells may be good production wells, but the safe yield of these wells must be confirmed to determine their available production and supply to the City. Furthermore, it has been some time since the installation and water quality testing was completed on these wells. All parameters should be tested to verify that these wells will produce water that meets today's drinking water standards. Wellhead treatment will likely be required, given the prior history of high iron and manganese from these wells. Local Surface Water from Lopez Reservoir The Lopez Reservoir is managed by the County of San Luis Obispo Flood Control District (Zone 3). The capacity of the reservoir is 51,990 AF. The reservoir receives runoff from the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed. The normal inflow into the Lopez Reservoir is 10, 730 AF. Two-thousand AF of the 10,730 AF is lost to evaporation, 4,200 AF is untreated and released to the Arroyo Grande Creek and the remaining 4,530 AF is available for distribution. At this time the Lopez Reservoir project provides a contractual supply of up to 896 AFY to the City of Pismo Beach. A surplus supply from the reservoir has also been available for purchase in the past, but is not a reliable source for the City to plan on from year to year. In addition, envirorunental issues discussed in the pending Habitat Conservation Plan for the Lopez Creek area could require additional dam releases to ensure habitat preservation, thus potentially reducing the future allocation available to the City for potable water supply. State Water Project The California State Water Project (SWP) is operated by the California State Department of Water Resources. Treated water from the SWP is delivered to the region through the Coastal Branch of the aqueduct at the Lopez tum-out. The Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) treats and distributes the water directly to retailers who have contracts for service. The City of Pismo Beach Water Master Plan/Chapter 5 Project No. 0012 .30 5-2 May4, 2003 has purchased water from the SWP. The City has an allocation of 1,240 AFY, of which 140 AFY has been allocated for Pismo Ranch. Therefore, the current allocation available to the City is 1, 100 AFY. Table 5-2 summarizes the City's existing water supply. The County purchased "excess" State Water capacity, that historically amounted to approximately 20,000 AFY. The County developed a drought buffer program, whereby participating agencies could "buy in" to emergency State Water allocations for an annual fee. For the City of Pismo Beach, this drought buffer would cost an estimated $60,000 per year. During drought years, when the Department of Water Resources and Central Coast Water Authority direct State Water cutbacks, the County's allocation is also cut back; however, the County's "excess capacity'' is cut back and the amount still delivered is generally above the contractual full allocations of all of the participating agencies. Thus, during drought times, the County can maintain full delivery of State Water to those agencies that participate in the program. In the past, the City has chosen not to participate in the drought buffer program. This drought buffer program is essentially an insurance policy to maintain full State Water allocation during drought years. As discussed in Chapter 6, projected demands will approach available supply, and a drought-year cutback in State Water could severely impact the City's ability to reliably meet future demand. FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES In the future, a supplemental source of water available to the City could be groundwater from the Meadow Creek Basin. The estimated yield from this basin is 300 AFY, but the water is of poor quality and will require substantial treatment. At this time, groundwater supply from the Meadow Creek Basin is not considered a cost effective source of water. Recycled water is another potential source of supplemental water supply for the City. Currently the City's wastewater facility is treating its effluent to secondary standards. Table 5-2. Existing Water Supply Source Allocation (AFY) Groundwater 700 Lopez Reservoir 896 State Water Project 1,240 Pismo Ranch Allocation (140) Total 2,696 This restricts potential recycled water use in the City to limited sites. Prospects of a new wastewater facility in the future, with an added tertiary treatment component, could allow the City to use the recycled water for irrigation of parks, schools, golf courses, and possibly new hotel toilet flushing, with the addition of distribution facilities to deliver recycled water to the area in demand. Once the new wastewater facility is implemented, and if tertiary treatment is provided, the ability of using recycled water to augment the potable water supply should be revisited. However, it is understood that the cost of developing tertiary effluent, including treatment and distribution, would be relatively expensive for the comparatively small market demands for recycled water. Water Master Plaru'Chapter 5 Project No. 0012.30 5-3 May4, 2003 Desalination is another source of supplemental water supply, but rarely proves to be cost effective particularly for smaller communities. Complexities with siting a desalination plant, environmental issues, brine disposal, and the uncertainty of future energy costs make this prospect unlikely in the future. Therefore, desalination is not considered a feasible supply source for the City. The Cobalt-Garrison wells may be another potential source of water supply in the future. However, as mentioned earlier in this Chapter, a safe yield analysis must be conducted to confum the actual sustained well production from these wells. In addition, a re-examination of the water quality from these wells is warranted to confirm all water quality parameters. The wells would likely require well treatment, unless water from these wells could be blended with State/Lopez water prior to introduction. Blending would not likely be feasible, as raw well water would need to be piped back to the Lopez turn-out, and a blending station installed at that location. Finally, another supplemental supply source is the 140 AFY currently allocated to Pismo Ranch. The City may have the opportunity to reallocate this incremental supply for City use, in the event that Pismo Ranch does not utilize this allocation . Currently, the most cost effective supplemental water supply is the 140 AFY allocation from Pismo Ranch. Other options may be revisited in future studies. Table 5-3 summarizes the potential future water supply for the City of Pismo Beach with the 140 AFY incorporated, based on the findings of this water master plan. In addition to new water supplies, the City should continue to promote water conservation measures to the extent feasible. Prior Water Supply Analysis Table 5-3 . Future Water Supply Source Allocation (AFY) Groundwater AGP-TCP 700 Lopez Reservoir 896 State Water Project 1,100 Pismo Ranch Allocation 140 TOTAL 2,836 In 1997, North Coast Engineering (NCE) conducted a water availability analysis for the City of Pismo Beach. The study concluded at that time, that the City had available supply to meet build-out, including the demands projected for the Los Robles Del Mar (LRDM) development. At that time, the specific plan indicated that the development would include 298 dwelling units, a park and a school. It was estimated that the demand from this development would be 122 AFY. The NCE water supply analysis projected future water supply to include the Meadow Creek wells (419 AFY), although the report did recommend not to use these wells as a "day-to-day source". The report further recommended that water supply and demand be reviewed every 5 years. In addition, at that the time, the Lopez allocation was to be reduced from 896 AFY to 702 AFY, based on a reduction Wate r Master Plan/Chapter 5 Project No. 0012.3 0 5-4 May4, 2003 of reservoir storage due to seismic constraints. Table 5-4 summarizes the NCE study of future water supply for the City. Supply Redundancy In the event of a reasonable system failure, it is recommended that the City maintain adequate production facilities to accommodate the future maximum day demand (MDD). The following criteria are recommended: 1. Meet future build-out l\IDD with the largest well out of service (Lopez and State Water in service). 2. Meet future build-out MDD with one turn-out down (wells in service). Table 5-4. Future Water Supply -1997 NCE Study Source Allocation (AFY) Groundwater AGP-TCP 700 Lopez Reservoir 702 State Water Project 1,100 Meadow Creek Wells 419 TOTAL 2,921 Each of the City's turnouts can supply up to 1,000 gpm; however, on average, the Bello and Vista Del Mar turnouts produce a flow of 800 and 500 gpm, respectively. Table 5-5 shows that the City has sufficient supply redundancy during Condition No. 1 and No. 2 for future MDD. The City has multiple resources to assist during supply outages. These resources are described below: • The City currently operates two emergency turnouts. One turnout is in the Bello zone (Pismo Oaks Turnout) and the other is in the Shell Beach 2 zone (Sunset Palisades Turnout). Either one of these turnouts is capable of being activated in a short period of time. Each emergency turnout is capable of supplying 1,000 gpm to the system. • For short-term well shut-downs (1-2 days), emergency storage is capable of supplying water during that time frame. • For long-term well shut-downs, maximum month demand should be examined. The maximum month demand over the past seven years was 1, 700 gpm. Under Condition No. l, the existing facilities still have sufficient capacity if one well is out of service and the turnouts are producing water at average flow conditions. Water Master Plan/Chapter S Project No. 0012.30 5-5 May4, 2003 Table 5-5. Supply Redundancy Condition Supply Sources (gpm) Max Day Supply Demand Surplus/ Lopez All Wells -Largest Total (gpm) (Deficit) Turnouts Wells Out of Service Supply (gpm) 1 2,0001 ---600 2,600 2,271 329 2 1 0002•3 1,550 ---2,550 2,271 279 ' 1 Assume that both turnouts are operating at maximum capacity of 1,000 gpm while the largest well is out of service. 2 Assumes largest turnout down. 3 Each Turnout is capable of supplying 1,000 gpm, however, the normal operating range of the turnouts is b etween 500 and 800 gpm It will be assumed that Turnouts are operating at maximum capacity during emergency shutdowns. It is also assumed that the emergency turnouts are not used. Water Master Plan/Chapter 5 ProjectNo. 0012.30 5-6 May4, 2003 CHAPTER6 WATER DEMAND AND STORAGE This chapter describes the existing and projected water demand and storage requirements for the City of Pismo Beach. The water demand forecas ts will form the basis for assessing supply adequacy, identifying existing and future system needs, and analyzing deficiencies. HISTORICAL DEMAND Demand data was provided by the City from 1994 through 2000. These historical demands are summarized in Table 6-1. Table 6-1. Historical Water Demand Year Total Total Metered UAW1 UAW Production Consumption (ac-ft) (%) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 1994 1,809 1,683 126 7.0 1995 1,801 1,645 156 8.7 1996 1,902 1,816 86 4.5 1997 2,056 1,973 83 4.0 19982 1,870 1,853 17 0 .9 19992 2,079 1,824 255 12.2 2000 2,156 J 1,961 195 9.1 1 UAW -Unaccounted for Water 2 Original production data was erroneous. Recalculated production data was provided by the City. The average water production from 1994 to 2000 was 1,953 AFY. According ~o the City, the original water demand data from October of 1998 to March of 1999 was not representative of actual demands due to low production (meter) readings from the Lopez turnout. Table 6-1 illustrates the recalculated values computed by the City. To estimate the future demands and supply needs of the City, JLW A will use the most recent data (year 2000 data). Table 6-1 indicates that in the year 2000, 9.1 % of total water production occured as un-metered use, often called ''unaccounted for water" (UAW). UAW should be minimized where possible since it requires City resources to produce, but does not generate revenue. The City's UAW is relatively low compared to other municipalities. Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-1 May4, 2004 According to American Water Works Association (A WW A) M32, UAW typically ranges from 10 to 15 percent. WATER DEMAND FACTORS This section presents the analysis of water demands, demand factors, and hydraulic parameters to be used in hydraulic modeling and projecting demands. Water Demand Categories As noted previously, the City has a high tourist population. This characteristic results in a relatively high per capita demand as compared to other municipalities in the area. Per capita demand in cities with lower tourism populations can range from as low as 7 5 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 150 gpcd. The City of Pismo Beach's current population is 8,5 51 persons, and their corresponding production is 1.92 mgd. This results in a per capita use of approximately 225 gpcd, which is comparatively high for the area. The residential development potential in the City of Pismo Beach is also approaching build-out. The City's residential development is only capable of expanding another 10 percent within the current City boundary. However, a 15 percent increase in population is projected within the sphere of influence. Although the residential development is nearing build-out, significant development potential exists for commercial and hotel/motel development. Commercial building square footage has a potential of a 50 percent increase, while the hotel and motel units can develop another 35 percent. There is a significant difference in development potential between residential areas and commercial and hotel/motel areas within the City and Sphere of Influence. Thus, simply correlating current per capita demands to build-out would not be appropriate. Current water usage data, provided by the City, was used to develop water demand factors for four main categories: residential, commercial, hotel/motel and institutional. Table 6-2 summarizes the demand and use factors that will be used to determine future demands in each of these four categories. Hydraulic Demand Parameters Water system demands are important characteristics of water systems, as these parameters are used to size pumping, storage and distribution system facilities. Each community's water system exhibits unique characteristics that must be calculated and identified in order to better evaluate existing and future water distribution system requirements. Hydraulic demand parameters are defined as follows: Average Day Demand (ADD). The ADD is the average water demand calculated over the year. This demand is generally determined by production records. The ADD is used al so to determine the average per capita demand, which in turn is used to project future water system Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-2 May4, 2004 Table 6-2. Water Demand Factors Use Category Quantity and Demand, Use Factor Units gpd (gpm) Residential 8,551 persons 1,381,000 161 gpcd (959) Existing 953,600 sf 195,800 0.21 gpd/sf Commercial (136) Hotel/Motel 1,831 units 317,000 173 gpd/unit I (220) Institutional 2 schools 17,320 8,660 gpd/school (12) demands based on anticipated population growth. Based on a review of the production records from the year 2000, the present-day ADD was determined to be 1.92 mgd (1,333 gpm) for the City of Pismo Beach. Maximum Day Demand CMDD). The MDD is the maximum daily production of water needed to meet the peak day demand of the year. This is generally during the summer as a result of increased ini.gation demand, coupled with the height of the tourist season. The City does not keep daily records on water production. Therefore, MDD could not be determined using conventional methods. The City of Pismo Beach has seven distribution zones, of which five zones are predominately zoned residential. The MDD peaking factor for municipalities of similar size (with low tourist populations) can range from 1.6 to 2.0. For the Shell Beach 2, Pacific Estates, Pismo Oaks, Heights 2 and Heights 3 distribution zones, which consist predominately of residential developments, a MDD peaking factor of 1. 7 will be used. The Bello and Shell Beach 1 distribution zones have less residential development, but do have a significant amount of commercial and hotel/motel development. Hotel occupancy rates for the City of Pismo Beach average 63 percent, based on a review of monthly hotel tax revenues for the City. Assuming hotels are ''booked up" on the day of maximum demand, the hotel component will have a demand factor of 1.6 relative to average hotel demand. The aggregate MDD peaking factor for these zones is 1.67. For the purposes of this report, the :MDD peaking factor for Bello and Shell Beach 1 will also be 1.7. Peak Hour Demand CPrID). The PHD of the system is critical in sizing water mains and pwnping facilities. During peak hour demand, customers will generally experience low service pressures in areas with undersized mains and/or lack oflooped distribution pipelines. The PHD is generally determined by calculating the specific demand within the day, by monitoring tank levels and pwnping records. In many municipal systems, the exact Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-3 May4, 2004 calculation of this parameter is difficult to ascertain. This was the case with the City of Pismo Beach. Therefore, a PHD factor of3.5 (3 .5 times the ADD) was assigned to the entire system, based on engineering judgement and data from other similar municipalities. Table 6-3 swnmarizes the hydraulic demand parameters that will be used as the basis for evaluation of the City's system. Table 6-3. Hydraulic Demand Parameters Demand Existing BuiJd-Out Comments Condition MGD MGD (gpm) (gpm) Average Day 1.92 2.72 Based on 2000 data Demand (1,333) (1,889) Maximum Day 3.26 4.62 Based on ADD x 1.7 Demand (2,264) (3,208) Peak Hour 6.72 9.52 Based on ADD x 3.5 Demand (4,655) (6,611) FUTURE WATER DEMAND Demand factors provided in Table 6-2 were used to estimate the future water demands for each land use. For the future commercial land use, two demand factors were used to estimate the projected demand on the system. Where information was available on current development proposals with commercial areas, water demand was projected based on the proposed square footage and type of use. This category is labeled "planned future development". The planned future commercial correlates to information provided by the City regarding two known commercial developments (total of 17 acres) on James Way currently being proposed. The known uses of these two sites and the percentage oflot development were used to first determine a reasonable demand factor of0.15 gpd/sf for the sites and second, the actual building footprint that will be affected by development. The future commercial demand for the remaining 41 acres was estimated based on a building development potential of 35 percent of the gross land area. The future uses of these sites are unknown and therefore, historical demand factor of 0.21 gpd/sf will be used to determine the future water demand. As shown in Table 6-4, the future demand within the current City limits can be met with current water supplies. However, the projected demand is close to exceeding the City's current supply. 'This future demand surplus would also not be within the recommended 10 percent buffer stipulated by the Facilities Element, Policy F-36 of the General Plan. The demand for developments outside the Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-4 May4, 2004 City limits, but within in the Sphere of Influence, will exceed the future supply available to the City. Chapter 5 discusses issues dealing with the availability of future supply and concludes that the Pismo Ranch State Water allocation is a feasible means of acquiring additional supply. However, due to unknown future supply availability from the Santa Maria Groundwater basin, and the Lopez Project, the additional 140 AFY of State Water allocation from Pismo Ranch would not guarantee adequate future water supply to meet projected demands outside of the current City limits. The City may be capable of marginally decreasing the existing per capita use in the residential zones by implementing and continuing water conservation measures; however, discussions with City staff indicate that water conservation measures are already in force throughout the City to the extent feasible. Conservation measures and programs are provided in more detail in the City of Pismo Beach Urban Water Management Plan, adopted November 2002. Alternative sources of supply for the City may need to be revisited to ensure future build-out demands can be met, and /or to provide the 10 percent buffer recommended by the General Plan. Within the Sphere of Influence, the General Plan Update states that annexed developments would be required to provide their own supply before development occurs. Due to the future water supply uncertainties, provision of water supplies as a condition of development is recommended. Table 6-4. Future Water Demand Description Use Factor Future Demand within Future Demand within City Limits Sphere of lnfluence1 AFY AFY Existing Demand 2,156 2,156 Residential 161 gpcd 156 464 Planned Future 0.15 gpd/sf 23 23 Commercial2 Future Commercial3 0.21 gpd/sf 147 147 Hotel/Motel 173 gpd/unit 187 187 Total Future Demand 2,669 2,977 Available Supply 2,6964 2,6964 Future Surplus/(Deficit) 27 (281) 1 The Sphere of Influence includes all areas within the City limits and the two potential developments known as Cottonwood and Los Robles Del Mar. 2 Current planned developments (17 acres) as provided by the City (building footprint-135,000 sf) 3 Build-out commercial square footage based on 35% of building coverage over the total acreage (41 acres) available for development. 4 Supply does not include the 140 AFY available from the Pismo Ranch Development. Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-5 May 4, 2004 Prior Water Demand Analysis The 1997 NCE study projected future build-out demand at 2,63 7 AFY, including 122 AFY from the Los Robles Del Mar development project. This master plan report projects a total build-out demand of 2,977 AFY, including Los Robles Del Mar and Cottonwood developments (outside the City limi ts). A comparison of demands and demand assumptions in this report with those of the 1997 NCE study are included in Table 6-5. Table 6-5. Comparison of Water Demands, JL WA and NCE Reports I Parameter I JL WA Master Plan Los Robles Del Mar Specific Plan Approved 339 dwelling unitsa Los Robles Del Mar Projects 155 AFY demand, based on current per domestic per capita demand of 161 gpcd, and 2.5 persons per household Cottonwood Development Projected 153 AFY demand Other Demands Outside Includes total of 308 AFY, including City Limits LRDM and Cottonwood Developments Per Capita Demands Overall existing per capita demand of225 gpcd, and projects overall combined demand of 239 gpcd based on projected future motel/hotel and commercial development potential Future Commercial 170 AFY Development (excluding hotel/motel) Hotel/Motel Future Based on recent City memo, and Development projected 965 potential hotel/motel units at build-out Population 1 1,122 (including LDRM and Cottonwood) a Los Robles Del Mar Specific Plan, February 2000 Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-6 I 1997 NCE Studi I Draft Specific Plan included 298 dwelling units Projects 122 AFY demand, based on 120 HCFNear per ' I dwelling unit Not included in projections Includes 122 AFY demand for LRDM Overall existing per capita demand of 200 gpcd, and projec ts this per capita demand to likely decrease in future years 84.4AFY Projects future hotel/motel development in same proportion to existing development, as unlikely Not available. Demand projections based on account of remaining lots to be developed May 4 , 2004 EXISTING WATER STORAGE FACILITIES The City of Pismo Beach currently operates nine water storage reservoirs and one hydro-pneumatic tank in seven different distribution zones. The distribution zones are described in detail in Chapter 3. The locations of these zones and their facilities are identified on Figure 3-1. Table 6-6 summarizes the existing water storage facilities in the City of Pismo Beach. Table 6-6. Existing Water Storage Facilities Distribution Storage Facility Zone (Date Installed) Bello Bello Street (1940) Charles Street (1930) Pismo Oaks Pismo Oaks (1984) Pacific Estates Pacific Estates 1 (1984) Pacific Estates 2 (1989) Heights 2 Heights 2 (1952) Heights 3 Heights 3 (1976) Heights 3 Hydro-pneumatic Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 1 (1975) Shell Beach 2 Shell Beach 2 (1989) Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 001 2.30 Volume Material (gallons) 470,000 Concrete 420,000 Steel 800,000 Steel 350,000 Steel 850,000 Steel 220,000 Concrete 100,000 Steel 3,000 Steel 1,000,000 Steel 1,000,000 Steel 6-7 Overflow Elevation ' MSL 178 176 340 390 391 460 616 750 (Hydraulic Grade Line) 226 375 May4, 2004 Bello and Charles Street Reservoir Condition As part of the zone consolidation study, discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, the Bello Reservoir and Charles Street Reservoir were inspected by structural engineers to determine their condition. These two reservoirs are the oldest reservoirs in the entire distribution system and there is little to no information regarding either reservoir. The Bello Reservoir is a below grade concrete reservoir with a wood roof structure. The reservoir was constructed in 1940 and has had only minor upgrades completed over time, such as concrete sealing and roof modifications. The concrete portion of the reservoir has been maintained and currently does not appear to have any leaks. In August 2002, Robert S. Vessely, structural engineer, completed a structural investigation of the roof structure to determine the existing structural integrity of the roof structure. The existing roof structure is in poor condition and needs to be refurbished or replaced within the next five years. Mr. Vessely has provided the City with a total of five alternatives to refurbish or replace the roof structure to increase the useful life of the Bello Reservoir's roof. In May 2003, Harper & Associates Engineering, Inc. completed an evaluation of the Bello Reservoir for its structural integrity and remaining useful life. The report concluded that there are no structuraVseismic modifications required. Since no as-built or engineering drawings were available on this reservoir, conclusive recommendations on the structural integrity of the reservoir could not be developed. The report recommends minor modifications to be completed by the City to meet A WW A standards. Harper & Associates did not provide an estimate of the remaining useful life for the Bello Reservoir. The report does provide the impacts to neighboring sites if the reservoir were to fail during a seismic event. The Charles Street Reservoir is a welded steel reservoir constructed in 1930. In May 2003, Harper & Associates Engineering, Inc. completed an evaluation of the Charles Street Reservoir. The report noted that the reservoir is in fair to poor condition and will need approximately $190,000 in repairs to keep the reservoir in service. In addition, it was recommended to reduce the water level from 22. 