Loading...
Water Master Plan - 2020C IT OF PI SMO B E A CH C IT 2020 Water Master Plan Updatefor the City of Pismo Beach Y OF March 2020 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Prepared Under the Responsible Charge of: Joshua H. Reynolds California R.C.E. No. 65400 Expires 9/30/2021 Date: 03/23/2020 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ ii Acknowledgements The City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update was prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. The primary authors are listed below. Joshua Reynolds, P.E. Heather Freed, P.E. Spencer Waterman Water Systems Consulting, Inc. would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the City, including the following staff. Benjamin A. Fine, P.E. Eric Eldridge, P.E. Brandon Shea Russ Fleming This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ iii Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... ix Glossary of Terms......................................................................................................................................... xi 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 Water Demand, Supply, and Production ................................................................................... 1-2 Current and Projected Demands ................................................................................... 1-2 Water Supply and Production ........................................................................................ 1-2 Water System Capacity and Condition Assessment Results ...................................................... 1-4 Booster Pump Stations ................................................................................................... 1-4 Storage ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 Distribution and Transmission Pipelines ........................................................................ 1-6 Wells ............................................................................................................................... 1-7 System Operational Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1-8 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 1-8 Zone Consolidation ........................................................................................................ 1-9 Central Coast Blue .......................................................................................................... 1-9 Recommended Improvements .................................................................................................. 1-9 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Overview and Purpose ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Relationship to Other Documents ............................................................................................. 2-2 Background Information ............................................................................................................ 2-2 Location .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 Climate ........................................................................................................................... 2-2 Population ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 Distribution System ........................................................................................................ 2-3 y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ iv Water Sources ................................................................................................................ 2-3 3. Existing System................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Water Supply .............................................................................................................................. 3-8 Lopez Lake ...................................................................................................................... 3-8 State Water Project ...................................................................................................... 3-10 Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 3-13 Future Supplies ............................................................................................................ 3-15 Supply Reliability .......................................................................................................... 3-17 Booster Pump Stations............................................................................................................. 3-18 Storage ..................................................................................................................................... 3-20 Distribution and Transmission Pipelines .................................................................................. 3-23 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 3-24 4. System Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................ 4-1 5. Existing & Projected Water Demand ................................................................................................. 5-1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Historical Water Demand ........................................................................................................... 5-1 Future Demand Projections ....................................................................................................... 5-2 Additional Water Uses and Losses ................................................................................. 5-5 Total Demand Projections .............................................................................................. 5-5 Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................................................................... 5-6 6. Hydraulic Model Development .......................................................................................................... 6-1 Hydraulic Parameters and Design Criteria ................................................................................. 6-1 Loading System Demands .............................................................................................. 6-1 Model Calibration .......................................................................................................... 6-2 Extended Period Simulation Calibration ........................................................................ 6-3 7. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis .................................................................... 7-1 Production Analysis .................................................................................................................... 7-1 Booster Pump Stations............................................................................................................... 7-4 Storage Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 7-7 y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ v Operational Storage ....................................................................................................... 7-7 Fire Storage .................................................................................................................. 7-10 Emergency Storage ...................................................................................................... 7-11 Total Storage Requirements ........................................................................................ 7-14 Distribution and Transmission Pipelines .................................................................................. 7-18 Pressure........................................................................................................................ 7-18 Fire Flow ....................................................................................................................... 7-22 Velocity......................................................................................................................... 7-33 8. Facility Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................... 8-1 Asset Estimated Useful Life ........................................................................................................ 8-1 Booster Station Assessment ...................................................................................................... 8-3 Well Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 8-4 Storage Reservoir Rehabilitation ............................................................................................... 8-5 Pipeline Condition Assessment .................................................................................................. 8-6 Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs .......................................................... 8-12 Priority Pipeline Condition Assessment Projects ......................................................... 8-13 Hydrant Spacing Assessment ................................................................................................... 8-15 Valve Spacing Assessment ....................................................................................................... 8-18 9. System Operational Analysis .............................................................................................................. 9-1 Water Quality Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9-1 Zone Consolidation Analysis ...................................................................................................... 9-9 Pressure Analysis............................................................................................................ 9-9 Fire Flow Analysis ......................................................................................................... 9-10 Central Coast Blue Operational Analysis .................................................................................. 9-10 Scenario 1 – Reduce Supply from the Main Zone Turnouts Only ................................ 9-12 Scenario 2 – Reduce Supply from All Turnouts ............................................................ 9-13 Scenario 3 – No Turnouts are Operational .................................................................. 9-14 10. Recommended Improvements .................................................................................................... 10-1 Project Prioritization ................................................................................................................ 10-1 Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions ....................................................................................... 10-2 Capital Improvement Plan ....................................................................................................... 10-3 y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ vi 11. References ................................................................................................................................... 11-1 Appendix A. Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation TM ....................................................................... A Appendix B. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration TM ................................................................. B Appendix C. Condition and Operation Assessment TM ................................................................................ C Appendix D. Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................................... D Plate 1. Recommended Improvements ........................................................................................................ E y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ vii List of Tables Table 1-1. Summary of Modeled Demands ............................................................................................... 1-2 Table 1-2. Historic Water Supply Allocations – Current Sources .............................................................. 1-3 Table 1-3. Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment Summary ................................................................. 1-5 Table 1-4. Well Condition Assessment Summary ...................................................................................... 1-8 Table 1-5. Summary of Capital Improvement Projects ............................................................................ 1-10 Table 3-1. Distribution Zone Summary ...................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2. Existing Turnouts ....................................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-3. Initial Prescribed Municipal Diversion Reduction Strategy ..................................................... 3-10 Table 3-4. Initial Prescribed Downstream Release Reduction Strategy................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5. Historic State Water Allocation ............................................................................................... 3-13 Table 3-6. Existing Groundwater Wells for the City of Pismo Beach ....................................................... 3-14 Table 3-7. Lopez Reservoir Spillway Raise Capacities and Yields ............................................................. 3-15 Table 3-8. Historic Water Supply Allocations – Current Sources ............................................................ 3-17 Table 3-9. Existing Average Daily Demand by Zone ................................................................................. 3-18 Table 3-10. Potable Water System Booster Pump Station Information and Pump Specifications ......... 3-19 Table 3-11. Physical Characteristics of Reservoirs ................................................................................... 3-20 Table 3-12. Existing Pipeline Material ...................................................................................................... 3-23 Table 3-13. Existing Pipeline Inventory .................................................................................................... 3-23 Table 3-14. 2015 Groundwater Quality Results ....................................................................................... 3-24 Table 3-15. 2015 Surface Water Quality Results ..................................................................................... 3-25 Table 4-1. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: ...................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Supply Reliability.......................................... 4-2 Table 4-3. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Booster Pumps ............................................. 4-3 Table 4-4. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Storage ......................................................... 4-3 Table 4-5. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Distribution .................................................. 4-4 Table 5-1. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Annual Growth Rate Projections ............................ 5-2 Table 5-2. Population Historical, Current, and Projected .......................................................................... 5-3 y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ viii Table 5-3. 2010, 2015, and 2020 Water Consumption .............................................................................. 5-3 Table 5-4. 2025, 2030, and 2035 Water Consumption .............................................................................. 5-4 Table 5-5. 2040, 2045, and Buildout Water Consumption ........................................................................ 5-4 Table 5-6. Non-Revenue Water ................................................................................................................. 5-5 Table 5-7. Total Demand Projections ......................................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-8. Supply and Demand Comparison .............................................................................................. 5-6 Table 6-1 Summary of Modeled Demands ................................................................................................ 6-2 Table 7-1. Reliable Production Capacity .................................................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2. Production Reliability Analysis at Current Demands ................................................................ 7-3 Table 7-3. Production Reliability Analysis at Buildout Demands ............................................................... 7-3 Table 7-4. Adequacy of Booster Pump Stations under Current Demands ................................................ 7-6 Table 7-5. Adequacy of Booster Pump Stations under Buildout Demands ............................................... 7-6 Table 7-6. Required Operational Storage per Zone at Current Demands ................................................. 7-8 Table 7-7. Required Operational Storage per Zone at Buildout Demands ................................................ 7-9 Table 7-8. Fire Flow Requirements by Type of Development.................................................................. 7-10 Table 7-9. Fire Flow Requirements by Zone ............................................................................................ 7-10 Table 7-10. Required Emergency Storage per Zone for Current Demands ............................................. 7-12 Table 7-11. Required Emergency Storage per Zone for Buildout Demands ............................................ 7-13 Table 7-12. Adequacy of Storage Facilities at Current Demands............................................................. 7-16 Table 7-13. Adequacy of Storage Facilities at Buildout Demands ........................................................... 7-17 Table 7-14. Recommended Projects to Improve Existing and Future Fire Flow Deficiency .................... 7-26 Table 8-1. Estimated Life for Potable Water Systems ............................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2. Pump Station Condition Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 8-3 Table 8-3. Well Condition Assessment Summary ...................................................................................... 8-4 Table 8-4. Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment Summary ................................................................. 8-5 Table 8-5. Assumed Install Decade Based on Pipe Material ...................................................................... 8-8 Table 8-6. Estimated Pipeline Replacement Costs ................................................................................... 8-12 Table 8-7. Recommended Pipeline Condition-Based Replacement Projects .......................................... 8-13 Table 8-8. Hydrant Spacing Requirements .............................................................................................. 8-15 Table 9-1. Average Water Age by Zone ..................................................................................................... 9-2 Table 9-2. Modeled Changes to Balance the System with Additional Groundwater Sources ................. 9-12 Table 10-1. Capital Improvement Projects .............................................................................................. 10-4 y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ ix List of Figures Figure 1-1. Cumulative Pipeline End of Assumed Useful Service Life and Replacement Strategy ............ 1-7 Figure 2-1. Vicinty Map .............................................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 3-1. Shell Beach System Pressure Zone Map .................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-2. Main System Pressure Zone Map ............................................................................................ 3-4 Figure 3-3. Existing Hydraulic Profile ......................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-4. Historic Lake Lopez Storage Volume versus LRRP Municipal Diversion Reductions ............... 3-9 Figure 3-5. Booster Pump Station Location Map ..................................................................................... 3-21 Figure 3-6. Storage Reservoir Location Map ............................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 5-1. Historic Gross Water Use and Per Capita Water Use .............................................................. 5-2 Figure 6-1. Linear Regression Relationship between Observed and Modeled Pressures from Hydrant Tests ........................................................................................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 7-1. Pressure at Buildout Maximum Day Demand in the Shell Beach System ............................. 7-20 Figure 7-2. Pressure at Buildout Maximum Day Demand in the Main System ....................................... 7-21 Figure 7-3. Available Fire Flow in the Shell Beach System ....................................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-4. Available Fire Flow in the Main System ................................................................................. 7-24 Figure 7-5. Recommended Fire Flow Projects in the Shell Beach System ............................................... 7-29 Figure 7-6. Recommended Fire Flow Projects in the Main System ......................................................... 7-30 Figure 7-7. Improved Fire Flow with the Recommended Fire Flow Improvement Projects in the Shell Beach System ........................................................................................................................................... 7-31 Figure 7-8. Improved Fire Flow with the Recommended Fire Flow Improvement Projects in the Main System ...................................................................................................................................................... 7-32 Figure 7-9. Pipe Velocity during Buildout Average Day Demand in the Shell Beach System .................. 7-34 Figure 7-10. Pipe Velocity during Buildout Average Day Demand in the Main System .......................... 7-35 Figure 8-1. Estimated Historic Population and Annual Growth Rate ........................................................ 8-7 Figure 8-2. Length of Pipe Material ........................................................................................................... 8-7 Figure 8-3. Classic Failure Curve for a Water Distribution Pipeline ........................................................... 8-9 Figure 8-4. Estimated Miles of Pipeline at End of Life ............................................................................. 8-10 Figure 8-5. Cumulative Pipeline End of Assumed Useful Service Life and Replacement Strategies ....... 8-11 y of Pismo Beach City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ x Figure 8-6. Priority Pipeline Condition-Based Replacement Projects ...................................................... 8-14 Figure 8-7. Recommended Hydrant Locations in the Shell Beach System .............................................. 8-16 Figure 8-8. Recommended Hydrant Locations in the Main System ........................................................ 8-17 Figure 8-9. Recommended New Valve Locations in the Shell Beach System .......................................... 8-19 Figure 8-10. Recommended New Valve Locations in the Main System .................................................. 8-20 Figure 9-1. Distribution System Water Age at Average Day Demand in the Shell Beach Zones ............... 9-3 Figure 9-2. Distribution System Water Age at Average Day Demand in the Main Zones ......................... 9-4 Figure 9-3. Distribution System Water Age when Bleeding Water from the Pacific Estates Zone to the Pismo Oaks Zone ........................................................................................................................................ 9-7 Figure 9-4. Distribution System Water Age when Bleeding Water from the Shell Beach 2 Zone to the Shell Beach 1 Zone ..................................................................................................................................... 9-8 City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ xi Glossary of Terms µS/cm microsiemens per centimeter AC asbestos cement AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year BPS booster pump station CFU/mL colony forming units per milliliter DI ductile iron GIS geographic information system LRRP Low Reservoir Response Plan MG million gallons MPN/100 mL most probable number per 100 milliliters NTU nephelometric turbidity units pCi/L picocuries per liter ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PRV pressure reducing valve psi pounds per square inch PVC polyvinyl chloride SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition TON threshold odor units EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-1 SECTION 1 1. Executive Summary This Water Master Plan Update is an update to the City’s 2004 Water Master Plan and presents a series of prioritized capital improvement projects to allow the City to continue to provide high quality drinking water through the City’s water system. This section is a summary of the report with a discussion of the report objectives, analysis methods, findings, and recommendations. Introduction The City of Pismo Beach (City) provides drinking water to more than 8,000 people through a water system comprised of a network of 56 miles of pipes, nine storage tanks, six pumping stations and two groundwater wells. Drinking water is used by the City residents, businesses and visitors for a variety of purposes including health, sanitation, irrigation, and fire suppression. The Water Master Plan Update evaluates the water system to identify improvement projects necessary to meet current and future water system requirements. The evaluation and recommended improvements consider both the capacity and the condition of the water system. Capacity is the amount of water that can be moved within the system, and condition is the physical state of the assets in relation to their expected useful life. The result of the analysis is a prioritized list of water system improvements that will allow the City to continue to meet the needs of current and future water customers by planning long term capital expenditures, establishing prioritized system needs, identifying system risks, and using a hydraulic model for ongoing system optimization. A prioritized list of projects grouped into three priority categories is included at the end of the Executive Summary and in more detail in Section 10 of the report. IN THIS SECTION Water Demand, Supply, and Production Capacity and Condition Assessment Operational Analysis Recommended Improvements Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-2 Water Demand, Supply, and Production For the purposes of this Water Master Plan Update, the following defined terms are used:  Supply: water available for the City to use. Supply can be constrained by legal rights and lack of availability. The City has three sources of supply: Lopez Lake, the State Water Project, and groundwater.  Consumption: amount of billed metered water consumed by customers.  Production: amount of water produced from City supply sources and put into the City’s distribution system based on metered flows at each well and wholesale volume contracted from the Lopez Project and State Water Project.  Non-revenue water: amount of water losses making up the difference between production and consumption. This is defined as the water losses plus authorized unbilled water consumption.  Demand: amount of water distributed through the water system calculated based on consumption, production, and non-revenue water. Current and Projected Demands The City’s current water demands are 1,736 acre-feet per year (AFY) (which is equal to an average day demand of 1.55 million gallons per day). Current demands were determined using 2011 through 2015 water consumption and production records. Future water demands are expected to increase over time, reaching 2,229 AFY (1.99 million gallons per day) by buildout in 2045. Demands are typically evaluated using three primary scenarios: average day demand, maximum day demand, and peak hour demand. Table 1-1 presents a summary of the modeled demand scenarios for current and buildout conditions. Table 1-1. Summary of Modeled Demands System Demand Current1 (million gallons per day) Current1 (gallons per minute) Buildout (million gallons per day) Buildout (gallons per minute) Peaking Factor Average day demand 1.55 1,076 1.99 1,381 N/A Maximum day demand 2.64 1,829 3.38 2,348 1.7 x average day demand Peak hour demand 3.95 2,744 5.07 3,522 2.55 x average day demand 1. The “Current” demand scenario is based on water consumption and production records from 2011 through 2015, see Appendix A and B for additional information on demand scenario creation. Water Supply and Production The City receives water from three sources: Lopez Lake, the State Water Project, and groundwater. The City has an allotment of up to 892 AFY from Lopez Lake, but this can be reduced if lake storage is low and the Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP) is enacted (see Section 3.2.1 for additional information). Water from Lopez Lake is delivered to the region through the Lopez Line, and is supplied to the City through four interconnections to the distribution system, known as turnouts. The City has an allocation of 1,240 AFY of Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-3 State Water Project water, of which 140 AFY is allocated to other users, giving the City a useable allocation of 1,100 AFY with 1,240 AFY for Drought Buffer. More information on the City's water supply can be found in Section 3.2. In addition, the City has an allotment to pump 700 AFY of groundwater from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. This allotment is drawn from two groundwater wells located in Grover Beach. This is a total supply of 2,832 AFY, although the firm capacity of this supply may be less from time to time depending on drought conditions, sea water intrusion, State Water availability and other factors outside the City’s control. Table 1-2 presents a summary of the current supply sources and expected reliability. The terms “Single Dry Year” and “Multiple Dry Years” are terms used by the Department of Water Resources' Delivery Reliability Report, which is used to project annual State Water Project allocation reliability and availability. As used in the Delivery Reliability Report, the Single Dry Year is the year that represents the lowest water supply available if the historic dry year hydrology were repeated. In the 2013 Delivery Reliability Report the Department of Water Resources established the Single Dry Year as an 11% allocation based on the 1977 hydrology. The Multiple Dry Years period represents the lowest average water supply availability to the agency for a consecutive multiple year period. In this case the Department of Water Resources is using the 2-year drought of 1976-1977 to establish a 24% allocation to represent a multiple year drought. State Water Project supply could be supplemented with water stored in San Luis Reservoir or the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s excess allocation; see Section 3.2.2 for a discussion of State Water Project contracts, supply, and reliability. Table 1-2. Historic Water Supply Allocations – Current Sources 1 Supply Source2 Water Availability (AFY) Average/ Normal Year2 Single Dry Year4 Multiple Dry Years Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Groundwater 700 700 700 7006 7006 State Water Project3 1,240 257 562 562 562 Lopez Reservoir 892 892 892 892 8035 Total 2,832 1,849 2,154 2,154 2,064 Percent of normal 65% 76% 76% 73% 1. Based on Table 6-6 in the City of Pismo Beach 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 2. Does not include recycled water because recycled water is not currently used or produced by the City. 3. The percent reductions in State Water Project supplies for Single Dry Year and Multiple Dry Years are based on estimates of future SWP annual allocations for a Single Dry Year (11%) and a 2-Year Drought (24%), respectively, from the 2013 Delivery Reliability Report. 4. The Single Dry Year allocation is intended to represent the lowest anticipated State Water Project annual allocation by the Department of Water Resources. The City’s drought buffer (1,240 AFY) supply is included in the calculations of available State Water Project water. See Section 3.2.2 for more details. 5. Assumes enactment of Stage 2 LRRP reduction of 10 percent. See Section 3.2.1 for more details. 6. With the full implementation of Central Coast Blue, groundwater is assumed to remain as a dependable supply even during multiple dry years. See Section 3.2.3 for more information. Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-4 The City’s existing production capacity from the turnouts and groundwater wells is adequate to reliably meet current demands and will be able to reliably meet buildout maximum day demands with planned upgrades. Those planned upgrades recommend constructing at least one additional groundwater well (for a total of three groundwater wells) to increase production capacity, add supply redundancy, and improve reliability to meet future demands. The City is leading Central Coast Blue, a regional indirect potable reuse project that will improve the City’s water supply reliability. After the completion of Central Coast Blue, the City expects to obtain a greater portion of its water supply from groundwater, which will be more reliable due to the additional recharge and protection provided by the seawater intrusion barrier. Construction of one new groundwater well is included in the capital improvement plan of this Water Master Plan Update (for a total of three groundwater wells), but additional production expansion, if required for Central Coast Blue, will need to be provided as part of Central Coast Blue. Water System Capacity and Condition Assessment Results The City’s water system infrastructure was evaluated to identify both capacity and condition-related deficiencies. Booster Pump Stations There are nine distribution zones and eleven pressure zones within the City’s water system. A distribution zone is a geographical area within the distribution system that is served by shared facilities such as booster pump stations and storage reservoirs. A pressure zone is defined as a geographical area within a distribution zone that is served water at the same hydraulic grade line. Seven of the nine distribution zones contain a single pressure zone and two distribution zones, the Heights 2 Zone and the Shell Beach 2 Zone, each contain an upper and lower pressure zone. The City maintains and operates six booster pump stations that pump water between distribution zones. All the booster pump stations are adequately sized to meet the distribution system’s current demands, and all except the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station are adequately sized for buildout demand. The Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station requires only minor upgrades to the pumps and motors to meet projected buildout demand; the required upgrades can be performed concurrent with future regularly scheduled maintenance. In general, the City’s pump stations are in good condition and well maintained. Many pumps and motors are scheduled for replacement over the next few years. Only minor condition-based projects for each of the booster pump stations are included in the capital improvement plan. These projects are comprised of recoating pipes, improving site conditions, and replacing aging infrastructure. Storage The City has nine storage reservoirs that provide a total of 5.33 million gallons (MG) of operational, emergency, and fire flow storage. At buildout, the Main Zone will have a storage deficit of about 364,000 gallons. The other zones have sufficient storage to meet existing and buildout needs. Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-5 The City should increase storage capacity in the Main Zone by replacing the existing 0.42 MG Charles Street Reservoir with a 1 MG reservoir at the same location as called for in the City’s 10-year CIP. Upgrading the Charles Street Reservoir will provide the required additional storage and replace a piece of aging infrastructure in a timely manner. Additionally, providing a large volume of storage near the City’s groundwater wells will allow the system to accommodate increased groundwater production after Central Coast Blue is completed. The condition of the storage reservoirs was evaluated based on the most recent dive inspection reports, visual inspection, and knowledge from City operation staff. Some reservoir components are nearing the end of their expected useful life, as shown in Table 1-3. Table 1-3. Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment Summary Storage Reservoir Component Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Bello Heights (older tank) Pacific Estates 1 Pacific Estates 2 Pismo Oaks Charles Street Site grading and pavement B B N/A A C C F C Security B B B B B B F C Site drainage B B N/A A C C D B Exterior coating/ walls D C B B D D D C Interior coating/ walls D B B C C C D D Roof structure F C B B C C C F Cathodic protection F D N/A N/A C B C D Fall protection F C B N/A F D D D Inlet/outlet pipe C B B B C C D B Overflow pipe D B N/A N/A B B C B Foundation B C B A C D F F The grading system is as follows: A: 100–85 percent useful life left of component (or system) 85–50 percent useful life left of component (or system) 50–15 percent useful life left of component (or system) 15–0 percent useful life left of component (or system) 0 percent useful life left of component (or system) B: C: D: F: N/A: Not Applicable Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-6 Distribution and Transmission Pipelines The City’s potable water system consists of approximately 56 miles of water distribution pipelines. Most areas in the system meet or exceed minimum pressure requirements during normal system operations. However, two areas may experience pressures below 40 pounds per square inch (psi), which is the City’s targeted minimum system pressure. Potential solutions include installing a small booster or jet pump and pressure tank for the low-pressure services or moving the services into a zone with a higher hydraulic grade line. A detailed discussion is provided in Section 7.4.1. Providing protection during a fire is a critical function of the water distribution system. Overall, the City’s distribution system can meet fire flow requirements in most residential areas but has difficulty meeting fire flow requirements in the downtown area and commercial zones along Five Cities Drive. Recommended fire flow improvements include replacing undersized mains and constructing new pipelines to form loops. These projects represent about three miles of pipeline upgrades. Pipeline condition was also evaluated using pipe age, material, historic leak reports, and operations staff knowledge. Although the City has not experienced excessive main breaks or failure in the recent years 1, much of the City’s infrastructure is approaching the end of its useful life and main leaks and breaks are expected to increase as the system ages. By 2060, about 14 miles of pipeline (25 percent of the system’s mains) will have reached the end of their expected useful life. To reduce the chances of costly future pipeline failures, the distribution system pipelines should be replaced at a rate of about one percent per year for the next 30 years. Annual budgets for pipeline replacement are included in the capital improvement plan. In addition to annual pipeline replacements, about 1.1 miles of pipelines have been identified for replacement based on their condition and are included in the capital improvement plan. Figure 1-1, on the next page, shows the cumulative pipeline end of life curve and recommended replacement strategy. 1 The City has experienced about 3.5 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year, with up to 15 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year being the maximum acceptable; see Section 8.5 for additional information. Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-7 Figure 1-1. Cumulative Pipeline End of Assumed Useful Service Life and Replacement Strategy The City’s hydrants and valve spacing were also evaluated. A total of 110 new hydrants are recommended for installation throughout the City to meet the maximum 300 feet spacing. A total of 41 new valves are recommended in locations where valve spacing is greater than 500 feet. Annual hydrant and valve installation budgets are included in the capital improvement plan. Wells As stated in Section 1.2.2, the production capacity of the existing wells coupled with the turnouts are adequate to meet current demands. Existing production capacity plus planned upgrades are sufficient for buildout need. The planned upgrades include construction of one new groundwater well (for a total of three groundwater wells) to increase future production capacity and reliability. An inventory and assessment of the City’s two groundwater wells determined that some components are nearing the end of their expected useful life, as shown in Table 1-4 on the next page. Replacement or reconditioning of Well 23 is recommended due to its condition and significant sand production. Well 5 will need major rehabilitation to ensure efficient operation and reliable supply. The City may choose to replace Well 5 entirely rather than rehabilitate it. If replacement of Well 5 is pursued, it should occur after the completion of Central Coast Blue to optimize the well location. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120Cumulitave Pipe Length (miles)Year Assumed End of Useful Life Phased Replacement at: 0-30 years: 0.54 miles/year 30-70 years: 0.92 miles/year Remainder: 0.05 miles/year Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-8 Table 1-4. Well Condition Assessment Summary Well Component Well 5 Well 23 Site (grading, drainage, fencing, paving, etc.) D C Chemical enclosure D D Pump-to-waste pit D C Pump C A Motor C B Well and casing B F Pipes and valves C B Motor control center F C SCADA system F C The grading system is as follows: A: 100–85 percent useful life left of component (or system) B: 85–50 percent useful life left of component (or system) C: 50–15 percent useful life left of component (or system) D: 15–0 percent useful life left of component (or system) F: 0 percent useful life left of component (or system) N/A: Not Applicable System Operational Analysis The City’s water system operations were evaluated, including an analysis of water quality, potential consolidation of zones to simplify operations, and potential operational and capacity constraints that could arise after the completion of Central Coast Blue. Water Quality The City’s potable water is high-quality and meets federal and state drinking water standards. To help the City continue to provide high-quality drinking water, the hydraulic model was used to evaluate water age in the distribution system. Although there is not a recognized standard target for water age, it is generally accepted that lower water age correlates to better water quality. Therefore, the City should strive to maintain as low a water age in the distribution system as practicable. The analysis indicates that system water age is low in most locations. However, some of the water storage tanks (Pacific Estates, Shell Beach 2, and Pismo Oaks) experience water quality degradation which indicates the tanks are not adequately mixed. The City’s water distribution system operators monitor and treat the water by dosing the tanks with chlorine to maintain adequate chlorine residual. The capital improvement program includes recommended projects to address water storage tank water quality. The City can also bleed water between the Pismo Oaks and Pacific Estates zones which will help increase tank turnover and reduce water age. The analysis indicates the City should continue its practice of pipe flushing as needed to maintain water quality. The City significantly reduced routine flushing during the recent drought. To prepare for future droughts and promote water conservation, the City should evaluate zero loss flushing technologies. Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-9 Zone Consolidation The City’s previous Water Master Plan recommended consolidating the Shell Beach 1 Zone with the Main Zone, and abandoning the Charles Street Reservoir, Bello Reservoir, and Bay Street Booster Pump Station. Although this project was not pursued by the City, the viability of consolidating the two zones was re- evaluated as part of this Water Master Plan Update. The re-evaluation discovered several negative outcomes of the proposed zone consolidation including: (1) pressure in the combined zone would be below 40 psi at some locations; (2) available fire flow would be reduced; and (3) system reliability/redundancy could be impacted since the consolidation will eliminate two reservoirs. Therefore, consolidation of the Shell Beach 1 Zone and Main Zone is not recommended. Central Coast Blue The City expects that after Central Coast Blue is completed, more of its water supply will be from groundwater. As part of this Water Master Plan Update, a preliminary analysis was performed to determine if upgrades are required to produce, store and distribute the additional groundwater. Based on this analysis, it is recommended that the Charles Street Reservoir be replaced with a 1 MG welded steel reservoir to store additional groundwater (consistent with the recommendation in Section 1.3.2), and that the proposed pipeline in North 4th Street be increased to a diameter of 16-inches to improve conveyance across the Main Zone. This report recommends the City construct at least one new well in the future; however, additional wells may be required to take full advantage of the recharged groundwater. Injection and extraction well design should be performed as part of Central Coast Blue project design. This Water Master Plan Update assumes Central Coast Blue will not result in an increased annual groundwater supply allocation, and the City will remain limited by the current 700 AFY allocation. With the full implementation of Central Coast Blue, the City may be able to pump more than its existing groundwater allocations through the Salvage Water provisions of the Adjudication; however, this additional groundwater supply is not currently included in the projections of future available supply. As Central Coast Blue continues to develop, the City should monitor results of the analysis and consider amending this and other water planning documents as appropriate. Recommended Improvements The total cost of recommended projects to correct existing and anticipated future deficiencies over the 30-year planning period is nearly $52 million (costs are in 2018 dollars with an Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 11069). The projects are grouped into 3 categories: Priority A, B and C, where:  Priority A projects are highest priority and are generally forecast to occur in 0 to 5 years.  Priority B projects are a lower priority and address longer-term needs in the 6 to 15 year time frame.  Priority C projects are long term projects to allow the City to meet buildout needs and include rehabilitation projects for 16 to 30 years from now. Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-10 Table 1-5 summarizes the recommended capital improvement projects. Project costs presented in Table 1-5 are planning level costs, classified as Class 4 Conceptual Report Classification of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs as developed by AACE International, and include markups for construction contingency, project implementation, and construction phase support. A map of all capital improvement projects is included in Plate 1 attached to this report. Table 1-5. Summary of Capital Improvement Projects Project No. Recommended Improvement Quantity/ Length Recommended Volume/ Diameter/ Capacity Project Cost¹ A1 Shell Beach 1 Reservoir Replacement and Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation 1 MG $2,230,000 A2 Shafer Lane Pipeline Replacement 580 feet 8-inch $185,000 A3 Charles Street Reservoir Replacement 1 MG $1,823,000 A4 Downtown Fire Flow Pipeline Improvements 2,960 feet 12- and 16-inch $1,788,000 A5 Pismo Oaks Reservoir Rehabilitation $914,000 A6 Pacific Estates BPS Rehabilitation $266,000 A7 Pismo Oaks BPS Rehabilitation $89,000 A8 North Fourth Street New Main 3,500 feet 16-inch $1,025,000 A9 Pacific Estates Reservoir 1 Rehabilitation $448,000 A10 Well 23 Replacement or Reconditioning ≥900 gpm2 $925,000 A11 Pacific Estates Reservoir 2 Rehabilitation $351,000 A12 Bello BPS Rehabilitation $150,000 A13 Bay Street BPS Rehabilitation $137,000 A14 Bello Reservoir New Roof $781,000 A15 Construct New Groundwater Well ≥900 gpm2 $925,000 A16 0–5 year Condition Based Main Replacement 14,680 feet 8- and 10-inch $5,640,000 A17 0–5 year New Hydrants 20 hydrants $170,000 A18 0–5 year New Distribution Valves 10 valves $54,000 0–5 Year Total $17,901,000 B1 Park Avenue Pipeline Replacement 590 feet 10-inch $263,000 B2 Frady Lane Pipeline Replacement 1,740 feet 8-inch $476,000 B3 Judkins Middle School Pipeline Replacement 2,320 feet 8-inch $550,000 B4 Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Rehabilitation $489,000 B5 Well 5 Rehabilitation $698,000 B6 6–15 year Condition Based Main Replacement 23,360 feet 8- and 10-inch $11,280,000 Executive Summary City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 1-11 Table 1-5. Summary of Capital Improvement Projects Project No. Recommended Improvement Quantity/ Length Recommended Volume/ Diameter/ Capacity Project Cost¹ B7 6–15 year New Hydrants 40 hydrants $340,000 B8 6–15 year New Distribution Valves 20 valves $108,000 6–15 Year Total $14,204,000 C1 Bello BPS Capacity Upgrade >400 gpm $176,000 C2 Pacific Estates BPS Capacity Upgrade >466 gpm $176,000 C3 Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza New Main 310 feet 8-inch $69,000 C4 Motel 6 Pismo Beach Pipeline Replacement 620 feet 8- and 10-inch $208,000 C5 A Avenue Pipeline Replacement 780 feet 8-inch $200,000 C6 Kon Tiki Inn Pipeline Replacement 840 feet 8-inch $236,000 C7 Harloe Avenue Pipeline Replacement 300 feet 10-inch $141,000 C8 Holiday RV Park Pipeline Replacement 1,010 feet 8-inch $273,000 C9 Longview Avenue Pipeline Replacement 820 feet 8-inch $279,000 C10 Spindrift Village Townhomes New Main 50 feet 8-inch $19,000 C11 Pismo Shores Apartment Complex and Sea Gypsy Motel Pipeline Replacement 560 feet 8- and 10-inch $204,000 C12 Stratford Street Pipeline Replacement 1,280 feet 8-inch $485,000 C13 Cypress Street New Main 300 feet 8-inch $76,000 C14 16–30 year Condition Based Main Replacement 44,040 feet 8- and 10-inch $16,920,000 C15 16–30 year New Hydrants 43 hydrants $366,000 C16 16–30 year New Distribution Valves 10 valves $54,000 16–30 Year Total $19,882,000 30 Year Total $51,987,000 1. Project Costs include a 5 percent markup of construction subtotal to account for unknown items not included in the cost opinion, and a 25 percent construction contingency based on construction subtotal. Total project costs include a 15 percent allowance (of construction total) for project implementation and a 10 percent allowance (of construction total) for construction phase support services. Costs are listed in 2018 dollars. 2. The capacity of the future Well 23 and new groundwater well is unknown but is expected to have a production capacity similar to the City’s existing Well 23. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Section 2 INTRODUCTION This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Introduction City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 2-1 SECTION 2 2.Introduction The City of Pismo Beach (City) currently serves water to about 8,200 residents as well as commercial customers within city limits. At buildout, the City’s population is projected to reach 9,414 residents. The City’s current sources of water include groundwater from the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin and surface water from Lopez Lake and the State Water Project. This Water Master Plan Update guides the City’s planned capital project expenditures and asset management for its water system in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Overview and Purpose The primary purposes of this Master Plan are to evaluate the capacity and condition of the existing water system, identify improvements necessary to meet demands (including fire flow) of the current and future population, and develop a plan for water system improvements, including: Plan for growth expected within the City’s boundaries. Develop an accurate hydraulic model of the distribution system. Identify existing and future system deficiencies. Evaluate system conditions and create an asset renewal plan as part of the capital improvement program. Develop a prioritized list of improvement projects, including anticipated costs, to address deficiencies, system condition, and assure capacity of the distribution system and accommodate system changes associated with Central Coast Blue. IN THIS SECTION Overview and Purpose Relationship to Other Documents Background Information Introduction City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 2-2 Relationship to Other Documents The following documents are considered when planning and budgeting for the City’s water system:  2015 Urban Water Management Plan: the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan assesses the City’s current and long-term sources of supply and complies with California State Department of Water Resources criteria for water supply planning. The Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Master Plan are complementary documents, with the Urban Water Management Plan focusing on source of supply and the Water Master Plan focusing on storage and distribution of the water.  