Agenda packet — Milpitas City Council, August 9, 2022 (part 3 of 7)

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Zone1includespressurezonesSF1andVW1.Zone2
includeszonesSF2andVW2,whiletheHillsideincludes
zonesSF3andSF4.

2.UnderOutageScenario3,allturnouts(bothSFPUC
andVW)areassumedtobeoutofservice.Potable
watersupplyconsistsonlyofstoragereservoirs.
535
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure8-14
ExistingSystem
AvailableFireFlow
OutageScenario3
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 9/21/2020 10:31:40 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig8-14_MDDFF_Out_TO.mxd : rchu AvailableFireFlow
BelowRecommendedFireFlow
MeetsRecommendedFireFlow
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
RecommendedFireFlow
1,500gpm
2,500gpm
3,000gpm
4,000gpm
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Theavailablefireflowshownisthemaximumflowavailable
whilemaintaining20psiresidualsystempressureduringa
maximumdaydemandcondition.

2.UnderOutageScenario3,allturnouts(bothSFPUCand
VW)areassumedtobeoutofservice.Potablewater
supplyconsistsonlyofstoragereservoirs.
536
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure8-15
ExistingSystemPressures
MaximumDayDemand
OutageScenario4
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 9/16/2020 4:51:25 PM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig8-15_MDD_Pressures_Out_ELEC.mxd : rchu MaximumDayPressure
Lessthan40psi
40psito50psi
50psito60psi
60psito70psi
70psito80psi
HighPressure(Zone1)
Greaterthan80psi
HighPressure(Zone2andHillside)
80psito150psi
Greaterthan150psi
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Zone1includespressurezonesSF1andVW1.Zone2
includeszonesSF2andVW2,whiletheHillsideincludes
zonesSF3andSF4.

2.UnderOutageScenario4,electricalpowerisassumedto
beoutofservice.Boosterpumpstationswithbackup
generatorsremainoperational.TheTularcitosand
CountryClubboosterpumpstationsareoffline,astheydo
nothavebackuppower.
537
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure8-16
ExistingSystem
AvailableFireFlow
OutageScenario4
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 9/21/2020 10:34:32 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig8-16_MDDFF_Out_ELEC.mxd : rchu AvailableFireFlow
BelowRecommendedFireFlow
MeetsRecommendedFireFlow
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
RecommendedFireFlow
1,500gpm
2,500gpm
3,000gpm
4,000gpm
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Theavailablefireflowshownisthemaximumflowavailable
whilemaintaining20psiresidualsystempressureduringa
maximumdaydemandcondition.

Chapter 8
Evaluation of Existing Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
8-32 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

8.5.6.5 Outage Scenario 5 – Zone 1/2 PRVs Offline
Outage Scenario 5 assumes a PRV normally allowing flow between Zones 1 and 2 is offline. These “Zone 1/2" PRVs include Main, North Milpitas, and Sunnyhills in the SFPUC service area and Capitol, Curtis East, Curtis West, and Parc Metro in the VW service area. System performance is evaluated with one PRV closed at a time. It is assumed EPRVs are available as needed.

Under MDD conditions, customer service pressures are not significantly impacted by any single Zone 1/2 PRV outage. Should any of these PRVs fail, the remaining PRVs allow the distribution system to operate such that customer service pressures are at least 40 psi.

In contrast, fire flow availability can be significantly reduced depending on the PRV outage. For Main, North Milpitas, and Curtis (East and West), operational status did not significantly impact fire flow availability. However, when Sunnyhills, Capitol, or Parc Metro were offline, fire flow availability decreased.

The fire flow impacts of these outages are shown on Figure 8-17 and discussed below, followed by a review of the recommended improvements.

8.5.6.5.1 Sunnyhills PRV Outage
Should the Sunnyhills PRV go offline, eight additional locations do not meet recommended fire flows.

These locations are all in Zone SF1. West Yost recommends the following improvements to address these new below criterion locations:
• Near the intersection of Coelho Street and Diel Drive, replace the (normally closed) isolation valve separating Zones SF1 and SF2 with an EPRV to allow flows from SF2 during a fire event in the northern area of Zone SF1 (ECIP-V-03).
• Along Callan Street near the intersection of Callan Street and Arizona Avenue, replace approximately 140 LF of 6-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline (ECIP-PI-28). • Along Gross Street, near the intersection of Gross Street and Conway Street, replace approximately 170 LF of 6-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline (ECIP-PI-31).

8.5.6.5.2 Capitol PRV Outage
Should the Capitol PRV go offline, 11 additional locations do not meet recommended fire flows. However, during a fire at any of these 11 locations (all in Zone VW1), the Live Oak and McCarthy EPRVs will allow sufficient flow from Zone SF1 to meet recommended fire flows. Thus, a Capitol PRV outage can be adequately handled by existing facilities, and no improvements are necessary.

8.5.6.5.3 Parc Metro PRV Outage
Should the Parc Metro PRV go offline, five additional locations do not meet recommended fire flows. At one of these locations, EPRV operation improves fire flows to meet the recommended criterion. West Yost recommends the following improvements to address the remaining below criterion locations:
• Along Curtis Avenue, connect the existing 10-inch diameter pipeline on the northern side of the street to the existing 18-inch diameter pipeline on the southern side of the street. This new connection should be a 12-inch diameter pipeline (approximately 30 LF) and installed downstream of the Curtis PRVs (i.e., in Zone VW1) (ECIP-PN-01). 539
Item # 16.

Chapter 8
Evaluation of Existing Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
8-33 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
• Along Hammond Way, east of Tom Evatt Park, connect the existing 8-inch diameter pipelines in Zone VW1. These pipelines are currently dead ends, created by normally closed isolation valves separating the SFPUC and VW service areas. This new connection should be an 8-inch diameter pipeline and is estimated to be approximately 60 LF (ECIP PN-02).

8.5.6.5.4 PRV Outage Priority
Table 8-6 summarizes distribution system performance for each PRV outage. As shown in Table 8-6, each PRV is assigned a priority based on the impact of its outage. Parc Metro and Sunnyhills are the highest priority PRVs, while Main, North Milpitas, and Curtis East/West are the lowest priority PRVs.

Table 8-6. PRV Outage Priority(a)
PRV
Priority
(Low, Med, High)
No. of Additional
“Below Criterion”
Locations(b) Notes
SFPUC Service Area
Sunnyhills High 8 Pipeline improvements recommended
Main Low 0
No new below criterion locations from
PRV outage
North Milpitas Low 0
No new below criterion locations from
PRV outage
VW Service Area
Parc Metro High 5 New pipelines recommended
Capitol Med 11 New below criterion locations fixed via
existing EPRVs
Curtis East Low 0
No new below criterion locations from
PRV outage
Curtis West Low 0
No new below criterion locations from
PRV outage
(a) Only PRVs normally allowing flow from Zone 2 to Zone 1 are assigned a priority. (b) Below criterion locations cannot serve recommended fire flows while maintaining a 20-psi residual system pressure during maximum day demands. This represents the number of “below criterion” locations above normal operations (i.e., Base scenario). 540
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure8-17
ExistingSystem
AvailableFireFlow
OutageScenario5
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 1/19/2021 9:30:30 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig8-17_MDDFF_Out_PRV.mxd : rchu LocationsNotMeetingRecommendedFire
FlowDuetotheFollowingPRVOutage(s)
Sunnyhills
ParcMetro
CapitolorParcMetro
Capitol
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
RecommendedFireFlow
1,500gpm
2,500gpm
3,000gpm
4,000gpm
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Theavailablefireflowshownisthemaximumflowavailable
whilemaintaining20psiresidualsystempressureduringa
maximumdaydemandcondition.

2.UnderOutageScenario5,PRVsnormallyallowingflow
betweenZones1and2areassumedtobeoutofservice.

These"Zone1/2"PRVsincludeMain,NorthMilpitas,and
SunnyhillsintheSFPUCserviceareaandCapitol,Curtis
East,CurtisWest,andParcMetrointheVWservicearea.

SystemperformanceisevaluatedwithonePRVofflineata
time.Inthisoutagescenario,emergencyPRVsareavailable
asneeded.

3.Forsimplicity,onlythenewlocationsthatarebelowthe
recommendedfireflowareshown.Inotherwords,thisfigure
highlightsthelocationsthatmeetrecommendedfireflow
undernormal(i.e.,non-emergency)operationsbutnotunder
aPRVoutagescenario.Locationsthathavethesame
fireflowavailabilityunderbothnormalandallPRVoutage
scenarios(whethermeetingornotmeetingrecommendations)
arenotshown.
541
Item # 16.

Chapter 8
Evaluation of Existing Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
8-35 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

8.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Below is a summary of findings and recommendations from the evaluations detailed in this chapter. Key recommendations for the existing system were used to develop a CIP, which is the focus of Chapter 11. • Supply Capacity
— Existing firm supplies exceed maximum day demand. While the VW service area has a firm supply deficit, it can be met by the surplus in the SFPUC service area. No additional supply facilities are recommended based on existing demands and normal operating conditions.
• Storage Capacity
— There is sufficient storage in the SFPUC service area and a deficit of 0.45 MG in the VW service area. This deficit is not considered critical, as the Zone SF1 storage surplus can cover the shortfall in Zones VW1 and VW2. No additional storage is recommended based on existing demands and normal operating conditions. • Pumping Capacity
— Each pressure zone has a pumping capacity surplus. No additional pumping facilities are recommended based on existing demands and normal operating conditions. • Distribution System
— The existing distribution system meets all minimum pressure criteria under ADD, PHD, and MDD conditions.
— West Yost identified potential improvements to address the locations not meeting recommended fire flows in the existing system. These mainly consist of upsizing existing 6-inch and 8-inch diameter pipelines, though some PRV and isolation valve improvements are also recommended. It is assumed these improvements will be implemented for the future water system evaluation in Chapter 9. — To comply with the City’s design guidelines and improve fire flow capacity, the City should consider upsizing any 4-inch diameter pipelines that serve hydrants to 8-inch diameter pipelines.
— Should SFPUC turnouts go offline, most of Zone SF2 has reduced fire flow capacity. As a result, West Yost recommends installing a pump at the Ayer pump station with a capacity of 4,000 gpm.
— The existing system is well equipped to handle a power outage or a VW supply outage.

No additional significant impacts arise in either emergency scenario. — To evaluate system performance during a PRV outage, PRVs normally allowing flow from Zone 2 to Zone 1 were simulated to be disabled one at a time. The Sunnyhills and Parc Metro PRVs are the most critical, as outages at either of these PRVs results in new locations not meeting recommended fire flows. Recommended improvements include a new EPRV, new pipelines, and pipeline upsizing.
542
Item # 16.

N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-1 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
CHAPTER 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
This chapter evaluates the City’s future (i.e., buildout) water system and its ability to meet recommended planning and performance criteria described in Chapter 7 and summarized in Table 7-1 of this report. It is assumed complete buildout will occur in the year 2040. The evaluation encompasses both system capacity and hydraulic performance using buildout water demands developed in Section 5.1 of this report. System capacity is evaluated based on potable water supply, storage, and pumping, while the hydraulic performance evaluation examines buildout distribution facilities under various demand and outage conditions. The following evaluations frequently refer to “normal” conditions, which are defined as non-emergencies (i.e., no fires or unplanned outages).

This chapter also includes recommendations for addressing any deficiencies identified from the evaluation. These are incorporated in a recommended CIP described in Chapter 11 of this report. To simplify cross-referencing with Chapter 11, each proposed project is assigned a unique CIP ID.

The following sections present the evaluation methodology and results:
• Buildout Potable Water Demands
• Potable Water Facilities for Buildout Analysis
• Buildout Potable Water Supply Capacity Evaluation
• Buildout Potable Water Storage Capacity Evaluation
• Buildout Pumping Capacity Evaluation
• Buildout Water Distribution System Evaluation
• Summary of Findings and Recommended Improvements

9.1 BUILDOUT POTABLE WATER DEMANDS
Buildout potable water demands are summarized in Table 9-1 and represent a combination of existing demands (presented in Table 8-1) and new demands from planned future growth and development in Opportunity Areas and the Gateway Specific Plan/Milpitas Metro Specific Plan areas. While existing demands were adjusted for NRW based on actual production data, future demands were assumed to have an NRW of 11 percent (as discussed in Section 5.1.3). Maximum day and peak hour peaking factors remain as listed in Table 5-7.

New water demand is concentrated in the VW service area, as most of the planned, future growth and development (including Gateway Specific Plan and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan) is anticipated in Zones VW1 and VW2. Existing demands in the SF service area are estimated to increase approximately 18 percent at buildout, while demands in the VW service area are expected to increase by almost 150 percent over the same period. Citywide, the buildout average day demand is estimated at approximately

13.9 mgd, a 67 percent increase from the existing (2019) average day demand of 8.3 mgd. 543
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-2 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
Table 9-1. Buildout (2040) Potable Water Demands by Pressure Zone Pressure Zone
Average Day Demand(a) Maximum Day Demand(b) Peak Hour Demand(c) gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd
SF1 2,213 3.19 3,541 5.10 6,417 9.24
SF2 1,973 2.84 3,157 4.55 5,722 8.24
SF3 14 0.02 44 0.06 81 0.12
SF4-1 19 0.03 61 0.09 110 0.16
SF4-2 17 0.02 54 0.08 98 0.14
SF Subtotal 4,236 6.10 6,857 9.87 12,429 17.90
VW1 3,464 4.99 6,582 9.48 11,779 16.96
VW2 1,974 2.84 3,752 5.40 6,713 9.67
VW Subtotal 5,439 7.83 10,334 14.88 18,492 26.63
Total 9,675 13.93 17,191 24.75 30,920 44.53
(a) Based on existing (2019) demands, plus new demands from Opportunity Areas, Gateway Specific Plan, and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (see Table 5-9 of this report).
(b) Maximum day demand is 1.6 times the average day demand for Zones SF1 and SF2, 3.2 times the average day demand for Zones SF3 and SF4, and 1.9 times the average day demand for the VW service area. (c) Peak hour demand is 2.9 times the average day demand for Zones SF1 and SF2, 5.8 times the average day demand for Zones SF3 and SF4, and 3.4 times the average day demand for the VW service area.

9.2 POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
At buildout, the City expects three groundwater wells to be available for emergency use only (i.e., at the time of this report, the wells are not planned or intended to operate normally): Pinewood Well, Curtis Well, and McCandless Well. Table 9-2 summarizes the location and capacity for each of these wells. The capacity for Pinewood Well is from the 2009 WMPU (Table 4-3), while the capacity for McCandless Well (currently under construction) is based on discussions with the design team and production testing, which was performed at the end of 2020. It was conservatively assumed that Curtis Well would have the same capacity as McCandless Well, however the Curtis Well capacity is subject to change. While Curtis Well is located within Zone SF1, it is adjacent to transmission mains for Zones SF1, SF2, and VW2. Given the projected large increase in demands in the VW service area (approximately 3,250 gpm in additional average day demand), it is assumed that Curtis Well would serve Zone VW2.

While the City does not currently anticipate any other major water system changes, the following buildout analyses assume that the existing system infrastructure recommendations detailed in Sections 8.5.5 and

8.5.6 of this report have been implemented. This includes pipeline improvements, two new EPRVs (Diel and Hammond), and the additional 4,000 gpm pump at Ayer. West Yost recommends that the City complete these existing system CIP projects to optimize system performance and operations as the City approaches buildout. Figure 9-1 shows the existing potable water system with these improvements, Curtis Well, and McCandless Well. On Figure 9-1, the new facilities are highlighted in red. 544
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure9-1
PotableWaterFacilitiesfor
BuildoutAnalysis
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/12/2020 8:16:58 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig9-1_BO_Facilities.mxd : rchu BuildoutFacilities
BuildoutGroundwaterWell
BuildoutEmergencyPRV
BuildoutPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
AyerFirePump
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR
CALAVE
RAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
M
A
L
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
McCandless
Well
CurtisWell
HammondEPRV
DielEPRV
Notes:

1.Buildoutpipelinesincludenewpipesandexistingpipes
upsizedtoaddressexistingdeficiencies.
545
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-4 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
Table 9-2. Emergency Groundwater Wells at Buildout
Well Facility Location
Pressure Zone
Served
Capacity
gpm mgd
Pinewood Well(a,d) 227 Lonetree Court SF1 1,181 1.70
Curtis Well(b,d) 330 East Curtis Avenue VW2(e) 400 0.58 McCandless Well(c,d) Near 1680 McCandless Drive VW1 400 0.58 (a) Pinewood Well capacity per 2009 WMPU, Table 4-3.
(b) Curtis Well capacity is assumed to be equal to McCandless Well but is subject to change pending additional testing. (c) McCandless Well capacity per discussions with design team in September 2020. (d) Pinewood Well has a plug-in adapter and transfer switch to receive power from a portable generator. It is assumed Curtis Well and McCandless Well will also have these backup power features. (e) While Curtis Well is located within Zone SF1, it is adjacent to transmission mains for Zones SF1, SF2, and VW2. Given the projected large increase in demands in the VW service area, it is assumed Curtis Well would serve Zone VW2.

9.3 BUILDOUT POTABLE WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY EVALUATION
As described in Section 7.2.2 of this report, the recommended water system performance criteria specify that under normal demand conditions, the following must be satisfied:
• Provide firm supply capacity equal to maximum day demand • Meet peak hour demand from a combination of supply capacity and storage Firm supply capacity is defined as the normal water supply with the largest turnout out of service, therefore, groundwater wells (which provide emergency supply) are excluded. In the SFPUC service area, the largest turnout is Calaveras, which has a capacity of 13.0 mgd. The VW service area has only the Gibraltar turnout, therefore, firm supply capacity is zero.

Table 9-3 summarizes the firm supply capacity evaluation for each service area at buildout. The SFPUC service area has a firm supply capacity surplus of approximately 13.9 mgd, while the VW service area has a firm supply capacity deficit of approximately 14.9 mgd. Since water can be moved from the City’s SFPUC service area to the VW service area, the surplus in the SFPUC service area can offset most of the deficit in the VW service area. The resulting net deficit is approximately 1.0 mgd.

To address the firm supply capacity deficit and provide supply redundancy in the VW service area at buildout, West Yost recommends constructing a second VW turnout with a capacity of 10,000 gpm (or

14.4 mgd, equal to the Gibraltar turnout) (CIP ID BCIP-TO-01). This would increase the VW service area firm supply capacity to 14.4 mgd and change the City-wide firm supply deficit to a surplus of approximately

13.4 mgd. Without this new turnout, the City would fail to meet the firm supply capacity criterion described in Section 7.2.2 of this report.

Ideally, the second VW turnout would be adjacent to both VW’s Milpitas Pipeline and existing City transmission mains. Locating the turnout is outside the scope of this report, though the City has identified one potential site: within a public service utility easement near the intersection of Piper Drive and Garden Street. The distribution system evaluation described in Section 9.6 below assumes this new “Piper” turnout is active, but other locations for a second VW turnout are possible. 546
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-5 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
By incrementally increasing existing demands, a firm supply capacity “trigger demand” can be identified.

This is the demand at which existing supply facilities become insufficient, and any additional demand would require new supplies (i.e., turnouts or groundwater wells). Due to different peaking factors in each service area, the firm supply capacity trigger demand varies slightly depending on the location and timing of growth. Assuming the SFPUC service area would be fully built out prior to the VW service area, the firm supply capacity trigger demand is approximately 13.4 mgd. In the opposite scenario (i.e., VW service area built out before the SFPUC service area), the trigger demand decreases slightly to 13.3 mgd. Based on the linear demand growth projection summarized in Table 5-10 of this report, City demands will approach these levels around the year 2038. This trigger timing is similar for the Maddaus demand projections (Partial Rebound – Normal Economy, Weather Normalized) discussed in Section 5.3.4.2 of this report.

For the second criterion listed above, Table 9-4 compares total supply plus storage to peak hour demands.

Total supply equals the combined capacity from all turnouts, while storage consists of the firm pumping capacity from storage reservoirs. This includes the Ayer, Gibraltar (SF), and Gibraltar (VW) pump stations.

To be conservative, firm pumping capacity is assumed (i.e., the largest pump is out of service at each pump station). Also, it is assumed the 4,000 gpm pump recommended in Section 8.5.6.1 of this report has been installed at Ayer.

As shown in Table 9-4, the SFPUC service area has a peak hour supply surplus of approximately 24,000 gpm and can even meet peak hour demands with supplies alone. In the VW service area, peak hour supplies exceed demands by approximately 5,000 gpm. Achieving this surplus in the VW service area requires utilizing the Gibraltar turnout and both sets of pumps at the Gibraltar (VW) pump station. In Table 9-3. Comparison of Available and Required Firm Supply Capacity at Buildout Supply Source Facility
Design Capacity
gpm mgd
SFPUC
Sunnyhills Turnout 7,014 10.1
Calaveras Turnout 9,028 13.0
Main Street Turnout 5,486 7.90
Intertie Turnout 4,000 5.76
Total Supply Capacity(a) 25,528 36.8
Firm Supply Capacity(b) 16,500 23.8
Required Supply Capacity(c) 6,857 9.9
Buildout Firm Supply Capacity Surplus (Deficit) 9,643 13.9 VW Gibraltar Turnout 10,000 14.4
Total Supply Capacity(a) 10,000 14.4
Firm Supply Capacity(b) 0 0
Required Supply Capacity(c) 10,334 14.9
Buildout Firm Supply Capacity Surplus (Deficit)(d) (10,334) (14.9) (a) Total supply capacity assumes all turnouts and wells are available for use. (b) Firm supply capacity assumes largest turnout in each service area (Calaveras and Gibraltar) is offline. (c) Required supply capacity is equal to the maximum day demand (see Table 9-1). (d) Most of the VW service area supply capacity deficit can be met by SFPUC service area supply surplus. A deficit of 1.0 mgd remains if the SFPUC supply capacity surplus is considered.
547
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-6 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
other words, the City would need to operate valves within the Gibraltar (VW) pump station so the pumps that normally boost Gibraltar turnout pressures would instead draw from the Gibraltar (VW) reservoir.

Table 9-4. Comparison of Available and Required Peak Hour Supply at Buildout Supply
Source
Total Supply
Capacity(a),
gpm
Firm Pumping
Capacity from
Storage(b), gpm
Total Peak Hour
Supply Capacity(c),
gpm
Peak Hour
Demand(d),
gpm
Peak Hour Supply
Surplus (Deficit),
gpm
SFPUC 25,528 10,900 36,428 12,429 23,999
VW 10,000 13,500 23,500 18,492 5,008
(a) Equals the total capacity from turnouts. Refer to Table 9-3. (b) Firm pumping capacity assumes the largest pump is offline at each pump station. Pump stations drawing from storage include Ayer, Gibraltar (SF), and Gibraltar (VW). It is assumed the 4,000-gpm pump recommended in Section 8.5.6.1 of this report has been installed at the Ayer pump station.
(c) Equals the sum of total supply capacity and firm pumping capacity from storage. (d) Refer to Table 9-1.

9.4 BUILDOUT POTABLE WATER STORAGE CAPACITY EVALUATION
As described in Section 7.3.2 of this report, the required storage reservoir capacity in each pressure zone is the sum of the following components:
• Operational storage equal to 25 percent of maximum day demand • Emergency storage equal to 50 percent of maximum day demand • Fire storage equal to the largest fire flow demand in a pressure zone multiplied by the recommended duration
The total storage required is the sum of the operational, emergency, and fire storage requirements, less any groundwater credit, which can offset some of the emergency storage requirement.

The groundwater storage credit is calculated for each pressure zone and equals the volume of water pumped over a 24-hour period. The credit cannot exceed the recommended emergency storage volume (i.e., 50 percent of maximum day demand). To offset surface storage needs, groundwater must be of potable water quality, and wells must have backup power capabilities. In addition, the City must be able to meet average day demands without relying on groundwater (which it can).

For each pressure zone, Table 9-5 compares the City’s buildout potable water storage capacity with storage requirements. Since Zones 1 and 2 are interconnected through multiple PRVs that operate under normal conditions (see Figure 3-1), they are combined in each service area (i.e., SF1/SF2 and VW1/VW2). As shown in Table 9-5, all three wells qualify for the emergency groundwater storage credit and contribute a storage capacity equivalent to their 24-hour pumping capacities. As a result, there is a 4.11 MG storage surplus in Zones SF1/SF2 and a deficit of 5.97 MG in Zones VW1/VW2. Since stored SFPUC water at Gibraltar can be delivered to VW customers, the surplus in Zones SF1/SF2 can reduce the VW service area shortfall, up to a maximum of 5 MG (the capacity of the Gibraltar (SF) storage reservoir). However, even after accounting for this offset (4.11 MG), there remains a net storage deficit in the VW service area of approximately 1.86 MG. 548
Item # 16.

Table 9-5. Comparison of Available and Required Water Storage Capacity at Buildout [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] = [C] + [D] [F] [G] [H] [I] = [F] + [G] + [H] [J] = [E] - [I] Facility Status
Available Reservoir
Capacity
Emergency
Groundwater
Storage
Credit(a) Total Available Storage
Required
Operational(b) Emergency(c) Fire Flow(d) Total Required Storage Storage Surplus
(Deficit), MG
Zones SF1 and SF2
Gibraltar (SF) Active 5.00 --
Ayer Active 5.60 --
Pinewood Well Standby -- 1.70
Zone SF3
Tularcitos Active 0.30 -- 0.30 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.23 0.07 Zones SF4-1 and SF4-2
Minnis Active 0.34 -- 0.34 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.30 0.04
Zones VW1 and VW2
Gibraltar (VW) Active 5.00 --
Curtis Well Standby -- 0.58
McCandless Well Standby -- 0.58
Available Storage Capacity, MG Required Storage Capacity, MG

4.11 6.15

12.30 2.41 4.82 0.96 8.19

3.72 7.44 0.96 12.12 (5.97)
(d) Based on storage required for largest potential fire flow within the pressure zone. Zones SF1 and VW1/VW2 = Industrial; Zone SF2 = Commercial; Zones SF3 and SF4 = Single Family Residential. (b) Based on 25 percent of a maximum day demand (see Table 9-1). (c) Based on 50 percent of a maximum day demand (see Table 9-1). (a) Credit based on 24 hours of pumping capacity. The credit cannot exceed the required emergency storage capacity. n\c\270\60-19-16\e\t5\ch9
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 11-19-20
549
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-8 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
As a result, West Yost recommends the City construct a new, 2 MG storage reservoir in the VW service area (CIP ID BCIP-S-01). While additional groundwater wells would also reduce the storage capacity deficit, lower than expected productivity at the McCandless Well suggests new storage reservoir(s) may be a more reliable investment. The City is currently evaluating potential locations for this new storage reservoir.

To deliver water stored in this new reservoir to the distribution system, West Yost recommends constructing a new pump station (CIP ID BCIP-PS-01) with a firm capacity of 4,000 gpm (approximately

5.8 mgd). This ensures that pumps can meet the largest (i.e., industrial) fire flows in the service area. Also, at this capacity pumps can empty the reservoir in approximately eight hours.

By incrementally increasing existing demands, a storage capacity “trigger demand” can be identified. This is the demand at which existing storage facilities (Gibraltar and Ayer Reservoirs plus Pinewood Well) become insufficient, and any additional demand would require new storage (i.e., reservoirs or groundwater wells). Due to different peaking factors in each service area, the storage capacity trigger demand varies slightly depending on the location and timing of growth. Assuming the SFPUC service area would be fully built out prior to the VW service area, the storage capacity trigger demand is approximately

11.8 mgd. In the opposite scenario (i.e., VW service area built out before the SFPUC service area), the trigger demand decreases slightly to 11.7 mgd. Based on the linear demand growth projection summarized in Table 5-10 of this report, City demands will approach these levels around the year 2032.

This trigger timing is significantly sooner based on the Maddaus demand projections (Partial Rebound – Normal Economy, Weather Normalized) discussed in Section 5.3.4.2 of this report. Because Maddaus projects more demand to be added by 2025 (and more gradual growth from 2025 through 2045), City demands will reach storage trigger levels by around 2024, about eight years sooner than the linear growth projection.

Note, storage and timing requirements may change as actual potable water demands adjust to conservation efforts, efficiency standards, and expanded recycled water use. In addition, if Curtis Well production exceeds expectations, the increased groundwater storage credit would also reduce the overall storage capacity deficit. The City should monitor demands and groundwater well feasibility as it continues to grow and approaches buildout.