5' to 20.5' to reduce the risk of roof damage during a seismic event. Lowering the water level reduces the overflow elevation from 176 ft to 174 ft, or 4 ft below the overflow elevation of the Bello Reservoir. Lowering the overflow elevation of the Charles Street Reservoir also reduces capacity of the Charles Street Reservoir from 420,000 gal to 378,000 gal and the Bello Reservoir from 470,000 gal to 370,000 gal. This results in a total storage reduction from 890,000 gal to 748,000 gal. STORAGE ANALYSIS Lopez water, State water and groundwater are all forms of supply to the City of Pismo Beach. However, ill the event of a system emergency, it is recommended that adequate storage volume be maintained within City reservoirs for the following reasons: 1. The Lopez turnout would not serve as storage for the higher pressure zones. Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-8 May4, 2004 2. In an emergency event, well production may be disabled or contaminated and therefore, the wells should not be considered as reliable emergency storage. For the purposes of this study, Lopez and State Water storage volume and the wells will not be considered in the storage analysis. There are three types of storage commonly evaluated in a storage analysis: emergency, fire and operational. The sum of these three are recommended to be the total storage volume available for the system. Emergency Storage Emergency storage is intended to provide for conditions such as extended power outages, pump failures, and similar problems. Most water planners accept that during emergencies, supply per capita may be reduced to minimum levels. Typically, on that basis, an emergency storage volume of 50 gpcd for three days is accepted as a reasonable value. For the five predominately residential zones, Pacific Estates, Pismo Oaks, Heights 2, Heights 3, and Shell Beach 2, the 50 gpcd will be used to determine emergency storage. For the remaining two zones, Bello and Shell Beach l, the emergency storage was detennined by using 50 gpcd for the residential component, plus 70% of the commercial and hotel/motel average day demand. Adequate emergency storage should be available in each distribution zone to account for booster system failure. The recommended emergency storage for existing and future conditions are listed by distribution zone in Table 6-7. For future estimates, demands for 855 persons (future residential component within the current City limits) were distributed to six of the seven distribution zones in proportion to the size of each zone. The Heights 3 distribution zone has nearly reached its development potential and will therefore only increase by 10 persons. The 1,708 persons (development potential within the Sphere of Influence) are split amongst two future residential developments, Los Robles Del Mar and Cottonwood, located above the Pismo Oaks and the Pacific Estates zones, respectively. These two developments are outside of the current City limits boundary, but within the sphere of influence. At this time, storage requirements for these future developments are assumed to be included in the Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates zones. Actual requirements and the hydraulic constraints associated with each development will need to be addressed as part of the development process. Fire Storage Fire storage is the volume of water needed to control an anticipated fire in a building or group of buildings. The determination of this storage is based upon a recommended flow rate, its duration, and a minimum residual pressure as established by the agency of interest. The agencies which establish the relationships between land use and fire requirements include the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and the Insurance Services Office OSO). The services ofISO are advisory only and are used to establish insurance ratings for cities and communities across the nation. The flow rate and duration of fire flow varies greatly with the type of development, with UFC values ranging from 1,500 to 15,000 gpm for different building types and sizes. Requirements established by the City fire Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-9 May4, 2004 Table 6-7. Emergency Storage Distribution Zone Estimated Population Recommended Emergency Storage1 (gal) Existing Conditions I Bello 780 819,6702 Pismo Oaks 1,730 259,500 Pacific Estates 686 102,900 Heights 2 895 134,250 Heights 3 145 21,750 Shell Beach 1 2,745 768,3802 Shell Beach 2 1,570 235,500 Total 8,551 2,341,950 Future Conditions Bello 851 1,160,8502 Pismo Oaks 2,653 397,950 Pacific Estates 1,720 258,000 Heights 2 985 147,750 Heights 3 155 23,250 Shell Beach 1 3,029 1,024,4002 Shell Beach 2 1,729 259,350 Total 11,122 3,271,550 1 B ased on 50 gpcd for three days. 2 Storage recommendations for the Bello and Shell Beach 1 Distribution zones include allotment for 70% of commercial and hotel/motel average day demands. Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project N o. 0012.30 6-10 May4, 2004 department were used for the different zoning types. Table 6-8 summarizes the flow rates and durations that will be used for the different distribution zones, as provided by the City Fire Department. These flow rates and durations are based on the most stringent fire flow condition in each zone. Since there are no expected developments in the future that would require more stringent fire flow, the same flow rates and durations will a]so be used for build-out conditions. Table 6-8. Fire Suppression Storage Distribution Zone Flow Rate Duration Required Storage (gpm) (hours) (gal) Bello 4,5001 4 1,080,000 Pismo Oaks 1,500 2 180,000 Pacific Estates 1,500 2 180,000 Heights 2 1,500 2 180,000 Heights 3 1,500 2 180,000 Shell Beach 1 2,500 3 450,000 Shell Beach 2 2,500 3 450,000 I Total I 2,700,000 I 1 Flow Rate required for the downtown area of Pismo Beach only. Operational Storage Operational storage is the amount of water needed to equalize the daily supply and demand. Without this storage, water production facilities large enough to meet the instantaneous peak demands of the system would be required. With adequate operational storage, well pumps can operate at the daily average rate, while storage facilities meet the hourly peaks. This operating method also prevents the unnecessary use of additional well pumps at times when electrical rates are the highest. Based on the typical daily water use patterns of cities similar to Pismo Beach, it is recommended that the required operational storage be approximately 25 percent of the total water use for any given day. A WW A M-32 recommends operational storage of20 to 25 percent of build-out average day demand for the given zone, or up to 15 percent of the ultimate maximum day demand. Table 6-9 summarizes the recommended storage vo]umes for the existing system demands based on 25 percent of build-out average day demand, by distribution zone. Water Mas ter Plan/Chapter 6 Project No . 001 2.30 6-11 May4, 2004 Table 6-9. OperationaJ Storage Distribution Zone Build-Out Average Day Required Operational I Demand Storage (gal) (gal) Bello 629,000 157,250 Pismo Oaks 522,300 130,600 Pacific Estates 276,900 69,250 Heights 2 180,650 45,150 Heights 3 25,000 6,250 Shell Beach 1 759,100 189,750 Shell Beach 2 322,480 80,600 Total 2,715,430 678,850 Storage Recommendation Overview Table 6-10 reviews the existing and future storage recommendations for the City of Pismo Beach by distribution zone. STORAGE RECOMMENDATIONS As indicated by the storage evaluation for the various zones throughout the City, some distribution zones have surplus storage and some zones are deficient in storage. This evaluation was based on each zone. taking care of its own storage needs . Opportunities to "share" storage from neighboring zones should be considered to minimize the amount of new storage required in the future. Developing new storage facilities can be expensive, and in many instances, very difficult due to site constraints or lack of suitable sites. Future recommendations on storage are based on shared storage between zones and zone consolidation (discussed in Chapter 7). Future storage recommendations are based on the following criteria/assumptions: 1. Fire storage is based on a single fire event at any one time (no multiple fires in multiple zones). Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 P roject No. 0012.30 6-12 May 4 , 2004 Table 6-10. Water Storage Recommendations Storage Component Distribution Zone Emergency Existing Conditions Bello 819,670 Pismo Oaks 259,500 Pacific 102,900 Estates Heights 2 134,250 Heights 3 21,750 Shell Beach 1 768,380 Shell Beach 2 235,500 Total 2,341,950 Future Conditions Bello 1,160,850 Pismo Oaks 397,950 Pacific 258,000 Estates Heights 2 147,750 Heights 3 23,250 Shell Beach 1 1,024,400 Shell Beach 2 259,350 Total 3)71 ,550 Water Mas ter Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 (gallons) Fire Operational 1,080,000 157,250 180,000 130,600 180,000 69,250 180,000 45,150 180,000 6 ,2 50 450,000 189,750 450,000 80,600 2,700,000 678,8 50 1,080,000 157,250 180,000 130,600 180,000 69,250 180,000 45,150 180,000 6,250 450,000 189,750 450,000 80,600 2,700,000 678,850 6-13 Total Recommended Storage (mg) 2.06 0.57 0.35 0.36 0.21 1.41 0.77 5.73 2.40 0.71 0.51 0.37 0.21 1.66 0.79 6.65 Total Storage Available Surplus/ Storage (Deficit) (mg) 0.89 (1.17) 0 .8 0.23 1.2 0.85 0.22 (0.14) 0.1 (0 .11) 1.0 (0.41) 1.0 0.23 5.21 (0.52) 0.89 (1.51) 0.8 0.09 1.2 0.69 0.22 (0.15) 0.1 (0.11) 1.0 (0.66) 1.0 0.21 5.21 (1.44) May 4, 2004 2. Zones of a higher hydraulic grade line can be considered to "share" fire storage with the lower zones, but not vice versa (exceptions: ifthe booster station is sized to meet fire flow conditions and has an on-site back-up generator). 3. Emergencies are considered to be "system-wide", thus there can be no "sharing" of emergency storage between zones. Bello Distribution Zone The Bello Zone exhibits the largest existing and future deficit in storage. This is mainly due to the large fire flow requirement ( 4,500 gpm for 4 hours) for the dense commercial zone in the downtown area. The second consideration is that emergency storage for this zone (and the Shell Beach 1 zone) was based on allowances for hotel/motel demands during emergency outages. Recommendations for storage in the Bello zone will include provisions for the hotel/motel emergency storage component. A detailed discussion of zone consolidation is provided in Chapter 7. This discussion impacts the storage analysis and recommendation for the Bello zone. As a result, storage recommendations are presented below with and without consolidation. Bello Zone (not consolidated with the Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zone). The Pacific Estates Zone, which is at a higher hydraulic grade line than the Bello Zone, could "backfeed" water needed for fire flow demand. The Pacific Estates zone has 0.69 mg in future surplus storage available, plus fire storage of 0.18 mg. This would reduce the required fire storage in the Bello zone from 1.08 mg to 0.21 mg. This would reduce the total storage required in the Bello zone from 2.40 mg to 1.53 mg, for a future deficit of 0.64 mg. If the roof of the Charles Street Reservoir is not repaired or the reservoir is not replaced, the future deficit increases from 0.64 mg to 0.78 mg. Consolidation of the Bello and Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zones. With both zones consolidated, the future combined storage deficit is 3.06 mg. In order to combine these two zones, the Bello Reservoir and the Charles Street Reservoir must be decommissioned leaving only 1.0 mg storage from the Shell Beach Reservoir. The consolidated zone is capable of receiving shared flow of0.87 mg from the Pacific Estates zone and 0.66 mg from the Shell Beach 2 zone, thus reducing the deficit in the consolidated zone from 3.06 mg to 1.53 mg. The future storage would be required to match the existing hydraulic grade line of the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. In order to consolidate and match the existing grade line of Shell Beach 1, a new reservoir would need to be located at the same site as the existing tank. This site is not suited to add an additional reservoir adjacent to the existing one, however, the site is suitable for removing the existing tank and replacing in kind with a 2.53 mg reservoir. Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zone (not consolidated with Bello zone) The future deficit for this zone is 0.66 mg. Fire flow for this zone can be supplied by Shell Beach 2 through the existing PRV separating the zones. Shell Beach 2 has fire flow storage of0.45 mg and excess storage of0.21 mg, for a total available storage of0.66 mg. This would eliminate the future Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Proje ct No. 0012. 30 6-14 May4, 2004 deficit in the Shell Beach 1 zone. Therefore, no additional storage is recommended for this zone . Shell Beach 2 Distribution Zone This zone has sufficient storage to meet future demands. No additional storage is recommended for this zone. Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates Distribution Zones Both zones have a surplus of storage with future demands. If these zones are consolidated, the Pismo Oaks Reservoir would be decommissioned (see Chapter 7). The Pacific Estates zone has sufficient storage (1.2 mg) to supply future storage needs for the entire consolidated zone. However, consolidation would reduce the amount of storage that can be shared to the Bello zone and will affect the Bello zone storage recommendations. Other issues with combining these two zones are discussed in Chapter 7 . Heights 2 and 3 Distribution Zones The Heights 2 and Heights 3 zones have a future storage deficit of 0.15 mg and 0.11 mg, respectively. The total storage deficit for these two areas is therefore 0 .26 mg. The Heights 3 zone does not appear to have a suitable area to expand storage. It is therefore recommended that the Heights 2 booster station be upgraded to be capable of providing 1,500 gpm fire flow to the Heights 3 zone. This will require the upgraded station to also have permanent standby power. Implementation of this Heights 2 booster station upgrade eliminates the future storage deficit for the Heights 3 zone. fu addition, the Heights 3 booster station cannot supply the required fire flow to the hydro-pneumatic zone. It is recommended that this booster station also be upgraded to provide 1,500 gpm fire flow to the hydro-pneumatic zone, with a permanent standby power source. The Heights2 zone will have a future deficit of0.15 mg. There is sufficient room to expand storage in the existing area of the Heights 2 storage tanks. This additional storage should be provided to meet future demands. Summary of Future Storage Recommendations The future storage recommendations are summarized in Table 6-11 . Based on this storage analysis, the City-wide storage deficit calculated for future demands can be remedied from 1.44 mg (See Table 6-9) to 0.79 mg (no consolidation of Bello Zone with Shell Beach 1 Zone) or 1.68 mg (Bello Zone and Shell Beach 1 Zone Consolidated). If the Bello and the Shell Beach 1 zones are not consolidated, it is recommended to add the needed storage to the Charles Street site. If the two zones are consolidated, it is recommended to add 1.53 mg storage to the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir site. It is also recommended to add 0.15 mg of storage in the Heights 2 zone along with a pump upgrade at the Heights 2 booster station and a pump upgrade at the Heights 3 booster station. Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-15 May4, 2004 Table 6-11. Summary of Future Storage Recommendations Distribution Zone Existing Future Storage Fire Storage Discount Adjusted Future Storage Recommended Storage (mg) (mg) Volume From Zone Recommendations (mg) (mg) Bello (No 0.89 2.4 (0.87) Pacific 0.641 Consolidation) Estates Bello and Shell (0.66) Shell Beach 1 1.0a2 4.06 Beach 2 Consolidation 1.533 (0.87) Pacific Estates Shell Beach 1 (no 1.00 1.51 (0.66) Shell 0 consolidation) Beach 2 Shell Beach 2 1.00 0.64 ----0 Pismo Oaks (no 0.80 0.71 ----0 consolidation) Pacific Estates (no 1.20 0.51 ----0 consolidation) Pacific Estates and 1.204 1.22 ----05 Pismo Oaks Consolidation Heights 2 0.22 0.37 ----0.15 Heights 3 0 .10 0.21 (0.18)6 Heights 26 0 Heights 3 0.0037 0.188 (0.18)9 Heights 39 0 Hydro-pneumatic 1 Bello Zone will require an additional 0.14 mg of storage ifthe Charles Street Reservoir roof is not repaired or the reservoir is not replaced. This will result in a total deficit of0.78 mg. 2 Charles Street and Bello Street Reservoirs are decommissioned. 3 The Shell Beach 1 site will require the existing reservoir to be removed and replaced with a 2.53 mg reservoir. 3 Based on decommissioning of0.80 mg Pismo Oaks Reservoir. s Existing 1.20 mg storage is sufficient for combined zones. 6 P rovided by Heights 2 booster s tation upgrade with standby power. 7 Existing Hydro-pneumatic Tan1<. 8 F ire Storage only. Operational and emergency storage accounted for in future Heights 3 storage requirements. 9 Provided by Heights 3 Hydro-pneumatic booster station upgrade with standby power. Water Master Plan/Chapter 6 Project No. 0012.30 6-16 May4, 2004 CHAPTER 7 WATER DISTRIBUTION This chapter presents a description of the City's water distribution system, design and performance pararn~ters to meet customer demands for service and fire protection, development of the hydraulic model and calibration, and the results of model runs for existing and future d emands. Included are the specific recommendations of distribution system improvements identified by the hydraulic model, plus other facility improvements related to the water distribution system, including wells, tanks , and pump stations. This chapter also presents an evaluation of alternatives to consolidate the Bello and Shell Beach 1 pressure zones and the Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates pressure zones. EXISTING FACILITIES The existing distribution system consists of over 50 miles of transmission mains and distribution I I Table 7-1. Existing Pipeline Inventory Diameter Length (inches) Feet Miles 2 3,200 0 .6 3 600 0.1 4 5,900 1.1 6 76,000 14.4 8 105,500 20.0 10 24,400 4 .6 12 50,400 9.5 14 900 0.2 16 10,300 2 .0 Total 277 ,200 52.5 Water Master Pla n/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 pipelines. The existing water distribution system is shown in F i gures 7-la and 7-1 b. An inventory of the existing pipeline network is summarized in Table 7-1. The distribution system consists mainly of asbestos cement (AC) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, with some cast iron, ductile iron and steel. The approximate lineal footage of each pipeline material is summarized in Table 7-2. Table 7-2. Existing Pipeline Material Material Length Feet Miles Asbestos 168,500 31.9 Cement PVC 80,300 15.2 Cast Iron 14,700 2.8 Ductile Iron 12,000 2.3 Steel 1,700 0.3 May4, 2004 7-1 The Lopez water transmission main traverses through the entire length of the City. The water main segment through the City of Pismo Beach is 18-inch cement mortar lined steel. The City has four turnouts, off of the Lopez water main; Pismo Oaks (normally closed), Bello, Vista Del Mar, and Sunset Palisades (normally closed). The Bello and Vista Del Mar turnouts continually deliver water at set rates determined by the City of Pismo Beach Public Works Department. The Pismo Oaks and Sunset Palisades turnouts are only used for emergency purposes. The distribution system also consists of seven booster stations. Table 7-3 summarizes each of the booster stations. In the event of a power outage, six of the City's seven booster stations are equipped with a manual transfer switch mechanism, which allows operations staff to connect City-owned mobile generators to the stations. This method is deemed acceptable by operations staff since the storage available in the various zones provides adequate response time for generator transportation and connection even during a fire event. The Heights 3 hydro-pneumatic booster station is equipped with a permanent stationary generator on-site. Without a permanent stand-by generator, the hydro- pneumatic zone would lose water pressure immediately in the event of a power outage. The City currently owns six back-up generators, 5 mobile units and 1 stationary unit. The 5 mobile units are shared between the water and the wastewater divisions. Two of the 5 mobile units are dedicated to the water division. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The design requirements for the water distribution system relate primarily to the flow and pressure delivered by the system to the residences. Pressures below 20 psi are not acceptable in a municipal water system. Ideally, normal operating (static) pressures will be within the range of 40 to 80 psi. This is the range that most people find comfortable and will serve most fire sprinkler systems. Pressures higher than 80 psi are acceptable within the distribution system, but should be reduced to 80 psi at the service connection to prevent water hammer effects or leakage through rapidly- weakening washers and seats. The flow requirements examined in the network model include fire flow, maximum day demand, peak hour demand, and average day demand. These demands are swnmarized in .Chapter 6. The various flow scenarios are swnmarized as follows (See Chapter 6 for definitions): Fire Flow: Residential, commercial, and downtown fire flow requirements were established based on discussions and coordination with the City of Pismo Beach Fire Department. Residential (including multi-family) fire flow of 1,500 gpm, commercial fire flow of 2,500 gpm and downtown fire flow of 4,500 gpm were modeled and deficiencies were noted. In accordance with UFC requirements, no more than 1,000 gpm was extracted from any single hydrant. It was assumed that maximum day demand was occurring concurrent with the fire flow and all wells, turnouts, and pumps (except the hydro-pneumatic zone) were turned off All reservoirs were modeled 3/4 full. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-4 May4, 2004 Table 7-3. Existing Booster Station Inventory Station Name Function Pump Motor Discharge Description (HP) Capacity (GPM) Pismo Oaks Boosts water from Bello Zone Two Peerless 60 500 each I to Pismo Oaks Reservoir Model 5PV11 Pacific Estates Boosts water from Bello Zone Two Weinman 30 340 each to Pacific Estates Reservoirs Model3IA Bello Street Boosts water from Bello Zone Two Paco 50 400 each to Heights 2 Reservoir Model 3025-5 Bay Street Boosts water from Bello Zone Two Weinman 20 7 00 each to Shell Beach 1 Reservoir Model5L2 Shell Beach Boosts water from Bello Zone Two Paco 27 500 each to Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Model 4012-5 Heights 2 Boosts water from Heights 2 Two Paco 40 350 each Zone to Heights 3 Reservoir Model 2095-1 Heights 3 Boosts water from Heights 3 Grundfos 3 22 Zone into the Heights 3 ModelCR4U Hydropneumatic Zone Grundfos 10 130 Model CRN30 Maximum Day Demand: This flow scenario was generally employed concurrently with fire flow. Domestic demand was distributed throughout the City based on the existing demand distribution apparent from the zoning map and consumption database. Future demand within the current City limits was distributed proportionally to each of the zones. The future demand for the Cottonwood and Los Robles Del Mar developments were treated as a point source demand at the top of the Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks distribution zones, respectively. As described in Chapter 6, the peaking factor applied to the average day demand to reach maximum day demand was 1.7 for all seven distribution zones. Peak Hour Demand: This demand condition was used to identify system deficiencies at the maximum domestic use. The reservoirs were modeled at half full and all wells, turnouts and pumps (except the hydro -pneumatic zone) were off. A peaking factor of3.5 was applied to ADD for all seven distribution zones. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-5 May4, 2004 Average Day Demand: The flow condition was used to generate the pressure contour map and was intended to reflect the most common system conditions. The reservoirs were modeled full during these conditions The following parameters were employed to identify deficient conditions for each run of the model: • Domestic pressures below 40 psi at ADD, and below 30 psi at PHD, were highlighted in each run. • Pipeline velocities exceeding 5 feet per second (fps) at ADD were identified. In general, velocities higher than 5 fps create higher pressure losses. • Pipeline velocities exceeding 10 feet per second (fps) during fire flow conditions plus MDD were identified. Pipelines near the source of the fire were identified if velocities exceeded 15 fps. • During fire flow model runs, pressures below 20 psi at any node in the system were identified in accordance with UFC Requirements . The hydraulic design parameters and criteria for the City of Pismo Beach water system evaluation are summarized in Table 7-4. HYDRAULIC EVALUATION In order to evaluate the performance of the existing water system, identify deficiencies in the network, and recommend improvements, a computer hydraulic model was developed using Haestad' s Water CAD computer program. The hydraulic model was calibrated through field hydrant testing to accurately represent existing hydraulic characteristics. Elevation data for the nodes was obtained through electronic files containing five-foot contours throughout the City. The elevations were verified through static pressure readings in the field. The fire hydrant testing was conducted over three days. During the first two days, twenty fire hydrants were flowed and measured throughout the entire system. After completing the model runs, it was determined that six of the twenty tests were not reliable due to unknown pressure reducing valve (PRV) settings. Four of the six fire hydrants were re-flowed and pressure settings were determined at the PRVs. The calibrated model matches the actual system performance within an average of 1.2 psi (no more than 2.5 psi) at 18 different locations. Table 7-5 summarizes the calibration results. The Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient ("C" factor) for the pipelines in the model were calibrated to match pressure readings of the field tests. The following roughness values were utilized in the final calibrated model: Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project N o. 0012.30 7-6 May4, 2004 Table 7-4. Summary of Hydraulic Parameters and Design Criteria Hydraulic Parameters and Design Criteria Value Fire Flow Requirements Residential -1,500 gpm Commercial -2,500 gpm Downtown -4,500 gpm Maximum Dav Demand Factor 1.7 times ADD Peak Hour Demand Factor 3.5 times ADD Minimum Service Pressure (@. ADD 40psi M inimum Service Pressure (@. PHD 30 psi Minimum Residual Pressure (@Fire Flow 20 psi plus MDD condi tions) Pipeline V elocitv (a), ADD <5 fps P ipeline Velocity @ Fire Flow plus MDD < 10 fps (<15 fps near source of fire) conditions Fire Hydrant Spacing At every intersection, at intervals not more than 250 feet in commercial zones, and not more than 300 feet in residential areas . Pipe Diameter All new water mains must be 8-inch or greater Valving No shut down of greater than 500 feet in commercial/residential areas C =Between 110 and 135 for Asbestos Cement (AC) C =Between 130 and 140 for Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) C =Between 105 and 130 for Ductile Iron C = Between 80 and 130 for Cast Iron C = 100 for Steel System Performance The performance of the system varied from zone to zone as discussed below: Bello. In the analysis of the existing Bello Distribution zone, some areas were found to experience less than desirable p ressures during ADD and substandard pressures and/or flows during fire flow conditions. The two critical locations during ADD occur along Del Court Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No . 0 0 12.30 7-7 May4, 2 004 Table 7-5. Fire Hydrant Testing and Calibration Results FF Testlm ·Thursday July 12, 2001 f9:00a.m. to 3:00p.m .) Field Model Tank .,~·-· ~ ....... '"'"""""' ~·-·'" ,. ............... Fire PRV Elevation Flow Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Hvdrant Description Time Tank (psi) (ft) (gpm) (psi) (psi) fl (psi) (psi) fl Comments Bello 3 9 :10 Charles Street nla 16.2 good AC90, PVC 120, ·-Wadsworth and Dolliver Bello n/a 10.5 890 52 48 4 52.9 5o:r 2.2 Cl 80,Steel 60 Bello 2 9:25 Charles Street n/a 15.9 good AC90, PVC 120, South end of Park Ave. Bello nla 10.4 975 68 63 5 66.9 62.9 4 C l 80,Steel 60 Bello 1 Intersection of Bello, 9:55 Charles Street nla 15.4 good AC90, PVC 120, Stimson, and Bettioa Bello nla 10 890 44 39 5 43.9 41 2.9 Cl 80,Steel 60 H3-1 1027 Longview 10:27 Heights 3 n/a 17.3 867 49 39 10 48.6 39.5 9.1 good ·"'·ti~2 :. Tulare and Visalia -.. fO':<Jo ~ ' . Reidl:its _3~ _· ·.c~SZ.~ ':". ]7 ,2 .,., "· .. :845 "r~ -:::12 ----~.,t ... .3~ .• 40 71.5 60 11 .5 ~d "Rec!b • ' 28 psi HP-1 Longview near H3 Tank 11 :00 Hydro Tank n/a (7 feet) 645 26 -26 25.4 -25.4 good H2-1 Longview and Stratford 11 :30 Heights 2 n/a 8.3 720 78 44 34 78 45.6 32.4 good H2-2 Lemore and Wadsworth 11 :45 Heights 2 nla 8.3 845 84 36 48 86.6 34.2 52.4 good H2L·1 San.iuis ahd Bello 12:00 HelQnts·2 55 . ~ 8 .'2 560 __ -. : __ ·~s:· . .; 2A ".,n 94.4 .. 9?.5 · 1.9 ~d-Redo good PVC1 25 & AC PE-1 Valleyview and Wave 1:15 Pacific Estates n/a 16.5 1095 82 76 6 79.2 75.6 3.6 115 La Flor icita and La good PVC125 & AC PE-2 Coli ma 1:40 Pacific Estates n/a 16.5 1120 87 82 5 87.4 83.9 3.5 115 good -PVC 120 & AC P0-1 Shamrock and Irish Way 1:55 Pismo Oaks n/a 16.2 1160 110 102 8 10 8 100.7 7.3 110 good -PVC 120 & AC P0-2 Marao and Duaan 2 :20 Pismo Oaks n/a 16.1 845 48 43 5 47.3 44.3 3 110 FF Testini ·Friday Julv 13, 2001 f9:00a .m. to 12:000.m.) Fiel d Model Tank •I"'.,"' ........... ~ ....... '"'UI''_""'.,.. Fire PRV Elevation Flow Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Hydrant Description Time Tank (psi) (ft) (gpm) (psi) (psi) fl (psi) (psi) fl Comments $Bt7Z. F,r.anl,(Jin and erir.e,St-9:10 Shell Beach 1· n/a 20:6 817 47 -3L .. :·· ,_,j 6.c:._ ~"' ~5:5.~--,_,.11.5 ~M beld ,· lie.do .,• Santa Fe and Ocean SB1-1 B lvd. 9 :30 Shell Beach 1 n/a 20.1 975 72 62 10 72 58.6 13.4 I good -~· ;.;, -1 ., ,, . . "··--~,..;• -bad -used 70 psi @ ' !" !"'l"' 16 . ~ SB2L-2 Brisa and Encanto 9:45 Shell·Beach 2 .. ;65 33.8 1070 84 68 , 83.4 76 ;. 7 .4 PRV .. " ·,-j;. bad • used 70 psi @ , SB2L-,1 Indio -~' . . 10:10 ' •i Shell Beach' 2 i!; L 65 33.4 845 . ..• J55 : ;! t; sO 5 55.2 41.2 8 PRV ' ' bad -Redo -used 70 ·sB2L,3 a_eqchcomber..and P..r;ice 10:40 Sheu Beacn 2 65 32.9 . 1040 " ,.75 ' . 9:4 .... . _12., 7/S 72~Z..~ ~.8 1~1®PRV SB2·1 Calle Carona and 11:15 Shell Beach 2 n/a 32.6 755 81 76 5 79 76.4 2.6 okay SB2-2 Bayfront 11 :40 Shell Beach 2 nla 32.3 1050 82 76 6 80.1 74.8 5.3 IQO od Table 7-5 -------•• --~-1-· ---------·"D ------·------·---------Hyd T1 d Cal' FF Testin~ -Thursday July 26, 2001 (9:00a.m. to 2:00p.m.} Field Model Tank I lJUfiSlll <Ha•n• """''uua1 "''°"" '~oowwgl Fire PRV Eleva ti on Flow Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Hydrant Description Time Tank {psi} {ft} (gpm) (psi) (psi) !J. (psi) (psi) !J. Comments Tulare and Visalia 9:59 Heights 3 52 865 72 36 36 71.5 36.1 35.4 IQOod PRV Status: Static (80/48) H3-2 Flow (44/34) Bello and Bay View 11 :15 Heights 2 55 935 86 64 22 87.9 66.5 21.4 IQOOd PRV Status: Static (125/54) H2L-3 Flow (65/40) Beachcomber and Price 1:00 Shell Beach 2 70 1040 80 74 6 79.5 75 4 .5 QOOd PRV Status: Static (90170) SB2L-3 Flow (89/65) Shell Beach Dr and Cliff Shell Beach 1 21.2 790 62 48 14 60.2 47.4 4.5 IOOOd SB1-3 Ave 1:45 Shell Beach 2 30 36.5 The PRV is closed durina static conditions and ooens to 30 psi under fire flow conditions and near the intersection of Price Street and Bay Street. Contributing factors to the low pressures are high elevations and small diameter pipelines to the areas of concern. Under fire flow conditions set by the City's fue department, several areas were unable to reach the desired fire flow. The water distribution system in the downtown area (4,500 gpm), the commercial zone on Five Cities Drive (2,500 gpm) and the residential zone near Del Court and Solar Way (1,500 gpm) were all unable to deliver the desired fire flows due to undersized pipelines and/or inadequate looping. Pismo Oaks. The Pismo Oaks distribution zone has adequate pressures and velocities, throughout the majority of the zone, under all demand conditions. Approximately 15 services at the top of Ridge Road experience lower pressures (above 36 psi) than what has been set forth in the guidelines for ADD conditions (minimum 40 psi). This low pressure is due to the minimal elevation difference between the Pismo Oaks Reservoir and these 15 services. Pipeline upgrades will not correct this minor pressure deficiency. It should also be noted that these 15 services are capable of meeting adequate pressures for all other demand conditions. The Pismo Oaks distribution system is highly looped with an adequate main distribution loop of 12-inch water mains. Fire flow is available throughout the system with relatively high residual pressures during fire flow conditions. The residences at the lower end of the zone do experience pressures slightly higher than 80 psi. If not implemented already, individual home pressure reducing valves may be desired in this area. Pacific Estates. The Pacific Estates distribution zone has adequate pressures and velocities under all demand conditions. The system is highly looped with an adequate distribution loop of 12-inch water mains. Fire Flow is available throughout the system with relatively high pressures. The residences at the lower end of the zone do experience pressures slightly higher than 80 psi. If not implemented already, individual home pressure reducing valves may be desired in this area. Heights 2. The Heights 2 distribution zone experiences adequate pressure during ADD and PHD and experiences substandard pressures and/or flows during fire flow plus MDD conditions. The inadequate fire flows are due to undersized pipelines, improper tie-ins at intersections and inadequate looping. Heights 3 . The Heights 3 distribution zone experiences adequate pressure during ADD and PHD and experiences substandard pressures and/or flows during fire flow plus MDD conditions. The inadequate fire flows are due to undersized pipelines and inadequate looping. Shell Beach 1. The Shell Beach 1 distribution zone has adequate pressures under ADD and PHD conditions. The distribution zone develops substandard pressures throughout the system under fire flow plus MDD conditions. Shell Beach 1 currently has one connection to the Shell Beach 2 distribution zone via a PRV on S. Mattie Road. This PRV becomes active when pressures in the Shell Beach 1 zone drop below 30 psi during fire flows, Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-10 May4, 2004 allowing flow from the Shell Beach 2 zone. The PRV must remain active for fire flow purposes in the Shell Beach 1 distribution zone. Shell Beach 2. The Shell Beach 2 distribution zone has adequate pressures under ADD, PHD and fire flow plus MDD conditions. To illustrate the system pressures during domestic demands, a pressure contour map was generated from the model runs, for existing average day demand conditions. The pressure contour map is shown in Figure 7-2. RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS In addition to water system hydraulics, there are other considerations to enhance and improve the City's water system. Such considerations include water meter upgrades, pump station upgrades, additional water storage and zone consolidation. The areas identified by the model and all other system improvements are described in the following sections in order of priority within each zone. First priority projects are a result of significant health and safety concerns, including severe substandard pressures, fire flows, and/or required storage needed to serve the customers in the City of Pismo Beach during any demand situation. Second priority projects address sections of the City which are experiencing slightly substandard pressures and/or fire flows, but are not as critical as first priority projects. Third priority projects include upgrades that are not critical in nature, but are recommended during routine future replacements. These upgrades are mainly short segments of undersized 4-inch and smaller water mains and dead-end 6-inch water mains which are able to deliver moderate fire flow, but are unable to deliver the required fire flow set forth by the fire department. All capital improvement projects (CIPs) are depicted on Figures 7-3a, 7-3b, and 7-3c, located at the end of this chapter. FIRST PRIORITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Bello Distribution Zone Pomeroy A venue Upgrade. The downtown area is the most critical fire flow ( 4,500 gpm) location in the City. The downtown water distribution system is highly looped for adequate fire flow circulation, except on Pomeroy Avenue. It is recommended to upgrade 725 feet of 6-and 8-inch water main with 12-inch PVC on Pomeroy from Dolliver Street to the beach. It is also recommended to abandon the 2-inch CI water main in the alley between Main Street and Pomeroy A venue and reconnect services to 12-inch water main in Pomeroy. This upgrade will also eliminate the old, leaking pipe in Pomeroy Avenue. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-11 May4, 2004 Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zone Shell Beach Road Upgrade. Shell Beach Road, from Vista Del Mar to just beyond Cliff Avenue, is comprised primarily of old 6-inch cast iron water mains. The system is looped on Ocean Boulevard, and is capable of moving sufficient fire flow to all areas within this development. All fire flow is being forced through single segments of 6-inch water. There are two locations on Shell Beach Road where the system is not looped on Ocean Boulevard. mains. It is recommended to upgrade 450 feet of 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Shell Beach Road, from Placentia Avenue to Windward Avenue, and 325 feet of 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Shell Beach Road, from Sea View Avenue to the PRV inter-tie connection on Shell Beach Road. The Shell Beach 1 zone relies heavily on the Shell Beach 2 zone for fire flow. This is partially due to the old-6-inch water main on Shell Beach Road. The City has indicated that they have intentions of replacing the entire reach of 6-inch w ater main on Shell Beach Road because of the age and condition of the pipe. To increase reliability of the Shell Beach 1 zone, it is recommended to upgrade the entire reach (3 ,700 feet) to 12-inch PVC rather than the upgrading the two reaches previously mentioned. Mattie Road 12-inch Water Main Project. The City is concerned about the existing 16-inch water main along the bluff on the south side of Highway 101 . This bluff area, east of Cliff Avenue, is showing continued signs of sloughing and erosion. It is recommended to install 2,500 feet of 12-inch PVC and a PRV, on Mattie Road, from the end of Foothill, crossing back under the freeway and tying back into the existing 16-inch water main at Price Street This will safeguard the water distribution system in the event of failure of the 16-inch water main in this bluff area. Heights 2 Distribution Zone Longview: H2 Upgrade. The Heights 2 and 3 zones are deficient in fire flow. This is mainly due to the undersized water main traversing Longview A venue. In addition, from Bakersfield Street to Wadsworth Avenue, Longview Avenue has two parallel 6-inch water mains. One of the water mains on Longview A venue bypasses Bakersfield Street, Fresno Street, Stratford Street, and Wadsworth A venue and connects at Wadsworth A venue and Lemoore Street. The current system configuration forces water to take a circutous route, resulting in high head loss and low system pressures. It is recommended to upgrade 3 ,100 feet of 6-and 8-inch water main on Longview Avenue, from the Heights 2 Reservoir to the PRV/PSV near Judkins Middle School, to 12-inch PVC. In addition, it is recommended to upgrade 300 feet of 6 -inch water main on Longview, to 8-inch PVC, from Wadsworth to Hanford. Heights 2 Booster Station Upgrade. The Heights 3 zone is unable to accommodate an upgrade to the existing reservoir to meet future storage recommendations due to site limitations. Therefore, the Heights 3 zone must rely on the Heights 2 zone to supply the required fire flow . It is recommended to install a new fire pump at the Heights 2 booster Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Proj ect No. 0012.30 7-14 May4, 2004 station to be capable of supplying 1,500 gpm. It is also recommended to install a permanent on-site back-up generator at this location in case of a power failure. Heights 3 Distribution Zone Longview: H3 Upgrade. As mentioned previously, the 6-inch water main on Longview is inadequate to supply fire flow to the Heights 2 and 3 zones. It is recommended to upgrade 2,300 feet of 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC. Longview: HP3 Upgrade. As mentioned previously, the 6-inch water main on Longview is inadequate to supply fire flow to the Heights 2 and 3 zones. It is recommended to upgrade 535 feet of 6-inch water main on Longview, from where the 6-inch main splits and loops at the highest point on Longview to the southern point of the Heights 3 hydro-pneumatic distribution main, to 12-inch PVC. It is also recommended to extend the Heights 3 hydro- pneumatic zone an additional 330 feet with 12-inch PVC to include homes in the upper section of the Heights 2 zone that are experiencing lower than 50 psi pressure under ADD . Heights 3 Booster Station Upgrade. The Heights 3 Hydro-pneumatic zone relies solely on pumping to supply all demand requirements. The existing pumps at the hydro-pneumatic site are only capable of delivering 150 gpm. Once the hydro-pneumatic tank is drained, the zone is dependent on the output of the pumps. It is recommended to analyze the existing booster station for the use of VFDs and install a fire pump at the hydro-pneumatic booster station to be capable of providing 1,500 gpm. It is also recommended to upgrade the on-site back-up generator to be capable of running the fire flow pumps. SECOND PRIORITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Entire System Fire Hydrant Upgrade. As noted previously in this chapter, fire hydrants must be spaced apart no more than 250 feet in commercial zones and no more than 300 feet in residential zones. Figure 7-3 depicts the locations of 124 new fire hydrants recommended to be installed to meet the required spacing guidelines. Twenty-four of the 124 new fire hydrants can be incorporated with other capital improvement projects, leaving 100 fire hydrants as second priority projects. The recommended new fire hydrants are based on the City of Pismo Beach's old water atlas maps. The City is currently in the process of updating the water atlas maps, however, the atlas maps were not complete prior to the fire hydrant location recommendation. Prior to completing the fire Hydrant Upgrade capital improvement project, the City will need to confirm the exact locations of each new fire hydrant to meet the fire hydrant spacing requirement. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-15 May4, 2004 Bello Distribution Zone Ocean View Avenue and Highway 101 Upgrade. During fire flow conditions for the downtown zone and commercial zones, the pressures near the intersection of Bay Street and Price Street drop below the 20 psi minimum standards. This is a result of undersized water m ains crossing under Highway 101. It is recommended to upgrade 725 feet of6-inch w ater main that crosses under Highway 101 at Ocean View Avenue to 12-inch PVC. This will require a new jacked casing, unless the existing casing beneath the freeway can accommodate the larger size pipe. Wadsworth A venue and Bello Street Upgrade. As mentioned above, the pressures near the intersection of Bay Street and Price Street drop below the 20 psi minimum standards during fire flow conditions. It is recommended to upgrade 800 feet of 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Bello Street from Wadsworth Aven ue to Main Street. It is also recommended to upgra de 435 feet of 6-inch water main that crosse s under Highway 101 at Wadsworth Avenue. This upgrade along with the Wadsworth Avenue and Bello Street Upgrade will allow the minimum residual pressures in this area to be met. Price Canyon Road and Del Court Addition. It is recommended to loop Solar Way and Del Court via an 12-inch PVC water main along Pric e Canyon Road (235 feet). This upgrade along with the Ocean View Avenue and Bello Street Connection will improve circulation and allow fo r adequate fire flows and res idual system pressures in this area. It is a l so recommended to upgrade 380 feet of 4-inch w ater main to 8-inch PVC on Del Court starting from Price Canyon Road. Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase L The downtown z one on Cypress Street, between Harloe Avenue and Wadsworth Avenue is being supplied by a 4-inch water main. All 4-inch water mains should be r eplaced with the m inimum 8-inch w ater main required by City standards . It is recommended to abandon the 4-inch water main on Cypress Street, from Harloe Avenue to Wadsworth Avenue. It is also recommended to extend the 8-inch water main starting from midway between San Luis A venue and Wadsworth Avenue and to Harloe Avenue ( 400 feet). WATER MAIN ON CYPRESS STREET, FROM WADSWORTH AVENUE TO SAN LUIS AVENUE (140 FEET) REPLACED PRIOR TO THE FINAL REPORT. Bello Street Upgrade: Phase I. Due to high elevation, Del Court experiences low pressure under all conditions. It is recommended to upgrade 855 feet of 4-and 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Bello Street from Pomeroy to Stimson A venue to help alleviate the low pressure problem. This upgrade wi1l allow more flow to the entire area surrounding Bello Street and Del Court. Five Cities Drive Upgrade. The commercial district along Five Cities Driv e is currently being fed by an 8 -inch diamet er water line from the south. The 8-inch water main is incapable of supplying the required fi re flow of 2,500 gpm. It is recomme nded to upgrade Water Maste r Plan/Chapter 7 Proj ect N o. 001 2.30 7-16 May 4, 2004 2,370 feet of 8-inch water main with 12-inch PVC along Five Cities Drive from 4th Street to A Street. 4th Street Addition. The distribution of the well water is directed past the Charles Street Reservoir and under an envirorunentally sensitive wetland site in Grover Beach. Since it is recommended to decommission the Charles Street Reservoir, it is also recommended to decommission the water line from the wells to Five Cities Drive. It is also recommended to add 4,000 feet of 12-inch PVC in 4th Street from the Five Cities Drive down to the wells. Well Piping Upgrade. The City of Pismo Beach is using old, cast iron piping inherited from the City of Grover Beach for delivery of water from well #23 and well #5 into the distribution system. This piping is under constant repair and is a maintenance headache. It is recommended to upgrade 5,800 ft of 8-inch water main with 8-inch PVC from well #23 to Atlantic Avenue and 1,900 ft of 6-inch water main with 8-inch PVC from Well #5 to Atlantic A venue. THIRD PRIORITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Bello Distribution Zone The third priority upgrades in the Bello distribution zone include abandonment of redundant undersized water mains, replacement of undersized ( 4-inch and smaller) water mains or dead-end 6-inch and smaller water mains, which are unable to deliver the required 1,500 gpm fire flow. Existing looped 6-inch water mains that are capable of delivering adequate fire flow are not recommended for replacement in the capital improvement ·projects, with the exception of those specific to aging cast iron water mains identified by the City. Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase II. It is recommended to abandon 930 feet of 2-inch water main on Cypress Street, from Pomeroy Avenue to Ocean View Avenue. It is also recommended to upgrade 930 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch and re-connect all of the services to the 8-inch main. This is due to the old, leaking water main, which requires continuous maintenance. Park Avenue Upgrade. Itis recommended to upgrade 375 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Park Avenue, from Dolliver Street to Cypress Street. Hinds Avenue Upgrade. It is recommended to upgrade 500 feet of 4-inch water main to 8- inch PVC on Hinds A venue, from Dolliver Street to Price Street. Hollister Avenue Upgrade. It is recommended to upgrade 400 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Hollister Avenue, from Dolliver Street to Price Street. This main is also old and leaking. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-17 May4, 2004 Wadsworth Avenue Upgrade: Phase I. It is recommended to upgrade 350 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Wadsworth Avenue, from Dolliver Street to Price Street. San Luis Avenue Upgrade. It is recommended to upgrade 660 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on San Luis Avenue, from Price Street to Cypress Street. PROJECT COMPLETED JUST PRlOR TO THE FINAL REPORT. Stimson Avenue Upgrade. It is recorrunended to upgrade 350 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Stimson Avenue, from Highway 101 going North towards Bello Street. Frady Lane Upgrade. It is recommended to upgrade 985 feet of6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Frady Lane, from Highway 101 overpass to the Corporation Yard. This upgrade would be necessary to meet fire flows to the corporation yard. If on-site tertiary treated effluent (and an auxiliary fire suppression system) is available as part of the future wastewater treatment plant upgrade, an 8-inch water main replacement would be sufficient in lieu of the recommended 12-inch PVC upgrade. Bello Street Upgrade: Phase II. Replace 700 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Bello Street north of Ocean View A venue. Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zone The third priority upgrades in the Shell Beach 1 distribution zone are undersized ( 4-inch and smaller) dead-end water mains. Ocean Way Upgrade -Private. The water main on Ocean Way is a 2-inch private pipeline. It is recommended prior to any future development on this street that the water main be upgraded (540 feet) 8-inch PVC. Wilmar A venue Upgrade. Upgrade 450 feet of 2-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Wilmar Avenue. Harbor View Street Upgrade. Upgrade 560 feet of 3-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Harbor View Street. This upgrade also eliminates an old, leaking water main. Shell Beach 2 Distribution Zone The third priority upgrades in the Shell Beach 2 distribution zone are undersized (6-inch) dead-end water mains which are unable to deliver the required 1,500 gpm fire flow and an old water main that is currently providing marginal fire flow. Miramar Lane Upgrade. Upgrade 415 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Miramar Lane at the end of both cul-de-sacs. Water Mas ter Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-18 May4, 2004 Brisa Court Upgrade. Upgrade 200 feet of 6 -inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Brisa Court at the end o f the cul-de-sac. Shell Beach Road and Coburn Lane Upgrade. Upgrade 2,900 feet of 8-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Shell Beach Road and Coburn Lane between Vista Del Mar and Seacliff Lane. Heights 2 Distribution Zone The third priority upgrades in the Heights 2 zone are either undersized (6-inch) dead-end water mains, which are unable to deliver the required 1,500 gpm fire flow, or undersized (4-inch and smaller) distribution water mains. If dead-end 6-inch water mains are capable of being looped, the water main does not need to be upgraded to an 8-inch water main. The preferred distribution system should not contain dead-end water mains. Taft Street Upgrade. Upgrade 1,000 feet of6-inch water main to 8-inchPVC on Taft Street. Bakersfield Street Upgrade. Upgrade 650 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Bakersfield Street. Fresno Street Upgrade. Upgrade 1, 100 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Fresno Street. Stratford Street Upgrade. Upgrade l ·,350 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Stratford Street. Wadsworth Avenue Upgrade: Phase II. Upgrade 590 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Wadsworth Avenue, north of Longview Avenue. Baxter Lane Upgrade. Upgrade 415 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Baxter Lane. Shaffer Lane Upgrade. Upgrade 590 feet of 2-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Shaffer Lane. Heights 3 Distribution Zone The third priority upgrades in the Heights 3 zone are undersized (6-inch and smaller) dead-end water mains, which are unable to deliver the required 1,500 gpm fire flow. If dead-end 6-inch water mains are capable of being looped, the water main does not need to be upgraded to an 8-inch water main. The preferred distribution system should not contain dead-end water mains. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No . 0012.30 7-19 May4, 2004 Merced Street Upgrade. Upgrade 730 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Merced Street. Delano Street Upgrade. Upgrade 470 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Delano Street. Tulare Street Upgrade. Upgrade 500 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Tulare Street, north of Longview Avenue. Visalia Street Upgrade. Upgrade 520 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Visalia Street, north of Longview Avenue. ZONE CONSOLIDATION As previously stated, the City of Pismo Beach stretches over 7 miles along the coast and the elevation varies from sea level to over 600 feet above mean sea level. Over time, the City's elongated system has grown into 7 distribution zones and 11 pressures zones. The City is looking for ways to reduce the number of distribution zones, which ultimately reduces the complexity of the system. The City has the ability to consolidate the 7 distribution zones into 5 distribution zones. The two viable options for consolidation are to combine the Bello zone with the Shell Beach 1 zone, and the Pismo Oaks zone with the Pacific Estates zone. Two components, reliability and cost, must be considered during the analysis of zone consolidation. Reliability of the distribution system is based on the integrity of the non-consolidated system versus the integrity of the consolidated system. Supply sources, storage, and transmission main redundancy are a few key components that must be analyzed to determine if the reliability of the consolidated zones is greater than or equal to the reliability of the separate zones. Life cycle costs are based upon the need to construct, operate and maintain all facilities over the next twenty years, considering preservation of the current zone configuration or zone consolidation. A recommendation is made based upon the advantages and disadvantages of these two components. Bello and Shell Beach 1 Distribution Zones The Bello zone and the Shell Beach 1 zone serve customers at a similar hydraulic grade line, thus consideration of zone consolidation is possible. Prior to consolidation, the logistics of such a consolidation must be analyzed, to maintain customer service during construction. Reliability and cost of completing each component of the consolidation must be considered. Below is a description of each zone, followed by the analysis of alternatives for zone consolidation. The alternatives are driven by the existing condition of the storage facilities in the Bello zone. Bello Zone The Bello zone is a reliable system with multiple supply sources. The Bello zone is fed via two wells, the Bello turnout, and the Pismo Oaks turnout. As mentioned previously, the Pismo Oaks Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-20 May4, 2004 turnout was recently activated and will be used on a continuous basis (approximately 150 gpm) to enhance water quality. This zone ultimately supplies water to all other zones in the distribution system. The distribution system in the Bello zone has several deficiencies . Recommendations have been made to address these deficiencies. In addition to the distribution deficiencies, the reservoirs in the Bello zone have storage capacity and structural deficiencies. As mentioned previously, the future storage deficit in the Bello zone is 0.64 MG. The reservoirs in the Bello zone are also the oldest reservoirs in the entire distribution system. The Bello Reservoir is a below grade concrete reservoir with a woodroof structure. The reservoir was constructed in 1940 and has had only minor upgrades completed over time, such as concrete sealing and roof modifications. The concrete portion of the reservoir has been maintained and currently does not appear to have any leaks. In August 2002, Robert S. Vessely, structural engineer, completed a structural investigation of the roof structure to determine the existing structural integrity of the r:oof structure (see Appendix D for a copy of the structural investi gation report). The existing roof structure is in poor condition and needs to be refurbished or replaced within the next five years. Mr. Vessely has provided the City with a total of five alternatives to refurbish or replace the roof structure to increase the useful life of the Bello Reservoir. In May 2003, Harper & Associates Engineering, Inc. completed an evaluation of the Bello Reservoir for its structural integrity and remaining useful life. The report concluded that there are no structural/seismic modifications required. However, since no as-built or engineering drawings were available on this reservoir, conclusive recommendations on the structural integrity of the concrete reservoir could not be developed. The report recommends minor modifications to be completed by the City to meet AWWA standards. Harper & Associates did not provide an estimate of the remaining useful life for the Bello Reservoir. The Charles Street Reservoir is a welded steel reservoir that was constructed in 1930. In May2003, Harper & Associates Engineering, Inc. completed an evaluation of the Charles Street Reservoir. The report noted that the reservoir is in fair to poor condition and will need approximately $190,000 in repairs to keep the reservoir in service. In addition, it was recommended to reduce the water level from 22.5' to 20.5' to reduce the risk of roof damage during a seismic event. Lowering the water level reduces the overflow elevation from 176 ft to 174 ft , or 4 ft below the overflow elevation of the Bello Reservoir. Lowering the overflow elevation of the Charles Street Reservoir also reduces capacity of the Charles Street Reservoir from 420,000 gallon to 378,000 gallon and the Bello Reservoir from 470,000 gallon to 370,000 gallon. This results in a total storage reduction from 890,000 gallon to 748,000 gallon, and a total deficit increase from 640,000 gallon to 782,000 gallon in the Bello Zone without consolidation. Shell Beach 1 The existing Shell Beach 1 zone is also a reliable system. It is served via the Vista Del Mar Turnout and the Bay Street Booster Station, which pumps water to Shell Beach I from the Bello zone. The Shell Beach 1 zone also has an emergency connection to the Shell Beach 2 zone via a PRV located on south Mattie Road and an isolation valve at Seacliff Drive and Coburn Lane. Recommended capital improvement projects were minimal in the Shell Beach 1 zone. The distribution system was adequate, however, it relied heavily on the Shell Beach 2 zone under fire flow conditions. The Shell Water Mas ter Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0 0 12.30 7-21 May4, 2004 Beach Road Upgrade will ~elp eliminate this dependence on the Shell Beach 2 zone. The Shell Beach 1 zone has sufficient storage to meet existing and future needs. Zone Alternatives By addressing the struct:ural and capacity deficiencies of the existing reservoirs, three alternatives, _A, B, and C, have been determined as viable options to allow the City to maintain the existing Bello zone for another 20 years. These alternatives will be compared to consolidating the Bello and the Shell Beach 1 zone, Alternative D. The comparison will determine if it is more reliable and cost effective for the City to add storage to the Bello zone and to complete the necessary repairs on the reservoirs or to decommission the Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs and consolidate the Bello and Shell Beach 1 zones. Alternative A. Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs to Remain as is. New Reservoir Adjacent to Charles Street. To maintain the Bello zone as a reliable distribution zone, upgrades to the roof structure on the Bello Reservoir need to be completed and 0. 782 mg of additional storage capacity needs to be constructed (additional capacity required as a result of Harper & Associates Report).· Alternative A addresses the storage requirements to allow the Bello zone to sustain itself for the next 20 years. Appendix E includes a breakdown of the life cycle cost over 20 years associated with all alternatives. Following is a description of Alternative A and the advantages and disadvantages associated with this alternative. Bello Reservoir The Bello Reservoir requires a new roof structure within the next 5 years, to address immediate structural integrity concerns to the existing roof. With these improvements, the reservoir will sustain a life span of another 20 years or longer. As mentioned previously, Mr. Vessely has provided the City with five alternatives to repair or replace the wood roof structure on the reservoir. Information on these five roof replacement alternatives is included in Appendix D. The five roof alternatives are summarized as follows: i. Repair the existing wood framing. Cost, $100,000. u . Replace with a steel framed and a welded sheet-steel roof. Cost, $230,000. m. Replace with steel framing and a light-gauge ribbed steel panel roofing. Cost, $150,000. iv. Replace with a floating membrane cover. Cost, $60,000. v . Replace with a steel framed and aluminum panel roof. Cost, $160,000. The City reviewed the various roof replacement alternatives, and requested that the initial four alternatives be considered in addition to a fifth alternative (aluminum panel roof). Mr. Vessely provided the alternative on the aluminum roof, and also provided a life cycle cost analysis of these five alternatives. Based on this life cycle cost analysis, the membrane liner was the most economical, followed next by the light steel option and then the aluminum panel option. Although it was thought that the aluminum roof would afford less frequent Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-22 May4, 2004 maintenance, it still requires cleaning and coating (per Mr. Vessely' s report) of the aluminum every 10 years. The membrane liner was clearly the most economical roof from a life cycle cost basis; however, maintenance of these types of roof covers can be relatively extensive, particularly to remove debris and dewater the roof after rain events. However, as indicated above, the life cycle cost for this alternative is the most economical, even considering the increased maintenance for this membrane liner system. For the purposes of this study, JL WA maintained a selection of alternative 3 (light gauge steel roof) to estimate the life cycle costs of Alternative A. Of the steel/aluminum roof options, the light gauge steel roof was the most economical on a life cycle cost basis. This recommended roof material option is used throughout the remainder of this study. Charles Street Reservoir Harper & Associates Engineering, Inc. included in the May 2003 report that the Charles Street Reservoir is in fair to poor condition and will need substantial upgrades to refurbish and bring the reservoir up to code. The cost of the repairs was estimated to be $190,000. There may be other non-tangible issues and concerns with any construction on the Charles Street Reservoir site. These issues apply to Alternatives A, B, and C. Potential issues with new construction at the Charles Street reservoir site include: • Political aspects of the reservoir site being in Grover Beach City limits, outside o f the City of Pismo Beach. • Possible archeological concerns. • Visual impacts not acceptable to City of Grover Beach residents. • City of Grover Beach permitting. • Other environmental concerns. Future Storage Requirements To meet the future storage needs in the Bello zone, a new reservoir will need to be constructed adjacent to the existing Charles Street Reservoir. In March 2003, Fugro West, Inc. completed a geotechnical study of the Charles Street site to determine if the site's geological condition was suitable for an additional reservoir. The report concluded that with minimal recommended foundation work, the site will be suitable for the new reservoir. The new reservoir would match overflow elevations with the Bello Reservoir and have a capacity of 782,000 gallons. The resulting dimensions of the new reservoir would be 7 4' in diameter with a 24.5' profile. The new tank will take up additional space on the site. The City's main priority for this tank site is development of water storage; however, the City will need to review this option relative to any current and future contractual arrangements for cellular telephone transmission equipment with the utility agency. Distribution System Upgrades Alternative A does not require additional distribution system upgrades to meet system needs. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project N o. 0012.30 7-23 May4, 2004 Construction Issues The Bello Reservoir will be taken out of commission during the construction of the new roof. The time to construct the new roof will be minimal; however, the Bello zone must rely on the Charles Street Reservoir for all supply during this time period. The City will need to ensure that all other sources of supply into the Bello zone are running properly and the City will need to be aware that back-feeding from Shell Beach 1 and Pacific Estates will be critical during a fire in the Bello zone. During the construction of the new Charles Street reservoir, the City is able to operate and maintain the existing Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs. There are no concerns regarding the timing of construction for this new reservoir. From an operational standpoint, it would be optimal for the City to construct the new reservoir prior to replacing the roof structure on the Bello Reservoir to increase storage capacity in the Bello zone while the Bello Reservoir is out of commission. However, with the existing structural integrity of the Bello Reservoir roof being poor, the roof replacement is higher in priority than building new storage. Life Cycle Costs Appendix E shows the life cycle costs for Alternative A. The capital cost for alternative A is the least expensive of all four alternatives and the operation and maintenance costs are the most expensive of all four alternatives. The capital cost of this alternative is $1, 128,400 and the present worth of the operation and maintenance costs over the next 20 years is $1,631,217. The total life cycle cost is $2,759,617. Advantages • The distribution system remains reliable due to maintaining storage for the Bello zone near the downtown area and suppling the zone by reservoirs in two separate locations. • Storage facilities remain "decentralized" allowing more flexibility in operation. • This alternative is the least cost alternative of the four considered. • Hydraulically, the Bello Reservoir can act as a surge chamber to the Bello zone, since the reservoir is open to atmospheric pressure. • The City maximizes use of its existing facilities. • The City maximizes the use of the existing "dead" space on the Charles Street site. Disadvantages • The Charles Street Reservoir requires substantial upgrades, which cost roughly the same as a new reservoir. • The City is maintaining the existing Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs. The operation and maintenance of these two old reservoirs will be higher than operating and maintaining a new reservoir. • The City will operate and maintain three reservoirs in the Bello z one. • The City will continue to operate and maintain the Bay Street Booster Station. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Projec t No. 001 2.30 7 -24 May4, 2004 Alternative B. Bello Reservoir to Remain as is. New Reservoir on Charles Street Site. Alternative B maintains the existing Bello Reservoir and replaces the existing Charles Street Reservoir with a new reservoir to meet future storage requirements. Bello Reservoir The Bello Reservoir requires a new roof structure to address immediate structural integrity concerns to the existing roof. With these improvements, the reservoir will sustain a life span of another 20 years or longer. As mentioned previously, Mr . Vessely has provided the City with five alternatives to repair or replace the wood roof structure on the reservoir. The same roof alternative (light gauge steel roof) will be used for analysis purposes of this alternative. Charles Street Reservoir The existing Charles Street Reservoir would be removed, and replaced with a new larg er reservou. Future Storage Requirements The future storage requirements for the Bello zone would be 640,000 gallons plus 420,000 gallons of lost storage from replacement of the Charles Street Reservoir. This results in a storage requirement of 1.06 MG. The full capacity of the Bello Reservoir will be utilized with the two new larger tanks and the n ew Charles Street Reservoirs would match overflow elevation with the Bello Reservoir. The Charles Street site is rectangular in shape (102' x 178'). The City has the option of placing two reservoirs side by side on the site. The overflow elevation would match the Bello Reservoir. The resulting dimensions are 60' in diameter with a 24.5' profile. To better utilize the shape of the Charles Street site, a rectangular reservoir could also be constructed on the site. The expense of constructing a rectangular concrete reservoir would be approximately twice that of a circular reservoir1• This is due to the added design and reinforcement required to meet seismic standards. The resulting dimensions are 60' x 110' x 24.5' in height. For planning and cost estimating purposes, two side by side circular steel reservoirs will be analyzed. Pre-Stressed Concrete Tank Considerations. JL WA received additional information from a pre-stressed tank manufacturer (DYK, Inc.). Supplemental information on this type of tank is included in Appendix D. As indicated above, the initial capital cost for pre-stressed concrete tanks is nearly double that of welded steel construction. DYK provided a 90-year life cycle cost analysis, which extends well beyond the 20-year life cycle cost considered in this study. For approximately 1.0 MG of storage, it would take approximately 45 years before the O&M cost advantages of concrete tanks versus steel tanks, is realized. However, it should be recognized that there are some clear advantages to concrete tank construction, including the following: 1 Estimate from local contractor. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 P roj ect N o. 0 01 2.30 May 4, 2004 7-25 • Concrete tanks have more flexibility on configuring and conforming to site constraints, thus maximizing use of site. • Concrete tanks can be backfilled against, and thus can be hidden or lowered to improve aesthetics. • Concrete tanks do not require lining and coating repairs, and thus disruption of service is minimal. Distribution System Upgrades Alternative B does not require additional distribution system upgrades to meet system needs. However, it is noted that if zone consolidation does not occur, an additional isolation valve should be installed to facilitate taking the Charles Street Reservoir off-line while still allowing for a looped water system in the area of the existing reservoir site. Construction Issues The Bello Reservoir will be taken out of service during construction of the new roof. The time to construct the new roof will be minimal; however, the Bello zone must rely on the Charles Street Reservoir for all supply during this time period. The City will need to ensure that all other sources of supply into the Bello zone are running properly and the City will need to be aware that back-feeding from Shell Beach 1 and Pacific Estates will be critical during a fire in the Bello zone. The Charles Street Reservoir will be taken out of commission while the construction of the two .new reservoirs on the Char les Street site are being completed. The duration of construction of the two new reservoirs will be approximately six months. The Bello zone must therefore rely only on the Bello Reservoir for storage capacity during construction of the Charles Street Reservoirs. The City will need to first complete the repairs on the Bello Reservoir to ensure the reliability of the reservoir, prior to the construction of the two new Charles Street Reservoirs. Life Cycle Costs Appendix E shows the life cycle costs for Alternative B. As mentioned previously, the costs for future storage is based on two new circular welded steel reservoirs at the Charles Street site. The capital cost of this alternative is $1 ,268,400 and the present worth of the operation and maintenance costs over the next 20 years is $1,461, 717. The total life cycle cost is $2, 730, 117. JL WA did not include the cost of pre-stressed concrete for the cost analysis, given the large capital cost associated with the initial construction. Advantages • The distribution system remains reliable due to maintaining storage for the Bello zone near the downtown area and suppling the zone by reservoirs in two separate locations. • The City maximizes the use of the Bello Reservoir. • Storage facilities remain "decentralized" allowing more flexibility in operation. • Hydraulically, the Bello Reservoir can act as a surge chamber to the Bello zone, since the reservoir is open to atmospheric pressure. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 001 2.3 0 7-26 May4, 2004 • The City maximizes the use of the entire Charles Street site. • The City will operate and maintain two new reservoirs, at the Charles Street site, that will meet today's seismic standards. Disadvantages • The City will operate and maintain three reservoirs in the Bello zone. • The City will continue to operate and maintain the Bay Street Booster Station. Alternative C. Decommission Bello Street Reservoir, and Replace Existing Charles Street Reservoir With New Reservoir on Charles Street Site. Alternative C would decommission the Bello Street Reservoir, and replace the existing Charles Street Reservoir with a new reservoir at the same tank site, to meet all future storage requirements in the Bello zone. Bello Reservoir The Bello Reservoir would be decommissioned. The City currently leases the property that the Bello Reservoir resides on from the Pismo Beach School District for $1.00 a year. Although the City may no longer need this property for storage, the site must remain in control by the City to operate and maintain the existing Bello Booster Station located on this site. Even if the City relinquishes this site, there would be no net "income" from any real estate transaction. It is also assumed that this reservoir would be decommissioned in-situ. Charles Street Reservoir The Charles Street Reservoir would be replaced with a single new storage reservoir, sized for the entire Bello zone to meet future storage requirements. Future Storage Requirements The future storage requirements for the Bello zone would be 782,000 gallons plus the 890,000 gallon deficit as a result of decommissioning the Charles Street and the Bello Reservoirs. This results in a new 1.53 MG reservoir. The reservoir would be located on the Charles Street site. The reservoir overflow elevation can be raised to increase system pressure in the Bello zone. Similar to Alternative B, the site can utilize either two circular steel reservoirs side by side or one rectangular pre-stressed concrete reservoir. The resulting dimensions of the circular reservoirs would be 62' in diameter with a 34' profile. The rectangular reservoir dimensions would be 58' x 126' x 28' in height. The expense of constructing a rectangular reservoir would be approximately twice that of circular steel reservoirs. This is due to the added design and reinforcement required to meet seismic standards. For planning and cost estimating purposes, two side by side steel reservoirs will be analyzed. Water Master Plan/Chap ter 7 Project No . 0012.30 7-27 May4, 2004 Distribution System Upgrades The Bello zone currently depends hydraulically on the Bello Reservoir to provide water to the downtown area. Decommissioning the Bello Reservoir removes this dependability and requires the Bello zone to solely rely on the future Charles Street Reservoirs for supply. The Charles Street Reservoir site is located in Grover Beach, over 1.5 miles from downtown. The reservoir services the Bello zone via two water mains. The first is a 12-inch water main along Highway 1, which splits at Dolliver and Addie Street. The second is a 12-inch main, which decreases to an 8-inch main and then increases back to a 10-inch main along Five Cities Drive. This water main splits at Ocean View Avenue on the north side of Highway 101. The Bello zone hydraulically operates adequately, with supply only coming from the Charles Street site, under ADD, MOD and PH throughout the entire system, with the exception of Del Court. Under ADD conditions, Del Court sustains a pressure of 3 8 psi. This is due to the high elevation of this street. Under .MDD with fire flow, the Bello zone is unable to sustain adequate pressures for fire flows in the commercial and downtown regions. To achieve the fire flow required (2,500 gpm and 4,500 gpm), supplemental flow must be supplied by the Shell Beach 1 zone. This can be achieved by manually opening the gate valve to bypass piping at the Bay Street Booster Station. Additional flow can be taken from the wells, Pacific Estates, and Pismo Oaks turnout, however, each of these sources brings flow through the same transmission mains as the Charles Street Reservoir and the hydraulic losses will remain the same. These supplemental sources will not increase pressures in the Bello zone unless 1. 5 miles of 10-and 12-inch water mains are upgraded to 16-inch, a $1.6 million upgrade. Current conditions in the Bello zone are also unable to supply the required 4,500 gpm fire flow to the downtown area, however, this is due to undersized piping not due to location of supply sources. Removing the Bello Reservoir and placing all storage at the Charles Street site reduces the reliability of the Bello zone. Prior to decommissioning the Bello Reservoir, it is recommended that the City complete three capital improvement projects previously mentioned: • Five Cities Drive Upgrade • The Pomeroy Avenue Upgrade • Ocean View Avenue and Highway 101 Upgrade To decrease the hydraulic loss from the Charles Street Reservoir to the Bello zone, the Five Cities Drive Upgrade should be completed. This entails upgrading 460 ft of 8-inch water main to 12-inch. The downtown area is currently unable to meet the fire flow requirements of 4,500 gpm without this upgrade. Completing the Pomeroy A venue Upgrade will ensure that the downtown area is capable of meeting the required fire flow. The Ocean View Avenue and Highway 101 Upgrade will increase the flow available to the downtown area from the sources on the north end of the Bello zone. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-28 May4, 2004 Construction Issues The phasing of the construction in the Bello zone will be critical to ensure that the Bello zone remains reliable. The City will first need to decommission the Charles Street Reservoir and construct the two new reservoirs on the Charles Street site, while maintaining the Bello Reservoir in service. After the construction of the new Charles Street Reservoirs, the Bello zone will have adequate storage capacity and the Bello Reservoir would be able to be decommissioned. As mentioned previously, while the Charles Street Reservoir is out of commission, the City will need to ensure that all other sources of supply into the Bello zone are running properly and the City will need to be aware that back-feeding from Shell Beach 1 and Pacific Estates will be critical during a fire in the Bello zone. Life Cycle Costs Appendix E shows the life cycle costs for Alternative C. As mentioned previously, the costs for future storage is based on two new circular reservoirs at the Charles Street site. The capital cost of this alternative is $1,551,200 and the present worth of the operation and maintenance costs over the next 20 years is $1,272,2 17. The total life cycle cost is $2,823 ,417. Advantages • The City maximizes use of the entire Charles Street site. • The City will operate and maintain two new reservoirs, at the Charles Street site, that will meet today's seismic standards. • The City can relinquish the Bello Street site back to the school district. • The Bello Zone will operate at a slightly higher hydraulic grade line with the increase in overflow elevation at the Charles Street Reservoirs. Disadvantages • The distribution system hydraulics are not as reliable as existing conditions or conditions if the Bello and Shell Beach 1 zones were consolidated. This is due to the undersized transmission main from the Charles Street site which encounters high hydraulic losses prior to reaching the downtown area. Therefore, the Bello zone must rely on Shell Beach 1 zone for supplemental commercial and downtown fire flow demand. • The City will continue to operate and maintain the Bay Street Booster Station. • The Charles Street Reservoirs will be at a higher overflow elevation, which will increase visual impacts and may generate political issues with the residents surrounding the reservoirs. Alternative D. Consolidate the Shell Beach 1 Zone with the Bello Zone. Alternative D would decommission the Bello and the Charles Street Reservoirs and the Bay Street Booster Station. The Bello and the Shell Beach 1 zone would be consolidated and new storage would need to be added to the Shell Beach 1 zone. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-29 May4, 2004 Bello Reservoir The Bello Reservoir would be decommissioned. The City currently leases the property that the Bello Reservoir resides on from the Pismo Beach School District for $1.00 a year. Although the City may no longer need this property for storage, the site must remain in control by the City to operate and maintain the existing Bello Booster Station located on this site. Even if the City relinquish this site, there would be no net "income" from any real estate transaction. It is also assumed that this reservoir would be decommissioned in-situ. Charles Street Reservoir The Charles Street Reservoir would be decommissioned. The property can be sold fo r fair market value, estimated by the City to be approximately $400,000. Currently, cellular phone companies lease a portion of this site to place their antennas. The City would lose the revenue generated from this service, however, at this time, the revenue generated is minor. Future Storage Requirements The Shell Beach 1 reservoir site is capable of providing storage to meet existing and future demands. The Bello z one is 640,000 gallons deficient in storage. The total storage needed to meet future demands in the consolidated zone would be 0.64 mg of storage deficit from the Bello zone, plus the total of the decommissioned storage in the Bello zone, 0.89 mg. This amounts to 1.53 mg of required storage to meet" future demands in the consolidated zone. During construction, the Shell Beach 2 zone will continue to provide uninterrupted service to the Shell Beach 1 zone. Shell Beach 1 Site The City owns a large parcel where the existing Shell Beach 1 Reservoir resides. The newly developed homes adjacent to the reservoir provided the City with an Offer ofDedication for the land surrounding the reservoir. The site ·is approximately 180'x220'. The existing reservoir consumes approximately 65% of this site. The remaining site is not adequate to construct an additional l.53 mg reservoir adjacent to the existing. Thus, the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir must be removed, and replaced with a new 2.53 mg reservoir over the existing reservoir site footprint. The resulting dimensions of the reservoir are 130' diameter x 26' high. The proposed tank is reaching the limits of the site and may limit the access around the reservoir. It is recommended that the City acquire additional land at this time to ensure that the City has enough land for the new reservoir. In March 2003, Fugro West, Inc. completed a geotechnical study of the Shell Beach 1 site to detennine the viability of placing a 2.53 mg reservoir in place of the current 1.0 mg rservoir. The report concluded that ''the site is geotechnically feasible for the planned additional tank." However, extensive retaining walls will be required to construct the reservoir and construction of the new reservoir will be difficult due to the extensive site work and excavation into bedrock. The report recommended two different styles of retaining walls. The first is a Soil Nail Wall. This retaining wall is approximately $30 to $50 per square foot of wall face. The down fall to the Soil Nail Wall is that the retaining wall will Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project N o. 001 2.30 7-30 May4, 2004 typically experience post-construction deformations of approximately 1 percent of their height, and therefore, the adjacent private access road to the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir may crack in various locations. The second retaining wall is the Soldier Pile (and Tieback) Wall. This retaining wall is approximately $80 to $100per square foot of wall face, which is more than double the expense of the Soil Nail wall. For the purposes of this report, JLWA used the Soil Nail Wall for estimating purposes. It was assumed that since the access road was a private utility road, minor cracking of pavement would not be as critical and reducing the expense of the retaining wall. The site for the new reservoir is constrained and therefore, the access road to Shell Beach 2 may need to be re-aligned. Future Distribution System Requirements The ability to maintain system pressure and the reliability of the consolidated distribution zone are key aspects of determining if the two zones should be consolidated. The following paragraphs analyze the different aspects considered during zone consolidation. Consolidating the Shell Beach 1 zone with the Bello zone increases the pressures in the Bello zone. This is due to the Shell Beach 1 overflow elevation being 50 feet higher than the existing Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs. The pressures, W1der ADD, MDD and PH are adequate throughout the system. The Bello zone will see an increase in pressures on the magnitude of 15 to 20 psi. The lower regions of the zone will remain slightly below 80 psi, the maximum pressure recommended. Under fire flow conditions, the Bello zone is capable of meeting 1,500 gpm. The Del Court area drops below 20 psi with a fire flow greater than 2,200 gpm anywhere in the system. If the Bello Street turnout is activated, the pressures are adequate at the 2,500 gpm fire flow demand. To obtain 4,500 gpm for the downtown fire flow, the Bello zone must rely on the Bello turnout as well as both wells to provide the supplemental flow required to meet 20 psi throughout the system. The City inquired if Judkins Middle School, currently served by the Heights 2 Distribution Zone, could be served by Bello Zone pressure by relocation of the Heights 2 PRV. The hydraulic model indicates that the school would still receive insufficient pressure (from Bello Zone pressure), and thus the current configuration of the Heights 2 zone and Bello zone should remain. Under zone consolidation, an additional "bottleneck" occurs in the distribution system near the decommissioned Bay Street Booster. The flow from Shell Beach 1 travels to the Bello zone via a 16-inch main on Price Street. At the Bay Street Booster Station, the water main decreases to a single 12-inch main before splitting and going into the Bello zone. The City can loop the 12-inch main by connecting two parallel mains at the interse~tion of Bay Street and Dolliver. It is recommended, in conjunction with zone consolidation, to connect the two water mains, approximately 30 feet, with a 12-inch PVC water main. Shell Beach 2 feeds water to Shell Beach 1 via a PRV and a normally closed valve. The PRV connection between the two zones is located in unstable groW1d and there is potential Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 7-31 May4, 2004 for slumping to occur, which will in-turn break the connection. It is recommended to extend 2,500 feet of 12-inch PVC water main from Foothill to the Mattie Road freeway underpass and tie into Price Street. A PRV system will also be required at the tie in point. The wells in the Bello Zone will also be impacted by the consolidation. The wells will be required to pump to a higher head into the distribution system to fill the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. This will decrease their production capacity. Well #23 will reduce flow from 900 gpm to approximately 850 gpm, based on the well system curve. Well #5 will reduce flow from 600 gpm to approximately 500 gpm, based on the well system curve. Both wells should be tested upon completion of the zone consolidation to determine if upgrades to the well pumps are required. Prior to consolidation, it is recommended that the City complete two additional capital improvement projects previously mentioned: • Shell Beach Road Upgrade • Pomeroy A venue Upgrade Under fire flow conditions, the Shell Beach 2 zone provides the majority of the fire flow via the PRV on South Mattie Road. This is due to the constraining 6-inch water main on Shell Beach Road in the Shell Beach 1 zone. Prior to consolidation, the City should upgrade the entire reach (3,700 feet) from 6-inch to 12-inch. This will decrease the need to rely on the Shell Beach 2 zone to provide fire flow to the Shell Beach 1 and Bello zone. Completing the Pomeroy Avenue Upgrade prior to consolidation will ensure that the downtown area is capable of meet ing the required fire flow. The downto\vn area is currently unable to meet the fire flow requirements of 4,500 gpm without this upgrade. Life Cycle Costs Appendix E shows the life cycle costs for Alternative D. ·The capital cost for Alternative D is the most expensive of all four alternatives, however, the operation and maintenance of this alternative is the .least expensive over the next 20 years . The capital cost of this alternative is $2,405,025 and the present worth of the operation and maintenance costs over the next 20 years is $491,000. The total life cycle cost is $2,896,025. Advantages • The City will operate and maintain one new reservoir, at the Shell Beach 1 site, that will meet today's seismic standards instead of four reservoirs spread throughout the City. • The City will decommission two old reservoirs whose useful life is unknown. • The City will decommission the Bay Street Booster, which will save the City in energy and O&M expenses. • The City can sell the Charles Street Reservoir site and use the revenue to offset the overall capital cost to consolidate the two zones. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project N o. 0012.30 7-32 May4, 2004 • The City decreases its presence in Grover Beach. • Overall system pressures will increase in the Bello zone. Disadvantages • The City is feeding the Bello zone via one 16-inch water main. If this water main breaks, the City must rely on supplemental flow from the Bello and Pismo Oaks turnouts, the two wells and backfeed from Pacific Estates. • The City is decommissioning a 27 year old reservoir (Shell Beach 1 ), which still has the potential for many years of continued service. • Decommissioning the reservoirs in the Bello zone and placing all the storage for the consolidated zone in a single location, reduces flexibility of operation and makes the City more vulnerable to system supply deficiencies in the event of a major disruption to the new reservoir and/or connecting transmission pipelines. • Construction of the new reservoir will be difficult. • Environmental issues may arise during construction. Summary of Fin dines The recommendation to pursue any one of these alternatives is based on several factors . First, one must consider the overall life cycle costs . Second is the hydraulic reliability of distribution system for each alternative during the construction phase. Third is the hydraulic reliability of the distribution system upon completion of the construction. Fourth, one must consider long-term operation and maintenance advantages. Finally, and of critical importance, is how an alternative may fiscally impact rate payers. The overall life cycle costs are summarized in Table 7-6. The table illustrates that there is a less than 5% difference in costs between all four of the alternatives from a life cycle cost basis. Therefore, the issue of cost and fiscal impacts must be addressed through the capital costs to be incurred, and how capital cost expenditures for Alternative D may impact rate payers. Table 7-6. Life Cycle Costs Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Capital Cost $1,128,400 $1 ,268,400 $1,551,200 $2,405,000 O&MCost $1,631,200 $1,461 ,700 $1,272,200 $491 ,000 Total Lif.e $2,759,600 $2,730,100 $2,823,400 $2,896,000 Cycle Costs JLWA provided a summary of the n e eded capital improvements for Alternatives A and D to the City Finance Director. The City staff was apprised of the capital improvements and the timing of Water Mas ter Plan/Ch apter 7 Project No. 001 2. 30 7-33 May4, 2004 implementation. The City Finance Director then reviewed the timing of capital expenditures for both alternatives, and indicated that the City could still finance Alternative D without rate increases, even though the capital expenditures of this alternative exceed those of Alternative A by over $1 ,000,000. Since there is no apparent fiscal impact to rate payers, and the total life cycle costs are extremely close, the final driving decision will be considerations of technical and operations preferences, and issues during construction. The phasing of the construction and the reliability of the distribution system during construction is a critical factor in the recommendation. Each alternative, at some time during the construction, will eliminate crucial storage capacity for either the Bello or the Shell Beach 1 zone. Eliminating storage capacity requires the City to rely on other supply sources to provide supplemental flow and storage to the zone under construction. Alternative A provides the least amount of reservoir down time than any other alternative. Alternative D will have the longest reservoir down time than all four alternatives. However, this is not as critical, since the Shell Beach 1 zone can feed off of the Shell Beach 2 zone and the Bello zone reservoirs will still be suppling the Bello zone. Alternative A is the most optimal alternative available to the City for reliability of the distribution system during construction phasing. Once the construction of the facilities for each alternative is completed, the hydraulic reliability of the zone must be considered. Alternative A and B will allow the Bello zone to remain as reliable as the existing system currently is. However, Alternative A maintains the existing Charles Street Reservoir in service, which is requiring substantial upgrades. Alternative D provides a fairly reliable consolidated distribution system. The Bello zone would be fed via a single 16-inch transmission water main, but the Bello zone has several redundant supply sources to maintain an operational system if this transmission main were to break. This alternative also places all of the storage in one location. Operation and maintenance is the last factor to consider to determine which alternative is optimal. Alternative A, B, & C will increase the current day level of effort to operate and maintain both reservoirs and the Bay Street Booster Station. Alternative D will decrease the level of O&M since the consolidation of the two zones will reduce the storage reservoirs from three existing reservoirs to one and will eliminate a booster station. Alternative D is the most optimal alternative available to the City for O&M. Final Recommendation The City and JL WA have considered all aspects of the four alternatives and determined that zone consolidation is the most optimum solution for the City. This decision was primarily based on the decrease in future O&M needs for the City. Following is a list of the specific capital improvement projects required for zone consolidation. Also included are the recommended projects to be completed for zone consolidation. The recommended projects are needed to be completed before the City completes the consolidation to ensure redundancy and sufficient pressures and fire flow for both zones. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Projec t No. 0012.30 7-34 May4, 2004 Required First Priority Projects • Environmental/Planning process for new 2.53 mg Shell Beach 1 Reservoir to be completed prior to Demolishing Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. • Demolish Shell Beach 1 Reservoir • New 2.53 mg Shell Beach 1 Reservoir • Bay Street and Dolliver Addition Recommended First Priority Projects • Shell Beach Road Upgrade • Pomeroy A venue Upgrade • Mattie Road 12-inch main Project Second Priority • Decommission Bello Reservoir • Decommission Charles Street Reservoir • Decommission Bay Street Booster Station Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates Distribution Zones As stated in the Bello/Shell Beach 1 zone consolidation section, several components must be analyzed to determine if zone consolidation is warranted. Supply. The Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks zones are both supplied by the Bello zone via booster stations at the base of each zone. The existing booster stations both operate at night to fill the reservoirs and utilize lower energy costs. Upon zone consolidation, the Pismo Oaks booster station would be decommissioned and all supply would traverse through the Pacific Estates booster station only. The Pacific Estates booster station would still be adequate to function as noted above, and decommissioning the Pismo Oaks booster station would eliminate operation and maintenance costs for this facility. Available Storage. The Pacific Estates zone and the Pismo Oaks zone currently have sufficient storage to meet existing and future storage requirements. Upon zone consolidation, the Pismo Oaks reservoir would need to be decommissioned. Since the Pacific Estates zone has smplus storage and the combined zone will have sufficient storage via the Pacific Estates reservoir. If zone consolidation does not occur the entire distribution system would have 6 MG in total storage capacity. If zone consolidation does occur, the entire distribution system would have 5.2 MG in storage capacity. Eliminating the Pismo Oaks reservoir would eliminate a viable storage supply for the City. Decommissioning Storage. The Pismo Oaks reservoir is only 17 years old, and therefore has many years of useful life remaining. Decommissioning the reservoir would eliminate useful storage for the City. Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No . 0012.30 7-35 May4, 2004 Reliability of the Distribution System. The existing Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks zones have adequate distribution systems to meet existing and future demands. Upon zone consolidation, the Pismo Oaks zone would be supplied via one 12-inch transmission main. This transmission main is under extreme pressure and may be a source of future maintenance concerns. The reliability of the Pismo Oaks zone will be compromised unless a second transmission main is constructed between the two zones. The ability to construct this second transmission main is highly unlikely due to steep slopes, dense oak vegetation and environmental constraints between the two zones. System Pressure. The existing distribution systems have adequate pressures throughout. The lower section of each zone experiences higher than recommended pressures and is recommended to have individual pressure reducing valves on each home. Upon zone consolidation, the Pismo Oaks zone would experience an increase in pressure throughout the lower section of the system (necessitating individual PRVs in this area) and would achieve marginal system pressures (35-40 psi) at the top of the zone. The Pacific Estates zone is also unable to deliver adequate fire flow to the top of the Pismo Oaks zone. Cost. Consolidating the two zones would reduce overall cost to the City. The City would no longer need to maintain the Pismo Oaks booster station and th e Pismo Oaks reservoir. The City would also not need to replace the Pismo Oaks reservoir as part of zone consolidation, and therefore would not incur the costs associated wi th this replacement. Table 7-7 is summary of the pros and cons for consolidating the Pismo Oaks zone with the Pacific Estates zone. At this time it is not recommended to consolidate the Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks zones. This issue of consolidation may need further investigation if the Los Robles Del Mar project is annexed into the City. If this project is completed, alternative connections to the system may be viable, which would increase the reliability and safety to the Pismo Oaks zone. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Figure 7-3 provides an overview of the water system capital improvements described herein. In general, the future water system will meet or exceed the fire flow requirements. The figure shows all recommended pipeline upgrades, tank improvements and other improvements to the distribution system. Figure 7-4 shows the future distribution zones with consolidation of the Bello and Shell Beach 1 pressure zones. The zones will remain as shown in Figure 3-1 until consolidation occurs. Figure 7-5 shows the future hydraulic profile with consolidation. Water Mas ter Plan/Chapter 7 Projec t No. 001 2.30 7-36 May 4, 2004 Table 7-7. Pacific Estates/Pismo Oaks Zone Consolidation Summary Non-Consolidation Consolidation Components Pro Neutral Con Pro Neutral Con Supply .I .I Available Storage .I .I Need to Decommission .I .I Storage Distribution System .I .I Distribution System wl 200 NIA .I Connection System Pressure .I .I System Pressure w/2nd NIA .I Connection Cost .I .I Overall .I .I Overall w l 2nd Connection NIA .I POTENTIAL PROJECT ISSUES The recommendations for the water master plan are based on information available to JL WA at the time of writing this planning document. Detailed design has not been completed for the projects recommended. The costs associated with each recommendation is conservative, however, unforeseen iss~es may arise during design that may cause delays in projects which may res ult in higher capital expenses. Such delays may include the following: • Archeological findings • Planning commission delays • Mitigation Water Master Plan/Chapter 7 Project No. 0012.30 May4, 2004 7-37 CHAPTERS SYSTEM OPERATIONS Chapter 8 describes the Water Maintenance Division's staffing levels and daily operations and recommendations for future staffing levels, meter reading upgrades and pwnp upgrades. EXISTING OPERATIONS Staffing Levels The City of Pismo Beach Water Maintenance Division operates and maintains over 50 miles of distribution mains, nine reservoirs, one hydro-pneumatic tank, two wells, four turnouts, seven booster stations, fire hydrants and valves. The Water Maintenance Division is comprised of one superintendent, one supervisor and four maintenance workers. The maintenance crew is full time Monday through Friday. One crew member at a time is on a 24-hour, seven day, on-call rotation. Limited work is also conducted on Saturday and Sunday for three hours each day by one crew member. The on-call staff also includes two members from the parks department staff and two members from the street department staff. The staffing levels are currently adequate for operation and maintenance of the distribution system. Daily Operations The Water Maintenance Di vision completes routine checks of all major distribution system facilities on a daily basis and conducts a nwnber of other tasks throughout the year. The following is a list o f the tasks completed by the Water Maintenance Division: • Read production well meters on a daily basis. • Monitor all reservoir levels on a daily basis. • Conduct all potable water sampling. • Repair Leaks on an as-needed basis. • Locate waterlines for Underground Service Alert (USA). • Pothole for waterlines approximately 50 percent of the time, as staff and equipment are available. Contract out the remaining portion of pothole work. • Weed abatement at water reservoir and pump station sites. • Flush all dead-end water mains every 90 days . • Exercise water valves every two years. • Maintain telemetry system. Fix minor problems. • Maintain chemical feed systems, and routinely inventory chemical supply on-hand. • Repair all minor components (i.e. seals, impellers, pump alignment) on the booster station pumps. Wa ter Mas te r Plan/Chapter 8 P roject No. 0012.30 8-1 May4, 2004 • Conduct re-reads on water meters. • Provide customer support and answer customer complaints. The Water Maintenance Division also contracts out several tasks. The following is a list of these tasks: • The inspection of all reservoirs. • The repair of all major components (i.e. electrical work, motor) on the booster station pumps. • The repair of all major programming issues on the telemetry system. • The reading of all water meters. FUTURE OPERATIONS Staffing Levels The City of P ismo Beach's current populati on is 8,551 persons and is expected to reach 9,414 at build-out within the existing City limits and 11 ,122 persons within the existing Sphere of Influence. Staffing levels must be re-evaluated as a result of anticipated system improvements to serve this increase in population. Staffing Levels Due to Population Increase within City Limi ts. The increase of863 persons within the City limits is due strictly to in-fill. As a result of this in-fill, the maintenance staff will be required to provide additional time for customer service and other related tasks. This increase in population is a small percentage increase and does not warrant a need for additional personnel. Staffing Levels Due to Population Increase within the Sphere of Influence. The City of Pismo Beach has two proposed developments outside the City limits, but within the Sphere of Influence. The two developments are in preliminary stages, but have an estimated population of 1,708 persons. The two developments will require additional distribution mains, service connections and possibly storage and pumping facilities. Upon completion of these two developments, the staffing responsibilities must be re-evaluated to determine if the developments warrant a n eed to increase staffing levels. Water Main Upgrades. The water main capitai improvement projects listed in Chapter 7 are a result of existing deficiencies w ithin the system. The replacement of these undersized water mains will increase the reliability of the distribution system. The water main upgrades do no warrant a need to increase staffing levels. Zone Consolidation. Completion of the Bello and Shell Beach 1 zone consolidation will result in a decrease in the number of reservoirs and booster stations. The consolidated z one Water M aster Plan/Chapter 8 Project No. 0012.30 8-2 May 4, 2004 will not be as complex as the existing system. Therefore, the zone consolidation does not warrant a need to increase staffing levels. Water Meter Upgrades. Currently the City of Pismo Beach contracts out to a local company to read all of the water meters. The water meters are divided into two groups and read every other month. Later in this chapter, upgrading the water meters to be compatible with radio transmit technology will be discussed. The radio technology would allow the water maintenance division to read the meters and eliminate the need to contract the work out. The meter reading task would then require approximately three full days of work per month for one staff member, with this new technology in p·lace. Taking over the meter reading task may warrant an additional staff member, but will have to be revisited once the system is up and running. AL TERNATNE METER READING TECHNOLOGY Presently, the City of Pismo Beach has 4,420 residential service connections. The residenti al water meters at the service connections are comprised of Badger, Sensus, and Metron-Farnier meters and are 5/8" to l" in size. The City has recently replaced all 1-1/2" and larger meters and 160 -1" residential meters with Metron-Farnier meters and are pleased with the low level of operation and maintenance required, the warranty on the meters, as well as the accuracy in the reading. The replacement of the above mentioned meters provided a 26% increase in revenue to the City from those specific meters replaced. Because the City is pleased with the Metron-Farnier meter, the City is choosing to eventually replace the remaining I" and smaller residential meters with Metron- Farnier meters. Therefore, the City anticipates replacing, in the future, approximately 4, 100 -3/4" and 160 -I" or a total or 4,260 existing meters with new Metron-Farnier residential meters. Out of the 4,260 residential meters, approximately 40 percent are eight years old or older. At low flows, these water meters have a tendency to be less accurate than newer style meters. The remaining 60 percent of the meters have been replaced in the last eight years with various meter styles, including Badger, Sensus, and Metron-Farnier meters. Typical meter replacement schedules are every 12 to 15 years, based on the level of accuracy the governing agency requires. One factor that detennines the need to replace a meter is the lost revenue from the inaccuracy of the meter at low flows, which typically occurs as meters reach the end of their expected life cycle. Metron- Farnier recommends random testing of their meters after 15 years of service to determine if accuracy loss is sufficient enough to warrant the meters to be changed. This will be an economic analysis that will have to be performed taking into consideration meter replacement costs as well as rate structures in place at that time. The California Public Utilities Commission require under General Order 103, that all meters less than 1-inch be tested at a maximum period of20 years, all meters 1-inch be tested at a maximum period of 15 years, and all meters larger than 1-inch be tested at a maximum period of 10 years. Water Master Plan/Chapter 8 Project No. 0012.3 0 8-3 May4, 2 004 Currently, the City utilizes an outside company to read all of the water meters. The water meters are divided into two groups and are read manually on a bi-monthly basis. The City pays approximately $20,000 per year for this service. In addition to the City using the outside company to read the water meters, City operations staff are needed to re-read meters resulting from customer complaints. The City has requested JL WA to research alternative water meter reading technologies available to the City. The City has four options: • • • • Option 1 Option 1 -Continue the aggressive meter replacement program with new Metron- Famier meters. Option 2 -Replace all residential meters that are 8 years old or older (40% of the system) with Metron-Famier meters. The remaining 60% be replaced in two groups, at 5 years and at 10 years. Option 3 -Replace al1 residential meters within the entire system with Metron- Famier meters. Option 4 -Replace all residential meters in the entire system with Metron-Famier meters and equip all meters with radio read technology. The City instituted an aggress ive w ater meter replacemen t program ov er the past few years. City staff has been replacing approximately 260 meters every year for the past 6 years. The City would continue to replace the meters at the current schedule with Metron-Famier meters. This option affords the least amount of capital cost, per year, to the City. This would allow the City to complete a full change-out program every 17 years. The capital cost to replace 260 meters a year is approximately $60,000. fu addition, it costs approximately $13,000 for City staff to install the meters. Total annual cost for Option 1 is approximately $7 3,000. The current revenue generated from 260 residential meters is approximately $35,000. It is estimated that the revenue will increase from the new meters by a m i nimum of 10% or $3,500 and possibly up to 20% or $7,000 per year. The rate of return for replacement of 260 meters annually is between 10 and 21 years. The total cost of the Option 1overa17 year life cycle is approximately $1,241 ,000. Option 2 The second option is to replace all meters within the system that are 8 years old or older all at once. The older meters are expected to be less accurate than the new state of the art meters and at the time of installation, the older meters were recommended, by the manufacturers, to be tested and potentially replaced at 10 to 12 years. Replacing all meters that are older than 8 years will increase the capital r e quired for meter replacement as compared to current expenditures, however, the City c an expect to see an increase in revenue from the water meters by at least 10 percent or possibly more, based on information provided by Metron-Famier. The capital expense for replacing 40% of the meters, approximat ely 1,750 meters, is approximately $360,000. The current revenue generated from 40% of the 1" and sma ller residential meters is approximately $232,000. It is estimated that the revenue will increase from the new meters by a Wate r Mas ter Plan/Chapter 8 Project N o. 0012.30 8-4 May4, 2004 minimum of 10% or $23,200 and possibly up to 20% or $46,400. The rate ofretum for replacement of 40% of the meters is between 7 and 16 years, which could possibly be the life of the meter. Once this first batch of meters is replaced, it would be recommended that the City split the remaining 60%, or 2,630 meters into two groups of 1,315 meters. The second group of meters would be replaced 5 to 6 years following the first group. This group would contain the meters that are currently 5 to 8 years old. The third group would be replaced in 5 to 6 years following the second group. This would then incorporate the remaining meters that were not replaced in either of the first two groups. The first group of meters would then be replaced 5 to 6 years following the third group. This option allows for all meters to be grouped into one of three groups, which are replaced on a 15 to 18 year cycle. The City would have a large capital expense every 5 to _6 years instead of the incremental yearly capital expenditures. In addition, the installation of the large number of meters all at once would be completed by Metron-Farnier, not by the City and therefore, City staff is available to complete other maintenance tasks within the distribution system. Option 3 The third option is to replace all of the 4,380 residential meters within the system with new Metron- Farnier meters. The capital expense for replacing all 4,380 meters, is approximately $900,000, which includes the cost of the meter and installation of the meter by Metron-Farnier. The current revenue generated from all of the l" and smaller residential meters is approximately $5 80, 000 . The City would increase the revenue by a minimum of 10% or $58,000 and possibly up to 20% or $116,000. The rate of return for replacement of all the meters is between 7 and 16 years. This option allows the City to replace the meters within the system every 15 to 18 years, which results in a large capital expenditure instead of yearly smaller expenditures. The benefit of replacing all of the meters at one ti.me is that all of the meters will be identical, the meters will have the potential to utilize the radio read technology in the future with minimal expense, and a complete meter exchange program also ensures that all meters are lead free . If the City is not interested in radio read technology in the near future, it is suggested that the City test a sample of newer (newer than 8 years old) meters for accuracy, and regardless of the meter type, if accuracy is intact, the replacement of those meters could be deferred. In addition, the Metron-Farnier meters are virtually maintenance free, operations and maintenance staff time will be reduced, un-accounted for water may be reduced, and equity in billing amongst all customers will be increased. The installation of the large number of meters all at once would be completed by Metron-Farnier, not by the City and therefore, City staff is available to complete other maintenance tasks within the distribution system. Option 4 The last option is for the City to replace all of the meters with Metron-Farnier meters, as noted in Option 3, and equip the meters for radio read. This decreases the time needed to read each of the . meters from minutes down to seconds. One staff member is able to drive by and read all meters within a certain radius. The use of this technology would eliminate the need to contract out the Water Master Plan/Chapter 8 Project No. 0012.30 8-5 May4, 2004 meter reading service. In addition, the City has the opportunity to start billing the entire City on a monthly basis, rather than a bimonthly basis. A cost analysis of incorporating the radio read technology versus the expense of contracting out the service must be completed in order to determine if a transition to radio read technology would penefit the City. In order to use the radio read technology, the City would have to complete three upgrades. First, all meters must be changed out to Metron-Farniermeters. Second, all meters in the City would also need to be upgraded with a radio read transmit device. Last, the City would need to purchase the radio read software. The total capital costs of these upgrades would be approximately $1,600,000, which includes the cost of the meter and installation of the meter by Metron-Farnier. The radio read system would also require approximately three days of labor per month to read the entire City's water meters . The labor costs associated with reading the water meters using City staff would be approximately $14,400 per year. The savings to use City staff to read the water meters would be approximately $6,000 per year, relative to the cost of the current outside contract. The City would also see the same increase in revenue as in Option 3, a minimum of 10% or $58,000 and possibly up to 20% or $116,000. The rate of return for the radio read technology is approximately 13 to 25 years. In addition, City staff has confirmed that it would not be beneficial for the City to go to monthly billing for the entire City due to additional staffing requirements. Summary and Recommendations The bullet list below summarizes the above four options. • Option 1 • ·Total Cost -$73,000 -annually • Rate of Return -10 to 21 years • Replacement Cycle -17 years • Cost of meters over 1 life cycle (17 years) -$1,241 ,000 • Option 2 • Total Cost • Group 1 : $360,000 -2004/05 Fiscal year, and every 17 years thereafter • Group 2: $270,000 -5 to 6 years following group 1 • Group 3: $270,000 -5 to 6 years following group 2 • Rate of Return -7 to 16 years • Replacement Cycle -Every 15 to 18 years • Cost of meters over 1 life cycle (17 years) -$900,000 • Option 3 • Total Cost -$900,000 -Fiscal year 2004/05, and every 17 years thereafter • Rate of Return -15 to 18 years • Replacement Cycle -Every 17 years Water Master Plan/Chapter 8 Project No. 001 2.30 8-6 May4, 2004 • Cost of meters over 1 life cycle (17 years) -$900,000 • Option 4 • Total Cost -$1 ,600,000 -Fiscal year 2004/05 • Rate of Return -13 to 25 years • Replacement Cycle -Every 17 years • Cost of meters over 1 life cycle (17 years) -$1,600,000 The incremental annual contract labor savings compared to the capital investment required for the radio read technology is relatively small compared to the capital investment required for Option 4. Therefore, it is not recommended to transition to radio read technology at this time. The total cost to replace meters annually, in smaller quantities (Optionl), is more expensive to the City over a 17 year life cycle than any of the other three options. However, Option 1 does spread out capital expenditures evenly over the life cycle of the meters. It is recommended that the City determine the level of capital expenditures available at this time and the need for conformance of water meters to determine which option, 1, 2 , or 3 , is appropriate for the City of Pismo Beach. Water Master Plan/Chapte r 8 Project No. 001 2.30 8-7 May4, 2004 CHAPTER9 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS This chapter summarizes the City of Pismo Beach's recommended improvements to meet existing and future needs, and the capital improvement program to assist the City in the financial planning aspects of implementing the recommended improvements. The improvements are described as first, second, and third priorities. The costs for these improvements are summarized in Tables 9-1, 9-2 and 9-3 at the end of this chapter. BASIS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COSTS The capital improvement project (CIP) costs were developed based on engineering judgement, confirmed bid process for similar work in the Central Coast area, consultation with vendors and contractors, established budgetary unit prices for the work, and other reliable sources. Hard construction costs are escalated by a factor of 1.4, to allow for preliminary engineering, engineering, administration, construction management, and inspection costs. All CIP costs are expressed in September 2003 dollars, using an ENR Construction Cost Index of 6741, and will need to be escalated to the year (midpoint of construction) scheduled for the work. The unit cost for pipe upgrades include new water services, valves, and fire hydrants where required. The unit cost for new pipe includes only the proposed pipeline, valves, and appurtenant connections, including new fire hydrants where required. SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS This section summarizes all of the capital improvements identified throughout this report. These improvements are presented as first, second, and third order priorities. First and second priority projects are listed in order of necessity. The order of completion for third priority projects is not critical, in fact, third priority projects can be implemented in time, as warranted by needed replacement at the end of the useful life of the facility, as dictated by pavement replacement projects and other factors. The costs of these improvements were estimated as described in the above section, Basis of Capital Improvement Project Costs. The capital improvement projects priorities are based on consolidating the Bello and Shell Beach 1 zones. First Priority 1-1 Heights 3 Booster Station Upgrade • Install a fire pump at the Hydro-pneumatic Booster Station to be capable of sustaining a 1,500 gpm fire flow. • Analyze the Hydro-pneumatic Booster Station for use ofVFDs. Water Master Plan/Chapter 9 Project No. 0012.30 9-1 May4, 2004 • Upgrade the stand-by generator to be capable of powering the new booster station. 1-2 Longview: H2 Upgrade • Upgrade 3,100 feet of 6-and 8-inch water main on Longview Avenue, from the Heights 2 Reservoir to the PRV/PSV near Judkins Middle School, to 12- inch PVC. • Upgrade 300 feet of 6-inch water main on Longview Avenue, from Wadsworth to Hanford, to 8-inch PVC. 1-3 Heights 2 Booster Station Upgrade • Install a fire pump at the Heights 2 booster station to be capable of supplying 1,500 gpm fire flows to the Heights 3 zone .. • Install an on-site back-up generator at this location in case of system failure. 1-4 Longview: H3 Upgrade • Upgrade 2,300 feet of 6-inch water main on Longview Avenue, from the Heights 3 Reservoir to Visalia, to 12-inch PVC. 1-5 Longview: HP3 Upgrade • Upgrade 535 feet of 6-inch water main on Longview, from where the 6-inch main splits and loops at the highest point on Longview to the southern point of the Heights 3 hydro-pneumatic distribution main, to 12-inch PVC. • Construct 330 feet of 12-inch water main on Longview, from the end of the existing southern point of the Heights 3 hydro-pneumatic zone going south. 1-6 Demolish Shell Beach 1 Reservoir • Demolish Shell Beach 1 Reservoir to be replaced by the new Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. 1-7 New 2.53 mg Shell Beach 1 Reservoir • Install a new 2.53 mg Shell Beach 1 Reservoir to meet storage for Shell Beach 1 and Bello zones . 