2004 Water Master Plan: the City’s most recent Water Master Plan was prepared by John L. Wallace & Associates in 2004. The Water Master Plan presents a capital improvement program on a first, second, and third priority basis for the City. Many of the capital improvement program projects have been completed, determined no longer needed, or carried over into this Water Master Plan Update for completion (as needed). Background Information The following section summarizes the City’s location, climate, population, distribution system, and water sources. Location The City of Pismo Beach (Pismo Beach or City) is located along the Central Coast of California in San Luis Obispo County, situated midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The City is considered a part of the “Five Cities” in southern San Luis Obispo County, which includes the incorporated cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach, and the unincorporated area of Oceano, served by the Oceano Community Services District and unincorporated community of Halcyon. Figure 2-1, on page 2-4, shows a vicinity map of the City and other Five Cities Agencies. U.S. Highway 101 runs from north to south through the City, serving as the major connecting corridor to San Luis Obispo (approximately 13 miles north), Santa Maria (approximately 20 miles south), and Santa Barbara (approximately 80 miles south). Located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, elevations in the City range from zero feet to 620 feet above mean sea level. Climate The climate in the City can be classified as coastal or Mediterranean with average rainfall rates of about 17 inches per year. Most of the annual precipitation falls from November through April. The average annual temperature is 58 degrees Fahrenheit and the region has mild weather year-round, with typically warm daytime temperatures and cool nighttime temperatures. There are not extreme seasonal variations, though the area is subject to normal weather fluctuations often experienced in marine environments. Introduction City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 2-3 Population The City’s population is estimated to be 8,200 people for the Master Plan Update. The population has fluctuated up and down since 1995, likely due to due to many factors, including the high cost of living, an increased number of secondary or vacation homes, and limited development. Buildout population in the City is projected to be 9,414. Once buildout is reached, and the City is fully developed, water demands are estimated to remain steady. Distribution System The potable water distribution system, owned and operated by the City, is comprised of two groundwater wells, six booster stations, and nine storage reservoirs that contain approximately 5,330,000 gallons of total storage. The system is divided into nine distribution zones and 11 pressure zones. The distribution system is composed of roughly 56 miles of distribution mains serving approximately 4,100 residential, 400 commercial, and 400 other connections within the City. Water Sources The City currently receives water from three sources: Lopez Lake, the State Water Project, and groundwater. The City is allocated 892 acre-feet per year (AFY) from Lopez Lake, 1,240 AFY from the State Water Project (with 140 AFY allocated to others), and 700 AFY from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. The City is also leading Central Coast Blue a regional advanced treatment plant to recycle water for groundwater recharge as a supplemental supply source. The City receives State Water Project and Lopez Lake water through the Lopez Water Treatment Plant and Lopez Pipeline (also known as the Lopez Line). The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) Zone 3 manages the Lopez Pipeline, and delivers water to the City’s distribution system through four metered flow control connections known as turnouts. The four turnouts are, from south to north, Pismo Oaks, Bello, Vista del Mar, and Sunset Palisades. The turnouts allow the City and District to routinely set and adjust the desired flow through each turnout to meet system demands. Lopez Lake and the Lopez Pipeline are discussed in additional detail in Section 3. Introduction City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 2-4 Figure 2-1. Vicinty Map Section 3 EXISTING SYSTEM This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-1 SECTION 3 3. Existing System According to the City of Pismo Beach’s 2016 Water Atlas, the City’s potable water system contains 11 pressure zones within 9 distribution zones, 9 storage reservoirs, 6 pumping stations, and approximately 56 miles of distribution mains. A distribution zone is a geographical area within the distribution system that is served by shared facilities such as booster pump stations and storage reservoirs. A pressure zone is defined as a geographical area within a distribution zone that is served water at the same hydraulic grade line. The following section analyzes and describes each distribution zone, discusses the City’s water supply and presents water quality information for the City. Overview The entire distribution system can be separated into two sub-systems: The Main System and the Shell Beach System. These systems are hydraulically connected through the Bay Street Booster Pump Station; however, the pump station does not operate under normal conditions. Hereafter, the Shell Beach System refers to Shell Beach 1 and 2 zones and the Main System refers to all other zones. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, on pages 3-3 and 3-4, show maps of the Shell Beach and Main systems, respectively, including the distribution zones and major facilities. The Lopez Line is included as reference on these maps although it is not part of the City’s distribution system. The Lopez Line is not included in other maps in this Master Plan for clarity. Table 3-1 on the following page summarizes the distribution zones. IN THIS SECTION Overview Water Supply Booster Pump Stations Storage Distribution and Transmission Pipelines Water Quality View from Pacific Estates Tank overlooking the City and the pier, depicting the variable elevations being served water by the City. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-2 Table 3-1. Distribution Zone Summary Distribution Zone Pressure Zone1 Maximum Hydraulic Grade (feet) Supply Source Storage2 From Booster Station Reservoir Size (gallons) Main 176 Bello Turnout Well #5 Well #23 Pismo Oaks Turnout --- Charles Street Bello 420,000 470,000 Pismo Oaks 339 Main Pismo Oaks Pismo Oaks 800,000 Pacific Estates 384 Main Pacific Estates Pacific Estates 1 Pacific Estates 2 350,000 850,000 Heights 1 459 Main Bello Heights 1 Heights 2 220,000 220,000 Bello 291 Heights 1 N/A --- --- Dell Court 243 Heights 1 N/A --- --- Heights 2 Upper Lower 875 527 Main Heights 2 --- --- Shell Beach 1 222 Main Vista Del Mar Turnout Bay Street Shell Beach 1 1,000,000 Shell Beach 2 Upper Lower 323 265 Shell Beach 1 Sunset Palisades Turnout Shell Beach Shell Beach 2 1,000,000 1.Heights 2 and Shell Beach 2 distribution zones have upper and lower pressure zones, the other pressure zones match the distribution zones in name and boundary. 2.The Bello, Dell Court, and Heights 2 zones do not contain storage, but receive storage from the Heights 1 Zone. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-3 Figure 3-1. Shell Beach System Pressure Zone Map This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-4 Figure 3-2. Main System Pressure Zone Map This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-5 Each distribution zone’s supply sources and associated facilities are described below. Main Zone is the largest zone and serves downtown Pismo Beach, the Five Cities Drive area, and residential areas northeast of US Highway 101. The zone has two reservoirs: Charles Street and Bello. The Charles Street Reservoir has a capacity of 420,000 gallons, is located on Charles Street in Grover Beach. The Bello Reservoir has a capacity of 470,000 gallons and is located off Bello Street in Pismo Beach. The Main Zone is supplied by the two supply wells, the Bello Turnout, and the Pismo Oaks Turnout. Pismo Oaks Zone is in the easternmost part of the City. This zone is supplied by the Main Zone through the Pismo Oaks Booster Pump Station located off Irish Way and contains one 800,000- gallon reservoir (Pismo Oaks Reservoir) located outside city limits on the hill above Ridge Road. Pacific Estates Zone is located west of the Pismo Oaks Zone. This zone is supplied by the Main Zone, through the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station. The Pacific Estates Zone contains two storage reservoirs, a 350,000-gallon reservoir (Pacific Estates Reservoir 1) and an 850,000-gallon reservoir (Pacific Estates Reservoir 2), located on the hill above Highland Drive. The Pacific Estates Zone and Pismo Oaks Zone can be interconnected by opening a closed valve near James Way and Ventana Drive. Heights 1 Zone extends northwest of the Main Zone up Longview Avenue including Stratford Street and bounded by Price Canyon Road to the east. This zone is supplied by the Main Zone through the Bello Booster Pump Station, located off Main Street and Bello Street adjacent to the Bello Reservoir, which pumps water to the Heights reservoirs. The Heights 1 Zone is supplied by gravity via two 220,000-gallon concrete reservoirs known as the Heights 1 Reservoir and Heights 2 Reservoir. This zone supplies the Bello and the Dell Court Zones through two pressure reducing valves. Bello Zone serves three City blocks between Bello Street and Bay Street and is supplied by the Heights 1 Zone. One pressure reducing valve is located between the Heights 1 Zone and Bello Zone, near the intersection of Bay Street and Wadsworth Avenue. Dell Court Zone is a small zone created in 2014 to alleviate low pressure issues. The Dell Court Zone serves residents on Dell Court and along Solar Way. The zone is supplied by the Heights 1 Zone through a pressure reducing valve located at the corner of Price Canyon Road and Lemoore Avenue. This area was previously served by the Main Zone. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-6 Heights 2 Zone extends from the Heights 1 Zone (beginning with, and including, Fresno Street) the rest of the way up Long View Avenue. This zone includes two pressure zones: an Upper and Lower Gradient. Both gradients, or pressure zones, are supplied by the Heights Booster Pump Station located adjacent to the Heights 1 and Heights 2 reservoirs. The lower pressure zone is located southwest of the booster pump station down Longview Avenue between Fresno Street and Delano Street, and is supplied through a pressure reducing valve located in Longview Avenue downstream of the booster pump station. The upper pressure zone is located north of the Heights Booster Pump Station along Longview Avenue and supplies the highest elevations within the system. The Heights 2 Zone (including the upper and lower portions) is the only demand-driven pumped pressure zone in the system, which is unique because the pump station must adjust by speeding up or slowing down various combinations of pumps to meet the varying system demand. Conversely, a gravity-supplied zone, which can be simpler to operate, relies on pumped storage to meet varying system demands, allowing the pumps that supply the zone to operate at a more consistent, steady rate without needing to make small changes in flow. Shell Beach 1 Zone extends west of the Main Zone, bounded by the Pacific Ocean and Highway 101. This zone has three supply sources: the Main Zone, the Vista del Mar Turnout, and a pressure reducing valve from the Shell Beach 2 Zone. The Main Zone can supply the Shell Beach 1 Zone through the Bay Street Booster Pump Station, located at the intersection of Bay Street and Price Street. The Vista del Mar Turnout supplies water from the Lopez Pipeline to the zone and is located at the corner of Vista del Mar and Shell Beach Road. The pressure reducing valve from the Shell Beach 2 Zone is located on Mattie Road near Baycliff Drive and is set to open under low pressure conditions in Shell Beach 1, such as during a fire event. This zone also contains a 1 MG reservoir (Shell Beach 1 Reservoir) located on the hill above Costa Bravo Road. Shell Beach 2 Zone contains two pressure zones, an upper and lower zone (the lower zone is also known as the Sunset Palisades Zone). The upper pressure zone is located north of the Shell Beach 1 Zone on the northeast side of Highway 101. The Sunset Palisades Zone is located west of the Shell Beach 1 Zone and upper pressure zone extending to the northern end of the city limits. A pressure reducing valve is located between the upper and lower pressure zones located at the intersection of Spyglass Drive and Mattie Road. The Shell Beach 1 and 2 zones are separated by a closed valve, located at the corner of Seacliff Drive and Coburn Lane, and a pressure reducing valve, located at the corner of Baycliff Drive and Mattie Road. The Shell Beach 2 Zone is supplied by the Shell Beach 1 Zone through the Shell Beach Booster Pump Station located adjacent to Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. The Shell Beach 2 Zone can also be supplied by the Sunset Palisades Turnout located near El Portal Drive and Shell Beach Road, which is manually operated by the District and can supply up to 100 gallons per minute. The Shell Beach 2 Zone also contains a 1 MG reservoir (Shell Beach 2 Reservoir) located on the hill above Shell Beach 1 Reservoir. The City supplies water over a large range of elevations from near sea level to 620 feet above sea level. Due to the large elevation range, booster pump stations are used to increase water pressure as needed. Water storage tanks are also located at high elevations to supply their distribution zones. A hydraulic profile of the City is shown in Figure 3-3 on page 3-7. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-7 Figure 3-3. Existing Hydraulic Profile This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-8 Water Supply The City of Pismo Beach receives water from three sources: Lopez Lake, the State Water Project, and groundwater. These sources are described in the following subsections. Lopez Lake Lopez Lake is a water storage reservoir managed by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 3 (District or Zone 3). The reservoir’s total capacity is 49,177 acre-feet (AF), and the reservoir has a usable storage capacity of 47,477 AF (Ogren, 2016). The reservoir receives runoff from the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed and has a safe yield of 4,530 AF available for municipal diversion. The City of Pismo Beach has a contractual supply of 892 AFY; however, if the volume in storage drops below 20,000 AF, the District may implement the Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP). The purpose of the LRRP is to limit downstream releases and municipal diversions from Lopez Reservoir during periods of low reservoir storage, as described in Section 3.2.1.1. Water from Lopez Lake, as well as State Water Project allocations, described later, are transmitted to the City through the Lopez Pipeline. The Lopez Pipeline is 18-inches in diameter when it reaches the City, and the City has four turnouts located along the Lopez Pipeline: Bello Turnout, Pismo Oaks Turnout, Vista Del Mar Turnout, and Sunset Palisades Turnout. The City’s turnouts are described below in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Existing Turnouts Turnout Location Design Flow1 (gpm) Normal Flow Range (gpm) Bello Near the intersection of Bello Street and Pomeroy Avenue 1,000 400 - 700 Pismo Oaks Along El Camino Real between Five Cities Drive and North 12th Street 1,000 200 Vista Del Mar Near the intersection of Mattie Road and Costa Rica 700 370 Sunset Palisades Near the Intersection of Shell Beach Road and El Portal Drive 100 100 Total 2,800 1,070 – 1,370 1.Each turnout was originally designed for 1,000 gallons per minute, but the Vista Del Mar and Sunset Palisades turnouts cannot supply this amount due to lower differential pressure from the Lopez Pipeline to the City’s distribution system. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-9 3.2.1.1 Lopez Lake Reliability The annual allocation of the City’s surface water from the Lopez Project, which includes the Lopez Dam, Terminal Reservoir, and Lopez Water Treatment Plant, is determined by the City’s contract with the District, reservoir storage and local hydrologic conditions. According to the Zone 3 2015 UWMP, the Lopez Reservoir is a reliable source of water with an annual safe yield of 8,730 AFY (which includes 4,530 AFY for municipal entitlements with the remainder available for downstream releases). Historic Lopez Lake volume in storage is shown in Figure 3-4. LRRP prescribed municipal diversion reduction strategy is presented in Table 3-3 on page 3-10 and LRRP prescribed downstream reduction strategy is shown in Table 3-4 on page 3-10. The District projects that municipal entitlements will remain constant at 4,530 AFY through 2035, and that it will be able to supply all contracted agencies with their requested allocations in full during single dry years and for the first three of four multiple dry years (Wallace Group, June 2016). According to the Zone 3 2015 UWMP, the District anticipates delivering 90 percent of municipal entitlements, based on reservoir capacity, in the fourth year of a multiple dry year period. Therefore, it is assumed that water supply from the Lopez Reservoir during dry water years will meet the City’s full allocation of 892 AFY except for during the fourth year of a multiple dry year period, unless the LRRP is enacted. The District, the City, and other Zone 3 representatives are currently considering modifications to the LRRP and the Lopez Project Contracts which may change Lopez supply availability during periods of low reservoir storage. Figure 3-4. Historic Lake Lopez Storage Volume versus LRRP Municipal Diversion Reductions 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Mar-1968Mar-1970Mar-1972Mar-1974Mar-1976Mar-1978Mar-1980Mar-1982Mar-1984Mar-1986Mar-1988Mar-1990Mar-1992Mar-1994Mar-1996Mar-1998Mar-2000Mar-2002Mar-2004Mar-2006Mar-2008Mar-2010Mar-2012Mar-2014Mar-2016Lake Volume (Acre-Feet)Lopez Lake Storage Volume LRRP Enacted LRRP 10% Reduction LRRP 20% Reduction LRRP 35% Reduction LRRP 100% Reduction Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-10 Table 3-3. Initial Prescribed Municipal Diversion Reduction Strategy Under the LRRP Amount of Water in Storage (AF) Municipal Diversion Reduction Municipal Diversion (AFY) 1 City of Pismo Beach Diversion (AFY) 20,000 0% 4,530 892 15,000 10% 4,077 803 10,000 20% 3,624 714 5,000 35%2 2,941 580 4,000 100% 0 0 1.The actual amount of water diverted may vary as agencies extend the delivery of their Lopez Entitlement. 2.The 35 percent reduction provides sufficient water to supply 55 gallons per capita per day for the estimated population of the Zone 3 agencies (47,696 in 2010 per the 2010 Zone 3 Urban Water Management Plan). The target residential indoor water usage standard used in California Department of Water Resource’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Method 4 Guidelines is 55 gallons per capita per day. Table 3-4. Initial Prescribed Downstream Release Reduction Strategy Under the LRRP Amount of Water in Storage (AF) Downstream Release Reduction Downstream Releases (AFY) 1 20,000 9.5% 3,800 15,000 9.5% 3,800 10,000 75.6% 1,026 5,000 92.9% 300 4,000 100.0% 0 1.These downstream releases represent the maximum amount of water that can be released. Actual releases may be less if releases can be reduced while still meeting the needs of the agricultural stakeholders and addressing the environmental requirements. (San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 3, December 16, 2014) State Water Project The City of Pismo Beach also receives water through the California State Water Project which is operated by the Department of Water Resources. State Water Project water is delivered to the region through the Coastal Branch pipeline (portions of which are also operated by the Central Coast Water Authority). The City ultimately receives its State Water Project water through the Lopez Pipeline, which connects to the Coastal Branch pipeline near the Lopez Water Treatment Plant. The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is a primary contractor of the State Water Project and serves as the entity through which the City subcontracts for its State Water Table A Allocation. State Water Project Table A is an exhibit to the contracts between the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Project contractors that outlines the maximum amount of water each contractor may receive. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-11 The City has a contract with the San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District for 1,240 AFY of Table A water; however, 140 AFY of this water is allocated to other users, giving the City a useable Table A Allocation of 1,100 AFY. In addition to the useable 1,100 AFY Table A allocation, the City has 1,240 AFY of “drought buffer.” Drought buffer water is additional Table A water that the City possesses contracts for but does not own corresponding capacity in the Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant and the downstream pipelines. This water provides additional supply reliability for the City during times when the State Water Project annual allocations are less than 100 percent. Every year the Department of Water Resources sets an annual allocation as a percentage of contracted (Table A) volumes for State Water Project Contractors based on consideration of hydrologic and climatic data and modeling. Historically, annual allocation percentages have ranged from 5 to 100 percent. If the Department of Water Resources annual allocation were 40 percent of contracted amounts for a given year, without a drought buffer the City could receive 440 AF of water considering the City’s subcontracts. With a drought buffer of 1,240 AF, the City could receive an additional 496 AF for a total of 936 AF. However, in any given year under its current contracts, the City’s total State Water Project deliveries cannot exceed 1,240 AF. Though, the City can store State Water Project water in San Luis Reservoir for delivery in subsequent years, as described below. 3.2.2.1 Stored State Water Project Water As an alternative to taking delivery of its Table A water within a given water year, the City has the option to store a portion of its State Water Project water in the San Luis Reservoir for subsequent delivery in future years. However, the amount of water that can be stored is limited by the Department of Water Resources. Additionally, water stored in San Luis Reservoir can be lost due to spills or interference with State Water Project operations. The calculations that the Department of Water Resources uses to determine how much water the City can place in storage are outlined below. For deliveries of 0–50 percent, the maximum storage allowed is 25 percent of the available water, as shown in Equation 1. For 0 ≤ D ≤ 50%; S ≤ 0.25 x A Equation 1 For deliveries of 51–74 percent, the maximum storage allowed is 25 percent plus 1 percent for every percentage point over 50 percent that is delivered, as shown in Equation 2. For 50% < D < 75%; S ≤ [(D-50%) + 0.25] x A Equation 2 For deliveries of 75 percent and over, the maximum storage allowed is 50 percent of the available water, as shown in Equation 3. For D ≥ 75%; S = 0.50 x A Equation 3 KEY A = Available Water T = Table A Water B = Drought Buffer D = Delivery Percentage A = (T+B)D S = Storage Amount Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-12 Though others have a subcontract with the City for a total of 140 AFY of the City’s Table A Allocation, the maximum the City can store is based upon the contract with the District for “Table A” State Water Project water. For example, when the State Water Project is delivering 100 percent of Table A allocations, the City can take delivery of 1,240 AF (140 AF of which belongs to others) and can store 1,240 AF (50 percent of the total water available under the contract). If the State Water Project’s annual allocation is 65 percent, the City would have 806 AF available (91 AF of which is owned by others) plus 806 AF of drought buffer, for a total of 1,521 AF. This would allow the City to take delivery of 1,240 AF (the amount allowed by the City’s portion of the State Water Project pipeline capacity) and store 281 AF, or the City could deliver a lesser amount and store up to 644.8 AF (see equations above). Currently, the City receives an additional State Water Project reliability benefit through the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s “Excess Allocation”. The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has a higher Table A amount than its contracted treatment and conveyance capacity in the Coastal Branch, and they can use this “excess allocation” of 15,273 AFY of Table A Water to make additional State Water Project water available to the existing subcontractors during periods when annual allocations are less than 100 percent. However, future availability of the District’s excess allocation for subcontractors is unknown and thus should not be relied upon for long-term water supply planning purposes. 3.2.2.2 State Water Project Reliability For the State Water Project, the Department of Water Resources periodically compiles a report on the supply reliability of State Water Project water under current and projected future water conditions. The Department of Water Resources’ 2013 Delivery Reliability Report describes the historical and projected deliveries to the State Water Contractors during normal years and over various drought year periods. Although the relative percent deliveries included in the 2013 Delivery Reliability Report apply specifically to State Water Contractors allocations, these percentages correspond to percent reductions that the City may experience in drought conditions. Additionally, percent reductions for a three-year drought period were calculated using a similar method to that used by the Central Coast Water Authority. Single dry-year deliveries for State Water Project water supply are reduced to 11 percent of Table A allocations, while deliveries are estimated to be 24 percent of Table A allocations for each year during a multiple dry year period (California Department of Water Resources, December 2014). Table 3-5, on page 3-13, includes historic initial State Water Allocations, final adjusted allocations and the total annual delivered State Water Project water that includes Drought Buffer. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-13 Table 3-5. Historic State Water Allocation Year Initial Allocation Percentage Final Allocation Percentage Final Total State Water Available to City (AFY) 2004 35% 65% 1,521 2005 30% 90% 2,106 2006 50% 100% 2,340 2007 60% 60% 1,404 2008 25% 25% 585 2009 15% 30% 702 2010 5% 50% 1,170 2011 25% 80% 1,872 2012 60% 65% 1,521 2013 30% 35% 819 2014 5% 5% 117 2015 10% 20% 468 2016 10% 45% 1,053 Groundwater The Northern Cities of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, comprised of the Oceano Community Services District and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach, have a long history of cooperative management of their shared water resources, and they continue to actively work together to manage groundwater and surface water supplies. The Northern Cities began managing their portion of the basin collaboratively in 1983 upon the development of the Agreement Regarding Management of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin (Gentlemen’s Agreement). This agreement was formed to limit extractions and protect the groundwater basin. Each participant was allotted a yearly extraction based on a 1979 groundwater study performed by the Department of Water Resources. In 1997, the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin became subject to litigation and in 2005 the Northern Cities and other parties entered into the 2005 Stipulation, which formally divided the basin into three management areas: the Northern Cities Management Area, Nipomo Mesa Management Area, and Santa Maria Valley Management Area. The Superior Court of California later adopted the Stipulation in its January 25, 2008, Judgment After Trial. Although most of the city limits lie outside of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin boundary, the City’s two groundwater wells (Well #5 and Well #23) overlay the Northern Cities Management Area and pump from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin in Grover Beach. The City of Pismo Beach has an allotment of 700 AFY of groundwater from the basin through the 2005 Stipulation and Judgement After Trial. Table 3- 6 on the following page outlines the existing well supply capacity of the two groundwater wells used by the City. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-14 Table 3-6. Existing Groundwater Wells for the City of Pismo Beach1 Well Number Location Year Installed Casing Depth (feet) Diameter of Casing (inches) Design Production Capacity (gallons per minute) Observed Production Capacity2 (gallons per minute) 5 8th Street and Grand Avenue 1973 500 14 600 549 23 900 block of Huber Street 1990 395 14 950 854 Total (gallons per minute) 1,550 1,403 1.Table adapted from Table 5-1 in the City of Pismo Beach's Water Master Plan (2004). 2.Based on four-hour constant discharge pumping tests performed March 4–5, 2013. Although the City has an allotment of 700 AFY through the 2005 Stipulation and Judgement After Trial, it rarely uses all its allotment due to concerns about seawater intrusion. In 2015, the City only used 285 AF of groundwater, or 40 percent of the groundwater allotment. The City relies mainly on surface water, as groundwater comprised only 16 percent of its total water supply in 2015. 3.2.3.1 Groundwater Reliability The City’s rights to pump groundwater from the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin are defined within the Adjudicated Judgement, which states that the Northern Cities (including the City of Pismo Beach) have a paramount right to withdraw 4,330 AFY (including agriculture conversion credits) from the Northern Cities Area of the basin. The City is entitled to 700 AFY of this total, as indicated in the adjudication and Judgement After Trial. There is no current language in the Adjudicated Judgment that stipulates the amount that supply allocations may be reduced during dry years. Therefore, for planning purposes, it is assumed that the City may have its full allocation of groundwater available even in dry water years when additional groundwater recharge is provided by Central Coast Blue. As described earlier, Central Coast Blue is an indirect potable reuse project that will capture and treat wastewater currently discharged to the ocean for injection into the Northern Cities Management Area portion of the basin to improve groundwater supply reliability. With the full implementation of Central Coast Blue, the City may be able to pump more than its existing groundwater allocations through the Salvage Water provisions of the Adjudication; however, this additional water supply is not currently included in the projections of future available supply. In recent years the City has made and continues to take steps to reduce its reliance on groundwater supplies. In addition, with recent detections of groundwater elevations below sea level and the subsequent threat of seawater intrusion, the City recognizes the importance of maintaining its groundwater supplies and following a sustainable pumping plan. Therefore, the City considers and will continue to consider minimizing its impact to groundwater resources, especially during dry years or drought conditions, until Central Coast Blue is implemented. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-15 Future Supplies The following section describes additional supply sources that may be available to supplement the City’s water supplies. 3.2.4.1 Lopez Reservoir Spillway Raising In 2008 and 2009, the contract agencies of the Lopez Project conducted a study and evaluation to consider raising the spillway elevation of Lopez Reservoir to increase safe yield in the reservoir, thus increasing water supply entitlements to the contract agencies. By raising the spillway a few feet, the overall capacity of the reservoir increases significantly. The increased capacity would correlate to greater entitlement of the water supply that can be distributed to the City and surrounding contract agencies. The project study examined raising the spillway of Lopez Dam by three or five feet, which would increase reservoir storage capacity by 2,850 or 4,750 AF, respectively, and increase estimated annual average yield by 671 AFY or 1,371 AFY. However, based on evaluation of historic drought years (1986–1996), the yield disbursed over 11 years would provide an estimated safe yield from 259–432 AFY (Wallace Group, June 2016). The 2009 study was updated in 2013 to evaluate multiple new ranges of dam height increases and constraints scenarios. The resulting estimated additional yields are shown in Table 3-7. The results of the study indicated that additional water yielded from this project would cost approximately $1,250 per AF. Due to significant regulatory and environmental challenges (i.e. development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for Arroyo Grande Creek and obtaining an amended water rights permit for Lopez Reservoir), the Zone 3 agencies are not currently pursuing this project. Table 3-7. Lopez Reservoir Spillway Raise Capacities and Yields Spillway Gate Height (feet) No Constraint Additional Yield (AFY) All Constraints Additional Yield (AFY) 0 0 0 2 854 64 4 1,486 66 6 1,966 66 8 2,386 66 10 2,677 66 12 2,904 66 1. Ranges are based on different scenarios analyzed for multiple spillway gate heights. Source: (Stetson Engineers, Inc., February 2013) Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-16 3.2.4.2 Supplemental State Project Water via the Coastal Branch and Lopez Pipelines The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District completed a hydraulic study to determine if additional capacity exists in the Central Coast Water Authority State Water Pipeline (known as the Coastal Branch) for supplemental water deliveries to Central Coast Water Authority subscribers, including contract agencies (served via the Lopez Pipeline). The hydraulic study modeled the entire Central Coast Water Authority Pipeline delivery system, as well as the Lopez Pipeline. The results of this study, which identified significant excess capacity in portions of the pipeline, are being used as a starting point for the District and Central Coast Water Authority to begin discussions that will consider utilization of the District’s excess State Water Project entitlement. Expanding delivery options for the District’s excess entitlement could provide an opportunity for the City to obtain a supplemental supply source. 3.2.4.3 Supplemental Groundwater In the future, supplemental groundwater will likely be available for use. The City began investigating the potential for a recycled water project in 2008 and now the City is leading a regional groundwater sustainability project known as Central Coast Blue. The project started in 2015 when the City completed a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study to investigate alternatives for constructing a recycled water system that will enable the City to produce and beneficially use recycled water to enhance its water supply portfolio. Four alternatives were evaluated in the Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study, including secondary-23 treatment irrigation, tertiary treatment irrigation, full advanced treatment for coastal injection, and full advanced treatment for inland injection. The alternatives analysis concluded that full advanced treatment for inland injection was the preferred alternative. The City Council directed staff to pursue an indirect potable reuse project and evaluate inland/coastal injection. Central Coast Blue is now in the preliminary engineering stage. The project has developed into a two phase, multiple-stakeholder project that will include construction of an advanced treatment facility to treat the City’s wastewater flows (Phase 1) and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and the Oceano CSD wastewater flows from South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase 2) to produce purified water. The City and its partner agencies are investigating potential locations for the advanced treatment facility, including at the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant site and potential offsite locations. The purified water will be injected into the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin to provide additional recharge to protect the aquifer from seawater intrusion and allow for more reliable groundwater extractions. Project construction is targeted to begin in 2022. Phase 1 of the project, which will include treatment and injection of the City’s wastewater, will allow for approximately 900 AFY of recycled water to be recharged through a series of injection wells located along the coastline. The groundwater recharge will allow the City and other Central Coast Blue Stakeholder agencies to increase groundwater production over current rates. Phase 2 will include treatment and injection of wastewater from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and is anticipated to provide a total of approximately 3,500 AFY of recycled water for injection. As of September Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-17 2019, the allocation of the yield from Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project amongst the Central Coast Blue Stakeholders has not been fully determined. Supply Reliability The City’s total reliable water supply during average or normal years, a single dry year, and multiple dry years is presented in Table 3-8. Discussion of the supply’s ability to meet the City’s existing and future demands is presented in Section 5.4. Table 3-8. Historic Water Supply Allocations – Current Sources 1 Supply Source2 Water Availability (AFY) Average/ Normal Year2 Single Dry Year4 Multiple Dry Years Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Groundwater 700 700 700 7006 7006 State Water Project3 1,240 257 562 562 562 Lopez Reservoir 892 892 892 892 8035 Total 2,832 1,849 2,154 2,154 2,064 Percent of normal 65% 76% 76% 73% 1.Based on Table 6-6 in the City of Pismo Beach 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 2.Does not include recycled water because recycled water is not currently used or produced by the City. 3.The percent reductions in State Water Project supplies for Single Dry Year and Multiple Dry Years are based on estimates of future SWP annual allocations for a Single Dry Year (11%) and a 2-Year Drought (24%), respectively, from the 2013 Delivery Reliability Report. 4.The Single Dry Year allocation is intended to represent the lowest anticipated State Water Project annual allocation by the Department of Water Resources. The City’s drought buffer (1,240 AFY) supply is included in the calculations of available State Water Project water. See Section 3.2.2 for more details. 5.Assumes enactment of Stage 2 LRRP reduction of 10 percent. See Section 3.2.1 for more details. 6.With full implementation of Central Coast Blue, groundwater is assumed to remain as a dependable supply even during multiple dry years. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-18 Booster Pump Stations The City maintains and operates six booster pump stations within its system, shown in Figure 3-5 on page 3-21, which pump water between distribution zones. During the day, water flows by gravity from the storage tanks to supply the zones, apart from the Heights 2 Zone which is a pumped system as described in Section 3.1. Most of the booster pump stations operate based on the water levels in the gravity reservoirs they supply by turning on at a low water set point and turning off at a higher water level set point. The Heights Booster Pump Station is the only booster pump station that does not fill a reservoir. Instead, it supplies the Heights 2 Zone through jockey pumps with variable frequency drives and includes fire pumps to provide fire protection. The existing average daily demand for each zone is included in Table 3-9. Table 3-10 on the following page summarizes information about each booster pump station. Table 3-9. Existing Average Daily Demand by Zone Zone Type of Zone Average Daily Demand (gallons per minute) Average Daily Demand (million gallons per day) Main Main 325 0.47 Pismo Oaks Boosted with Gravity Storage 132 0.19 Pacific Estates Boosted with Gravity Storage 184 0.26 Heights 1 Boosted with Gravity Storage 75 0.11 Bello Pressure reduced from Heights 1 9 0.01 Dell Court Pressure reduced from Heights 1 4 0.01 Heights 2 Boosted without Gravity Storage 50 0.07 Shell Beach 1 Boosted with Gravity Storage 206 0.30 Shell Beach 2 Boosted with Gravity Storage 90 0.13 Total 1,075 1.55 Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-19 Table 3-10. Potable Water System Booster Pump Station Information and Pump Specifications Booster Pump Station Number of Pumps Design Capacity (flow) Design Total Dynamic Head Pump Make and Model Motor Size Zone Pumping From/To Pismo Oaks 2 Duty 500 gallons per minute each 260 feet each Peerless Model 5PV11 Paco, KP 3095- 7/8 1 x 50 horsepower 1 x 40 horsepower Main/ Pismo Oaks Pacific Estates 2 Duty 340 gallons per minute each 231 feet each Weinman Model 3L4 2 x 30 horsepower Main/ Pacific Estates Bello 2 Duty 400 gallons per minute each 318 feet each Paco Model 3095-5 2 x 50 horsepower Main/ Heights 1 & 2 Heights 4 Jockey 85 gallons per minute each 360 feet each Burks BPVF 15- 60B 4 x 15 horsepower Heights 1/ Heights 2 2 Fire 1500 gallons per minute each 254 feet each American Marsh Pumps 2 x 125 horsepower Bay Street 2 Duty 700 gallons per minute each 80 feet each Weinman Model 5L2/5LVM2 2 x 20 horsepower Main/ Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Duty 500 gallons per minute each 130 feet each Paco Model 4012-5 2 x 30 horsepower Shell Beach 1/ Shell Beach 2 Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-20 Storage The City has nine storage reservoirs that provide operational, emergency, and fire flow storage for the distribution system. The total storage capacity for the City is 5.33 MG. The City currently has plans to rebuild the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir with the same 1 MG storage capacity. Table 3-11 details the storage reservoir characteristics for each zone and Figure 3-6, on Page 3-22, shows the locations of the reservoirs in the system. Table 3-11. Physical Characteristics of Reservoirs Storage Facility Zone Year Built Ground Elevation (feet) Tank Diameter (feet) Tank Height (feet) Capacity (gallons) Charles Reservoir Main Zone 1930 153.5 56 24 420,000 Bello Reservoir Main Zone 1940 165 Noncircular: 73.5 feet by 94.5 feet (top) 51 feet by 30 feet (bottom) 13 470,000 Pismo Oaks Reservoir Pismo Oaks Zone 1984 321.5 84 20 800,000 Pacific Estates Reservoir 1 Pacific Estates Zone 1984 371.5 56 20 350,000 Pacific Estates Reservoir 2 Pacific Estates Zone 1989 371.5 82 22 850,000 Heights Reservoir 1 Heights 2 Zone 1952 451 Rectangular: 42 feet by 68 feet 10 220,000 Heights Reservoir 2 Heights 2 Zone 2012 451 Rectangular: 42 feet x 68 feet 10 220,000 Shell Beach 1 Reservoir Shell Beach 1 Zone 1975 200 80 27 1,000,000 Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Shell Beach 2 Zone 1989 285 65 40 1,000,000 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-21 Figure 3-5. Booster Pump Station Location Map This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-22 Figure 3-6. Storage Reservoir Location Map This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-23 Distribution and Transmission Pipelines The City’s potable water system includes about 56 miles of water distribution lines. Table 3-12 and Table 3-13 summarize the physical properties of the various pipes in the City’s distribution system.Table 3-12. Existing Pipeline Material Pipe Material Length (feet) Length (miles) Asbestos cement 159,336 30.2 Cast iron 9,841 1.9 Ductile iron 11,148 2.1 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 115,643 21.9 Galvanized iron 579 0.1 Total 297,547 56.2 Table 3-13. Existing Pipeline Inventory Pipe Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Length (miles) 2 1,177 0.2 4 2,939 0.6 6 76,554 14.5 8 1230,766 24.8 10 22,746 4.3 12 50,787 9.6 14 873 0.2 16 10,705 2.0 Total 296,547 56.2 Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-24 Water Quality The City’s delivered potable water is high-quality and meets all federal and state drinking water standards. The City does not own nor operate a treatment plant, because the City purchases treated surface water or uses groundwater as its supply sources. State Water Project water is treated by the Central Coast Water Authority Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant, and Lopez Lake water is treated at the Lopez Water Treatment Plant operated by the District. The groundwater does not need treatment but does receive chlorine to maintain a disinfectant residual and prevent microbial growth in the distribution system. In addition to supplying high-quality treated water, the City has a robust water quality management routine to ensure that water quality does not decrease within the distribution system. This routine includes regular pipe flushing, complete water bacteria (Bac-T) sampling, and monitoring of chlorine residual and disinfection byproducts in the distribution system. The City does have some difficulty maintaining the chlorine residual in large storage tanks, including the Pismo Oaks, Pacific Estates 1, Pacific Estates 2, and Shell Beach 2 reservoirs, but closely monitors the chlorine residual in these tanks and adds chlorine as needed. These storage tanks should have a mixing system and a chlorine residual monitoring system installed to improve water quality and provide the City with a greater ability to monitor water quality (see capital improvement project list for specific recommendations). Mixing can improve water quality by eliminating temperature stratification and reducing trihalomethanes and other disinfection byproduct formation. By continually monitoring the chlorine level in the reservoir, the City will gain confidence knowing that the highest quality water is delivered. Automated monitoring and mixing systems may also reduce operational costs by limiting labor required to manually check and correct reservoir water quality issues. Table 3-14 below and Table 3-15 on page 3-25 present the surface water and groundwater quality data from 2015. Table 3-14. 2015 Groundwater Quality Results Contaminant Units Maximum Contaminant Levels Maximum Contaminant Level Goal/Public Health Goal Well 5 Well 23 Arsenic parts per billion (ppb) 10 0.004 4 3 Nitrate as NO3 parts per million (ppm) 45 45 ND ND Fluoride ppm 2 1 0.10 0.2 Gross alpha particle activity picocuries per liter (pCi/L) 15 0 5.27 3.67 Uranium pCi/L 20 0.43 2.09 4.38 Nickle ppb 100 12 ND ND Chloride ppm 500 N/A 156 79 Iron ppb 300 N/A 200 ND Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-25 Table 3-14. 2015 Groundwater Quality Results Contaminant Units Maximum Contaminant Levels Maximum Contaminant Level Goal/Public Health Goal Well 5 Well 23 Manganese ppb 50 N/A 30 0.02 Sulfate as SO4 ppm 500 N/A 170 320 Total dissolved solids ppm 1000 N/A 820 870 Zinc ppm 5000 N/A ND ND Total alkalinity as CaCO3 ppm N/A N/A 330 270 Calcium ppm N/A N/A 142 108 Sodium ppm N/A N/A 60 45 Magnesium ppm N/A N/A 61.7 47.8 Aggressive index N/A N/A 12.3 12.3 Specific conductance microsiemens per centimeter(µS/cm) N/A N/A 1200– 1600 1200 Hardness as CaCO3 ppm N/A N/A 608 465 pH pH units N/A N/A 6.8–7.5 6.8–7.4 Turbidity Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) N/A N/A 1.38– 2.97 0.17– 2.39 Table 3-15. 2015 Surface Water Quality Results Contaminant Units Maximum Contaminant Levels Maximum Contaminant Level Goal/ Public Health Goal Delivered Water Central Coast Water Authority Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant Lopez Water Treatment Plant Total coliform bacteria most probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/100 mL) >5.0% of monthly samples are positive 0 ND 0.03 ND Heterotrophic plate count colony- forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) TT= adequate disinfection < 500 ---- ND 0.5 3 Aluminum parts per million (ppm) 1 0.6 0.036 0.073 0.020 Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-26 Table 3-15. 2015 Surface Water Quality Results Contaminant Units Maximum Contaminant Levels Maximum Contaminant Level Goal/ Public Health Goal Delivered Water Central Coast Water Authority Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant Lopez Water Treatment Plant Arsenic parts per billion (ppb) 10 0.004 4.2 ND 5.3 Fluoride ppm 2.0 1.0 0.447 ND 0.499 Barium ppm 2 2 0.031 ND 0.029 Nitrate as NO3 ppm 45 45 0.52 0.43 ND Gross beta particle activity picocuries per liter (pCi/L) 15 0 1.25 ND 1.51 Total trihalomethanes ppb 80 ---- 37.4 61 29.8 Haloacetic acids ppb 60 ---- 37.5 12.4 21.4 Total chlorine residual ppm 4.0 as Cl2 4 2.26 2.3 2.84 Chlorite ppm 1 0.05 0.470 ----- 0.68 Chlorate ppb 800 ---- 500 ----- 650 Chlorine dioxide ppb 800 as ClO2 800 ND ----- ND Chloride ppm 500 ---- 41.3 122 27.2 Color color units (CU) 15 ---- 3 ND 3 Copper ppm 1.0 ---- 0.091 ----- ND Corrosivity Langelier Index (LI) non- corrosive ---- ----- Non-corrosive ND Iron ppb 300 N/A ----- ND ----- Manganese ppb 50 N/A ----- ND ----- Odor – threshold threshold odor number (TON) 3 ---- 2 ND 2 Specific conductance microsiemens per centimeter (µS/cm) 1600 ---- 820 781 840 Sulfate ppm 500 ---- 125 97 130 Turbidity Nephelometri c Turbidity Unit (NTU) 5 units ---- 0.10 0.07 ----- Total dissolved solids ppm 1000 ---- 550 437 570 Existing System City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 3-27 Table 3-15. 2015 Surface Water Quality Results Contaminant Units Maximum Contaminant Levels Maximum Contaminant Level Goal/ Public Health Goal Delivered Water Central Coast Water Authority Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant Lopez Water Treatment Plant Alkalinity as CaCO3 ppm N/A N/A 230 79 260 Calcium ppm N/A N/A 74 69 90 Hardness as CaCO3 ppm N/A N/A 320 146 390 Magnesium ppm N/A N/A 38 18 40 pH pH units N/A N/A 8.29 8.2 8.21 Potassium ppm N/A N/A ----- 3.4 ----- Sodium ppm N/A N/A 44 84 34 Total organic carbon TT TT N/A ----- 2.5 ----- This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Section 4 SYSTEM EVALUATION CRITERIA This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. System Evaluation Criteria City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 4-1 SECTION 4 4.System EvaluationCriteria Many factors govern water supply planning such as costs, reliability, and water quality. Five key categories of evaluation criteria were developed to assess the City’s distribution system and develop the list of recommended improvements presented in this Water Master Plan Update. The five key categories are Customer and Demand Projections, Supply Reliability, Booster Pumps, Storage, and Distribution. 4.1 Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria This Water Master Plan Update is focused on the analysis and evaluation of the potable water distribution system and was prepared in conjunction with the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, which is the City’s guiding document for long-range water supply planning. Current water system performance criteria were developed from the California Waterworks Standards, City of Pismo Beach Standards, 2016 California Fire Code, the City’s preferences, and engineering judgement. The evaluation criteria for the water system have been organized into five categories: customer and demand projections, supply reliability, booster pumps, storage facilities, and distribution system. The criteria used to project future demands and evaluate supply reliability are outlined in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 respectively, on page 4-2. For additional information on customer and demand projections and supply reliability, see the City of Pismo Beach 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. IN THIS SECTION Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria System Evaluation Criteria City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 4-2 Table 4-1. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Customer and Demand Projections Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria Future system demand California Senate Bill x7-7 (SB x7-7) Calculate buildout demand from: (1)Buildout population from a 2001 population projection technical memorandum1 (2)Current gallons per capita per day water use (3)2020 gallons per capita per day target required by SBx7-7 (4)Future commercial and hotel water demands Maximum day demand factor Based on historical water demands 1.7 x average day demand Peak hour demand factor California Waterworks Standards 2.55 x average day demand (1.5 x maximum day demand) 1.Randy Bloom. Technical Memorandum. Revised population projections for use in sewer treatment plant expansion analysis. Pismo Beach, California : s.n., April 11, 2001. Although dated 2001, this is the City’s current buildout population projection. Table 4-2. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Supply Reliability Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria Reliable supply California Waterworks Standards Reliable supply is calculated by determining system capacity with the City’s largest source out of service. Source capacity California Waterworks Standards System must be able to meet maximum day demand with source capacity only, considering the reliability requirements identified above. System must be able to meet 4 hours of peak hour demand with source capacity and storage capacity. Water quality Current and pending drinking water regulations Existing water quality is analyzed and compared against current and pending maximum contaminant levels. Water disinfection California Waterworks Standards Disinfection systems must meet regulations for chloramine residuals and disinfection by- products; chemical storage must be sufficient for at least two weeks. System Evaluation Criteria City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 4-3 Table 4-3, Table 4-4, and Table 4-5 on page 4-4 outline the accepted standards and evaluation criteria for booster pump stations, storage reservoirs, and distribution pipelines, respectively. Table 4-3. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Booster Pumps Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria Zone reliability California Waterworks Standards, accepted engineering practices Must be able to meet maximum day demand within the zone with the largest pump out of service in zones with gravity storage. Zones without gravity storage must meet maximum day demand plus fire flow or peak hour demand, whichever is larger, with the largest pump out of service. Emergency power Recommended Standards for Water Works1 Emergency power must be sufficient to meet system average day demands and preparedness for other emergencies. 1. Recommended Standards for Water Works (Ten State Standards). Water Supply Committee of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. Albany: Health Research, Inc., 2007. Table 4-4. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Storage Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria Operational storage California Waterworks Standards Peak hour demand for 4 hours. Fire flow storage California Fire Code (Appendix B) Sufficient storage required to provide the fire flows for each zone listed in Table 7-9 on page 4-4. Emergency storage AWWA M19 Emergency Planning for Water Utilities and City Preference 50 gallons per capita per day for 72 hours + 70% of commercial and hotel average day demand (Main Zone and Shell Beach 1 Zone only). System Evaluation Criteria City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 4-4 Table 4-5. Water System Planning and Evaluation Criteria: Distribution Purpose Regulation or Reference Engineering and Planning Criteria System pressure California Waterworks Standards and City preference 40 psi minimum at average day demand 30 psi minimum at peak hour demand 20 psi minimum residual at fire flow plus maximum day demand Fire flows California Fire Code (Appendix B) and City preference Residential – 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours Commercial – 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours Downtown – 4,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours Pipeline velocities Engineer’s judgment and City preference Less than 5 feet per second at average day demand Less than 10 feet per second at fire flow plus maximum day demand condition (less than 15 feet per second near the source of fire) New distribution mains Engineer’s judgement and City preference All new water mains must be 8-inches or greater Fire hydrant spacing Engineer’s judgement and City preference At every intersection, at intervals not more than 250 feet in commercial zones, and not more than 300 feet in residential areas Valving Engineer’s judgement and City preference No shut down of greater than 500 feet in commercial/ residential areas Section 5 EXISTING & PROJECTED WATER DEMAND This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Existing & Projected Water Demand City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 5-1 SECTION 5 5. Existing & Projected Water Demand The City of Pismo Beach’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was published in July of 2016. This section summarizes existing water demand and projected future demand from the 2015 UWMP. For more information on how demands were determined and spatially allocated see Appendix A, Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation Technical Memorandum. Definitions For the purposes of this Water Master Plan Update, the following defined terms are used:  Consumption: amount of billed metered water consumed by customers. The City provided annual consumption data for 2010–2015.  Production: amount of water produced from City supply sources and put into the City’s distribution system based on metered flows at each well and wholesale volume contracted from the Lopez Project and State Water Project.  Non-revenue water: amount of water losses making up the difference between production and consumption. This is defined as the water losses plus authorized unbilled (metered and unmetered) water consumption.  Demand: amount of water distributed through the water system calculated based on consumption, production, and non-revenue water. Historical Water Demand The City’s historical gross water use and per capita water use for the period of 1995–2015 are shown in Figure 5-1 on page 5-2. IN THIS SECTION Definitions Historical Water Demand Future Demand Projections Supply Reliability Existing & Projected Water Demand City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 5-2 Figure 5-1. Historic Gross Water Use and Per Capita Water Use Future Demand Projections Future population growth in the City will depend on two factors: densification within the current city limits and growth resulting from new developments. The City’s General Plan specifies a limit on annual growth of three percent. Based on historic population trends, it is unlikely that the City will experience growth that meets the three percent annual limit. As shown in Table 5-1, the City anticipates an average annual growth rate of approximately 0.55 percent based on historic growth trends and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast (AECOM Technical Services, August 11, 2011). Based on a growth rate of 0.55 percent, the buildout within the current city limits, estimated as a population of 9,414, is assumed to occur beyond 2045, as shown in Table 5-2 on page 5-3 (Randy Bloom, 2001). Therefore, for planning purposes, the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, and this Water Master Plan Update, assume an annual growth within the current city limits of 0.55 percent until buildout is reached. Table 5-1. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Annual Growth Rate Projections 2015–2020 2021–2025 2026–2030 2031–2035 Growth rates1 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 1.Growth rates were calculated from San Luis Obispo Council of Governments population projection data, low range. (AECOM Technical Services, August 11, 2011) 198 207 222 185 185 225 219 234 235 244 236 236 255 252 235 171 171 170 181 226 201 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Average Per Capita Water Use (gpcd)Gross Water Use (AFY)System Gross Water Use (AFY)Daily Per Capita Water Use (gpcd) Existing & Projected Water Demand City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 5-3 Table 5-2. Population Historical, Current, and Projected 2005 2010 2015 2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 Pismo Beach population 8,103 7,655 7,711 8,198 8,334 8,566 8,804 9,048 For the purposes of projecting water demand, the California Senate Bill x7-7 per capita water consumption 2020 target of 204 gallons per capita per day was increased to include future commercial and hotel water uses resulting in an adjusted consumption rate of 212 gallons per capita per day. The adjusted per capita consumption factor reflects additional water consumption from future commercial and hotel customers who are not accounted for in the residential population numbers. The adjusted 2020 per capita target of 212 gallons per capita per day was then applied to the population projections shown in Table 5-2 to establish the future water consumption. Per capita water consumption is assumed to remain consistent beyond 2020. Table 5-3 below and Table 5-4 and Table 5-5, both on page 5-4, show past, current, and projected water consumption for the City based on historical and projected population (Table 5-2) and per capita water use (Figure 5-1 on page 5-2). The data presented in the tables is reproduced from the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, with the table formats revised to better fit the Master Plan. Table 5-3. 2010, 2015, and 2020 Water Consumption1 Water use sectors 2010 2015 2020 Metered Metered Metered Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Single family 3,699 856 3,817 762 3,923 888 Multi-family 323 131 323 154 332 136 Commercial 326 420 423 536 435 436 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Institutional/ governmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape 126 164 145 131 149 170 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 230 61 267 49 274 63 Total 4,704 1,632 4,975 1,632 5,113 1,694 1.Adapted from Table 4-4 through Table 4-6 of the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Existing & Projected Water Demand City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 5-4 Table 5-4. 2025, 2030, and 2035 Water Consumption1 Water use sectors 2025 2030 2035 Metered Metered Metered Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Single family 4,032 912 4,144 936 4,260 961 Multi-family 341 140 351 143 360 147 Commercial 447 447 459 459 472 472 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Institutional/ governmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape 153 175 157 179 162 184 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 282 65 290 67 298 69 Total 5,255 1,739 5,402 1,785 5,552 1,833 1.Adapted from Table 4-7 through Table 4-8 of the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Table 5-5. 2040, 2045, and Buildout Water Consumption Water use sectors 2040 2045 Buildout Metered Metered Metered Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Number of Connections Volume (AFY) Single family 4,378 987 4,500 1,014 4,676 1,049 Multi-family 370 151 381 155 396 160 Commercial 485 484 499 497 518 514 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Institutional/ governmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape 166 189 171 194 178 201 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 306 70 315 72 327 75 Total 5,706 1,882 5,865 1,933 6,094 1,999 Existing & Projected Water Demand City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 5-5 Additional Water Uses and Losses Additional water uses and losses are in the form of non-revenue water. Non-revenue water is defined as water losses plus authorized unbilled (metered and unmetered) water consumption. The City must consider water consumption as well as water losses from non-revenue water. Together, consumption and non-revenue water comprise the system’s water demand. The City uses the American Water Works Association Free Water Audit Software to perform an annual water audit of the City and measure non-revenue water. Non-revenue water is projected to be approximately 10.3 percent of production going forward (2016–2035) based on the average non-revenue water percentage for 2010–2015. Table 5-6 shows historical and projected non-revenue water for the City. Table 5-6. Non-Revenue Water1 Water use 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Buildout Non-revenue water (AFY) 312 104 195 200 205 211 217 223 230 1.Adapted from Table 4-11 in the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Total Demand Projections The total water demand projections include projected water consumption and non-revenue water. Table 5-7 includes the projected water demands for the City. The City works with developers to offset projected increases in water demand through implementation of water conservation projects. The resulting conservation is not depicted explicitly in the demand projections presented in the City’s 2015 UWMP or this Master Plan. However, the anticipated conservation provides a long-term buffer against potential per capita demand growth or other un-accounted for increases in water demand.Table 5-7. Total Demand Projections Water use 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Buildout Consumption (AFY) 1,632 1,694 1,739 1,785 1,833 1,882 1,933 1,999 Non-revenue water (AFY) 104 195 200 205 211 217 223 230 Total (AFY) 1,736 1,889 1,939 1,990 2,044 2,099 2,156 2,229 Existing & Projected Water Demand City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 5-6 Supply and Demand Comparison As discussed in Section 3.2, the City has three sources of supply: Lopez Lake water, State Water Project, and groundwater. These sources are expected to be delivered in full during average or normal rainfall years (non-drought conditions). During a single dry year and multiple dry years, the contractual supply from these sources may be reduced, as described in Section 3.2.5. Table 5-8 compares current and buildout water demands to current supply under both Normal and a Single Dry Year, as defined by the Department of Water Resources. Table 5-8. Supply and Demand Comparison Water use Water Demands (AFY) Current Supply, Normal Year (AFY) Current Supply, Single Dry Year (Worst Case) (AFY) 2015 1,736 2,832 1,849 Buildout 2,229 2,832 1,849 Based on the 2015 annual demand of 1,736 AFY, the City had adequate supply sources even during dry years. At buildout, annual demand is estimated at 2,229 AFY. Table 5-8 shows that during a Single Dry Year the City’s current supply sources may not be sufficient to meet annual demand. However, a Single Dry Years supply could be supplemented with water stored in San Luis Reservoir or the District’s excess allocation; see Section 3.2.2 for a discussion of State Water Project reliability. Buildout is not expected to occur until after 2045, and at that time, the City may have a significantly different supply portfolio. Evaluation and recommendations for specific supply improvements and source expansion is beyond the scope of this Water Master Plan Update, but further information on supply sources is discussed in the City of Pismo Beach 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. This Water Master Plan Update assumes Central Coast Blue will not result in an increased annual groundwater supply allocation, and the City will remain limited by the current 700 AFY allocation. With the full implementation of Central Coast Blue, the City may be able to pump more than its existing groundwater allocations through the Salvage Water provisions of the Adjudication; however, this additional water supply is not currently included in the projections of future available supply. As Central Coast Blue continues to develop, the City should monitor results of the analysis and consider amending this and other water planning documents as appropriate. See Section 3.2.4.3 for additional discussion of Central Coast Blue and its long-term supply implications. Section 6 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Hydraulic Model Development City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 6-1 SECTION 6 6.Hydraulic ModelDevelopment This Section summarizes the development of the City’s water distribution system hydraulic model and model calibration results. For detailed information on the model development and calibration, see Appendix B, Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration Technical Memorandum. Hydraulic Parameters and Design Criteria The objective of model development is to create a calibrated, representative model of the City’s distribution system to simulate and predict the performance of the distribution system under a variety of demand and operational scenarios. The distribution model is also extremely useful for evaluating alternative configurations and capital project recommendations to provide the most valuable system configuration to meet the City’s needs. The City actively maintains system mapping in a geographic information system (GIS), which WSC used to develop a spatially allocated water model in WaterGEMS, Bentley’s® GIS- based hydraulic modelling software. The model includes all distribution system piping. Loading System Demands Consumption data and parcel and zoning data were provided by the City in an Excel spreadsheet and a geodatabase, respectively. Demands were spatially allocated using demand factors based on customer zoning to each parcel. The City’s top 20 water users and future hotel projects were added individually so they would not skew the average demand factors thereby providing a more accurate spatial loading. For more detail on the demand allocation process, see Appendix A, Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation Technical Memorandum. The spatially allocated demands were assigned to the model for current and buildout average day demands. Additional demand alternatives for maximum day demand and peak hour demand were also added to the model. A summary of the modeled demands is provided in Table 6-1 on page 6-2. IN THIS SECTION Hydraulic Parameters and Design Criteria Hydraulic Model Development City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 6-2 Table 6-1 Summary of Modeled Demands System Demand Current1 (million gallons per day) Current1 (gallons per minute) Buildout (million gallons per day) Buildout (gallons per minute) Peaking Factor Average day demand 1.55 1,076 1.99 1,381 N/A Maximum day demand 2.64 1,829 3.38 2,348 1.7 x average day demand Peak hour demand 3.95 2,744 5.07 3,522 2.55 x average day demand 1.The “Current” demand scenario is based on water consumption and production records from 2011 through 2015, see Appendix A and B for additional information on demand scenario creation. Model Calibration The model was calibrated based on seven hydrant tests performed throughout the distribution system in November 2016. In general, the hydrant testing results matched the model results. The model was refined by adjusting the pipe C-factors based on material to better reflect the hydrant testing results. Figure 6-1 depicts the model calibration results, and shows all modeled pressures are within ±5 psi of observed system pressures. Refer to Appendix B for additional information on model development and calibration. Figure 6-1. Linear Regression Relationship between Observed and Modeled Pressures from Hydrant Tests 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120Observed Pressures (psi)Modeled Pressures (psi) Static Pressure Residual Pressure Linear (45 degree line) Linear (-5 psi) Linear (+5 psi) City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 6-3 Extended Period Simulation Calibration The City provided two weeks of detailed supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) records from 2016, one high-demand week and one normal-demand week, that included tank levels, pump status, and turnout flowrates in 15-minute increments. Week one represented the high-demand week and included SCADA records from July 3, 2016, through July 9, 2016. The City often sees a high influx of tourism during the Fourth of July, when the maximum day demand typically occurs. Week two was used to model the system during average annual demands and normal operations, and included SCADA records from October 17, 2016, through October 23, 2016. October 22-23, 2016 was Clam Festival weekend, and these days were omitted from average day model calibration. The SCADA records were used to develop diurnal demand curves for each zone as well as pump and well controls to run an extended period simulation scenario in the model. The extended period simulation scenario was calibrated until tank levels and filling and emptying rates predicted in the model generally matched the SCADA records. The extended period simulation scenario can be used to predict trends pertaining to water age and is a useful tool to model how projects may affect the whole system and refine operational controls. Hydraulic Model Development This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Section 7 PRODUCTION, PUMPING, STORAGE, & DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-1 SECTION 7 7.Production, Pumping,Storage, &Distribution Analysis The City desires to focus improvement projects to meet existing deficiencies within the system as well as future deficiencies which could occur at buildout. Although buildout is not expected until after 2045, the City does not expect the extent of the distribution system to increase because of limited room for expansion or new developments. This section details the existing and expected future deficiencies in the distribution system that were used to develop the priority capital project lists. Production Analysis In addition to reliable annual supply from historic allocations, California Waterworks Standards calculate reliable supply by determining production capacity with the City’s largest production facility out of service. The California Waterworks Standards definition of reliable supply is focused on reliable production capacity and should not be confused with the supply reliability discussed in Section 5.4. The supply reliability as presented in Section 5.4 is focused on long term supply as potentially impacted by seasonal variations in rainfall and water availability. Whereas the California Waterworks Standards reliable supply is considering the reliability of production facilities such as wells, pumps, and turnouts, which can be susceptible to mechanical failure. Hereafter the term production capacity or reliable production capacity will be used in reference to the California Waterworks Standards definition of reliable supply. Table 7-1 on page 7-2 lists the City’s sources of supply and each source’s design and typical production capacities. Each turnout from the Lopez IN THIS SECTION Production Analysis Booster Pump Stations Storage Facilities Distribution and Transmission Pipelines Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-2 Pipeline was designed to supply up to 1,000 gallons per minute; however, the City typically operates the turnouts at a much lower flow because of low demands and low differential pressure between the system and the Lopez Pipeline. The turnouts operate 24/7 and must be manually turned up or down by the District, so the flow through the turnouts is set to create a baseline supply for the City. This allows the City to vary the time of day and duration of pumping of their wells. Generally, Well 23 will operate three to six hours at a time, four to five times a week, and Well 5 only runs intermittently for maintenance, and is not currently used as a main supply source. The calculated reliable production capacity is 1,889 gallons per minute based on the largest production facility, Well 23, offline. Use of this reliable production capacity will allow the City to make future conservative decisions regarding production facilities. Table 7-1. Reliable Production Capacity Source Design Capacity (gallons per minute)1 Observed/ Typical Capacity (gallons per minute) Capacity with largest source offline (gallons per minute) Well 5 600 549 549 Well 23 950 854 --- Pismo Oaks Turnout 1,000 200 200 Bello Turnout 1,000 6702 670 Vista Del Mar Turnout 700 370 370 Sunset Palisades Turnout 100 100 100 Total (gallons per minute) 5,250 2,743 1,889 1.Each turnout was originally designed for 1,000 gallons per minute, but the Vista Del Mar and Sunset Palisades turnouts cannot supply this amount due to lower differential pressure from the Lopez Pipeline to the City’s distribution system. 2.The Bello Turnout typically operates between 400 and 700 gallons per minute, depending on the time of the year. The observed capacity during July 2016 of 670 gallons per minute was included. This more accurately reflects the supply under maximum day demand and peak hour demand. Three production reliability scenarios, listed below, were evaluated at both current and buildout demands. Table 7-2 and Table 7-3, see next page, evaluate the reliable production under each scenario under current and buildout demands, respectively. Average day demands for 24 hours must be met using the total production capacity and no storage. This scenario is used as a baseline and represents typical operating conditions of the system. Maximum day demands for 24 hours must be met using the production capacity with the largest producing source offline and no storage, as required in California Waterworks Standards and California Code of Regulation Section 64554. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-3 Peak hour demand for 4 hours must be met using production capacity with the largest producing source offline and storage capacity, as required in California Waterworks Standards and California Code of Regulation Section 64554. For this scenario, operational storage was assumed to be the available storage capacity. Table 7-2. Production Reliability Analysis at Current Demands Description Units Average Day Scenario Maximum Day Scenario Peak Hour Scenario Duration hours 24 24 4 System demand gallons per minute 1,076 1,829 2,744 Total demand volume MG 1.55 2.63 0.66 Available supply gallons per minute 2,743 1,889 1,889 Available storage MG - - 0.66 Total available supply MG 3.95 2.72 1.11 Supply minus demand MG 2.40 0.09 0.45 Adequate supply Yes Yes Yes Table 7-3. Production Reliability Analysis at Buildout Demands Description Units Average Day Scenario Maximum Day Scenario Peak Hour Scenario Duration hours 24 24 4 System demand gallons per minute 1,381 2,348 3,522 Total demand volume MG 1.99 3.38 0.85 Available supply gallons per minute 2,743 1,889 1,889 Available Storage MG - - 0.84 Total Available Supply MG 3.95 2.72 1.30 Supply minus Demand MG 1.96 -0.66 0.45 Adequate Supply Yes No Yes Under current demands, the analysis predicts all production reliability scenarios are met. Under buildout maximum day demand, the production analysis estimates a future production capacity deficit of 0.66 MGD. Based on predicted growth rates in the City, this is not expected to occur until after 2045. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-4 This analysis assumes the Lopez Line is a reliable source of production and historically it has been. If the Lopez Line fails or Lopez Lake water is unavailable, which is only expected to occur under emergency situations, the City will not be able to meet current maximum day demands with the current well production capacity and will need to rely on emergency storage to meet system demands. In the event of an emergency, the City has provisions with the City of Arroyo Grande to allow an interconnection through adjacent fire hydrants in each system. This interconnection will allow the City to obtain additional groundwater through the City of Arroyo Grande’s water distribution system. To improve production capacity and reliably meet future maximum daily demands, the City should construct at least one additional groundwater well (for a total of three groundwater wells). As mentioned, the City is leading Central Coast Blue, a regional indirect potable reuse project, which will promote regional groundwater sustainability by protecting the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin and provide supply reliability with an additional source of water for municipal users. After completion of Central Coast Blue, the City expects to obtain more of its water supply from groundwater. WSC recommends that the City construct the additional groundwater well (for a total of three groundwater wells) or multiple wells (if Central Coast Blue analysis indicates multiple wells are required to manage the groundwater basin) after completion of Central Coast Blue to utilize this new source of water and improve future supply reliability. Booster Pump Stations The City’s booster pump stations were evaluated based on the criteria described in Section 4. Booster station facilities that supply storage tanks to meet fire flow and peak hour demands must meet the maximum day demand within their zone with the largest pump out of service. This criterion applies to most of the booster pump stations in the distribution system, including Pismo Oaks, Pacific Estates, Bello, Bay Street, and Shell Beach booster pump stations. These booster pumps stations are comprised of two pumps of equal capacity, and each single pump should be sized to meet maximum day demand in the zone. For zones without gravity storage, the booster pump stations should be sized to meet maximum day demand plus fire flow or peak hour demand, whichever is larger, with the largest pump out of service. This criterion only applies to the Heights 2 Zone, which contains an upper- and lower-boosted pressure zone supplied via the Heights 2 Booster Pump Station. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-5 Table 7-4 and Table 7-5, both on page 7-6, summarize the adequacy of each booster pump station to meet existing and buildout demand. All booster pump stations are adequately sized to meet the distribution system’s current demands. Except for the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station, all booster pump stations are adequately sized for buildout demand. The City regularly upkeeps and replaces pumps and motors at all booster pump stations based on the expected useful lifetime for the equipment. During the scheduled replacement of the Pacific Estates pumps and motors in the future, the City should replace the existing pumps with higher capacity pumps to meet buildout demands, as required. Note, the Bello Booster Pump Station is also recommended for a similar capacity increase to meet buildout storage requirements as described in Section 7.2.4. It is recommended that the City install flow meters at all booster pump stations that do not currently have flow meters to understand how water is transferred between zones, and to use the metered data to size future pump capacity. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-6 Table 7-4. Adequacy of Booster Pump Stations under Current Demands Booster Pump Station Zone(s) Serving Total Booster Pump Station Capacity (gallons per minute) Firm Capacity (gallons per minute) Current Average Day Demand (gallons per minute) Current Maximum Day Demand (gallons per minute) Fire Flow Requirement1 (gallons per minute) Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow1 (gallons per minute) Current Peak Hour Demand1 (gallons per minute) Required Capacity (gallons per minute) Surplus/ Deficit Capacity (gallons per minute) Meets Booster Pump Station Requirements Pismo Oaks Pismo Oaks 1,000 500 132 224 --- --- --- 224 276 Yes Pacific Estates Pacific Estates 680 340 184 313 --- --- --- 313 27 Yes Bello Heights 1, Bello, Del Court 800 400 88 150 --- --- --- 150 250 Yes Heights Heights 2 3,343 1,843 50 85 1,500 1,585 127.5 1,585 257 Yes Bay Street Shell Beach 1 1,400 700 206 350 --- --- --- 350 350 Yes Shell Beach Shell Beach 2 1,000 500 90 153 --- --- --- 153 347 Yes 1.Booster pump stations that supply zones without gravity storage must meet either maximum day demand plus fire flow or peak hour demand, whichever is larger. This criterion only applies to the Heights Booster Pump Station, which is why other booster pump stations are left blank. Table 7-5. Adequacy of Booster Pump Stations under Buildout Demands Booster Pump Station Zone(s) Serving Total Booster Pump Station Capacity (gallons per minute) Firm Capacity (gallons per minute) Buildout Average Day Demand (gallons per minute) Buildout Maximum Day Demand (gallons per minute) Fire Flow Requirement1 (gallons per minute) Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow1 (gallons per minute) Buildout Peak Hour Demand1 (gallons per minute) Required Capacity (gallons per minute) Surplus/ Deficit Capacity (gallons per minute) Meets Booster Pump Station Requirements Pismo Oaks Pismo Oaks 1,000 500 157 267 --- --- --- 267 233 Yes Pacific Estates Pacific Estates 680 340 274 466 --- --- --- 466 -126 No Bello Heights 1, Bello, Del Court 800 400 109 185 --- --- --- 185 215 Yes Heights Heights 2 3,343 1,843 72 122 1,500 1,622 183.6 1,622 220 Yes Bay Street Shell Beach 1 1,400 700 258 439 --- --- --- 439 261 Yes Shell Beach Shell Beach 2 1,000 500 116 197 --- --- --- 197 303 Yes 1.Booster pump stations that supply zones without gravity storage must meet either maximum day demand plus fire flow or peak hour demand, whichever is larger. This criterion only applies to the Heights Booster Pump Station, which is why other booster pump stations are left blank. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-7 Storage Facilities Storage facilities are required to provide operational storage, fire storage, and emergency storage, as described in Section 4. The following sections evaluate storage requirements for all three categories and provide storage recommendations for the system. Operational Storage Operational storage is the amount of water needed to equalize daily supply and demand. Without the use of operational storage, water supply facilities would need to be sized to meet the instantaneous peak demands throughout the day. Operational storage is also available to allow the City to cycle pumps and wells on and off to meet variations in demand. For instance, operational storage can be used to allow the City to turn wells off during the day and on at night to fill the tanks when electrical power is less expensive. Operational storage criteria can be defined many ways. Three of the more common methods to calculate operational storage requirements were evaluated in this Master Plan Update, listed below: 1.California Waterworks Standard – meet 4 hours of peak hour demand; 2.American Water Works Association Manual M32 – 25 percent of the average day demand; and, 3.Computer Simulation – use an extended period simulation to model operational storage. California Waterworks Standards state a distribution system with 1,000 or more service connections shall be able to meet 4 hours of peak hour demand with source capacity, storage capacity, and/or emergency source connections. The City meets the 4 hours of peak hour demand criteria using a combination of pump capacity and storage volume. The storage volume used to meet the peak hour demand is pulled from the system’s operational storage volume. In the City of Pismo Beach 2004 Water Master Plan, the recommended operational storage volume was 25 percent of the total water use for any given day based on the American Water Works Association Manual M32: Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems. WSC also used the extended period simulation in the hydraulic model to estimate operational storage needs based on pumping rates and tank levels during a 24-hour maximum day demand scenario. These methods were compared to the current California Waterworks Standards described above. Between the three methods, the California Waterworks Standards are more stringent and require the largest volume of operational storage. WSC recommends the City use the California Waterworks Standards for the most conservative operational storage requirements. Table 7-6 and Table 7-7, on page 7-8 and 7-9 respectively, lists the operational storage volume needed per zone at current and buildout demands under all three evaluation criteria. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-8 Table 7-6. Required Operational Storage per Zone at Current Demands Recommended Operational Storage Based on the Most Stringent Requirements (gallons) 5,508 2,448 45,900 30,600 198,900 112,608 80,784 126,072 55,080 657,900 Current Required Operational Storage based on Pump Cycling and Extended Period Simulation Modeling (gallons) N/A N/A 8,972 N/A 194,194 69,919 26,115 67,301 79,179 445,680 Current Required Operational Storage as 4 Hours of Peak Hour Demand (gallons) 5,508 2,448 45,900 30,600 198,900 112,608 80,784 126,072 55,080 657,900 Current Required Operational Storage as 25% of Average Day Demand (gallons) 3,240 1,440 27,000 18,000 117,000 66,240 47,520 74,160 32,400 387,000 Current Peak Hour Demand (gallons per minute) 23 10 191 128 829 469 337 525 230 2,741 Current Average Day Demand (gallons per minute) 9 4 75 50 325 184 132 206 90 1,075 Zone Bello Del Court Heights 1 Heights 2 Main Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Total Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-9 Table 7-7. Required Operational Storage per Zone at Buildout Demands Recommended Operational Storage Based on the Most Stringent Requirements (gallons) 7,344 3,060 56,304 44,064 239,292 167,688 96,084 157,896 70,992 842,724 1.Buildout operational storage based on pumping cycles and extended period simulation modeling is estimated based on the increase indemands from current maximum day demands (1,829 gallons per minute) to buildout maximum day demands (2,348 gallons per minute). Abuildout extended period simulation scenario is not available because current SCADA records are required for calibration.Buildout Required Operational Storage based on Pump Cycling and Extended Period Simulation Modeling (gallons)1 N/A N/A 11,518 N/A 249,299 89,759 33,525 86,399 101,647 572,147 Buildout Required Operational Storage as 4 Hours of Peak Hour Demand (gallons) 7,344 3,060 56,304 44,064 239,292 167,688 96,084 157,896 70,992 842,724 Buildout Required Operational Storage as 25% of Average Day Demand (gallons) 4,320 1,800 33,120 25,920 140,760 98,640 56,520 92,880 41,760 495,720 Buildout Peak Hour Demand (gallons per minute) 31 13 235 184 997 699 400 658 296 3,511 Buildout Average Day Demand (gallons per minute) 12 5 92 72 391 274 157 258 116 1,377 Zone Bello Del Court Heights 1 Heights 2 Main Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Total Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-10 Fire Storage Fire flow requirements are set by the local fire officials and determined by the California Building Code construction type and square footage of the fire area. The City of Pismo Beach’s fire flow requirements were set by the Fire Chief based on development type and are outlined in Table 7-8. The fire flow must be met during maximum day demand conditions and the system must maintain a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi in the zone. When assessing the available fire flow in each zone, the tanks are modeled as half full. Each distribution zone’s fire flow requirements are listed in Table 7-9. Table 7-8. Fire Flow Requirements by Type of Development Development Type Fire Flow Requirement (gallons per minute) Duration (hours) Residential 1,500 2 Commercial 2,500 3 Downtown 4,500 4 Table 7-9. Fire Flow Requirements by Zone Zone Fire Flow Requirement (gallons per minute) Duration (hours) Volume (gallons) Main 4,5001 4 1,080,000 Pismo Oaks 1,500 2 180,000 Pacific Estates 1,500 2 180,000 Heights 12 1,500 2 180,000 Bello2 1,500 2 180,000 Dell Court2 1,500 2 180,000 Heights 22 1,500 2 180,000 Shell Beach 1 2,500 3 450,000 Shell Beach 2 2,500 3 450,000 1.Downtown area only. The rest of the zone requires a fire flow based on the development type. The Five Cities Drive area requires a fire flow of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours while the rest of the zone only requires 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. However, the largest fire flow establishes the required fire flow storage volume for the zone. 2.These zones are all supplied by the Heights Reservoirs, and for storage recommendations it is assumed only one fire event between the four zones will occur at one time. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-11 Emergency Storage According to the American Water Works Association Manual M19 Emergency Planning for Water Utilities, emergency storage is water available for use by water system customers in the event of a longer-term disruption of water supply. “Emergency storage provides water during events, such as pipeline failures, equipment failures, power outages, pumping system failures, water treatment plant failures, raw water contamination, or natural disasters.” (American Water Works Association, 2001) The quantity of emergency storage is determined by the agency and based on the required water system dependability, risk acceptance, and water quality in storage reservoirs. Oversized reservoirs can potentially have a negative impact on stored water quality because of increased difficulty in maintaining chlorine residual and a higher risk of exceeding disinfection byproduct limits. The City of Pismo Beach has historically used 3 days (72 hours) at 50 gallons per day per capita for establishing emergency storage requirements in the primarily residential zones. This same approach to analyze emergency storage will be used in this Water Master Plan Update to determine the emergency storage needs for the Pismo Oaks, Pacific Estates, Heights 1, Bello, Dell Court, Heights 2, and Shell Beach 2 zones. For the Main and Shell Beach 1 zones the emergency storage required will be 50 gallons per capita per day plus 70 percent of the commercial and hotel/motel average daily demand, since these zones contain significant commercial development. Current population estimates served per zone were not available for defining required emergency storage for each zone. The available 2010 census population per zone was scaled to the City’s current population. This method is assumed to be reasonable since population growth has primarily occurred through densification within the existing city limits. The City does not expect major future residential developments that would expand the water distribution system, so buildout population was estimated similarly, with densification within all distribution zones. The estimated population and emergency storage required per zone is listed in Table 7-10 on page 7-12 and Table 7-11 on page 7-13 for current and buildout demands, respectively. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-12 Table 7-10. Required Emergency Storage per Zone for Current Demands Current Emergency Storage Requirement (gallons) 17,000 8,800 29,100 87,500 498,400 173,500 177,300 361,900 189,100 1,543,000 1.Based on data reported in the 2010 Census.2.The emergency storage recommended for the Main and Shell Beach 1 zones are 50 gallons per capita per day for 3 days plus 70 percent of the commercial average day demand.70% of Commercial Average Day Demand for 24 hours (gallons)2 --- --- --- --- 226,800 --- --- 86,200 --- 313,000 50 Gallons per Capita per Day (gallons) 17,000 8,800 29,100 87,500 271,600 173,500 177,300 275,700 189,100 1,230,000 Current Average Day Demand (gallons per minute) 9 4 75 50 322 189 132 207 89 1,076 Estimated Current Population 114 59 194 584 1,811 1,157 1,182 1,838 1,260 8,198 2010 Population1 106 55 181 545 1,691 1,080 1,104 1,716 1,177 7,655 Zone Bello Del Court Heights 1 Heights 2 Main Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Total Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-13 Table 7-11. Required Emergency Storage per Zone for Buildout Demands Buildout Emergency Storage Requirement (gallons) 15,600 8,400 87,800 107,000 510,800 331,500 202,800 401,500 129,800 1,795,000 1.Based on data reported in the 2010 Census.2.The emergency storage recommended for the Main and Shell Beach 1 zones are 50 gallons per capita per day for 3 days plus 70 percent of the commercial average day demand.70% of Commercial Average Day Demand for 24 hours (gallons)2 --- --- --- --- 275,500 --- --- 107,600 --- 383,000 50 Gallons per Capita per Day (gallons) 19,500 10,200 33,450 100,500 312,000 199,200 203,700 316,500 217,050 1,412,000 Buildout Average Day Demand (gallons per minute) 12 5 92 72 391 274 157 258 116 1,377 Estimated Buildout Population 130 68 223 670 2,080 1,328 1,358 2,110 1,447 9,414 2010 Population1 106 55 181 545 1,691 1,080 1,104 1,716 1,177 7,655 Zone Bello Del Court Heights 1 Heights 2 Main Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Total Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-14 Total Storage Requirements Generally, the City’s storage facilities are adequately sized to meet existing and buildout demands. Table 7-12 and Table 7-13, on pages 7-16 and 7-17 respectively, summarize the adequacy of storage facilities to meet existing demands and buildout demands, respectively. The criteria used to evaluate the storage facilities are based on the zone or zones each storage facility supplies; therefore, the Bello Reservoir and the Charles Street Reservoir were analyzed together for the Main Zone. The storage analysis shows that most of the zones, the Main Zone being the exception, have sufficient storage to meet current storage requirements. The Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs that supply the Main Zone were constructed in 1940 and 1930 and, as discussed in Section 8, the Charles Street Reservoir is near the end of its useful life (the Bello Reservoir has had more recent improvements and is in better condition). Since the reservoirs were constructed, the City has grown tremendously with extensive development in the downtown area and near the Pismo Pier. The downtown area requires a fire flow of 4,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours and a fire flow storage volume of 1,080,000 gallons, which is the single largest factor contributing to the Main Zone’s storage deficit. Based on the existing storage volume in the Main Zone and the storage requirements, the Main Zone has a storage deficit of over 800,000 gallons under current demands and will have a deficiency of over one million gallons at buildout. Conveniently, the Pacific Estates Zone has excess storage that can be shared with the Main Zone for fire flow or emergency storage requirements. There is an existing pressure reducing valve at the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station that will allow water to flow from the Pacific Estates Zone back into the Main Zone when pressures drop on the discharge side. The City should confirm the pressure reducing valve settings and improve control of the pressure reducing valve, so it can be opened remotely via the City’s SCADA system when a fire or other emergency occurs, but before the pressure drops significantly. This recommendation is included in the Pacific Estates Improvements project in the capital improvement plan. When including the excess Pacific Estates storage as available for the Main Zone, there is a current storage deficit of 153,000 gallons and a buildout deficit of 364,000 gallons. In addition to the storage deficit in the Main Zone, the Charles Street Reservoir is close to exceeding its useful life and should be replaced soon. Replacing the Charles Street Reservoir is currently in the City’s 10-year capital improvement plan. The City should increase the storage capacity in the Main Zone by replacing the Charles Street Reservoir with a larger-capacity reservoir at the same location. Based on the buildout storage deficit, the new reservoir volume should be no less than 784,000 gallons. However, based on discussion with the City, the Charles Street Reservoir will become more important after the completion of Central Coast Blue. Once Central Coast Blue is completed, the City expects the use of groundwater to increase and needs the Charles Street Reservoir to receive and distribute groundwater into the other zones. For this reason, it is recommended the City replace the existing Charles Street Reservoir with a 1 MG reservoir. Additional analysis about the operation of the distribution system after the completion of Central Coast Blue is included in Section 9.3. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-15 The Heights 1 and 2 reservoirs currently have sufficient storage volume but are expected to have a minor storage deficiency of 14,000 gallons at buildout due to stringent operational storage requirements. As mentioned, California Waterworks Standards state that operational storage shall provide 4 hours of peak hour demand criteria using a combination of pump capacity and storage volume. Rather than adding a small reservoir adjacent to the existing Heights 1 and 2 reservoirs (which was determined to be impractical), the capacity of the Bello Booster Pump Station should be increased after completion of the booster pump station metering project. The City can then use metered data to determine the future required capacity of the Bello pumps to reduce operational storage requirements and prevent a future storage deficit. The Shell Beach 1 Reservoir currently meets all storage requirements but is expected to have a 32,000- gallon deficit at buildout. The Shell Beach 1 and Shell Beach 2 zones are hydraulically connected through the South Mattie Road pressure reducing valve, where water from the Shell Beach 2 Zone can feed the Shell Beach 1 Zone. This pressure reducing valve is set to open under low pressure, such as during a fire flow scenario. There is a buildout surplus volume of 262,000 gallons of storage in the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir that can be shared with the Shell Beach 1 Zone during an emergency and can be counted toward Shell Beach 1 Reservoir’s fire and emergency storage deficient. Because the surplus storage in the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir is greater than the deficit in the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir, WSC does not recommend increasing Shell Beach 1 Reservoir’s storage capacity. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-16 Table 7-12. Adequacy of Storage Facilities at Current Demands Additional Storage Recommended Yes No No No No No 1.Deficit to be met with larger Charles Street Reservoir and interconnection with Pacific EstatesReservoir(s) Volume Surplus or (Deficit) (gallons) (887,000)1 33,000 734,000 362,000 62,000 306,000 610,000 Total Volume Needed (gallons) 1,777,000 407,000 466,000 438,000 938,000 694,000 4,720,000 Required Emergency Storage (gallons) 498,400 142,400 173,500 177,300 361,900 189,100 1,543,000 Required Fire Flow Storage (gallons) 1,080,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 450,000 450,000 2,520,000 Required Operational Storage (gallons) 198,900 84,500 112,600 80,800 126,100 55,100 657,900 Current Storage Volume (gallons) 890,000 440,000 1,200,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,330,000 Zone(s) Supplied Main Heights 1, Heights 2, Bello, and Del Court Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Reservoir(s) Bello and Charles Street Heights 1 and 2 Pacific Estates 1 and 2 Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Total Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-17 Table 7-13. Adequacy of Storage Facilities at Buildout Demands Additional Storage Recommended Yes No No No No No 1.Deficit to be met with larger Charles Street Reservoir and interconnection with Pacific Estates.2.Deficit to be met with improvements to Bello Booster Station.3.Deficit to be met with existing interconnection between Shell Beach 1 and Shell Beach 2 zones.Reservoir(s) Volume Surplus or (Deficit) (gallons) (1,017,000)1 (14,000)2 653,000 320,000 (32,000)3 262,000 172,000 Total Volume Needed (gallons) 1,907,000 454,000 547,000 480,000 1,032,000 738,000 5,158,000 Required Emergency Storage (gallons) 587,500 163,700 199,200 203,700 424,100 217,100 1,795,000 Required Fire Flow Storage (gallons) 1,080,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 450,000 450,000 2,520,000 Required Operational Storage (gallons) 239,300 110,800 167,700 96,100 157,900 71,000 842,700 Current Storage Volume (gallons) 890,000 440,000 1,200,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,330,000 Zone(s) Supplied Main Heights 1, Heights 2, Bello, and Del Court Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Reservoir(s) Bello and Charles Street Heights 1 and 2 Pacific Estates 1 and 2 Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Total Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-18 Distribution and Transmission Pipelines The hydraulic model was used to evaluate system pressure, fire flow, and velocity based on the evaluation criteria presented in Section 4. Additional criteria (e.g. hydrant and valve spacing) are included in Section 8 – Facility Condition Assessment. Overall, the City’s existing network of water distribution pipelines is reasonably well configured with most areas having adequate looping and few dead-end mains. However, there are notable specific areas that require improvement to alleviate pressure and fire flow deficiencies, which are discussed below. Pressure The pressure requirements for the distribution system are described in Section 4 and are based on both California Waterworks standards and the City’s preferences. The City has designed its system around these standards to supply a minimum pressure of 40 psi throughout the system during average day demands and maximum day demands, and a minimum pressure of 30 psi during peak hour demands as required by the California Code of Regulations Title 17 Section 64602. The pressure in the system was evaluated under average day demand, maximum day demand, and peak hour demands for current and buildout conditions using the hydraulic model. The pressure did not vary significantly under these demand scenarios, and the pressure in most locations is above 40 psi, even under peak hour demands. In addition to evaluating the pressure under multiple demand scenarios, pressure was evaluated under different tank level settings. Most of the distribution zones in the system are supplied by gravity storage reservoirs, and the water level in the reservoir directly affects the pressure in the system. The Bello, Dell Court, Heights 2, and the Sunset Palisades pressure zone within the Shell Beach 2 Zone are supplied through either a pressure reducing valve or booster pump station and do not contain gravity storage. The pressures in these zones are constant under all tank level settings. The model was run under buildout maximum day demands with reservoirs half full representing a low- pressure scenario, and with the reservoirs 90 percent full, representing a high-pressure scenario. The pressure did not vary greatly between the two tank level settings. Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2, on pages 7- 20 and 7-21, show the pressure experienced across the system under buildout maximum day demands and with the tank levels half full. The pressure differences in other demand and tank level scenarios were a maximum of 5 psi across the system. As shown in the pressure map, most areas of the distribution system meet or exceed minimum pressure requirements. However, according to the City and reflected in the model, there are two areas in the distribution system that can experience low pressures (below 40 psi) during average and maximum day demand. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-19 Along the northern end of Dugan Drive in the Pismo Oaks Zone, pressures can be as low as 35 psi during average day demands. Although this is below the 40 psi minimum, the low pressures occur because these are the first services below the Pismo Oaks Reservoir and there is not enough elevation drop to achieve the 40 psi minimum pressure. While this area meets the City’s fire flow requirements, there are only a few options to increase the pressure for these few residents. The City can direct the customers that experience low-pressure in this area to install a small booster or jet pump and pressure tank along their service line. With an individual booster pump each household will be able to control and maintain higher water pressure than currently received from the distribution main. Considering that the lowest service is only 5 psi below the 40 psi requirement, not all customers may wish to install a booster pump and pressure tank. To maintain system pressure as high as practicable, the City can operate Pismo Oaks Reservoir with a high-water level (about 90% full) to maintain pressures at these services at 40 psi or greater; however, system demands, and production capacity limitations, means the City cannot guarantee this operating condition. The other low-pressure area is in the Main Zone, which affects multiple homes and apartments on Bello Street southeast of the Bello Reservoir. The pressure in this area is also about 35 psi and is a result of the slight elevation difference from the Bello Reservoir to the low-pressure area. To increase the pressure, the Dell Court Zone could be extended to include this area. If the Dell Court Zone was extended, the pressure in the area would increase to over 80 psi and each individual home would require a pressure regulator, which would require the City to modify the existing services on the customer side of the meter. Currently, a 6-inch water main runs through the private driveway of The Woods Condos in this area, which would make modification of the existing services difficult for the City. When the existing 6-inch water main has reached the end of its useful life, the City should replace the water main, abandon the pipe along the easement and within the private driveway, and add this area to the Dell Court Zone to improve pressures. This is expected to occur past the 30-year planning horizon of this Water Master Plan Update, and thus was not included in the capital improvement plan. While low pressures are a concern, if the water pressure is too high, it can cause damage to water lines, weaken water heaters, overwhelm expansion tanks and cause water hammer, or overwhelm or break other valves or appliances in the home. Pressures above 80 psi usually require a pressure regulator on the service line to reduce pressure at a service. Reducing water pressure will protect appliances and may also result in saving water by reducing the amount of water flowing from fixtures. There are multiple locations throughout the City with pressures that exceed 80 psi, and most of these services have previously been equipped with pressure regulators. If the City becomes aware of homes without pressure regulators in areas with normal system pressure greater than 80 psi, the homeowner should be notified of the recommendation to install a pressure regulator. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-20 Figure 7-1. Pressure at Buildout Maximum Day Demand in the Shell Beach System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-21 Figure 7-2. Pressure at Buildout Maximum Day Demand in the Main System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-22 Fire Flow In addition to delivering high-quality water and adequate pressures to consumers, providing protection during a fire is a critical function of a water distribution system. Fire flow requirements are typically set by the Fire Chief using requirements set forth in the California Fire Code. Historically, the City’s fire flow requirements are 1,500 gallons per minute in residential areas, 2,500 gallons per minute in commercial areas, and 4,500 gallons per minute in the downtown area while maintaining a residual pressure of 20 psi throughout the distribution zone. The available fire flow within the distribution system was modeled under maximum day demands with the reservoirs half full, both wells off, and all the turnouts closed under current and future demands. Buildout is expected to occur within the expected lifespan of common pipe materials. Therefore, fire flow was modeled using the buildout demand scenario so that recommended improvements will be sufficient to meet buildout needs. Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4, on page 7-23 and page 7-24 respectively, show the available fire flow in the Shell Beach System and Main System under buildout maximum day demands. Overall, the distribution system can meet fire flow requirements in most residential areas but has difficulty meeting fire flow requirements in the downtown area and commercial zones along Five Cities Drive. The model was used to develop projects in these and other fire flow-deficient locations. Typically, these projects include upsizing small diameter mains and adding new pipes to improve looping in the system. Isolated single nodes that cannot meet fire flow requirements were considered adequate if nearby hydrants exceeded the requirements. These locations typically occurred at the end of small diameter dead-end mains. Other locations also indicated as being fire flow deficient in Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4 on page 7-23 and page 7-24 were considered adequate if two hydrants could be used to meet fire flow requirements. During a fire, it is likely that multiple hydrants will be used, and their combined flowrate must meet fire flow requirements. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-23 Figure 7-3. Available Fire Flow in the Shell Beach System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-24 Figure 7-4. Available Fire Flow in the Main System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-25 The fire flow analysis showed that the two areas needing the most improvement are the downtown area and the Five Cities Drive area, both in the Main Zone. Neither area can currently provide the required fire flow and maintain a residual pressure of 20 psi, and both areas need increased pipe sizes or new loops to meet the fire flow requirement. The existing system can provide an average fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute in the downtown area. Improvements required to meet the 4,500 gallons per minute fire flow include upgrading existing pipes and creating new loops. The Five Cities Drive area supplies water to the Hacienda Del Pismo Mobile Estates, Pismo Beach Outlet Center, Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza, and multiple hotels near the intersection of Five Cities Drive and 4th Street. This area is mainly commercial zoning and has a fire flow requirement of 2,500 gallons per minute. This area cannot currently achieve this fire flow requirement; the northern end of the area can provide a fire flow of 2,400 gallons per minute and the southern end can provide 1,400 gallons per minute. In addition to these locations, other pipeline upgrades are recommended to improve fire flow in specific locations across the system. Recommended fire flow projects are listed in Table 7-14, on pages 7-26 through 7-28, and shown in Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6 on pages 7-29 and 7-30, respectively. Figure 7-7 and Figure 7-8, on pages 7-31 and 7-32, show the available fire flow in the system after the recommended projects are implemented. With the recommended fire flow projects, all locations within the City’s distribution system will be able to provide the required fire flow. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-26 Table 7-14. Recommended Projects to Improve Existing and Future Fire Flow Deficiency No. Location Existing Size Recommended Project Downtown Area Projects (Main Zone) 1 Bello Street between Harloe Avenue and the Bello Turnout 6-and 10- inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace 1,240 linear feet of 10- and 6-inch pipeline with 16-inch pipeline along Bello Street between Wadsworth Avenue and the Bello Turnout. (2)Replace 800 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline with 12-inch pipeline along Bello Street between Harloe Avenue and Wadsworth Avenue. 2 Bore under Highway 101 between Bello Street and Price Street 6-, 8-, and 10- inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace two freeway crossings between Bello Street and Price Street with 460 linear feet (each freeway crossing) of 12-inch pipeline jack and bore under Highway 101. The model indicates a 12-inch freeway crossing at Main Street and Harloe Avenue is adequate to increase the fire flow in the downtown area above 4,500 gallons per minute, but the location is up to the discretion of the City. WSC recommends a new 12-inch freeway crossing between Pomeroy Avenue and Hollister Avenue and a new 12-inch freeway crossing between Wadsworth Avenue and Bay Street. 3 Park Avenue between Dolliver Street and Cypress Street 6-inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace 590 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along the dead-end of Park Avenue northeast of Dolliver Street. 4 Private driveway for the Pismo Shores Apartment Complex and Sea Gypsy Motel 6-and 8-inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace 430 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the private driveway of the Pismo Shores Apartment Complex located at 100 Pismo Avenue. (2)Replace 130 linear feet of existing 8-inch pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along the private parking lot of the Sea Gypsy Motel between Dolliver Street and Cypress Street. 5 Harloe Avenue 8-inch PVC pipe (1)Replace 300 linear feet of existing 8-inch pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along the dead end main on Harloe Avenue southwest of Dolliver Street 6 Private Drive of Holiday RV Park 6-inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace 1,010 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the two dead-end mains within the private drive of Holiday RV Park northeast of the intersection of Cypress Street and Dolliver Street. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-27 Table 7-14. Recommended Projects to Improve Existing and Future Fire Flow Deficiency No. Location Existing Size Recommended Project 7 Cypress Street N/A (1)Add 300 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along Cypress Street between Main Street and Pomeroy Avenue. Five Cities Drive Area (Main Zone) 81 4th Street between Atlantic City Avenue and Five Cities Drive N/A (1)Add 3,500 linear feet of 16-inch pipeline along North Fourth Street between Atlantic City Avenue and Five Cities Drive. 9 Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza N/A (1)Loop the existing dead-end mains by constructing 310 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline within the Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza front parking lot. 10 Motel 6 Pismo Beach Parking Lot 4-and 6-inch PVC pipe (1)Replace 620 linear feet of existing 4-inch and 6-inch dead-end pipelines with 8-inch and 10-inch pipelines within the Motel 6 Pismo Beach parking lot. 11 A Avenue between Five Cities Drive and Entrada Drive. 6-inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace 780 linear feet of existing 6-inch dead-end pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along A Avenue between Five Cities Drive and Entrada Drive. Main Zone Residential Area (On the north side of the Freeway across from the downtown area) 12 Frady Lane between the Pismo Beach Sports Complex Field and the wastewater treatment plant 6-inch asbestos cement pipe 2-inch PVC pipe (1)Replace 730 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along Frady Lane at the Sport Complex Fields and the wastewater treatment plant. (2)Add 720 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline from the dead-end main on Frady Lane north across the Bello Bridge and connect to the existing main along Bello Street. (3)Replace 290 linear feet of 2-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline that serves the wastewater treatment plant. Heights 1 Zone Improvements 13 Shaffer Lane from Wadsworth Avenue going north 2-inch galvanized iron pipe (1)Replace 580 linear feet of 2-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along Shafer Lane from Wadsworth Avenue going north. 14 Stratford Street 6-inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace 1,280 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the entire length of Stratford Street Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-28 Table 7-14. Recommended Projects to Improve Existing and Future Fire Flow Deficiency No. Location Existing Size Recommended Project Heights 2 Zone Improvements 15 Longview Avenue 6-inch asbestos cement pipe (1)Replace 820 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the most northern portion of Longview Avenue where the road splits into one lane and loops back around. Shell Beach 1 Zone Improvements 16 Private drive and parking lot for the Kon Tiki Inn off Price Street 6-inch asbestos cement and PVC pipe (1)Replace 840 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline within the private drive and parking lot for the Kon Tiki Inn and Flagship Restaurant off Price Street. 17 Spindrift Village Townhomes located off Shell Beach Road N/A (1)Add 50 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along the private drive of the Spindrift Village Townhomes located at 2251 Shell Beach Road to loop the existing dead-end 6- inch pipeline to the 8-inch pipeline along Shell Beach Road. 1.The North 4th Street pipe is recommended to be 16-inches to improve fire flow along Five Cities Drive and to improve hydraulic balance between Charles Street and Bello Reservoirs in the Main Zone once Central Coast Blue is operational. More analysis on Central Coast Blue wells and system hydraulics is presented in Section 9.3. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-29 Figure 7-5. Recommended Fire Flow Projects in the Shell Beach System (Project number corresponds to Table 7-14 on page 7-26) This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-30 Figure 7-6. Recommended Fire Flow Projects in the Main System (Project number corresponds to Table 7-14 on page 7-26) This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-31 Figure 7-7. Improved Fire Flow with the Recommended Fire Flow Improvement Projects in the Shell Beach System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-32 Figure 7-8. Improved Fire Flow with the Recommended Fire Flow Improvement Projects in the Main System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-33 Velocity The hydraulic model was also used to evaluate pipeline velocity at existing and buildout demands. The City’s previous Water Master Plan specified that pipeline velocity shall be less than 5 feet per second during average day demands and less than 10 feet per second during maximum day demands plus fire flow conditions, with an allowance up to 15 feet per second for pipelines near the flowing fire hydrant. This criterion was also used to evaluate the current modeled system velocities. High velocities in pipes can indicate a capacity constraint and that the pipeline should be upsized. As demands increase, pipeline velocities also increase, so the distribution system was evaluated under buildout demands. Overall, the model predicts that the City’s distribution system meets velocity requirements. Under buildout average day demands, no pipeline is expected to exceed a velocity of 5 feet per second, and most pipelines were modeled having a velocity less than one foot per second. Figure 7-9 and Figure 7-10, on pages 7-34 and 7-35, show the pipeline velocities under buildout average day demand in the Shell Beach System and Main System, respectively. To model pipeline velocity under buildout maximum day demands plus fire flow, the fire flow requirement was manually added to junctions in various locations under buildout maximum day demands and the model was rerun. The entire system was evaluated for pipeline velocity under ten scenarios and the pipeline velocity never exceeded 10 feet per second. Most pipelines maintained a velocity of less than 5 feet per second except those near the source of fire. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-34 Figure 7-9. Pipe Velocity during Buildout Average Day Demand in the Shell Beach System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Production, Pumping, Storage, & Distribution Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 7-35 Figure 7-10. Pipe Velocity during Buildout Average Day Demand in the Main System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Section 8 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-1 SECTION 8 8.Facility ConditionAssessment Pumps, wells, pipes, storage tanks, and other system components wear out over time and should be scheduled for future replacement. This section summarizes the findings of visual inspection and condition assessment of the distribution system that were used to develop the condition-based recommendations to improve the City’s infrastructure provided in Section 10. Asset Estimated Useful Life The American Society of Civil Engineers rates United States drinking water infrastructure as a D in its 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. According to the American Water Works Association, “upgrading existing water systems and meeting the drinking water infrastructure needs of a growing population will require at least $1 trillion in the United States.” Most drinking water infrastructure projects are funded through a rate-based system and water sales, but the funding “has been inadequate for decades and continues to be underfunded without significant changes as the revenue generated will fall short as needs grow” (American Society of Civil Engineers, n.d.). The worsening state of infrastructure in the United States is experienced by all water utilities throughout the country, including the City of Pismo Beach. The expected useful life of water distribution assets depends on execution of routine maintenance, dynamic system conditions such as pump cycling and pipeline velocity, the quality of the installing contractor’s work, and many other factors. The variability of this information makes it difficult to pin point the optimal time to replace or rehabilitate infrastructure; therefore, for long-term planning of infrastructure replacement, industry-accepted estimated useful lifetimes were used. Table 8-1 on the next page provides estimated life- IN THIS SECTION Booster Station Assessment Well Assessment Storage Reservoir Assessment Pipeline Condition Assessment Hydrant Spacing Assessment Valve Spacing Assessment Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-2 cycles for a variety of water distribution system assets. These are only estimates and the City should evaluate individual infrastructure components before replacement.Table 8-1. Estimated Life for Potable Water Systems Asset Estimated Life (years) Transmission mains 60–1101 Asbestos cement 902 Cast iron 752 Ductile iron 1002 Galvanized iron 602 PVC 1002 PVC well casing 1003 Well electrical system 30–404 Well pump and motor 10–151 Pump stations (not including pumps, motors, or electrical) 601 Electrical and control facilities at booster pump stations and storage tanks 201 Pumps and motors 15–205 Welded steel storage tanks (except coatings) 30–601 Tank coatings 121 Concrete reservoirs 70+1 1.Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Assets Management: A Handbook for Small Water Systems. EPA Office of Water, 2003. 2.Estimated useful life is adapted from Deb, Arun, Herz, Raimund, et al; “Quantifying Future Rehabilitation and Replacement Needs of Water Mains”; Water Research Foundation, 1998. 3.PVC casing is assumed to have an estimated life of 100 years based on its structural characteristics; however, the slots on PVC casing are expected to clog before structural failure occurs. As a result, the actual lifetime is likely less than 100 years. 4.EPA estimates the expected lifespan of electrical systems to be 7–10 years. The electrical system at the wells (wiring, switchgear, motor starters, panels, etc.) have shown to have a significantly longer lifetime than the EPA reports. Based on the City’s experience and other published reports, WSC assumed the lifetime of the electrical system at the wells to be 30–40 years. 5.Source: Copeland, Ari. “Can a Small System Develop an Effective Asset Management Program?” American Water Works Association Opflow, January 2008. The estimated lifetimes were used in conjunction with visual inspections to develop recommendations to improve the City’s infrastructure. On October 12 and 13, 2016, WSC and City staff visited and visually inspected the City’s booster pump stations, wells, and storage tanks. From the inspections, WSC has compiled a list of condition-based recommendations. These recommendations have been combined with the capacity-driven recommendations to create the list of capital improvement projects included in Section 10. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-3 This section includes the inspection assessment summaries and a pipeline condition assessment based on estimated install date. For more detailed information on the site visits and inspections, including recommended condition assessment projects, see Appendix C, the Condition and Operational Assessment Technical Memorandum. Booster Station Assessment The City operates six booster pump stations to transfer water between zones and fill storage reservoirs. During the inspection, WSC evaluated the fundamental pump station components based on a grading system representative of percent useful life remaining. The grades were assigned based on observed physical condition, input from City staff on replacement dates and operation, and the estimated lifespan for each component. The assigned grades and grading system are presented in Table 8-2. Table 8-2. Pump Station Condition Assessment Summary Pump Station Component Bay Street Shell Beach Bello Heights Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Site (grading, drainage, fencing, paving, etc.) B B B- A B C Building A- C C A B C Pumps B+ D A A D+ D and C Motors B D B A C+ B and C Pipes B B B A B C Cla Val/check valves C+ B B A B C Gate/butterfly valves B C+ B A B C Air release valves B B B A C+ C Motor control center C- C+ B A B C SCADA system B C+ B A B C The grading system is as follows: A: 100–85 percent useful life left of component (or system) B: 85–50 percent useful life left of component (or system) C: 50–15 percent useful life left of component (or system) D: 15–0 percent useful life left of component (or system) F: 0 percent useful life left of component (or system) N/A: Not Applicable In general, the City’s pump stations are in good condition and well maintained. Most of the lower assigned grades are due to aging infrastructure including pumps and motors that are on schedule to be replaced in the next few years. Recommended condition-based projects for booster pump stations are included in the final capital improvement plan, and include recoating pipes, improving site conditions, and replacing aging infrastructure. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-4 Well Assessment The City owns and operates two groundwater wells located in Grover Beach. The City relies mostly on surface water for its supply; however, groundwater is important for the City’s water supply, as 285 AF was sourced from groundwater wells in 2015. The well components were assigned condition grades similar to the booster pump stations, as shown in Table 8-3. WSC also referenced the City’s 2013 Well Condition Assessment for more information about the well casing and submerged pumps that could not be visually inspected. Table 8-3. Well Condition Assessment Summary Well Component Well 5 Well 23 Site (grading, drainage, fencing, paving, etc.) D C Chemical enclosure D D Pump-to-waste pit D C Pump C A Motor C B Well and casing B F Pipes and valves C B Motor control center F C SCADA system F C The grading system is as follows: A: 100–85 percent useful life left of component (or system) B: 85–50 percent useful life left of component (or system) C: 50–15 percent useful life left of component (or system) D: 15–0 percent useful life left of component (or system) F: 0 percent useful life left of component (or system) N/A: Not Applicable Overall, both wells are in poor condition and will require replacement or rehabilitation in the near future. Well 5 will require major upgrades including site improvements, a new electrical system, site cover, and pump-to-waste pit. Due to the current condition of Well 5 and the timing of its rehabilitation, it may be more beneficial for the City to replace Well 5 after the completion of Central Coast Blue to optimize the well location. Well 23 requires replacement or reconditioning due to prolonged issues with sand production. Well 23 had the motor rebuilt in 2015/2016 and had some recent improvements including a new pump, new VFD and enclosure, it was cleaned and repacked with gravel, and a new smaller diameter perforated liner was installed to improve the well condition and reduce sand production. Unfortunately, none of these improvements fixed the sand production problem and the City is pursuing the complete replacement of Well 23. The recommended condition-based projects for the wells are included in the final capital improvement plan. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-5 Storage Reservoir Rehabilitation As part of the infrastructure condition assessment, WSC and City staff evaluated the water storage reservoirs. The City also had most of their reservoirs inspected in 2013 by Advantage Technical Services, Inc., who completed a full dive inspection, except for the newest Heights Reservoir that was constructed in 2012. WSC evaluated the storage tanks based on the same grading scale as the booster pump stations and the wells and made recommendations based on observations and tank inspection reports. Table 8-4 contains the storage reservoirs condition summary. The newer Heights Reservoir was not included in the evaluation because there is no inspection report that references the interior condition; however, the reservoir is only six years old, is constructed of concrete, and is therefore expected to be in good condition. Table 8-4. Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment Summary Storage Reservoir Component Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 Bello Heights (older tank) Pacific Estates 1 Pacific Estates 2 Pismo Oaks Charles Street Site grading and pavement B B N/A A C C F C Security B B B B B B F C Site drainage B B N/A A C C D B Exterior coating/ walls D C B B D D D C Interior coating/ walls D B B C C C D D Roof structure F C B B C C C F Cathodic protection F D N/A N/A C B C D Fall protection F C B N/A F D D D Inlet/outlet pipe C B B B C C D B Overflow pipe D B N/A N/A B B C B Foundation B C B A C D F F The grading system is as follows: A: 100–85 percent useful life left of component (or system) 85–50 percent useful life left of component (or system) 50–15 percent useful life left of component (or system) 15–0 percent useful life left of component (or system) 0 percent useful life left of component (or system) B: C: D: F: N/A: Not Applicable Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-6 The condition of the storage reservoirs ranges from good to poor. The concrete reservoirs, both Heights tanks and Bello Reservoir, are in fairly good condition. The welded steel tanks all require some rehabilitation to protect the tank’s steel, improve water quality, and improve the safety features on the tank. The City currently has plans to rebuild the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir in the same location. The Charles Street Reservoir should be replaced entirely because it has reached the end of its useful life, and the riveted steel construction materials are old and difficult to rehabilitate. Replacing the Shell Beach 1 and Charles Street Reservoir are included in the final capital improvement plan, as well as condition-based projects for the other reservoirs including recoating steel reservoirs, improving fall protection, seismic retrofit, adding passive mixing and chemical monitoring systems, and other site improvements. Pipeline Condition Assessment The City’s distribution system was evaluated by pipeline condition, including estimated age based on pipe material. Water main break history since December 2015 was also evaluated to determine if there was a main break pattern based on pipe material or size. American Water Works Association and Partnership for Safe Water’s Self-Assessment guide for Distribution Systems recommend a maximum of 15 main breaks annually per 100 miles of distribution pipelines. A reduction in main break frequency indicates progress toward an optimized distribution system. In 2016, ten leaks were recorded in the distribution system, but the majority occurred on service laterals 2-inches or less in diameter. Only two main breaks were recorded, one of which was caused by road compaction. Based on the 2016 recorded main breaks, the City is already below the American Water Works Association goal of 15 main breaks per 100 miles of pipes annually at 3.5 breaks per 100 miles of distribution mains annually. Although the City has not experienced excessive main breaks or failure in the recent years, much of the City’s infrastructure is approaching the end of its useful life, and main breaks and leaks will likely increase if distribution mains are not proactively rehabilitated or replaced. Since pipe installation year for each pipe segment was not readily available in the existing database, the install decade of each pipeline in the distribution system was assumed based on pipe material. The City has historically had periods of rapid growth followed by periods of slower growth. Pipe install dates were estimated by analyzing the most popular pipe materials by decade and the City’s growth rate. The City’s population boomed between the 1960s and 1970s, with an average annual population growth rate reaching 13 percent near the end of the decade, as shown in Figure 8-1 on page 8-7 (Population.US, 2016). During this time, the City also rapidly expanded its water distribution system to serve the new population. Asbestos cement was also a popular pipe material during this time and makes up the largest percentage of pipe material in the City’s distribution system; therefore, it was assumed that asbestos cement pipe was installed in either the 1960s or 1970s during the population boom. Another period of high growth in the City was during the 1980s and 1990s, during which PVC and ductile iron were the most common pipe materials. Because the second most popular pipe material in the City’s distribution system is PVC, it was assumed these pipes were installed in either the 1980s or 1990s. Figure 8-2 on page 8-7 shows the variety of pipe material by length in the distribution system. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-7 Figure 8-1. Estimated Historic Population and Annual Growth Rate Figure 8-2. Length of Pipe Material -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Annual Growth RatePopulationYear Population Annual Growth Rate Asbestos Cement 54% Cast Iron 3% Ductile Iron 4% Galvanized Iron <1% PVC 39% Steel <1% Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron Galvanized Iron PVC Steel AC Pipe Installed PVC Pipe Installed Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-8 Table 8-5 includes the assumed install decades for all pipe materials and each material’s estimated useful lifetime. The estimated pipe install decade is based on the historic popular pipe materials described above, although there are likely existing pipes in the distribution system installed before the 1950s and after the 1990s. Estimated useful lifetimes are adapted from accepted pipe lifetimes developed from water utility research and studies in North America (American Water Works Association). Because the City’s leak reports do not show any correlation between pipe failure and pipe material, these values did not require adjustment for local conditions. Table 8-5. Assumed Install Decade Based on Pipe Material Pipe Material Assumed Install Decade(s) Estimated Useful Lifetime (years)1 Asbestos cement 1960–1970 90 Cast iron 1950 75 Ductile iron 1980 100 Galvanized iron 1950 60 PVC 1980–1990 100 1.Estimated useful life is adapted from Deb, Arun, Herz, Raimund, et al; “Quantifying Future Rehabilitation and Replacement Needs of Water Mains”; Water Research Foundation, 1998. Typically, pipes will fail within one of three modes: defect failure during installation, random failure, and degradation failure due to age and other localized condition as shown in Figure 8-3 on page 8-9. This analysis focuses solely on asset replacement strategies for pipes that fail due to degradation. The City should continue to plan accordingly for other modes of failure including installation defects and random failure. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-9 Figure 8-3. Classic Failure Curve for a Water Distribution Pipeline (American Water Works Association Webcast Program, 2011) Based on the assumed pipe install date and estimated useful life by material, the City will need to replace a significant length of pipe to prevent costly future pipeline failures. The miles of pipe expected to fail each year by material and in total are shown in Figure 8-4 on page 8-10 and Figure 8-5 on page 8-11, respectively. Pipelines recommended to be replaced for capacity constraints were assigned an assumed replacement date of 2120 so that they are not double counted in this analysis. Based on this analysis, a significant portion of the distribution system is expected to reach the end of its useful life in approximately 30–40 years and should be proactively replaced to prevent costly repairs during an emergency main break. Typically, repairs of infrastructure, like water mains, costs three to four times more in an emergency compared to routine repairs (General Accounting Office, 2016). If all the pipes in a distribution system had a 100-year lifetime and were installed at a constant rate in the system, the replacement rate to remove pipes near their end of lifetime would be at one percent. However, like most water distribution systems, the City’s distribution system did not grow at a constant rate but rather with the community’s growth rate. As discussed, the City’s population greatly increased in the 1960s, leading to an expansion of the distribution system during this period. This large group of pipelines installed around the same time will likely reach the end of their expected useful life around the same time, as reflected in the figures below. Bursts per Mile per YearPipe Age Install Defect Period Random Failure Period Degradation Related Failure Period Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-10 This does not mean the City will experience an immediate simultaneous breakage of these pipes. Exceeding the useful life expectancy means the pipes will have an increased likelihood of breaking. The likeliness of breakage or leakage will increase as the pipe moves past the useful life expectancy. Actual failure patterns can be variable and depend on construction quality, manufacturer, pressure, water quality, soil type and condition, proximity to other utilities and many other attributes. By 2060, about 14 miles of pipeline—25 percent of the system’s mains—will have reached the end of their useful life. This analysis is focused on identifying an adequate budget for main replacement so that replacement can be phased over time. This analysis is not attempting to identify specific pipelines for replacement. Future analysis will be required to identify the best pipeline candidates for actual replacement. Figure 8-4. Estimated Miles of Pipeline at End of Life The City should plan to replace pipe in a proactive manner. Two replacement strategies are presented in Figure 8-5 on page 8-11, a straight-line replacement plan and phased replacement plan to better match the estimated pipeline failure curve. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140Miles of Pipeline at End of Useful LifeYear Cast Iron AC DI PVC All Pipes Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-11 Figure 8-5. Cumulative Pipeline End of Assumed Useful Service Life and Replacement Strategies Under the straight-line replacement plan, pipeline replacement needs to occur at a rate of 0.54 miles per year, or about 1.0 percent of the total system length. Under the phased replacement plan, the recommend length and rate of pipe replacement varies based on the year: 2018–2050: 0.54 miles of pipeline replaced each year (1.0 percent) 2050–2090: 0.92 miles replaced per year (1.6 percent) 2090–2120: 0.05 miles replaced per year (0.1 percent) Under both replacement strategies, the distribution system’s pipeline needs to be replaced at a rate of about one percent per year for the next 30 years. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office reports on water infrastructure needs (GAO-02-746), “about 35 percent of drinking water utilities and 42 percent of wastewater utilities believed that they should be annually rehabilitating or replacing more than 4% of their pipelines” (General Accounting Office, 2016). Fortunately, the City’s estimated annual replacement rate is much less than 4 percent but has reached a point where the City should proactively replace these pipes to prevent future emergency pipeline failures. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120Cumulitave Pipe Length (miles)Year Assumed End of Useful Life Straight Line Replacement at 0.54 miles/year Phased Replacement at: 0-30 years: 0.54 miles/year 30-70 years: 0.92 miles/year Remainder: 0.05 miles/year Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-12 This initial pipeline condition assessment is intended to estimate the level of investment that could be required to replace pipelines as they reach the end of their useful life. This analysis is limited due to lack of information on pipe age in the system, and it assumes that all pipes will need replacement at the end of their useful lifetime. In reality, some pipes will likely fail before the predicted end of their useful lifetime and some can exceed their end of useful life estimate. In addition, pipeline assessment is required to prioritize pipelines and optimize the replacement strategy. Information such as historical breaks, in-situ pipe conditions, wall thickness, gasket condition, localized soil properties, and groundwater can be used in conjunction with the pipe material and estimated age to further refine and optimize the replacement strategy. Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs The pipeline replacement unit costs for various main sizes were estimated using RSMeans CostWorks, adjusted to 2018 dollars (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018) and are listed in Table 8-6. The unit costs assume the classic “open trench” replacement approach. Trenchless rehabilitation including pipe-burst and horizontal directional drilling may reduce capital costs when viable, such as in areas with multiple utility conflicts or pipelines with few valves or service laterals. Alternative construction techniques should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Table 8-6. Estimated Pipeline Replacement Costs1 Pipe Diameter Base Cost per Foot2 Cost per Foot with Contingencies3 8-inch $236 $368 10-inch $258 $403 12-inch $279 $436 14-inch $272 $424 16-inch $291 $455 1. Costs are in 2018 dollars 2. Prices developed from RS Means CostWorks® data and assumed PVC pipe. 3. Contingencies include a 25 percent construction contingency, 15 percent project development allowance, and 10 percent construction phase allowance. Under both replacement strategies, the City will need to budget a similar amount for annual pipeline replacement and repairs for the next 30 years. Based on the costs listed above and an annual replacement of 0.54 miles of pipe, the City should budget $1.13 million per year (in 2018 dollars) for pipeline repair and replacement for the next 30 years. The City should update this analysis periodically as pipelines are replaced. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-13 Priority Pipeline Condition Assessment Projects In addition to actively replacing one percent of pipelines each year, the City has identified multiple aging pipes within the system that are near the end of their lifetime and have a high replacement priority. Theses pipes have been identified due to their history of leaks, suspected age, and location along easements the City cannot access for repair. Table 8-7 lists specific pipeline condition-based replacement projects the City should implement in conjunction with annual pipeline replacements. Figure 8-6 on page 8-14 includes a map of these recommended projects, which are all located within the Main System. These projects are listed by priority in the final capital improvement plan. Table 8-7. Recommended Pipeline Condition-Based Replacement Projects No. Location Existing Size Recommended Project 11 Shaffer Lane from Wadsworth Avenue going north 2-inch galvanized iron (1)Replace 580 linear feet of 2-inch pipeline with 8- inch pipeline along Shafer Lane from Wadsworth Avenue going north. 2 Bello Street and Wadsworth Avenue between the Bello Booster Pump Station and Judkins Middle School 6-inch cast iron N/A N/A N/A (1)Abandon 6-inch pipeline through Judkins Middle School. (2)Add 750 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline from the Bello Booster Pump Station across the Judkins Middle School parking lot and down Main Street to Bello Street. (3)Add 780 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along Bello Street from Main Street to Wadsworth Avenue. (4)Add 790 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along Wadsworth Avenue from Bello Street to the entrance of Judkins Middle School. 32 Charles Street between the Charles Street Reservoir and Five Cities Drive 6-inch cast iron (1)Abandon 2,370 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline along Charles Street north of the Charles Street Reservoir to Five Cities Drive. (2)Create additional looping from the Charles Street Reservoir with 3,500 linear feet of new 16-inch pipeline along Fourth Street between Atlantic City Avenue and Five Cities Drive. 1.Project is also recommended to improve fire flow deficiencies, as listed in Table 7-14 on page 7-26. 2.Project can be combined with the fire flow Project 8 recommended in Table 7-14 on page 7-26. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-14 Figure 8-6. Priority Pipeline Condition-Based Replacement Projects This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-15 Hydrant Spacing Assessment An important feature of a water distribution system is the fire hydrants that protect the public. Even if the system can provide the required fire flow, buildings may not be protected if there are not sufficient fire hydrants located nearby. The City’s hydrant spacing requirements are listed in Table 8-8. Table 8-8. Hydrant Spacing Requirements Zoning Hydrant Spacing Requirement Source Residential Maximum of 300 feet City Standard Commercial Maximum of 250 feet City Standard All Maximum of 400 feet from a building City Fire Code All At every intersection City Standard Using these hydrant spacing requirements and a map of the City’s existing hydrant locations, WSC developed a map of recommended new hydrant locations, shown in Figure 8-7 and Figure 8-8 on page 8- 16 and page 8-17 respectively. Along with the hydrant spacing requirements, WSC considered proximity to buildings as an important factor in adding fire hydrants. WSC recommends 110 new hydrants be installed throughout the City, 8 of which can be combined with recommended pipeline projects, leaving 103 to be installed on their own. Over a 30-year planning period, it is recommended that the City installs four new hydrants per year. The number of recommended hydrants is broken down by zone below. Overall, the residential area in Shell Beach 1 has the largest gaps between hydrants, followed by the downtown area. These two areas should be the priority for additional fire hydrants. Pismo Oaks Zone: 17 new fire hydrants recommended. Pacific Estates: 14 new fire hydrants recommended. Heights 1, Bello, and Dell Court: 11 new fire hydrants recommended—three in the Bello Zone, one in the Dell Court Zone, and seven in the Heights 1 Zone. Two of the recommended hydrant locations are on Schaffer Lane, which currently has a 2-inch galvanized iron pipe. The City should upgrade the 2-inch pipe and incorporate new hydrants during the pipe upgrade. Heights 2: Three new fire hydrants recommended. Main: 28 new fire hydrants recommended—five in the Five Cities drive/outlets area, 15 in the downtown area, and eight east of the freeway near the Bello Reservoir. Shell Beach 1: 29 new fire hydrants recommended in the Shell Beach 1 Zone—four in the commercial zone along Price Street and 25 in the residential zone off Shell Beach Road. Shell Beach 2: Eight new fire hydrants are recommended in the Shell Beach 2 Zone: three in the upper pressure zone and five in the Sunset Palisades pressure zone. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-16 Figure 8-7. Recommended Hydrant Locations in the Shell Beach System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-17 Figure 8-8. Recommended Hydrant Locations in the Main System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-18 Valve Spacing Assessment Valves within the distribution system are a vital piece of infrastructure that allow operational flexibility and prevent long lengths of water main from being shut down during repairs and construction. When sections of a pipeline must be closed for maintenance, the City specifies a maximum pipe shutdown length of 500 feet to prevent unnecessary service shutdowns. The City has designed its distribution system to these standards and most zones in the system have an adequate number of valves, except for a few scattered areas. As the system ages and more pipes are expected to reach their end of useful life, operators will more frequently need to close off sections to make repairs. To minimize services affected from pipeline repairs, the City should actively install new valves in locations with distances between valves spanning greater than 500 feet. The map shown in Figure 8-9 and Figure 8-10 on page 8-19 and page 8-20 respectively, based on the City’s GIS water atlas, was developed to determine the locations in the distribution system that need additional valves. WSC recommends installing 41 new water distribution valves across the system. One recommended valve can be added into the previously identified projects, leaving 40 water valves for the City to install. Over a 30-year planning period, the City should install at least two new distribution valves per year. The Shell Beach 1 Zone has the largest length of pipes between valves and should be the highest priority for additional valves. Pismo Oaks Zone: Two new water valves recommended. Pacific Estates: Five new water valves recommended. Heights 1, Bello, and Dell Court: Two new water valves recommended—one in the Bello Zone and one in the Heights 1 Zone. Heights 2: One new water valve recommended. Main: Eight new water valves recommended. However, seven of these valve locations are along aging or inadequate pipes already included in the recommended project list and will be included in these projects. Shell Beach 1: 18 new water valves recommended in the Shell Beach 1 Zone, all located in the residential zone off Shell Beach Road. Shell Beach 2: Five new water valves recommended in the Shell Beach 2 Zone, all located in the Sunset Palisades Zone. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-19 Figure 8-9. Recommended New Valve Locations in the Shell Beach System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Facility Condition Assessment City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 8-20 Figure 8-10. Recommended New Valve Locations in the Main System This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Section 9 SYSTEM OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-1 SECTION 9 9.System OperationalAnalysis The City’s system operations were evaluated using the hydraulic model. This section includes an analysis of water age, potential consolidation of zones to simplify operations, and system operation and constraints with additional groundwater sources after the completion of Central Coast Blue. Water Quality Analysis As previously mentioned, an extended period simulation scenario was created in the hydraulic model to model the distribution system over a two- week period. The two-week extended period simulation can also be used to predict water age in the distribution system. The extended period simulation scenario was calibrated to maximum day demands and average day demands based on SCADA records in July 2016 and October 2016, respectively. The calibrated scenarios were then used to model estimated water age in the distribution system. This analysis serves primarily as an indicator of general water quality and does not include modeling of specific water quality constituents. According to a report prepared by American Water Works Association, smaller distribution systems tend to have longer water ages within their distribution systems because they have lower demands and a smaller service area with more dead-end mains compared to larger systems (American Water Works Association, 2002). Although there is not a recognized standard for water age, it is generally accepted that the lower the water age, the higher the water quality. Long detention times can lead to loss of disinfectant residual, microbial growth, formation of disinfection byproducts, taste and odor problems, and other water quality problems (American Water Works Association, 2002). The City maintains high water quality in the system IN THIS SECTION Water Quality Analysis Zone Consolidation Analysis Central Coast Blue Operational Analysis System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-2 through regular pipe flushing maintenance and water quality monitoring, but low demands from conservation may increase the water age in the system. In general, the water age is reduced as demands increase. Between the maximum day demand and average day demand scenario, the average day demand scenario is likely to have older water ages. The water age and operational analysis focused on water age under current average day demands for the most conservative water age predictions. Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2, on page 9-3 and page 9-4 respectively, show the modeled water age in the distribution system during average day demands. Table 9-1 contains the average water age modeled in each zone. Table 9-1. Average Water Age by Zone Zone Average Water Age (hours) Average Water Age (days) Pismo Oaks 99.1 4.1 Pacific Estates 61.8 2.6 Heights 1 32.9 1.4 Bello 33.3 1.4 Heights 2 127.7 5.3 Main 48.0 2.0 Shell Beach 1 32.2 1.3 Shell Beach 2 191.5 8.0 Dell Court 81.6 3.4 System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-3 Figure 9-1. Distribution System Water Age at Average Day Demand in the Shell Beach Zones This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-4 Figure 9-2. Distribution System Water Age at Average Day Demand in the Main Zones This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-5 The water age in the City’s distribution system correlates closely to the location of the supply sources and demand in the zone. Most supply sources are located in the Main Zone, and because the downtown area has a high demand, the Main Zone has a low average water age. The Vista Del Mar Turnout supplies the Shell Beach 1 Zone and the Sunset Palisades Turnout supplies the Sunset Palisades pressure gradient in the northern part of the Shell Beach 2 Zone, which both contribute to low water age in these areas. The other zones are primarily supplied by gravity storage, and the water age is influenced by demand and volume of storage. Heights 2 and the main pressure gradient of Shell Beach 2 Zone both have low demands, resulting in a high-water age. The Shell Beach 2 Zone also has excess storage in the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir, reducing turnover in the reservoir and increasing water age. There are some limits with the hydraulic model’s ability to accurately predict water age due to the way the water storage tanks are modeled. In the extended period simulation scenario, the tanks are modeled as completely mixed, but in the distribution system many of the City’s reservoir are not mixed. The City’s unmixed tanks can have difficulty maintaining an adequate chlorine residual, which may indicate short circuiting or stratification occurring in these tanks. The model’s assumption that tanks are completely mixed may under predict the actual water age in the system. Due to the limits of the extended period simulation model, modeled water age should be considered as an indicator of locations with longer water age and potential for water quality issues. It should be noted that areas with long water age do not always indicate a water quality issue. The water age scenario was used to model operational changes that the City can implement to reduce water age: Pipe flushing: the City regularly flushes water mains to maintain high water quality within the distribution system. The City should continue these practices and focus on long dead-end pipes with low demands, such as the 2,790-foot long 12-inch PVC dead-end main along Bluff Drive in northern Shell Beach, and the multiple dead-ends in the Heights 2 Zone. Bleed water at zone boundaries: to reduce water age without increasing non-revenue water, some water agencies and cities bleed water between zones. When connecting zones in this way, the City must consider the possibility of over pressurizing a zone at a lower hydraulic grade line. There are currently three potential locations where the City can bleed water between zones: between the Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks zones, between the Shell Beach 2 and Shell Beach 1 zones, and between the Shell Beach 1 and Main zones. The first two options were analyzed; however, the last option was not analyzed because the Shell Beach 1 and Main zones are the two zones with the lowest water age. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-6 The first scenario analyzed bleeding water from the Pacific Estates Zone to the Pismo Oaks Zone by adding a 1-inch bypass pipe around the existing Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks zone separation valve located along James Way, shown in Figure 9-3 on page 9-7. With the bypass line open for 24 hours on day 6 of a 14-day extended period simulation run, the average water age in the Pacific Estates Zone increased from 62 to 64 hours, and the average water age in the Pismo Oaks Zone dropped from 99 to 56 hours. Although the modeled water age increased slightly in the Pacific Estates Zone, this option may potentially lower the water age in the Pismo Oaks Zone without increasing non-revenue water. The second scenario focused on bleeding water from Shell Beach 2 Zone into the Shell Beach 1 Zone. There is an existing pressure reducing valve located on Mattie Road that allows Shell Beach 2 to supply Shell Beach 1 under low pressures in the Shell Beach 1 Zone. The City can install a 1- inch bypass around the pressure reducing valve or increase the pressure reducing valve setting for occasional bleeding between the zones. The water age was remodeled with the pressure reducing valve active and set at a hydraulic grade line of 222 feet for 24 hours on day 6 of a 14-day extended period simulation scenario. The average water age in the Shell Beach 2 Zone decreased from 191 to 181 hours, and the average water age in the Shell Beach 1 Zone increased from 32 to 84 hours, as shown in Figure 9-4 on page 9-8. Although the water age is predicted to improve slightly in the Shell Beach 2 Zone, it is not recommended that the City bleed water between the Shell Beach 1 and 2 zones because the water age may increase substantially in the Shell Beach 1 Zone. Increase tank turnover: to improve water age in the distribution system, the City can reduce the volume of water in storage. The existing tanks are large due to storage requirements (especially fire flow storage needs), but without adequate turnover, they may be contributing to longer water age in the distribution system. Some water purveyors lower operational setpoints during periods of low demands, typically in the winter, to promote turnover in their reservoirs and reduce water age. In the model, the booster pump stations’ operational setpoints were changed such that the Shell Beach 2, Pismo Oaks, and Pacific Estates 1 and 2 reservoirs would operate three feet lower than the existing setpoints. Under this scenario, there was no apparent change in water age throughout the distribution system, which may be due to the modeling limitation that all tanks are modeled as completely mixed. The City currently spends time manually monitoring chlorine residuals and boosting chlorine levels in several tanks including Pacific Estates 1 and 2, Pismo Oaks, and Shell Beach. To automate this process, the City should consider installing mixers and chlorine monitoring systems on the large unmixed reservoirs, including the Shell Beach 2, Pismo Oaks, and Pacific Estates 1 and 2 reservoirs; these projects are included in the capital improvement projects. Tank mixing will generally improve water quality in storage reservoirs and can help maintain disinfectant residual. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-7 Figure 9-3. Distribution System Water Age when Bleeding Water from the Pacific Estates Zone to the Pismo Oaks Zone This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-8 Figure 9-4. Distribution System Water Age when Bleeding Water from the Shell Beach 2 Zone to the Shell Beach 1 Zone This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-9 Zone Consolidation Analysis The City of Pismo Beach’s distribution system is considered a small- to medium-size water distribution system based on miles of pipes, but it contains nine distribution zones and eleven pressure zones, making it a small yet complex system. If the City were to reduce the complexity of the distribution system by combining distribution zones, it could potentially save costs on operating and maintaining current facilities that would no longer be needed. WSC used the hydraulic model to evaluate existing distribution and pressure zones, focusing on ways to improve efficiency of moving water between zones, while meeting supply, demand, and storage requirements. The City’s previous Water Master Plan recommended consolidating the Shell Beach 1 Zone with the Main Zone (previously known as the Bello Zone), and abandoning the Charles Street Reservoir, Bello Reservoir, and Bay Street Booster Pump Station. Although this project was not pursued by the City, WSC re-evaluated the viability of consolidating the two zones using the updated hydraulic model. Some initial advantages to this project are the abandonment of two reservoirs and a booster station, which would reduce the City’s operation and maintenance costs for the distribution system. The Charles Street Reservoir is also at the end of its useful life and is recommended to be replaced with a new reservoir, but with the Main and Shell Beach 1 zones consolidated, the Charles Street Reservoir will no longer be required nor need to be replaced, although this contradicts future storage needs created by Central Coast Blue and the resulting increased groundwater use. So even if the consolidation indicated the Charles Street Reservoir could be abandoned, storage needs to remain in this part of the system to support Central Coast Blue, as discussed in Section 9.3. In the hydraulic model, the two zones were consolidated through a connection at the Bay Street Booster Station, and the Charles Street Reservoir, Bello Reservoir and Bay Street Booster Station were taken out of service. To make up for the loss of storage by abandoning the Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs, and the existing storage deficits in the Main Zone, the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir volume was increased to 2.25 MG. Pressure Analysis The pressure in the consolidated system was analyzed at current and buildout average day demand, maximum day demand, and peak hour demand, and the consolidated zone pressures were compared to existing system pressures. As the system currently exists, pressures within the Shell Beach 1 and Main zones are above 40 psi under all demand scenarios except for a small residential area along Bello Street, as described in Section 7.4.1. With zone consolidation, the pressure in the Main Zone generally increases, and the current low-pressure area along Bello Street increases to above 50 psi. On the other hand, locations in the Main Zone that are currently in an area with adequate pressure would experience higher pressures above 80 psi. Pressures above 80 psi can cause damage to water lines and water appliances. If the Shell Beach 1 and Main zones were combined, most of the services in the southernmost part of the downtown area on Addie Street and Cypress Street would be required to have a pressure regulator installed if not already in place. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-10 However, in the Shell Beach 1 Zone, pressures along Price Street drop, and range from 38-40 psi during average day demand when the zones are consolidated. During maximum day demands and peak hour demands, the pressures along Price Street drop, allowing the South Mattie Road pressure reducing valve to open. This pressure reducing valve is typically closed but opens when downstream pressures in the Shell Beach 1 Zone drop below 30 psi, allowing the Shell Beach 2 Zone to provide water to the Shell Beach 1 Zone. Typically, this pressure reducing valve only opens during emergencies like a fire flow event but would likely open more often during peak demand periods if the Main and Shell Beach 1 zones are consolidated. Fire Flow Analysis The available fire flow in the consolidated system was analyzed and compared to the existing separated zones. In the existing system, the Shell Beach 1 Zone can meet its fire flow requirement in both residential and commercial areas. The Main Zone currently faces the largest deficits in fire flow compared to the required fire flow. Two areas of the Main Zone, downtown and the Five Cities Drive area, both cannot currently meet the fire flow requirement of 4,500 gallons per minute and 2,500 gallons per minute, respectively. Recommended projects to meet the fire flow requirement are included in Section 7.4.2. When the Shell Beach 1 and Main zones are consolidated, the available fire flow in the system decreases. In the Shell Beach 1 Zone, the residential areas are still able to meet the required fire flow at maximum day demand, but the fire flow in the commercial area along Price Street drops from above 2,500 gallons per minute to about 1,700 gallons per minute. In the downtown area, the available fire flow decreases from about 3,500 gallons per minute in the non-consolidated zone to 1,500 gallons per minute, although neither configuration meets the required 4,500 gallons per minute. In the Five Cities Drive area, the fire flow decreases from 1,500–2,000 gallons per minute to about 1,000 gallons per minute along Five Cities Drive. It is not recommended that the City consolidate the Shell Beach 1 and Main zones for two reasons. The pressure drops to below 40 psi in the consolidated zone, and the available fire flow is reduced. In addition to reducing system capacity, zone consolidation reduces the system redundancy by abandoning two reservoirs and increases system risk. Central Coast Blue Operational Analysis The City expects that after Central Coast Blue is completed, more of its water supply will be from groundwater. The City expects to construct new wells in conjunction with Central Coast Blue to extract additional groundwater and reduce dependency on imported and Lopez Lake water. Although the exact capacities and location are unknown, the new wells are expected to be in Grover Beach, like the City’s two existing wells. This conceptual analysis evaluates if existing pipelines need to be upgraded or additional pipelines constructed with the additional groundwater wells to convey the larger volume of water from Grover Beach to the Main Zone and hydraulically balance the Charles Street Reservoir and Bello Reservoir. Additionally, this analysis evaluates how water is moved through the system and across zones as the flow rate from the Lopez turnouts is reduced. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-11 Because very little is known about the future wells, the following assumptions were included in the model and used to evaluate the future system: Three additional groundwater wells were added to the model. The three wells were assumed to be in Grover Beach and have a production capacity of 900 gallons per minute per well. The wells were connected to the distribution system at the corner of Atlantic City Avenue and North 8th Street in Grover Beach, just south of the Charles Street Reservoir. The need for three future wells is a conservative assumption to evaluate the existing system’s hydraulic capacity to support future production capacity and may not actually be required to meet Central Coast Blue objectives. One new well is proposed for the completion of Phase 1 of Central Coast Blue and to meet future maximum day demands. Costs for this new well are included in the capital improvement plan of this Water Master Plan Update. The two additional wells are not required for Phase 1 of Central Coast Blue and are assumed to be constructed after the completion of Phase 2 of Central Coast Blue. The City’s future allocation from Phase 2 recoverable yield is unknown, and these two additional wells may not be required, thus the costs for all three wells are not included in this Water Master Plan Update. The existing Charles Street Reservoir has been replaced with a 1 MG reservoir at the same site, in accordance with project A3 in the capital improvement plan. The maximum water level of the 1 MG Charles Street Reservoir was increased from 176 to 178 feet to match the maximum water level of the Bello Reservoir. The recommended new pipeline along North 4th Street from Atlantic City Avenue and Five Cities Drive (Project A8 in the capital improvement plan) is completed by the time the new wells are operating. The existing 6-inch cast iron pipe along Charles Street between the Charles Street Reservoir and Five Cities Drive is abandoned with the construction of the pipeline along North 4th Street. The new wells operate based on the Charles Street Reservoir level. Well 5 will be rehabilitated and used similarly to Well 23. Costs to rehabilitate Well 5 are included in the capital improvement plan. The Lopez turnouts supply is reduced. After the assumptions listed above were added to the model, three operational scenarios were evaluated: 1.Reduce supply from turnouts in the Main Zone only, but keep the Shell Beach zones operating as they are with the turnouts 2.Reduce supply from all turnouts and use the Bay Street Booster Pump Station to supply the Shell Beach zones in addition to the turnouts 3.Evaluate how the system will operate with all turnouts inoperable. Occasionally, the Lopez Pipeline is closed for maintenance, typically for a week or less, and the City must provide 100 percent of its supply from groundwater. The findings for each scenario are described below. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-12 Scenario 1 – Reduce Supply from the Main Zone Turnouts Only This scenario was modeled under maximum day demands with the assumptions listed above for a 24- hour period. The turnout and well operational settings used in this scenario are listed and compared to the current operational settings in Table 9-2. Originally, all wells were set to operate based on the Charles Street Reservoir, but the model predicted that the Charles Street Reservoir would fill quickly, and the Bello Reservoir would not fill. Therefore, the two existing wells were changed to maintain the water level in the Bello Reservoir. Table 9-2. Modeled Changes to Balance the System with Additional Groundwater Sources Descriptions Original Operational Setting Modeled Operational Changes Bello Turnout Maximum day demand/summer setting at 670 gallons per minute Reduced setting at 370 gallons per minute Pismo Oaks Turnout Setting at 200 gallons per minute Reduced setting at 100 gallons per minute Vista Del Mar Turnouts Setting at 370 gallons per minute Maintained setting at 370 gallons per minute Sunset Palisades Turnout Setting at 100 gallons per minute Maintained setting at 100 gallons per minute Well Controls Well 23 maintains a water level in the Charles Street Reservoir between 18 and 21.7 feet Well 5 is not used as a major supply source and is set to manual operation Well 23 and two new wells – maintain the Charles Street Reservoir between 20 and 24 feet (hydraulic grade line range: 173.5–177.5 feet) Well 5 and one new well – maintain the Bello Reservoir between 8 and 12 feet (hydraulic grade line range: 173–177 feet) Although this analysis is highly conceptual due to the unknown information about future groundwater supply, some key findings the City should note from this conceptual modeling scenario include the following:  The Charles Street Reservoir is predicted to fill faster than the Bello Reservoir when groundwater is a main supply source. The model predicted that the Charles Reservoir still has the potential to overflow when constructed at the same elevation as the Bello Reservoir and may require an altitude valve. The City should perform a more detailed analysis in coordination with Central Coast Blue when well capacities, groundwater supply, and operational settings are known to determine if an altitude valve will be required for the future Charles Street Reservoir. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-13 The model predicted that the Charles Street and Bello reservoirs could not hydraulically balance until the pipelines along North 4th Street and Atlantic City Avenue were upgraded. A new pipe along North 4th Street between Atlantic City Avenue and Five Cities Drive is currently recommended to improve fire flow. Increasing this pipe to a 16-inch diameter pipe allows for better conveyance between the two reservoirs and improves the fire flow in the Five Cities Drive area. Significant head loss was also modeled in the 12-inch diameter pipe along Atlantic City Drive between the Charles Street Reservoir and North 4th Street with all wells operating. When this pipe segment is modeled as a 16-inch diameter, there is improved hydraulic balance between the Charles Street Reservoir and Bello Reservoir. Any pipeline upgrades along Atlantic City Avenue should be coordinated with Central Coast Blue as more information becomes available on the future well locations and capacities. Scenario 2 – Reduce Supply from All Turnouts The next scenario modeled involved reducing the supply from all turnouts in the system. All assumptions and operational settings in Scenario 1 were carried over into this scenario, except the Vista Del Mar and Sunset Palisades turnout supplies were both reduced. The existing supply of the Vista Del Mar Turnout is 370 gallons per minute, and the flow rate modeled in this scenario was reduced to 200 gallons per minute, and the Sunset Palisades Turnout was modeled as turned off. In addition to turning down the Shell Beach turnouts, operational controls were added to the Bay Street Booster Pump Station to maintain the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir level between 19 and 24.5 feet. The recommended pipeline upgrades were also modeled in this scenario, which include a new 16-inch diameter pipe along North 4th Street between Atlantic City Avenue and Five Cities Drive and upgrading the pipe segment along Atlantic City Avenue between the Charles Street Reservoir and North 4th Street to a 16-inch diameter pipeline. Modeling analysis showed that when flows through all turnouts were lowered, the Bello Reservoir would empty after 15–20 hours. To maintain the Bello Reservoir and provide adequate suction pressure for the Bay Street Booster Pump Station, the Bello Turnout flow was increased to 600 gallons per minute, almost in equal proportion to the amount reduced in the Shell Beach zones. This operation is not recommended because it requires the City to transfer water from wells in Grover Beach across the entire distribution system to supply the Shell Beach zones, which may increase the system’s energy costs associated with greater reliance on the Bay Street Booster Pump Station. As the findings from this conceptual analysis indicate, the required Lopez Lake water should be supplied through the Shell Beach zones first, and any additional required Lopez Lake water fed through the Bello and Pismo Oaks turnouts. This will lower the City’s dependence on the Bay Street Booster Pump Station and minimize operational costs. Because of the conceptual nature of this analysis, the City should perform a more detailed supply and demand analysis after the future well capacities are known to understand how much Lopez Lake water will be required through the turnouts after the completion of the Central Coast Blue project and how to best operate the distribution system. System Operational Analysis City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 9-14 Scenario 3 – No Turnouts are Operational Occasionally, the Lopez Pipeline will shut down for maintenance and the City must rely solely on groundwater. It is expected the maximum length of time the turnouts will be inoperable is a week, so the model was run for 168 hours with all turnouts closed and with the added wells to support Central Coast Blue. The well and pump controls were kept the same, as listed in Table 9-2 on page 9-12, and the Bay Street Booster Pump Station controls were kept as described in Scenario 2. The demands were modeled as average day demands, because the City is unlikely to experience a planned Lopez Line closure with seven days of maximum day demand. Modeling analysis showed that the existing wells and three new wells could adequately maintain the tank levels during the week without the Lopez turnouts. Supply reliability should be reconfirmed when more information is known about the future supply wells. This analysis is preliminary and based on the assumptions stated in the beginning of this section. The purpose of this analysis was to determine additional pipeline projects or upgrades that can be combined with existing recommendations or added to the capital improvement plan. The well controls should be reevaluated when the City has more information about the number, location, and capacity of the future wells. This may include a supply evaluation to determine how low the turnout flows can be reduced and an energy evaluation to determine how the City prefers to manage pumping during off-peak hours and energy rates. Based on this preliminary analysis, WSC recommends the following: The City replace the Charles Street Reservoir with a larger reservoir, up to 1 MG in capacity. The operating levels and volume should be refined in the preliminary design phases to maintain hydraulic balance in the Main Zone and allow for excess storage for pumping during off-peak hours. The preliminary design should also consider if an altitude valve will be required to prevent the tank from overflowing. The North 4th Street pipeline is recommended to be 16-inches in diameter for fire flow and to improve conveyance across the Main Zone. Section 10 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-1 SECTION 10 10.RecommendedImprovements This Water System Master Plan Update identifies needed capacity and condition- based projects for pipeline improvements as well as booster pump, storage tank, and other water system improvements. The following section summarizes and prioritizes recommended improvements for the City’s water system. Project Prioritization Projects are ranked within three categories: “A” projects are highest priority and are needed to comply with current or anticipated future regulations, correct recurring failures, address significant safety concerns (including correcting fire flow that is well under required flow), or ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet projected demands. Priority A includes pipeline rehabilitation projects for 1–5 years from the date of this Water Master Plan Update. “B” projects address lower priority, longer-term existing needs, and are improvements that enhance system reliability or other low-level risks. Priority B includes pipeline rehabilitation projects for 6–15 years from the date of this Water Master Plan Update. “C” projects include projects recommended to meet interim growth and buildout. The timing of Priority C projects will depend on the timing of the City’s growth. Priority C includes pipeline rehabilitation projects for 16–30 years from the date of this Water Master Plan Update. IN THIS SECTION Project Prioritization Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions Capital Improvement Program Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-2 Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions The cost opinions (estimates) in this capital improvement plan have been prepared in conformance with industry practices as planning level cost opinions and are classified as Class 4 Conceptual Report Classification of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs as developed by AACE International. The purpose of a Class 4 Estimate is to provide a conceptual level of effort that is expected to range in accuracy from -30% to +50%. A Class 4 Estimate also includes an appropriate level of contingency so that it can be used in future planning and feasibility studies. The design concepts and associated costs presented in this capital improvement plan are conceptual in nature due to the limited design information that is available at this stage of project planning. These cost estimates have been developed using a combination of data from RS Means CostWorks® and recent bids, experience with similar projects, current and foreseeable regulatory requirements, and an understanding of necessary project components. As the projects progress, the designs and associated costs could vary significantly from the project components identified in this capital improvement plan. The recommended projects and these cost opinions are based on the following assumptions: 1.For projects that have applicable cost data available in RS Means CostWorks® (e.g. pipeline installation), cost data released in Quarter 2 of 2018, adjusted for San Luis Obispo, is used. Materials prices were further adjusted in some cases to provide estimates that align closer with actual local bid results. 2.For projects that do not have RS Means CostWorks® data available, cost opinions are generally derived from bid prices from similar projects, vendor quotes, material prices, and labor estimates, with adjustments for inflation, size, complexity, and location. 3.Cost opinions are in 2018 dollars (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). When budgeting for future years, appropriate escalation factors should be applied. The past 5-year average increase of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 20 City Average is considered a reasonable factor to use for escalation. 4.Cost opinions are “planning-level” and may not fully account for site-specific conditions that will affect actual costs, such as soil conditions and utility conflicts. 5.Construction costs include the following mark-up items: a.5 percent of construction item sub-total to account for unknown items not included in the opinion of cost. b.25 percent construction contingency based on construction sub-total. 6.Total project costs include the following allowances: a.15 percent of construction total for project development, including administration, alternatives analysis, planning, engineering, surveying, etc. b.10 percent of construction total for construction phase support services, including administration, inspection, materials testing, office engineering, construction administration, etc. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-3 Capital Improvement Plan Table 10-1 on page 10-4 lists recommended capital improvement projects. Following Table 10-1 are detailed descriptions for each recommended project. Plate 1, enclosed with this study, shows a large- scale map of the distribution system and the phased improvements. Detailed cost estimates for each project can be found in Appendix D. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-4 Table 10-1. Capital Improvement Projects Project No. (Priority) Zone Project Category Recommended Improvement Project Justification Quantity/ Length New Size/ Diameter Project Cost A1 Shell Beach 1 Reservoir and Booster Station Project Demolish and replace the existing Shell Beach 1 Reservoir with a new 1 MG welded steel reservoir. Perform Shell Beach Booster Pump Station maintenance, including pump and motor replacement and building maintenance. Condition Assessment 1 MG $2,230,000 A2 Heights 1 Pipeline Project Replace 580 linear feet of 2-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along Shafer Lane from Wadsworth Avenue going northwest towards Baxter Lane. Capacity Improvement & Condition Assessment 580 feet 8-inch $185,000 A3 Main Reservoir Project Demolish the existing 0.42 MG riveted steel Charles Street Reservoir and construct a new 1 MG reservoir at the same site. Capacity Improvement & Condition Assessment 1 MG $1,823,000 A4 Main Pipeline Project Replace 1,240 linear feet of 10- and 6-inch pipeline with 16-inch pipeline along Bello Street between Wadsworth Avenue and the Bello Turnout. Replace 800 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline with 12-inch pipeline along Bello Street between Harloe Avenue and Wadsworth Avenue. Replace two freeway crossings between Bello Street and Price Street with 920 linear feet (460 linear feet each freeway crossing) of 12-inch pipeline jack and bore under Highway 101. Capacity Improvement 2,960 feet 12-and 16- inch $1,788,000 A5 Pismo Oaks Reservoir Project Pismo Oaks Reservoir Improvements – Pave reservoir site and access road. Recoat interior and exterior shell, base, and roof. Improve fall protection. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and mixing system to monitor/control the chlorine residual and disinfection byproducts. Seismically retrofit reservoir with a flexible inlet/outlet and raise the penetration pipe. Condition Assessment $914,000 A6 Pacific Estates Booster Station Project Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station Improvements – Install new pumps and motors and add a flow meter on the discharge piping. Add SCADA controls on PRV to Main Zone. Condition Assessment $266,000 A7 Pismo Oaks Booster Station Project Pismo Oaks Booster Pump Station Improvements – Replace pumps. Recoat discharge pipes and flow meter cage. Condition Assessment $89,000 A8 Main Pipeline Project Add 3,500 linear feet of new 16-inch pipeline along North Fourth Street between Atlantic City Avenue and Five Cities Drive. Abandon 2,370 linear feet of 6-inch cast iron pipeline along Charles Street between the Charles Street Reservoir and Five Cities Drive. Capacity Improvement & Condition Assessment 3,500 feet 16-inch $1,025,000 A9 Pacific Estates Reservoir Project Pacific Estates Reservoir 1 Improvements – Recoat interior and exterior shell, base, and roof. Improve reservoir fall protection. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and reservoir mixing system. Seismically retrofit reservoir with a flexible inlet/outlet and raise the penetration pipe. Condition Assessment $448,000 A10 Main Well Project Well 23 Replacement or Reconditioning– Recondition Well 23 or abandon the existing Well 23, drill and equip a new well, and connect to the City’s distribution system. Condition Assessment ≥900 gpm $925,000 A11 Pacific Estates Reservoir Project Pacific Estates Reservoir 2 Improvements – Spot coat the interior and exterior shell, base, and roof. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and reservoir mixing system. Repair grade band foundation system. Seismically retrofit reservoir with a flexible inlet/outlet pipe. Condition Assessment $351,000 A12 Heights 1 Booster Station Project Bello Booster Pump Station Improvements – Perform general maintenance including recoating pipes and repainting the building roof trim. Add a flow meter on the discharge piping. Condition Assessment $150,000 A13 Shell Beach 1 Booster Station Project Bay Street Booster Pump Station Improvements – Repaint building roof trim. Apply a new slurry seal to the driveway. Add a flow meter on the discharge piping. Condition Assessment $137,000 A14 Main Reservoir Project Construct a rigid cover for the Bello Reservoir. Condition Assessment $781,000 A15 Main Well Project Construct a new groundwater well to increase supply reliability. This project may be included with Central Coast Blue. Capacity Improvement ≥900 gpm $925,000 Subtotal $12,037,000 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-5 Table 10-1. Capital Improvement Projects Project No. (Priority) Zone Project Category Recommended Improvement Project Justification Quantity/ Length New Size/ Diameter Project Cost A16 0–5 year Main Replacement Replace 0.56 miles (2,936 feet) of aging pipe each year. Condition Assessment 14,680 feet 8-and 10- inch $5,640,000 A17 0–5 year New Hydrants Add four new fire hydrants to the distribution system per year, per Figure 8-7 and 8-8 on page 8-16 and page 8-17, respectively. Condition Assessment 20 hydrants $170,000 A18 0–5 year New Distribution Valves Add two new distribution valves to the distribution system per year, per Figure 8-9 and 8-10 on page 8-19 and 8-20, respectively. Condition Assessment 10 valves $54,000 0–5 Year Total $17,901,000 B1 Main Pipeline Project Replace 590 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along Park Avenue between Dolliver Street and Highway 101. Capacity Improvement 590 feet 10-inch $263,000 B2 Main Pipeline Project Replace 1,020 linear feet of 2-inch and 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along Frady Lane at the Sport Complex Fields and within the wastewater treatment plant. Add 720 linear feet of new 8-inch pipeline from the dead-end on Frady Lane north across the Bello Bridge and connect to Bello Street. Capacity Improvement 1,740 feet 8-inch $476,000 B3 Heights 1 Pipeline Project Abandon the 6-inch pipeline through Judkins Middle School. Add 750 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along from the Bello Booster Pump Station across the Judkins Middle School Field parking lot and down Main Street to Bello Street. Add 780 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along Bello Street from Main Street to Wadsworth Avenue. Add 790 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along Wadsworth Avenue from Bello Street to the entrance of Judkins Middle School. Condition Assessment 2,320 feet 8-inch $550,000 B4 Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Project Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Improvements – Spot coat the interior and exterior shell, base, and roof. Replace the cathodic protection system. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and mixing system to monitor/control the chlorine residual and disinfection byproducts. Condition Assessment $489,000 B5 Main Well Project Well 5 Improvements – Replace the electrical system. Construct a new block building, separated by a wall, to house the electrical system and for chemical storage. Replace the site fencing. Rehabilitate the pump- to-waste pit. Condition Assessment $698,000 Subtotal $2,476,000 B6 6–15 year Main Replacement Replace 0.56 miles (2,936 feet) of aging pipe each year. Condition Assessment 23,360 feet 8-and 10- inch $11,280,000 B7 6–15 year New Hydrants Add four new fire hydrants to the distribution system per year, per Figure 8-7 and 8-8 on page 8-16 and page 8-17, respectively. Condition Assessment 40 hydrants $340,000 B8 6–15 year New Distribution Valves Add two new distribution valves to the distribution system per year, per Figure 8-9 and 8-10 on page 8-19 and 8-20, respectively. Condition Assessment 20 valves $108,000 6–15 Year Total $14,204,000 C1 Heights 1 Booster Station Project Upgrade pump capacity at Bello Booster Pump Station to meet 4-hour peak hour demand. This project should follow metering in Project A12 to allow pump capacity sizing. Capacity Improvement >400 gpm $176,000 C2 Pacific Estates Booster Station Project Upgrade pump capacity at the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station. This project should follow metering in Project A6 to allow pump capacity sizing. Capacity Improvement >466 gpm $176,000 C3 Main Pipeline Project Create additional looping by adding 310 linear feet of new 8-inch pipeline within the Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza parking lot. Capacity Improvement 310 feet 8-inch $69,000 C4 Main Pipeline Project Replace 620 linear feet of existing 4-inch and 6-inch dead end pipelines with 8-inch and 10-inch pipelines within the Motel 6 Pismo Beach parking lot. Capacity Improvement 620 feet 8-and 10- inch $208,000 C5 Main Pipeline Project Replace 780 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along A Avenue between Five Cities Drive and Entrada Drive. Capacity Improvement 780 feet 8-inch $200,000 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-6 Table 10-1. Capital Improvement Projects Project No. (Priority) Zone Project Category Recommended Improvement Project Justification Quantity/ Length New Size/ Diameter Project Cost C6 Shell Beach 1 Pipeline Project Replace 840 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the private drive and parking lot for the Kon Tiki Inn and Flagship Restaurant off Price Street. Capacity Improvement 840 feet 8-inch $236,000 C7 Main Pipeline Project Replace 300 linear feet of existing 8-inch pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along the dead end main on Harloe Avenue southwest of Dolliver Street. Capacity Improvement 300 feet 10-inch $141,000 C8 Main Pipeline Project Replace 1,010 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the two dead end mains within the private drive of Holiday RV Park near the intersection of Cypress Street and Dolliver Street. Capacity Improvement 1,010 feet 8-inch $273,000 C9 Heights 2 Pipeline Project Replace 820 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the most north western portion of Longview Avenue. Capacity Improvement 820 feet 8-inch $279,000 C10 Shell Beach 1 Pipeline Project Create additional looping by adding 50 linear feet of new 8-inch pipeline within the Spindrift Village Townhomes private drive off Shell Beach Road. Capacity Improvement 50 feet 8-inch $19,000 C11 Main Pipeline Project Replace a total of 560 linear feet of existing 6-inch and 8-inch pipeline with 8-inch and 10-inch pipeline along the private driveway of the Pismo Shores Apartment Complex and the Sea Gypsy Motel. Capacity Improvement 560 feet 8-and 10- inch $204,000 C12 Heights 1 Pipeline Project Replace 1,280 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the entire length of Stratford Street. Capacity Improvement 1,280 feet 8-inch $485,000 C13 Main Pipeline Project Create additional looping by adding 300 linear feet of new 8-inch pipeline along Cypress Street between Main Street and Pomeroy Avenue. Capacity Improvement 300 feet 8-inch $76,000 Subtotal $2,542,000 C14 16–30 year Main Replacement Replace 0.56 miles (2,936 feet) of aging pipe each year. Condition Assessment 44,040 feet 8-and 10- inch $16,920,000 C15 16–30 year New Hydrants Add four new fire hydrants to the distribution system per year until all recommended new hydrants are constructed, per Figure 8-7 and 8-8 on page 8-16 and page 8-17, respectively. Condition Assessment 43 hydrants $366,000 C16 16–30 year New Distribution Valves Add two new distribution valves to the distribution system per year until all recommended new valves are constructed, per Figure 8-9 and 8-10 on page 8-19 and 8-20, respectively. Condition Assessment 10 valves $54,000 16–30 Year Total $19,882,000 0–30 Year Total $51,987,000 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-7 Project A1 Shell Beach 1 Reservoir Replacement and Shell Beach Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 2,230,000 Need for Project: The existing Shell Beach 1 Reservoir is nearing the end of its useful life and is planned to be replaced. The reservoir provides storage for the Shell Beach 1 Zone and suction pressure for the Shell Beach Pump Station that fills the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir. According to the most recent dive inspection report from 2013 and described in Section 8, the reservoir has many coating failures, the roof structure is not stable, and the cathodic protection system is failing. The entire Shell Beach area would be at risk of limited supply if the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir failed. Maintenance at the Shell Beach Booster Pump Station should also be performed to ensure adequate water flow and system efficiency are maintained. Recommended Solution: Replace the Shell Beach 1 Reservoir with a new 1 MG welded steel reservoir at the same location. The new reservoir will be designed and constructed to meet current seismic standards, which should minimize tank damage during an earthquake and provide reliable supply for the Shell Beach 1 Zone. Replace the pumps and motors at the Shell Beach Booster Pump Station and perform minor building maintenance as well as install a meter at the pump station. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 1,427,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 357,000 Construction Total: $ 1,784,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 446,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 2,230,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Shell Beach 1 Reservoir Shell Beach BPS Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-8 Project A2 Shafer Lane Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $185,000 Need for Project: The existing 2-inch galvanized pipe along Shafer Lane is undersized to meet the required 1,500 gpm fire flow and peak hour demands and is approaching the end of its 60-year service life. The available fire flow along this main is 310 gpm and this segment is the last 2-inch distribution main in the system. This project is recommended to improve fire flow and replace aging mains. Recommended Solution: Replace 580 linear feet of 2-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along Shafer Lane and Bay Street from Wadsworth Avenue going northwest toward Baxter Lane. This will increase available fire flow at the hydrant along this main to about 3,100 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 118,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 30,000 Construction Total: $ 148,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 37,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 185,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project A2 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-9 Project A3 Charles Street Reservoir Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $1,823,000 Need for Project: The existing riveted steel Charles Street Reservoir is aging (88 years old in 2018), near the end of its useful life, and in poor condition according to City’s most recent dive inspection report from 2013 and described in Section 8. The Charles Street Reservoir provides storage for the Main Zone and storage for groundwater produced by the City wells which are in Grover Beach. Based on the reservoir age, the Charles Street Reservoir should be replaced to provide continued reliable storage for the Main Zone and as a source of supply for other zones if the Lopez Line is offline. As Central Coast Blue is completed and more of the City’s supply is from groundwater, this reservoir will become increasingly important for groundwater storage and distribution to other parts of the City. Recommended Solution: Replace the existing 0.42 million gallon reservoir with a 1 MG welded steel reservoir at the same site. The new reservoir will be designed and constructed to meet current seismic standards, which should minimize tank damage during an earthquake and provide reliable supply for the Main Zone. The increase in storage volume is recommended to improve storage in the Main Zone and for after the completion of Central Coast Blue when more of the City’s supply will be from groundwater, as described in Section 7.2. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 1,166,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 292,000 Construction Total: $ 1,458,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 365,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 1,823,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Charles Street Reservoir Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-10 Project A4 Downtown Fire Flow Pipeline Improvements Opinion of Total Project Cost: $1,788,000 Need for Project: The available fire flow throughout downtown Pismo Beach is limited to about 3,500 gpm in the existing distribution system. There is a bottle neck along Bello Street and under U.S. Highway 101 that limits the available fire flow in the downtown area. This project is recommended to fix the bottle neck in the system and improve fire flows in downtown Pismo Beach to 4,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: The recommended solution includes upsizing a total 2,960 linear feet of the pipeline along Bello Street and under the freeway crossings, described below: A. Replace 1,240 linear feet of 10-inch and 6-inch pipeline with 16-inch pipeline along Bello Street between Wadsworth Avenue and the Bello Turnout. B. Replace 800 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline with 12-inch pipeline along Bello Street between Harloe Avenue and Wadsworth Avenue. C. Replace two freeway crossings between Bello Street and Price Street with 920 linear feet (460 linear feet each freeway crossing) of 12-inch pipeline jack and bore in a 16” casing under U.S. Highway 101. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 1,144,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 286,000 Construction Total: $ 1,430,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 358,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 1,788,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-11 Project A4, continued Location Map: Project A4- Segment A Project A4- Segment B Project A4- Segment C Project A4- Segment C Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-12 Project A5 Pismo Oaks Reservoir Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $914,000 Need for Project: The existing 0.8 MG Pismo Oaks Reservoir is in poor condition, as described in Section 8, and needs rehabilitation to continue providing reliable storage for the Pismo Oaks Zone. The access road and reservoir site are unpaved, and the fence is inadequate for providing site security. The Pismo Oaks Reservoir has old and chalking exterior coatings and inner coating failure and corrosion that need spot repair and replacement. The existing fall protection for the Pismo Oaks Reservoir has failed coatings and needs improvements so operations staff can safely inspect and maintain the reservoir. The reservoir is also not up to current seismic standards and is recommended for retrofit to improve reliable storage and supply for the Pismo Oaks Zone. Recommended Solution: Pave the reservoir site and access road and construct a new fence with 3-barbed wire to improve site security. Recoat the reservoir interior and exterior shell, base, and roof and replace the exterior ladder, safety cage structure, and the roof guardrail. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to monitor and control the chlorine residual within the Pismo Oaks Reservoir. To seismically retrofit the Pismo Oaks Reservoir, construct a flexible inlet/outlet and raise the penetration pipe. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 585,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 146,000 Construction Total: $ 731,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 183,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 914,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Pismo Oaks Reservoir Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-13 Project A6 Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $266,000 Need for Project: The existing Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station has aging pumps and motors that should be replaced to ensure water flow and system efficiencies are maintained. Refer to Section 8 for a detailed condition assessment of the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station. The Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station also does not have a discharge flowmeter. A flowmeter at the booster pump station will benefit operations staff to understand flows into the zone and to monitor pump performance. The pressure reducing valve at the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station can feed the Main Zone when pressures on the discharge side drop. Main Zone supply reliability will improve if this pressure reducing valve can be opened remotely by operations staff via SCADA. Recommended Solution: Replace the existing pumps and motors at the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station as they are expected to reach the end of their useful lives within the next five years. Install a magnetic meter on the discharge piping of the pump station to monitor pump performance and zone demands. Connect the existing pressure reducing valve to the SCADA system to allow operations staff to open as needed. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 170,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 43,000 Construction Total: $ 213,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 53,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 266,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Pacific Estates BPS Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-14 Project A7 Pismo Oaks Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $89,000 Need for Project: The existing Pismo Oaks Booster Pump Station has aging pumps and motors that should be replaced to ensure water flow and system efficiencies are maintained, see Section 8 for the detailed condition assessment. The building that houses the pump station requires some minor maintenance and the above ground discharge pipes are exhibiting some minor corrosion and should be spot repaired. Recommended Solution: Replace the existing pumps and motors at the Pismo Oaks Booster Pump Station as they are expected to reach the end of their useful lives within the next five years. The City should also consider upgrading the pumps and motors to the same make and model to reduce pump station complexity. Perform minor building maintenance including repairing damaged roof shingles and roof vent. The discharge pipes with localized corrosion should be cleaned, repaired, and recoated. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 57,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 14,000 Construction Total: $ 71,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 18,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 89,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Pismo Oaks BPS Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-15 Project A8 North Fourth Street New Main Opinion of Total Project Cost: $1,025,000 Need for Project: The required fire flow along Five Cities Drive is 2,500 gpm and the fire flow in the current distribution system is limited to 1,400 gpm to 2,400 gpm. Improved conveyance from either the Bello Reservoir or the Charles Street reservoir is needed to improve fire flow in this area. Improved conveyance between the Charles Street Reservoir and the Bello Reservoir is also recommended for the future when groundwater is the main supply source after the completion of Central Coast Blue. This project is expected to improve fire flow along Five Cities Drive and meet fire flow standards and improve conveyance between the two Main Zone reservoirs. Recommended Solution: Construct a new loop along North Fourth Street and abandon the existing 6-inch cast iron main from the Charles Street Reservoir toward Five Cities Drive that is inaccessible, described below: A. Add 3,500 linear feet of 16-inch pipeline along North Fourth Street between Atlantic Avenue and Five Cities Drive. B. Abandon 2,370 linear feet of 6-inch cast iron pipeline along Charles Street between the Charles Street Reservoir and 5 Cities Drive. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 656,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 164,000 Construction Total: $ 820,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 205,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 1,025,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project A8- Segment A Project A8- Segment B Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-16 Project A9 Pacific Estates Reservoir 1 Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $448,000 Need for Project: The existing 0.35 MG Pacific Estates 1 Reservoir is in poor to fair condition and needs rehabilitation to continue providing reliable storage for the Pacific Estates Zone, as documented in the most recent dive inspection report from 2013 and described in Section 8. The Pacific Estates 1 Reservoir has old and chalking exterior coatings and inner coating failure and corrosion that need spot repair and replacement. The existing coatings on the exterior ladder and cage for the Pacific Estates 1 Reservoir are failing and needs improvements so operations staff can safely inspect and maintain the reservoir. The reservoir is also not up to current seismic standards and is recommended for retrofit to provide reliable storage and supply for the Pacific Estates zone. Recommended Solution: Recoat the interior and exterior shell, base, and roof, and replace the exterior ladder and safety cage structure and add a fall restraint. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to monitor and control the chlorine residual within the Pacific Estates 1 Reservoir. To seismically retrofit the Pacific Estates 1 Reservoir, two flexible couplings should be constructed at the inlet and outlet and the penetration pipe should be modified. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 286,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 72,000 Construction Total: $ 358,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 90,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 448,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Pacific Estates Reservoir 1 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-17 Project A10 Well 23 Replacement or Reconditioning Opinion of Total Project Cost: $925,000 Need for Project: Well 23 is an important supply source for the City and the well and site should be maintained to ensure reliable supply. The well has been experiencing many operational problems, including sand production during operation. Sand production can wear down the pump and well piping and cause sand build up in the bottom of the well. The City has recently invested in rehabilitation of Well 23 to improve performance issues, but has not been able to reduce sand production. Recommended Solution: Recondition Well 23 to reduce sand production. If reconditioning is unsuccessful, replace Well 23. The City has tried to improve performance through rehabilitation with little improvement, and costs for full well replacement is included in this recommendation to ensure supply reliability. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 740,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 185,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 925,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Note, project development and implementation costs are included in the Base Construction Subtotal, and includes well design, specification, construction management, and hydrogeologist services. Due to unknowns about well location and hydrology, project costs may vary greatly from the estimate presented above. Location Map: Well 23 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-18 Project A11 Pacific Estates Reservoir 2 Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $351,000 Need for Project: The existing 0.85 MG Pacific Estates 2 Reservoir is in poor to fair condition and needs rehabilitation to continue providing reliable storage for the Pacific Estates Zone, as described in Section 8. The Pacific Estates 2 Reservoir has old and chalking exterior coatings and inner coating failure and corrosion that need spot repair and replacement. The existing fall protection for the Pacific Estates 2 Reservoir is old and the exterior ladder and cage has failed coatings and needs improvements, so operations staff can safely inspect and maintain the reservoir. The grade band foundation system is damaged in one location causing loss of foundation gravel. The reservoir is also not up to current seismic standards and is recommended for retrofit to guarantee reliable storage and supply for the Pacific Estates Zone. Recommended Solution: Recoat the interior and exterior shell, base, and roof, and replace the exterior ladder and safety cage structure and add a fall restraint. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to monitor and control the chlorine residual within the Pacific Estates 2 Reservoir. Repair the grade band foundation to prevent loss of additional gravel. To seismically retrofit the Pacific Estates 2 Reservoir, construct two flexible couplings at the inlet and outlet each. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 22,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 56,000 Construction Total: $ 281,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 70,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 351,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Pacific Estates Reservoir 2 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-19 Project A12 Bello Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $150,000 Need for Project: The existing Bello Booster Pump Station building requires minor maintenance and the above ground pipes are exhibiting minor corrosion and should be spot repaired, as described in Section 8. A flowmeter at the booster pump station will benefit operations staff to understand flows into the zone and to monitor pump performance. Recommended Solution: Perform minor building maintenance including recoating the roof to prevent dry rot and cleaning, repairing, and recoating the above ground pipes with localized corrosion. Install a magnetic meter on the discharge piping of the pump station to monitor pump performance and zone demands. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 96,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 24,000 Construction Total: $ 120,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 30,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 150,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Bello BPS Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-20 Project A13 Bay Street Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $137,000 Need for Project: The existing Bay Street Booster Pump Station site and pump housing building require minor maintenance, as described in Section 8. A flowmeter at the booster pump station will benefit operations staff to understand flows into the zone and to monitor pump performance. Recommended Solution: Perform minor site and building maintenance including adding new slurry seal for the asphaltic driveway and recoating the roof to prevent dry rot. Install a magnetic meter on the discharge piping of the pump station to monitor pump performance and zone demands. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 88,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 22,000 Construction Total: $ 110,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 37,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 137,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Bay Street BPS Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-21 Project A14 Bello Reservoir Roof Improvements Opinion of Total Project Cost: $781,000 Need for Project: The 0.47 MG Bello Reservoir currently has a floating roof cover that requires significant maintenance for operations staff. It is recommended to replace the floating cover with a rigid roof to alleviate the maintenance issues with the floating cover. Recommended Solution: Construct a column supported rigid roof for the Bello Reservoir. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 500,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 125,000 Construction Total: $ 625,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 156,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 781,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Bello Reservoir Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-22 Project A15 Construct New Groundwater Well Opinion of Total Project Cost: $925,000 Need for Project: It is expected that by buildout the City supply reliability will be at risk during the State Water Project Single Dry Year delivery scenario. Although San Luis Reservoir Storage and District Excess Allotment could be used to deliver adequate supply for the City, the long-term viability of these solutions is uncertain. The City should increase reliable supply capacity to improve supply reliability for the future. Refer to Section 5.4 for additional information. Recommended Solution: Construct a new groundwater well to increase supply capacity and improve supply reliability. The well should be constructed after the completion of Central Coast Blue to take advantage of the recharged groundwater. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 740,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 185,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 925,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Note, project development and implementation costs are included in the Base Construction Subtotal, and includes well design, specification, construction management, and hydrogeologist services. Due to unknowns about well location and hydrology, project costs may vary greatly from the estimate presented above. Location Map: The location is currently unknown, but it is expected that the well will be in Grover Beach like the City’s existing wells. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-23 Project B1 Park Avenue Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $263,000 Need for Project: The existing dead-end 6-inch pipe along Park Avenue is undersized to meet the required 4,500 gpm fire flow and peak hour demands. The available fire flow along this segment of Park Avenue is 1,485 gpm and is recommended to be upsized to improve fire flow. Recommended Solution: Replace 590 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along Park Avenue north of Dolliver Street. The project will increase available fire flow at the hydrants along this main to 4,650 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 168,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 42,000 Construction Total: $ 210,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 53,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 263,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project B1 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-24 Project B2 Frady Lane Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $476,000 Need for Project: The existing dead-end 2-inch and 6-inch pipes along Frady Lane are undersized for the required 1,500 gpm fire flow and peak hour demands. The available fire flow towards the end of Frady Lane is about 1,300 gpm and is recommended to be upsized to improve fire flow. Recommended Solution: Construct a total of 1,740 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along Frady Lane and at the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project will increase the available fire flow at the hydrants along Frady Lane to about 4,000 gpm. The project segments are described below: A. Replace 730 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along Frady Lane north of Highway 101. B. Construct an additional 720 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline along Frady Lane across the currently closed bridge and tie into Bello Street to create additional system looping. C. Replace 290 linear feet of 2-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline that serves the wastewater treatment plant. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 305,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 76,000 Construction Total: $ 381,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 95,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 476,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Note: the future pipe alignment will follow Frady Lane . Project B2- Segment A Project B2- Segment B Project B2- Segment C Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-25 Project B3 Judkins Middle School Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $550,000 Need for Project: The existing 6-inch cast iron mains on the discharge side of the Bello Booster Pump Station run through Judkins Middle School. According to City operation staff these mains are old and approaching the end of their useful life. Due to their location, it is difficult for operations staff to access the mains and make repairs as needed or perform routine maintenance. It is recommended to abandon these pipes and construct a new discharge pipe for the Bello Booster Pump Station along existing roads. Recommended Solution: Abandon 2,620 linear feet of 6-inch mains through Judkins Middle School and construct 2,320 linear feet of new 8-inch pipelines along existing roadways as the discharge for the Bello Booster Pump Station. The recommended project segments are listed below: A. Abandon 2,620 linear feet of 6-inch pipeline through Judkins Middle School. B. Construct 750 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline from the Bello BPS across the Judkins Middle School Field Parking Lot and down Main Street to Bello Street. C. Construct 780 linear feet of 8-inch Pipeline along Bello Street from Main Street to Wadsworth Avenue. D. Construct 790 linear feet of 8-inch Pipeline along Wadsworth Avenue from Bello Street to the entrance of Judkins Middle School. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 352,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 88,000 Construction Total: $ 440,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 110,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 550,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-26 Project B3, continued Location Map: Project B2- Segment A Project B3- Segment A Project B3- Segment B Project B3- Segment C Project B3- Segment D Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-27 Project B4 Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $489,000 Need for Project: The existing 1 MG Shell Beach 2 Reservoir is in fair condition and needs rehabilitation to continue providing reliable storage for the Shell Beach 2 Zone, as described in Section 8. The Shell Beach 2 Reservoir has aging and chalking exterior coatings and some inner coating failure and corrosion that need spot repair and replacement. The existing cathodic protection system is aging and needs replacement to prevent corrosion on the inner steel shell of the reservoir. Recommended Solution: Spot recoat the interior and exterior shell, base, and roof, and replace the cathodic protection system. Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to monitor and control the chlorine residual within the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 313,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 78,000 Construction Total: $ 391,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 98,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 489,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-28 Project B5 Well 5 Rehabilitation Opinion of Total Project Cost: $698,000 Need for Project: Well 5 is an important supply source for the City and the well and site should be maintained to ensure reliable supply. Currently, Well 5 is in poor condition and needs complete well and site rehabilitation as described in Section 8. This includes a new well pump and motor, chemical and mechanical rehabilitation of the well and casing, and complete replacement of the electrical system. The site is mainly exposed, and the site fencing is corroding and damaged. The pump-to-waste components are also full of silt and needs rehabilitation. Recommended Solution: Perform complete rehabilitation of the well and site, including: • Replace the well pump and motor • Chemical and mechanical well rehabilitation • Replace the electrical system • Replace the site fencing • Construct a CMU building for electrical components and chemical storage • Rehabilitate the pump-to-waste components Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 446,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 112,000 Construction Total: $ 558,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 140,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 698,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Alternatives: Alternatively, the City can abandon Well 5 and construct a new well in an alternative location rather than rehabilitate the existing well. Costs to construct a new well vary based on site specifics and are difficult to estimate for comparison. Location Map: Well 5 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-29 Project C1 Bello Booster Pump Station Capacity Upgrade Opinion of Total Project Cost: $176,000 Need for Project: The 0.22 MG each Heights 1 and Heights 2 Reservoirs will have a storage deficit when the City reaches buildout, as described in Section 7.2. The storage deficit is caused by operational storage requirements, which should be met by increasing Bello Booster Pump Station pump capacity. Recommended Solution: Replace the existing pumps at the Bello Booster Pump Station, which supply the Heights 1 and 2 Reservoirs, with higher capacity pumps in the future as demands increase. This project should follow Project A12 and the discharge meter can be used to understand the system demands. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 113,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 28,000 Construction Total: $ 141,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 35,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 176,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Alternative: Alternatively, the City can construct a new 14,000 gallon tank in the Heights 2 Zone. There is limited space in the Heights 2 Zone for an additional storage tank and if space is available it is expected to cost more than upgrading the pumps at the Bello Booster Pump Station. Location Map: Bello BPS Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-30 Project C2 Pacific Estates Pump Station Capacity Upgrade Opinion of Total Project Cost: $176,000 Need for Project: It is expected that the future maximum day demand in the Pacific Estates Zone will exceed the firm pumping capacity of the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station, as described in Section 7.1. The Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station should be equipped with pumps that each have a capacity that exceeds the maximum day demand. Recommended Solution: Replace the existing pumps at the Pacific Estates Booster Pump Station with higher capacity pumps in the future as demands increase. This project should follow Project A6 and the discharge meter can be used to understand the flows through the pump station and zone maximum day demands. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 113,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 28,000 Construction Total: $ 141,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 35,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 176,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Pacific Estates BPS Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-31 Project C3 Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza New Main Opinion of Total Project Cost: $69,000 Need for Project: The existing dead-end mains serving hydrants within the Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza will be able to provide fire flow up to 1,900 gpm after the completion of Project A8 and require 2,500 gpm of fire flow. This project is needed to improve fire flow to 2,500 gpm at the Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza. Recommended Solution: Construct 310 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline within the Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza front parking lot to loop the existing two dead-end mains. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 44,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 11,000 Construction Total: $ 55,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 14,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 69,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C3 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-32 Project C4 Motel 6 Pismo Beach Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $208,000 Need for Project: The existing dead-end mains serving hydrants within the Motel 6 Pismo Beach parking lot will be able to provide fire flow up to 1,800 gpm after the completion of Project A8 and require 2,500 gpm of fire flow. This project is needed to improve fire flow at the Motel 6 Pismo Beach. Recommended Solution: Replace a total of 620 linear feet of existing 4- and 6-inch pipeline with 8- and 10-inch pipeline within the Motel 6 parking. This project will increase fire flow to 2,500 gpm or greater. The project segments are described below: A. Replace 300 linear feet of 4-inch dead-end pipelines with 8-inch pipeline along the western side of the Motel 6 parking lot. B. Replace 320 linear feet of 6-inch dead-end pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along the eastern side of the Motel 6 parking lot. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 133,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 33,000 Construction Total: $ 166,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 42,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 208,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C4- Segment A Project C4- Segment B Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-33 Project C5 A Avenue Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $200,000 Need for Project: The existing main that serves the Hacienda Del Pismo Mobile Estates is undersized and can only provide fire flows up to 1,200 gpm. This project is needed to improve fire flow at the Hacienda Del Pismo Mobile Estates to 1,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Replace a total of 780 linear feet of existing 6-inch dead-end pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along A Avenue between Five Cities Drive and Entrada Drive. This project will increase the available fire flow to 2,500 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 128,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 32,000 Construction Total: $ 160,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 40,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 200,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C5 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-34 Project C6 Kon Tiki Inn Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $236,000 Need for Project: The existing dead-end main that serves the Kon Tiki Inn is undersized and can provide fire flows ranging from 1,500- 2,650 gpm with the parking lot. This project is needed to improve fire flow at the hydrant located at the end of the dead-end main within the Kon Tiki Inn parking lot to 2,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Replace a total of 840 linear feet of existing 6-inch dead-end pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along within the private drive and parking lot for the Kon Tiki Inn and Flagship Restaurant off Price Street. This project will increase fire flows at the end of the dead-end main to just above 2,500 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 151,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 38,000 Construction Total: $ 189,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 47,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 236,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C6 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-35 Project C7 Harloe Avenue Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $141,000 Need for Project: The existing dead-end main along Harloe Avenue is undersized and the hydrant at the southern end will be able to provide fire flows up to 3,200 gpm after the completion of Project A4. This project is needed to improve fire flow at the hydrant located at the southern end of the dead-end main along Harloe Avenue to 4,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Replace 300 linear feet of existing 6-inch dead-end pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along Harloe Avenue southwest of Dolliver Street. This project will increase fire flows at the end of the main to about 4,800 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 90,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 23,000 Construction Total: $ 113,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 28,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 141,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C7 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-36 Project C8 Holiday RV Park Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $273,000 Need for Project: The existing dead-end mains that serves the Holiday RV Park off Dolliver Street are undersized and the hydrant at the end of the 6-inch City owned main can only provide fire flows up to 1,250 gpm. This project is needed to improve fire flows at the Holiday RV Park to 1,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Replace 1,010 linear feet of existing 6-inch dead-end pipeline with 8-inch pipeline within the Holiday RV Park private drive northeast of the intersection of Cypress Street and Dolliver Street. This project will increase fire flows at the end of the dead-end main to about 1,650 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 174,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 44,000 Construction Total: $ 218,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 55,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 273,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C8 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-37 Project C9 Longview Avenue Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $279,000 Need for Project: The existing 6-inch main at the north end of Longview Avenue can only provide fire flows of about 1,400 gpm each. This project is needed to improve fire flows at the two northernmost hydrants along Longview Avenue to 1,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Replace 820 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the northern portion of Longview Avenue where the road splits into one lane and loops back around. This project will increase fire flows at the top of Longview Avenue to about 1,600 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 178,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 45,000 Construction Total: $ 223,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 56,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 279,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C9 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-38 Project C10 Spindrift Village Townhomes New Main Opinion of Total Project Cost: $19,000 Need for Project: The existing 6-inch dead-end main that serves the Spindrift Village Townhomes located at 2251 Shell Beach Road is undersized and can only provide fire flows of about 870 gpm. This project is needed to improve fire flows at the hydrant located at the end of the dead-end main to 1,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Construct 50 linear feet of 8-inch pipeline from the existing 6-inch dead-end main to the 8-inch main along the private drive for the Spindrift Village Townhomes off Shell Beach Road to create additional looping and improve fire flow. This project will increase fire flows at the single deficient hydrant to over 2,000 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 12,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 3,000 Construction Total: $ 15,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 4,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 19,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C10 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-39 Project C11 Pismo Shores Apartment Complex and Sea Gypsy Motel Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $204,000 Need for Project: The existing 6-inch mains that serve the Pismo Shores Apartment Complex located at 100 Pismo Avenue are undersized and will be able to provide fire flows of about 4,000 gpm after the completion of Project A4. The existing dead end 8-inch main that serves the Sea Gypsy Motel is also under sized and will be able to provide fire flows of 4,300 gpm after the completion of Project A4. This project is needed to improve fire flows at the hydrants located within the parking lot for the Pismo Shores Apartment Complex and the Sea Gypsy Motel to 4,500 gpm or greater as required to meet fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Replace a total of 560 linear feet of 6- and 8-inch pipeline with 8- and 10-inch pipeline, respectively. This project will increase fire flows within the Pismo Shores Apartment Complex and the Sea Gypsy Motel parking lots to about 5,150 gpm. The project segments are described below: A. Replace 430 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the private parking lot for the Pismo Shores Apartment Complex. B. Replace 130 linear feet of existing 8-inch pipeline with 10-inch pipeline along the private parking lot for the Sea Gypsy Motel. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 130,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 33,000 Construction Total: $ 163,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 41,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 204,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C11- Segment A Project C11- Segment B Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-40 Project C12 Stratford Street Pipeline Replacement Opinion of Total Project Cost: $485,000 Need for Project: The existing 6-inch main along Stratford Street is undersized and can only provide fire flows of about 1,410 gpm on the northwest end and 1,420 gpm on the southeast end. This project is needed to improve fire flows at the hydrants located at the end of the street to 1,500 gpm as required by fire flow standards. Recommended Solution: Replace 1,280 linear feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with 8-inch pipeline along the entire length of Stratford Street. This project will increase fire flows at the ends of Stratford Street to over 2,300 gpm. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 310,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 78,000 Construction Total: $ 388,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 97,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 485,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C12 Recommended Improvements City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 10-41 Project C13 Cypress Street New Main Opinion of Total Project Cost: $76,000 Need for Project: The existing fire flow in Downtown Pismo Beach does not meet the required 4,500 gpm. This project is needed to improve fire flow by providing increased distribution system looping in Downtown Pismo Beach. Recommended Solution: Construct 300 linear feet of existing 8-inch pipeline along Cypress Street between Main Street and Pomeroy Avenue. This project will improve system looping and downtown fire flows. Estimated Project Costs: Base Construction Costs: $ 49,000 Construction Contingency (25%): $ 12,000 Construction Total: $ 61,000 Project Development and Implementation (25%): $ 15,000 Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 76,000 Cost estimates are in 2018 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). See Appendix D for more detailed cost estimates. Location Map: Project C13 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Section 11 REFERENCES This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. References City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update │ 11-1 SECTION 11 11. References AECOM Technical Services. (August 11, 2011). San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast. American Society of Civil Engineers. (n.d.). Drinking Water Funding. Retrieved 4 19, 2017, from 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. American Water Works Association. (2001). AWWA Manual M19, Fourth Edition. Emergency Planning for Water Utilities. American Water Works Association. (2002). Effects of Water Age on Distribution System Water Quality. Environmental Protection Agency. American Water Works Association. (n.d.). Buried No Longer: Confronting America's Water Infrastructure Challenge. Retrieved from AWWA. American Water Works Association Webcast Program. (2011). Pipeline Consition Assessment Techniques tha Save Money (W1120). California Department of Water Resources. (December 2014). The State Water Project Final Delivery Reliability Report. General Accounting Office. (2016). Water Infrastructure: EPA and USDA are Helping Small Water Utilities with Asset Management; Opportunities Exist to Better Track REsults. Ogren, J. (2016). Zone 3 Lopez Minimum Pool vs Reservoir Intakes. Population.US. (2016). Retrieved 4 19, 2017, from Population of Pismo Beach,Ca. Randy Bloom. (2001, April 11). Technical Memorandum. Revised population projections for use in sewer treatment plant expansion analysis. Pismo Beach, Califronia. San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 3. (December 16, 2014). Low Reservoir Response Plan. Stetson Engineers, Inc. (February 2013). Lopez Lake Spillway Raise Project Report. Wallace Group. (June 2016). Zone 3 Urban Water Management Plan 2015 Update. San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Appendix A EVALUATION CRITERIA & DEMAND ALLOCATION TM This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Technical Memorandum Pismo Beach_Final TM_Eval Criteria & Demand Allocation.docx Date: 3/21/2018 To: Eric Eldridge, PE City of Pismo Beach Prepared by: Heather Freed E.I.T., Spencer Waterman Reviewed by: Joshua Reynolds, P.E. Project: City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update SUBJECT: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND DEMAND ALLOCATION The City of Pismo Beach (City) Water System Master Plan Update will evaluate the adequacy of the water system to provide safe and reliable service to customers and recommend capital improvements necessary to maintain that level of service into the future. The analysis will be based on estimated water demand projections and a set of evaluation criteria designed to meet regulatory requirements, accepted engineering practices, and City preferences. This Technical Memorandum (TM) is organized into three (3) main sections that summarize the evaluation criteria and water demand projection methodology: (1) System Evaluation Criteria (2) Water Demand Spatial Allocation (3) Future Demand Projection For the purposes of this TM, the following defined terms are used:  Consumption: The amount of billed metered water consumed by customers. The City provided annual consumption data for 2010-2015.  Production: The amount of water produced from City supply sources and put into the City’s distribution system based on metered flows at each well and source connection. The City provided annual production data for 2010-2015 and daily production data for July 3-9, 2016 and October 17-23, 2016. The Clam Festival was from October 22-23, 2016, thus the production on these dates were omitted from average day demands.  Non-revenue Water: The amount of water losses making up the difference between production and consumption.  Demand: The amount of water distributed through the water system calculated based on consumption and production. Demand takes into account non-revenue water as discussed in detail in Section 3.  Demand Factor: The calculated amount of water demand per unit (e.g., acre, sqft, dwelling unit, etc.) of each customer category. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation 3/21/2018 Page 2 of 6 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Eval Criteria & Demand Allocation.docx 1 Water Demand Spatial Allocation In order to evaluate the City’s water distribution system, the location and quantities of water demands must be known and modeled. Spatially allocated demands were established based on historical and projected annual water customer consumption by customer category and production data from the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as well as Geographical Information System (GIS) zoning and parcel data. The process implemented to establish and use water demand factors for spatial demand allocation is summarized in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1. Spatially Allocated Demand Projection Process Water consumption records only include billed metered water consumption and do not include any non- revenue water. Non-revenue water can also be referred to as water loss, either physically from leaking pipes or overflows at facilities, or as apparent losses resulting from meter inaccuracies. To account for consumption and non-revenue water, water demand is calculated based on water consumption and water production data. The production of all water was divided by the consumption to create a scaling factor. The scaling factor was then applied to consumption data to normalize the water consumption records to better model the total demand distributed through the City’s water system. The customer demand data was organized in the following categories: Single Family Residential, Multi- family Residential, Commercial, and Other. The City’s zoning categories were grouped into the same categories in order to assign water demands to specific parcels with the corresponding zoning category. The GIS parcel data included the area of the parcel and its zoning category. Because detailed customer specific water consumption data was not readily associated with parcel data, demand factors were developed and applied to parcels throughout the City to allocate demand to parcels with two exceptions: the top 20 water users parcels in 2015 and the hotel projects parcels to be developed by 2020. The large users were assumed to skew the average demand factor calculations, so those parcels were not included in demand factor calculations and were assigned their actual 2015 water demand. Additionally, future hotel developments were assumed to have larger than average water demands in specific locations impacting the water model, so their parcels were assigned their own unique demands from 2020-2035. All other parcels were assigned demand based on their zoning category, area and corresponding demand •Scale consumption to demand •Associate water demand cateogries with corresponding zoning categories Categorize Water Demand and Zoning Data •Associate total water demand by customer category with parcel and zoning data Incorporate Parcel and Zoning Data •Calculate and summarize water demand per customer category for 2015-2035 •Calculate water demand per acre for 2015-2035 Develop Water Demand Factors •Apply 2015-2035 demand factors to each parcel's acreage Apply Water Demand Factors to Parcels to Spatially Allocate Water Demand City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation 3/21/2018 Page 3 of 6 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Eval Criteria & Demand Allocation.docx factor. It was assumed that these parcels’ areas and their zoning would stay the same from 2015 through 2035. The total water demand for these parcels from 2015 through 2035 for each customer category was divided by the total area of parcels with the corresponding zoning category to determine water demand per acre. The water demand factors are shown in Table 1-1. A map of the spatially allocated demands by parcel and customer category is provided in Appendix A Table 1-1. Water Demand Factors 2015-Buildout Customer Category 2015 Demand Factor (gpd/acre) 2020 Demand Factor (gpd/acre) 2025 Demand Factor (gpd/acre) 2030 Demand Factor (gpd/acre) 2035 Demand Factor (gpd/acre) Buildout Demand Factor (gpd/acre) Single Family Residential 1,614 1,908 1,971 2,036 2,102 2,332 Multi-Family Residential 852 763 788 814 841 933 Commercial 1,572 1,363 1,408 1,454 1,502 1,666 Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Future Demand Projection The 2015 water demand data and parcels were used as the basis for modeling existing conditions. Based on review of historical water demand trends and projected development, it is assumed that the distribution of 2015 water demand between customer categories and spatial locations is representative of future water demand distribution paradigms. As previously discussed, water demand data was associated with parcels’ zoning and development data to aid in developing water demand factors to project future water demands. The City’s historical water demand, per capita water use and residential per capita water use for the period of 1995 through 2015 are shown in Figure 3-1. Residential per capita use is shown solely for comparison purposes as it is a metric used for emergency drought reporting to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The water demand data shown in Figure 3-1 illustrates that annual water demand significantly decreased starting in 2007 through 2012. The substantial decrease in water demand from 2007 through 2012 is assumed to be attributed to economic conditions, climatic conditions, implementation of mandatory water restrictions, and enhanced water use efficiency programs. For residential customers, this decreasing demand trend continued through 2015 as evidenced by the residential per capita water use. This City-wide declining trend in water demand changed to an increasing trend from 2013 through 2015 due to increased commercial and tourism activity. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation 3/21/2018 Page 4 of 6 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Eval Criteria & Demand Allocation.docx Figure 3-1. Historic Gross Water Use and Per Capita Water Use The future demand projections are based on water demand factors presented in Table 2-1 and estimated growth in the City. Because of slow growth in the City, buildout is not expected to be reached until after 2050. Table 3-1 presents the future demand estimates. Table 3-1. Future Demand Estimates 2015 (gpm) 2020 (gpm) 2025 (gpm) 2030 (gpm) 2035 (gpm) Buildout (gpm) Average Daily Demand (ADD) 1,076 1,1171 1,202 1,234 1,267 1,381 To develop an estimate for the maximum daily demand (MDD), WSC reviewed monthly production data from July 2000 to December 2015 and identified the peak demand month consistently occurs in July. The City provided detailed SCADA records from July 3- 9, 2016, and the highest demand day was determined to occur on July 8th, 2016. The total calculated demand from this day (2.64 MGD) was used to determine the MDD peaking factor compared to the average day demand. To develop the current peak hour demand (PHD), the MDD was multiplied by a PF of 1.5 in accordance with California Department of Public Health regulations. Table 3-2 shows the ADD, MDD, and PHD and the associated peaking factors for the current demand and the buildout demand. 198 207 222 185 185 225 219 234 235 244 236 236 255 252 235 171 171 170 181 226 201 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Average Per Capita Water Use (gpcd)Water Demand (AFY)Daily System Gross Water Use (AFY)Annual Daily Per Capita Water Use (gpcd) Residential Per Capita Water Use (gpcd) City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation 3/21/2018 Page 5 of 6 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Eval Criteria & Demand Allocation.docx Table 3-2. Current Demands and Peaking Factors Current Demand (MGD) Current Demand (gpm) Buildout Demand (MGD) Buildout Demand (gpm) Peaking Factor from ADD Average Daily Demand (ADD) 1.55 1,076 1.99 1,381 N/A Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) 2.64 1,829 3.23 2,348 1.7 Peak Hour Demand (PHD) 3.95 2,744 4.85 3,522 2.55 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Evaluation Criteria and Demand Allocation 3/21/2018 Page 6 of 6 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Eval Criteria & Demand Allocation.docx Appendix A- Water Demands by Parcel and Customer Category Map This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. A A A A AAAAA A A AA A A AA A A _ __ _ MilesMiles Shell BeachShell Beach Pismo BeachPismo Beach £¤101 £¤101 ST1 Pric e S t Price Canyon Rd James W a y S h e l l B e a c h R d W O rm o n d e R d El C a m i n o R e a l Oak Park BlvdN 4th StOld Oak Park RdB e l l o S t Five Citie s D r W B r a n c h S t Hinds Ave Fro n t a g e R d D o l l i v e r S t S D o l l i v e r S t Pacific Ocean PismoCreekTi b e r C a n y o n PismoPriceCanyonCreekPismo Cr e e k The City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Water Demands by Parcel and Customer Category Date: 9/13/2019Path: W:\GIS\PismoBeach\WMP_2015\Demand_Loads_Plot_11x17.mxdService Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, ±0 0.40.2 Miles Legend City Limits Customer Categories None SFR MFR Comm Other _Future Large Users A 2015 Large Users Water Demands Scale (gpd) 0 - 275 276 - 2,481 2,482 - 7,523 7,524 - 17,028 17,029 - 89,892 89,893 - 130,781 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Appendix B HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT TM This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Technical Memorandum Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Date: 4/17/2018 To: Eric Eldridge, PE City of Pismo Beach Prepared by: Heather Freed, EIT Reviewed by: Joshua Reynolds, PE Project: City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update SUBJECT: HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM This Technical Memorandum (TM) presents the process of developing the City of Pismo Beach (City) water distribution system hydraulic model, and the methodology for steady state and extended period simulation (EPS) calibration of the model. The TM provides additional detail to supplement Section 6 in the City’s updated Water Master Plan, and is formatted with that end use in mind. This TM is organized into three main sections:  Model Development  Steady State Model Calibration  Extended Period Simulation Model Model Development The goal of developing a hydraulic model is to create a well calibrated model of the City’s distribution system to quickly and accurately analyze the performance of the distribution system under a variety of demand and operational scenarios. The model is also extremely useful for evaluating alternative configurations and capital project recommendations in order to provide the most valuable system configuration to meet the City’s needs. The City actively maintains system mapping in GIS which WSC utilized to develop an all-pipes, spatially allocated water model in WaterGEMS, Bentley’s ® GIS based hydraulic modelling software. WSC’s modelling development approach consisted of a “one to one” relationship between the City’s GIS data and the updated water model data. With a one to one correlation, changes to the distribution system can be readily imported and transferred between the City’s GIS geodatabase and the WaterGEMS model. To develop the model, Bentley’s® ModelBuilder tool was used to create hydraulic elements from the City’s geodatabase shape files. Through subsequent model development and calibration of pipe friction factors, WSC has created an updated water model which accurately represents the City’s water distribution system. Hydraulic Element Connectivity and Properties Following the creation of the hydraulic model elements using the Model Builder tool, WSC assessed connectivity and physical property errors produced during validation steps. In some cases, connectivity between a main line and a lateral, or dead end pipe, was not established during creation of the model. In most cases the disconnected City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 2 of 3 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx lateral could be reconnected to the nearest node on the mainline. If there was not an existing node on the mainline to reconnect the lateral, a new node was created. When adding a new node to a pipe, the pipe is split into two separate pipes, each with a new WaterGEMS “Label” and WaterGEMS “ID”. To preserve the GIS relationship to the WaterGEMS ID, the original WaterGEMS Label is copied and imported to a new GIS -ID for that pipe segment before adding a node and splitting the pipe. Once the node is added and the pipe is split, each pipe segment retains the GIS-ID which is identical to the WaterGEMS Label. Figure 1 provides a step-by-step instruction on how to execute this process. A one to one link is then maintained between the GIS geodatabase and the hydraulic model allowing pipe updates, condition information, hydraulic output, ect. to be linked between the hydraulic model and the geodatabase. Figure 1. Step-by-step process on how to maintain the one to one relationship between GIS data and model data when adding a node or splitting a pipe. Step 1: Before a node is added and the pipe segment is split, this pipe segment’s WaterGEMS ID and Water Label are “5574” and “Water_Main_New_Export-746”, respectively. Step 2: Before splitting the existing pipe, the “GIS-IDs” General Property field is opened and the WaterGEMS Label is copied into a new GIS-ID. When the GIS-IDs window is closed the new GIS-ID has been added and shown as a GIS-ID collection item. Step 3: Once the GIS-ID is added the pipe is split. Both a new WaterGEMS ID and Label are created for the two new pipe segments, but the GIS-ID entered in Step 2 is preserved for both pipe segments on each end of the new node. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 3 of 4 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx In addition to connectivity errors, several pipes throughout the system were not assigned a pipe material upon initial model build. In the City’s water atlas there is about 5 miles of pipes listed with the pipe material “W”, for water line, listed as unknown, or does not have any pipe material noted at all. However, all missing pipes were able to be assigned a material based on the City’s previous hydraulic model or by assuming the pipe segment material was continuous between spans of the same pipe material. Data gaps for elements that were not created during the Model Builder process or elements with insufficient physical properties were identified and addressed before calibration was started. Most of the water storage tanks, pump stations, and pressure reducing valves (PRVs) were manually added to the model based on location in the water atlas, design plans, and discussion with the City. WSC assumed adequate model development was reached once a validation run of the ADD scenario produced no errors. Table 1 summarizes the data sources used when addressing data gaps. Table 1. Data sources utilized during model development. Hydraulic Model Elements Data Source Pump Curve Definitions Pump curves provided by the City Tank Levels and Dimensions 2009, 2013 and 2015 Tank Inspection Reports & Old Models Elevation 5ft elevation contours shapefile & Old Models PRV Location and Direction GIS Water Atlas, Old Models & Discussion with the City Pipe Connectivity GIS Water Atlas, Design Plans for the Heights 2 Upgrade & Discussion with the City Check Valve Location and Direction Engineers Discretion Zone Boundary GIS Water Atlas & Discussion with the City Booster Site Location GIS Water Atlas & Site Visits Loading System Demands Consumption and production data associated with customer use type and land use by parcel map was acquired from the City. Water consumption, or billed deliveries to customers, does not include non-revenue water such as water lost to theft, leaks or metering inaccuracies. This data was used to spatially allocate water consumption by land use, and includes the 20 largest water consumers in the City. The buildout water demand was calculated based on the current population gallons per capita per day (GPCD) water use, 2020 GPCD consumption target required by SBx7-7, buildout population, and future commercial and hotel water demands. The buildout demand was also spatially allocated by land use and included the top 20 largest water consumers and future large consumers. For more information on demand allocation see Section 5 of the Water Master Plan Update. To import the water demands into the water model, the WaterGEMS nodes were exported as a shapefile and spatially joined with the parcel shapefile that contained the water demands. This assigned the parcel’s demand to the nearest WaterGEMS node and created a new joined shapefile containing the WaterGEMS nodes and the demand for each node. This joined data was then imported back to the water model using the Model Builder tool. A summary of the current day modeled demands is provided in Table 2. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 4 of 5 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Table 2. Summary of Modeled Demands System Demand Current (MGD) Current (gpm) Buildout (MGD) Buildout (gpm) Peaking Factor Average Daily Demand (ADD) 1.55 1,076 1.99 1,381 N/A Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) 2.64 1,829 3.23 2,348 1.7 Peak Hourly Demand (PHD) 3.95 2,744 4.85 3,522 2.55 Steady State Model Calibration After the model was developed and the demands imported, the model needed to be calibrated for accuracy. To calibrate the model, WSC and City staff worked together to select seven (7) fire hydrants to test the fire flow, as shown in Figure 2. The hydrants were selected based on location (zone and nearness to storm drains) and proximity to other fire hydrants. The fire flow tests were performed by the City using at least two fire hydrants. One hydrant is flowed and the pressure drop from the flow is measured at a nearby hydrant. The pressure taken when the flowing hydrant is closed is known as the static pressure and the pressure taken when the hydrant is open is the residual pressure. The static and residual pressures are then used to calibrate the model. The fire flow results are displayed in Table 3. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 5 of 6 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Figure 2. Map of the City Indicating the Locations of the Selected Fire Hydrant Flow Tests Used to Calibrate the Model This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Table 3. Summary of Fire Hydrant Flow Test Data Used to Calibrate the Water Model Fire Flow ID Location Zone Flowing Model Node Flow (gpm) Measured Model Node Static Pressure (psi) Residual Pressure (psi) Pressure Drop (psi) 1 Near the Intersection of Elaine Way and Dugan Drive Pismo Oaks Water_nodes_New_ Export-965 787.5 Water_nodes_New_ Export-957 36 34 2 2 Near the Intersection of El Viento and La Floricita Pacific Estates Water_nodes_New_ Export-868 1,115 Water_nodes_New_ Export-867 75 68 7 3 Back Road behind the Pismo Outlets Main J-3264 966 J-3265 58 50 8 4 Near the PG&E Facility on the east end of Bello St Main J-3002 749 J-3275 61 56 5 5 Near the Intersection of Tulare Street and Visalia Street Heights 2 J-2968 605 J-2782 62 10 52 6 Near the Intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Esparto Avenue Shell Beach 1 Water_nodes_New_ Export-181 1,000 Water_nodes_New_ Export-183 76 66 10 7 Near the northwest corner on Beachcomber Drive Shell Beach 2 Water_nodes_New_ Export-79 1,057 Water_nodes_New_ Export-93 82 74 8 City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 7 of 8 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx The City’s SCADA data was also collected to establish the boundary conditions during hydrant testing. The boundary conditions collected include tank levels, if pumps are on or off at the pump stations, if wells are on or off and turnout flowrates. The steady state boundary conditions are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Steady State Boundary Conditions Fire Flow Test Boundary Condition 1 Pismo Oaks Tank Level 14.3 feet All Pumps and Well Turned Off 2 Pacific Estates Tanks Level 16.5 feet All Pumps and Wells Turned Off 3 Charles Street Tank Level 20 feet Pismo Oaks turnout 100 gpm Bello Turnout 236 gpm Bay Street Booster Pump Turned On 4 Bello Tank Level 10 feet Bello Turnout 255 gpm Well 23 Turned On 5 Heights 2 Tanks Level 6.95 feet Heights 2 Fire Pump 1 Turned On Heights 2 Jockey Pumps 1, 2 & 3 Turned On Heights 2 PRV 40 psi Heights 2 PSV 140 psi 6 Shell Beach 1 Tank Level 21.27 feet Vista Del Mar Turnout 300 gpm 7 Sunset Palisades Turnout 120 gpm North Mattie Road PRV 65 psi After the flowing and residual pressure nodes were identified, demands were loaded and allocated, and boundary conditions were established, the results of the modeled fire flow tests were compared to the observed field data. Once results were tabulated, C-factors were adjusted to reflect residual pressures. A batch run was completed again and the adjustments continued as an iterative process. The target for attaining convergence was a maximum difference between modeled and observed pressures of ±5 psi. After multiple iterative runs, the results listed in Table 5 were recorded for each of the fire flow tests. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 8 of 9 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Table 5. Water Model Fire Flow Results Fire Flow Test Modeled Static Pressure (psi) Observed Static Pressure (psi) Δ Static Pressure (psi) Modeled Residual Pressure (psi) Observed Residual Pressure (psi) Δ Residual Pressure (psi) 1 35 36 -1 33 34 -1 2 77 75 2 72 68 4 3 58 58 0 49 50 -1 4 63 61 2 58 56 2 5 59 62 -3 58 10 48 6 76 76 0 63 66 -3 7 81 82 -1 77 74 3 In general, most of the model pressures fit the goal of within ±5 psi of the observed pressure. A graphical representation between observed and modeled pressures is shown below in Figure 3. Hydrant test 5 was the only test that does not model within the ±5 psi range for the residual pressure. The hydrant test observed a 48 psi drop and a residual pressure of only 10 psi. Because the testing location was 30 feet below the Heights 2 PRV and PSV, a minimum pressure of 30 psi was expected unless negative pressures occurred during the test. The test was then repeated and similar results occurred, with vacuum pressures observed on Delano Street above the location of the hydrant test. The model was used to simulate the observed pressure drop during the hydrant test by closing pipes or reducing pipe diameter to simulate closed or partially closed valves. When the diameter of the pipe just below the PRV that feeds the lower pressure zone of the Heights 2 zone was reduced from 12” to 3.5”, the model results matched the observed results during the hydrant test, indicating a partially closed valve just below the PRV. After discussion with City staff, operators checked this location and found there was a partially closed valve below the Heights PRV that was limiting fire flow in the zone, and fully opened the valve. Because of these observed problems, hydrant test 5 was not included while calibrating the model or the pipe C- factors. The calibrated C-factors selected for each pipe material group and compared to the standard pipe C- factors in WaterGEMS are shown in Table 6. For all materials, WaterGEMS standard pipe C-factors are larger than the calibrated C-factors. Table 6. Water Model Friction Factors Following Calibration Pipe Material Calibrated Pipe C- Factor WaterGEMS Standard Pipe C- factor Asbestos Cement 130 140 Cast Iron 100 130 Ductile Iron 120 140 PVC 130 150 Steel 100 110 Galvanized Iron 100 120 City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 9 of 10 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx The model C-factors are lower than WaterGEMS’s standard value pipe C-factors, which automatically load when entering the pipe material in WaterGEMS. Over time the inside of pipes roughen, either from sand or grit in the system wearing down the pipes or metal corrosion. Pipe materials known to have a significant increase in pipe roughness over time are cast iron, steel, and galvanized iron pipes. Figure 3. Linear Regression Relationship between Observed and Modeled Pressures for both Static and Residual Pressure Data from Fire Flow Test Simulations Figure 3 graphically shows the results of the hydrant testing. As mentioned, a good hydraulic model will have a maximum difference between modeled and observed pressures of ±5 psi (indicated on the graph as the blue and red lines). The only node outside this range is the residual pressure from hydrant test 5, which was not used to calibrate the model. Once the model was calibrated it was determined to be effectively used for its intended purposed and provide accurate steady state system simulations. Extended Period Simulation The City provided data stored in their SCADA system for the weeks of July 3-9, 2016 and October 17-23, 2016. The SCADA information included detailed tank levels, pump and well status, flowrate, and pressure and turnout status, flowrate, and pressure in 15 minute increments. The week of July 4th is typically the highest water demand week for the City and when the maximum day demand (MDD) occurs. The week in October represents typical average day demand (ADD). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120Observed Pressures (psi)Modeled Pressures (psi) Hydrant Testing Calibration Static Pressure Residual Pressure Linear (45 degree line) Linear (-5 psi) Linear (+5 psi) City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 10 of 11 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx The detailed SCADA information was used to develop the MDD peaking factor, ADD and MDD diurnal demand curves for each zone over a 24-hour period, and pump, well, and turnout controls for the hydraulic model. The demand for each zone was determined using Equation 1. 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝐷𝐷)=𝐼𝐼𝐷𝐷𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝐷𝐷)−𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝐷𝐷)+∆𝑆𝑆𝑂𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝑔𝑔𝐷𝐷/𝑂𝑂𝑡𝑡𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (Equation. 