9.5 BUILDOUT PUMPING CAPACITY EVALUATION
As described in Section 7.3.3 of this report, the City should have firm pumping capacity equal to MDD. For a given pump station, firm capacity is defined as the total capacity of all operational pumps minus the capacity of the largest pumping unit. In addition, pumping capacity in lower pressure zones should also be able to deliver the maximum day demand of any zones above them. For example, the Zone SF3 pumps should be able to deliver the maximum day demand for Zones SF3 and SF4 (i.e., SF4-1 and SF4-2).

For each pressure zone, Table 9-6 compares the available and required pumping capacities at buildout. In Zones SF1 and SF2, firm pumping capacity consists of one 5,500 gpm pump at Gibraltar (SF) and three 1,800 gpm pumps at Ayer. It is assumed the 4,000-gpm pump recommended in Section 8.5.6.1 of this report has been installed at Ayer, so firm capacity assumes that pump is offline. As a result, the combined firm pumping capacity in Zones SF1 and SF2 is 10,900 gpm, which exceeds the required firm pumping capacity (i.e., the buildout MDD of the entire SFPUC service area). The pumping capacity surplus in Zones SF1 and SF2 is approximately 4,040 gpm.
550
Item # 16.

Table 9-6. Comparison of Available and Required Firm Pumping Capacity at Buildout Pump Station Critical Facility(a)
On-site Backup
Power Status Firm Capacity(b), gpm
Total Firm Pumping
Capacity, gpm
Buildout Maximum Day
Demand(c), gpm
Pumping Capacity Surplus
(Deficit), gpm
Gibraltar (SF)  Active 5,500
Ayer(d)  Active 5,400
Country Club Active 250 250 159 91
Tularcitos Active 250 250 115 135
Gibraltar (VW) - from tank   Active 5,500
Gibraltar (VW) - from turnout(e)   Active 8,000
Zones SF1 and SF2
Zone SF3
Zones SF4-1 and SF4-2
Zones VW1 and VW2
10,900 6,857 4,043
13,500 10,334 3,166
(d) It is assumed the 4,000 gpm fire pump recommended in Section 8.5.6.1 has been installed at the Ayer pump staiton. (a) Pump stations are considered critical if they serve a pressure zone with insufficient storage and meet other criteria. Refer to Table 7-1. (b) Firm pumping capacity was defined as the total pump station capacity with the largest pump out of service. (c) Includes maximum day demands for higher pressure zones, per Table 7-1. (e) These pumps are intended to boost pressures from the VW turnout but can be valved to draw from the Gibraltar (VW) tank. n\c\270\60-19-16\e\t5\ch9
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 02-09-21 551
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-10 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
No changes are anticipated at either the Country Club or Tularcitos pump stations, therefore, firm pumping capacities in Zones SF3 and SF4 remain at 250 gpm each. This comfortably exceeds buildout pumping requirements. Firm pumping capacity surpluses in Zones SF3 and SF4 are 91 and 135 gpm, respectively.

Both sets of pumps at the Gibraltar (VW) PS are included in the pumping capacity evaluation for the VW service area. One set draws from the Gibraltar (VW) storage reservoir, while the other set boosts pressures from the Gibraltar turnout (if necessary). By adjusting valve operations, the “turnout” pumps can also draw from the Gibraltar (VW) storage reservoir. The combined firm capacity for both sets of pumps is 13,500 gpm, which exceeds the VW service area buildout MDD (10,334 gpm) by approximately 3,170 gpm.

9.6 BUILDOUT WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION
West Yost used the updated hydraulic model to conduct steady-state hydraulic analyses of the buildout water distribution system. The goal of this evaluation was to identify necessary improvements to support the City’s buildout water demands while meeting the recommended system performance criteria presented in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.3 of this report.

This evaluation assumes infrastructure recommendations detailed in Sections 8.5.5 and 8.5.6 of this report have been implemented and that the new VW Piper turnout introduced in Section 9.3 is active.

The new VW Piper turnout is assumed to be a 20-inch diameter connection and include a PRV that will evenly distribute VW flows between the Piper and Gibraltar turnouts.

In evaluating the buildout system, pressure criteria are prioritized over velocity criteria. This prioritization is typical, because older water systems tend to have many undersized pipes, and strictly adhering to velocity standards would identify those pipes as candidates for replacement, even though pressures meet recommended criteria. West Yost does not recommend replacing existing pipes solely for failing to meet velocity criteria. While velocity results will be summarized for non-emergency scenarios, the following analyses focus on pressures and fire flow availability.

The following evaluations are intended to identify distribution facility sizing and capacity requirements at buildout. As a result, they examine system performance under high demand scenarios only (i.e., Peak Hour Demand and Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow).
• Peak Hour Demand Scenario: evaluates the potential for low customer service pressures in the system during a peak hour demand condition
• Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Scenario: evaluates fire flow availability in the system under a maximum day demand condition
• Emergency Operations (each scenario is evaluated under maximum day demand plus fire flow):
— Outage Scenario 1: SFPUC turnouts are offline
— Outage Scenario 2: VW turnouts are offline
— Outage Scenario 3: SFPUC and VW turnouts are offline
— Outage Scenario 4: Power outage; all facilities without backup generators are offline — Outage Scenario 5: PRVs normally allowing flow between Zones 1 and 2 are offline 552
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-11 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
To capture the entire range of normal water system operations, each non-emergency scenario above was evaluated using the two operational alternatives summarized in Table 8-5 of this report. In the Base alternative, all pumps are off, whereas Alternative 1 allows pump operation as needed. For both alternatives, all turnouts are open, and gravity tank levels are at their minimum of normal operating range.

9.6.1 Peak Hour Demand Analysis
The hydraulic model was used to conduct a steady-state hydraulic analysis of the system during a buildout PHD condition. As shown in Table 9-1, the PHD for the buildout water service area is approximately 30,776 gpm (44.3 mgd). Under PHD conditions, the recommended minimum pressure is 30 psi. Any services experiencing pressures less than 30 psi during a PHD condition would require an individual booster pump.

Results from the PHD simulations for Base and Alternative 1 operations are shown in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3, respectively. In each figure, color-coded circles represent distribution system pressures during a PHD condition. Pressures are slightly higher for Alternative 1 (pumps on), but there are no significant differences in system performance based on operations. In both cases, there are no customer service locations with pressures below 30 psi.

Per Table 7-1 of this report, under normal conditions the maximum recommended velocities for transmission and distribution mains is 6 and 8 ft/s, respectively. Transmission mains are pipelines 16 inches or larger in diameter, while distribution mains are pipelines smaller than 16 inches in diameter.

Under PHD conditions, pipeline velocities exceed recommended limits near supply sources (i.e., turnouts and pump stations) and PRVs.

In the SFPUC service area, high velocity pipelines include those adjacent to the Sunnyhills PRV (over 24 ft/s in both Base and Alternative 1 operations) and downstream of the Sunnyhills, Main, and Calaveras turnouts (between approximately 9 and 11 ft/s under Base operations). When pumps are on (Alternative 1), turnout flows are lower. As a result, during Alternative 1 operations, pipeline velocities near the Sunnyhills, Main, and Calaveras turnouts are below the recommended limit.

In the VW service area, high velocity pipelines are located at and adjacent to the Gibraltar facility and PRVs. This includes the transmission main along Curtis Avenue and Yosemite Drive (between South Abel Street and South Milpitas Boulevard). Transmission mains in this area and downstream of the Gibraltar facility have velocities between 7 and 17 ft/s during Base operations (pumps off) and between 7 and 12 ft/s during Alternative 1 operations (pumps on). Pipeline velocities near PRVs are the same for Base and Alternative 1 operations. The pipelines adjacent to the Curtis East and Parc Metro PRVs have velocities of 7.1 and 8.4 ft/s, respectively, during a PHD condition. Velocities in the pipelines near the Capitol PRV are approximately 10.7 ft/s.
553
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure9-2
BuildoutSystemPressures
PeakHourDemand
BaseOperations
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 9/23/2020 9:18:02 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig9-2_BO_PHD_Pressures_Base.mxd : rchu PeakHourPressure
Lessthan30psi
30psito50psi
50psito60psi
60psito70psi
70psito80psi
HighPressure(Zone1)
Greaterthan80psi
HighPressure(Zone2andHillside)
80psito150psi
Greaterthan150psi
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Zone1includespressurezonesSF1andVW1.Zone2
includeszonesSF2andVW2,whiletheHillsideincludes
zonesSF3andSF4.

2.ForBaseOperations,allturnoutsareoperational,andall
pumpsareturnedoff.

3.PertheCaliforniaPlumibngCode,serviceswhich
experiencepressuresexceeding80psiarerequiredtobe
fittedwithapressurereducingvalve.

4.TherecommendedmaximumpressureinZone1is80psi
atthecustomerserviceconnection.InZone2andthe
Hillside,therecommendedmaximumpressureis150psi
atthecustomerserviceconnection.
554
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure9-3
BuildoutSystemPressures
PeakHourDemand
Alternative1Operations
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 9/23/2020 4:26:42 PM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig9-3_BO_PHD_Pressures_Alt1.mxd : rchu PeakHourPressure
Lessthan30psi
30psito50psi
50psito60psi
60psito70psi
70psito80psi
HighPressure(Zone1)
Greaterthan80psi
HighPressure(Zone2andHillside)
80psito150psi
Greaterthan150psi
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Zone1includespressurezonesSF1andVW1.Zone2
includeszonesSF2andVW2,whiletheHillsideincludes
zonesSF3andSF4.

2.ForAlternative1Operations,allturnoutsareoperational,
andpumpsoperateasneeded.

3.PertheCaliforniaPlumibngCode,serviceswhich
experiencepressuresexceeding80psiarerequiredtobe
fittedwithapressurereducingvalve.

4.TherecommendedmaximumpressureinZone1is80psi
atthecustomerserviceconnection.InZone2andthe
Hillside,therecommendedmaximumpressureis150psi
atthecustomerserviceconnection.
555
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-14 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

9.6.2 Maximum Day Demand Plus Concurrent Fire Flow Analysis Fire flows in the model were updated based on buildout land uses in growth areas and the Gateway Specific Plan and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan areas. Outside of these areas, fire flows remain as originally assigned in Section 8.5.5 of this report. Fire flows were then simulated during a buildout MDD condition using the hydraulic model. The hydraulic model conducts fire flow analyses by simulating a fire flow demand at one hydrant location and verifying whether the system can serve all other normal customer demands while maintaining desired residual pressures. This is repeated for all hydrant locations within the distribution system. Hydrant locations meet recommended fire flows if they can deliver the recommended fire flow while maintaining a 20-psi residual system pressure. Note, this fire flow analysis reflects distribution system capacity, as individual hydrants, and their associated losses are not modeled.

Fire flow analyses were performed independently for each pressure zone, with Zones 1 and 2 combined for each service area (i.e., VW1/VW2 and SF1/SF2). It was assumed that only one fire event would occur at a time, which is standard industry practice. Results from MDD plus concurrent fire flow simulations for Base and Alternative 1 operations are shown on Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5, respectively. Hydrant locations are represented by circles and color coded by fire flow availability, while parcels are shaded according to the recommended fire flow. For example, a green circle adjacent to a purple parcel means that the distribution system can meet a 4,000 gpm fire flow at that location while maintaining 20 psi in the rest of the system.

System performance is similar for the two operational alternatives. With pumps off (Base alternative), 19 locations do not meet recommended fire flows, while 15 locations are below the fire flow criterion under Alternative 1. All “below criterion” locations in Alternative 1 are also flagged in the Base alternative, therefore, pump operation improves fire flow availability for four locations. Since pumps could be off during a fire event, recommended improvements address all 19 below criterion locations identified in the Base alternative.

As discussed in Section 8.5.5 of this report, some below criterion fire flows can be eliminated by delivering the recommended flow through multiple hydrants. It was assumed that any location with another hydrant within the City’s hydrant spacing guidelines (500 feet for single family areas and 300 feet for all other areas) would qualify for delivering fire flows through multiple hydrants. If the qualifying hydrants could combine to deliver the recommended fire flow while maintaining a 20 psi residual system pressure, then the location was no longer considered below criterion. Of the 19 below criterion locations identified in the Base alternative, 16 met recommended fire flows after looking at multiple hydrants.

The three remaining below criterion locations are all at the southern end of Zone VW1, near South Main Street. To address these locations, West Yost recommends installing a new EPRV between Zones SF1 and VW1 near the intersection of Cedar Way and South Main Street (CIP ID BCIP-V-01). This emergency 8-inch connection would replace a normally closed isolation valve and allow flow from Zone SF1 if pressures in Zone VW1 fall 5 psi below PHD pressures. In addition to improving fire flows under normal operations, this “Cedar” EPRV also provides redundancy for a Capitol PRV outage (detailed below in Section 9.6.3.5).

The proposed Cedar EPRV location is based on the MDD plus concurrent fire flow hydraulic analysis described in this section and the existing connection between Zones SF1 and VW1 at the intersection of Cedar Way and South Main Street. Additional study is required to determine whether this location is feasible or if other locations would also solve the below criterion locations in this area. 556
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure9-4
BuildoutSystem
AvailableFireFlow
BaseOperations
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 11/20/2020 1:39:18 PM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig9-4_BO_MDDFF_Base.mxd : rchu AvailableFireFlow
BelowRecommendedFireFlow
MeetsRecommendedFireFlow
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
RecommendedFireFlow
1,500gpm
2,500gpm
3,000gpm
4,000gpm
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Theavailablefireflowshownisthemaximumflowavailable
whilemaintaining20psiresidualsystempressureduringa
maximumdaydemandcondition.

2.ForBaseOperations,allturnoutsareoperational,andall
pumpsareturnedoff.
557
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure9-5
BuildoutSystem
AvailableFireFlow
Alternative1Operations
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/1/2020 4:48:30 PM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig9-5_BO_MDDFF_Alt1.mxd : rchu AvailableFireFlow
BelowRecommendedFireFlow
MeetsRecommendedFireFlow
Turnout
GroundwaterWell
PressureReducingValve
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
Pipeline
RecommendedFireFlow
1,500gpm
2,500gpm
3,000gpm
4,000gpm
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
880
680
J
AC
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
R
E
AT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
Notes:

1.Theavailablefireflowshownisthemaximumflowavailable
whilemaintaining20psiresidualsystempressureduringa
maximumdaydemandcondition.

2.ForAlternative1Operations,allturnoutsareoperational,
andpumpsoperateasneeded.
558
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-17 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

9.6.3 Emergency Outage Scenarios
The following emergency outage evaluations identify how well the distribution system functions without one or more key facilities. For reference, the outage scenarios consist of:
• SFPUC turnouts are offline
• VW turnouts are offline
• SFPUC and VW turnouts are offline
• Power outage; all facilities without backup generators are offline • PRVs normally allowing flow between Zones 1 and 2 are offline Emergency outage scenarios are not intended to evaluate the adequacy of emergency water supplies, which is outside the scope of this master plan. Instead, these evaluations examine system pressures and fire flow availability during an MDD condition. To be conservative, storage reservoir levels are assumed to be at the minimum of normal operating range (see Table 3-4).

Since emergency scenarios assume certain facilities are offline, the corresponding evaluations do not examine system performance under Base and Alternative 1 operations. Besides the assumed outage, there are no additional operational restrictions. All facilities not assumed offline as part of the scenario are assumed to be operational.

Results for each emergency outage scenario are summarized below. Where presented, figures showing system performance during emergency outages are similar to non-emergency figures discussed above.

Distribution system locations are color coded by fire flow availability (for fire flow evaluations).

9.6.3.1 Outage Scenario 1 – SFPUC Offline
This outage scenario assumes supply from SFPUC is unavailable, therefore, the Sunnyhills, Calaveras, Main Street, and Intertie turnouts are offline. As a result, the City’s normally available potable water supply consists of VW (i.e., the Gibraltar and Piper turnouts) and storage.

After implementing the distribution system improvements summarized in Section 8.6 of this report, fire flow availability is not significantly impacted with SFPUC turnouts offline. There are no new below criterion locations in this outage scenario. In other words, the pumps at Gibraltar and Ayer alone can adequately serve fire flows in the SFPUC service area during an MDD condition. Thus, West Yost does not recommend any improvements based on Outage Scenario 1.

9.6.3.2 Outage Scenario 2 – VW Offline
This outage scenario assumes supply from VW is unavailable, therefore, the Gibraltar and Piper turnouts are offline. As a result, the City’s normally available potable water supply consists of SFPUC turnouts and storage.

Fire flow availability is not significantly impacted with VW turnouts offline. There are no additional below criterion locations in this outage scenario, though adequately serving fire flows during an MDD condition required adjusting pump operation. In addition to the two pumps that normally draw from the Gibraltar (VW) storage reservoir, one 5,000-gpm pump that normally boosts turnout pressures was also drawing from the same reservoir. Since this operational flexibility already exists at the Gibraltar facility, West Yost does not recommend any improvements based on Outage Scenario 2. 559
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-18 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

9.6.3.3 Outage Scenario 3 – SFPUC and VW Offline
This outage scenario assumes supplies from both SFPUC and VW are unavailable, therefore, all turnouts are offline. As a result, the City’s normally available potable water supply consists of storage only (i.e., Gibraltar (SF), Gibraltar (VW), Ayer, Tularcitos, and Minnis reservoirs).

Since neither the SFPUC nor the VW outages significantly impacted fire flow availability, the same is true for the simultaneous outage of both supplies. During an MDD condition, the Gibraltar (SF) and Ayer pumps can adequately serve fire flows in Zones SF1/SF2. In the VW service area, the same three pumps as Outage Scenario 2 are necessary to serve fire flows: two pumps that normally draw from the Gibraltar (VW) storage reservoir and one 5,000-gpm pump that normally boosts turnout pressures. There are no new below criterion locations in Outage Scenario 3. Thus, West Yost does not recommend any improvements based on Outage Scenario 3.

9.6.3.4 Outage Scenario 4 – Power Outage
This outage scenario assumes electrical power is unavailable, therefore, any facilities without backup generators are offline. While this does not impact the City’s normally available potable water supply, distribution system operations are hindered. Because the Country Club and Tularcitos pump stations only have plug-in adaptors and transfer switches to allow for use of portable generators, and do not have on-site emergency generators, they are assumed to be unavailable in a power outage. However, the Tularcitos and Minnis storage reservoirs can still serve Zones SF3 and SF4, respectively, during a power outage.

A power outage does not significantly impact fire flow availability. There are no new below criterion locations associated with this outage scenario, which makes sense, as the impact of a power outage is similar to Base operations (pumps off). As a result, no improvements are necessary from Outage Scenario 4.

9.6.3.5 Outage Scenario 5 – Zone 1/2 PRVs Offline
Outage Scenario 5 assumes a PRV normally allowing flow between Zones 1 and 2 is offline. These “Zone 1/2" PRVs include Main, North Milpitas, and Sunnyhills in the SFPUC service area and Capitol, Curtis East, Curtis West, and Parc Metro in the VW service area. System performance is evaluated with one PRV closed at a time. It is assumed EPRVs are available as needed.

Impacts to fire flow availability vary depending on which PRV is offline. At buildout, the Capitol PRV is most critical. Should the Capitol PRV go offline, 17 additional locations do not meet recommended fire flows. Activating EPRVs and the McCandless Well allows 14 locations to meet recommended fire flows.

The remaining three are solved via the proposed Cedar EPRV. While Sunnyhills, Curtis East, and Parc Metro PRV outages also create new below criterion locations, all can be solved by EPRVs (Diel, McCarthy, and Hammond). Outages of the Main, North Milpitas, and Curtis West PRVs did not result in any new below criterion locations.
560
Item # 16.

Chapter 9
Evaluation of Future Water System
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
9-19 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

9.7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Below is a summary of findings and recommendations from the evaluations detailed in this chapter. Key recommendations for the buildout system were used to develop a CIP, which is the focus of Chapter 11 of this report.
• Supply Capacity
— Buildout firm supplies fall short of maximum day demands. The firm supply surplus in the SFPUC service area cannot make up for the deficit in the VW service area. Thus, West Yost recommends constructing a new VW turnout near the intersection of Piper Drive and Garden Street with the same capacity as the Gibraltar turnout. • Storage Capacity
— Buildout storage capacity is insufficient. The storage capacity surplus in the SFPUC service area cannot make up for the deficit in the VW service area. West Yost recommends constructing a new, 2 MG storage reservoir in the VW service area. — To deliver water from this new storage reservoir, West Yost recommends constructing a new pump station with a firm capacity of 4,000 gpm.
• Pumping Capacity
— Each pressure zone has a pumping capacity surplus. No additional pumping facilities are recommended based on buildout demands.
• Distribution System
— The buildout distribution system meets the minimum pressure criterion under a PHD condition.
— To address locations not meeting recommended fire flows in Base operation and PRV outage scenarios, West Yost recommends installing a new EPRV near the intersection of Cedar Way and South Main Street. The Cedar EPRV would allow flows from Zone SF1 to Zone VW1 should pressures in Zone VW1 drop significantly. 561
Item # 16.

N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-1 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
CHAPTER 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
This chapter presents a summary of the Water Utility Condition Assessment Technical Memorandum prepared in conjunction with this Water Master Plan, provides a discussion of risk management guidelines and asset profiling, and recommends projects and activities to manage infrastructure risk. Recommended projects are incorporated in a recommended CIP described in Chapter 11 of this report.

A summary of the Seismic Risk Assessment of the City’s water system facilities, conducted in parallel to this Water Master Plan as part of the compliance with the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, is also provided in this chapter.

10.1 SUMMARY OF WATER UTILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The Water Utility Condition Assessment Technical Memorandum, included in Appendix D, summarizesthe condition assessment that was performed for the City’s water utility assets under Task 3 – Water Utility Asset Condition Assessment of this Water Master Plan. That technical memorandum presents assessment methodologies, asset valuations, likelihood and consequence of failure factors, and business risk scores for assets in the City’s water distribution system.

The analysis focused on asset and facility risk. Risk is a combination of an asset’s likelihood to fail and an asset’s consequence if it should fail as shown below.
• Likelihood of Failure (LOF), which estimates the probability that a failure will occur in an asset by meeting the end of its physical, design, service, or economic useful life • Consequence of Failure (COF), which estimates the impacts of asset failure expressed either qualitatively or quantitatively, being a loss, injury, or disadvantage from a social, economic, environmental, or regulatory standpoint
• Risk is estimated using the conventional risk equation: Risk = LOF x COF Risk was defined on a scale from Low to High based on COF ratings of Negligible to Severe and LOF ratings of Unlikely to Very Likely. Table 10-1 presents the adopted risk matrix.

Table 10-1. Risk Methodology
LOF Rating
1 Unlikely
2 Possible
3 Likely
4 Very Likely
COF Rating and Definition
1 Negligible No fiscal/operational impact Low Low Low Low 2 Minimal
Slight pressure loss, minor public response,
possible slight injury, minor detours Low Low Medium Med-High 3 Moderate
Water service interrupted over local area,
increased media coverage, increased
injury potential, public transit impacted,
restoration up to one-month impact
Medium Medium Med-High High
4 Severe
Water service interrupted over wide area
including fire capacity, potential local
media coverage, potential consent order,
transit impacts to BART or other outside
agencies, long-term economic impact,
greater than one-month restoration
Medium Med-High High High
562
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-2 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
Assets were classified by type and evaluated for LOF and COF to determine a risk rating. Water Meter, Line Valve and Fire Hydrant assets were evaluated as individual assets. Other individual asset assessments were aggregated into PRVs, Wells, Turnouts, Interties, Reservoirs, Pipelines and Pump Stations. Table 10-2 presents a summary of risk by these asset groupings. Some asset groups are represented in more than one risk level since individual assets or facilities are currently at different risk levels.

Table 10-2. Water System Risk Level

COF LOF
1 Unlikely
2 Possible
3 Likely
4 Very Likely
COF
1 Negligible
Hydrants
Valves
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
Meters
Pipelines
Hydrants
Meters
Pipelines
Meters
Pipelines
2 Minimal
Hydrants
Valves
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
PRVs
Intertie
Meters
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
Well
Reservoir
PRVs
Intertie
Meters
Pipelines
Meters
Pipelines
3 Moderate
Hydrants
Valves
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
PRVs
Intertie
Reservoirs
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
PRVs
Turnouts
Reservoirs
Pump Stations
Pipelines
Pump Stations
Pipelines
4 Severe Pipelines Pipelines Pipelines Pipelines

10.2 RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES AND ASSET PROFILING
Risk management applied to utility planning and management leverages the assessment of LOF and COF into asset life-cycle decision-making. The combination of LOF and COF together provides a risk rating for assets and facilities. Risk Triggers are defined in this section.

10.2.1 Risk Threshold Triggers
Leveraging risk management involves more than just applying a decision point based on a current condition or risk rating to prioritize a project. Risk management affords the utility manager knowledge of the system to optimize maintenance, plan condition assessment activities, anticipate fiscal expenditures and prioritize refurbishment and replacement. Establishing risk threshold triggers is a valuable tool to anticipate when to modify current practices.
563
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-3 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

10.2.1.1 Risk Threshold Triggers
Risk threshold triggers can be set at many levels and for many responses; however, it is best to keep them simple and few to avoid complicating maintenance and asset management practices. To keep the analysis simple as the City begins developing its risk management efforts, triggers have been set as follows:
• Level A - Watch
• Level B - Investigate
• Level C - Act

10.2.1.1.1 Level A - Watch
This initial action level represents the point an asset or facility depicts aging or performance that requires increased attention, health checks or predictive maintenance efforts. Vertical assets such as mechanical and electrical equipment and structures warrant this attention and effort based on visual observations, age and runtime. Due to limited access associated with distribution systems, pipeline assets may pass through this level without action.

A typical action associated with this trigger includes maintenance modifications which may be indicated when the likelihood of failure reaches a level where predictive maintenance may be implemented or additional maintenance efforts may benefit the asset. Predictive maintenance is typically a data collection effort that informs the maintenance manager of potential faults or failures that may be remedied prior to an asset component failure.

10.2.1.1.2 Level B - Investigate
This secondary action level is consistent with condition assessment activities. Once an asset or facility reaches this level, a focused condition assessment may be planned to evaluate where the asset is on its useful life curve and identify potential operational or maintenance activities that may support extending its life. Condition assessment also provides the utility manager with valuable forecasting data for fiscal planning. Water distribution pipelines typically fit this profile based on age, combined with failure history and local conditions, such as aggressive soils and pipe type. Vertical assets fit this profile based on age, performance and predictive maintenance data collection.

A typical action associated with this trigger includes condition assessment activities which may be indicated when the risk rating of an asset or a facility reaches a level that advanced planning should be performed to identify its point on the useful life curve. Identifying this point supports advanced planning for rehabilitation and replacement as well as modifications to asset condition monitoring. Preventative maintenance efforts can support condition assessment.

10.2.1.1.3 Level C - Act
The third action level is the beginning of renewal activities. This may be as long-term as placement on a mid-range capital improvement plan or as immediate as design development and construction.

Rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) are indicated when the asset or facility risk does not support its intended level of service and, as such, requires some form of renewal. Rehabilitation and replacement must be planned sufficiently ahead of time to complete the activity prior to failure. 564
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-4 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

10.2.1.1.4 Risk Threshold Trigger Setpoints
Triggers were applied to the risk threshold matrix to identify trigger levels that will support long-term risk management of the water utility infrastructure. These triggers were also used to develop and prioritize recommendations to improve the water system. Table 10-3 presents the risk threshold triggers (Level A, Level B and Level C) as defined above.

Table 10-3. Risk Threshold Triggers
LOF Rating
1 Unlikely
2 Possible
3 Likely
4 Very Likely
COF Rating and Definition
1 Negligible No fiscal/operational impact No Action No Action No Action Level C 2 Minimal
Slight pressure loss, minor public
response, possible slight injury, minor
detours
No Action Level A Level B Level C
3 Moderate
Water service interrupted over local
area, increased media coverage,
increased injury potential, public
transit impacted, restoration up to
one-month impact
No Action Level B Level C Level C
4 Severe
Water service interrupted over wide
area including fire capacity, potential
local media coverage, potential
consent order, transit impacts to BART
or other outside agencies, long-term
economic impact, greater than
one-month restoration
Level A Level C Level C Level C
565
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-5 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

10.2.2 High Risk Assets Profiling
Risk Threshold Triggers were applied to asset risk ratings developed in the Water Utility Condition Assessment Technical Memorandum (see Appendix D).

10.2.2.1 Facilities
A summary of facilities and their risk threshold triggers are presented in Table 10-4 and Table 10-5. As noted earlier, some asset groups are represented in more than one risk level since individual assets or facilities are currently at different risk levels.