1-8 Bay Street and Dolliver Addition • Install 30 feet of 12-inch PVC at the intersection of Bay Street and Dolliver. 1-9 Mattie Road 12" Water Main Project • Install 2,500 feet of 12-inc h PVC on Mattie Road, from the end of Foothill, under the Mattie Road underpass and tie into Price Street. • Install a PRV station. Wa ter Master Plan/Chapter 9 Project No . 0012.30 May4, 2004 9-2 1-10 Pomeroy Avenue Upgrade • Upgrade 725 feet of 6-and 8-inch water main with 12-inchPVC on Pomeroy from Dolliver Street to the beach. • Abandon 2-inch CI water main in the alley between Main Street and Pomeroy Avenue and reconnect services to the new 12-inch water main. 1-11 Shell Beach Road Upgrade • Upgrade 3, 700 feet of 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Shell Beach Road, from Vista Del Mar to the PRV inter-tie just beyond Cliff A venue. Second Priority Capital Improvement Projects 2= 1 Decommission Bello Reservoir • Drain, crush and abandon in-place the concrete reservoir. 2-2 Decommission Charles Street Reservoir • Drain and remove Charles Street Reservoir. • Sell Charles Street Property. 2-3 Heights 2 Reservoir Upgrade • Increase storage in the Heights 2 zone by 150,000 gallons, by adding capacity to the existing reservoir. 2-4 Decommission Bay Street Booster Station • Decommission Bay Street Booster Station and retain spare parts. 2-5 Ocean View Avenue and Highway 101 Upgrade • Upgrade 725 feet of 6-inch water main that crosses Highway 101 at Ocean View Avenue to 12-inch PVC. 2-6 Price Canyon Road and Del Court Addition • Loop Solar Way and Del Court via a 12-inch PVC water main along Price Canyon Road (235 feet). • Upgrade 380 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Del Court starting from Price Canyon Road. 2-7 Wadsworth Avenue and Bello Street Upgrade • Upgrade 800 feet of 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Bello Street from Wadsworth A venue to Main Street. • Upgrade 43 5 feet of 6-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Wadsworth from Bello Street across Highway 101 to Price Street. Water Ma s ter Plan/Chap te r 9 Project No. 0012.30 9-3 May 4, 2004 2-8 Bello Street Upgrade: Phase I • Upgrade 855 feet of 4-and 6-inch water main to 12-inchPVC on Bello Street from Pomeroy to Stimson A venue. 2-9 Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase I • Abandon the 4-inch water main on Cypress Street, from Harloe A venue to Wadsworth Avenue. • Extend the 8-inch water main starting from midway between San Luis Avenue and Wadsworth Avenue to San Luis Avenue (140 feet). PROJECT COMPLETED rusT PRIOR TO THE FINAL REPORT. • Upgrade 260 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Cypress Street, from San Luis Avenue to Harloe Avenue 2-10 Five Cities Drive Upgrade • Upgrade 2,370 feet of 8-inch water main with 12-inch PVC along Five Cities Drive from 4th Street to A Street. 2-11 4th Street Addition • Abandon 12-inch main adjacent to Charles Street Reservoir. • Install 4,000 feet of 12-inch PVC on 4th Street, from Grand Avenue to Five Cities Drive. 2-12 Fire Hydrant Installations • Install 100 new fire hydrants throughout the distribution system to meet fire hydrant spacing criteria. 2-13 Well Piping Upgrades • Upgrade 5,800 feet of 8-inch cast iron to 8-inch PVC from Well #23 to Atlantic Avenue. • Upgrade 1,900 feet of 6-inch cast iron to 8-inch PVC from Well #5 to Atlantic A venue. Third Priority Capital Improvement Projects Third priority projects do not have any critical order of completion. 3-1 Cypress Street Upgrade: Phase TI • Abandon 930 feet of 2-inch water main on Cypress Street, from Pomeroy A venue to Ocean View A venue. • Upgrade 930 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC and re-connect all services to 8-inch. Water Master Plan/Chapter 9 Project No. 0012.30 9-4 May4, 2004 3-2 Park A venue Upgrade • Upgrade 375 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Park Avenue, from Dolliver Street to Cypress Street. 3-3 Hinds Avenue Upgrade • Upgrade 500 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Hinds Avenue, from Dolliver Street to Price Street. 3-4 Hollister Avenue Upgrade • Upgrade 400 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Hollister A venue, from Dolliver Street to Price Street. 3-5 Wadsworth Avenue Upgrade: Phase I • Upgrade 350 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Wadsworth Avenue, from Dolliver Street to Price Street. 3-6 San Luis Avenue Upgrade -PROJECT COMPLETED WST PRIOR TO FINAL REPORT • Upgrade 660 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on San Luis Avenue, from Price Street to Cypress Street. 3-7 Stimson A venue Upgrade • Upgrade 350 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Stimson Avenue, from Highway 101 to going North towards Bello Street. 3-8 Frady Lane Upgrade • Upgrade 985 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Frady Lane, from Highway 101 overpass to the Corporation Yard. 3-9 Bello Street Upgrade : Phase II • Upgrade 700 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Bello Street north of Ocean View Avenue. 3-10 Ocean Way Upgrade -Private • Upgrade 540 feet of2-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Ocean Way. 3-11 Wilmar A venue Upgrade • Upgrade 450 feet of2-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Wilmar Avenue. 3-12 Harbor View Street Upgrade • Upgrade 560 feet of3-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Harbor View Street. Water Master Plan/Chapter 9 Project No. 001 2 .30 9-5 May 4, 2004 3-13 Miramar Lane Upgrade • Upgrade 415 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Miramar Lane at the end of both cul-de-sacs. 3-14 Brisa Court Upgrade • Upgrade 200 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Brisa Court at the end of the cul-de-sac. 3-15 Shell Beach Road and Coburn Lane Upgrade • Upgrade 2,900 feet of 8-inch water main to 12-inch PVC on Shell Beach Road and Coburn Lane. 3-16 Taft Street Upgrade • Upgrade 1,000 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Taft Street. 3-17 Bakersfield Street Upgrade • Upgrade 650 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Bakersfield Street. 3-18 Fresno Street Upgrade • Upgrade 1, l 00 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Fresno Street. 3-19 Stratford Street Upgrade • Upgrade 1,350 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Stratford Street. 3-20 Wadsworth Avenue Upgrade: Phase II • Upgrade 590 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Wadsworth Avenue, north of Longview Avenue. 3-21 Baxter Lane Upgrade • Upgrade 415 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Baxter Lane. 3-22 Shaffer Lane Upgrade • Upgrade 590 feet of2-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Shaffer Lane, north of Wadsworth A venue. 3-23 Merced Street Upgrade • Upgrade 730 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Merced Street. 3-24 Delano Street Upgrade • Upgrade 470 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Delano Street. Water M aster Plan/Chapter 9 Project No . 001 2.30 9-6 May 4, 2004 3-25 Tulare Street Upgrade • Upgrade 500 feet of 4-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Tulare Street, north of Longview A venue. 3-26 Visalia Street Upgrade • Upgrade 520 feet of 6-inch water main to 8-inch PVC on Visalia Street, north ofLongview Avenue. Water Master Plan/Chapter 9 Projec t No. 001 2 . 30 9-7 May4, 2004 Length Project# Title Description Quantity (ft) Upgrade booster station to meet 1,500 gpm 1 -- Heights 3 Booster Station 1-1 Uoarade Upgrade stand-by generator 1 --- Upgrade Pipe 3 ,100 1-2 Longview: H2 Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 300 Upgrade booster station to meet 1,500 gpm 1 - Heights 2 Booster Station 1-3 Uoarade Upgrade stand-by generator 1 -- 1-4 Longview: H3 Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 2 ,300 Upgrade Pipe 535 1.-5 Longview: HP3 Upgrade New Pipe 330 Demolish Shell Beach 1 Demolish Shell Beach 1 1-6 Reservoir Reservoir 1 - New 2.53MG Shell Beach 1-7 1 Reservoir New Reservoir 1 --- Bay St. and Dolliver 1-8 Addition New Pipe 30 New Pipe 2 ,500 Mattie Road 12" Water 1-9 Main Proiect NewPRV 1 Upgrade Pipe 725 1-10 Pomeroy Ave. Ungrade Abandon Pi pe 1 - Shell Beach Rd. 1-11 Upgrade** Upgrade Pipe 3 ,700 Ula Table 9·1. First Priority Capital Improvement Projects City of Pismo Beach New Diameter Diameter (in) (in) Street Location ---Longview Ave. Heights 3 Booster Station ---Longview Ave. Heights 3 Booster Station Heights 2 Tank to PRV/PSV near 6&8 12 Longview Ave. Judkins Middle School 6 8 Longview Ave. From Wadsworth to Hanford -----Longview Ave. Heights 2 Booster Station ----Longview Ave. Heights 2 Booster Station 6 12 Longview Ave. Heights 3 Reservoir to V isalia St. Base of loop to southern point of 6 12 Longview Ave. Heights 3 zone --12 Longview Ave. Add to end of hydropneumatic zone ----Mattie Road Shell Beach 1 Reservoir Site ------Mattie Road Shell Beach 1 Reservoir Site At the intersection of Bay Street and --12 Bay Street Dolliver --12 Mattie Road From Foothill to Pri ce Street Mattie Road At Price Street 6&8 12 Pomeroy Ave. Dolliver St. to the beach Between Main Street and Pomeroy 2 --Alley Avenue Vista Del Mar Ave. to just beyond Cliff 6 12 Shell Beach Rd . Ave. * Total includes construction cost plus preliminary engineering, design engineering, administration, construction management and inspection costs "* Unit price of construction for this CIP is increased because of the knowledge of concrete underlying Shell Beach Road . Water Master Plan/Chapter 9 Project No. 001 2 .30 Total Project Construction Cost Subtotal Cost Function ($ ($) ($)* Provide fire flow to the Heights 3 Hydro-pneumatic Zone $250,000 LS $250,000 $350,000 Provide power to new booster station $25,000 LS $25,000 $35,000 Provide adequate fire f low to residential zone $150 LF $465 ,000 $65 1,000 Provide adequate fire flow to residential zone $90 LF $27,000 $37,800 Provide fire flow to the Heights 3 Zone $100,000 LS $1 00 ,000 $140,000 Provide power to new booster station $40,000 LS $40,000 $56 ,000 Provide adequate fire flow to residential zone $150 LF $345,000 $483,000 Provide adequate fire flow to residential zone $150 LF $80,2 50 $112,350 Increase pressure to residentia l zone $150 LF $49,500 $69,300 P rovide room for new reservoir $80,000 LS $80,000 $116,000 New storage for existing and future stroage deficiencies $1 ,750,000 LS $1 ,750 ,000 $2,537,50 0 Provide looping for new consolidated system $150 LF $4,500 $6,525 Provide looping for new consolidated system $150 LF $375,000 $543,750 Reduce pressure between Shell Beach 2 and Shell Beach 1 $40,000 LS $40,000 $58,000 Fire Flow to Commercial District/Pie r Area $150 LF $108,750 $152,250 Abandon 2-inch and reconnect services $7,500 LS $7,500 $10,500 Provide adequate fire flow to commercial z one $180 LF $666,000 $932,400 Total $6,291,375 May 4 , 2004 Project Length # Title Description Quantity (ft) Decommission Bello 2-1 Decommission Bello Reservoir Reservoir 1 --- Decommission Charles Street Decommission Charles 2-2 Reservoir Street Reservoir 1 -- 2-3 Heights 2 Reservoir Ugrade Increase Reservoir Capacity 150,000 --- Decommission Bay Street Decommission Bay Street 2-4 Booster Station Booster Station 1 --- Ocean V iew Ave. & Highway 2-5 101 Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 725 New Pipe 235 Price Canyon Road and Del Ct. 2-6 Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 380 Upgrade Pipe 800 Wadsworth Ave. and Bello St. 2-7 Uoorade Upgrade Pipe 435 2-8 Bello Street Upgrade: Phase I Upgrade Pipe 855 Abandon Pipe 1 --- Upgrade Pipe 260 2-9 Cypress St. Upgrade : Phase I Upgrade Pipe 140 2-10 Five Cities Dr. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 2,370 Abandon Pipe 1 -- 2-11 4th Street Addition New Pipe 4,000 2-12 Fire Hydrant Uoorade Meet Fire Hydrant Spacing 100 -- Upgrade Pipe 5,800 2-13 Well Piping Upgrades Upgrade Pipe 1,900 Table 9-2. Second Priority Capital Improvement Projects City of Pismo Beach Old New Diameter Diameter (In) (in) Street Location -----Bello Street Bello Reservoir Site ----Charles Street Charles Street Reservoir Site -----Longview Ave. Heights 2 Reservoir ----Bay Street Bay Street Booster Station Site Across Highway 1 (Jack & 6 12 Ocean View Dr. Bore) Extend 12" main from Solar -12 Price Canyon Rd . Way to Dell Ct. Price Cyn . To end of cul-de- 4 8 Dell Ct. sac. 6 12 Bello St. Wadsworth Ave. to Mai n Ave. Across Highway 101 6 12 Wadsworth Ave. (Conventional open-cut) From Pomeroy to Stimson 4&6 12 Bello St. Avenue 4 ---Cypress St. Harloe St. to Wadsworth Ave. From San Luis Ave. to --8 Cypress St. Wadsworth Ave. Midway between San Luis Ave. and Wadsworth Ave. to San -8 Cypress St. Luis Ave. 8 12 Five C ities Dr. 4th St. to A Street 12 --Varies From Well #9 to Five Cities From Grand Ave. to Five Cities --12 4th Street Dr. ----Entire System Entire System From Well #23 to Atlantic 8 8 Varies Avenue From Well #5 to Atlantic 6 8 Varies Avenue * Total includes construction cost plus preliminary enQineerinq, design enQineering, administration, construction manaqement and inspection costs Water Master Plan/Chapter 9 Project No. 0012. 30 IOtal Project Construction Cost Subtotal Cost Function ($) ($) ($)* Abandon Bello Reserovir in-situ due t o zone consolidation $45,000 LS $45,00 0 $65,250 Remove Charles Street Reservoir and sell property $70,000 L S $70,000 $101 ,500 Increase storage in Heights 2 zone $1.00 GAL $150,000 $210,000 Abandon Bay Street Booster S tation $30,000 LS $30 ,000 $43,500 Adequate service pressures to northwest portion of Bell o Zone $350 LF $253,750 $355,2 50 Adequate fire flow to residential area $150 LF $35,250 $49,350 Eliminate small-diameter main, and provide adequate fire flow $90 LF $34,200 $47,880 $150 LF $120,000 $168,000 Adequate service pressures to n orthwest portion of Bello Zone $150 LF $65,250 $91 ,350 Eliminate small-diameter main, and provide adequate fire flow $150 LF $128 ,250 $179 ,550 Eliminate small diameter main $5,000 LS $5,000 $7,000 Eliminate small diameter main, and provide adequate fire flow $90 LF $23,400 $32 ,760 Eliminate small diameter mai n, and provide adequate fire flow Project Completed Fire Flow to Commercial District $150 LF $355,5 0 0 $497,700 Eliminate pipe through sensitive terrain $15 ,000 LS $15,000 $21 ,000 Provide looping from wells $150 LF $600,000 $840,000 Meet required fire hydrant spacing $3,500 EA $350,000 $490,00 0 Elimina te old cast iron pipe $90 LF $522,000 $730,800 Eliminate old cast iron pipe .$90 LF $171,000 $239,400 Total $4,170,290 May 4, 2004 Project Length # Title Description Quantity (ft ) Abandon Pipe 1 930 Cypress Street Upgrade: 3-1 Phase II Upgrade Pipe 930 3-2 Park Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 375 3-3 Hinds Ave. Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 500 3-4 Hollister Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 400 Wadsworth Ave. 3-5 Upgrade: Phase I Upgrade Pioe 350 3-6 San Luis Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pioe 660 3-7 Stimson Ave. Uoorade Upgrade Pipe 350 3-8 Frady Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 985 Bello St. Upgrade: Phase 3-9 II Upgrade Pioe 700 Ocean Way Upgrade - 3-10 Private Upgrade Pipe 540 3-1 1 Wilmar Ave. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 450 3-12 Harbor View St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 560 3-13 Miramar Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 415 3-14 Brisa Ct. Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 200 Shell Beach Road and 3-15 Coburn Lane Uoarade Upgrade Pioe 2,900 3-16 Taft St. Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 1,000 3-17 Bakersfield St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 650 3-18 Fresno St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 1, 100 3-19 Stratford St. Uoarade Upgrade Pipe 1,350 Wadsworth Ave. 3-20 Upgrade: Phase II Uparade Pipe 590 3-21 Baxter Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 415 3-22 Shaffer Lane Upgrade Upgrade Pioe 590 3-23 Merced St. Uocrade Upgrade Pipe 730 3-24 Delano St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 470 3-25 Tulare St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 500 3-26 Visalia St. Upgrade Upgrade Pipe 520 Old Diameter (in' 2 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 2 2 3 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 4 2 6 6 4 6 Table 9-3. Third Priority Capital Improvement Projects City of Pismo Beach New Diameter (in) Street Location Function Pomeroy Ave. to Ocean View -Cypress St. Ave., abandon 2" mai n, move Eliminate small diameter main Pomeroy Ave. to Ocean View 8 Cypress St. Ave., abandon 2" main, move Eliminate small diameter main 8 Park Ave. Dolliver St. to Cypress St. Eliminate small diameter main 8 Hinds Ave. Dolliver St. to Price St. Eliminate small diameter main 8 Hollister Ave. Dolliver St. to Price St. Eliminate small diameter main 8 Wadsworth Dolliver St. to Price St. Eliminate small diameter main 8 San Luis St. Price St. to Cypress St. Eliminate small diameter main Highway 101 going North 8 Stimson Ave. towards Bello St. Eliminate small diameter main Highway 101 Overpass to Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Frady Ln. Corporation Yard end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Bello St. North of Ocean View Ave. end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Ocean Wav Ent ire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Wilmar Ave. Entire Street end main Eli minate small diameter dead- 8 Harbor View St. Entire Street end main The east and the west cul-de-Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Miramar Lane sac of Miramar Lane end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Brisa Ct. The east cul-de-sac end main Shell Beach Rd and Between Vista Del Mar and Eliminate small diameter main, 12 Coburn Lane Seacliff Lane and provide adequate fire flow Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Taft St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Bakersfield St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Fresno St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Stratford St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Wadsworth Ave. The northwest cul-de-sac end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Baxter Lane The end of the street end main 8 S haffer Lane From Wadsworth goina north Eliminate small diamete r main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Merced St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Delano St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Tulare St. Entire Street end main Eliminate small diameter dead- 8 Visalia St. Entire Street end main * Total incl udes construction cost plus preliminary engineering, design engineering, administration, construction manaaement and inspection costs Water Master Plan/Chapter 9 Project No. 0012.30 Total Project Construction Cost Subtotal Cost ($) ($) ($)* $7,500 LS $7,500 $10,500 $90 LF $83,700 $117,180 $90 LF $33,750 $47,250 $90 LF $45,000 $63,000 $90 LF $36,000 $50,400 $90 LF $31,500 $44,100 Project Completed $90 LF $31,500 $44, 100 $90 LF $88,650 $124,110 $90 LF $63,000 $88,200 $90 LF $48,600 $68,040 $90 LF $40,500 $56,700 $90 LF $50,400 $70,560 $90 LF $37,350 $52,290 $90 LF $18,000 $25 ,200 $150 LF $435,000 $609,000 $90 LF $90,000 $126,000 $90 LF $58,500 $81,900 $90 LF $99,000 $138,600 $90 LF $121,500 $170,100 $90 LF $53,100 $74,340 $90 LF $37,350 $52 ,290 $90 LF $53,100 $74,340 $90 LF $65,700 $91 ,980 $90 LF $42,300 $59,220 $90 LF $45,000 $63,000 $90 LF $46,800 $65,520 Total $2,467,920 May4, 2004 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Carollo Engineers and John L. Wallace & Associates. City of Pismo Beach Collection System Master Plan. February 2000. City of Pismo Beach. General Plan & Local Coastal Plan. November 24, 1992. John L. Wallace & Associates. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Water Recycling Progress Report. February 2001. John L. Wallace & Associates. City of Arroyo Grande Water Master Plan. July 1999. • :~ . ,,,==-.. = ::_£¥!,,. City of Pismo Beach Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: R. Dennis Delzeit, Public Services Director FROM: Randy Bloom, Community Development Director DATE: April 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Revised population projections for use in sewer treatment plant expansion analysis. Residential development The California Department of Finance 1990 population estimate for the City is 8,629. In the past five years alone, approximately 300-500 new homes have been developed in the City. It is reasonable to assume that the City population has grown with the addition of new development on vacant property, and an estimate of an additional 600- 700 new residents in the past eleven years is not unreasonable. Additionally, redevelopment continues in existing neighborhoods from second home beach cottages to full time permanent homes. Older neighborhoods in particular (Shell Beach, Pismo Heights, Sunset Palisades) over the past eleven years since the 1990 census have experienced a great deal of new growth in the form of expansion of small two bedroom vacation retreats into larger homes for permanent family residences. The latest population releases by the U.S. Census Bureau for the 2000 C"ensus indicates a present population of 8,551 for the City of Pismo Beach. This release only relates to current population and does not reflect persons per household or number of permanent households. Typically these early releases are adjusted as more information becomes available. Staff has a concern that the figure is to low and does not address the conversion growth we continue to have in our vacation homes to permanent residences. The California Department of Finance uses 2 .04 persons per household (based on the 1990 census) in establishing their estimates for the City of Pismo Beach. The City of Pismo Beach's General Plan uses 2 .5 persons per household to establish a build-out population. It is anticipated that the results of the 2000 census will yield a higher persons per house hold ratio due to the transition we have been experiencing from vacation homes to permanent year around residences. Staff has reviewed the development potential on all undeveloped and underdeveloped properties within the City limits and estimates that there is a potential for approximately 345 additional units that could be built. Staffs previous estimate (per memo dated February 22, 2001) assumed the lands within the City's current Sphere of Influence, which included the Los Robles Del Mar project and the Cottonwood area. Based on historic concept plans, staff had estimated approximately 683 housing units from both areas. All areas out side the City's Sphere of Influence were never included within the estimate (Pismo Ranch, Preserve). Based on the General Plan ratio of 2 .5 persons per household and multiplying by the projected 345 additional units , the population of the City at build out would be estimated at 9,414 persons within the City Limits. If you take the estimated 683 units out side the City limits, but within the City's current Sphere of Influence, and multiply it by the General Plan ratio it would provide for 1,708 additional persons. The estimated total population for the City of Pismo Beach at build out, including the areas within the City's current Sphere of Influence, is estimated at 11,122 persons. Hotel/Motel development Since 1990, opportunities for hotel development have changed . For instance, the Dinosaur Caves property was anticipated for hotel development of approximately 250 rooms. The Dinosaur Caves property is now a public park with open space zoning . Additionally, hotel development in the Pismo Oaks area was anticipated at approximately 350 rooms; however, much of the designated property was re-zoned for single-family residential use (Seaview Estates and Paseo Ladera subdivisions) On vacant hotel/motel zoned undeveloped and underdeveloped property, approximately 340 hotel units could be developed or approximately 100 condominium units (also permitted on hotel/motel zoned property) could be developed. Commercially zoned property can also be developed for hotel uses with a conditional use permit. If 15% of commercially zoned property were to develop as hotel units, approximately 625 new hotel units could be projected on commercially zoned property. Given current development trends and the availability of larger parcels of land for hotel development, it is estimated that approximately 725 to 965 new hotel/condominium vacation rentals could be developed at build out. Commercially zoned property, Approximately 68 acres of commercially zoned is available for development if all the property was utilized only for commercial/retail/office space. If 15% of the vacant commercial property was used for hotel/motel development as noted above , approximately 58 acres of commercially zoned property would be available for commercial development. "· A. Parties AGREE:MENT REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF THE ARROYO GRANDE GROUNDWATER BASIN This Agreement is entered into among the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach. Grover Beach and the Oceano Commllnity Services District (collectively referred to hereinafter as "Parties" or "Urban Parties"). B. Recitals WHEREAS, in January 1983, a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of representative~ -::;7 Arroyo Grande, 9rover City, Pismo Beach, Oc~ano Community Services 'District, Port San Luis Harbor District, the Fann Bureau, Avila Beach