1) The sources of inflow include the City’s four turnouts, two groundwater wells, and the pump station flowrates for zones that are supplied via pump stations. All inflow sources, except the Sunset Palisades Turnout and Pismo Oaks Turnout, are connected to the City’s SCADA system, and these turnouts were assumed to provide 100 gpm and 200 gpm, respectively, based on their maximum supply flowrates. Outflow includes pump station flowrates for zones that supply other zones. For example, the Shell Beach Pump Station pumps out of the Shell Beach 1 Zone into the Shell Beach 2 Zone, and is considered an outflow for the Shell Beach 1 Zone and inflow for the Shell Beach 2 Zone. Most of the pump stations do not have a flow meter and the flowrate is not recorded in the SCADA system. For the development of the diurnal demand curves, it was assumed the pumps were operating at their design operating points. All zones have gravity storage except the Heights 2 Zone, which is supplied from the pressure driven Heights Pump Station. Because the Heights Pump Station flowrate can vary with demand and the flowrate was not available in the SCADA data, the Heights 2 Zone and Heights 1, Bello, and Del Court zones diurnal demands curves could not be calculated. These zones have low demands and are primarily residential like the Pismo Oaks Zone, so the Pismo Oaks diurnal demand curve was applied in the model for these zones as well. The ADD and MDD diurnal demand curves are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The diurnal demand curves show the peak demand in the primarily residential zones is between 5-7 am. The Main Zone is a mix of residential and commercial demand, and the peak demand is later in the morning between 9-11 am. The Main Zone diurnal demand curve also show it is less peaky than the other smaller residential zones, which is typical for zones with higher demands and are not primarily residential. Table 7 includes the control settings used in the model to maintain the tank levels and match the tank fill and drain pattern indicated in the SCADA data. The simulated operational controls in the model may not match the City’s current operational controls, but the resulting tank levels and system demands matched the observed data. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 11 of 12 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Figure 4. ADD Diurnal Demand Curves per Zone Figure 5. MDD Diurnal Demand Curves per Zone 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 5 10 15 20Demand Peaking FactorHours over a 24-hr Day ADD Diurnal Curves Shell Beach 2 Shell Beach 1 Pismo Oaks Pacific Estates Main 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 5 10 15 20Demand Peaking FactorHours over a 24-hr Day MDD Diurnal Curves Shell Beach 2 Shell Beach 1 Pismo Oaks Pacific Estates Main City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 12 of 13 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Table 7. Model Setting and Controls Facility Action Trigger Note All Demand Scenarios Well 23 Turn On Turn Off If Clock Time is between 7am and 3pm and Charles Street Tank Level ≤ 18’ If Charles Street Tank Level ≥ 21.7’ Well 23 typical turns on every other day in the morning when the Charles St Tank is less than 18’, but will not turn on in the evening when the Charles Street Tank drops below 18’. Pismo Oaks Pump Station1 Turn Pump 1 On Turn Pump 1 Off If Pismo Oaks Tank Level ≤ 14.8’ If Pismo Oaks Tank Level ≥ 18’ The Pismo Oaks pump station maintains the Pismo Oaks Tank level. Pacific Estates Pump Station1,2 Turn Pump 1 On Turn Pump 1 Off If Pacific Estates 1 Tank Level ≤ 14.5’ If Pacific Estates 2 Level ≥ 18’ The Pacific Estates Reservoir 1 and Pacific Estates Reservoir 2 are hydraulically connected and the pump station controls were simplified by only controlling the level in one reservoir. Bello Booster Pump Station1, 2 Turn Pump 1 On Turn Pump 1 Off If Heights Tank 2 Level ≤ 5.5’ If Heights Tank 2 Level ≥ 7.1’ The Heights Tanks 1 and 2 are hydraulically connected and typically have the same water surface elevation. The Heights Tank 2 has a base elevation two feet higher than the Heights Tank 1, so the water level in the Heights Tank 2 is two feet lower than the Heights Tank 1. Shell Beach Pump Station1 Turn Pump 1 On Turn Pump 1 Off If Shell Beach 2 Tank Level ≤ 34’ If Shell Beach 2 Tank Level ≥ 37.8’ The Shell Beach pump station maintains the Shell Beach 2 Reservoir. Sunset Palisades Turnout Sunset Palisades Turnout flow control valve setting is 100 gpm N/A The Sunset Palisades Turnout did not have any controls and was set at 100 gpm for all demand scenarios. Pismo Oaks Turnout Pismo Oaks Turnout flow control valve setting is 200 gpm N/A The Pismo Oaks Turnout did not have any control and was set at 200 gpm for all demand scenarios. ADD Scenarios Vista Del Mar Turnout Vista Del Mar Turnout flow control valve setting is 370 gpm Vista Del Mar Turnout flow control valve setting is 220 gpm If Shell Beach 1 Tank Level ≤ 24.19’ If Shell Beach 1 Tank Level ≥ 24.20’ The SCADA trends form October 2016 showed the Vista Del Mar turnout supplied an average 370 gpm when the Shell Beach 1 Tank level was less than 24.2 feet, but was reduced to an average 220 gpm when the tank level increases above 24.2 feet. Bello Turnout Bello Turnout flow control valve setting is 430 gpm Bello Turnout flow control valve setting is 370 gpm Bello Turnout flow control valve setting is 230 gpm If the Bello Reservoir Level ≤ 12.4’ If the Bello Reservoir Level > 12.4’ and < 13’ If the Bello Reservoir Level ≥ 13’ The SCADA trends from October 2016 showed the Bello turnout supplied an average 430 gpm until the Bello reservoir level reached 12.4’, and then the turnout supply was reduced. Vista Del Mar Turnout Vista Del Mar Turnout flow control valve setting is 370 gpm N/A The SCADA trends from July showed the Vista Del Mar turnout flowrate stayed constant. MDD Scenarios Bello Turnout Bello Turnout flow control valve setting is 870 gpm Bello Turnout flow control valve setting is 670 gpm If the Bello Reservoir Level ≤ 10’ If the Bello Reservoir Level ≥ 12’ The SCADA trends from July showed the Bello turnout flowrate stayed constant. This control was added to ensure the Bello Reservoir would not drop below 10’ in the model because the Bello reservoir did not drop below 10’ as indicated in the SCADA data, but is not a real control in the system. This may have been needed because the scenario evaluated MDD for three days, and this high demand scenario will only occur one day out of the year. 1. Only one pump was controlled at the pump station. The pump stations typically cycle between each pump, but to reduce modeling complexity only one pump was controlled and the other was set to off. 2. The two Pacific Estates Tanks and the two Heights Tanks are hydraulically connected. Only one tank level in each zone was required as a control for both tanks. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 13 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Once the EPS simulation was established, calibration was performed by adjusting control set points until the simulated tank levels matched observed tank levels. The EPS scenario is more complex than the steady state model, and requires more precise data and extensive calibration to produce an accurate model. Common errors in EPS models include control or hydraulic errors within different timesteps, water storage tanks modeled as complete mix, inaccurate total demand or demand allocation, and errors in model development such a as PRV settings or pump curves. As demands in the system fluctuate year to year, the model should be recalibrated with more recent demand data and SCADA records to maintain the reliability of the EPS model. Currently there are no United States standards for criteria to determine the accuracy or validity for EPS models of water distribution systems1, although Bentley Systems, Inc provides guidelines for calibration which have been published by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Based on the City’s intended use of the hydraulic model, the following measures were chosen as an appropriate benchmark for the EPS calibration of the hydraulic model: • Simulated tank level fluctuations shall be within three to six feet of observed tank levels; • Simulated tank level fluctuations should follow a similar filing and emptying pattern as observed in the field. The EPS scenario was calibrated for 24 hours and tank levels were compared to observed tank levels. Figure 6 and Figure 7 contain the observed and simulated tank levels for the ADD scenario and Figure 8 and Figure 9 contain the observed and simulated tank levels for the MDD scenario day. For both October 17, 2016 modeled as ADD and July 4th, 2016 modeled as MDD, simulated tank levels were within 3 feet of observed tank levels except the Bello and Charles Street Reservoir, with modeled tank level up to 6 feet of observed tank levels. All the tank fluctuations also followed a similar filling and emptying pattern for all tanks except the Charles Street Reservoir. Both the Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs are located in the Main Zone, and their level is influenced by two turnouts, both wells, four pump stations, and the largest demand of the entire system. The Bello and Charles Street Reservoirs likely do not match observed levels better due to factors not directly measured or recorded in the SCADA system including the modeled demands in the Main Zone, the modeled pump stations flowrates do not match the actual flowrates, or the Pismo Oaks turnout setting. It is also likely that the ADD and MDD loaded in the model do not match the actual demands on the days calibrated. MDD was loaded into the July 4th, 2016 calibration day, but actual tank levels are generally above modeled levels. This indicates that although demands on July 4th, 2016 were higher than average, they were not as high as MDD. 1 Source: Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management. 1st ed. Waterbury, CT: Haestead, 2003. Print. City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 14 of 15 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Figure 6. ADD EPS Calibration- Shell Beach Zones, Pacific Estates Zone, Heights Zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25Tank Level (feet)October 17, 2016 (hours) Pacific Estates 2 - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Pacific Estates 1 - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Shell Beach 2 - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Shell Beach 1 - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Heights 2 - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Heights 1 - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Pacific Estates Tank 1 Pacific Estates Tank 2 Shell Beach 1 Tank Shell Beach 2 Tank Heights Tank 1 Heights Tank 2 City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 15 of 16 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Figure 7. ADD EPS Calibration-Main Zone and Pismo Oaks Zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25Tank Level (feet)October 17, 2016 (hours) Pismo Oaks - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Bello - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Charles St. - ADD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Bello Tank Charles Street Tank Pismo Oaks Tank City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 16 of 17 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Figure 8. MDD EPS Calibration-Shell Beach Zones, Pacific Estates Zone, Heights Zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25Tank Level (feet)July 4, 2016 (hour) Pacific Estates 2 - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Pacific Estates 1 - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Shell Beach 2 - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Shell Beach 1 - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Heights 2 - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Heights 1 - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Pacific Estates Tank 1 Pacific Estates Tank 2 Shell Beach 1 Tank Shell Beach 2 Tank Heights Tank 1 Heights Tank 2 City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Hydraulic Model Development Technical Memorandum 4/17/2018 Page 17 of 17 Pismo Beach_Final TM_Hydraulic Model Development.docx Figure 9. MDD EPS Calibration-Main Zone and Pismo Oaks Zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25Tank Level (feet)July 4, 2016 (hour) Pismo Oaks - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Bello - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft) Charles St. - MDD EPS Calibration - Level (Calculated) (ft)Bello Tank Charles Street Tank Pismo Oaks Tank This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Appendix C CONDITION & OPERATION ASSESSMENT TM This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Technical Memorandum Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Date: 2/12/2018 To: Eric Eldridge, PE City of Pismo Beach CC: Brandon Shea, Water System Lead Operator Prepared by: Heather Freed, E.I.T. Reviewed by: Josh Reynolds, P.E. Project: The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update SUBJECT: PUMP STATION, WELL, AND STORAGE RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT As part of The City of Pismo Beach’s Water Master Plan Update, WSC has completed a Pump Station, Well and Storage Tank Condition Assessment for the City of Pismo Beach’s (City) water distribution infrastructure. This assessment included visual inspection of each pump station, well and water storage tank, followed by improvement recommendations based on the gathered information. For the storage tanks, WSC relied on the most recent inspection reports for recommendations. This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes these tasks and provides a photo log of the key observations during the inspection. The City’s booster pump stations, wells, and storage tanks were observed on Wednesday October 12, 2016 and Thursday October 13, 2016 alongside City staff. The various components of each piece of infrastructure was assigned a physical condition rating that ranged from A-E. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the grading system. Table 1. Physical Condition Rating Rating Meaning A 100-85% useful life left of component (or system) B 85-50% useful life left of component (or system) C 50-15% useful life left of component (or system) D 15-0% useful life left of component (or system) F 0% useful life left of component (or system) A/F Component appears in good condition but is not being used The following sections describes the recorded observations and the assigned condition rankings for each site. Booster Pump Station Observations This section summarizes the observation from each booster pump site. The City performs regularly scheduled maintenance on the booster pump stations, and in general, most of the pump stations are in good condition. Bay Street BPS The Bay Street Booster Pump Station (BPS) is overall in generally good condition. The Bay Street BPS is located off of Price Street at the intersection of Bay Street near Highway 101. The site conditions are generally good. The site has an asphalt driveway with a few small cracks and will require a new slurry seal in a few years. There are also some visible puddle stains around the drain, but according to the City drainage is usually not an issue at the site. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 2 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx The BPS housing is also in generally good condition. The walls, door, and roof are all in excellent condition. There are some visible cracks in the paint along the trim of the roof that will need a recoat. There is also a 480V/ 3 phase standard generator hookup on the outside of the building that is standard to all BPSs, except the Pismo Oaks BPS. The City has one portable generator shared between all the stations. The Bay Street BPS has two booster pumps in parallel that can operate alone or together. Both are in good to fair condition. Pump 2 was recently replaced about 3 years ago according to the City, while pump 1 was rebuilt about 5-6 years ago. The City regularly rebuilds their pumps on a schedule according to the pumps install date and most recent rebuild/maintenance. The motors for each pump are also rebuilt/replaced on a similarly based time schedule and are both in good condition. The valves and piping are also in good condition. There are minor signs of corrosion on valve handles, but in general the pipes are well maintained. The electrical cabinets are original to the Bay Street BPS. Although the motor control center and SCADA systems are all working properly, both these may need to be replaced within the next 10-15 years due to age. One concern the City expressed is the lack of metering at their pump stations. During these inspections, WSC tried to identify potential locations for future flow metering. With a meter the City will be able to better understand how the water flows through the system. A possible future flow meter location was identified during the Bay Street site visit on the discharge pipe after it exits the building. This location would require two propeller meters, one for each pump discharge pipe, and the total flow can be summed together. Shell Beach BPS The Shell Beach BPS is located off of Mattie Road and Costa Rica Road near Shell Beach Reservoir 1. The site conditions are fair to good with a paved access road and gravel site. The access road is in generally good conditions because the City maintains the pavement and applies a slurry seal every few years. The pump station building is made of corrugated metal panels. There are visible signs of rust on the building walls and it is due for a new coating. The building also has a concrete foundation in good condition and is surrounded by gravel except for the asphalt driveway. The Shell Beach BPS also has two of the same pumps in parallel that can be operated alone or together. Both the pumps and motors are old and in poor condition, and are scheduled to be replaced within the next few years according to City staff. The pump and motor configuration is unique; the suction pumps are sitting on their heads and the motors are mounted on top of them. The City may want to consider changing the configuration when they replace the pumps and motors so they match the other pump stations, but it is not necessary. The piping and the valves are in good condition. The pipes are coated with no visible signs of corrosion. The Cla Val was recently rebuilt and is in good condition. There is some rust on the gate valve on the discharge side of pump 1 that should be recoated. The electrical system in the Shell Beach BPS is also in good to fair condition. The SCADA cabinet and MCC are both well maintained and do not look like they need any major upgrades. The metal conduits that run around the building near the ceiling are showing signs of corrosion. This could potentially be from mice running atop the The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 3 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx conduits. The condition of the corrosion on the conduits should be monitored to guarantee it does not further deteriorate. A potential location for a flow meter was identified on the discharge pipe after the gate valve during the inspection. There were no potential flow meter locations identified outside the pump building because the pipes curve into the ground both as they enter and exit the building. Bello BPS The Bello BPS is located next to the Bello Reservoir and behind Judkins Middle School. Overall this BPS is in good condition. The Bello BPS has fairly good site conditions. The pump station consists of a small block building surrounded by gravel and protected by a locked gate. The building is located on a slope with no apparent drainage issues. The current building is small and built to fit only the existing equipment with the current pump and motor configuration. The roof of the building is in fair condition. There are some locations the paint has cracked and peeled off on the roof trim that may lead to dry rot and should be repainted soon. This pump station contains two pumps in parallel similar to the other BPSs. Both pumps are in excellent condition and have been rebuilt within the last year. The motors for both pumps appear to also be in good condition, and should be replaced based on a 20 year lifetime schedule. The pipes and valves are in fair to good condition. There are some locations where the coating has failed and should be recoated to prevent localized corrosion. The electrical system and conduits in the BPS are also in good condition. This BPS has a new VFD that was installed for the recent Heights upgrades, and is currently only used for a soft start on the pumps. The MCC and the SCADA cabinet are both in good condition. The conduits are supported by the ceiling beams and are in good condition. During this inspection a potential flow meter location was identified after the pressure gauge on the discharge pipe. This location needs further investigation because the pipe is about 2.5 feet long and may be too short for a propeller meter. Heights BPS The Heights reservoir is located on Longview Avenue at Merced Street. This BPS was recently constructed, so everything in it is new and in excellent condition. This is the largest BPS with four duty pumps in parallel and two fire pumps. All the other BPS only contain two duty pumps. Another unique feature of this BPS is it must operate to meet demand of the residents above the Heights reservoir, while all the other BPS just pump water to fill a reservoir. The only issue staff has experience with this BPS is leaky seals on the duty pumps, but since they have replaced the seals with heavier duty seals, there have been no issues. This BPS also has a flow meter already installed and does not need any improvements or additions at this time. Pacific Estates BPS The Pacific Estates BPS is located off of Highland Drive and James Way and contains two booster pumps in parallel. The BPS is located off a sidewalk and the building is surrounded by plants and covered in vines that improve the aesthetic for the residential area. Since the building is located next to a sidewalk, the site is paved, and there are no seeming drainage issues. The outside of the building is also well maintained and the roof has sturdy clay tiles. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 4 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Both pumps are in fair to poor condition. They have not been rebuilt within the past 5 years and are showing signs of corrosion. Per discussion with the City, the pumps have had leaking problems in the past, but it was due to improper seal installation. The motors are also in fair condition. They may have been rebuilt within the last 6 years, but are showing signs corrosion as well. The City plans to replace/rebuild the pumps and motors based on their expected useful life of 15-20 years. The valves and piping are in fairly good condition. The coating has been well maintained. The electrical panels and SCADA system are also in good condition and were replaced recently according to the City. Because of the layout of the pump station and the pipes, it may be difficult to install a flow meter. Further investigation is needed to determine potential flow meter locations and configurations for this BPS. Pismo Oaks BPS The Pismo Oaks BPS is in fair to poor condition and requires some minor upgrades. This BPS is located between Highway 101 and Irish Way in an empty lot behind a residential track. The BPS site is in fair condition. The pumps are housed in a small block building behind a residential track and is protected by a locked gate. The building has a dirt access road and gravel landscaping with no seeming drainage issues. The building was painted within the last 3-4 years and the coating is good. The roof has some shingle damage and requires a roof inspection. The vent on the roof is also damaged and should be repaired. The pumps are in fair to poor condition. According to City staff both pumps are scheduled for a replacement soon. This pump station currently has two different types of pumps in parallel. When replacing the pumps, the City should consider replacing them so the two pumps are the same. The older pump is a Peerless Pump and should be replaced immediately. The slightly newer pump is a Paco and is due for a replacement in the next 3-5 years. The City has limited info on the pumps because they are almost 20 years old and both the nameplates on the pumps are worn off. Because the pipe layout, building size, and different pump and motor configuration, it may be difficult to match the pumps in the future. During the site visit, WSC discussed with the City potential solutions to these constraints which include changing both pumps to vertical turbine pumps and either laying them horizontally in the pipe or constructing a small sump for the pumps to fit in underground. Matching the pumps is not needed to improve the way the BPS runs, but is recommended to reduce the complexity of operating the BPS. The motors are also in fair condition. The older PACO pump recently had its motor rebuilt, and is in good condition. The Peerless pump’s motor is in okay condition, has some visible corrosion, and will need to be replaced within the next 3-5 year, similar to the pump replacement. The pipes and valves at this BPS are in fair condition. The Cla Val was recently rebuilt and the coatings have been well maintained, but there are some areas of localized corrosion that require a recoat. There are also some visible puddle stains on the floor, but there are no cracks or other floor damage. The electrical cabinets are in fair conditions at this site. The electricity coming into this BPS is different than all the other sites, and has 208V/ 3 phase commercial power. This will limit the types of motors that can be installed. This is the only other BPS with a flow meter besides the new Heights BPS. The flow meter is in good working condition, but the discharge pipe the flow meter is connected to and the cage protecting the meter are both showing some corrosion and need a recoat. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 5 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Booster Pump Station Condition Summary During the inspections, WSC evaluated the fundamental pump station components based on a grading system representative of percent useful life remaining. The grading scale and meaning is presented in Table 1. The grades were assigned based on observed physical condition, input from the City staff, and the typical life expectancy of the component. Table 2 presents the assigned component grades for each pump station. Table 2. Pump Station Condition Assessment Summary Pump Station Component Bay St. Shell Beach Bello Heights Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Site (grading, drainage, fencing, paving, ect.) B B B- A B C Building A- C C A B C Pumps B+ D A A D+ D and C Motors B D B A C+ B and C Pipes B B B A B C Cla Val/ Check Valves C+ B B A B C Gate/ Butterfly Valves B C+ B A B C Air Release Valves B A/F B A C+ C MCC C- C+ B A B C SCADA System B C+ B A B C The Grading System is as follows: A: 100-85% useful life left of component (or system) B: 85-50% useful life left of component (or system) C: 50-15% useful life left of component (or system) D: 15-0% useful life left of component (or system) F: 0% useful life left of component (or system) A/F: Component appears in good condition but is not being used Overall, the pump stations are in mostly good condition. The Heights BPS is in excellent condition because it is only a few years old, while the Shell Beach, Pacific Estates and Pismo Oaks BPS all have need pump or motor replacements in the future to replace ageing infrastructure. The Pismo Oaks BPS also has the most minor maintenance requirements. A complete list recommendations are included in the last section of this TM. Well Observations The City of Pismo Beach owns and operates two groundwater wells located in The City of Grover Beach, CA and are within the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. Although the City has an allotment of 700 acre-ft per year (AFY) from the groundwater basin, the City typically uses much less. In 2015 the City extracted 285 AF from the basin, which made up only 16% of their total water supply. On October 12, 2016, WSC and City staff evaluated the condition of both wells. In 2013 WSC completed a Well Condition Assessment for the City, so final recommendations are based off both present observations and recommendations from the 2013 condition assessment that have not been completed yet. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 6 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Well No. 5 Well No. 5 is located at 8th Street and Grand Avenue in Grover Beach, CA. Overall this well is in poor condition and needs major upgrades to continue operating within the next few years. The site conditions at the well are in generally poor condition. The well site is protected with three strand barbed wire. The fence itself is extremely corroded and most of the wooden slats are damaged. Most of the site is exposed to the elements, including all the electrical equipment. There is a metal cover for the chlorine tank to prevent chemical degradation and a chemical storage cabinet that is currently unused. The chlorine monitoring equipment has a small metal cover that is ineffective that should be improved or replaced entirely. The site pavement is in fair condition and will need a new slurry seal in 2-3 years. The discharge piping is in good condition with regularly maintained coatings. Based on the 2013 Well Condition Assessment, the pump and motor both have a remaining useful lifetime of 4-9 years, and should be replaced in that time. Based on information in the 2013 Well Condition Assessment as well, the well casing was installed in the early 70s and the PVC liner in the mid-80s, the well casing should last another 70 years if it does not fail earlier due to clogging. The electrical system for this well is in poor condition. All the electrical and SCADA cabinets are mounted on a completely exposed wooded wall. The cabinets are showing signs of corrosion and wear, and should be replaced immediately. The 2013 Well Condition Assessment estimated a remaining useful life for the electrical system at a -10 to 0 years, and it still needs to be replaced. The pump to waste percolation pit is in poor condition. It is full of silt, has plants growing in it, and is stained red from iron in the water. The pit will need some rehab in the future to improve percolation. Well No. 23 Well No. 23 is located on the 800 block of Huber Ave in Grover Beach, CA. Overall this well is in poor condition and is recommended to be replaced within the next few years. Well 23 has been experiencing many operational problems, including sand production during operation. Sand production can wear down the pump and well piping and cause sand build up in the bottom of the well. The City has recently invested in rehabilitation of Well 23 to improve performance issues, including rebuilding the motor in 2015/2016, replacing the well pump, installing a new VFD and enclosure, cleaning the well casing and repacking the gravel, and installing a new smaller diameter perforated liner. Unfortunately, these rehabilitation efforts have not been able to reduce sand production and the entire well is recommended to be replaced. The site conditions for this well are in fair to poor condition. The site enclosure is inadequate and the chlorine tank is often exposed to the sun, allowing for faster chemical degradation. The site has a double layer of locked three-stand barbed wire fence and a block retaining wall on three sides of the site. The fence is in fair conditions with only minor signs of rust. The asphalt at the site is in good condition and was recently repaved. Many of the well parts and accessories are in good to fair condition. The discharge pipes and coating are in good condition. As mentioned, the motor and pump were recently replaced. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 7 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx The electrical system at Well No. 23 is in fair to good condition. The electrical system is well covered and protected from the elements. Based on the 2013 Well Condition Assessment the remaining useful life for the electrical system is 4-14 years. The pump to waste percolation pit is in fair condition. According to the City, the pit overflows often from sand and silt buildup. The pit should be inspected and cleaned out to prevent further overflows. Well Condition Summary Similar to the pump stations, WSC evaluated the well components on the same grading scale described in Table 1. The grades are based on observation during the inspection, input from City staff, and information in the City’s 2013 Well Condition Assessment. Table 3. Well Condition Assessment Summary Well Component Well No. 5 Well No. 23 Site (grading, drainage, fencing, paving, ect.) D C Chemical Enclosure D D Pump to Waste Pit D C Pump C A Motor C B Well and Casing B F Pipes and Valves C B MCC F C SCADA System F C The Grading System is as follows: A: 100-85% useful life left of component (or system) B: 85-50% useful life left of component (or system) C: 50-15% useful life left of component (or system) D: 15-0% useful life left of component (or system) F: 0% useful life left of component (or system) A/F: Component appears in good condition but is not being used Overall, both wells are in fair to poor condition and need major rehab and replacement. A complete list of recommendations is included in the last section of this TM. Storage Reservoirs Observations As part of the condition assessment, WSC and City staff assessed all the water storage reservoirs that are part of the City’s water distribution system. Along with site observations, recommendations are based on the most recent water tank inspection reports provided by the City. These include the 2013 Tank inspections for the Shell Beach, Pacific Estates, and Pismo Oaks reservoirs and the 2015 Tank Inspection report for Bello Reservoir completed by Advantage Technical Services, Inc, and the 2010 Water Tank Structural Study by Cannon Corporation Engineering. Shell Beach Reservoir #1 The Shell Beach Reservoir #1 is a 1 million gallon welded steel tank located adjacent to the Shell Beach BPS. The site and access road are paved and protected by a locked gate and three stand barbed wire fence. Upon observation, the walls of the reservoir are bulging an estimated 1 foot at the largest protrusion compared to the The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 8 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx base and top diameter. The roof of the reservoir is also not stable and the City operators cannot walk on it because it is unsafe. The tank has multiple locations where the coating has failed and is due for a new total recoat. The cathode protection for the tank is also outdated and difficult for the operators to read and monitor. Currently the City has plans to demolish the reservoir and reconstruct a new reservoir of the same capacity in place because the existing reservoir has reached its estimated lifetime. According to the most recent inspection report from February of 2013, the Shell Beach Reservoir #1 is in poor condition. At the time of the inspection the exterior coating was aged and chalking, but the tank’s steel was still intact. The interior of the tank was found to be in poor condition with the coating blistering and cracking and significant mineral buildup. The inspection determined the steel on the tank interior was intact due to the cathodic protection system except for on the roof plate, where over 85% of the plate was corroded. There was also some ponding near the edge of the roof structure reported. Overall the roof structure was found to be in poor condition and the cathode protection system for this tank was reported to be less effective than other tanks in the system and should be replaced with an entirely new system. Shell Beach Reservoir #2 The Shell Beach Reservoir #2 is in fair condition and is located on the hill above Shell Beach Reservoir #1. The site is in fair condition. The access road and reservoir site is paved and the City has recently applied a new slurry seal to the road. The site is also protected by three strand barbwire fence and a locked gate. This reservoir is also a 1 million gallon welded steel tank, but has a smaller diameter and is taller than Shell Beach #1. The Shell Beach Reservoir #2 was seismically retrofitted within the last 10 years to prevent tipping during an earthquake. According to the 2010 structural study this tank would be unstable and at risk of tipping during an earthquake without the retrofit and bolting the tank to the foundation. This tank also has some slight bulging and small areas of visible corrosion, but is in far better condition than Shell Beach #1. The cathodic protection for this reservoir is also outdated and should be replaced with a new system. Based on the February, 2013 inspection report from Advantage Technical Services, Inc., this reservoir was reported to be in generally good condition. The exterior of the tank was reported to be in good condition with condition, but the coatings were aged and were recommended to be replaced in the next few years. The interior coatings for this tank were also found to be in good condition, but the interior roof plate was showing some signs of corrosion during the dive inspection. The roof structure also had some signs of corrosion and coating failure. The inspection recommended recoating and monitoring the roof structure every 3-5 years. Bello Reservoir The Bello reservoir is a 470,000 gallon concrete tank located adjacent to the Bello BPS and Judkins Middle School. The tank is located entirely below grade and has an irregular cross section. During WSC’s inspection, only the top of the reservoir was visible. The tank has a floating cover that was installed in 2010 and produces some difficult maintenance issues for the City, but works properly and does not have any leaks. There are some existing appurtenances (piping, air valve, door frame, etc.) from the previous wooden roof structure that should be removed. Based on the 2015 inspection of the Bello Reservoir completed by Advantage Technical Services, Inc., this reservoir is in good condition. The cover was found to have no leaks, and the inside bottom and walls of the tank were in good condition during the inspection. There was some roughened concrete, fine cracks, and small red-oxide The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 9 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx staining present that was determined to not be an issue, but should be monitored to prevent worsening. It was also reported that the white colored sealant used at the concrete seams and cracks was softening. Sealants like this can degrade due to chlorine contact and should also be monitored and replaced in the future to protect containment of the reservoir. Heights Reservoirs The Heights reservoirs are two equivalent rectangular concrete tanks with a 220,000 gallon capacity each, located next to the new Heights BPS along Longview Avenue at Merced Street. The first reservoir was constructed in 1952. The second reservoir was constructed in 2013 at the same time as the Heights BPS. The newer reservoir is in excellent condition with no apparent deficiencies. The older reservoir has some visible patches on the walls due to past leaks. The older Heights Reservoir’s most recent inspection is from 2009 by the Utility Company Service, Co. During this inspection the tank was found to be in fair condition and recommended patching exterior wall leaks. These recommendations have been completed since. According to the 2010 structural study done by Cannon, the older Heights Reservoir is structurally sound against the largest possible earthquake in the area. The newer Heights Reservoir was not included in the structural study because it was not constructed yet, but was designed similarly to achieve all the same structural requirements. Pacific Estates Reservoirs The Pacific Estates Zone has two reservoirs located next to each other on the hill above Highland Drive and Clydell Way. Reservoir #1 is the smaller of the two reservoirs with a capacity of 350,000 gallons. Reservoir #2 has a capacity of 850,000 gallons. Both are welded steel tanks and are in fair to poor condition based on observation. The site is in fair condition. The access road and the area around the tanks are paved. There have been patches of asphalt sloughing off at the reservoir site that the City repaired, but the site may need a new slurry seal soon. The reservoirs are also protected by three strand barbed wire fence. A major concern for both tanks include fall protection and coating. The roof access ladder and cage both have signs of corrosion and the cage is mostly open. Both tanks have patches and cracks in the coating around the base and all over the walls. They are both due for a total recoating including the roof of the tank. Both tanks have a foundation that includes a gravel filled steel ring around the tank. On Reservoir #2 (the 850,000 gallon reservoir) the steel ring is pushing up out of the ground and the gravel is falling out of the ring. This could compromise the structural integrity of the tank. Currently neither tank is not seismically retrofitted or bolted down to the foundation. In the 2010 Water Tank Structural Study, it concluded both Pacific Estates Reservoirs are stable with only self-anchoring, but are susceptible to uplift during an earthquake. To prevent damage from uplift during an earthquake, the City may wish to consider seismic retrofit. Upon discussion with City operators, there is no accurate way to monitor and add chlorine to each tank. Depending on the temperature and potential stratification in the tanks, because they are unmixed, the chlorine samples taken may not be representative of the actual chlorine in the tanks and operators may be adding more or less chlorine than needed. This is a water quality concern and further analysis should be performed to come up with strategies to improve chlorine monitoring. In February of 2014, both Pacific Estates Reservoirs were inspected by Advantage Technical Services, Inc. The Pacific Estates Reservoir #1 was found to be in fair condition. The foundation for this tank was noted to be in good The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 10 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx condition. The exterior coatings were found to be in good condition, but have significant chalking indicating the coatings are near the end of their service life. The interior coatings were found to be in poor condition with significant cracking and blistering. There was not much metal loss observed during the inspection because the cathodic protection system was working and in good condition. The roof structure was reported to be in good condition with only minor metal loss from corrosion and coating failure. Most of the tank appurtenances were in good condition during the inspection except the roof vent and exterior ladder and cage due to significant corrosion. The Pacific Estates Reservoir #2 was determined to also be in fair condition. The inspection report mentions that the foundation’s steel band had lifted and the gravel was spilling out, but lists no recommendations to fix the band. The exterior shell and roof were both found to be in fair condition because of maintained coatings. The interior of this reservoir was found to be in good condition with adequate coatings and only a small amount of blistering and mineral buildup. The roof structure was determined to be in good condition except for nine rafters that have rolled out of place. If these have not been fixed already they should be put back in place immediately. The cathodic protection system at the time of the inspection was intact and was effectively protecting the tank from corrosion. All appurtenances are in generally good condition except the roof vent which is highly corroded. Both inspection reports note that the inlet/outlet pipe of both reservoirs are rigid and bend straight into the ground past the tank. This configuration may cause tank damage during an earthquake. It is recommended to modify the inlet/outlet piping to a more flexible configuration as a seismic retrofit to protect the tank during an earthquake. Pismo Oaks Reservoir The Pismo Oaks Reservoir is located off of Ridge Road above the Pismo Oaks Zone. This is an 800,000 gallon welded steel reservoir. The site conditions for this reservoir are in poor condition. The reservoir access road is 0.2 miles long and extremely rough and rocky. The reservoir is secured by a 5-foot tall fence with wooden slats that are all mostly broken. The fence is almost providing no security for the site, but since the reservoir is remotely located there is rarely any tampering in the area. The site conditions inside the fence are also poor. The reservoir is surrounded by dirt and gravel with large asphalt pieces scattered around the site. There are also locations of puddling because of poor drainage. Paving both the access road and the reservoir site would improve accessibility and drainage. The tank access ladder and cage are completely corroded. This may pose some safety issues for the operators and should be replaced in the future. The tank is also covered in small patches of paint and should be recoated entirely. The foundation is steel band and gravel, and the steel band is corroding and distorted. The Pismo Oaks Reservoir was not analyzed in the 2010 Water Tank Structural Study, but according to the AWWA standards for water storage tanks a diameter to height ratio of 1.5:1 is typically enough for self-anchoring. The Pismo Oaks Reservoir diameter to height ratio is 4.4:1, and is likely capable of self-anchoring, but may still uplift during an earthquake. The most recent inspection of the Pismo Oaks Reservoir was completed in January of 2013 by Advantage Technical Services, Inc. The inspection report found the Pismo Oaks Reservoir to be in fair condition. The exterior coatings were in good condition, but were chalking significantly and near the end of their useful life. The interior coatings were found to be in poor condition with significant blistering. There was not much corrosion present due to the cathodic protection system except above the water line where the cathodic protection does not work. The base The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 11 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx of the exterior guardrail was reported severely corroded and recommended for immediate replacement. The tank design is also inadequate for seismic sloshing and the inlet/outlet pipe is ridged, making it more prone to earthquake damage. Charles Street Reservoir The Charles Street Reservoir is located on Charles Street near the intersection of Ocean View Avenue in Grover Beach, CA. This reservoir is a 420,000 gallon riveted steel reservoir built in 1930 and is the oldest reservoir the City owns. Based on visual inspection this reservoir is in fair to poor condition. The site is mainly dirt with some pavement for the overflow pipe to drain to the street and right around the edge of the tank. The site is protected by a locked gate and three strand barbed wire fence. The coating on most of the reservoir is in good condition except all the way around the base and top of the reservoir. The roof access ladder and cage are also uncoated and completely corroded. The sole plate of the reservoir actually appears to be pushing through the coating, which may compromise the structural integrity of the reservoir. In the 2010 Water Tank Structural Study, the Charles Street Reservoir was identified as being stable through self-support, but may experience uplift during an earthquake. This study also found rust on the foundation ring and that the expansion joint filler between the tank bottom plate should be repaired to improve the tank foundation and stability. In January of 2013 the Charles Street Reservoir was inspected by Advantage Technical Service, Inc. and found to be overall in poor condition. The report details the condition of the tank from exterior to interior. First, it found the foundation to be deficient with AWWA Standards because it was built before the standards existed. The foundation and tank may need to be seismically retrofitted. The exterior of the tank was in good condition because of regularly maintained coatings. There was significant chalking on the exterior coating reported though, which is a sign of degradation of the paint films. The exterior roof was found to be in good condition, but the shell-to-roof joint was showing significant metal loss. WSC also saw signs of metal loss at the shell-to-roof joint. This can significantly weaken the tank’s structure. The interior bottom plate and shell were both in fair condition with minor coating blistering and corrosion. The bottom coatings on the interior shell were significantly worse than the upper coatings. The interior roof plate was noted to be in poor condition with almost 50% surface rusting. The roof structure was also found to be in poor condition with the rafters covered in almost 50% rust as well. The exterior ladder was found to not comply with OSHA safety standards and it is entirely uncoated. The dive report listed ten recommendations to improve the tank, one of which was to compare upgrade costs to new tank costs, because it may be the most economical choice considering the long term value. Storage Reservoirs Condition Summary WSC evaluated the storage tank components on the same grading scale described in Table 1. The grades are based on observation during the inspection, input from City staff, and information from the most recent tank inspection reports by Advantage Technical Services, Inc. and the 2010 Structural Study. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 12 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Table 4. Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment Summary Storage Reservoir Component Shell Beach #1 Shell Beach #2 Bello Heights (older tank) Pacific Estates #1 Pacific Estates #2 Pismo Oaks Charles Street Site grading and Pavement B B N/A A C C F C Security B B B B B B F C Site Drainage B B N/A A C C D B Exterior Coating/ Walls D C B B D D D C Interior Coating/ Walls D B B C C C D D Roof Structure F C B B C C C F Cathodic Protection F D N/A N/A C B C D Fall Protection F C B N/A F D D D Inlet/ Outlet Pipe C B B B C C D B Overflow Pipe D B N/A N/A B B C B Foundation B C B A C D D F The Grading System is as follows: A: 100-85% useful life left of component (or system) 85-50% useful life left of component (or system) 50-15% useful life left of component (or system) 15-0% useful life left of component (or system) 0% useful life left of component (or system) Component appears in good condition but is not being used B: C: D: F: A/F: Recommendations Overall, the pump stations were in good condition and it is clear that the City staff has done an exceptional job at maintaining and operating the facilities. The system wells were in fair condition, with Well 5 requiring some major upgrades and Well 23 some additional maintenance. The storage reservoirs ranged from poor to good condition depending on the age and design of the tank. Routine maintenance certainly assists with prolonging the life expectancy of the pump stations, wells, and storage reservoirs, but each individual component will have its own maximum expected design life. That said, the following recommendations are primarily a product of aging infrastructure and not from lack of maintenance. The recommendations are ranked in the order of most needed to least for each type of infrastructure. Booster Pump Station Recommendations 1) BPS Pump Replacement. The pumps and motors are replaced by the City on a timeline based on install or rebuild dates. The Shell Beach BPS is due for both pumps and motors to be replaced within the next year per discussion with City staff. Both the Pacific Estates BPS pumps and the Pismo Oaks BPS pumps show signs of corrosion and should be replaced soon based on their install dates. The Pismo Oaks BPS is unique because it has two different types of pumps and motors. WSC recommends replacing the pumps in the Pismo Oaks BPS so they are the same for a simpler layout and operation, but because of building size constraints, it may not be cost effective. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 13 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx 2) BPS Minor Maintenance. Although most of the BPSs are in good condition, they do require some additional maintenance. Most all the BPS buildings should have their roof trim recoated. The Pismo Oaks BPS also requires some roof shingle and vent repair. WSC also recommends the Shell Beach BPS and the Pismo Oaks BPS building to be repainted. The coatings at all the BPS pipes are in extremely good condition with only a few small coating holes. This may lead to localized corrosion, so WSC recommends every six months going to all the BPSs and recoating all the holes. The Pismo Oaks BPS requires the most recoating on the discharge piping and flow meter cage. 3) Investigate Locations for Flow Metering. WSC recommends further investigation for flow metering at the BPSs that do not currently have metering. Because the potential flow meter locations are only on short pipe lengths, WSC recommends using a propeller meter with a flow straightener, similar to the McCrometer® McSpaceSaver™ Flow Meter, to reduce the upstream pipe length required to get an accurate flow measurement. Well Recommendations 1) Well No. 5 Major Rehabilitation. As previously discussed, and expressed in Table 3, Well 5 will need some major upgrades to continue operating efficiently in the future. WSC recommends the entire well site be rehabbed, beginning with a new electrical system and a block building to house the electrical system and for chemical storage. The fencing and the pump-to-waste pit should also be replaced in the future as they are near the end of their useful life. The well pump and motor will also likely need to be replaced within the next 10 years. The City may wish to evaluate renovating the well and site or finding a new well location with a better production yield since almost the entire well equipment will need to be rehabbed or replaced. 2) Well No. 23 Minor Upgrades and Maintenance. WSC recommends replacing Well 23. The well has been experiencing many operational problems over the past few years, including excess sand production. The City has invested in rehabilitating the well to improve operational issues, but still experience sand production. In order to maintain reliable water production facilities, this well should be replaced. 