Table 10-4. Risk Threshold Triggers of Facilities by LOF and COF LOF Rating
1 Unlikely
2 Possible
3 Likely
4 Very Likely
COF
1 Negligible
Hydrants
Valves
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
Meters
Pipelines
Hydrants
Meters
Pipelines
Meters
Pipelines
2 Minimal
Hydrants
Valves
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
PRVs
Intertie
Meters
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
Well
Reservoir
PRVs
Intertie
Meters
Pipelines
Meters
Pipelines
3 Moderate
Hydrants
Valves
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
PRVs
Intertie
Reservoirs
Pipelines
Hydrants
Valves
PRVs
Turnouts
Reservoirs
Pump Stations
Pipelines
Pump Stations
Pipelines
4 Severe Pipelines Pipelines Pipelines Pipelines
566
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-6 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
Table 10-5. Facilities by Risk Threshold Trigger
Facility Risk Threshold Trigger
Calera Creek Heights PRV
Level A - Watch
Main PRV
Sunnyhills PRV
SJW Intertie
Curtis Well
Level B - Investigate
Live Oak PRV
Tularcitos North Vault PRV
Tularcitos South Vault PRV
North Milpitas PRV
Capitol PRV
Junipero PRV
Gibraltar PRV
McCarthy PRV
Yosemite PRV
Minnis Reservoir
Gibraltar (VW) Reservoir
Gibraltar (SF) Reservoir
ACWD Intertie
SCVWD Intertie
Curtis PRV
Level C - Act
Montague PRV
Main Turnout
Calaveras Turnout
Sunnyhills Turnout
Gibraltar Turnout
Tularcitos Reservoir
Ayer Reservoir
Pinewood Well
Country Club Pump Station
Tularcitos Pump Station
Gibraltar Pump Station
Ayer Pump Station
567
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-7 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

10.2.2.2 Horizontal Assets
There are numerous other assets, not associated with facilities, that are associated with pipeline or horizontal assets. These include pipelines, fire hydrants, valves and water meters. Table 10-6 presents a summary of pipeline assets in each classification with their corresponding risk threshold level. Table 10-7 presents a summary count of non-pipeline assets by classification. Pipelines represented in Table 10-6 and Table 10-7 are shown on Figure 10-1. A full listing of each asset is included in the Water Utility Condition Assessment Technical Memorandum (see Appendix D).

Table 10-6. Asset Count (Miles) of Risk Threshold Trigger by Asset Classification (April 2020 GIS) Pipe Diameter
Risk Threshold Trigger
Level A Level B Level C
Pipeline, Miles
4-inch 0.0 0.0 0.2
6-inch 0.5 0.9 3.2
8-inch 0.5 3.2 7.4
10-inch 0.4 2.9 11.8
12-inch 18.5 7.7 32.2
14-inch 2.7 1.8 7.0
16-inch 0.8 2.7 5.2
18-inch 0.7 1.2 3.9
20-inch 0.0 0.0 0.1
24-inch 0.0 0.2 1.1
30-inch 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 24.1 20.6 72.1
Table 10-7. Asset Count of Risk Threshold Trigger by Asset Classification Asset Classification
Risk Threshold Trigger
Level A Level B Level C
Water Meter 2 4 1815
Fire Hydrants 231 1265 3025
Line Valves 877 1970 4848
568
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure10-1
ExistingPipelines
RiskThresholdLevel
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 1/27/2021 11:25:03 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Fig10-1_ExPipes_RiskThreshold.mxd : coconnor PipelineRiskThresholdTrigger
NoAction
LevelA
LevelB
LevelC
^_B
erryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
£¤101
ÄÆ84
§¨¦880 §¨¦680
§¨¦280
UV237
UV237
§¨¦880
§¨¦680
JAC
KL
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
BL
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
REAT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
569
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-9 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

10.3 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
Recommended projects were identified based on the asset classification and the risk prioritization developed above. They include general maintenance modifications, detailed condition assessment, refurbishment and replacement.

10.3.1 Water Meters
Most of the City’s 16,351 Water Meters are beyond their typical useful life of roughly 15 years. Roughly 75 percent have exceeded this age in service. The City currently does not have a water meter replacement program other than replacement upon failure. For a water meter, failure is typically hidden resulting in an undetected meter accuracy reduction. The City is currently implementing an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program that will ultimately replace existing water meters to conform to the new AMI system.

With the AMI replacement of the water meter inventory the City should investigate the creation of a water meter test program. The American Water Works Association recommends testing of water meters at a minimum of once every 20 years. This minimum test interval is beyond the nominal useful life of a meter and simply serves to confirm that replacement is, in fact, warranted. A meter test program can be established with a goal to test an appropriate sample of water meters and to profile meter performance specifically in the City’s water system to confirm performance and useful life. A test program may begin at 10 years meter age with a goal to test 2 to 5 percent of the meter population per year.

As the AMI program evolves, the system will be selected, and it will be known if existing meters and meter components will be compatible with the new AMI system or if existing assets will require replacement. A new meter test program can then be configured based on the asset replacement rate associated with the AMI program and staffing resources.

10.3.2 Facilities
Each of the 32 facilities evaluated are at a risk trigger level of at least Level A which indicates each should be considered at a minimum for maintenance review.

Facilities at Level A consist of PRVs and Interties and, while they require little maintenance, the preventative maintenance (PM) program should be modified to include visual assessments at least annually to begin to collect condition data to support future decision-making.

Facilities at Level B and Level C include PRVs, wells, interties, reservoirs, pumping stations and turnouts.

The PM program should be modified as noted for Level A, as well as a detailed condition assessment program. Since these ratings are based on only a desktop assessment, assets at Level C are not immediately identified for replacement but should be given priority in condition assessment.

10.3.3 Pipelines, Fire Hydrants and Line Valves
Pipeline assets are at risk trigger levels as high as Level C based on the desktop condition and risk assessment performed. Given the level of data available to support the desktop analysis, it is recommended that the maintenance program be reviewed to capture measurable performance data associated with pipeline failures and that a comprehensive condition assessment be conducted of representative portions of the distribution system.
570
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-10 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
Line valve and fire hydrant assets are at risk trigger levels as high as Level C based on the desktop condition and risk assessment performed. Slightly over half of the City’s 9,330 fire hydrants and line valves exceed a typical useful life of 30 years. The City recently acquired equipment to support a valve and hydrant exercise program to provide mainline flushing and valve maintenance. The program is just now beginning.

The exercise program should be developed with the objective to locate each valve in the field and confirm in GIS; confirm valves are operable, accessible and free of tuberculation; assure they are able to achieve a tight isolation; and, record depth, number of turns and turn direction. A valve exercise program should target the older system valves and hydrants rapidly in the first few years of the program and then settle into a pace of exercising all valves once every 5 years.

10.3.4 Summary of Asset Renewal and Replacement Recommendations Capital and non-capital recommendations are presented in this section.

10.3.4.1 Capital and Non-Capital Recommendations
A list of capital and non-capital recommendations was developed based on the risk assessment and the risk thresholds presented in this chapter and the Water Utility Condition Assessment Technical Memorandum (included in Appendix D). Table 10-8 presents these recommendations which include projects (capital) and improvement measures (non-capital) that respond to the current state of the City’s distribution system.

10.3.4.2 R&R Forecast and Methodology
R&R planning is a forecast of planned effort and expenditures for the renewal or improvement of an asset and ultimately the replacement of the asset. While not yet specifically indicated, pending actual condition assessment, a forecast of asset replacement was developed and included to establish a baseline order of magnitude estimate of asset R&R for fiscal planning. This forecast may be used for current fiscal planning but should be verified based on the findings of the recommended condition assessment studies.

Assumptions are presented below:
• Forecast year of action based on remaining asset useful life • Actual asset replacement assumed to be 20 percent of assets reaching project useful life A forecast of R&R expenditures is presented on Figure 10-2 and in Table 10-9. 571
Item # 16.

N-270-60-19-16-T7-RR-TIMELINE
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 01-27-21
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
Figure 10-2. 30-Year R&R Forecast
Replacement Cost of Assets with Unknown Age Replacement Cost of Assets with Known Age Replacement Cost of Assets Beyond Useful Life $16.5M $11.0M
Notes:

1. Lifecycle for assets with an unknown age assumed in current year (2021).

2. Anticipated replacement costs of assets with unknown age is $1,600 in 2031, 2041.

3. Forecast costs were developed in 2020 and are not escalated or valued at present worth.

4. Assumes 20% of assets require replacement.
572
Item # 16.

N270-60-19-16RMP
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 11-11-2020
Table 10-8. Asset Renewal and Replacement Recommendations Title Description Capital Cost Estimate, $
Capital Projects
Pipeline Condition
Assessment
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the pipeline distribution system using both destructive and nondestructive assessment techniques. Technologies may include cathodic protection resistivity surveys, coupon sampling and testing, acoustic surveys and electromagnetic surveys and leak detection monitoring. The condition assessment should include appurtenances to pipelines such as air valves, blow off assemblies, fire hydrants and valves.

The assessment should focus on metallic and asbestos cement pipeline material segments to document a correlation between pipe material, diameter, age and soil conditions to better estimate remaining useful life. $500,000
Detailed Facility Condition
Assessment
Detailed facility condition assessment studies should be performed at all Level B and C facilities. Level C facilities should be prioritized for immediate assessment. Condition assessment efforts were valued at 2.5% of asset or facility replacement cost.

Level B Recommendations
PRV/Intertie/Turnout
 Live Oak PRV
 North Vault PRV
 South Vault PRV
 Milpitas PRV
 Capitol PRV
 Abel PRV
 Gibraltar PRV
 McCarthy PRV
 Sinclair PRV
 ACWD Intertie
 SCVWD Intertie
5,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
15,000
5,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
15,000
5,000
Subtotal PRV/Intertie/Turnout $115,000
Well/Res/PS
 Curtis Well
 Minnis Reservoir
 Gibraltar Res (VW)
 Gibraltar Res (SF)
75,000
80,000
325,000
325,000
Subtotal Well/Res/PS $805,000
Level B Total Cost $920,000
Level C Recommendations
PRV/Intertie/Turnout
 Curtis PRV
 Montague PRV
 Main Street Turnout
 Calaveras Turnout
 Sunnyhills Turnout
 Gibraltar Turnout
15,000
5,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
25,000
Subtotal PRV/Intertie/Turnout $95,000
Well/Res/PS
 Tularcitos Reservoir
 Country Club Pump Station
 Tularcitos Pump Station
 Ayer Reservoirs
 Pinewood Well
 Gibraltar Pump Station
 Ayer Pump Station
75,000
60,000
70,000
355,000
105,000
435,000
125,000
Subtotal Well/Res/PS $1,225,000
Level C Total Cost $1,320,000
Water Meters Develop a water meter test program $100,000 Non-Capital Projects
Data Gathering
Develop business processes and modify the CMMS to collect asset performance data.

Failure Hierarchy – A failure hierarchy should be developed that supports the capture of problems, causes and remedies (PCR) employed for each asset. A sampling of PCR codes is included Appendix D for PUMP assets.

Maintenance staff should then note the appropriate code in the work order when responding to asset problems.

Condition Assessment Data – Visual and predictive data elements should be developed, and the CMMS modified to provide data fields to capture this data during PM activities. At a minimum visual data should be collected to capture corrosion observations, concrete spalling, burning or arcing, and evidence of leakage. A simple domain should be developed to index readings including a photo-based guide for standardization between staff.

Predictive data should be consistent with the City’s predictive maintenance program and may include oil analysis, vibration monitoring and thermal imaging.

CMMS Automation - Business Processes and CMMS workflows should be developed or otherwise modified to require the completion of specific fields such as Failure Codes as part of work order completion. The completion of these fields will be controlled by automated workflow that does not allow the work order to advance from the work performer to the quality assurance reviewer unless all required fields are completed.

NA
Line Valves and Fire Hydrants Develop a valve and hydrant exercise program. NA Review Maintenance
Program
The existing maintenance program should be reviewed to identify additional monitoring of assets at Level A and B facilities. NA
Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-13 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
Table 10-9. 30-Year R&R Forecast
Year
Replacement Cost of
Assets Beyond
Useful Life, $
Replacement Cost of
Assets with
Known Age, $
Replacement Cost of
Assets with
Unknown Age, $
Total Replacement
Costs, $
2021 16,500,000 10,000 - 16,510,000
2022 - 220,000 - 220,000
2023 - 140,000 - 140,000
2024 - 210,000 - 210,000
2025 - 50,000 - 50,000
2026 - 70,000 - 70,000
2027 - 150,000 - 150,000
2028 - 670,000 - 670,000
2029 - 390,000 - 390,000
2030 - 140,000 - 140,000
2031 - 230,000 - 230,000
2032 - 310,000 - 310,000
2033 - 920,000 - 920,000
2034 - 90,000 - 90,000
2035 - 70,000 - 70,000
2036 - 1,570,000 370,000 1,940,000
2037 - 290,000 - 290,000
2038 - 410,000 - 410,000
2039 - 420,000 - 420,000
2040 - 250,000 - 250,000
2041 - 5,390,000 - 5,390,000
2042 - 310,000 - 310,000
2043 - 80,000 - 80,000
2044 - 240,000 - 240,000
2045 - 9,690,000 1,260,000 10,950,000
2046 - 4,930,000 500,000 5,430,000
2047 - 240,000 - 240,000
2048 - 100,000 - 100,000
2049 - 100,000 - 100,000
2050 - 560,000 - 560,000
2051 - 1,840,000 1,820,000 3,660,000
Total - $30,090,000 $3,950,000 $50,540,000
574
Item # 16.

Chapter 10
Asset Renewal and Replacement
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
10-14 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

10.4 OVERVIEW OF SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT OF CITY’S WATER SYSTEM

FACILITIES
As part of the parallel preparation of the City’s Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA), in compliance with America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA), a seismic risk assessment of the City’s water system facilities was conducted. A technical memorandum was prepared to document the methodologies used and estimated consequences associated with an earthquake event affecting the City water system. The technical memorandum is included as Appendix E of this Water Master Plan.

The earthquake scenario selected for the City is the Hayward-Rodgers Creek event described in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Northern California Legacy Catalog (also referred to as ShakeMaps). At magnitude 6.8, this event represents the largest magnitude event described by ShakeMap in relatively close proximity to key City utilities. According to USGS, this event has an estimated annual probability of approximately 0.74 percent (i.e., a 0.74 percent chance of occurring in any given year), and an approximately 31 percent chance of occurrence within the next 50 years.

The Hayward-Rodgers Creek 6.8 magnitude earthquake is estimated to cause significant damage to the City’s non-linear and linear assets. The Hazus Method (for non-linear assets) estimates moderate damage to the buildings and moderate/severe damage to the pump stations and reservoirs. The ALA Method (for linear assets) estimates 8 breaks and 32 leaks from the transmission mains and 192 breaks and 58 leaks from the distribution pipelines. Repair and replacement costs are estimated using crew size, labor rate, shift duration, and order of magnitude material costs for the City. Specific recommendations resulting from the seismic risk analysis are included within the City’s RRA and include retrofit of reservoirs to meet sloshing wave standards, implementation of seismically resilient design standards for pipelines, and installation of overland piping connections for critical pipelines that may be damaged during an earthquake, among others. Recommended projects are incorporated in the recommended CIP described in Chapter 11 of this report.
575
Item # 16.

N270- 60-19-16R-MP
11-1 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
CHAPTER 11
Recommended Capital Improvement Plan
This chapter presents the recommended CIP for the City’s existing and future water system based on the evaluations described in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 of this report, as well as the Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) conducted in parallel with this WMP. In addition to summarizing the recommended capital improvement projects, this chapter provides estimates of probable construction costs for each project.

The recommended CIP identifies improvements at a Master Plan level and does not necessarily include all required on-site infrastructure or constitute design of improvements. Subsequent detailed design is required to determine the exact sizes and locations of these proposed improvements.

It should be noted that construction costs for the recommended capital improvement projects have been updated from those presented in the March 2021 Draft Water Master Plan to account for the recent bidding climate. Total CIP costs include mark-ups totaling 70 percent of the estimated base construction costs to allow for:
• Design and Construction Contingency: 35 percent
• Engineering Design: 10 percent
• Construction Management: 15 percent
• Permitting and Implementation: 10 percent
This chapter organizes the components of the recommended CIP according to the evaluation that identified the improvements. The final section of this chapter summarizes the recommendations and groups them into five-year CIP phases through the year 2051. Sections of this chapter include:
• Improvements from Renewal and Replacement Study
• Improvements from Existing System Analysis
• Improvements from Future System Analysis
• Improvements from Risk and Resilience Assessment
• Summary and Phasing of Recommended Improvements
Based on the recommendations of this Water Master Plan, as well as the City’s recently completed Wastewater Master Plan and Stormwater Master Plan, the City of Milpitas retained Raftelis to prepare a comprehensive financial plan for the City’s water, wastewater and stormwater utilities for the period from FY 2022 through FY 2040. The financial plan for the water utility (included in Appendix F) considers the projected revenues and expenditures and seeks to optimize the use of rate revenues and bond issues to minimize revenue adjustments while meeting annual revenue requirements, debt service coverage, and reserve targets. The City’s water utility is financially self-sufficient with funding for capital and operating requirements derived primarily from rates.

11.1 IMPROVEMENTS FROM RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT STUDY
Chapter 10 summarized the condition assessment of the City’s water utility assets and recommended projects and activities to manage infrastructure risk. Each water utility asset was evaluated for risk in terms of likelihood and consequence of failure, with recommended projects prioritizing higher risk assets.

Recommendations include general maintenance modifications, detailed condition assessment, and renewal and replacement.
576
Item # 16.

Chapter 11
Recommended Capital Improvement Program
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
11-2 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
Table 11-1 presents the costs for the recommended projects from Chapter 10. Facility condition assessment costs were estimated at 2.5 percent of asset or facility replacement cost. Note, the forecast of renewal and replacement costs is preliminary and based on asset age only. Renewal and replacement costs will change as the City performs detailed condition assessments.

Table 11-1. Probable Costs for Recommendations from Asset Renewal and Replacement Study(a) Component Description
CIP Cost,
dollars
Pipeline Condition Assessment Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the pipeline distribution system using both destructive
and non-destructive assessment techniques.
500,000
Detailed Facility Condition Assessment(b) Detailed facility condition assessment studies should be performed at all Level B and Level C
facilities. Level C facilities should be prioritized for immediate assessment.
2,240,000
Water Meter Test Program Develop a water meter test program. 100,000 Asset Renewal and Replacement(c) 30-year forecast of asset renewal and replacement. 50,540,000 Total $ 53,380,000
(a) Costs shown are in 2020 dollars.
(b) Facility condition assessment efforts were valued at 2.5 percent of asset or facility replacement cost. (c) Forecast is preliminary and based on asset age only. Renewal and replacement costs will change pending condition assessment.

11.2 IMPROVEMENTS FROM EXISTING SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Chapter 8 summarized the evaluation of the City’s existing potable water system and its ability to meet recommended operational and design criteria listed in Table 7-1 of this report. West Yost recommended projects to improve existing system operations. As discussed in Section 7.2.1, the existing system fire flow evaluation presents systemwide available fire flow and does not recommend pipeline improvements to specifically increase existing fire flow capacity. However, because results from the existing system fire flow analysis can help prioritize replacing smaller diameter pipelines to improve overall distribution system flows, recommended improvements from that analysis are included in the CIP.

Table 11-2 presents preliminary capital cost estimates for the recommended existing system improvements, which are organized by priority (high to low) and improvement type. West Yost assigned priorities based on the reason for the improvement, and these will help determine CIP phasing. High priority improvements address meeting recommended fire flows in normal conditions (i.e., no outages), while medium priority improvements address meeting recommended fire flows in emergency outage scenarios (e.g., SFPUC turnouts offline). Finally, low priority improvements consist of projects that generally improve system performance and/or reliability but do not address any specific issues (e.g., upsizing any 4-inch diameter pipelines that serve hydrants to comply with City design guidelines).

Where recommendations consisted of either a pipeline or valve improvement for a particular location (e.g., ECIP-V-01 or ECIP-PI-02), valves were selected for the CIP due to comparable cost and less potential disruption during construction (e.g., traffic impacts). Appendix G contains figures showing the location of these recommended improvements and, for some larger projects (e.g., EPRVs and new Ayer pump), single-page project summaries.
577
Item # 16.

Improvement Type Improvement Description CIP ID
Reason for
Improvement Priority
Estimated
Construction
Cost(b), dollars
CIP Cost (includes
mark-ups)(c,d),
dollars
Interconnection On Hammond Way near Tom Evatt Park, replace the existing (normally closed) isolation valve separating Zones VW1 and SF1 with a new emergency PRV (Hammond EPRV).

ECIP-V-01 Fire Flow High 1 LS $ 282,000 $ 479,000
Interconnection Near the western end of Corning Avenue, install a new isolation valve at the end of the existing Zone SF1 pipeline, immediately upstream of the tee connecting Zones VW1 and SF1.

ECIP-V-02 Fire Flow High 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 14,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Sinnott Lane, Bothelo Avenue, and East Carlo Street, replace existing 6-inch and 8-inch diameter pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-01 Fire Flow High 1,731 lf $ 605,850 $ 1,030,000 Pipeline
Improvement
Along Technology Drive between Murphy Ranch Road and the western end of Technology Drive, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-04 Fire Flow High 742 lf $ 259,700 $ 441,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Hanson Court, replace existing 8-inch diameter pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-05 Fire Flow High 611 lf $ 213,850 $ 364,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Milmont Drive between Dixon Landing Road and the ACWD intertie, replace existing 8-inch and 10-inch diameter pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-06 Fire Flow High 907 lf $ 317,450 $ 540,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Railroad Avenue between approximately hydrant 1A-355 and the southern end of Railroad Avenue, replace existing 8-inch diameter pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-07 Fire Flow High 880 lf $ 308,000 $ 524,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Within the shopping center east of the intersection of South Park Victoria Drive and Landess Avenue, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-08 Fire Flow High 450 lf $ 157,500 $ 268,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Greenwood Way between Pinewood Way and Fallen Leaf Drive, replace existing 6-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-10 Fire Flow High 861 lf $ 301,350 $ 512,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along South Abel Street between Sylvia Avenue and Corning Avenue, replace existing 6-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-11 Fire Flow High 240 lf $ 84,000 $ 143,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Pinard Street from Ridgemont Drive up to the Lee’s Orchard community, replace existing 8-inch diameter pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-16 Fire Flow High 680 lf $ 238,000 $ 405,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Merz Court, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-21 Fire Flow High 425 lf $ 148,750 $ 253,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Sussex Place, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-23 Fire Flow High 192 lf $ 67,200 $ 114,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Carlsbad Street between Carlsbad Court and Ben Rodgers Park, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-25 Fire Flow High 160 lf $ 56,000 $ 95,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Calera Creek Heights Drive between approximately hydrants 4A-001 and 4A005, replace existing 6-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.ECIP-PI-26 Fire Flow High 1,476 lf $ 516,600 $ 878,000 Pump Station(e) Install a 4,000 gpm (5.76 mgd) fire pump at Ayer Pump Station. ECIP-PS-AY Fire Flow (Outage)
Med 1 LS $ 1,216,733 $ 2,068,000
Interconnection Near the intersection of Coelho Street and Diel Drive, replace the existing (normally closed) isolation valve separating Zones SF1 and SF2 with a new emergency PRV (Diel EPRV).

ECIP-V-03 Fire Flow
(Outage)
Med 1 LS $ 282,000 $ 479,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Callan Street near the intersection of Callan Street and Arizona Avenue, replace existing 6-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-28 Fire Flow
(Outage)
Med 145 lf $ 50,750 $ 86,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Gross Street, near the intersection of Gross Street and Conway Street, replace existing 6-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-31 Fire Flow
(Outage)
Med 171 lf $ 59,850 $ 102,000
New Pipeline
(Developed Area)
Along Curtis Avenue, connect the existing 10-inch diameter pipeline on the northern side of the street to the existing 18-inch diameter pipeline on the southern side of the street with a new, 12-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PN-01 Fire Flow
(Outage)
Med 30 lf $ 10,500 $ 18,000
New Pipeline
(Developed Area)
Along Hammond Way, east of Tom Evatt Park, connect the existing 8-inch diameter pipelines in Zone VW1 with a new, 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PN-02 Fire Flow
(Outage)
Med 57 lf $ 19,950 $ 34,000
Backup Generator Install a backup generator at the Country Club Pump Station. ECIP-BG-CC General Reliability
Low 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 340,000
Backup Generator Install a backup generator at the Tularcitos Pump Station. ECIP-BG-TL General Reliability
Low 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 340,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Santa Rita Drive near the intersection of Santa Rita Drive and Via Baja Drive, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-32 Hydrant
Service(f)
Low 21 lf $ 7,350 $ 12,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Calle del Prado, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-33 Hydrant
Service(f)
Low 89 lf $ 31,150 $ 53,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Kennedy Drive between Topham Court and Prada Drive, replace existing 4- inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-34 Hydrant
Service(f)
Low 331 lf $ 115,850 $ 197,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Ramos Court, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-36 Hydrant
Service(f)
Low 62 lf $ 21,700 $ 37,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Stemel Court, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-37 Hydrant
Service(f)
Low 45 lf $ 15,750 $ 27,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Sepulveda Court, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-38 Hydrant
Service(f)
Low 21 lf $ 7,350 $ 12,000
Pipeline
Improvement
Along Berg Court, replace existing 4-inch diameter pipeline with 8-inch diameter pipeline.

ECIP-PI-39 Hydrant
Service(f)
Low 107 lf $ 37,450 $ 64,000
$ 9,929,000
(f) To comply with the City's design guidelines, West Yost also recommends upsizing pipelines less than 6 inches in diameter that serve hydrants.

Quantity
Table 11-2. Probable Construction Costs for Recommended Improvements to Existing System(a) Total
(a) Costs shown are in 2020 dollars and have been updated from those presented in the March 2021 Draft Water Master Plan to account for the recent bidding climate. (b) Estimated construction costs do not reflect an adjustment to account for the current economic bidding climate. (c) Costs include mark-ups equal to 70 percent (Design and Construction Contingency: 35 percent; Engineering Design: 10 percent; Construction Management: 15 percent; and Permitting and Implementation: 10 percent). (d) Total rounded to the nearest $1,000.
(e) Since this an upgrade to an existing pump station (and not a new pump station), the estimated cost is discounted 50 percent. n\c\270\60-19-16\e\t8\ch11
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 06-13-22
578
Item # 16.

Chapter 11
Recommended Capital Improvement Program
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
11-4 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
The total CIP cost (including mark-ups) for improvements to the existing system is approximately $9.9 million. This includes a 50 percent discount for the new pump at the Ayer pump station, since the cost basis assumes an entirely new pump station, while the recommendation is to provide an additional pump at an existing pump station. In other words, a cost was developed for a new pump station with a firm capacity of 5.76 mgd (4,000 gpm), and half that cost was used to estimate installing a new 4,000-gpm pump at Ayer.

11.3 IMPROVEMENTS FROM FUTURE SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Chapter 9 summarized the evaluation of the City’s future (i.e., buildout) potable water system and its ability to meet recommended operational and design criteria listed in Table 7-1 of this report. Evaluation of the buildout system assumed that improvements recommended from the existing system analysis were implemented. Any buildout system deficiencies were then addressed via additional improvements.

Table 11-3 presents preliminary capital cost estimates for the recommended buildout system improvements. With demands in the VW service area increasing over 65 percent from existing levels, supply and storage capacity improvements are recommended. In addition to a new storage reservoir, the Curtis Well helps address the storage capacity deficiency at buildout by providing an emergency groundwater storage credit. The Cedar EPRV will help serve fire flows in Zone VW1 and improve system reliability. Since these projects address capacity deficiencies or improve fire flow, all are considered high priority. Appendix G contains project summary sheets for each of these recommended improvements.

The total CIP cost (including mark-ups) for improvements to the buildout system is approximately $16.6 million. This total does not include land acquisition costs, which may be necessary for the new storage reservoir. A public service utility easement is available for the Piper turnout, but space is limited.

As a result, it is assumed a pump station will not be constructed at the Piper turnout. While the Gibraltar facility has a pump station to boost low pressures from the Gibraltar turnout, to date the City has not used it. Therefore, constructing the Piper turnout without a booster pump station is acceptable.

11.4 IMPROVEMENTS FROM RISK AND RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT
West Yost conducted an RRA in compliance with the requirements of the 2018 America’s Water Infrastructure Act. This effort includes assessments of both cyber and physical risks and resilience and development of a risk and resilience strategy. Recommendations from the RRA, referred to as risk and resilience management strategies (RRMS), include physical upgrades, planning efforts, and cyber security projects.