County Water District and the County of San Luis Obispo ("Committee") determined in reliance on the 1979 Report of the Department of Water Resources entitled Grotmd Water in the Arroyo Grande Area that the safe yield of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin (''Basin~') is 9,500 acre feet per year; WHEREAS, in or about February 1983, the Parties agreed to enter into a voluntary groundwater management plan to provide for effective management of groundwater resources in the Basin througn which each party was given sufficient water to meet its needs as then projected; such needs being met in part by the City of Arroyo Grande foreg<;ing 358 acre feet per year of its historical use and the City of Pismo Beach foregoing 20 acre feet per year of its historical use; · WHEREAS, this rnanager.ient plan provided a reasonable division of the safe yield of the Basin without court imposed groundwater basin adjudication; WHEREAS, on February 9, 1983, the teJ:mS of the management plan were incorporated into Resolution No. 83-1 of the South San Luis Obispo County Water Association Approving the Recommendations of the Committee relating to the Basin (the "Resolution"); '• WHEREAS, each of the Parties have adopted individual resolutions endorsing the provisions of the Resolu~ion; WHEREAS, the Parties have generally complied with the terms and conditions of the ResoluLion; and WHEREAS, genera! compliance with the Resolution has proven to be a fair and efficient means of managing and protecting groundwater resources in the Basin as confirmed by the .revised final draft report prepared by the Department of Water Resources entitled, Water Resources of Arroyo Grande and Nipomo Mesa, January :!000. Gentlemen_s Agreement.DOC GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT I NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: l. Division of Safe Yield. a. The Parties agree to a division of the safe yield of the Basin as follows: Applied Irrigation Subsurface flow to ocean Urban Use: City of ~oyo Grande City of Grover Beach City of Pismo Beach 5,300 acre feet 200 acre feet 1 ,202 acre feet. 1, 198 acre feet 700 acre feet Oceano Community Services District 900 acre feet b. Ally increase or decrease in the safe yield of the Basin attributable to changed operation of the Lopez Reservoir, or any other cause, shall first be divided between the Urban Parties and applied irrigation on a pro rata basis using the fonnula from the 1983 Gentlemen's Agreement. fifty-seven percent (57%) to applied irrigation and forty-three percent (43%) to the Urban Pnrties. Thereafter, the first 378 acre feet per year of any increase of safe yield allocated to the Urban Parties shall be divided between the City of Arroyo Grande and the City of Pismo Beach on a pro rata basis (95% to Arroyo Grande and 5% to Pismo Beach). c . The entitlements of each respective Urban Party may be in.creased based upon the conversion of irrigated agricultural lands to urban use . An Urban :Party to this Agreement may increase its entitlement for urban use by a factor of three (3) acre feet per acre per year minus the calculated urban usage per acre per year upon the conversion of irrigated agricultural1and to urban usage . "Irrigated agricultural land" shall be that land within the corporate limits of the party that was identified as irrigated agricultural land in the 1979 Department o f Water Resources Report entitled Ground Water in the Arroyo Grande Area. This agric ultural conversion fact or may be applied to all acreage converted to urban use from January 1, 1983, throughout the life of this Agreement. Such an agricultural conversion factor is in the best interests of the overall Basin in that it will not result in any decline in the groundwater service over time. The Parties agree that no water should be converted to urban use within the Basin without estahlishing that it was irrigated agricultural land as defined in the 1979 Department of Water Resources Report, Groundwater in the A.rrciyo Grande Area. d. The Parties agree and understand that the safe yield figures utilized in this Agreement are a product of the 1979 Department of Water Resources Report regarding the Arroyo Grande Basin as adjusted by the l 983 ad hoc Technical Advisory Committee and that the division of the resources is based upon the historical use of each party and a practical accommodation of each Party's needs as they existed at the time of the adoption of the 19·g3 Gentlemen_s Agreement.DOC GROlJNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 2 CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING June 14, 2002 743 Podfic St., Suito B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805/541-2003 Mr. Dennis Delzeit, Director of Public Services City of Pismo Beach 760 Mattie Road Pismo Beach, California 93449 \f'} RE : Bello Street Reservoir Roof Repair. t i Mr. Delzeit, ~ ¥i~ At you request I have ,been looking into several options for replacing the roof of the Bello Street \ \ ~eservoir. As you may recall, at our last meeting we discussed the cost of repairing the existing wood roof in light of the idea that this reservo ir may be removed from service in the near future. I noted that there were alternatives to the wood roof framing such as a metal roof and you asked me to look into them to the point where we could have a rough idea of their configuration, costs and life expectancy. I have identified four general options for repair of the roof. Obviously there can be variations of these but they cover the general categories of appropriate roof systems. Attached are preliminary sketches of the configuration of each system. 1. Wood framing (repair of existing). A Scope. • Shore roof framing from inside reservoir. • Strip and salvage the existing metal roofing & remove damaged beams, jo ists and posts. • Replace the damaged members with new yellow cedar glue-laminated members. • Install a mecha nical ventilation system. • Re-install the salvaged metal roofing and bird/insect screening. B. Estimated Initial Construction Cost $100,000. C. Maintenance required. • Major inspections every 5 years. • Periodic review of the framing with some replacement of members every 5 to 10 years. D. Life Expectancy. • The last substantial repair of the roof framing took place in the 1980s according to staff. • The older wood members will continue to deteriorate in the humid environment and will have to be replaced periodically. Possibly every five years or more often, several members will require attention. The new glue-laminated members can be expected to last 20 to 30 years depending on the humidity level in the reservoir. 2 . Steel framing with a welded sheet-steel roof. A Scope • Remove the existing roofing, framing, posts and wood-framed side walls. RECEtVED JUN 1 7 2002 CITY OF PlS!vlO BEACH PUBLIC SERVICES DEP T Mr. Dennis Delzeit June 14, 2002 Page2 • Erect center supported steel wide-flange steel beams on new foundation pads. • Install wide-flange steel rafters and welded sheet-steel roof. • Install mechanical ventilation system. • Install vents, roof hatch and possibly a cathotic protection system. B. Estimated Initial Construction Cost: $ 230,000. (Based on figures provided by CBI , Chicago Bridge & Iron} C. Maintenance required. • Major inspections every 5 years • Recoat ing of the steel can be anticipated every 10 to 20 years. D. Life Expectancy. • This system could last indefinitely with proper maintenance. The framing and roofing is very durable and have a recycle value as well. 3. Steel framing system with light-gauge ribbed steel panel roofing. A. Scope • Remove the existing roofing, framing and wood-framed side walls • Erect clear-span steel wide-flange steel bents on new foundation pads. • Install light-gauge steel purlins and 26-gauge ribbed steel roof panels • Install mechanical ventilation system • Install vents, roof hatch and possibly a catholic protection system. B. Est ima ted Initial Construction Cost:$ 150.000. (Based on figures provided by J.A Morello Construction Company for a building manufactured by Butler Manufacturing Company, V isalia, Ca.) C . Maintenance required. • Major inspections every 5 years • Recoating of the steel can be anticipated every 10 to 20 y~ars. D. Life Expectancy. • This system is somewhat less durable than the welded steel roof. The roof panels are warranted to be "water-tight" for 20 years and coatings are warranted for 20 years but some recoating should be anticipated after about 15 years . 4. Floating membrane cover. A. Scope • Remove the existing roofing, framing and wood-framed side walls • Install the membrane cover with the required peri meter connections • Install access and vent openings . B . Estimated Init ial Construction Cost: $ 60,000. (Bas ed on figures provided by C. W . Neal Corporation, Santee, Ca.) Mr. Dennis Delzeit June 14, 2002 Page 3 C. Maintenance required. • Major inspections every 5 years · • Cleaning and patching of the membrane may be required every 10 to 15 years. D. Life Expectancy. • This system may be slightly less durable than the framed roof systems but the manufacturer warrantees it for 20 years. Please keep in mind that th is information is intended only as a tool for planning the repairs to the reservoir roof and the long-term use of the reservoir. Cost and life expectancy numbers are only estimates and should be considered relative to each other. Sincerely, Af ~fi,o[1s Sio~~ · !Y \' '.!_~/{( ~ ~··~/~~. . ~x; s(",, ~~ fl 3:: ··Z, u0'\~' J r •t 0 ..-" ff" \1 f! ~g Ct: '.L. ~ \ ~ N~lr.9i I* U \.\. E Cc. Kerry Wagner, J .L. Wallace & Associates C:OFFICE.IPismoR1!$2.doc I'/. .ROBERT~· :. -VESSELY CIVI L r. STRVCTURA\. ENGINEERING August 1. 2002 ~ober~ S. Ve s sel~. RCE m Poofk Sr., SQ'.ite B Son ltMi Obbp0, CA 93401 DOS /541-2003 Mr. Dennis Delzeit1 Director of Public SeNices City of Pismo Beach ' 760 Mattie Road Pismo Beach, California 93449 RE: Bello Street Reservoir Roof Repa)r. I ' Mr . Delzeit, 805+541+2098 I have been asked by Kari Wagner at .John L. Wallace & Associates (JLWA) to suppiement my report to you dated June 14, 2002. At the request of City staff, she asked that I add a roof repair option for aluminum roofing and conduct a life-cYcle cost analysis for the various options. · 5. Steel Framing with aluminum r~ofing panels. A Scope. [ • Remove the existing roofing, f~aming and wood~framed side walls. • Erect center supported steel b~ams on new foundation pads . • Install light-gauge steel purlin$ and aluminum roof panels. • Install Cl mechanical ventilatio~ system . • Install vents, roof hatch anct possibly a cathotic p~otect ion system . I i B. Estimated Initial Construction Co~t: $160,000. C. MaintGnance requ ired_ , • Major inspections every 5 years . • Recoating the steel and alumipum every 10 years. D. Life Expectancy . • This system is somewhat lesS:durable than the welded steel roof. The aluminum panels are guaranteed but recoating shtjuld be anticipated after about 10 years due to ~he high humidity. Life-Cycle Costs. : ~ 1:(-.( ; A preliminary least-cost or life-cycle ~analysis was prepared for all five alternativ.es. A discount ra te of 7% and an inflation rate of 2% were used and salvage values were estimated from current I scrap commodity prices . In addition. ~ 20-year life for each system was used to be consistent with the analysis by JLWA. Annual mainlenarjce costs ware omitted from this analysis sin ce they are covered in the JL WA analysis and because tt1ey are likely to be relatively independent of the roof type and therefore would not change the final ~anking. The follow ing table summarizes the input and results of that analysis. : · P.02 Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Costs Recommended CIPs Total Costs w/ CIPs Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary Alternative A $1,128,400 $1,631,217 $2,759,617 $0 $2,759,617 Alternative B $1,268,400 $1,461,717 $2,730,117 $0 $2,730,117 Alternative C $1,551,200 $1,272,217 . $2,823,417 $614,600 $3 ,438,017 zone_consolidation_lifecycle(10_13_03).x ls, Summary Alternative D $2,463,025 $491,000 $2,954,025 $1,676,150 $4,630, 175 10/13/2003 Alternative A· Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs to Remain as is. New Reservoir Adiacent to Charles Street Quantity Unit Cost Unit Total Capital Cost Notes Bello Reservoir Site Repair Existinq Roof Structure 1 LS $150,000 LS $150,000 Alternative 3 from Vessley Report Subtotal $150,000 Charles Street Site Construction Repair Existins:i Tank 1 LS $190,0 00 LS $190,000 Harper & Assoc. Report -May 2003 New 0.64 MG Reservoir 0.64 MG $0 .65 GAL $416,000 Piping Configuration 1 LS $15 ,000 LS $15,000 Site Work 1 LS $25,000 LS $25,000 Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 LS _ $10,000 Subtotal $656,000 Subtotal $806 ,000 Contingency (20%) $161,200 Engineering & Planninq (15%) $120,900 Contract Administration (5%) $40,300 Total $1,128,400 Alternative B -Bello Reservoir to Remain as is. New Reservoir on Charles Street Site Quantity Unit Cost Unit Total Capital Cost Notes Bello Reservoir Site Repair Existing Roof Structure 1 LS $150,000 LS $150 ,000 Alternative 3 from Vessley Report Subtotal $150,000 Charles Street Site Construction Decommission Charles Street Reservoir 1 LS $70,000 LS $70,000 Lead Paint Two New 0.53 MG Reservoirs 1.06 MG $0.60 GAL $636 ,000 Piping Configuration 1 LS $15,000 LS $15,000 Site Work 1 LS $25,000 LS $25,000 Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 LS $10 ,000 Subtotal $756,000 Subtotal $906,000 Contingency (20%) $181,200 Engineering & Planning (15%) $135,900 Contract Administration (5%) $45 ,300 Total -$1,268,400 Construction Cost Estimates(10_ 13_03):xl s, Alt A&B 10/13/2003 Alternative C -Decommission Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs. Construct New Reservoir on Charles St reet Site Qµantity Un it Cost Unit Total Capital Cost Notes Bello Reservoir Site Decommission Bello Reservoir 1 LS $45,000 LS $45,000 Abandon in-situ Subtotal $45,000 Charles Street Site Construction Decommission Charles Street Reservoir 1 LS $70,000 LS $70,000 Lead Paint Two New 0.765 MG Reservoirs 1.53 MG $0.60 GAL $918,000 Piping Configuration 1 LS $25,000 LS $25,000 Site Work 1 LS $40,000 LS $40,000 Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 LS $10,000 Subtotal $1 ,063,000 Subtotal $1, 108,000 Contingency (20%) ' $221 ,600 Eng ineering & Planning (15%) $166 ,200 Contract Adm inistration (5 %) $55,400 Total $1,551,200 . Capital Improvement Projects Recommended to be Comoleted Before Decommisssioning Bello Reservoir1 Five Cities Drive Uoarade 460 FT $150 FT $69,000 725 FT $150 FT $108,750 Pomeroy Avenue Upgrade 1 LS $7,500 LS $7 ,500 Ocean View Avenue and Highway 101 Uporade 725 FT $350 FT $253,750 Subtotal $439,000 Conting·encv (20%) $87 ,800 Engineering & Planning (15 %) $65,850 Contract Administration (5 %) $2 1,950 Total $614,600 1 T he CIP cos ts are not included in the total capital cost of A lternative C Construction Cost Estimates(10 __ 13_03).xls , Alt C 10/13/2003 Alternative D -Consolidate Shell Beach 1 and Bello Zone Total Construction Unit Unit Cost Cost Notes Revenue Sell Charles Street Property 1 LS $400,000 LS $400 000 Loss of Revenue from Cellular Comoanies Total Revenue $400 000 Off Site Construction In Coniunctlon w/ Shell Beach Site Decommission Bello Reservoir 1 LS $45,000 LS $45,000 Abandon in-situ Decommission Chartes Street Reservoir 1 LS $70,000 LS $70,000 Lead Paint Demolish Shell Beach 1 Reservoir 1 LS $80,000 LS $80,000 No Lead Paint Decommission Bay Street Booster 1 LS $25,000 LS $25,000 YearlVEnerav Savinas Total Off Site Construction $220 000 Shell Beach 1 Site Construction New 2 .53 MG Reservoir 2.53 MG $0.50 GAL $1 ,265,000 Piping Configuration 1 LS $50,000 LS $50,000 Site and Earth Wor1< 1 LS $100,000 LS $100,000 Soil Nail Relainina Wall' 5200 SF $50 SF $260,000 LandscaoinQ 1 LS $20,000 LS $20 000 Fencing 1 LS $15,000 LS $15 000 Total Shell Beach 1 Site Construction $1 710 000 CaPltal Improvement Prolects to be Completed In Conlunctlon with Consolldatlon3 Bav Street and Dolliver Addition 30 FT $150 FT $4,500 Total CIP's to be Completed $4 500 Subtotal $1,934,500 Contlnaencv 120%) $386.900 Enaineerina & Planninci (15%) $290,175 Environmental & Mitiaalion 15%) $96,725 Contract Administration 15%) $96,725 Subtotal $2 805,025 Revenue $400 000 Total $2,405,025 Caoltal lmorovement Prolects Recommended to be Comoleted Prior to Consolidation' Shell Beach Road Uoarade 3,700 FT $180 FT $666,000 725 FT $150 FT $108,750 Pomerov Avenue Uparade 1 LS $7,500 LS $7 500 2500 FT $150 FT $375,000 Mattie Road Addition 1 LS $40 000 LS $40000 Subtotal $1197 250 Continaencv (20%) $239 450 Enaineerina & Plannin!'.l (15%) $179,588 Contract Administration 15%) -$59,863 Total $1 876 150 ' Land value provided by City Staff. 2 Site will require two -130 ft x 20 ft Soil Nail Retaining Walls per recommendation by Fugro West. Inc. JLWA assumed slight deformation in the adjacent roadway will be acceptable by the City to dectease cost of retaining wall. The adjacent road Is a private access road to the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir. 3 New CIP's that were genera1ed from consolidation of the two zones. 4 The CIP costs are not included In the total capital cost of Alternative D Construction Cost Estimates(9_15_03).xls. 7n/2004 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Alternative A-Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs to Remain as Is. New Reservoir Adjacent to Charles Street CAP IT AL COST $1,128,400 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Year 2003-2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Bello Zone 1 Maintain Bello Reservoir (0.47 MG) Concrete Patching/Roof Coating 47 ,000 47,000 $94,000 5-Year Inspection 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 $10,000 Weekly Staff Inspection/Main tenance 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 $156,000 2 Maintain Charles Street Reservoir (0.42 MG) Interior/Exterior Coating 63,000 63,000 $126,000 5-Year In spection 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 $10,000 Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7 ,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 $156,000 3 Maintain New Charles Street Reservoir (0.64 MG) Interior/Exterior Coating 96,000 $96,000 5-Year Inspection 2,500 2,500 2,500 $7,500 Weekly Staff In spection/Maintenance 2,60_0 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2 ,6 00 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 $52,000 4 Operate and Maintain Bay Street Booster Mechanical/Pump Replacement 75,000 $75,000 Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 15,600 15,600 15 ,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15 ,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 $312,000 Power Costs@$0.12/Kwh 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 $104,517 Shell Beach 1 Zone 5 Maintain Shell Beach 1 Reservoir (1.0 MG) Interior/Exterior Coating 150,000 150,000 $300,000 5-Year Inspection 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 $10,000 Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5 ,200 5,200 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 $122,200 O&MCOST $1 ,631,217 CAPITAL COST (PRESENT WORTH) $1,128,400 O&M COST (PRESENT WORTH) $1,631 ,217 TOTAL COSTS (PRESENT WORTH) $2,759,617 Notes: 1. Bello Reservoir maintenance includes concrete patching and roof coating every 10. years. Based on $0.10/gallon 2. Steel reservoir ma intenance includes interior/exterior coating every 1 O years. Based on $0.15/gallon 3. Bay Street Booster O&M includes pump replacement every 20 years (once during this life cycle analysis), lubrication/maintenance of equipment, pumping/electrical costs, etc. 4. Power costs based on two 20 HP pumps@700 gpm each, pumping 8 hours per day (one pump runn ing at one time only). 5. Weekly staff inspection based on $50/per manhour zone_ consolidation_lifecycle( 10 _ 13 _ 03).xls, Alt A 10/13/2003 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Alternative C -Decommission Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs. Construct New Reservoir on Charles Street Site CAPITAL COST $1 ,551,200 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Yea r 2003 2004 2005 2006 Bello Zone 1 Maintain New Charles Street Reservoirs (2 -0.765 MG) Interior/Exterior Coating 5-Year Inspection Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 5,200 5,200 5,200 5 ,200 2 Operate and Malnta in Bay Street Booster Mechanical/Pump Re pla cement Weekiy Staff Inspection/Maintenance 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 Power Costs@0.12/Kwh 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 Shell Beach 1 Zone 3 Maintain Shell Beach 1 Reservoir (1.0 MG) Interior/Exterior Coating 5 -Year Inspection 2,500 Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 CAPITAL COST (PRESENT WORTH) $1 ,551,200 O&M COST (PRESENT WORTH) $1,272,217 TOTAL COSTS (PRESENT WORTH) $2,823,417 ADDITIONAL CIP RECOMMENDATIONS $614,600 TOTAL COST FOR ALT C $3,438,017 Notes: 1. Steel reservoir maintenance includes interior/exterior coating every 1 O years. Based on $0.15/ga llon 2. Bay Street Booster O&M includes pump replac ement every 20 years (once during this life cycle a nalysis), lubrication/maintenance of equipment, pumping/electrical costs, etc. 3 . Power costs based on two 20 HP pumps@700 gpm each, pum ping 8 hours per day (one pump running at one time only). 4. Wee kly staff inspection based on $50/per manhour zone_ consolida tion _lifecycle(10 _ 13 _ 03).xls, Alt C 2007 5,200 15,600 5,226 5,200 2008 2009 2010 5,000 5,200 5,200 5,200 75,000 15,600 15,600 15,600 5,226 5,226 5,226 2,500 5,200 5,200 5,200 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total 229,500 $229,500 5,000 5,000 $1 5,000 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5 ,200 5,200 5,200 5.200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 $104,000 $7 5,000 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 1 5,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 $312,000 5 ,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5 ,226 5,226 $104,517 150,000 150,000 $300,000 2,500 2,500 $10,000 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800 $122,200 O&M COST $1,272,217 10/1312003 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Alternative C -Decommission Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs. Construct New Reservoir on Charles Street Site CAPITAL COST $1,551,200 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 Bello Zone 1 Maintain New Charles Street Reservoirs (2 -0 .765 MG) interior/Exterior Coating 5-Year Inspection Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 2 Operate and Maintain Bay Street Booster Mechanical/Pump Replacement Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 Power Costs@0.12/Kwh 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 Shell Beach 1 Zone 3 Maintain Shell Beach 1 Reservoir (1.0 MG) Interior/Exterior Coating 5-Year Inspection 2,500 Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 CAPITAL COST (PRESENT WORTH) $1,551,200 O&M COST (PRESENT WORTH) $1,272,217 TOTAL COSTS (PRESENT WORTH) $2,823,417 ADDITIONAL CIP RECOMMENDATIONS $614,600 TOTAL COST FOR ALT C $3,438,017 Notes: 1. Steel reservo ir maintenanC€ includes interior/exterior coating every 1 O years. Based on $0.15/galfon 2. Bay Street Booster O&M includes pump replacement every 20 years (once during this life cycle analysis). iubricationimaintenance of equipment, pumping/electrical costs, etc. 3 . Power costs based on !'NO 20 HP pumps@700 gpm each, pumping 8 hours per day (one pump running at one time only). 4. Weekly staff inspection based on $50/per manhour zone_consolidation_lifecycle(10_ 13_03).xls, Alt C 2007 5,200 15,600 5,226 5,200 2008 2009 2010 5,000 5,200 5,200 5,200 75,000 15,600 15,600 15,600 5,226 5,226 5,226 2,500 5,200 5,200 5,200 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total 229,500 $229,500 5,000 5,000 $15,000 5,200 5 ,200 5 ,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5 ,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 $104,000 $75,000 15,600 15,6CO 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 $312,000 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5,226 5 ,226 5,226 $104,517 150,000 150,000 $300,000 2,500 2,500 $10,000 5 ,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 7,800 7,800 7,800 7 ,800 7 ,800 7,800 7 ,800 $122,200 O&M COST $1,272,217 10/13/2003 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Alternative D -Consolidate Shell Beach 1 and Bello Zone CAPITAL COST $2,405,025 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Shell Beach 1 Zone 1 Maintain Shell Beach 1 Reservoir (2.53 MG) Interior/Exterior Coating 5-Year Inspection 2,500 Weekly Staff Inspection/Maintenance 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 CAPITAL COST (PRESENT WORTH) O&M COST (PRESENT WORTH) TOT AL COSTS (PRESENT WORTH) ADDITIONAL CIP RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL COSTS FOR ALT D $2,405,025 $491,000 $2,896,025 $1,676,150 $4,572,175 Notes: 1. Steel reservoir maintenance includes interior/exterior coating every 10 years. Based on $0.15/gallon 2. Weekly staff inspection based on $50/per manhour zone_consolidation_lifecyc le(9_ 15_03).xls, Alt D 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 379,500 2,500 2014 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 2015 2016 5,200 5,200 2017 2018 2019 2020 2,500 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 2021 2022 Total $379,500 $7,500 5,200 5,200 $104,000 O&M COST $491,000 7/7/2004