3) New Groundwater Well. WSC recommends the City perform a supply analysis and consider an additional backup well as a new supply source. Although the City currently does not rely on groundwater for a majority of their supply source, California is entering its 6th year of drought and climate change experts predict prolonged droughts are the new norm for California. The City should consider this in their supply analysis. A new well could be used as backup incase the full allotment of State Water and Lopez water are not available in the future and the City must rely heavily on their groundwater. Storage Reservoir Recommendations mixing 1) Replace Shell Beach 1 and Charles Street Reservoirs. As described above and shown in Table 4, both the Shell Beach 1 and Charles Street reservoirs have gotten the end of their useful life. It is likely more cost effective for the City to replace the reservoirs rather than rehab all the deficiencies. 2) Pacific Estates #1, Pacific Estates #2, and Pismo Oaks Reservoirs Minor Upgrades and Seismic Retrofit. Both Pacific Estates and the Pismo Oaks reservoirs need minor upgrades including improved fall protection. WSC also recommends improving the site conditions for the Pismo Oaks Reservoir by paving the access road and reservoir site and replacing the site fencing. WSC also recommends all three reservoirs for seismic retrofit to prevent tank damage during an earthquake, that includes altering the inlet/outlet piping so it is more flexible. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 Page 14 of 14 Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx 3) Recoat all the Welded Steel Reservoirs. WSC recommends recoating all the welded steel reservoirs to protect the tank. 4) Add a Mixing System and Chemical Monitoring and Boosting System to all Reservoirs. WSC recommends adding a mixing system and a chemical monitoring and boosting system to each reservoir to control chlorine residual in the tanks and control disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation. Per conversation with the City, both Pacific Estates and the Pismo Oaks reservoirs are the hardest to control the chlorine residual, and should be the first reservoirs to have a mixing system installed. 5) Improve the Cathodic Protection at Shell Beach Reservoir #2. The Shell Beach Reservoir #2 has an outdated cathodic protection system and WSC recommends upgrading to a newer system similar to Pacific Estates Reservoir #2. 6) Add a Rigid Cover to the Bello Reservoir Floating Cover. Although the Bello reservoir is in fairly good condition, the floating cover presents maintenance issues for the operators. WSC recommends adding a rigid cover over the floating cover to protect it from the elements and reduce maintenance costs from cleaning the floating cover. WSC will include all these recommendations in the final Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) submitted to the City as part of the Water Master Plan update. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 1 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Appendix A: Booster Pump Station Photo Log Bay Street BPS Pump and Motor 1, discharge piping and valves. Pump and Motor 2, discharge piping and valves. Outside of building, some ponding stains visible. Paint cracks in the roof trim. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 2 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Bay Street BPS Electrical Cabinet. Electrical Cabinet, Disconnect and SCADA boxes. Potential metering locations on discharge piping. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 3 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Shell Beach BPS Suction piping, gate valve, and pumps and motors. Discharge piping and valves. Potential locations for metering. Outside of building. Building roof is in fair condition. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 4 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Shell Beach BPS Corrosion visible on conduits. Electrical Disconnect. SCADA Cabinet. Motor control center electrical cabinet. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 5 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Bello BPS Suction piping, butterfly valves, pumps and vertical motors. Discharge piping, check valves and butterfly valves. Outside of building. Minor corrosion on suction piping. Building and roof is in fair condition. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 6 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Bello BPS Conduits are wrapped around ceiling beams. Potential metering location on discharge pipe. SCADA Cabinet. Motor control center electrical cabinet. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 7 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Heights BPS Two jockey pumps. There are a total of four jockey pumps. Two fire flow pumps. Configuration of all six pumps. Existing flow meter. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 8 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Heights BPS Electrical Cabinet. Motor control center and SCADA cabinet. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 9 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pacific Estates BPS Suction and discharge piping configuration. Pump and motor configuration. Corrosion on Pump 1. Outside of the building. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 10 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pacific Estates BPS Some shingle damage on the roof. Recently rebuilt cla val. SCADA and UPS cabinets. Motor control center electrical cabinent. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 11 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pismo Oaks BPS Different pump and motor configurations. Discharge piping and various electrical cabinets. Outside of the building and suction pipe. Roof and damaged roof vent. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 12 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pismo Oaks BPS Discharge pipe corrosion. Existing flow meter. Cage is highly corroded. Pump 1 motor control center and transfer switch. Pump 2 motor control center. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 13 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Appendix B: Well Photo Log Well #5 Well #5 configuration. Well site cover. Chemical storage dual cover prevents sun exposure. Discharge piping and pump-to-waste discharge pipe. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 14 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Well #5 Exposed SCADA cabinet. Exposed electrical cabinets. Pump-to-waste pit is full of silt and has plants growing in it. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 15 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Well #23 Well #23 motor and discharge configuration. Pump site security and cover. Site cover does not protect the chlorine from sun exposure. Discharge piping and pump-to-waste discharge pipe. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 16 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Well #23 Electrical cabinets are well covered. Pump-to-waste pit is full of silt and overflows often. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 17 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Appendix C: Storage Reservoir Photo Log Shell Beach Reservoir #1 The Reservoir is bulging out from the center of the shell. The cathodic protection system is old and needs to be replaced The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 18 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Shell Beach Reservoir #1 Some signs of corrosion and coating streaks. Inlet/Outlet pipe and overflow pipe. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 19 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Shell Beach Reservoir #2 Cathodic Protection is old and should be replaced. Reservoir nameplate. The reservoir has been seismically retrofitted. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 20 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Bello Reservoir Floating cover from the west side of the reservoir. Floating cover from the east side of the reservoir. Door frame and old piping from the previous wood building cover. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 21 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Heights Reservoir Old Heights reservoir and inlet pipe. New heights reservoir connected to the old heights reservoir. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 22 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pacific Estates Reservoir #1 Pacific Estates #1 is on the right, Pacific Estates #2 is on the left. Some coating streaks Coating damage around the base. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 23 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pacific Estates Reservoir #1 Some pavement damage at the reservoir site that was recently repaired. Damage around the steel ring foundation. Inlet/Outlet pipe is not flexible and bends straight into the ground. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 24 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pacific Estates Reservoir #2 Pacific Estates Reservoir #2. Coating is streaking and has signs of corrosion. Fall protection and cage are corroded. Nonflexible inlet/outlet piping and overflow pipe. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 25 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pacific Estates Reservoir #2 Steel ring is coming out of the ground and the gravel is falling out. Coating cracks on the shell. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 26 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pismo Oaks Reservoir The coating is slightly discolored and the ladder & cage are corroded. Steel ring foundation is completely corroded. Excess gravel above the steel ring. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 27 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Pismo Oaks Reservoir Poor site conditions and potential ponding sites. Spotted coating and overflow pipe. Fencing is damaged and provides little security. The City of Pismo Beach Water System Master Plan Update Pump Station, Well, and Storage Reservoir Condition Assessment 2/12/2018 - 28 - Pismo Beach_Final TM Condition Assesment.docx Charles Street Reservoir The ladder & cage are completely corroded. Minor corrosion on the shell and some damage at the shell-roof joint. The foundation is pushing through the coating at the base. Appendix D COST ESTIMATES This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Appendix D. Cost Estimates  City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan Update  Cost Opinion Basis and Assumptions  The cost opinions (estimates) included in the capital improvement plan have been prepared in  conformance with industry practices as planning level cost opinions and are classified as Class 4  Conceptual Report Classification of Opinion of Probable Construction Costs as developed by AACE  International. The purpose of a Class 4 Estimate is to provide a conceptual level of effort that is expected  to range in accuracy from ‐30% to +50%. A Class 4 Estimate also includes an appropriate level of  contingency so that it can be used in future planning and feasibility studies. The design concepts and  associated costs presented in this capital improvement plan are conceptual in nature due to the limited  design information that is available at this stage of project planning. These cost estimates have been  developed using a combination of data from RS Means CostWorks® and recent bids, experience with  similar projects, current and foreseeable regulatory requirements, and an understanding of necessary  project components. As the projects progress, the designs and associated costs could vary significantly  from the project components identified in this capital improvement plan.  These cost opinions are based on the following assumptions:  1.For projects that have applicable cost data available in RS Means CostWorks® (e.g. pipeline installation), cost data released in Quarter 2 of 2018, adjusted for San Luis Obispo, is used. Materials prices were further adjusted in some cases to provide estimates that align closer with actual local bid results. 2.For projects that do not have RS Means CostWorks® data available, cost opinions are generally derived from bid prices from similar projects, vendor quotes, material prices, and labor estimates, with adjustments for inflation, size, complexity, and location. 3.Cost opinions are in 2018 dollars (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 11069 for June 2018). When budgeting for future years, appropriate escalation factors should be applied. The past 5‐year average increase of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 20 City Average is considered a reasonable factor to use for escalation. 4.Cost opinions are “planning‐level” and may not fully account for site‐specific conditions that will affect actual costs, such as soil conditions and utility conflicts. 5.Construction costs include the following mark‐up items: a.5 percent of construction item sub‐total to account for unknown items not included in the opinion of cost. b.25 percent construction contingency based on construction sub‐total. 6.Total project costs include the following allowances: a.15 percent of construction total for project development, including administration, alternatives analysis, planning, engineering, surveying, etc. b.10 percent of construction total for construction phase support services, including administration, inspection, materials testing, office engineering, construction administration, etc. This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A1‐ New Shell Beach 1 Reservoir and BPS Maintenance 1.0 MG Welded Steel Tank and BPS Improvements City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 61,000$        61,000$           2 Demolition 1 LS 100,000$      100,000$        3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures 1 LS 6,000$           6,000$             4 Traffic Control 1 LS 1,500$           1,500$             5 Tank Foundation Grading Complete with all Earthwork, Excavation, Over‐ excavation, Fill and Compaction.400 CY 123$              49,000$           6 Tank Ringwall Foundation 1LS 91,000$        91,000$           7 Site Drainage including 18" HDPE Pipe and Catch Basin 1LS 5,000$           5,000$             8 Aggregate Base 1LS 1,000$           1,000$             9 1‐Million‐Gallon Welded Steel Reservoir including Coating 1LS841,800$      841,800$        10 12” Reservoir Inlet/Outlet 1LS 28,000$        28,000$           11 PVC Potable Water Pipe, Fittings, Joints, Couplings, and Valves  1LS 2,000$           2,000$             12 Sheeting, Shoring & Bracing 1 LS 1,500$           1,500$             13 Pipeline and Tank Disinfection and Testing 1 LS 5,000$           5,000$             14 Construction Staking 1 LS 2,000$           2,000$             15 Replace Pump and Motors at the Shell Beach 1 Pump Station 1 LS 88,000$        88,000$           16 Shell Beach BPS Building Maintenance 1 LS 10,000$        10,000$           17 Install a Magnetic Meter on BPS Discharge Piping 1 LS 74,000$        74,000$           18 Unaccounted‐for Items 1 LS 60,000$        60,000$           Subtotal 1,426,800$     Construction Contingency (25%)357,000$        Construction Total 1,783,800$     Project Development & Implementation (25%)446,000$        Project Costs 2,229,800$     9/28/2018 2A Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $147,493 Mobilization $5,751 Insurance $2,876 1%Survey $959 1%Site Clearing $959 $2SWPPP (per LF)$1,160 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$10,440 Subtotal $117,994 Construction Contingency $29,499 Project Development& Implementation $36,873 Project Cost $184,366 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Shaffer Ln. 8 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 580 $2.00L.F. $1,160 Unaccounted‐for Items $4,149 Utility Conflict Resolution $8,714 Sawcut & Remove 269 $10.14S.Y.$2,728 Hauling Pavement 37 $6.82L.C.Y.$252 Pavement Repair 269 $80.32S.Y. $21,606 Shoring 3480 $0.80SF Wall $2,784 Excavation‐Trench 140 $8.32B.C.Y. $1,165 Pipe Bedding (sand import)84 $37.65L.C.Y.$3,163 Bedding Compaction 84 $4.05E.C.Y. $340 Native Backfill & Compaction 56 $4.39E.C.Y. $246 Water Compaction 56 $2.72E.C.Y. $152 Hauling Excavation 168 $4.79B.C.Y. $805 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 580 $22.72L.F. $13,178 8" Gate Valve 2 $4,197.77Ea. $8,396 8" 90 Bend 2 $859.78Ea.$1,720 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)1 $8,500.00Ea.$8,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 580 $0.50L.F.$290 1" Copper Service Line 200 $17.17L.F.$3,434 New Utility Box 8 $929.67Ea.$7,437 Saddle & Tap for Service 8 $704.13Ea.$5,633 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A3‐ New 1 MG Charles Street Reservoir 1.0 MG Welded Steel Tank City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 57,000$        57,000$           2 Demolition 1 LS 100,000$      100,000$        3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures 1 LS 6,000$           6,000$             4 Traffic Control 1 LS 1,500$           1,500$             5 Tank Foundation Grading Complete with all Earthwork, Excavation, Over‐ excavation, Fill and Compaction.400 CY 123$              49,000$           6 Tank Ring wall Foundation 1LS 91,000$        91,000$           7 Site Drainage including 18" HDPE Pipe and Catch Basin 1LS 5,000$           5,000$             8 Aggregate Base 1LS 1,000$           1,000$             9 1‐Million‐Gallon Welded Steel Reservoir including Coating 1LS768,600$      768,600$        10 12” Reservoir Inlet/Outlet 1LS 28,000$        28,000$           11 PVC Potable Water Pipe, Fittings, Joints, Couplings, and Valves  1LS 2,000$           2,000$             12 Sheeting, Shoring & Bracing 1 LS 1,500$           1,500$             13 Pipeline and Tank Disinfection and Testing 1 LS 5,000$           5,000$             14 Construction Staking 1 LS 2,000$           2,000$             15 Unaccounted‐for Items 1 LS 48,000$        48,000$           Subtotal 1,165,600$     Construction Contingency (25%)291,000$        Construction Total 1,456,600$     Project Development & Implementation (25%)364,000$        Project Costs 1,820,600$     9/28/2018 4A Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $1,430,348 Mobilization $58,653 Insurance $29,326 1%Survey $9,775 1%Site Clearing $9,775 $2SWPPP (per LF)$5,920 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$53,280 Subtotal $1,144,278 Construction Contingency $286,070 Project Development& Implementation $357,587 Project Cost $1,787,935 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Bello Street between Wadsworth  Ave. and the Bello Turnout 31 16 3.0 Bello St. between Harloe Ave. and  Wadsworth Ave. 7123.0 Harloe Ave‐ Jack and Bore under  Hwy 101 0253.0 Main St‐ Jack and Bore Under Hwy  101 0253.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place‐B 800 $3.50L.F. $2,800 Abandon Existing Main In Place‐C 1240 $4.00L.F. $4,960 Unaccounted‐for Items $42,318 Utility Conflict Resolution $88,868 Sawcut & Remove 1066 $10.14S.Y.$10,809 Hauling Pavement 148 $6.82L.C.Y. $1,009 Pavement Repair 1066 $80.32S.Y. $85,621 Shoring 12240 $0.80SF Wall $9,792 Excavation‐Trench 612 $8.32B.C.Y.$5,092 Pipe Bedding (sand import)437 $37.65L.C.Y.$16,453 Bedding Compaction 437 $4.05E.C.Y.$1,770 Native Backfill & Compaction 175 $4.39E.C.Y. $768 Water Compaction 175 $2.72E.C.Y. $476 Hauling Excavation 734 $4.79B.C.Y. $3,516 12" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 800 $38.09L.F.$30,472 16" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C905 1240 $38.83L.F.$48,149 Jack & Bore 24" DI Piping 920 $500.00L.F.$460,000 12" Gate Valve 2 $7,473.47Ea. $14,947 16" Butterfly Valve 3 $5,655.59Ea. $16,967 16" Tee 2 $4,674.38Ea. $9,349 12" 90 Bend 1 $1,495.61Ea. $1,496 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)5 $8,500.00Ea.$42,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 2040 $0.50L.F.$1,020 1" Copper Service Line 950 $17.17L.F. $16,312 New Utility Box 38 $929.67Ea.$35,327 Saddle & Tap for Service 38 $704.13Ea. $26,757 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A5‐ Pismo Oaks Reservoir Improvements City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 31,000$        31,000$                2 Pave Access Road and Reservoir Site 1 LS 154,845$      154,845$              3 Replace Site Fencing 1 LS 27,859$        27,859$                4 Recoat Interior Shell, Base, and Roof 1 LS 147,280$      147,280$              5 Recoat Exterior Shell And Roof 1 LS 41,245$        41,245$                6 Improve fall protection by replacing the Exterior ladder and Vandal  Guard and adding Fall Restraint System 1 LS 12,000$        12,000$                7 Replace Roof Guardrail 1 LS 5,000$          5,000$  8 Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to  monitor/ control the chlorine residual and disinfection byproducts 1 LS 70,027$        70,027$                9 FRP Building for Chemical and Electrical Storage 1 LS 20,500$        20,500$                10 Seismic Retrofit‐ Modify Bottom Penetration Pipe and add two flexible  couplings on inlet/outlet pipe 1 LS 40,000$        40,000$                11 Corrosion Repair Allowance 1 LS 35,000$        35,000$                Subtotal 584,756$              Construction Contingency (25%)146,000$              Construction Total 730,756$              Project Development & Implementation (25%)183,000$              Project Cost 913,756$              9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A6‐ Pacific Estates BPS Improvements Replace Existing Pumps and Motors City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 10,000$        10,000$           2 Replace existing 370 gpm pumps and motors 1 LS 88,000$        88,000$           3 Install a Magnetic Meter on discharge piping 1 LS 72,000$        72,000$           Subtotal 170,000$        Construction Contingency (25%)43,000$           Construction Total 213,000$        Project Development & Implementation (25%)53,000$           Project Cost 266,000$        9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A7‐ Pismo Oaks BPS Improvements Replace Existing Pumps and Motors City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 3,000$           3,000$             2 Replace existing 260 gpm pumps 1 LS 44,000$        44,000$           3 Pismo Oaks BPS Building Maintenance 1 LS 10,000$        10,000$           Subtotal 57,000$           Construction Contingency (25%)14,000$           Construction Total 71,000$           Project Development & Implementation (25%)18,000$           Project Cost 89,000$           9/28/2018 8A Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $819,522 Mobilization $31,655 Insurance $15,828 1%Survey $5,276 1%Site Clearing $5,276 $2SWPPP (per LF)$7,000 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$63,000 Subtotal $655,617 Construction Contingency $163,904 Project Development& Implementation $204,880 Project Cost $1,024,402 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft North 4th St. between Atlantic City  Ave and 5 Cities Dr 0163.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place‐C 3500 $4.00L.F. $14,000 Unaccounted‐for Items $22,839 Utility Conflict Resolution $47,962 Sawcut & Remove 1880 $10.14S.Y.$19,063 Hauling Pavement 261 $6.82L.C.Y.$1,780 Pavement Repair 1880 $80.32S.Y. $151,002 Shoring 21000 $0.80SF Wall $16,800 Excavation‐Trench 1102 $8.32B.C.Y. $9,169 Pipe Bedding (sand import)811 $37.65L.C.Y.$30,534 Bedding Compaction 811 $4.05E.C.Y. $3,285 Native Backfill & Compaction 291 $4.39E.C.Y. $1,277 Water Compaction 291 $2.72E.C.Y. $792 Hauling Excavation 1322 $4.79B.C.Y. $6,332 16" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C905 3500 $38.83L.F.$135,905 16" Butterfly Valve 8 $5,655.59Ea.$45,245 16" Tee 2 $4,674.38Ea. $9,349 Air Release Valve 1 $2,000.00Ea. $2,000 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)1 $8,500.00Ea.$8,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 3500 $0.50L.F.$1,750 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A9‐ Pacific Estates 1 Reservoir Improvements City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 14,000$        14,000$                2 Recoat Interior Shell, Base, and Roof 1 LS 73,893$        73,893$                3 Recoat Exterior Shell And Roof 1 LS 20,704$        20,704$                4 Improve fall protection by replacing the Exterior ladder and Vandal  Guard and adding Fall Restraint System 1 LS 12,000$        12,000$                5 Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to  monitor/ control the chlorine residual and disinfection byproducts 1 LS 70,027$        70,027$                6 FRP Building for Chemical and Electrical Storage 1 LS 20,500$        20,500$                7 Seismic Retrofit‐ Modify Bottom Penetration Pipe and add two flexible  couplings on inlet/outlet pipe 1 LS 40,000$        40,000$                8 Corrosion Repair Allowance 1 LS 35,000$        35,000$                Subtotal 286,124$              Construction Contingency (25%)72,000$                Construction Total 358,124$              Project Development & Implementation (25%)90,000$                Project Cost 448,124$              9/28/2018 Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Drillling and Well Construction 1 LS 475,000$      475,000$        2 Well Design, Specifications, Contruction Management (Hydrogeologist)1 LS 65,000$        65,000$           3 Engineering and Equipping (Pump, electrical, Piping)1 LS 200,000$      200,000$        Subtotal 740,000$        Construction Contingency (25%)185,000$        Project Costs 925,000$        Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A10‐ Well 23  Replacement City of Pismo Beach 9/28/2018 Note, Project Development and Construction Phase Markups are included  in the Hydrogeologist and Engineering Costs Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A11‐ Pacific Estates 2 Reservoir Improvements City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 13,000$        13,000$               2 Spot Repair Interior Shell, Base, and Roof Coating 1 LS 43,233$        43,233$               3 Spot Coat Exterior Shell And Roof Coating 1 LS 26,605$        26,605$               4 Improve fall protection by replacing the Exterior ladder and Vandal Guard  and adding Fall Restraint System 1 LS 12,000$        12,000$               5 Repair grade band foundation system to prevent additional loss of  foundation gravel 1 LS 30,000$        30,000$               6 Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to  monitor/ control the chlorine residual and disinfection byproducts 1 LS 70,027$        70,027$               7 Seismic Retrofit‐ Add Two Flexible Couplings on Inlet/Outlet Pipe 1 LS 30,000$        30,000$               8 Corrosion Repair Allowance 1 LS 35,000$        35,000$               Subtotal 224,865$             Construction Contingency (25%)56,000$               Construction Total 280,865$             Project Development & Implementation (25%)70,000$               Project Cost 350,865$             9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A12‐ Bello BPS Improvements Pipe Coating and Building Maintenance City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 5,000$           5,000$             2 Pipe Coating 30 LF 7$ 197$                3 Bello BPS Building Maintenance 1 LS 10,000$        10,000$           4 Install a Magnetic Meter on discharge piping 1 LS 81,000$        81,000$           Subtotal 96,197$           Construction Contingency (25%)24,000$           Construction Total 120,197$        Project Development & Implementation (25%)30,000$           Project Cost 150,197$        9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A13‐ Bay Street BPS Improvements Building and Site Maintenance City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 5,000$           5,000$             2 Bay Street BPS Building Maintenance 1 LS 10,000$        10,000$           3 Slurry Seal to Site Driveway 1 LS 830$              830$                4 Install a Magnetic Meter on discharge piping 1 LS 72,000$        72,000$           Subtotal 87,830$           Construction Contingency (25%)22,000$           Construction Total 109,830$        Project Development & Implementation (25%)27,000$           Project Cost 136,830$        9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A14‐ Bello Reservoir Roof Improvements Construct Roof Cover City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 28,000$        28,000$               2 Construct a column supported roof for the Bello Reservoir 1 LS 471,500$      471,500$             Subtotal 499,500$             Construction Contingency (25%)125,000$             Construction Total 624,500$             Project Development & Implementation (25%)156,000$             Project Cost 780,500$             9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project A15‐ New Well Construction City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Drillling and Well Construction 1 LS 475,000$      475,000$        2 Well Design, Specifications, Contruction Management (Hydrogeologist)1 LS 65,000$        65,000$           3 Engineering and Equipping (Pump, electrical, Piping)1 LS 200,000$      200,000$        Subtotal 740,000$        Construction Contingency (25%)185,000$        Project Costs 925,000$        9/28/2018 Note, Project Development and Construction Phase Markups are included  in the Hydrogeologist and Engineering Costs 1B Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $210,015 Mobilization $8,444 Insurance $4,222 1%Survey $1,407 1%Site Clearing $1,407 $2SWPPP (per LF)$1,180 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$10,620 Subtotal $168,012 Construction Contingency $42,003 Project Development& Implementation $52,504 Project Cost $262,519 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Park Ave. northeast of Dolliver St. 14 10 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place‐A 590 $3.00L.F. $1,770 Unaccounted‐for Items $6,092 Utility Conflict Resolution $12,794 Sawcut & Remove 284 $10.14S.Y.$2,880 Hauling Pavement 39 $6.82L.C.Y.$266 Pavement Repair 284 $80.32S.Y. $22,811 Shoring 3540 $0.80SF Wall $2,832 Excavation‐Trench 153 $8.32B.C.Y. $1,273 Pipe Bedding (sand import)98 $37.65L.C.Y.$3,690 Bedding Compaction 98 $4.05E.C.Y. $397 Native Backfill & Compaction 55 $4.39E.C.Y. $241 Water Compaction 55 $2.72E.C.Y. $150 Hauling Excavation 184 $4.79B.C.Y. $881 10" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 590 $30.39L.F.$17,930 10" Gate Valve 2 $6,023.57Ea.$12,047 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)3 $8,500.00Ea.$25,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 590 $0.50L.F.$295 1" Copper Service Line 350 $17.17L.F. $6,010 New Utility Box 14 $929.67Ea.$13,015 Saddle & Tap for Service 14 $704.13Ea. $9,858 2B Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $381,357 Mobilization $14,610 Insurance $7,305 1%Survey $2,435 1%Site Clearing $2,435 $2SWPPP (per LF)$3,480 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$31,320 Subtotal $305,086 Construction Contingency $76,271 Project Development& Implementation $95,339 Project Cost $476,696 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft WWTP Site Piping 0 8 3.0 Frady Ln. between Hwy 101 and  Bello St 183.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 1740 $2.00L.F. $3,480 Unaccounted‐for Items $10,541 Utility Conflict Resolution $22,136 Sawcut & Remove 805 $10.14S.Y.$8,163 Hauling Pavement 112 $6.82L.C.Y.$764 Pavement Repair 805 $80.32S.Y. $64,658 Shoring 10440 $0.80SF Wall $8,352 Excavation‐Trench 419 $8.32B.C.Y. $3,486 Pipe Bedding (sand import)252 $37.65L.C.Y.$9,488 Bedding Compaction 252 $4.05E.C.Y. $1,021 Native Backfill & Compaction 167 $4.39E.C.Y. $733 Water Compaction 167 $2.72E.C.Y. $454 Hauling Excavation 503 $4.79B.C.Y. $2,409 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 1740 $22.72L.F. $39,533 8" Gate Valve 6 $4,197.77Ea. $25,187 8" Tee 4 $1,540.77Ea. $6,163 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)4 $8,500.00Ea.$34,000 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 1740 $0.50L.F.$870 1" Copper Service Line 25 $17.17L.F.$429 New Utility Box 1 $929.67Ea.$930 Saddle & Tap for Service 1 $704.13Ea.$704 3B Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $439,864 Mobilization $16,513 Insurance $8,257 1%Survey $2,752 1%Site Clearing $2,752 $2SWPPP (per LF)$4,640 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$41,760 Subtotal $351,891 Construction Contingency $87,973 Project Development& Implementation $109,966 Project Cost $549,829 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Bello BPS Discharge Pipe along Bello  St. Between Main St. and  Wadsworth Ave. 083.0 Wadsworth Ave. between Bello St.  and Bay St. 283.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 2320 $2.00L.F. $4,640 Unaccounted‐for Items $11,914 Utility Conflict Resolution $25,020 Sawcut & Remove 1074 $10.14S.Y.$10,890 Hauling Pavement 149 $6.82L.C.Y.$1,016 Pavement Repair 1074 $80.32S.Y. $86,264 Shoring 13920 $0.80SF Wall $11,136 Excavation‐Trench 558 $8.32B.C.Y. $4,643 Pipe Bedding (sand import)337 $37.65L.C.Y.$12,688 Bedding Compaction 337 $4.05E.C.Y. $1,365 Native Backfill & Compaction 221 $4.39E.C.Y. $970 Water Compaction 221 $2.72E.C.Y. $601 Hauling Excavation 670 $4.79B.C.Y. $3,209 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 2320 $22.72L.F. $52,710 8" Gate Valve 7 $4,197.77Ea. $29,384 8" Tee 1 $1,540.77Ea. $1,541 8" 90 Bend 4 $859.78Ea.$3,439 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)1 $8,500.00Ea.$8,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 2320 $0.50L.F.$1,160 1" Copper Service Line 50 $17.17L.F. $859 New Utility Box 2 $929.67Ea.$1,859 Saddle & Tap for Service 2 $704.13Ea. $1,408 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project B4‐ Shell Beach 2 Reservoir Improvements City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 14,000$        14,000$               2 Spot Repair Interior Shell, Base, and Roof Coating 1 LS 122,054$      122,054$             3 Spot Coat Exterior Shell And Roof Coating 1 LS 34,199$        34,199$               4 Replace Cathodic Protection System 1 LS 12,000$        12,000$               5 Add a chemical monitoring and boosting system and a mixing system to  monitor/ control the chlorine residual and disinfection byproducts 1 LS 70,027$        70,027$               6 FRP Building for Chemical and Electrical Storage 1 LS 20,500$        20,500$               7 Temporary Pumping and System Supply 1 LS 40,000$        40,000$               Subtotal 312,780$             Construction Contingency (25%)78,000$               Construction Total 390,780$             Project Development & Implementation (25%)98,000$               Project Cost 488,780$             9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project B5‐Well 5 Site Rehabilitation City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 25,000$        25,000$           2 Replace Electrical System 1 LS 150,000$      150,000$        3 Construct CMU Building for Electrical/Chemical Storage 1 LS 37,200$        37,200$           4 Well Mechanical and Chemical Rehabilitation 1 LS 70,000$        70,000$           5 Pump and Motor Rehabilitation and Replacement 1 LS 140,000$      140,000$        6 Rehabilitate Pump‐to‐Waste Components 1 LS 15,000$        15,000$           7 Replace Site Fencing 1 LS 8,500$           8,500$             Subtotal 445,700$        Construction Contingency (25%)111,000$        Construction Total 556,700$        Project Development & Implementation (25%)139,000$        Project Costs 695,700$        9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project C1‐ Bello BPS Capacity Increase Replace Existing Pumps and Motors with Higher Capacity Pumps City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 5,000$           5,000$             2 Replace existing pumps and motors with higher capacity pumps 1 LS 88,000$        88,000$           3 Pipe modification for larger pumps 1 LS 20,000$        20,000$           4 Electrical Upgrade 1 LS 20,000$        20,000$           Subtotal 113,000$        Construction Contingency (25%)28,000$           Construction Total 141,000$        Project Development & Implementation (25%)35,000$           Project Cost 176,000$        9/28/2018 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project C2‐ Pacific Estates BPS Capacity Increase Replace Existing Pumps and Motors with Higher Capacity Pumps City of Pismo Beach Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Opinion 1 Mobilization 1 LS 5,000$           5,000$             2 Replace existing pumps and motors with higher capacity pumps 1 LS 88,000$        88,000$           3 Pipe modification for larger pumps 1 LS 20,000$        20,000$           4 Electrical Upgrade 1 LS 20,000$        20,000$           Subtotal 113,000$        Construction Contingency (25%)28,000$           Construction Total 141,000$        Project Development & Implementation (25%)35,000$           Project Cost 176,000$        9/28/2018 3C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach   Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $55,525 Mobilization $2,066 Insurance $1,033 1%Survey $344 1%Site Clearing $344 $2SWPPP (per LF)$620 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$5,580 Subtotal $44,420 Construction Contingency $11,105 Project Development& Implementation $13,881 Project Cost $69,406 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Pismo Coast Shopping Plaza Parking  Lot 083.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 310 $2.00L.F. $620 Unaccounted‐for Items $1,491 Utility Conflict Resolution $3,130 Sawcut & Remove 144 $10.14S.Y.$1,460 Hauling Pavement 20 $6.82L.C.Y.$136 Pavement Repair 144 $80.32S.Y. $11,566 Shoring 1860 $0.80SF Wall $1,488 Excavation‐Trench 75 $8.32B.C.Y. $624 Pipe Bedding (sand import)45 $37.65L.C.Y.$1,694 Bedding Compaction 45 $4.05E.C.Y. $182 Native Backfill & Compaction 30 $4.39E.C.Y. $132 Water Compaction 30 $2.72E.C.Y. $82 Hauling Excavation 90 $4.79B.C.Y. $431 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 310 $22.72L.F. $7,043 8" Gate Valve 1 $4,197.77Ea. $4,198 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 310 $0.50L.F.$155 4C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $166,829 Mobilization $6,544 Insurance $3,272 1%Survey $1,091 1%Site Clearing $1,091 $2SWPPP (per LF)$1,240 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$11,160 Subtotal $133,464 Construction Contingency $33,366 Project Development& Implementation $41,707 Project Cost $208,537 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Motel 6 Pismo Beach‐4" 0 8 3.0 Motel 6 Pismo Beach‐6" 0 10 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 320 $2.00L.F. $640 Abandon Existing Main In Place‐A 300 $3.00L.F. $900 Unaccounted‐for Items $4,721 Utility Conflict Resolution $9,915 Sawcut & Remove 292 $10.14S.Y.$2,961 Hauling Pavement 41 $6.82L.C.Y. $280 Pavement Repair 292 $80.32S.Y. $23,453 Shoring 3720 $0.80SF Wall $2,976 Excavation‐Trench 155 $8.32B.C.Y.$1,290 Pipe Bedding (sand import)96 $37.65L.C.Y.$3,614 Bedding Compaction 96 $4.05E.C.Y.$389 Native Backfill & Compaction 59 $4.39E.C.Y. $259 Water Compaction 59 $2.72E.C.Y. $160 Hauling Excavation 186 $4.79B.C.Y. $891 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 320 $22.72L.F. $7,270 10" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 300 $30.39L.F.$9,117 8" Gate Valve 2 $4,197.77Ea.$8,396 10" Gate Valve 1 $6,023.57Ea. $6,024 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)3 $8,500.00Ea.$25,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 620 $0.50L.F.$310 5C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach   Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $160,203 Mobilization $6,084 Insurance $3,042 1%Survey $1,014 1%Site Clearing $1,014 $2SWPPP (per LF)$1,560 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$14,040 Subtotal $128,162 Construction Contingency $32,041 Project Development& Implementation $40,051 Project Cost $200,253 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft A Avenue 0 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 780 $2.00L.F. $1,560 Unaccounted‐for Items $4,390 Utility Conflict Resolution $9,219 Sawcut & Remove 361 $10.14S.Y.$3,661 Hauling Pavement 50 $6.82L.C.Y.$341 Pavement Repair 361 $80.32S.Y. $28,996 Shoring 4680 $0.80SF Wall $3,744 Excavation‐Trench 188 $8.32B.C.Y. $1,564 Pipe Bedding (sand import)113 $37.65L.C.Y.$4,254 Bedding Compaction 113 $4.05E.C.Y. $458 Native Backfill & Compaction 75 $4.39E.C.Y. $329 Water Compaction 75 $2.72E.C.Y. $204 Hauling Excavation 226 $4.79B.C.Y. $1,083 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 780 $22.72L.F. $17,722 8" Gate Valve 3 $4,197.77Ea. $12,593 8" Tee 1 $1,540.77Ea. $1,541 8" 90 Bend 1 $859.78Ea.$860 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)1 $8,500.00Ea.$8,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 780 $0.50L.F.$390 6C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $188,415 Mobilization $7,240 Insurance $3,620 1%Survey $1,207 1%Site Clearing $1,207 $2SWPPP (per LF)$1,680 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$15,120 Subtotal $150,732 Construction Contingency $37,683 Project Development& Implementation $47,104 Project Cost $235,519 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Kon Tiki Inn 1 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 840 $2.00L.F. $1,680 Unaccounted‐for Items $5,223 Utility Conflict Resolution $10,969 Sawcut & Remove 389 $10.14S.Y.$3,944 Hauling Pavement 54 $6.82L.C.Y.$368 Pavement Repair 389 $80.32S.Y. $31,244 Shoring 5040 $0.80SF Wall $4,032 Excavation‐Trench 202 $8.32B.C.Y. $1,681 Pipe Bedding (sand import)122 $37.65L.C.Y.$4,593 Bedding Compaction 122 $4.05E.C.Y. $494 Native Backfill & Compaction 80 $4.39E.C.Y. $351 Water Compaction 80 $2.72E.C.Y. $218 Hauling Excavation 242 $4.79B.C.Y. $1,159 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 840 $22.72L.F. $19,085 8" Gate Valve 3 $4,197.77Ea. $12,593 8" Tee 1 $1,540.77Ea. $1,541 Air Release Valve 1 $2,000.00Ea. $2,000 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)2 $8,500.00Ea.$17,000 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 840 $0.50L.F.$420 1" Copper Service Line 25 $17.17L.F. $429 New Utility Box 1 $929.67Ea.$930 Saddle & Tap for Service 1 $704.13Ea. $704 7C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $112,657 Mobilization $4,547 Insurance $2,274 1%Survey $758 1%Site Clearing $758 $2SWPPP (per LF)$600 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$5,400 Subtotal $90,125 Construction Contingency $22,531 Project Development& Implementation $28,164 Project Cost $140,821 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Harloe Avenue 7 10 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place‐A 300 $3.00L.F. $900 Unaccounted‐for Items $3,281 Utility Conflict Resolution $6,890 Sawcut & Remove 144 $10.14S.Y.$1,460 Hauling Pavement 20 $6.82L.C.Y.$136 Pavement Repair 144 $80.32S.Y. $11,566 Shoring 1800 $0.80SF Wall $1,440 Excavation‐Trench 78 $8.32B.C.Y. $649 Pipe Bedding (sand import)50 $37.65L.C.Y.$1,883 Bedding Compaction 50 $4.05E.C.Y. $203 Native Backfill & Compaction 28 $4.39E.C.Y. $123 Water Compaction 28 $2.72E.C.Y. $76 Hauling Excavation 94 $4.79B.C.Y. $450 10" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 300 $30.39L.F.$9,117 10" Gate Valve 1 $6,023.57Ea.$6,024 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)2 $8,500.00Ea.$17,000 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 300 $0.50L.F.$150 1" Copper Service Line 175 $17.17L.F. $3,005 New Utility Box 7 $929.67Ea.$6,508 Saddle & Tap for Service 7 $704.13Ea. $4,929 8C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach   Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $216,906 Mobilization $8,288 Insurance $4,144 1%Survey $1,381 1%Site Clearing $1,381 $2SWPPP (per LF)$2,020 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$18,180 Subtotal $173,524 Construction Contingency $43,381 Project Development& Implementation $54,226 Project Cost $271,132 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Holiday RV Park 0 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 1010 $2.00L.F. $2,020 Unaccounted‐for Items $5,980 Utility Conflict Resolution $12,557 Sawcut & Remove 468 $10.14S.Y.$4,746 Hauling Pavement 65 $6.82L.C.Y.$443 Pavement Repair 468 $80.32S.Y. $37,590 Shoring 6060 $0.80SF Wall $4,848 Excavation‐Trench 243 $8.32B.C.Y. $2,022 Pipe Bedding (sand import)146 $37.65L.C.Y.$5,497 Bedding Compaction 146 $4.05E.C.Y. $591 Native Backfill & Compaction 97 $4.39E.C.Y. $426 Water Compaction 97 $2.72E.C.Y. $264 Hauling Excavation 292 $4.79B.C.Y. $1,399 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 1010 $22.72L.F. $22,947 8" Gate Valve 2 $4,197.77Ea. $8,396 8" Tee 1 $1,540.77Ea. $1,541 8" 90 Bend 1 $859.78Ea.$860 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)3 $8,500.00Ea.$25,500 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 1010 $0.50L.F.$505 9C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $222,607 Mobilization $8,740 Insurance $4,370 1%Survey $1,457 1%Site Clearing $1,457 $2SWPPP (per LF)$1,640 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$14,760 Subtotal $178,086 Construction Contingency $44,521 Project Development& Implementation $55,652 Project Cost $278,259 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Lonview Avenue 14 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 820 $2.00L.F. $1,640 Unaccounted‐for Items $6,306 Utility Conflict Resolution $13,242 Sawcut & Remove 380 $10.14S.Y.$3,853 Hauling Pavement 53 $6.82L.C.Y.$361 Pavement Repair 380 $80.32S.Y. $30,522 Shoring 4920 $0.80SF Wall $3,936 Excavation‐Trench 197 $8.32B.C.Y. $1,639 Pipe Bedding (sand import)119 $37.65L.C.Y.$4,480 Bedding Compaction 119 $4.05E.C.Y. $482 Native Backfill & Compaction 78 $4.39E.C.Y. $342 Water Compaction 78 $2.72E.C.Y. $212 Hauling Excavation 236 $4.79B.C.Y. $1,130 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 820 $22.72L.F. $18,630 8" Gate Valve 3 $4,197.77Ea. $12,593 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)2 $8,500.00Ea.$17,000 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 820 $0.50L.F.$410 1" Copper Service Line 350 $17.17L.F. $6,010 New Utility Box 14 $929.67Ea.$13,015 Saddle & Tap for Service 14 $704.13Ea. $9,858 10C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach   Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $14,542 Mobilization $575 Insurance $287 1%Survey $96 1%Site Clearing $96 $2SWPPP (per LF)$100 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$900 Subtotal $11,634 Construction Contingency $2,908 Project Development& Implementation $3,635 Project Cost $18,177 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Shell Beach Road Condos 0 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 50 $2.00L.F. $100 Unaccounted‐for Items $415 Utility Conflict Resolution $871 Sawcut & Remove 23 $10.14S.Y.$233 Hauling Pavement 3 $6.82L.C.Y.$20 Pavement Repair 23 $80.32S.Y. $1,847 Shoring 300 $0.80SF Wall $240 Excavation‐Trench 12 $8.32B.C.Y. $100 Pipe Bedding (sand import)7 $37.65L.C.Y.$264 Bedding Compaction 7 $4.05E.C.Y. $28 Native Backfill & Compaction 5 $4.39E.C.Y. $22 Water Compaction 5 $2.72E.C.Y. $14 Hauling Excavation 14 $4.79B.C.Y. $67 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 50 $22.72L.F. $1,136 8" Gate Valve 1 $4,197.77Ea. $4,198 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 50 $0.50L.F.$25 11C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach   Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $162,042 Mobilization $6,402 Insurance $3,201 1%Survey $1,067 1%Site Clearing $1,067 $2SWPPP (per LF)$1,120 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$10,080 Subtotal $129,634 Construction Contingency $32,408 Project Development& Implementation $40,511 Project Cost $202,553 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Private Drive in downtown condos  south of Pismo Avenue 583.0 Private Drive Adjacent ot Sea Gypsy  Motel 1103.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 430 $2.00L.F. $860 Abandon Existing Main In Place‐A 130 $3.00L.F. $390 Unaccounted‐for Items $4,619 Utility Conflict Resolution $9,700 Sawcut & Remove 262 $10.14S.Y.$2,657 Hauling Pavement 37 $6.82L.C.Y. $252 Pavement Repair 262 $80.32S.Y. $21,044 Shoring 3360 $0.80SF Wall $2,688 Excavation‐Trench 138 $8.32B.C.Y.$1,148 Pipe Bedding (sand import)84 $37.65L.C.Y.$3,163 Bedding Compaction 84 $4.05E.C.Y.$340 Native Backfill & Compaction 54 $4.39E.C.Y. $237 Water Compaction 54 $2.72E.C.Y. $147 Hauling Excavation 166 $4.79B.C.Y. $795 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 430 $22.72L.F. $9,770 10" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 130 $30.39L.F.$3,951 8" Gate Valve 2 $4,197.77Ea.$8,396 10" Gate Valve 1 $6,023.57Ea. $6,024 8" 90 Bend 1 $859.78Ea.$860 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)2 $8,500.00Ea.$17,000 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 560 $0.50L.F.$280 1" Copper Service Line 150 $17.17L.F. $2,576 New Utility Box 6 $929.67Ea.$5,578 Saddle & Tap for Service 6 $704.13Ea. $4,225 12C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $387,607 Mobilization $15,378 Insurance $7,689 1%Survey $2,563 1%Site Clearing $2,563 $2SWPPP (per LF)$2,560 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$23,040 Subtotal $310,086 Construction Contingency $77,521 Project Development& Implementation $96,902 Project Cost $484,509 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Stratford Street 40 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 1280 $2.00L.F. $2,560 Unaccounted‐for Items $11,095 Utility Conflict Resolution $23,299 Sawcut & Remove 593 $10.14S.Y.$6,013 Hauling Pavement 82 $6.82L.C.Y.$559 Pavement Repair 593 $80.32S.Y. $47,630 Shoring 7680 $0.80SF Wall $6,144 Excavation‐Trench 308 $8.32B.C.Y. $2,563 Pipe Bedding (sand import)186 $37.65L.C.Y.$7,003 Bedding Compaction 186 $4.05E.C.Y. $753 Native Backfill & Compaction 122 $4.39E.C.Y. $536 Water Compaction 122 $2.72E.C.Y. $332 Hauling Excavation 370 $4.79B.C.Y. $1,772 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 1280 $22.72L.F. $29,082 8" Gate Valve 4 $4,197.77Ea. $16,791 Fire Hydrant Assembly (Furnish and Install)2 $8,500.00Ea.$17,000 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 1280 $0.50L.F.$640 1" Copper Service Line 1000 $17.17L.F. $17,170 New Utility Box 40 $929.67Ea.$37,187 Saddle & Tap for Service 40 $704.13Ea. $28,165 13C Date 3/14/2019 HEF JHR Client:  Project:  Prepared By: Reviewed By: City of Pismo Beach  Water Master Plan Update Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 25% 25% Construction Total $60,569 Mobilization $2,295 Insurance $1,147 1%Survey $382 1%Site Clearing $382 $2SWPPP (per LF)$600 $18Traffic Control (per LF)$5,400 Subtotal $48,456 Construction Contingency $12,114 Project Development& Implementation $15,142 Project Cost $75,712 6% 3% Segment Label Laterals Diam in Depth ft Cypress Street 0 8 3.0 Item Description Quantity Unit CostUnits Total Item Cost Abandon Existing Main In Place 300 $2.00L.F. $600 Unaccounted‐for Items $1,656 Utility Conflict Resolution $3,477 Sawcut & Remove 139 $10.14S.Y.$1,409 Hauling Pavement 19 $6.82L.C.Y.$130 Pavement Repair 139 $80.32S.Y. $11,164 Shoring 1800 $0.80SF Wall $1,440 Excavation‐Trench 72 $8.32B.C.Y. $599 Pipe Bedding (sand import)43 $37.65L.C.Y.$1,619 Bedding Compaction 43 $4.05E.C.Y. $174 Native Backfill & Compaction 29 $4.39E.C.Y. $127 Water Compaction 29 $2.72E.C.Y. $79 Hauling Excavation 86 $4.79B.C.Y. $412 8" PVC Pressure Pipe AWWA C900 300 $22.72L.F. $6,816 8" Gate Valve 2 $4,197.77Ea. $8,396 Pipeline Testing and Disinfection 300 $0.50L.F.$150 This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Plate 1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS This page intentionally left blank for duplex printing. UT UTUT UT UTUT UT [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú "M "M UT UT &2 &2 &2 &2 A1, Shell Beach 1 Reservoir & BPS A3, Charles Street Reservoir A5, Pismo Oaks Reservoir A6 & C2, Pacific Estates Pump Station A7, Pismo Oaks Pump Station A9, Pacific Estates Reservoir 1 A10, Well #23 A11, Pacific Estates Reservoir 2 A12 & C1, Bello Pump Station A13, Bay Street Pump Station B4, Shell Beach 2 Reservoir B5, Well #5 C1 1C10C6 C1 3 A14, Bello Reservoir Note: The 8-inch m a in serving this a rea w a s constructed a fter the m odel wa s developed. It is show n here for cla rity, but is not included in other m a ps throughout the report. C12 C5C8C7C3C9C4A8B3 B3 A8A4 B2B1A2 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community The City of Pismo Beach 2020 Water Master Plan CIP Projects Date: 9/13/2019Path: W:\GIS\PismoBeach\WMP_2015\For Report\CIP Projects_Final_V3.mxd±0 0.450.225 Miles Legend Facilities [Ú Pump Station UT Tank &2 Turnout "M Well Abandon Pipe Recommended Project Existing Pipes (dia., inch) 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Distribution Zones Bello Dell Court Heights 1 Heights 2 Main Pacific Estates Pismo Oaks Shell Beach 1 Shell Beach 2 UT [Ú [Ú &2 A4 A4A4 B3A4 Wadsworth AveHarloe AvePismo AveBa y S t r e e t Price Canyon RdHanfor d S t Solar W a y B e l l o S t B e l l o S t L e m o o r e A v e P r i c e S t C1 1C11 B3 B3B3 A4A2 Project Number Recommended Improvement Quantity/ Length Size/ Diameter Project Cost¹ A1 Shell Bea ch R eservoir #1 a nd BPS 1 M G $2,230,000A2 Sha fer La ne 580 feet 8”$185,000A3 Cha rles Street R eservoir 1 M G $1,823,000A4 Downtow n Fire Flow Im provem ents 2,960 feet 12” & 16” $1,788,000A5 Pism o Oa ks R eservoir N/A N/A $914,000A6 Pa cific Esta tes BPS N/A N/A $266,000A7 Pism o Oa ks BPS N/A N/A $89,000A8 North Fourth Street 3,500 feet 16”$1,025,000A9 Pa cific Esta tes R eservoir #1 N/A N/A $448,000A10 W ell 23 R epla cem ent/ R econditioning N/A N/A $925,000A11 Pa cific Esta tes R eservoir #2 N/A N/A $351,000A12 Bello BPS N/A N/A $150,000A13 Ba y Street BPS N/A N/A $137,000A14 Bello R eservoir N/A N/A $781,000A15 Construct New Groundwa ter W ell N/A N/A $925,000B1 Pa rk Avenue 590 feet 10”$263,000B2 Fra dy La ne 1,450 feet 8”$476,000B3 Judkins M iddle School 2,320 feet 8”$550,000B4 Shell Bea ch #2 R eservoir N/A N/A $489,000B5 W ell #5 R eha b.N/A N/A $698,000 C1 Bello BPS Ca pa city Upgra de N/A N/A $176,000C2 Pa cific Esta tes BPS Ca pa city Upgra de N/A N/A $176,000C3 Pism o Coa st Shopping Pla za 310 feet 8"$69,000C4 M otel 6 Pism o Bea ch 620 feet 8" & 10"$208,000C5 A Avenue 780 feet 8"$200,000C6 Kon Tiki Inn 840 feet 8"$236,000C7 Ha rloe Avenue 300 feet 10"$141,000C8 Holida y R V Pa rk 1,010 feet 8"$273,000C9 Longview Avenue 820 feet 8"$279,000C10 Spindrift V illa ge Townhom es 50 feet 8"$19,000C11 Pism o Shores Apa rtm ent Com plex a nd Sea Gypsy M otel 560 feet 8" & 10"$204,000C12 Stra tford Street 1,280 feet 8"$485,000C13 Cypress Street 300 feet 8"$76,000 Recommended Projects to address existing system deficiencies Recommended Projects to address future system deficiencies 1- Project Costs include a 5% m a rkup of construction subtota l to a ccount for unknown item s not included in the cost opinion, a nd a 25% construction contingency ba sed on construction subtota l. Tota l project costs include a 15% a llow a nce (of construction tota l) for project im plem enta tion a nd a 10% a llow a nce (of construction tota l) for construction pha se support services. Costs a re listed in 2018 dolla rs. C IT Y OF PI SMO B E A CH C IT Y OF