Table 11-4 presents the recommended RRMS, organized by project type, along with a project description and priority as assigned in the RRA. High-level cost estimates were developed for four of the 23 RRMS.

These four projects and their costs, which total approximately $2.1 million (2020 dollars), are included in the CIP summary and phasing detailed in Section 11.5.
579
Item # 16.

Improvement Type Improvement Description CIP ID
Reason for
Improvement Priority
Estimated
Construction
Cost(b), dollars
CIP Cost (includes
mark-ups)(c,d),
dollars
Turnout New VW turnout near the intersection of Piper Drive and Garden Street with a capacity of 10,000 gpm (14.4 mgd). BCIP-TO-01 Firm Supply Capacity High 1 LS $ 313,000 $ 532,000 Storage Reservoir(e) 2.0 MG reservoir in VW service area. BCIP-S-01 Storage Capacity High 1 LS $ 3,254,000 $ 5,532,000
Pump Station Firm capacity of 4,000 gpm (5.76 mgd) for new storage reservoir. BCIP-PS-01 Storage Capacity High 1 LS $ 2,433,466 $ 4,137,000
Groundwater Well(f) Construct Curtis Well. BCIP-W-01 Storage Capacity High 1 LS $ 3,500,000 $ 5,950,000
Interconnection
Near the intersection of Cedar Way and South Main Street, replace the existing (normally closed) isolation valve separating Zones SF1 and VW1 with a new emergency PRV (Cedar EPRV).

BCIP-V-01 Fire Flow High 1 LS $ 282,000 $ 479,000
$ 16,630,000
(f) Estimated construction cost assumes Curtis Well capacity is between 500 and 1,000 gpm. A higher capacity may result in higher costs. (d) Total rounded to the nearest $1,000.

Table 11-3. Probable Construction Costs for Recommended Improvements to Future System(a) Quantity
Total
(a) Costs shown are in 2020 dollars.
(b) Estimated construction costs do not reflect an adjustment to account for the current economic bidding climate. (c) Costs include mark-ups equal to 70 percent (Design and Construction Contingency: 35 percent; Engineering: 10 percent; Construction Management: 15 percent; and Program Implementation: 10 percent). (e) Recommended active volume. Cost assumes the storage reservoir will be an aboveground steel tank. Land acquisition costs are not included. n\c\270\60-19-16\e\t8\ch11
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 10-30-20
580
Item # 16.

Project Type
Project
No. Project Name(b) Project Description(b) Priority
CIP Cost(c),
dollars
1 Physical Security Updates -
Perimeter Fencing
Enhance security of site perimeters by establishing and implementing a minimum fencing standard (e.g., 8-feet high, anti-climb fabric, barbed wire). High $ 30,000 2 Physical Security Updates -
Turnout
Enhance security of turnout site perimeter by installing minimum 8-ft fencing. Property owned by SFPUC. Work with SFPUC to make improvements. High
3 Warning Signage Install signage at all facilities to inform that trespassing, tampering, and vandalism are criminal acts under relevant federal statutes. High
4 Site Security Protocols Implement policy of keeping all gates and doors locked at reservoir and pump station sites, and require key or access card to open. High $ 20,000
5 Harden Critical Transmission
Mains against Earthquakes -
Emergency Connections
Install overland piping connections for critical pipelines that may be used to provide temporary distribution capacity. High
6 Harden Critical Transmission
Mains against Earthquakes -
Emergency Connections
Exercises
Conduct periodic exercises for existing overland piping connections across faults. High 7 Harden Critical Transmission
Mains against Earthquakes -
Replace Isolation Valves
Following implementation of a program to locate and assess isolation valves on critical transmission mains (see Harden Critical Transmission Mains against Earthquakes - Identify Isolation Valves).

Replace isolation valves according to priority.

High $ 2,000,000
8 Harden Critical Reservoirs
against Earthquakes - Isolation
Valves
Assess and replace (as needed) isolation valves and buried connections at reservoirs. Medium 9 ShakeAlert Participation Enroll in program to receive early warning indications from USGS (or other agencies). Development of protocols for responding to ShakeAlert signals included in other RRMS projects Medium $ 85,000 10 Valve Integration with
ShakeAlert
Install new or modify existing automatic valves to be integrated with or informed by ShakeAlert.

Develop remote valve closure protocol to prevent leakage of safe drinking water from reservoirs during and following an earthquake. Coordinate valve closure protocol with Distribution.

High
11 Equipment Integration with
ShakeAlert
Integrate ShakeAlert with process controls to prevent or reduce earthquake damage. Develop protocols for equipment shutdowns based on risk. High
12 Retrofit Steel Reservoirs to
Meet Sloshing Wave Standard
Evaluation of the City's reservoir roof and overflow heights and reservoir operating levels revealed that maximum potential sloshing wave height triggered by an earthquake would exceed the reservoir roof heights for all of the City's reservoirs. This could result in structural damage to the reservoirs.

Steel reservoirs may be physically retrofitted to increase the roof height to meet the sloshing wave standard. It is recommended that the reservoirs be retrofitted to meet the standard.

Low
13 Implement Seismic Design
Standards for Pipeline Upgrades
and Replacements
Seismic design standards for pipelines were previously identified in the 2006 City of Milpitas Water System Seismic Improvements Strategic Plan (prepared by DWSA). This project would be a continuation of implementation of the recommended upgrades to pipelines within the system.

Medium
14 Security Cameras for Critical
and Remote Facilities
Where feasible, install PTZ security cameras at the most critical and remote assets. Evaluate feasibility of storing footage from new cameras. This effort is currently in progress. High 15 Fire Pump at Ayer Pump Station
Install fire pump at the Ayer Pump Station to increase fire flow capacity when the SFPUC turnouts are offline. Note that this project is also included in the recommendations for the 2020 Water Master Plan.

High
16 Harden Critical Transmission
Mains against Earthquakes -
Identify and Assess Isolation
Valves
Locate distribution system PRVs and isolation valves, determine if the valves are functional, evaluate the condition of the valves, and record and summarize the data collected during the field investigation. Following evaluation of the distribution valves prioritize valves for maintenance/replacement.

Medium
17 Evaluate Concrete Reservoirs
Ability to Withstand Sloshing
Wave Forces
Evaluation of the City's reservoir roof and overflow heights and reservoir operating levels revealed that maximum potential sloshing wave height triggered by an earthquake would exceed the reservoir roof heights for all of the City's reservoirs. This could result in structural damage to the reservoirs.

Concrete roofs may be capable of withstanding forces produced by the sloshing wave if the roof height does not meet the standard, however, further evaluation by a structural engineer is recommended to confirm this.

Complete
18 Develop and Implement a
SCADA Master Plan
Prepare a SCADA Master Plan to provide a road map for utility-wide SCADA system policies, procedures and improvements; provide increased security and uniformity across utility. This project would include or provide definition to the projects listed here. This effort is currently in progress.

High
19 Conduct Day Without SCADA
Exercises & Document
Capabilities
Following implementation of the City's new SCADA system, conduct emergency preparedness exercises to test operation of distribution system without automation (SCADA). Since the City currently operates the system without the use of SCADA, the purpose of this excercise is to maintain staff knowledge and capabilities.

High
20 Engage DHS for Cybersecurity
Services
Engage Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) for cybersecurity services including assessments, tools, and recommendations. CISA offers a wide range of assessments. At a minimum, this project will engage DHS for a Phishing Campaign Assessment and a Remote Penetration Test. To be implemented following implementation of SCADA.

Medium
21 Business Continuity Plan Develop a Business Continuity Plan to outline the policies and procedures the City must follow to resume business operations following a major disruption (fire, flood, earthquake, cyberattack, etc.). High 22 Day without Phone Exercises Exercise radio skills on bi-annual basis with monthly radio call ins. Planning for this exercise is currently in progress. High
23 Functional Training on ERP Conduct functional training exercises on the City's ERP to prepare staff for emergency events. Medium $ 2,135,000
Table 11-4. Risk and Resilience Assessment Management Strategies(a) Total
(a) Costs shown are in 2020 dollars.
(b) Project names and descriptions have been generalized to not identify specific system vulnerabilities. (c) Costs were only developed for four projects recommended in the Risk and Resilience Assessment.

Physical Upgrade
Planning and Studies
Cyber Security
Shorter Term Activities
or Projects
n\c\270\60-19-16\e\t8\ch11
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 02-17-21
581
Item # 16.

Chapter 11
Recommended Capital Improvement Program
N270- 60-19-16R-MP
11-7 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022

11.5 SUMMARY AND PHASING OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
This section combines the above recommendations and organizes them into five-year CIP periods according to project priority. CIP phasing generally consists of five-year periods spanning from 2021 through 2051. This period is 31 years, so the final CIP period spans six years (2046-2051). It was assumed that improvements from the existing system analysis would be implemented in the next ten years (i.e., by 2030), while improvements from the future system analysis would be implemented when existing facilities can no longer meet operational criteria summarized in Table 7-1 of this report.

It was assumed that condition assessments, water meter test development, and physical upgrades would occur by 2025. Asset renewal and replacement follows the schedule presented in Table 10-9 of this report.

Note, the asset renewal and replacement schedule was developed based on asset age and is subject to change pending findings from the recommended detailed condition assessments.

For the existing system analysis, high priority improvements are assigned to the 2021-2025 CIP period, while medium and low priority improvements are assigned to the 2026-2030 CIP period. As noted in Section 9.4 of this report, storage capacity is expected to become insufficient around 2032. Therefore, the new storage reservoir and Curtis Well (which reduces the storage requirement via an emergency groundwater storage credit) are assigned to the 2031-2035 CIP period. In contrast, firm supplies (i.e., largest turnout in each service area offline) can meet demands until around 2038, so the Piper turnout can be pushed to the 2036-2040 CIP period.

Table 11-5 summarizes the proposed CIP phasing and cost in 2020 dollars. Improvements are grouped according to their “source” (e.g., Renewal and Replacement Study), and their costs are assigned to a fiveyear CIP period. The total CIP cost through 2051 is approximately $82.1 million (2020 dollars). 582
Item # 16.

Table 11-5. Capital Improvement Program Phasing
2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 2046-2051(b) Total Improvements from Renewal and Replacement Study (Chapter 10) Pipeline Condition Assessment $0.5 - - - - - $0.5
Detailed Facility Condition Assessment $2.2 - - - - - $2.2 Water Meter Test Program $0.1 - - - - - $0.1
Asset Renewal and Replacement $17.1 $1.4 $1.6 $3.3 $17.0 $10.1 $50.5 Subtotal $20.0 $1.4 $1.6 $3.3 $17.0 $10.1 $53.4
Improvements from Existing System Analysis (Chapter 8)
Hammond EPRV and Corning Isolation Valve $0.5 - - - - - $0.5 Pipeline Improvements - Fire Flow $5.6 - - - - - $5.6
Fire Pump at Ayer Pump Station - $2.1 - - - - $2.1
Diel EPRV - $0.5 - - - - $0.5
Pipeline Improvements and New Pipelines - Fire Flow (Outage) - $0.2 - - - - $0.2 Backup Generators at Country Club and Tularcitos Pump Stations - $0.7 - - - - $0.7 Hydrant Service Pipeline Improvements - $0.4 - - - - $0.4 Subtotal $6.1 $3.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $9.9
Improvements from Future System Analysis (Chapter 9)
Piper Turnout - - - $0.5 - - $0.5
VW Storage Reservoir - - $5.5 - - - $5.5
Pump Station for VW Storage Reservoir - - $4.1 - - - $4.1 Curtis Well - - $6.0 - - - $6.0
Cedar EPRV - - $0.5 - - - $0.5
Subtotal $0.0 $0.0 $16.1 $0.5 $0.0 $0.0 $16.6
Improvements from Risk and Resilience Assessment(c)
Perimeter Fencing $0.030 - - - - - $0.030
Site Security Protocols $0.020 - - - - - $0.020
Replace Isolation Valves $2.0 - - - - - $2.0
ShakeAlert Participation $0.085 - - - - - $0.085
Subtotal $2.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.1
Total $28.2 $5.3 $17.7 $3.8 $17.0 $10.1 $82.1
Capital Cost, $M(a)
Improvement
(a) Costs shown are in 2020 dollars and have been updated from those presented in the March 2021 Draft Water Master Plan to account for the recent bidding climate. (c) Costs were only developed for four projects recommended in the Risk and Resilience Assessment. (b) Includes forecasted renewal and replacement costs for the year 2051. n\c\270\60-19-16\e\t8\ch11
City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
Last Revised: 06-13-22
583
Item # 16.

N270- 60-19-16R-MP
12-1 City of Milpitas
Water Master Plan
June 2022
CHAPTER 12
References
Below is a list of references used for the preparation of this Water Master Plan, sorted alphabetically by author.

City of Milpitas. December 1994 (amended April 2015). Milpitas General Plan.

City of Milpitas. March 2002 (updated 2010). Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan.

City of Milpitas. June 2010. Engineering Design Guidelines, Water (Potable).

City of Milpitas. April 2015. City of Milpitas General Plan.

City of Milpitas. June 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

De Novo Planning Group. June 2018. Milpitas General Plan Update – Existing Conditions Report.

De Novo Planning Group. September 2018 (amended January 2019). Milpitas General Plan Update – Land Use Alternatives Report.

De Novo Planning Group. February 2020. Draft Environmental Impact Report – Milpitas General Plan.

De Novo Planning Group. August 2020. Draft General Plan 2040 City of Milpitas.

Dyett & Bhatia. June 2008 (amended December 2011). Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan.

JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc.. 2018. City of Milpitas Citywide Soil Corrosivity Survey Report.

Maddaus Water Management, Inc.. February 2020. Technical Memorandum #2 BAWSCA Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections Demand Forecast.

Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. December 2002. City of Milpitas 2002 Water Master Plan.

Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. December 2009. City of Milpitas 2009 Water Master Plan Update.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. April 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2019. San Francisco Regional Water System 2019 Annual Water Quality Report.

State of California, Department of Finance. May 2019. Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1, 2018 and 2019.

State of California, Department of Finance. May 2020. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2019 and 2020.

State of California, Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.

State of California, Department of Water Resources. December 2019. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2019 Basin Prioritization – Process and Results.

Ulrick & Associates. March 2016. Evaluation of Alternative Municipal Well Sites.

Valley Water. May 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

Valley Water. November 2019. Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Supply Master Plan 2040.

Water Solutions, Inc. April 2016. Groundwater Well Evaluation. 584
Item # 16.

Water System Schematic Profile
Appendix A
585
Item # 16.
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
EPRV

SFPUC SCVWD

N MILPITAS
PRV

GIBRALTAR
PRV

COUNTRY

CLUB PS

TULARCITOS PS

TULARCITOS TANK

0.31 MG
ELEV: 567'

GIBRALTAR SCVWD

TURNOUT

GIBRALTAR

EMERGENCY BOOSTER

GIBRALTAR TANK
5 MGD ELEV: 48'

CAPITOL
PRV
CURTIS
PRV

GIBRALTAR PRV
SUNNY

HILLS PRV

LIVE OAK EPRV

JUNIPERO EPRV

GIBRALTAR TANK
5 MG ELEV: 48'

GIBRALTAR PS

MAIN ST
PRV

YOSEMITE EPRV MONTAGUE
ZONE 1SF HGL = 200' EPRV
ZONE 2SF HGL = 340'

MINNIS TANK

0.35 MG ELEV: 908'

TULARCITOS
S. VAULT
ZONE 1SC HGL = 200'
ZONE 2SC HGL = 258'

AYER TANK

5.6 MG ELEV: 85'
AYER
PRV

MAIN ST

TURNOUT

GIBRALTAR

TURNOUT

CALAVERAS BLVD

TURNOUT

SUNNYHILLS

TURNOUT
Elev (FT)

TULARCITOS
N. VAULT

ALAMEDA COUNTY

WATER DISTRICT INTERTIE
HGL: 190'

SAN JOSE

WATER INTERTIE
HGL: 345'

ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER

DISTRICT INTERTIE
HGL: 345'

CURTIS WELL

PINEWOOD WELL
San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission
Santa Clara Valley
Water District LEGEND

WHOLESALER SUPPLY LINE

CITY DISTRIBUTION LINE

EMERGENCY/NORMALLY CLOSED LINE

SERVICE ZONE

VALVE (NORMALLY CLOSED)
WELL

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE (PRV)

EMERGENCY PRV

CITY RESERVOIR

PUMP STATION (PS)

TURNOUT

INTERTIE

GIBRALTAR
PS

GIBRALTAR
PRV

CALIFORNIA

CIRCLE EPRV MCCARTHY
EPRV

EPRV EPRV
EPRV
EPRV

EPRV EPRV
SCVWD MILPITAS PIPELINE HGL: 425'

SFPUC BAY DIVISION
PIPELINES NO. 3 & 4
HGL: 340'
AYER
PS
PRV
PRV

PRV PRV
PRV
PRV
PRV
PRV
NOTE:

Tank Elevations shown are Top of Tank Elevation

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES

PRV NAME HGL
MAIN ST 207'

GIBRALTAR UK
N MILPITAS 207'

AYER UK
SUNNY HILLS 199'
TULARCITOS SOUTH VAULT 762'
TULARCITOS NORTH VAULT 707'
CALERA CREEK HEIGHTS 787'
CAPITOL 201'
GIBRALTAR 325'
CURTIS 202'

GIBRALTAR UK

PARC METRO UK
MCCARTHY 73'
CALIFORNIA CIRCLE 71'
LIVE OAK 125'
JUNIPERO 169'
MONTAGUE 216'
YOSEMITE 211' SFPUC SCVWD EMERGENCY

MCCANDLESS WELL
(FUTURE)

PRV PARC
METRO
PRV
PRV
ZONE 4SF-1 HGL = 740'
ZONE 4SF-2 HGL = 885'
ZONE 3SF HGL = 545'
PRV
PRV
PRV
NOTE:

UK denotes unknown

PRV CALERA
CREEK

HEIGHTS
0 City of Milpitas
Water Distribution System Plan
Schematic Profile
586
Item # 16.

System Operations Narratives
Appendix B
587
Item # 16.
588
Item # 16.
589
Item # 16.
590
Item # 16.
591
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Water System Emergency Operations Scenarios This document is a simplified overview of some of the possible emergency conditions that may arise and what changes to system operations are possible to mitigate the impacts of those conditions on the delivery of water to the City’s water system customers. This is not a comprehensive how-to manual, as each emergency condition is unique, and the exact circumstances will dictate the actual actions to be taken.

This document is intended as a guide to what is possible, and to help guide the responder to considering all possible actions in response to any specific emergency condition. The scenarios below are listed individually, but may occur in any combination, and each will have to be taken into consideration and weighed against the existing system conditions at the time.

SCENARIOS

1. Loss of Supply
a. Loss of SFPUC Supply
b. Loss of SCVWD (VW) Supply
c. Loss of both SFPUC & VW Supply
d. Loss of Well Supplies

2. Pump Station Issues
a. Loss of PG&E power
i. Ayer
ii. Gibraltar
iii. Hillside
iv. Wells
b. Loss of water supply
i. Gibraltar
ii. Ayer
iii. Hillside
592
Item # 16.

3. Distribution System Issues
a. PRV Station loss/malfunction
b. Zone interconnection
c. Agency interconnection
d. Contamination
e. Fire suppression aid
f. Main Line break
g. Fire hydrant hit
h. Construction shutdowns/tie-ins
593
Item # 16.

1. Loss of Supply
a. Loss of SFPUC supply
The loss of SFPUC supply may can occur in three ways: Loss of a single turnout, a reduction in quantity from SFPUC, or the total loss of supply from SFPUC.
i. Loss of a Turnout
SFPUC water is supplied to the City by four turnouts:

Sunny Hills, Calaveras, Main Street and the
SFPUC/SCVWD Intertie (when available). The loss of a
single turnout can be compensated by the other
turnouts. Changes in flow patterns within the
distribution system will occur which can result in lower pressures in the extremities of the system and dirty
water in areas where the flow has reversed or
increased. These changes are most significant in zone
SF2. The use of Ayer pump station to support peak use
times is recommended.
ii. Reduction of Supply from SFPUC
In the event SFPUC cannot meet demands there may be a
reduction in supply. Here are the possible ways to add
supply to zones SF1 and SF2:

1. Pump from storage at Gibraltar and Ayer;

2. Activate Pinewood Well to pump to zone SF1;

3. (FUTURE) Activate Curtis Well to pump to either
Gibraltar or zone SF2;

4. Use water from SCVWD at Gibraltar to supply zone
SF1 through the use of the Intertie turnout;

5. Use water from SCVWD at Gibraltar to fill SFPUC
reservoir and pump to zone SF1;

6. Use water from SCVWD by opening isolation valves
in zones SC1 and/or SC2;
594
Item # 16.

7. Contact ACWD and/or SJ Muni to activate intercity
interties for zones SF1 & 2 – significant pressure
differences exist, and this is a last resort.
iii. Total loss of supply from SFPUC
In the unlikely event we lose all supply from SFPUC or
are required to isolate from SFPUC, the options are
similar to the partial loss scenario above but may
require a combination of options. Pumping from
storage is the most immediate remedy while the other
options are set up. Storage will not last long and is
dependent on the amount of water in storage at that
moment and the time of year the outage occurs. If the
outage will last more than a few days, use of Pinewood
and (future) Curtis Wells may be significant, as SCVWD
will likely be tasked to help provide water to SFPUC and their supply may also be limited.
b. Loss of SCVWD Supply
SCVWD water is only supplied to the City through a single turnout located at Gibraltar Pump Station. Loss of supply may occur as a reduction in available water or as a total loss. i. Supply Reduction and Total Loss Options

1. Pump from storage at Gibraltar and use the
VW turnout only to provide water to the
SCVWD reservoir;

2. Use SF water from the SFPUC/VW Intertie
directly from the Intertie turnout using the
Intertie PRV into zone SC2 – pressure will be
reduced to about 130 to 135 psi, max;

3. Use water from zone SF1 to provide water to the
SCVWD reservoir either directly (pumping to zone
595
Item # 16.

SF1 will not be possible in this configuration) or
by floating the two reservoirs, while pumping to
zone SC2.
c. Total Loss of both VW and SFPUC Supplies
i. In the event both wholesale suppliers lose the ability to provide water to the City, the remaining supplies are
limited to

1. Storage at Ayer and Gibraltar;

2. Pinewood, McCandless and Curtis Wells;

3. Intercity Interties with ACWD and SJWC.
ii. Pumping from storage would be the first recourse until the other two options are brought online. Ayer can
supply water from the center of zone SF2. Gibraltar
can provide water to zones SF1 and SC2.
iii. Pinewood Well can pump to zone SF1 directly. Future options may allow it to pump to zone SC1.
iv. McCandless Well, when completed, will be able to
pump directly to zone SC1.
v. Curtis Well, if completed, will be able to pump to any of the following:

1. Gibraltar Pump Station, either or both reservoirs;

2. Zone SF2;

3. Zone SC2; or

4. Zone SC1
vi. Intercity Interties with ACWD can provide water to
zones SF1 and SF 2 if ACWD has water to provide,
along the City’s north border.
vii. An Intercity Intertie with SJWC can provide water to zone SF2 along the southeast border of the City if SJWC has water to provide and the zone pressure in our zone
SF2 is low enough to accept water from SJWC.
d. Loss of Well Supplies
i. Currently, the only well capable of supplying water to the City is Pinewood Well. It is currently permitted as 596
Item # 16.
an Emergency Standby Well. Loss of this well would
remove it from the options to provide water in the
scenarios listed previously.
ii. Once all three of the City’s wells are completed and brought into service as everyday supplies, the loss of
supply from these wells would increase the amount of
water the City would pull from its wholesale providers, which could have contract implications. In the event of an emergency, the loss of these wells as backup water
supplies would eliminate the ability of the City to have an independent water supply under its control and
eliminate this option as a means to provide water
under any of the other emergency scenarios listed
previously.

2. Pump Station Issues
a. Loss of PG&E Power
i. Ayer

1. Ayer Pump Station is equipped with a 1,000 KW
Caterpillar Genset which is capable of
automatically starting and completely powering
the station and all three pumps in the event of
the loss of outside power.

2. The station has a 1,000 gallon (900 gallon
useable) above ground fuel storage tank that is
capable of running the station for 24 hours
before requiring refueling.
ii. Gibraltar

1. Gibraltar Pump Station is equipped with a 2.5
MW Genset which is capable of automatically
starting and completely powering the pump
station and all pumps in the event of the loss of
outside power.

2. The station has a 10,000 gallon (9,000 gallons
useable) above ground fuel tank that is capable
597
Item # 16.
of running the genset for 72 hours before
refueling would be required.

3. The station also has 3 diesel powered pumps
which can run independently with local
controllers even if the station has no power.

Pump 2 can be used to pump to zone SC2, pump
3 can be used to pump to zone SF1, and Pump 7
can be used as a booster to pump water directly
from the SCVWD turnout into zone SC2.
iii. Hillside

1. All three Hillside stations are reliant on PG&E
power for operation. All three do have a UPS
battery emergency supply that will maintain power
to the control panel and communications only.

2. Country Club and Tularcitos pump stations have a
quick connect transfer switch mounted on the
outside of the control building enclosures to be
used with a portable trailer genset in the event of
a power outage.

3. Country Club and Tularcitos also have pumper
connections that can be used with either a trailer
mounted portable pump or with a fire truck to
act as emergency pumps and bypass the station
to pump water to the next station. The City has a
portable Paco trailer mounted pump with a
capacity of approximately 1,000 gpm that can be
used at either station.
iv. Wells

1. Pinewood well is not currently set up to easily
take power from a portable generator set, nor
does it have any installed backup power
generator set. Loss of PG&E Utility power will
render the well essentially inoperable and unable
to serve water into the distribution system.
598
Item # 16.

2. McCandless Well is being designed with a quick
connect backup power transfer connection
switch similar to the Hillside pump stations and
should be operable to at least serve water on an
emergency basis.

3. Curtis Well will likely be designed to the same
standard as McCandless and able to use a
portable generator as backup power to serve
water on an emergency basis.
b. Loss of Water Supply
i. Gibraltar

1. Gibraltar Pump Station has three water supply
sources:
a. 42” pipeline from VW, known as the
Milpitas Pipeline or the East Pipeline;
b. 24” distribution line from Zone 1SF which
can draw water from Main Street Turnout
PRVs and Milpitas PRV (the Zone 1SF
connection to the Calaveras Turnout);
c. 10” connection to the VW/SFPUC Intertie
which we call the Intertie Turnout, and
normally draws SF water and is closed
when VW is using the Intertie to send water
to SFPUC.

2. Virtually any of these supplies can be used to
support the loss of any other supply through the
use of valving at the pump station and/or the use
of the two reservoirs onsite. The pump station
was designed with versatility in mind, both in the
manner and number of pump installations and in
the use of valves and bypass pipelines. There are
too many combinations possible to list them out
individually. Here we will list the general
possibilities – the Operator is encouraged to
599
Item # 16.
carefully examine the potential water pathways
for each situation to arrive at the best possible
solution and to ensure no harm will be done.

3. Loss of the 42” VW supply:
a. Intertie supply can be used through the
Intertie PRV by setting to its highest
pressure setpoint and closing the normally
open connection to Zone 1SF and then
opening the normally closed connection to
Zone 2SC - PRV will support about 130 – 135
psi, so zone will run at a slightly lower
pressure - the SF reservoir cannot be filled
while in this mode;
b. Booster or Peak Shaving pumps can be used
to supply water from storage by using a
Flow Through setup to supply the reservoir
from Zone 1SF – Pumps can be run in
conjunction with the Intertie PRV by setting
the pumps to the same pressure as the PRV
or the pumps can run in lead at a higher
pressure with the Intertie PRV acting as a
backup supply. Pumps 3 and 4 cannot be
used to pump water from the SF reservoir
while supplying water to the SC reservoir
from zone 1SF.
c. The 30” suction lines from the two 5 MG
reservoirs can be linked together by
opening valve BFV 101 between pumps 2
and 3. The level between the two
reservoirs should be as close to the same as
possible – the larger the difference
between them, the higher the water
velocity will be as valve BFV 101 is opened
and the levels begin to equalize. This
600
Item # 16.
method allows filling to occur through the
SF reservoir from either zone 1SF or the
Intertie PRV.

4. Loss of 24” zone 1SF line supply:
a. Use the Intertie supply to fill reservoir and
supply zone 1SF directly. Do not run pump
4 or 3 at the same time as filling the
reservoir from zone 1SF, water will only
recirculate and not supply the zone.
b. Use the SC reservoir by opening valve BFV
101 to equalize the SC and SF reservoirs.

See 2.b.i.3.c. above for caveats about
opening valve BFV 101.
c. Use the zone 2SC supply by closing valve
BFV 020 and then opening valve BFV 021A
to fill the SF reservoir from zone 2SC and
use pump 4 and/or 3 to supply zone 1SF.

This CANNOT be used to directly supply
zone 1SF from zone 2SC due to the
higher pressure.

5. Loss of 10” VW/SFPUC Intertie supply
a. This supply is normally only used when the
Intertie is not being used to send water
from VW to SFPUC or vice versa. Normal
configuration sends SFPUC water through
this connection to our zone 1SF. Loss of this
supply is made up from the 18” connection
to zone 1SF which draws water through the
distribution system from the low pressure
supply PRV at Main St turnout and/or the
Milpitas PRV, which is a nearly direct
connection to the Calaveras Turnout.
b. If it is not possible to fill the SF reservoir
through the distribution system connection
601
Item # 16.
to zone 1SF, there is a normally closed
connection to zone 2SC which can be used
to fill the SF reservoir. Since this is a high
pressure zone, it cannot be used to directly
supply zone 1SF – this must be done
through use of pumps 3 and/or 4.
c. An additional method to use VW water to
supply zone 1SF is to open the 30” isolation
valve between the two reservoirs so they
are both filled from the VW supply and use
pumps 3 and/or 4 to send water to
zone 1SF.
ii. Ayer

1. Ayer is supplied solely from zone 2SF. The station
currently has a single inlet/outlet design, so
water can only flow one way into or out of the
station at any given time, meaning the station
can pump out water or fill the reservoir, but
cannot do both at the same time.

2. Calaveras Turnout is the main source of supply to
Ayer pump station via large mains that come
directly east on Calaveras Blvd from the Calaveras
Blvd turnout and valve lot.

3. Loss of supply to Ayer would only occur if there
were a loss of the pipeline that supplies the station
from Calaveras Blvd, or if that segment of line was
not in operation. There is no alternative supply for
Ayer in either of those events, and Ayer would not
be able to pump water out to the system,
regardless of the quantity of water in storage.

4. A CIP project to provide a secondary pipeline
connection from zone 2SF to the station has
been proposed, but is not currently in design or
under construction.
602
Item # 16.
iii. Hillside

1. The Hillside, or La Questa, water system has only
a single supply source – zone 2SF. Water is
supplied from system pressure in zone 2SF to
Country Club Pump Station. CCPS then pumps
water into zone 3SF through a 12 inch
transmission and distribution line via 2 250 gpm
submersible vertical turbine pumps. This line
both supplies the zone and delivers water to a
350,000 gallon reservoir (Tularcitos) at the top of
the zone. This reservoir provides gravity pressure
to the zone when the pumps are not in use.

2. There is no alternative source of supply if water
cannot be delivered from zone 2SF to CCPS. If
CCPS experiences failure that results in neither of
the 2 pumps being able to pump water, then a
backup potable water trailer pump must be
brought in to act as the pump station. This pump
would hook up to a fire hydrant at the pump
station that would provide water from zone 2SF
to the suction side of the trailer pump, and then
the discharge line from the trailer pump would
be connected to a special pumper connection
designed for this purpose to provide water to
zone 3SF. If the trailer pump is not available for
some reason, a fire engine pumper can also
be used.

3. Tularcitos reservoir and pump station is the next
step in the Hillside water system. Tularcitos
Pump station is nearly identical to CCPS in that it
has 2 250 gpm submersible vertical turbine
pumps that send water from zone 3SF and/or the
Tularcitos Reservoir and deliver it into a 12 inch
combination distribution/transmission line that
603
Item # 16.
serves zone 4SFa and Minnis Reservoir. Minnis
Reservoir provides gravity head and flow for
zones 4SFa and 4SFb.

4. Loss of the pumps at Tularcitos would result in
the loss of water supply to Minnis and zones
4SFa&b. Use of a trailer pump would be needed
to replace the function of those pumps, similar to
CCPS. Supply would come from a connection on
the Tularcitos Reservoir, and discharge would be
connected to a special pumper connection,
similar to CCPS, to supply water to zone 4SFa and
Minnis Reservoir.

5. Loss of the Tularcitos Reservoir would result in
the loss of gravity supplied water to zone 3SF.

There are two ways to compensate for this
reservoir being out of service.
a. At CCPS there is a pressure relief valve
located in a vault with a manhole cover
between the fenced pump station and
Country Club Drive. This pressure relief
valve is specifically there to enable the CCPS
pumps to be run constantly to supply water
to zone 3SF at a constant pressure. The
pumps at CCPS are single speed pumps and
cannot be ramped up and down to respond
to demand changes in the zone to maintain
a constant pressure. Instead, the relief
valve will open at a set pressure to relieve
the excess discharge from the pumps back
into zone 2SF. This is not a perfect solution
because the water discharged back into
zone 2SF simply returns to the suction side
of the CCPS pumps, thus running in a circle,
and will result in the water being heated
604
Item # 16.
and boiled by the pumps if not relieved.

The solution to this is to use hoses to run a
constant flow from hose bib connections on
the discharge of each pump to the storm
drain so that a minimal flow of new water is
always coming into the pumps to keep
them cool.
b. The other method to replace the supply
from Tularcitos Reservoir is to use a
combination pressure relief valve/pressure
reducing valve located at Tularcitos Pump
Station. There is a double leaf hatch
covered vault with this valve located within.

This valve has dual pilot valve systems
installed on it, and normally uses the pilot
valve system that is configured to run the
valve as a pressure relief valve. This pilot
system must be shut down, and the pilot
valve system on the other side opened to
configure the valve as a pressure reducing
valve. This valve is connected to zone 4SFa
and zone 3SF. As a relief valve it opens to
relieve excess pressure from zone 4SFa to
zone 3SF. As a pressure reducing valve, it
opens to maintain use water from zone
4SFa/Minnis Reservoir to maintain a set
pressure in zone 3SF, thus doing what
Tularcitos reservoir was doing. This is the
preferred method to use when Tularcitos
Reservoir is not in service to maintain
pressure in zone 3SF.
c. Getting water from zone 3SF to zone
4SFa/Minnis when Tularcitos Reservoir is
not in service is different depending on
605
Item # 16.
which method you are using to maintain
pressure in zone 3SF. If telemetry is still
working between Minnis and Tularcitos, the
pumps at Tularcitos will cycle according to
the level in Minnis reservoir and can be left
to run on their own if using the CC pump
method in a. above. The pumps at CC will
supply water to the pumps at Tularcitos.

Only one pump at Tularcitos should be used
in auto to fill Minnis so that the capacity of
the CC pumps are not exceeded. If using
the pressure reducing valve method in b.
above to maintain zone 3SF pressure, the
pumps at CC and at Tularcitos will need to
be run manually and at the same time. The
level at Minnis will need to be monitored,
and the pumps both shut down at the
same time.

6. Loss of the Minnis Reservoir will result in the loss of gravity pressure and flow for zones 4SFa&b.

This is compensated by using the combination
relief and pressure reducing valve at Tularcitos in
a manner similar to using the relief valve at CC
when Tularcitos Reservoir is offline. With the
combo valve operating on the pressure relief
pilot system the pumps can be used to maintain
the pressure in the system. Similar to the CC
method, hoses need to be connected to the hose
bibs on the discharge side of the pumps in order
to keep a minimum flow through the pump and
prevent the water from recirculating through the
pump and overheating/boiling. See 5.a above.
606
Item # 16.

3. Distribution System Issues
a. PRV Station Loss/Malfunction
i. Pressure Reducing Stations take water from a higher
zone and feed it into a subsequent zone at a lower
pressure. They are both a source of supply and pressure regulator. When I PRV fails, it will usually show signs before having a catastrophic failure. The regulated
pressure will begin to increase and become more
difficult to control to the desired set point. A gradually rising pressure on the regulated downstream side of the PRV can be a sign that the valves main diaphragm has a
pinhole in it and needsto be replaced. It can also be a sign that the pilot valve is failing. If a PRV has failed or needs to be taken out of service the valve can usually be isolated by closing the up and down stream line valves
and allowing the lag PRV to take over the load, assuming there is a lag PRV – most stations are configured with
lead/lag parallel valves, but not all of them (Capital Ave and Parc Metro, for instance). If a valve does not have a parallel lead/lag to take over, the system balance may
need to be adjusted by checking the other PRV stations
and making minor pressure setpoint changes. Since
possible flow direction changes may occur in the
distribution system, this may result in dirty water calls and the need for flushing/NO-DES use to respond to the
water flow changes.
b. EPRV Station Loss Malfunction
i. The EPRV stations are single PRVs set to allow water to move from SF zones into corresponding SC zones in the
event that pressure falls in the SC zone below the
minimum setpoint of the EPRV. When this happens,
the EPRV will open and allow water to flow from the SF
zone to the SC zone and will try to regulate the SC zone toe the EPRV setpoint pressure. Malfunction of an
607
Item # 16.

EPRV will not result in overpressure of any zone, since the served zone is normally higher than the supplying
zone, and water cannot flow in reverse through a PRV,
even if it has failed. Loss of the function of this station only results in the loss of protection for the served
zone in the event that zone incurs a pressure
reduction. Zone isolation valves can be opened to
directly supply water from the SF zone to the SC zone if needed as an alternative to the EPRV.
c. Zone Interconnection
i. There are 44 zone isolation valves throughout the City.

These are valves that were closed when the City went
from being solely supplied by SFPUC to being supplied by both SFPUC and SCVWD (VW). There valves were
marked by using large G12 valve boxes and painting them red. The are only to be opened in the event a zone has a supply failure that results in the loss of supply and
pressure and all other means of supplying the zone are
not available. Opening of these valves will need to be
accompanied by flushing of the lines up and downstream
and there will likely be dirty/stagnant water.
d. Agency Interconnection
i. Milpitas has 3 intercity interties, two with ACWD and one with SJWC. Similar to the zone isolation valves,
use of these valves is a last resort emergency response measure. Pressures are not the same between the
separate agencies, and use must be coordinated
between both agencies before opening the valves.
ii. Connections with ACWD are located with one in zone
1SF on Milmont and one in 2SF on Churchill. The
connection with SJWC is located in zone 2SF at the
south end of the zone on Landess Ave.
608
Item # 16.

Hydrant Testing and HPR Placement Plan
Appendix C
609
Item # 16.
6800 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 150 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone 925.426.2580 Fax 530.756.5991 westyost.com

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 9, 2020 Project No.: 270-60-19-16
SENT VIA: EMAIL
TO: Harris Siddiqui, PE, City of Milpitas
Glen Campi, City of Milpitas
FROM: Roger Chu, PE, RCE #87591
REVIEWED BY: Amy Kwong, PE, RCE #73213
SUBJECT: City of Milpitas – 2020 Water Master Plan Update – Hydrant Testing and HPR Placement Plan
This memorandum summarizes the proposed hydrant testing and pressure data collection procedures required to calibrate the City of Milpitas’s (City) potable water system hydraulic model. West Yost Associates’ (West Yost) recommended plan for hydrant testing and hydrant pressure recorder (HPR) placement is provided for your review and comment, as summarized in the following sections:
• Hydrant Testing
• Hydrant Pressure Recorder Placement
• Summary of Hydrant Testing and HPR Placement Plan
It is recommended the City shares this plan with the appropriate parties (e.g., water operations and/or Fire Department staff), so they are aware of the equipment being used or installed at the proposed testing/pressure monitoring locations. Field pressure monitoring is scheduled to occur beginning March 10 through March 18 (monitoring period), and hydrant testing is scheduled for March 11, 2020.

HYDRANT TESTING
The purpose of hydrant testing is to confirm the assignment of roughness factors (C-factors) to pipelines in the City’s hydraulic model. West Yost will use data collected though hydrant testing to ensure the assigned pipeline C-factors are appropriate and representative of actual field conditions. Hydrant tests were selected based on the combination of pipeline material type, diameter, and age that represents the majority of the City’s water distribution system.

Details related to hydrant testing are presented in the following sections:
• Personnel and System Data Requirements
• Hydrant Testing Schedule
• Testing Requirements and Procedure
• City’s Responsibilities
610
Item # 16.

Memorandum
March 9, 2020

Page 2 ends

o\c\270\60-19-16\wp\HHPRTP\020420_1M
Personnel and System Data Requirements
West Yost would like to request the following City personnel and system data to accomplish the recommended hydrant testing under West Yost’s direction:
• Three (3) to five (5) City staff members (with vehicles) that will be available during regular working hours to assist with, but not limited to the following:
— Closing and re-opening valves, as needed, before and after hydrant testing — Reading and recording hydrant pressure data
— Flowing the test hydrant and de-chlorination
— Directing and controlling traffic and hydrant flows (i.e., to the nearest drainage inlet) to ensure safety
— Public outreach and interface, as needed
• System information during the monitoring period that includes the following:
— Available SCADA and telemetry data from all water distribution system facilities:
▪ Turnout flows and pressures
▪ Reservoir levels [feet]
▪ Booster Pump Station information (pump operational status, speed settings, discharge pressures [psi], and flow rate [gpm])
▪ Pressure Reducing Valve information (upstream pressure [psi], downstream pressure [psi], and flow rate [gpm], if available)
Hydrant Testing Schedule
West Yost requests that hydrant testing be scheduled from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM on March 11, 2020.

West Yost will meet with the City staff before hydrant testing at the City’s Public Works Department, located at 1265 North Milpitas Boulevard, to conduct a brief field coordination meeting to review hydrant testing procedure and protocol (i.e., where to go and what to do). West Yost will also use this coordination meeting to distribute pressure gauges necessary to complete hydrant testing (hydrant wrenches to be provided by City staff). In addition, West Yost will also discuss with City staff what order they prefer to conduct tests (i.e., avoid school traffic or commuter traffic, etc.) and to review hydrant tests that may present challenges.

Testing Requirements and Procedure
West Yost plans to conduct up to ten (10) hydrant tests within the City’s water system. Figure 1 shows the proposed hydrant test locations. In addition, four (4) alternative hydrant tests have been identified. If any of the primary test locations are unable to be completed, an alternative location may be used. Table A-1 in Attachment A lists the proposed test locations. Details regarding each of the proposed tests (e.g., flowing hydrant, observation hydrants, closed valves, etc.) is also provided in Attachment A (Figures A-1 through A-14).
611
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure1
HydrantTest
LocationMap
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlanUpdate
st Saved: 2/18/2020 7:59:41 AM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\Fig1_HydrantTestLocations.mxd : rchu TestLocation
AlternateTestLocation
Turnout
Well
PressureReducingValve
EmergencyPRV
PumpStation
StorageReservoir
PipelinePressureZone
SCZ1
SCZ2
SFZ1
SFZ2
SFZ3
SFZ4
CityLimits
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
680
880

L A F A Y E T T E S T

M I L P I T A S B L V D

A B E L S T
C
A
L
A
V
E
R
A
S
B
L
V
D
G
R
E
A
T
M
A
L
L
P
K
W
Y

C A L A V E R A S R D

P I E D M O N T R D
T
R
A
D
E
Z
O
N
E
B
L
V
D

M A I N S T
L
A
N
D
E
S
S
A
V
E

O A K L A N D R D
J
A
C
K
L
I
N
R
D
E
V
A
N
S
R
D

H O S T E T T E R
R D

T R I M B L E R D
F
E
L
T
E
R
R
D

M O N T A G U E E X P W Y
T A
S
M A
N
D
R

Z A N K E R R D
12 9
13 11
3 8
2 10
5 7
14 1
64 Tularcitos
BPS,PRVs,
andReservoir
Parc
MetroPRV
California
CirclePRV
CapitolPRV
McCarthyPRV
YosemitePRV
MontaguePRV
CaleraCreek
HeightsPRV
JuniperoPRV
CurtisPRV
Sunnyhills
PRV
MainPRVN
orth
Milpitas
PRV
LiveOakPRV
AyerBPS
Country
ClubBPS
GibraltarTurnouts,
BPS,PRVs,and
Reservoirs
Minnis
Reservoir
Ayer
Reservoir
Calaveras
Turnout
Sunnyhills
Turnout
MainTurnout
PinewoodWell
612
Item # 16.

Memorandum
March 9, 2020

Page 4 ends

o\c\270\60-19-16\wp\HHPRTP\020420_1M
Each hydrant test will involve maintaining flow from a single hydrant while monitoring the residual pressure at two (2) to four (4) observation hydrants located near the flowing hydrant. The field-observed static and residual pressure readings will then be used to confirm pipeline C-factors to calibrate the hydraulic model to observed conditions. Hydrant test locations have been selected to isolate pipelines of a particular material type, diameter, and age. Some tests will require City staff members to close one (1) or more isolation valves prior to the test and then re-open these isolation valves following the test.

The general testing procedure at each of the hydrant test locations is outlined below and illustrated on Figure 2:

Step 1. Before attaching the pressure gauge, flush the test (flowing) hydrant and each observation hydrant to remove sediments, which might damage the gauge or cause faulty readings.

Step 2. Attach the pressure gauge to the hydrant with the gauge’s test cock valve open.

Slowly open the hydrant and bleed off the gauge with the gauge’s test cock until the hydrant is fully pressurized.

Step 3. Close the gauge test cock valve, and then measure the static pressures at the designated test hydrant and each observation hydrant.

Step 4. Flow the designated test hydrant and measure the discharge flow and pressure.

Step 5. Measure the residual pressures at the designated test hydrant and at each observation hydrant while the test hydrant is flowing.

Step 6. Continue monitoring pressure until the “all clear” is given by a West Yost employee. Record the static pressure and then detach the pressure gauge.

IMPORTANT: Before closing the hydrant, be sure the gauge’s test cock valve is open and bleeding while the hydrant is being closed.

At least one (1) City staff member will be required at the flowing test hydrant and up to two (2) additional City personnel will be required in the field to assist with the opening and closing of valves (refer to Attachment A). West Yost will provide three (3) staff members to direct, oversee, and assist in the field data collection work effort.

It is anticipated that each hydrant test will take no more than 30 minutes and that each hydrant will be flowing for no more than 10 minutes during a test.

Testing Equipment
West Yost will provide a 4.5-inch diameter Swivel Piezo Diffuser and pressure gauges during the hydrant testing program. It is our recommendation that the 4.5-inch diameter Swivel Piezo Diffuser be used for all proposed hydrant tests. For any hydrant test where is it not possible to use this type of diffuser due to drainage or traffic control issues, an alternative method will need to be further evaluated and confirmed before the day of field testing. 613
Item # 16.

O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\CAD\Figures\Fig2_HydrantTestProcedure.dwg 1/15/2020 9:06 AMrchu City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Hydrant Test
Procedure
Figure 2
Note:

1. Figure is not to scale.
614
Item # 16.

Memorandum
March 9, 2020

Page 6 ends

o\c\270\60-19-16\wp\HHPRTP\020420_1M
City’s Responsibilities
The City will be responsible for providing the following hydrant testing equipment:

1. Vehicles

2. Hydrant wrenches

3. Equipment for closing valves and controlling traffic

4. De-chlorination equipment1

5. Two-way portable communication for each testing personnel The City is also responsible for notifying residents, and other City staff and departments (i.e., Fire Department) about the scheduled hydrant testing, obtaining approvals that may be required, and providing proper drainage of the hydrant flow.

West Yost requests that the City staff review and inspect each of the proposed test locations before the testing date to identify any potential problems or hazards with the selected locations. Of concern is the potential for flooding landscaping or building basements or creating hazardous traffic conditions. West Yost recommends that all drainage inlets/manholes be inspected near the testing site to confirm proper drainage. Additionally, the City should check the location and status of hydrants and valves that will be operated during hydrant testing. Detailed figures, which illustrate the flowing hydrant, observation hydrants, and valves to be closed, are provided in Attachment A.

HYDRANT PRESSURE RECORDER PLACEMENT
Placement of HPRs at key hydrants within the City’s water system allows West Yost to verify pressures simulated in the City’s hydraulic model. West Yost has identified twenty (20) hydrants to monitor water system pressures with HPRs. The selected HPR locations are typically downstream of water supply facilities (e.g., turnouts, booster pump stations, and pressure reducing valves).

West Yost is proposing to install the twenty (20) HPRs on March 10, 2020 to collect pressure information for a total of one (1) week. West Yost plans to attach the HPRs to the 2.5-inch port on specified hydrants and lock them in place with a padlock. After the seven-day monitoring period is complete, West Yost will remove the HPRs from their locations (March 18, 2020) and download and review the collected data. Figure 3 shows the general location of each HPR. Table B-1 (in Attachment B), describes the approximate location of each HPR and the water supply facility being monitored. Attachment B also includes detailed figures showing the specific location of each hydrant selected for HPR placement (Figures B-1 through B-20). West Yost requests that City staff review and inspect each of the proposed HPR placement locations before the placement date to identify any potential problems with the selected locations. 1 Handling of water released from each hydrant test will need to comply with City Operations procedures and be consistent with the City’s NPDES permit for planned releases from hydrant tests. 615
Item # 16.
0 1,500 3,000
Scale in Feet
Figure 3
Hydrant Pressure Recorder
Location Map
City of Milpitas
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:32:26 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\Fig3_HPRLocations.mxd : rchu 2020 Water Master Plan Update
*G!. Proposed HPR Location 2!! Turnout n7 Well XW Pressure Reducing Valve XW Emergency PRV [PS ± Pump Station
TU Storage Reservoir
Pipeline Pressure Zone
SCZ1
SCZ2
SFZ1
SFZ2
SFZ3
SFZ4
City Limits
^_
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
San Jose Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
£¤101
ÄÆ84
§¨¦880 §¨¦680
§¨¦280
n7
TUTU
TU
TU
TU
[PS ±
[PS ±
[PS ±
[PS ±
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
*G!.
*G!.
**G!.G!.*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
**G!.G!.
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
**G!.G!.
*G!.*G!.O A K L A N D R D

M I L P I T A S B L V D

A B E L S T
C
A
L
A
V
E
R
A
S
B
L
V
D
G
R
E
A
T
M
A
L
L
P
K
W
Y

C A L A V E R A S R D

P I E D M O N T R D
T
R
A
D
E
Z
O
N
E
B
L
V
D

M A I N S T
L
A
N
D
E
S
S
A V
E

O A K L A N D R D
J
A
C
K
L
I
N
R
D
E
V
A
N
S
R
D

H O S T E T T E R
R D
C A
P
I
T
O
L
A V
E

T R I M B L E R D
F
E
L
T
E
R
R
D

M O N T A G U E E X P W Y
T A S
M A
N
D
R

Z A N K E R R D
UV237
UV237
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
6 Tularcitos
BPS, PRVs,
and Reservoir
Parc
Metro PRV
California
Circle PRV
Capitol PRV
McCarthy PRV
Yosemite PRV
Montague PRV
Calera Creek
Heights PRV
Junipero PRV
Curtis PRV
Sunnyhills PRV
Main PRV
North
Milpitas PRV
Live Oak PRV
Ayer BPS
Country
Club BPS
Gibraltar
Turnouts, BPS, PRVs,
and Reservoirs
Minnis
Reservoir
Ayer
Reservoir
Main
Turnout
Pinewood Well
5 17
19 16
20 14 15
10 18
8 3
12 13 11 2 17 9 4
616
Item # 16.

Memorandum
March 9, 2020

Page 8 ends

o\c\270\60-19-16\wp\HHPRTP\020420_1M
It is important for City staff to coordinate with the Fire Department and any other appropriate parties regarding the HPR locations and duration of monitoring. This will help reduce the chance of inadvertently shutting off a hydrant with an HPR installed and may also reduce the risk of an HPR being removed or tampered with. Each HPR is equipped with a padlock and a set of keys will be provided to the City staff. However, in case of an emergency, the Fire Department can break the lock to remove the HPR. If an HPR is required to be removed during a non-emergency, or if the associated hydrant needs to be shut off, West Yost requests that the Fire Department inform City staff and that City staff will then coordinate with West Yost.

SUMMARY OF HYDRANT TESTING AND HPR PLACEMENT PLAN
Hydrant testing will be performed as described above beginning at 7:30 AM on Wednesday, March 11, 2020. West Yost proposes to install HPRs on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 and remove them on Wednesday, March 18, 2020. The locations and associated detailed location maps of the designated hydrants for testing and HPR placement are presented in Attachments A and B, respectively.

West Yost requests a conference call with City staff on Wednesday, March 4, approximately one week before the scheduled testing day, to review and finalize preparations for the hydrant testing and HPR placement. An Outlook meeting request will be sent to City staff to finalize a suitable meeting date and time.

Please feel free to contact Roger Chu at (925) 425-5631 or Amy Kwong at (925) 461-6788 if you have any questions or comments.
617
Item # 16.

ATTACHMENT A
618
Item # 16.
o\c\877\60-19-01\wp\082119_1 M
Table A-1. Hydrant Test Locations(a)
Test
No.

Pipeline
Material
Installation
Decade
Pipeline
Diameter,
Inches Location
Pressure
Zone
No. of
Closed
Valves Comments
1 PVC 1990s 8 Along Elkwood Drive SF1 1 -
2 AC 1960s 6 Along Gosser Street SF1 1 -
3 AC 1980s 6
Along Stirling Drive and
Stratford Drive SF2 2 -
4 AC 1960s 6 Along Greentree Way SF1 3 -
5 PVC 1980s 8 Along Hammond Way SC1 1 -
6 AC UNK(b) 8 Along Main Street SC1 2 -
7 AC 1970s 8 Along Lacey Drive SF2 1 -
8 AC 1970s 6 Along Clauser Drive SF1 3 -
9 AC 1980s 8 Along Calaveras Ridge Drive SF3 0 -
10 DI 2000s 8
Within Crossing at Montague
Apartments SC2 1 -
11 AC 1980s 6
Along Las Lomas Drive and
Pacheco Drive SF2 1 Alternate
12 PVC 2000s 8
Along Costa Street and
Mihalakis Street SC1 2 Alternate
13 AC 1980s 8 Along Pebble Beach Court SF4-1 0 Alternate 14 AC 1960s 8 Along Heath Street SF1 2 Alternate
(a) 10 test locations and 4 alternate test locations, if time permits. (b) UNK = unknown
619
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
1267
53 51
57 55
75 95
409
1577
1505
390
381
368
330
1462
378
1485
1335
1352
1358
1364
135
125
1333 - 1365
1327
1329
110 - 124
68 119 107
1429
1437
1221
1231
1232
1238
1244
1250
1256
1262 1268
1274
1280
1286
1292
1298
1391
1385
1379
1373
1367
1361
1355
1349
1343
1337
1325
1313
1301
1289
1277
1259 1265
1320
1328
1334
1342
1350
1358
1366
280
269
264
1251
1245
1220
1214
1208
1202
1203 1215
1221
1227
1233
276 270 288 282 300 294
312306 318
330 324
310 322
334 328 340 346 352
1263 1257
1334
1340
1247
1239
1231
1223
1207
218 210 202 242 234 226 250 258
266
274
282
290
298
306
314
322
279
1158
1150
173 165 197 189 181 221 213 205 237 229 253
269
285
293
301
257
265 220 212 204 196
1179
1390
1398
1406
1414
1422
1430
237
231
225
219
359
200
206
212
218
224
230
236
242
249 255 267 261 273 279
294288
1599 1597 1595
1591
1587 1585
1583 1581
472
468
466
464
441 437
1635
1633 1631
1629
487
485
395 391
389 387 385
450
446 444
442
438 434
432
1521
1519
1515 15131511
1509
1507
435433
431
425 429
421
374
372
370
356 354
350
348 344 342 340
338
334 332
1495
1493
1491
1489 1487 1485
1481 1479 1477
1455 1453 1451 1449 1447
1436
345
65 1346-1364
461
446
435
424
1477
1473
1469
1465
1461
1457
1453
1509
1507
1505
1503
1497
1491
1370
1376
1337
1339
1343
1345 1347
1351 1355
1361
1365
1349
124122 120 118116 112
114
61 71
371
517
375
513 505
359
367
355
1488
1490
309
270
262
254
246
238 230 222 214 206 198 190 182
215 207 199 191 237
213
207
201
1382 287 281 293 299 305 311 323 317 329 335
347 353
1486
1304
1310
1316
1322
1328
1346
1352
1358
1368
1370
1376
1382
1388
1394
1400
1406
1403
1397
1196 1190
11931199
1205
1211
1217
1223
1230
1224
1218
1212
1206
1200
1194
1191
1197
336
337331325
319 313
307 301 289281
275271
286 298 304
1210
380
1253
1247
1241
1235
1229
1236
1242
1248
1254
1260
1266
1272
1280
1288
1296
1304
1312
1199
1191
1183
1175
1167
1159
1151
1143
1135
138 162 154 146 186 178 170 194
271
263
255 247 239 231 223 215
207
199
1230
1222
1214
1198
1190
1182
1174
1166
282
276 270
264
258 252
392 394
396
398
400 404
406
410
460
456 454
450 452
448
461
459
457 455 451
449 445 443
467 463
407
405
399
428
426
1561
1559
1557
1555
1553 1551
1547
1545 1543
1541
1527
1525
1523
419
417
415
413
411
398
396 392
390
388 384
382
376
1492
1490
1486
1482
1476
1472 1470 1468
1466 1464
1499
1497
1445
1443 1441 1439
1435
1433
1431 1429 1427
85 84
86 87
88 89 90
91 92
93 34
35 36
107
109 108
110 111 113 112
114
115
116
117
136
137
138
139 140
68H
94 130 95 98 131
132
133
134 135
99 100 101 103 102 104 105 106
1A
1B
1C
1D
1 8"
PVC
M
O
N
T
E
S
O L
T
E
R
M
A

R L I N
A
T
E
R

F A I R V I E W
W A Y

M O N T E C I T O
W A Y
S
U
M
M E R
W I N
D
W
A
Y
S
E
A
S I D
E
W
A Y

J U R G E N S D R
L O S

B U E L L I S
W
A
Y

T E R R A

M E S A W A Y

L I S B O N
T E R

M I L A N O
T E R

S A G E

B R U S H S T

D E S E R T

H O L L Y S T M I L K
W
E
E
D
S
T
L A
R
K
W
O
O
D
C
T
U
N - N
A
M
E
D
D
R

C A M A S
S T

P A L I S
A
D
E
S
D
R

B A L B O A D R

M I L M O N T D R
P
A

C I F I C
A
W
A
Y

G I N G E R W O O D
D R

A L E G R A
T E R

S N A P

D R A G O N S T

C A L I F O R N I A C I R

W O O D R U F F W A Y

A S P E N R I D G E D R

S E A S I D E D R

S U M M E R W I N D D R

E L K W
O

O D D R
M I N
N I S
C I R
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (1 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-1
Test 1 - Zone SF1
(8-inch PVC - 1990s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
620ate
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
451
2102
2114
2126
2136
2148
461
447
435
425
413
401
391
379
430
442
452
464
478
488
502
516
2010
2022
2036
2048
2060
489
477
465
367
355
350
362
433
421
409
397
385
375
361
372
386
396
408
420
432
442
456
468
480
352
1943
1931
355
307
295
283
300
310
2052
2062
2074
434
442
452
460
472
482
494
504
512
520
528
540
424
432
440
448
456
473
465
457
449
441
433
425
417
1778
1790
1812
1824
1836
356
485
473
461
449
439
427
413
401
391
379
405 395
385
371
359
345
340
531
519
505
491
479
467
457
445
431
419
407
395
383
382
394
404
416
437
429
417
405
393
383
369
364
376
388
400
412
424
436
448
460
474
484
374
386
398
410
422
434
446
458
358
370
382
396
408
422
434
446
457
445
2171
2147
2135
2123
2111
2099
2081
2073
2061
2047
2035
2021
2009
1995
1983
1969
1957 501
493
485
477
469
461
453
445
437
429
421
413
405
410
422
284
1960
1970
1982
297
446
454
462
470
478
459
464
472
482
500
522
528
1897
1885
1875
1863
1853
1841
1831
1819
1809
2163
2139
2115
2A
2 2C
2B
6 A
"
CP

M A N F E R D S T

D I X O N R D

G O S S E R S T

M A T T H E W S
C T
C
O
N
W
A
Y
S
T

G R O S S S T

O L I V E R S T

G R E A T H O U S E D R

M U R R A Y S T
R
T
6 8
0 Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (1 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-2
Test 2 - Zone SF1
(6-inch AC - 1960s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
621ate
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
516
2010
2022
2285
2261
2237
2213
2165
2140
2162
2186
2234
2258
2282
2145
2117
2095
2073
2045
2021
753
741
729
717
701
685
682
698
714
730
746
2236
2260
2284
2239
2215
2191
2167
2143
2119
2095
2071
2047
2023
2003
1951
1927
1900
1952
2002
2022
2046
2070
2094
2118
2142
2166
2192
2216
2240
1832
1848
1864
2289
2265
2241
2193
2169
2145
2121
2120
2148
2172
2196
2220
2244
2268
839
823
807
531
519
505
2298
2283
2259
2235
2211
2187
2163
2139
2115
2309
2285
2275
2261
2237
2213
2187
2165
747 731
715
699
683
2078
2090
2098
716 732
748
743
711 727
2164
2188
2212
1903
1879
1855
1849 767 751
735
719
703
684
700
716
732
748 764
780
1876 1880
2018
998
1014
1030
2220
2264
2288
2313
791
808
824
840
856
872
3 3A
3B
3C
3D
6"
ACP

P A R K V I C T O R I A D R

L O N D O N
D R

S U S S E X P L

B O L T O N
D R
S T R

A T F O

R D D R

H A S T I N G S
D R

K I R K W A L L
P L

I N V E R N E S S D R
D
E
V
O
N
P L

S T I R L I N G
D R

C H U R C H I L L D R
R
T
6 8
0 W E L L I N
G
T
O
N
D
R
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (2 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-3
Test 3 - Zone SF2
(6-inch AC - 1980s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
622ate
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
1219
1231
1243
1253
1261
1271
1283
1295
1300
1292
1282
1272
1260
1250
1240
1230
1218
1237
1245
1255
1263
1271
1281
1289
1297
1292
1280
1268
1258
1250
1241
1253
1265
1277
1287
1299
175 163 151 139 185 197
1276
1266
1396
1384
1372
1360
130
122 116
110
104
98 86
78 70 62 54
57 63
121
1270
1256
84 76
40 38
25 27
31 33
35 43
39 3
5 7
9 282
270
258 246 234 222
205 217 229 241
253
246
234
222 210 198 186 174 162 150 138 126 114
188 176 164 152 140 128 116 104
105 115 135 127 153 147 141 173 161
56 44 32 24 16 10
21 29 61 53 45 37 73 85 97
90 78
1585
1493
1553
1561
1569
1577
1585
1593
1604 1601
1596
1588
1580
1572
1592
1580
1568
1556
1544 64
56 48
40 32
24 16
227
1491
1489
1620
1201
1258
1250
1240
51 73
1442
1430
1418
1406
1371
1375
1379
1383
1387
1208 1207
1240
1228
1216
69 75
81 87
99 113
125
140
128
116
108
100
92 36
34 32
28 24
20 18
16 14
12 10
13 15
17 19
21 23 210 198 188 180 168 156
1345
1361
1377
1389
133 121 157 145 169 181 193
102
109 121 175 167 155 145 133 181 189 197
211 221
226
214
202 190
181 187 193 201 209
221
23 35 47 59 71 83 95
98 86 80 72 64
66 54
42 220 212 204 196 188 180 168 156 148 142 136 130 118 108 335
235
135
133
331
229
327
341 143
141 339
239
139
x23
230
332
232
334 134
4B
4C
4A
4 6"
ACP
S
U
N

R I S E
W
A
Y
A B
E
L
S T

C E D A R C T

F A L L E N

L E A F D R

P O L A R I S
C T

W O O D L A N D W A Y

C E D A R W A Y
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
W A Y

W O O D L A N D
C T

L O N E T R E E C T
M
O

O N B E A
M
W
A Y

S T E L L A R W
A Y

G R E E N T R E E W A Y

M A I N S T

G R E E N T R E E C I R

E V E R G R E E N W A Y
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (3 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-4
Test 4 - Zone SF1
(6-inch AC - 1960s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
623ate
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
437
16 426
424
422
420
418-454
412
414
279
526
554
542
650
338
344
388
380
396
312
290
280 282
270
260
372
454
450
440
438
436
434
432
408 410
25 15
399
450
430
400
449
455
451
515
429
529
540
485
563
22 400
324
155
87 69
288
121
105
5B
5C
5 5A
8"
PVC

C O R N I N G A V E

S I N N O T T L N
M

A I N S T
H A
M
M

O N D W
A Y
Last Saved: 4/1/2020 5:05:32 PM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (1 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-5
Test 5 - Zone SC1
(8-inch PVC - 1980s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
624ate
Item # 16.
0 75 150
Scale in Feet
184
190
196
302
304
306
308 310 312 318
52 56
60 64 68
110
72 82
90 94
98 102
106
114 118
86 76
115
117
123
127
129
151
149
147
145
143 139 135
133
76 78 92
209
227
195
241
280 282
270
260
244 250
236
176
114
98 96
54 50
138
134
182 - 196
300 - 336
260 -296
131-
151
111-
129
66 77-
93 50 - 118
320 326
328
330
332
334
336
264
292
268 280 284 288296
90 81
83 87
89 91 93
150
158
31 34
53 99
73 76
41 61
187
167
133
151
92 86
102
69 154
146
174
166
100
210
220
6A
6B
6C
6 8"
AC
P

A B E L S T

S E R R A W A Y
M

A I N S T
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (2 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-6
Test 6 - Zone SC1
(8-inch AC - UNK)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
625ate
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
1949 1961
1927 1937 1915
1891 1903
1869 1879
1852
1864187618881900
191219241936
496
484
472
462
365
375
387 399 396
384
376
366
427
441
455
469
483
2126 2154
355
369
383
397
210
2084
2096
2119
2111
2103
2095
2087
2071 2079 2063
170
146 163
2189
2181
2177
2173
2169
2165 2159
2153
2147 2141 2135 2127 2115 2101 2087 2073
2059
2175 2163 2151 2139 2127 2115 2103
320
306
292
278
262
661
2204 2216 2228 2240 2252
434
420
406
2277 2265 2253 2241 2229 2217 2205 2193 2181 2169 2157 2145 2133 2121 2109 2190 2202 2214 2226 2238 2250 2262 2274
2281 2269 2257 2245 2233 2221 2209 2197 2185
2224 2236 2248 2260 2272
2273 2261 2249 2237 2225 2213 2201 2189 2177 2165 2153 2141 589
603
619
625 623 627
629 631 633
647
659
1840
1852
1862 1874
18841896
1908 1920
2101
2276 2288
2427
2415
2418
2432
2443 2431 2419
2431
2419
2407
2395 2383 2371 2359 2347 2335 2323
2311 2384
2422
2434
2446 2369 2357 2345 2333 2321
2403
2393
2381
2369
2357
2345
2333
2213 2201
2210 2222
2234 2246 2258 2270
2282 2294
2312
2340
2362
2386
2400
2309 2297
2273 2261 2249
2508
2404
2220
891
1857
454 444 441
451
459
469
481
493 494
482
470
458
446
434
422
410 413
358
346
336
324
312
300
286
228
220
219
2104 2116
2128
2140
2152 2164
2176
2188
2200 2212
2193
2080 2094 2108
283
291
297
304
298
292
278
264 2140
2160
2166
2180
2199 2187
2264
2259 2247
456
442
428
400 412
415
431
445
459
2225 2213 2201
462
448
2097 2085 2073 2061 2049 2037 2025 2013 2001
2094 2106 2118 2130 2142 2154 2166 2178
2173 2161 2149 2137 2125 2113 2101
2104 2116 2128 2140 2152 2164 2176 2188 2200 2212
2129 2117 2105
2053
2057
2063
2067
2073
1986 2006 2022
575
670
658
646
632
618
602
588
574
2102 2114 2126
2138 2150 2162 2174
1922 1934 1944 1956
1963 1951 1939
1929 1917
1893 1905
1881 1871 1859
1849 1837
1932 1942
19541966
2300 2312 2324 2336 2348 2360 2378 2390 2402 2414 2426 2438 2450 2462 2467
2453
2439
2287 2299 2275
439
451
463
475
2281 492
480
468
456 2316 2328 2340 2352 2364
2189 2177 2165 2153 2141 2129
2117 2105
2102 2114
2126 2138
2150
2162 2174
2186 2198
2237 2225
2321
2285
2798
2112
2122
2132
2131 2142
2121
2111
190
2110
2120
2140
231
243
255
271
285
299
311
323
335
347
2055 351
2186 2198 2210 2222 2234 2246 2258 2270
2271 2259 2247 2235 2223
2211 2199 2163 2175 2187 2268
7C
7B
7A
7 8"
ACP

P I E D M O N T
R D

W Y L I E D R

D O L O
R E S
D R
A
G

U I L A
R
C

T L O U I S E
C T

C A R L S B A D S T

S E P U L V E D A
C T

M E S A

V E R D E D R

E D S E L
P
D R

A T R I C I A
C T

F A L C
A T O
D
R
F E R

R E I R
A
C T

F R A N K
C T

S H E N A N D O A H
A V E

U R I D I A S R A N C H R D

Y O S E M I T E D R

P E D R O A V E

S E P U L V E D A A V E

M A T T O S D R

B L I S S A V E

P E T E R S B U R G D R

L A C E Y D R
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (1 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-7
Test 7 - Zone SF2
(8-inch AC - 1970s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
626ate
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
487
495
623 611 599 575 563 551 539 527
515
512 560 572 584 596 608
923
915
566
578
590
602 614 626 638 650 662 674 686 698
710
754 766 778 790 802
806
810
815 803 791 779 767 743 755
992
496 500 492 488 484 480 476
991 995
999
1003
1007
1011
1015
1019
1023
1027
987983979
975 971
966 970 974 978 982 986 990
401
819
807
543
529
515
512
526
540
554
568
584
598
610
622
634
646
658 670 682
579
565
551
537
523
509
508
520
532
544
556
568
580
592
604
616
628
647
635 611 623 585 597 573
561
549 537 525
513
501
504
516
528
540
729
781 765 773
760
703 691
706
714
726 752 760
768
776
773 765
757
749
741
733
725
717
568
580
592
604
616
628
640
652
664
676
688 700 712 724
732
740
748
510
524
538
552
566
576
588
604
620
632
644
656
668
680 692 714 722
708 720 732 744
756
735 719 703 687 671 655 639 625
669
661 665
657
653
635
608
620
548
552
493 473 483
463
453 443
433
403 413 423 393 383 373 363
490 498
677 667
657
647
637 627
402 408 414 424 434 444 454 464 474
450 458 466 474 482 490 498
495 485 475
417 425 433 389 399 409
394 404 414 424 434 444 454
451
445 455 465 435 425
408
410
835
825
370 376 382 388 394
400 406
405
395
441
431 441
443 453 463 423 433 413
418 428 438 448 458 468 478
488
498
495
485
461 -
495
695 707 683 671 659 647 635
920
926 672 684
690 696
702
708
522 534 546 558570
1004
1016
1028
1040
1052
1013
667 655 643 631 619 607
550 562 1053 574
1041 1029
559 535 547 523
1046 1050 988
1042
1038
1034
489
493 497 501 505
504
1031
1035
1039
721 733 745 757 709 697 685
673 661
649
637
625
613
601
585
571
557
694 706 718 730 742
725 737 713 701 689 677 665
653
641
629
617
605
593
1003
800 812 820 828 836 844 1015 852
640
652
664 676 688 700 712 724 736
727 739 703 715 691 679 667 655
659
552
564
576
592
615
599
587
575
563
551
539
527
515
503
635
633
631
629 627
723 731 739
715 709
701 619
611
603
591
583
577
565 553 541 525 507
508 520
532
544
556
707 719 695 685 677
667
659
645
635
623
611
597
585
573
561
547
527 513
738
502 514 526 538 550 562 574 586 598 610 622 634 648 660 672 684 696 609 593 579 565 551 539 527
574 590 606 622 638 654 670 686 702 718 734
353
343
354 362 370 378 386 394 402 410
418
426
434
442
458
466
474 482
484 494
498
473 481 489 497 449 457 465 425 433 441 409 417 401
434 442
418
426
393
381 385 373 365
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
875
865
855
845
385 375 365 335 345 355
623
611
599
573 587
643
631
619
489
481
473
465
449 457
401 411 421 391
386 396 406 416 426 436 446 456 466 476 486
493
483 473
475 465 435 445 455 415 425 405
8C
8B
8 8A
6"
ACP

C L A U S E R
D R

P A R V I N
D R
E S C
P

U E L A
L

S I N G L E Y D R

T R A M W A Y D R

K E V E N A I R E D R

C A M P B E L L
S T
T I R
O L C
T
W Y O

M A P L
T R
A
M
W
A
Y
P L

G L E N
C T
G

O R D O N S T
D
U
N
D
E
E
A V
E

L O S P I N O S A V E
V I A

B A J A D R

S A N D A L W O O D
L N

A B E R D E E N
W Y

S A N D A L R I D G E
C T
E
S
C
U
E L A
P
K
W
Y

H E A T H E R
C T

C H A D D R

F L U M E
C T

A L T A M O N T D R
A

A R O N P A R K D R

M A R T I L W A Y

G R A Y S O N W A Y

D O N A H E D R

C O R I N T H I A D R

G E M M A D R

J A C K L I N R D
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (3 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-8
Test 8 - Zone SF1
(6-inch AC - 1970s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
627ate
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
802
1027
971
980
1050
1425
666
640
608 660
1450
1460
652 664 667
1496 1502 1508 1514 1490 1486 1480
1472
1469
1475 1481
718
724
712
652
664
676
685
673 645
600
1975
1444
1430 1416
891
879
867
855 843 831
819
807
814 826 850 838 862
874
886
898
856
1426
1431
1423
1415
1487 1493 1499 715
9D
9C
9B
9A
9 8"
ACP
8 A
"
CP

M I C H A E L
S T

E V A N S R D

Q U I N C E L N

M I C H A E L C T

C A L A V E
R A
S
R I D
G
E
D
R
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (0 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-9
Test 9 - Zone SF3
(8-inch AC - 1980s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
628ate
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
1506 - 1600
761 - 775 777
1535
1658
1646
1550
1503
700
1538
1570
1474
770
768
774
776
778
780
782
788 794
1514
1516
1518
1520
1522
1524
1507
720
760
790
1502
1498
1494
1490
1603
1605
1611
1609
1629
1648 1650
1652
800 810
830
765
769
773
775
777
1510
1600
1558
1504
1550
X01
O202
X11
P311
P212
P211
P210
P310
P209
P309
X07
P307 P207
P205
P206
F302
X01
G201 G301 G202
G203
G303
G204
X07
C207
C208
C308
X02
D202
X01
O201O301
O204
O304 X02
K202
K302
K201
X04 K304
X03
K203
K206
K306
K308
X03 L203
L304
X05
L205 L305
L206
L306
X07
L207 L307
L208
L308
X02
N201
N301
N202
N302
X03
N203
N204
J309
J310
X11
J211
J311
J212
M208 M108 X07
M107
M205
M105
X04
M204 M104
D309
D312
D211
E201 E301 X02
E202
X03
E304
X05
E205
E206
X07
G205
X07G207
G308
A206
A306
A207
A307
A308
X08
B208
X07
B307
B210
B209
X12 B212
B312
I206
I306
I205
I305
I208
I308
X07
I207
H212 H112
H210 H110
H209
X02 J202
J302
X03
J303
J204 J304
J205
J305
J206 J306
X07 X09
J209
M203
M202
M201
X07 O207
O307
X08
O208
O308
O205 O305
O206
O306
O203 O303
X12
K312
K205
K305
K207
K209 K309
X01
L201
L202
N304
N206
N306 N205
N305
N307
N209 N309
N208
N308 N210
N212 N312
P303
P204
X03 X01
P302
X03
F203
X04
F204
F304
F201
D301
D204
D304
D203
D206 D306
D308 D207
D210 D310
D209
E307
E208
E308
X02
B202 B302
X01
B301
B204
B203
B305 B205
B306
B211
B311
X01
C201 C301X02
C202 C302
C203 C303
C204
C205 C305
X02
I202
I302
X01
I201
G209
G309 G210 G310
G211
G311
G212
A302
A303
A204
A304
X05
A205
H108
H207 H107
H206
X05
X04
H104
H203
H103
H202
H201 H101 X12
10 10D
10C
10B
10A 8"
DIP
L
U
N
D Y
P L
W
A T S

O N C T

N O R T H W O O D
D R
G L A
D

D I N G
C
T

C A P I T O L
A V E

T R I M B L E
R D

P O P L A R W O O D
W A Y
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (1 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline Figure A-10
Test 10 - Zone SC2
(8-inch DI - 2000s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Upd
629ate
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
766 774 782 790 798 806 814 822 830 838 846 854 862 870 895
887
879
776 784 792 800 808 816 828 832 840 848 856 864 872 880 888 896
904
189 181 173
165
157
833
825
817
809
801 793 785 777 769 761 753
768
903 895 887 879 871 863 855 847 839 831 799 807 815 823 791 783 775 894 902 910
909 901 893 885 877 869 861 853 845 829 837 805 813 821 844 852 860 868 876 884 892 900 908
919 903 911 895 887 879 871 865
770
881 873 865 857 849 841 833 819 825 801 809 793 785 777 761 769 547
533
519
707
750
758 766 774 782 790 798
806
814
822 797 830 781 789 920
750
758
871 863 847 855 807 815 823 831 839 799 791 783 775 767 751 759 760 768
912
920
928
936
942 285
277
269
261
253
245
237
229
221
213
205 197
776 784 792 800 808 816 824 832 840 848 856 864 872 880 888 896 904 767
758
766 774 782 790 798 806 814 822 830 838 846 854 862 870 878 886 797 789 781 773 757 765
756 764 772 780 788 796 804 812 820 828 836
855 847 799 807 815 823 831 839 791 783 775 767 759
782 792 802 812 822 832 842 850 860 870 878 888 898 908 918 928 897 889
702
773 765
757 749
195 135
140
145 160 170 190 200
250
280
11 11A
11B
11C 11D
6"
AC
P

H I L L V I E W D R

P A C H E C O D R

S A N T A R I T A D R

T E R R A B E L L A D R
R T 6 8 0 A U X I L I A R Y R D R T 6 8 0 S B O F F / R

A L C O S T A D R
L A S

L O M A S D R
R T 6 8 0

L O S P O S I T O S D R

V A L E N C I A D R
Figure A-11
Alternate Test 11
Zone SF2
(6-inch AC - 1980s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (1 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline
630
Item # 16.
0 75 150
Scale in Feet
1601-
1625
1629-
1653
1657-
1681
1797-
1817
1821-
1825
1849-
1865
1636
1613
1617
1621
1625
1637 1641 1645
1649
1653
1661
1665
1669
1685-
1709
1693 1697
1701
1705
1709
1717
1721
1725
1729
1737
1713-
1709
1741-
1765
1781
1785
1789
1769-
1773
1648-
1660
1744
1808-
1820
1816
1820
1824-
1836
1611
1615
1601 - 1629
A Suites
Upstairs
1603
1701
1589-1605
1569-1585
115
123-139
125
127 131
133 137
139
1706-1722
1708 1710
1712
1714
1716
56 44 32 24 16 10
32 24
16 1680
1740
81 70
60 1632
1633
1673 1681
1640 1644 1605
1749
1757 1753
1761 1765
1773
1720-
1732
1728
1732
1736-
1748
1591
1605
1613
1607
1609
1617
1619
1621
1627 1623
1651
1653
1652
1630
1638
69 71
73 81-91
83 85
89 91 99-115 101
103 109
113
1738 1744 1732 1740 1746
1742 1734
17361730-1746
1766
1768
1762
1764
1756
1718
55-85
15-47
15 19 55
23 67
31 1705-1753
1709
1713
1717
1721
1725
1729
1733
1737
1741
1913
1909
1885- 1905
1889
1893 1889
1857
1861
1865 1869-
1881
1877 1881
1837
1833
1829
1825
1603
1605
1609
1611
1580
1582
1562
1504
1556
1620
1618
1602
27-37
29 31
33 35
37 45-55 47
51 53
55 63-73
65 67
1758
1752-1768
7571 1745
1629
1921-
1945 1945
1917-
1905
1809 1813 1817
1689
1733
1745
1793
1801
1841
1853
1873
1897
1579 1581
1583
1585
1593 1597 1595
1599
1601
23 35 47 59
71 64
1624
12C
12 12A
12B
8"
PVC

C E D A R W A Y

D I A Z S T

C O S T A S T

C E D A R C T

S N E L L

P L A C E

S O U T H

M A I N

S T R E E T

C A N A L S T

M A I N S T

M I H A L A K I S S T

E D E L N

L E E W A Y
Figure A-12
Alternate Test 12
Zone SC1
(8-inch PVC - 2000s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (2 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline
631
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
1836
1475
1855
1738
1758
1578
1804
1800
1594
1246
1740
1756
1772
1800 1819
1781
1786 1820
1705 1673 1689
1641 1657 1627
1609
1593
1577
1578
1594
1608
1628
1642
1658 1688
1774
1790
1806 1838
1854
1870
1886
1251
1673
1657
1641
1625
1609
1593
1577
1833
1801
1785
1769
1753
1737 1721
1712 1722 1738
1754
1770
1786
1802
1818
1832
13A
13B
13 8"
ACP

P I N E H U R S T C T
T
U L A
R
C I T
O
S
D
R

S A I N T A N D R E W S C T
C O U

N T R Y
C L U
B
D
R

P E B B L E B E A C H C T
Figure A-13
Alternate Test 13
Zone SF4-1
(8-inch AC - 1980s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (0 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline
632
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
532
524
516 502 490 476 462 448 436
424
441
459 473
430
400
460
490
620
369
381 391 403 417
432 424
416
408
435
445 455 467 477 487 497 507 519 531 545 569
595
603
611
485 493
511 444 436
473
461
439
421
407
616
608
600
592
584
576 568 556 534 522 565 510 579
399
389
377
367
359
351
345
337
329
321
313
305
293
283
275
252
262
272
280
290
300
308
316
324
332
340
348
356
364
374
386
398
231
221
211
201
191
181
184
194
204
214
224
234
244
254
264
276
286
215
205
193
183
186
198
208
218
228
238
248
258
268
280
290
302
312
337
327
315
305
293
283
271
261
249
239
227
217
207
195
185
436 422
287
277
265
255
243
233 242
252
264
274
286
296
308
318
330
340
360
200
411 419 427
402
412
424
434
444
456
466
552
540
397
387
375
365
355
345
333
323
313
303
293
281
271
261
251
241
111
103
42 52
60 68
76 88
100
114
128
142
156
168
165
155
143
127
84 92
106
116
124
136
146
154
162 167
159
149
143
135
127
119
301
251
640
151
479
469
459
447
437
427
415
409
403
591
412
424
434
444
456
466
500 492 482 472 462 452 442
445 455 467 479 491 501 511 521 533 543 553
265
255
247
237
229
219
211
201
191
183
175
178
188
200
208
216
226
234
244
296
306
316
328
338
350 345
335
325
313
303
291
281
269
257
245
235
225
324
334
346
356
370
499 489
362
380
518 506 496 484 472 460 448
359
349
406
268
280
290
302
312
324
402
331
321
309
299
119
111
103
95 87
275 79 71
14C
14 14A
14B
8"
AC
P
R T 8 8 0
R
T 8 8 0
N B O
N / R
R T 8 8 0

S B O F F / R

E A S T E R A V E

A B B O T T A V

R U D Y A R D D R

K E N I S T O N
A V E

M A R Y L I N N D R

W A L N U T D R

K R I S M E R S T

S M I T H W
O

O D S T

S I L V E R A S T

H E A T H S T

R A N C H D R
R T 2 3 7 E B
T O R T 8 8 0

N B T R A N S
R T 8 8 0 S B
T O R T 2 3 7

W B T R A N S
R T 2 3 7 E B T O
R T 8 8 0 N B
C A R P O O L T R A N S R T 8 8 0 S B T O
R T 2 3 7 W B

C A R P O O L T R A N S
Figure A-14
Alternate Test 14
Zone SF1
(8-inch AC - 1960s)
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 3/6/2020 1:00:01 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Hydrant Test\HydrantTestSheets.mxd : rchu Flowing Hydrant
Observed Hydrant
Hydrant
Closed Valve (2 total)
Valve
Test Pipeline
Pipeline
633
Item # 16.

ATTACHMENT B
634
Item # 16.
o\c\877\60-19-01\wp\082119_1 M
Table B-1. Hydrant Pressure Recorder Locations
HPR
No.

Pressure
Zone Facility Monitored Location
1 SF1 Gibraltar BPS Near 819 E Curtis Ave
2 SF1 Main St PRV SW corner of Corning Avenue and Abel Street 3 SF1 N Milpitas PRV Near 70 N Milpitas Boulevard
4 SF1 Sunnyhills PRV Near 361 Washington Drive
5 SF2 Ayer BPS Near 1439 E Calaveras Boulevard
6 SC1 Parc Metro PRV Near 232 Parc Place Drive
7 SF2 Main St Turnout Near 271 Parc Place Drive
8 SF2 Calaveras Turnout NE corner of N Milpitas Boulevard and E Calaveras Boulevard
9 SF2 Sunnyhills Turnout Near 1589 Washington Drive
10 SC1 Capitol PRV Lundy Pl near 880 E Capitol Avenue
11 SC1 Curtis PRV Near 1189 Barber Lane
12 SC2 Gibraltar PRV Intersection of Gibraltar Court and Gibraltar/Yosemite Drive 13 SC2 Gibraltar BPS Piper Dr between Garden Street and Meridian Place 14 SF3 Country Club BPS Country Club Drive, north of BPS 15 SF3 Tularcitos Tank Near 1251 Tularcitos Drive
16 SF4-1 Tularcitos N PRV Near 1772 Country Club Drive
17 SF4-1 Tularcitos S PRV Near 1870 Saint Andrews Court 18 SF4-1 Calera Creek Heights PRV Near 1631 Calera Creek Heights Drive 19 SF4-2 Tularcitos BPS Near 1490 Tularcitos Drive
20 SF4-2 Minnis Tank Near intersection of Monument Peak Road and Downing Road (Launch Site Road?)
635
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

XW
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
181
179
177
163
159
161
169
167
165
170
176
178
172
174
166
168
317 311
305
308
318320
326
332
338
344
350
871
887
867
887 327
33 72-50
54 62
68 96-7482
94 122-100104
114
75 71-89
87 147
143 137
135
133 131
129
125-149
113
121
133
131
129
127
125
123
795
775-797
783
183
185
191
189
187
201
203
197
199
195
211
213
209
205
207 217
221
215
217219
228
230
224 236
234
240
238
244
242
250
252
254
253
255
251
257
239
260
258
266
264
262
268
271
273
265
269
267
263
129
123
117
111
130 124 112 118
160
154
148
133
134
45 33 39 27
28 34 40
47 41
35 48
42 43
833
839
845
96 90 84
72 78
66 60 860
866
872
99 101
103 105
818
824
830
836
817
816
823
829
835
822
828
834
207 213
219
225
231
815
821
827
833
839
845
851
857
863
869
885
891
897
884
890
896
883
889
125
224
816 820
818 814
826 822
834 830
838 842
850 846
860 864
880
868
863
875 879
891 895
881
887
893
899
898
892
886
880
879
885
891
898
169175
181 187
193
184 190 172 178
166
165171177183
189
855
849
843
837
831
895
889
883
894
888
882
881
887
893
878
884
913
359
353
347
341 335
329
323
303
309315
333
824
844
72 53
51-69
67 61
57 88 122
101
109
91-109
95 81
79 138 146 132
130 126124-146
119
117
111
115
153
151
157
155
149
147
141
139
137
135
145
143
175
171
173
160 186
180
184
182
188
190
192
206
200
202
198
196
194
193
223
219
225
215
210
214
216
220
221 223
211
213
256
248
246
235
237
227
229
241
245
247
243
231
233
249 259
261
47 48
46 142 136
836
842
848
835
841
847
834
840
846
107
141 147
153 159 821
827
833
839
838
832
826
820
837
831
825
819
237243
204210
216
205
211 217
222228
234 240
223
229 235
241
895
882
888
894
881
887
893
940
129 128
131
130
852 848
840
836 828
832
884
872
888
876
892 896
858 862
866 870
874 878
882 886
890 894
859
897
896
890
884
878
877
883
889
895
894
888
882
881
887
893
886
892
195
897
891
885
879
873
874
880
886
892
898
830
836
842
848
854
860 861
890 909
901
902
910
918
927
919
911
903 904
912
920
928
936
937
929
921
S U N

S O N G

M E T R O

W A L K D R

W I N D
W
A L K
F I R
E
W
A L K
W
A
T
E
R
W
A L K

M O O N

S H A D O W D R
T
O
W
N
E
D
R
R
E
V
E L A
T I O
N
P L
I N
S
P I R
A
T I O
N
P L

C E L E B R A T I O N
D R

C U R T I S A V E

M E T R O P O L I T A N D R
R
A I N
D
A
N
C
E
S U N

D A N C E
S

P I R I T
W
A L K
H
A
R
M
O
N
Y
P L
H
E
A
V
E
N L Y
P L
T
R
A
N
Q

U I L I T
Y
P L
C
O
M
E
T
D
R

R A I N B O W P L F A
S
C I N
A
T I O
N
P L
P
A
R
C L N

S E R E N I T Y
P L

P A R C P L A C E D R

G R E A T M A L L D R
Parc Metro
PRV
6 1
7 Figure B-1
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
636
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

XW
*G!.
437
16 200
422
420
304302
412
414
360
279
258
246
234
222
210
208
190
178
166
152
140
122
143
155
171
181
195
272
260
248
236
224
212
200
190
579
338
344
388
380
396
312
290
280 282
270
260
129
143
157
171
185
192
178
164
150
136
122
372
336
408 410
462-214
744
760
776
790
806
822
838
854
870
886
902 918
310
302 294286278
270262 254
246 238
230
222
985 889 905
1001
1017
1033
1049
1065
1081
1097
1113
1129
1145
1161
1177
1193
818
802
786
770
1143
1175
1207
1239
1271
1303
1314
1282
1250
680
648
616-968
723 691
659
1299 627-947
1267
1235
198
190 182
174 166
158 150
198-142 600-934 616632
648
664
680
696
712
728
873
857
841
825
809
793
777
761
745
729
713
697
681
665
649
633-921
1209
1225
1254
1238
1222
1206
1190
1174
1158
1142
1126
1110
1094
1078
1062
10461030
754
738
722
706
690
674
658
642 626-930
631-951
663
695
727
759
791
823
1218
7441186 712
25 390 15
399
123
151
396
399
213
225
237
249
261
284
276
268
201
213
225
237
249
261
273
180
168
152
140 120
450
430
400
449
455
451
515
429
529
540
485
563
22 400
288
366
352
338
315
329
343
357
371
385
11 13
16 14 15 20
1 2

C I E L O

L I N D O

C I E L O L I N D O C M N
T
E
R
N
U
R
A
L O
O
P

J U N I P E R O D R
M

A I N S T
E T
H Y L
S T
C L A
R I D
A
D L O
O
P

S I N N O T T L N

E T H Y L C T

A B E L S T
M
E
N
T

E L I N
D
A L O
O
P

A L V A R E Z
C M N

A L V A R E Z C T

C O R N I N G A V E

S Y L V I A A V E
Junipero PRV
2 Figure B-2
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
637
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G G!. !.

G!.

XW2!!
*G!.
*G!. 73
71 65
57 55
45 37
33 25
23 19
17 450 -
458
468
125
103 -
119
495
497
491
489
136
523
317
315
313
311
309
462
452
454
456
458
422
424
426
430
432
440
109
111
113
115
117
119
105
138
140
142
146
148
130 -
148
15 555
124
128
100
31 99
5 186
284
276
325
317 407 371 365 359
328334
346 352
225 343349
337 331 325
242
248
254
260 255
249
243
466 463
445
439
433
427
421
391 397
379385
367
228
234
240
362
1 420 - 426
85 75
547
543
80 70
493
571
58 444
107
521
527
531
535
537
539
273
281
289
297
457
455
40 320
328
336
288 278 268 258
248 238
228
218
190
182
174
166
158
150
278
284
290 279
273
276
281
275
257
251
245
239
233
227
221
215
209
203
212322
237
364370 376
382
388
394 398
406412
418
424
430
436
448
454
460
368374 380 386392398
404
410
416
451
B-101
B-102B-103
B-104
B-105
B-106
E-101
E-102
E-103
E-104 F-101
F-102 F-103
F-104
F-105
F-106
C-101
C-102
C-103
C-104
D-101
D-102
D-103
D-104
D-105
D-106
G-102
G-103
G-104
G-105
G-106
G-107
G-108
G-109
G-110
G-111
G-112
G-113
G-114
G-115
G-116
G-117
G-118

M I L P I T A S B L V D

C A L A V E R A S B L V D

T O W N C E N T E R D R
O
A

K H U R S T W
A
Y
W
O

O D W A R D D R

S I L V E R L A K E D R

G R A N I T E
C T

S I L V E R L A K E
C T

B A Y B E R R Y W A Y

S A N D H U R S T D R

B E R E S F O R D C T
North Milpitas
PRV
Calaveras
Turnout
8 3
Figure B-3
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
638
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

XW2!!
*G!.
*G!.
285 275
400
406
412
418
1619
427
415
1630
1640
1650
1660
255
260
390
1590
1600
1610
390
1649
1637
1625
1613
1601
399
393
387
377
369
361
353
300
320
340
360
370
1619
1613
1603 365
355
345
335
325
285
275
265
255
365
355
345
335
325
285
275
265
254
1421
304
316 328
340
350
337 325
313
301
280
292 304 316
328
335
323
1500
1589
424
430
436
442
431
425
419
413
407
401
404
410
416
422
428
266
1412
1424
1436
1448
1460
1497
1487
1475
1465
1453
1443
1431
311
299
287
275
258
270
282
294
306
318
1505
1670
1550
250
260
270
280
300
320
340
350
360
370
380
345
337
329
321
309
297
287
275
265
255
1600
240
250
260
270
280
245
260
270
280
300
310
320
330
350
360
370
1645
1635
1625 375
280
290
300
320
330
340
350
360
1665
385 375
365
355
335
325
315
305
275
265

R O S E D R

W A S H I N G T O N D R
A
R I Z
O
N
A
A
V
E
C O
N
W A Y
S T
E
S
C
U
E L A
P
K
W
Y

G A R C I A C T
R
O
G
E
R
S
T

D U A R T E C T
C
O
R
T
E
Z
S
T

B O Y D S T

C O E L H O S T

R A N C H O

H I G U E R A
R D

C U R T N E R D R

H A Z E N S T

V A L M Y S T
Sunnyhills
PRV
Sunnyhills Turnout
9 4
Figure B-4
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
639
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G
G!.

G!.

UT
[PS ±
*G!.
129
145
1359
1347
1335
1323
1311
1360
88 52
1458 1470 1482 1496
1495 1481 1469 1457 1445 1433
1421
1412
1414 1422
1434 1446 1458 1470
140
130
120
110
1325
1429
142
154
72 80
96 68
1331
145
137
123
113
103
95 83
159
161
147
149
133
135
121
109
1585
1573 1561 1549 1537 1525 1513 1501
1502 1514 1526 1538 1550 1562 1574
1559
1566
1 15
27 39
51 63
75 87
99 111
56 60
20 160 1420
135
150 1425
130
110
96 84
68 56
44 36
20 1400
1410 1422 1434 1446
1482 1496
87 99
105
109
115
125
135
145
155
175
1506 1518 1530
1541
1533
1525 1503
1500
1509 1503
2 - 122
111
85 123
90 102
128
1529
64 98
92 90
106
102
48 34
38 22 30
84 76
110
116
122
118
1519
1511
1515
71 70
72 88
104
116
118
130
140
156
95 97
83 67
69 1455
1471
1483
1491
1487
1443
1439
1441
1447
1445
1449
1543
1586
1557 1571 1547 1535 1523 1511 1503
1469
1459
140
130
120
110
100
96 84
95 101
109
115
125

C A N T O N D R
C
A

R N E G I E D
R

A L B A N Y
C T

J U P I T E R D R

A D A M S A V
C
A L A
V E R

A S C T

C A L A V E R A S B L V D

S O L A
R

C T J U P I T E R C T
G
A
D
S
D E N
D
R

B R A L Y A V E

F A N Y

O N S T
Ayer BPS
Ayer
Reservoir
5 Figure B-5
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
640
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

UT
XW
XW
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
181
179
177
163
159
161
169
167
165
170
176
178
172
174
166
168
317 311
305
308
318320
326332
338
344
350356
871
887
867
887 327
339
328
334
72-50
54 66
70 96-74
90 96
122-100104
112
71-89
87 149
147
143
141 139
133 127
125-149
113
121
133
131
129
127
125
123
795
775-797
785
183
185
191
189
187
201
203
197
199
195
211
213
209
205
207 217
221
215
217219
228
226
230
236
234
240
238
244
242
250
252
254
253
255
251
257
239
260
258
266
264
262
268
271
273
265
269
267
263
129
123
117
111
130 124 112 118
160 148 154
833
839
845
96 90 84
72 78
66 60 860
866
872
99 101
103
105
818
824
830
836
817
816
823
829
835
822
828
834
207213219
225
231
815
821
827
833
839
845
851
857
863
869
885
891
897
884
890
896
883
889
224
816 820
818 814
826 822
834 830
838 842
850 846
860 864
880
868
863
875 879
891 895
881
887
893
899
898
892
886
880
879
885
891
898
169175
181 187
193
184 190
178 166172
165
171 177
183 189
855
849
843
837
831
895
889
883
894
888
882
881 878
371
365
359
353 347
341 335
329
323
303
309315
321
333
345
824
844
69 53
51-69
63 57
86 120
101
109
97 91-109
81 77
73 146
144
140
138
136
134
132 128
126
124-146
119
117
111
115
791
153
151
157
155
149
147
141
139
137
135
145
143
175
171
173
160 186
180
184
182
188
190
192
204
206
200
202
198
196
194
193
223
219
225
215
210
214
216
220
221 223
211
213
256
248
246
235
237
227
229
241
245
247
243
231
233
249 259
261
47 49 142 136
842
848
835
841
847
834
840
846
107
141
147153
159 821
827
833
839
838
832
826
820
837
831
825
819
237243
204
210 216
205
211 217
222228
234 240
223
229 235
241
895
882
888
894
881
887
893
940
852 848
840
836 828
832
884
872
888
876
892 896
858 862
866 870
874 878
882 886
890 894
859
897
896
890
884
878
877
883
889
895
894
888
882
881
887
893
886
892
195
897
891
885
879
873
874
880
886
892
898
830
836
842
848
854
860 861

G R E A T M A L L D R

F I R E
W
A L K

M E T R O

W A L K D R
W A T
E
R
W
A L K
T
O
W
N
E
D
R
R
E
V
E L A
T I O
N
P L
I N
S
P I R
A
T I O
N
P L

C E L E B R A T I O N D R

S U N D A N C E

C U R T I S A V E

M E T R O P O L I T A N D R
S

P I R I T
W
A L K
H
A
R
M
O
N
Y
P L
H
E
A
V
E
N L Y
P L
T
R
A
N
Q

U I L I T
Y
P L
C
O
M
E
T
D
R

R A I N B O W P L F A
S
C I N
A
T I O
N
P L
P
A
R
C L N

S E R E N I T Y
P L

P A R C P L A C E D R
Parc Metro
PRV
Gibraltar
PRV
GIbraltar
(SF)
Reservoir
6 1
7 Figure B-6
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
641
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!. G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G
G!.

G!.

UT
XW
XW
[PS ±
2!!
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
181
179
177
163
159
161
169
167
165
170
176
178
172
174
166
168
641
317 311
305
308
318320
326
332
338
344
350356
871 381
887
867
887 327
339
328
334340
346352
358
370
376
84 96
106
102
122-100
116
149
147 143 141 131 137
129
125-149
113
121
133
131
129
127
125
123
797
781
775-797
787
183
185
191
189
187
201
203
197
199
195
211
213
209
205
207 217
221
215217
219
228
224 236
234
240
238
244
242
250
252
254
253
255
251
257
239
260
258
266
264
262
268
271
273
265
269
267
263
129 117123
111
130 124 112 118
154 160
148
833
845
99 101
105103
818
824
830
836
817
816
823
829
835
822
828
834
207213219
225231
815
821
827
833
839
845
851
857
863
869
885
891
897
884
890
896
883
889
224
671
816 820
818 814
826 822
834 830
838 842
850 846
860 864
880
868
863
875 879
891 895
881 880
879
885891
898
169
175 181
187193
190 178 184
172 166
165
171 177
183 189
855
849
843
837
831
383
377 371
365 359
353 347
335 341
329 323
362368
374380
386
303
309315
321
333
345351
357
363
369
375
824
844
88 122
103
107
93 91-109
73 146 142
140
136
132
130
126
124-146
119
117
111
115
153
151
157
155
149
147
141
139
137
135
145
143
175
171
173
160 186
180
184
182
188
190
192
204
206
200
202
198
196
194
193
223
219
225
215
208
214
212 222
218
223
221
211 213
256
248
246
235
237
227
229
241
245
247
243
231
233
249 259
261
142
136
834
840
846
107
141
147153
159 821
827
833
839
838
832
826
820
837
831
825
819
237243
204210216
205
211 217
222228234
240
223
229 235
241
895
882
888
894
881
887
893
852 848
840
836 828
832
884
872
888
876
892 896
858 862
866 870
874 878
882 886
890 894
859
890
884
878
877
883
889
895
894
888
882
881
887
893
886
892
195
830
836
842
848
860 861
F I R
E
W
A L K
T
O
W
N
E
D
R
R
E
V
E L A
T I O
N
P L
C

C E L E B R A T I O N D R

U R T I S A V E

M E T R O P O L I T A N D R
S

P I R I T
W
A L K
H
A
R
M
O
N
Y
P L
H
E
A
V
E
N L Y
P L
T
R
A
N
Q

U I L I T
Y
P L

R A I N B O W P L
P
A
R
C L N

I M A G I N A T I O N
P L

S E R E N I T Y
P L
C
O
M
E
T
D
R

P A R C P L A C E D R

G R E A T M A L L D R
Parc
Metro
PRV
Gibraltar
PRV
Gibraltar BPS
GIbraltar
(SF)
Reservoir
Gibraltar
Turnout
6 1
7 Figure B-7
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
642
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

XW2!!
*G!.
*G!. 73
71 65
57 55
45 37
33 25
23 19
17 442
450 -
458
460
468
466
471
495
497
491
489
481
136
523
470
462
464
452
454
456
458
422
424
426
430
432
440
92 88
82 78
72 68
62 103
99 93
89 83
79 73
69 63
106
100
101
97 91
87 19 13 9
281 285 289
290 286 282
475 479
483
138
15 477
124
128
100
31 99
5 451
1 11
75 420 - 426
85 75
547
543
80 70
493
571
112
108
102
98 96
90 86
80 76
70 66
58 52 38 32 28 22 18 12 8
444
473
479
521
527
531 535
163
103
107
111
115 123
366
362
360
358
356
352
350
348
346
370
372
376
378
380
382
386
388
390 392
97 91 95
93 87 99
85 83
77 73
398
79 89
457
455
40 100
489
E-101 E-102
E-103
D-102
D-103
D-104
D-105
D-106
500

C O B B L E S T O N E
L P
S A N
D
H
U
R S T
D R

I N D U S T R I A L
W A Y

C A L A V E R A S B L V D

H E A R S T D R

M I L P I T A S B L V
D

T O W N

C E N T E R D R

C A L Y P S O
C T
L O S

C O C H E S S T

P R I V
A T E

A L L E Y
A

P R I V
A T E

A L L E Y B
O
A

K H U R
S T
W
A
Y
C

A L Y P S
O L N

B E R E S F O R D C T

C H Y S I S R D
North Milpitas
PRV
Calaveras
Turnout
8 3
Figure B-8
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
643
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

XW2!!
*G!.
*G!.
400
406
412
418
515
509
503
497
491
485
479
473
467
461
455
449
458
464
472
480
492
1655
1645
1631
1619
427
415
1630
1640
1650
1660
390
1590
1600
1610
390
1649
1637
1625
1613
1601
399
393
387
377
369
361
353
340
360
370
1619
1613
1603 365
355
345
335
365
355
340
350
337
325
316
328
335
323
1375
1500
1589
424
430
436
442
448
454
465
453
441
439
410
460
466
472
478
484
490 1613
443
437
431
425
419
413
407
401
404
410
416
422
428
434
440
446
452
318
1505
1670
1680
1690
320
340
350
360
370
380
345
337
329
360
370
1645
1635
1625 375
360
1665
385 375
631
621
611
601
591
581
571
561
566 578 588 598
608
618
1450
E
S
C
U
E L A
P
K
W
Y

C U R T N E R D R

W A S H I N G T O N D R
C O
E
L
H
O
C T
C
U
R
T
N E R
C
T

H A Z E N
S T
R
O
G
E
R
S
T
C
O
R
T
E
Z
S
T
C O
N
W A Y
S T

C O E L H O S T

V A L M Y S T

M A N Z A N O S T

R A N C H O H I G U E R A R D
Sunnyhills
PRV
Sunnyhills
Turnout
9 4
Figure B-9
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
644
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G
G!.

G!.

XW
*G!.
761 -
775 777
770
768774
776778
780
782788
794
760
750
790
755
1992
800
810820
830
860
880888
765
769
773
775
777
757
2001
551
1996
1980
1982
1988
G201
G301
G202 G302
G203
G204
C208
C308
M107
D309
D212
D312 G206
X07
G208
G308
A206
X07
A207
A208 A308
B208
X07 B207 B307
B210
B310
B209
B309
B212B312
X10
K212
K312
K211K311
B302 B204 D208 D209
B304
B303
B305B205
B206
B306 X02
C202
C302
X03
C303
X05
C205
C206
C306
G309
X11
G211
G212
A201
A301
A202
A302
X03
A203
A204
A304
A205
L U N
D Y
P L

C A P I T O L
A V E

N O R T H W O O D
D R

T A R O B
C T

P O P L A R W O O D
W A Y

T R I M B L E
R D
Capitol PRV
10 Figure B-10
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
645
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G
G!.

G!.

G!.
*G!.
530
501
475
525
1301
1113
1125
411 417 423 429 435
434428422 414
409 415 421 427
424 418
1113
1125
1137
1149
1161
1022
1016
1008
1002
996
988
1068
1062
1056
1050
460
446
438
540
481
520
500
510
367
377
389
399
409
421
1075
1087
1101
412
1300
1288
1276
1264
1252
1240
1228
1216
1204
1192
1180
1168
1156
1144
1132
1120
1108
389
393
1046 399
1038
1030
430 422
416 408
400
B
A
R
B
E
R L N

S T A R L I T E
C T

G A L A X Y
C T

S U M M E R F I E L D
D R

C A P I T O L
A V E

C A P E L L A W A Y

S T A R L I T E D R
R T 8 8 0

S Y C A M O R E D R

A L D E R D R
R T 8 8 0 N B O N / R
R
T 8 8 0 S
B
O
N / R
R T 8 8 0 N B O F F / R
11 Figure B-11
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
646
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

UT
XW
*G!.
317
311
305
308
318320
326 332
338
344
350 356
381
327
339
328
334 340
346 352
358 364
370376
382
595
720
700
740
591
500
691
771
637
631
677
671
725
727
777
891
383
377 371
365 359
353 347
335 341
329 323
362368
374 380
386
303
309
315
321
333
345351
357 363
369375
658
698
673
841
847
631

C E L E B R A T I O N
D R

Y O S E M I T E D R

M I L P I T
A
S
B L V
D

G I B R

A L T A
R
C T

G I B R A L T A R D R
GIbraltar
(SF)
Reservoir
12 Figure B-12
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
647
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G!. G!.

G!.

G!.
*G!.
1250 - 1286
1300
506508
510 512
516 518 526
528
556-584
558 566
568
767 771
773 779
1251
1295
1301-1315
1305
1309
1311
1313
1315
1335-1369
625
627629
631
606-632
610
612 616
618620
622
626
628630
632
656-682
675
677
679 681
707-729
1256
1274 1280
1286
1310
1320
1330 1346
1360
1370
1326
1456
1323
226
222
218
224
743
500
341
502-528 572 578
711
713 719
721 725727 763 761-779
765
1351 1355
1357
1359
1361
1367
1369
791
603-631 609611
615617
619
660
662
666668672678
680
682
653-681 659661
665 667
1268
1262
1450
1480
1428
341A
341B
x101 202
502
404
408
310
410
312
412
214
414
316
516
318
418 420
322
522
224
424
226
326
426 428
230
430
530
234 232
534
336
436
238
438
340
440
342
542
344
544
346
446
248
448
450
352
552
356
456 258
458 260
560 362
462 364
564 266 268
568570
272 274
474 376
476 378
478
280
480 382
582
284
484
286
486 388
488
392
492
394
494 201
505
207
277
379
479
381
581
483
385 387
587
291
491
395 537
443 341
247
547
349
351
551 255
457 261
561
563
565
367

A M A L F I L P

M O N T A G U E E X P W Y
C L O
V E R
C L

N I G H T S H A D E R D

P R I V

A T E S T

T H I S T L E P L

G A R D E N S T G R E A T M A L L D R
P I P
E
R
D
R

M E R R Y L P
M
Y

R T L E L N

B A R C E L O N A L P

M E R I D I A N P L

F A L C
O
N
D
R
13 Figure B-13
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
648
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G!.
[PS ±
*G!.
1349
1000
1027
1050
1499
1485
1037
1027
1025
1039
1035
1033
C A
M
A
R I L
L
O
C T
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
C L U
B
D
R

C A L A V E R A S

R I D G E
D R
Country
Club BPS
14 Figure B-14
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
649
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G!.
*
*G!.
*G!.
1855
1738
1758
1578
1804
1594
1246
1740
1756
1772
1819 1800
1781
1786 1820
1578
1594
1608 1628
1500
1774
1790
1806
1822
1838
1265
1251
1673
1657
1641
1625
1609
1593
1577
1770 1786
1802

S A I N T

A N D R E W S C T

C O U N T R Y

C L U B
D R

T U L A R C I T O S
D R
16 15
Figure B-15
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
650
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G
G!.

UT
XW
XW
[PS ±
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
1836
1475
1855
1738
1758
1804
1800
1594
1246
1346
1362
1740
1756
1772
1800 1819
1781
1786 1820
1378
1394
1410
1426
1442
1458
1474
1490
1705 1673 1689
1641 1657 1627
1628
1642
1658 1688
1328
1774
1790
1806
1822
1838
1854
1870
1886
1265
1251
1673
1657
1641
1625
1609
1549
1533
1517
1501
1862
1848
1865
1833
1801
1785
1769
1753
1737 1721
1712 1722 1738
1754
1770
1786
1802
1818
1832

C O U N T R Y

C L U B
D R

T U L A R C I T O S D R

A U G U S T A
C T

P I N E H U R S T C T

S A I N T A N D R E W S C T

P E B B L E B E A C H C T
Tularcitos
North PRV
Tularcitos
South PRV
Tularcitos
BPS
17 19
16 15
Figure B-16
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
651
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

UT
XW
XW
[PS ±
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
*
1836
1475
1855
1738
1758
1804
1800
1330
1346
1362
1740
1756
1772
1800 1819
1781
1786 1820
1378
1394
1410
1426
1442
1458
1474
1490
1642
1658 1688
1328
1774
1790
1806
1822
1838
1854
1870
1886
1265
1251
1673
1657
1506
1565
1549
1533
1517
1501
1862
1848
1865
1833
1801
1785
1769
1737 1753
1712 1722 1738
1754
1770
1786
1802
1818
1832

T U L A R C I T O S D R

A U G U S T A
C T

P I N E H U R S T C T

S A I N T A N D R E W S C T

C O U N T R Y

C L U B D R

P E B B L E B E A C H C T
Tularcitos
North PRV
Tularcitos
South PRV
Tularcitos
BPS
Tularcitos
Reservoir
17 19
16 Figure B-17
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
652
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

G!.
*G!.G!. XW
1647
1639
1631
1623
1618
1626
1634
1650

C A L E R A C R E E K H E I G H T S D R
Calera Creek
18 Heights PRV
Figure B-18
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
653
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.

G!.

UT
XW
XW
[PS ±
*G!.
*G!.
*G!.
1836
1475
1855
1758
1804
1800
1330
1346
1362
1740
1756
1772
1800 1819
1781
1786 1820
1378
1394
1410
1426
1442
1458
1474
1490
1328
1774
1790
1806
1822
1838
1854
1870
1886
1508
1506
1565
1549
1533
1517
1501
1862
1848
1865
1833
1801
1785
1769
1753
1737 1721
1738
1754
1770
1786
1802
1818
1832

T U L A R C I T O S D R

A U G U S T A C T

P I N E H U R S T C T
C
C
O
L U

U N T R Y
B D R

S A I N T A N D R E W S C T

P E B B L E B E A C H C T
Tularcitos
North PRV
Tularcitos
South PRV
Tularcitos
BPS
Tularcitos
Reservoir
17 19
16 Figure B-19
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
654
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
G!.
*G!.G!.
901

D O W N I N G
R D
20 Figure B-20
Hydrant Pressure
Recorder Locations
City of Milpitas
2020 Water Master Plan Update
Last Saved: 2/4/2020 3:43:08 PM O:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\HPR\HPRTestSheets.mxd : rchu *G!. Proposed HPR
Location
G!. Hydrant
2!! Turnout
[PS ±
Pump Station
UT Storage
Reservoir
n7 Well
XW Pressure
Reducing Valve
XW Emergency
PRV
Pipeline
655
Item # 16.

Water Utility Condition Assessment
Appendix D
656
Item # 16.

PREPARED BY
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment

PREPARED FOR
City of Milpitas
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | OCTOBER 2020
657
Item # 16.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM | OCTOBER
2020OMONTH YEAR
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
Prepared for
City of Milpitas
Project No. 270-60-19-16
10-30-20 10-30-20
Michael Zacharia, PE Date Anne Girtz, PE Date
10-30-20
QA/QC Review: Elizabeth Drayer PE Date
658
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
i City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table of Contents
Scope of Work..............................................................................................................................1 Review of Existing Information .....................................................................................................2

2.1 Asset Data and Asset Registry .......................................................................................................... 2

2.2 2002 Utility Depreciation Study ....................................................................................................... 3

2.3 2018 Soil Corrosivity Study............................................................................................................... 4 Asset Replacement Cost and Current Valuation.............................................................................5

3.1 Water System Asset Replacement Cost ........................................................................................... 5

3.2 Water System Current Valuation ..................................................................................................... 6 Risk Assessment Framework.........................................................................................................7 Likelihood of Failure Methodology................................................................................................8

5.1 Asset Useful Life Defined.................................................................................................................. 9

5.1.1 Non-Pipeline Useful Life.......................................................................................................... 9

5.1.2 Pipeline Useful Life................................................................................................................ 10

5.1.3 Asset Remaining Useful Life Defined .................................................................................... 10

5.1.4 Estimation of LOF based on Remaining Useful Life .............................................................. 10

5.2 Pipeline Hydraulic Conditions......................................................................................................... 12

5.2.1 Pipe Roughness..................................................................................................................... 12

5.2.2 Operating Pressure ............................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Supplemental Condition Data ........................................................................................................ 12

5.4 Likelihood of Failure Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 13

5.5 Asset LOF Results............................................................................................................................ 14

5.6 Facility LOF Results......................................................................................................................... 14 Consequence of Failure Methodology .........................................................................................16

6.1 Consequence of Failure Framework............................................................................................... 16

6.2 Consequence of Failure Rating Defined ......................................................................................... 18

6.3 Horizontal Asset COF Results.......................................................................................................... 21

6.4 Facility COF Results......................................................................................................................... 23 Risk Assessment.........................................................................................................................24

7.1 Risk Interpretation.......................................................................................................................... 24

7.2 Risk Results..................................................................................................................................... 25

7.2.1 Pipelines................................................................................................................................ 25

7.2.2 Hydrants................................................................................................................................ 27

7.2.3 Valves.................................................................................................................................... 27

7.2.4 Meters................................................................................................................................... 28

7.2.5 Vertical Assets....................................................................................................................... 29

7.2.6 Facility Risk Results............................................................................................................... 29 659
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
ii City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table of Contents
Conclusions................................................................................................................................32

8.1 Horizontal Assets............................................................................................................................ 32

8.2 Vertical Assets – Facilities............................................................................................................... 32

8.3 System Level Risk Summary ........................................................................................................... 32

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Asset Registry – Count of Asset Types...................................................................................... 3 Table 2. Water System Replacement Costs, 2002 Utility Depreciation Study (2002 Dollars)................ 4 Table 3a. Water System Replacement Costs (2020 Dollars) .................................................................. 5 Table 3b. Water System Asset Valuation (2020 Dollars)........................................................................ 6 Table 4a. Asset Failure Modes and LOF Factors..................................................................................... 8 Table 4b. LOF Definition and Ratings ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 5a. Useful Life by Asset Type ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 5b. Useful Life – Pipelines........................................................................................................... 10 Table 6. Pipe Roughness: C-Factor Comparison................................................................................... 12 Table 7. LOF Factor and Ratings – Water System Assets ..................................................................... 13 Table 8. Asset LOF Results, Percent of Total Assets by Type ............................................................... 14 Table 9. Facility LOF Results ................................................................................................................. 15 Table 10. COF Framework .................................................................................................................... 17 Table 11. COF Definition and Ratings................................................................................................... 18 Table 12. COF Factors and Ratings – Horizontal Assets (Pipes, Valves, Hydrants, Meters)................. 19 Table 13. COF Factors and Ratings – Vertical Assets............................................................................ 20 Table 14. Horizontal Asset COF Results, Percent of Total Asset by Type............................................. 21 Table 15. Facility COF Results............................................................................................................... 23 Table 16. Risk Level Matrix................................................................................................................... 24 Table 17. Pipeline Risk, Percent of Total Pipeline Length by Risk Level............................................... 25 Table 18. Pipeline Risk by LOF and COF, Miles of Pipeline................................................................... 25 Table 19. Hydrant Risk, Percent of Total Hydrants by Risk Level......................................................... 27 Table 20. Hydrant Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Hydrants................................................................ 27 Table 21. Valve Risk, Percent of Total Valves by Risk Level ................................................................. 27 Table 22. Valve Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Valves ........................................................................ 28 Table 23. Meter Risk, Percent of Total Meters by Risk Level ............................................................... 28 Table 24. Meter Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Meters...................................................................... 28 660
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
iii City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table of Contents
Table 25. Vertical Asset Risk, Percent of Vertical Assets by Risk Level ................................................ 29 Table 26. Vertical Asset Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Vertical Assets.............................................. 29 Table 27. Risk of Facilities by LOF and COF .......................................................................................... 30 Table 28. Facilities by Risk Score and Risk Level................................................................................... 31 Table 29. Risk at Water System Level................................................................................................... 32

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Percent Remaining Useful Life and LOF Rating ..................................................................... 11 Figure 2. Horizontal Assets with COF ≥ 3.............................................................................................. 22 Figure 3. Existing Pipeline Risk Levels................................................................................................... 26 661
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
1 City of Milpitas
October 2020
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the condition assessment that was performed of the City of Milpitas’s (City) water utility assets under Task 3 – Water Utility Asset Condition Assessment of the 2020 Water Master Plan Update (Master Plan). This TM presents assessment methodologies, asset valuations, likelihood and consequence of failure factors, and risk scores as summarized in the following sections:

1.0 Scope of Work

2.0 Review of Existing Information

3.0 Asset Replacement Cost and Current Valuation

4.0 Risk Assessment Framework

5.0 Likelihood of Failure Methodology

6.0 Consequence of Failure Methodology

7.0 Risk Assessment

8.0 Conclusions

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of this assessment includes:
• Preparing an estimate of remaining useful life and replacement cost of assets; • Developing a risk policy consisting of likelihood of failure (LOF) factors, consequence of failure (COF) factors, and interpretation of both LOF and COF to define risk; and • Performing a desktop risk analysis of utility assets.

Each asset was evaluated according to the risk policy, resulting in risk scores for each water system asset.

Risk scores and corresponding risk action thresholds can be used for decision making including selection and prioritization of asset renewal or replacement efforts. The analysis results will be used to inform the Task 7 Rehabilitation and Replacement Study of the Master Plan.

The standardized evaluation process established in the risk policy can be used in future assessments of condition, risk, and valuation of water system assets. The policy framework was developed so that risk factor definitions are commensurate across assets from other City utilities and can be applied to other departments. Should new data become available to support additional or refined risk factors (e.g. pipe break data with failure cause, condition assessment data, etc.), these can be developed within the risk framework proposed herein.
662
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
2 City of Milpitas
October 2020

REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION
This section describes the existing information upon which the assessments were based, and any data processing required prior to undertaking the assessments.

2.1 Asset Data and Asset Registry
The City provided two data sources containing water system asset information: a master inventory spreadsheet and a GIS database.

The master inventory spreadsheet contained information on water facilities including wells, pump stations, reservoirs, PRVs, turnouts, interties, and isolation valves. In addition to facility data, the spreadsheet contained information on select individual assets at each facility (e.g., for a pump station, the pump size(s), manufacturer, model, and other attributes were provided).

The City’s existing GIS database was outdated and was updated by HydroScience as part of their work on the City’s Sewer Master Plan (being completed concurrently). The updated database contained geospatial and attribute information for horizontal water assets including pipelines, valves, backflow preventers, blow off assemblies, hydrants, and meters.

The master spreadsheet and GIS database were compiled to create an asset registry of all City water system assets. Upon comparison of the two data sources provided by the City, it was observed that several assets were present in both databases. Duplicate entries included: isolation valves (40), PRVs (18), and reservoirs (5). To reconcile the duplicates, a coordinate comparison was performed in GIS to identify duplicate isolation valves; and visual inspection in GIS was performed to identify duplicate PRVs and reservoirs. Duplicates were removed from the respective database prior to compiling the asset registry.

The asset registry facilitated the condition and risk assessment discussed herein and provides a database for the City to track and manage their assets moving forward. This database is provided as a separate deliverable which consists of an Excel spreadsheet titled Asset Registry and Risk Results.xlsx and may be used to refresh the City’s CMMS database.

The final asset registry contained 35,260 entries, consisting of 35,173 horizonal assets and 87 vertical assets. The breakdown of assets by type is presented in Table 1. 663
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
3 City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 1. Asset Registry – Count of Asset Types
Asset Type Count
Horizontal Assets
Pipelines 9,575 pipe segments (183 miles)
Hydrants 2,906
Valves 6,341
Meters 16,351
Total Horizontal Assets 35,173
Vertical Assets
Fuel Tank 3
Engine 4
Generator 3
Motor 10
PLC 2
PRV 23
Pump 19
Reservoir 5
Turnouts and Interties 7
VFD 9
Well 2
Total Vertical Assets 87

2.2 2002 Utility Depreciation Study
A Utility Depreciation Study (Schaaf and Wheeler) was performed in 2002. The study included the following:
• An inventory of all City water system assets;
• Replacement costs for those elements; and
• A timetable for replacement of water system elements based on anticipated remaining useful life estimates.

This replacement cost analysis assumed unit costs based on a March 2003 ENR Construction Cost Index.

Table 2 presents the resulting replacement costs from the 2002 study for the City’s water system assets in 2002 dollars.
664
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
4 City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 2. Water System Replacement Costs, 2002 Utility Depreciation Study (2002 Dollars) Asset Type
Replacement Cost
Million dollars
Pipelines 131
Valves and Couplings 8.9
ACP Disposal 80.6
Storage Tanks 13.4
Pump Stations 10.6
Wells 1.1
Total $245.6

2.3 2018 Soil Corrosivity Study
In 2018, the City commissioned a soil corrosivity study (JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc.) to develop a comprehensive database related to corrosion potential of the soils throughout the City. The assessment was focused on water pipelines made of asbestos cement (AC), ductile iron, cast iron, dielectric coated steel, and mortar coated steel materials. Based on in-situ soil resistance measurements and a review of previous soil evaluations, strategies were developed for long-term corrosion control of AC and metallic pipelines. 665
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
5 City of Milpitas
October 2020

ASSET REPLACEMENT COST AND CURRENT VALUATION
Asset replacement cost and current valuation estimates are asset management best practices that can afford utility agencies improved decision making. This information provides agencies more accurate and integrated information about their assets, and allows more productive relationships with governing authorities, ratepayers, and other stakeholders because they can provide better information in a more transparent way.

Asset Replacement Cost estimates can be used to guide rehabilitation and replacement budgeting.

Typically, investment in replacement should cover at a minimum, the deprecation of the assets.

Asset Current Valuation estimates are required to support transactions (public-private partnerships, outright sale, etc.), insurance coverage or claims, and rates cases.

3.1 Water System Asset Replacement Cost
A water system asset replacement cost estimate was developed which represents the cost to replace the entire system in-kind, at current construction and design standards. Costs were developed based on a combination of data supplied by manufacturers, published industry standard cost data and curves, construction costs for similar facilities built by other public agencies, and construction costs previously estimated by West Yost for similar facilities with similar construction cost indexes. Details on cost estimating assumptions are provided in a separate appendix of the Water Master Plan.

A summary of the water system replacement costs is presented in Table 3a. Detailed replacement costs are provided in the Asset Registry and Risk Results Excel workbook.

Table 3a. Water System Replacement Costs (2020 Dollars) Facility Type
Replacement Cost
Million dollars
Pipelines 148.4
Valves 4.7
Hydrants 36.2
Meters 6.9
Storage Tanks 46.6
Pump Stations 27.6
Wells 7.2
PRVs 5.9
Turnouts and Interties 4.4
Total $287.9
666
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
6 City of Milpitas
October 2020

3.2 Water System Current Valuation
Using the 2020 replacement cost estimate presented in Table 3a, a current water system valuation was prepared using asset useful life estimates (discussed in detail in the Asset Useful Life section) and assuming a straight-line value reduction or depreciation. A straight-line depreciation assumes that the value of an existing asset is reduced gradually over its useful life in a linear relationship. For example, a pipe with 50 percent remaining useful life is valued at 50 percent of its total new replacement cost value.

The water system asset valuation estimates the value of individual assets only, not the inherent value of the water system as a whole.

The 2020 water system asset valuation assuming straight-line depreciation is presented in Table 3b.

Detailed asset valuation costs are provided in the Asset Registry and Risk Results Excel workbook.

Table 3b. Water System Asset Valuation (2020 Dollars)
Facility Type
Asset Valuation,
Million dollars
Pipelines 43.5
Valves 1.2
Hydrants 9.1
Meters 0.7
Storage Tanks 16.1
Pump Stations 2.8
Wells 2.0
PRVs 1.5
Turnouts and Interties 1.1
Total $78.0
667
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
7 City of Milpitas
October 2020

RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
Understanding the risk of each water system asset can help water utilities to prioritize highest-risk assets for renewal or replacement, allowing limited resources to be allocated most effectively. The two components of risk include:
• Likelihood of Failure (LOF), which estimates the probability that a failure will occur in an asset by meeting the end of its physical, design, service, or economic useful life; and • Consequence of Failure (COF), which estimates the impacts of asset failure expressed either qualitatively or quantitatively, being a loss, injury, or disadvantage from a social, economic, environmental, or regulatory standpoint.

Risk is then estimated using the conventional risk equation:

Risk = LOF x COF
The following sections present the LOF and COF methodology that was developed for the City’s water system assets, and then calculates asset risk using the risk equation. 668
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
8 City of Milpitas
October 2020

LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE METHODOLOGY
A desktop assessment was performed on existing water utility assets to estimate the LOF of each asset.

For this assessment, asset failure is defined by the asset’s inability to perform as intended or needed in its application. The primary failure mode utilized for this assessment was physical mortality, which is defined as physical deterioration due to age, usage, or acts of nature. Operational efficiency failure was also evaluated to consider the reduction in pipeline asset performance due to pipe roughness.

Supplemental asset data such as failure history and asset condition assessment can also be used to evaluate LOF. This data was not available at the time this analysis was performed.

For each asset type, one or more LOF factors were developed for each failure mode, as presented in Table 4a.

Table 4a. Asset Failure Modes and LOF Factors
Failure Mode Failure Description LOF Factor
Physical Mortality
The percent of useful life remaining considers that older assets are more likely to fail than newer ones due to the age of materials and wear from repeated use.

Remaining Useful Life (for
pipelines, considering pipe
material, pipe diameter,
and soil conditions)
Pipelines that operate at higher working pressures can
undergo stress cycles and cause higher failure rates in older pipelines.

Operating Pressure(a)
Operational Efficiency
Failure
The accumulation of corrosion byproducts and
suspended particles on the inside wall of aged pipes can increase pipe roughness and reduce pipe diameter,
thereby increasing operational costs to overcome to
greater hydraulic losses.

Pipe Roughness(a)
(change in Hazen-Williams
C-Factor)
(a) LOF Factor only applicable to pipelines
LOF ratings were assigned for each factor using standard definitions presented in Table 4b. Ratings and definitions range from 1 – indicating that an asset is in good condition and asset failure is “unlikely”, to 4 – indicating that asset is in poor condition and asset failure is “very likely”. Finally, each asset was evaluated under each applicable LOF factor to develop an overall LOF rating.

Table 4b. LOF Definition and Ratings
LOF Rating
1 2 3 4
LOF Definition Unlikely Possible Likely Very Likely
The following sections describe the development of each LOF factor utilized in the assessment. 669
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
9 City of Milpitas
October 2020

5.1 Asset Useful Life Defined
Asset useful life is generally considered to be the time that an asset provides valued service, after which it does not meet its intended service level. End of life is not necessarily indicative of catastrophic failure, and in most cases an asset can still hold functionality when it has reached the end of its useful life. Absent quantifiable condition or performance data, the assumption is that the older the asset, the greater likelihood it will fail.

Municipal water system assets vary by type, manufacture, design, construction, and quality. They have different characteristics in how they operate and, consequently, will have different profiles of how they perform and ultimately fail. Asset useful life expectancies are documented by the American Water Works Association and Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) in addition to other notable industry associations. Useful life values presented here are nominal and consistent with the water utility industry and are not specific to any geographic region.

5.1.1 Non-Pipeline Useful Life
Table 5a presents a summary of useful life by asset type which were used for the assessment of the City’s vertical and non-pipeline horizontal water utility assets. Pipeline assets are discussed separately in the following section.

Table 5a. Useful Life by Asset Type
Asset Type Useful Life, years
Vertical Assets
Fuel Tank 15
Engine 15
Generator 15
Motor 25
PLC 15
PRV 25
Pump 25
Reservoir 50
Turnouts and Interties 30
VFD 10
Well 50
Non-Pipeline Horizontal Assets
Hydrants 50
Meters 15
Valves 50
670
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
10 City of Milpitas
October 2020

5.1.2 Pipeline Useful Life
Pipeline useful life can vary significantly based on pipe size, material, and environmental conditions. The City’s 2018 soil corrosivity study indicated that the City’s AC pipe was more susceptible to failure in clay soils due to the pipe stresses associated with contraction and expansion of the soil. Smaller diameter AC pipes were especially susceptible to failure due to their relatively low resistance to soil movement. The report recommended a range of AC pipe useful lives based on pipe diameter. The investigation also mapped soil corrosivity and found that soils throughout the City were “severely” to “moderately” corrosive to metallic pipes (cast iron, ductile iron, steel).

Table 5b presents the useful lives for pipelines based on industry standards and the JDH report. It includes a base useful life (not considering soil conditions) and an effective useful life for AC pipe in clayey soils and metallic pipes in corrosive soils. Reinforced concrete pipe was considered vulnerable to corrosive soils due to the potential for exposed reinforcement steel.

Table 5b. Useful Life – Pipelines
Pipe Material
Diameter,
Inches
Base Useful
Life,
years
Effective Useful Life, years
Clay Soils
Moderately
Corrosive
Soils
Corrosive
Soils
Severely
Corrosive
Soils
Asbestos Cement
4-10 30 24 - - -
12+ 90 72 - - -
Polyvinyl Chloride all 70 - - - -
Concrete Cylinder all 75 - 68 64 60
Cast Iron all 100 - 90 85 80
Ductile Iron all 100 - 90 85 80
Steel all 95 - 86 81 76

5.1.3 Asset Remaining Useful Life Defined
The asset useful life estimates discussed above were used to calculate the remaining useful life (RUL) of each asset with the following formulas:

RUL = Asset Useful Life – Asset Age
RUL (%) = (Asset Useful Life – Asset Age) / Asset Useful Life

5.1.4 Estimation of LOF based on Remaining Useful Life
Decay curves can be used to illustrate the progression of asset degradation (decay) over an asset’s useful life. The curves in Figure 1 were developed by WERF1 and represent empirical failure patterns at several 1 WERF SIMPLE (Sustainable Infrastructure Management Program Learning) 671
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
11 City of Milpitas
October 2020
polynomial rates that may be experienced in the water industry. For this assessment, Late Decay 2 curve was selected as the indicator of likelihood of failure based on the following assumptions:
• Once municipal assets are beyond the point of early mortality, only a gradual decline in asset condition is expected to occur for much of the asset life. Early mortality is characterized by asset failure very soon after the asset is commissioned and in service. The occurrence of early mortality is often associated with manufacturing and installation issues. • Late Decay Curve 2 provides only a 30 percent reduction in asset condition for the first twothirds of the asset life. This is considered a nominal reduction in condition for a major milestone in the asset lifecycle and represents a suitable objective for asset performance. • Late Decay Curve 2 provides a progression that is not significantly steep in terms of asset degradation over the final, remaining, one-third lifecycle.

Figure 1 also shows how Late Decay Curve 2 is used to correlate asset remaining useful life with the LOF rating (e.g. for an asset with a % RUL of 30 percent, the LOF rating is 2).

Figure 1. Percent Remaining Useful Life and LOF Rating
Several assets in the City databases were missing age or installation dates. These assets were assigned an LOF rating based on the following assumptions:
• AC pipe was assigned a rating of 4 under the assumption that AC pipe was not installed after the mid-1980s (and therefore the % RUL would be zero). 19 miles (894 pipe segments) of AC pipe had an unknown age/installation date.
• Remaining assets of unknown age were assigned a rating of 3 to account for the generally higher risk associated with unknown asset age and condition. 26 to 50% RUL
LOF Rating = 2
11 to 25% RUL
LOF Rating = 3
1 2
3 4
51 to 100% RUL
LOF Rating = 1
0 to 10% RUL
LOF Rating = 4
LOF Rating
100% % Remaining Useful Life 50% 25%
0%
10% 0%
0%
672
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
12 City of Milpitas
October 2020

5.2 Pipeline Hydraulic Conditions
Pipeline conditions from the hydraulic model were considered to evaluate LOF factors of pipe roughness (operational efficiency failure mode) and operational pressure (physical mortality failure mode).

5.2.1 Pipe Roughness
Hydrant testing was performed over a portion of the distribution system to determine calibrated pipeline roughness, or C-Factors (see Task 4 of the Master Plan, presented in Chapter 6). Calibrated C-Factors from the hydraulic model were used to determine the reduction in C-Factor when compared to the C-Factor of a brand-new pipe of the same material. The result of the C-Factor comparison is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Pipe Roughness: C-Factor Comparison
Pipe Material Pipe Sizes
New Pipe
C-Factor
Calibrated
C-Factor
Percent of New
C-Factor
Asbestos Cement
Diameter ≤ 8 inches
140
110 79%
Diameter > 8 inches 120 86%
Polyvinyl Chloride
Diameter ≤ 8 inches
150
130 87%
Diameter > 8 inches 140 93%
Concrete Cylinder Diameter > 8 inches 140 130 93%
Cast Iron
Diameter ≤ 8 inches
130
100 77%
Diameter > 8 inches 110 85%
Ductile Iron
Diameter ≤ 8 inches
140
130 93%
Diameter > 8 inches 140 100%
Steel
Diameter ≤ 8 inches
140
120 86%
Diameter > 8 inches 130 93%

5.2.2 Operating Pressure
Operating pressure was obtained from the calibrated hydraulic model under an average day scenario, with system pumps operating. Pipeline assets were evaluated for high operating pressure as an influence to increased LOF. Through discussions with the City, pipeline assets operating continually in excess of 135 psi regardless of design class were considered to be at higher risk of failure or increased LOF.

5.3 Supplemental Condition Data
Supplemental condition data typically consists of focused condition assessment studies of assets and facilities to determine condition based on an established set of metrics and criteria. Such assessments should be performed at intervals generally less than the asset’s useful life to confirm condition and status on the useful life curve. Maintenance records may also capture details from asset failure and problems.

This information can be used to document type and frequency of failures that serve as an indication of asset condition and be used in the future to develop additional LOF factors. 673
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
13 City of Milpitas
October 2020

5.4 Likelihood of Failure Evaluation
Assets were evaluated under each applicable LOF factor to develop an overall LOF rating. Pipeline assets were assessed based on the criteria outlined above consisting of RUL and operating pressure. Nonpipeline assets considered only RUL alone. Since these criteria are baseline and easy to assess they serve as the fixed LOF criteria.

Given the availability of supplemental data, the other criteria were incorporated as modifiers to the LOF assessment. LOF scores were subjected to the other criteria as potential modifiers that could increase the LOF rating if additional data were available. These modifiers include pipeline roughness, failure history from maintenance or other failure data, and focused condition assessment activities.

Both fixed and modifier LOF factors were assigned a weight based on the relative importance of each factor. For the fixed LOF factors, RUL is weighted to represent 80 percent of the total rating, while operating pressure represents 20 percent of the total rating. The maximum possible weighted rating for the fixed LOF factors is 4. LOF modifiers are only evaluated if the fixed LOF rating is less than 4. LOF modifiers can increase the overall rating up to 1 additional score, resulting in a total possible LOF rating of 4. Table 7 presents the LOF criteria and rating definitions.

Table 7. LOF Factor and Ratings – Water System Assets
Factor
LOF Rating and Definition
Weight
Max
Possible
Rating
1 Unlikely
2 Possible
3 Likely
4 Very Likely
Fixed LOF Factors
Remaining Useful Life
(RUL) 51 to 100% RUL 26 to 50% RUL
11 to 25% RUL;
Non-AC pipe
asset with
unknown age
0 to 10%
RUL; AC pipe
asset with
unknown age
80%

3.2 (Pipelines)

4.0 (All other
assets)
Operating Pressure(a) <84 psi 85 psi to 99 psi 100 psi to 1 34 psi >135 psi 20% 0.8
Maximum Rating 4.0
LOF Modifiers
Pipe Roughness(a)
85% to 100% of
new C-Factor
Rating
75% to 84% of
new C-Factor
Rating
65% to 74% of
new C-Factor
Rating
<64% of new CFactor Rating 2.5% 0.10
Failure History <2 3 to 5 6 to 9 >10 10% 0.40
Condition Assessment New Used Worn Pending Failure 12.5% 0.50 Maximum Modifier 1.0
Total Possible LOF Rating 4.0
(a) Factor only applicable to pipelines
674
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
14 City of Milpitas
October 2020

5.5 Asset LOF Results
Table 8 presents the LOF rating results as a percent of total assets by type (i.e. for hydrants, 8 percent of all hydrants were evaluated to have a LOF rating of 1 and 17 percent of all hydrants have a LOF rating of 2, etc.). Individual asset LOF results are provided in the Asset Registry and Risk Results Excel workbook.

Table 8. Asset LOF Results, Percent of Total Assets by Type LOF Rating, total assets by type, percent
1 2 3 4
Horizontal Assets
Pipelines(a) 25 18 20 37
Hydrants 8 17 75 0
Meters 0 3 22 75
Valves 16 23 61 0
Vertical Assets
Fuel Tank 0 0 33 67
Engine 0 0 0 100
Generator 0 0 67 33
Motor 0 0 30 70
PLC 0 0 50 50
PRV 0 4 87 9
Pump 0 0 16 84
Reservoir 0 60 40 0
Turnouts and
Interties 0 0 100 0
VFD 0 0 22 78
Well 50 0 50 0
(a) Pipeline results are shown as percent of total pipeline length, not pipe segments.

5.6 Facility LOF Results
The previous section describes the method for assigning an LOF rating for each asset. For vertical assets, multiple assets can constitute a larger facility; for example, the Ayer Pump Station facility includes a pump, motor, generator, fuel tank, PLC, and VFD. LOF can also be estimated at the facility level by considering the LOF of individual components within that facility. LOF was estimated for Milpitas water system facilities by averaging the associated component LOFs, weighted based on the individual component value. The applied weighting considers the fact that assets of a lower value should have a lesser impact on the overall facility LOF, whereas assets with a higher value should have a greater impact on the overall facility LOF.

Facility LOF =
∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑂𝐹 × 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 ($)
𝑛
𝑖=1
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 ($)
675
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
15 City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 9 presents the LOF rating results for each facility on the same 1 to 4 scale, rounded to the nearest tenth.

Table 9. Facility LOF Results
Facility LOF Rating
Curtis Well 1.7
Gibraltar Reservoir (SC) 2.0
Gibraltar Reservoir (SF) 2.0
Minnis Reservoir 2.0
ACWD Intertie 2.4
SJWC Intertie 2.4
Calera Creek Heights PRV 2.4
Capitol PRV 2.4
Main PRV 2.4
Milpitas PRV 2.4
Sunnyhills PRV 2.4
Curtis PRV 2.5
SCVWD Intertie 3.0
Gibraltar Turnout 3.0
Calaveras Turnout 3.0
Sunnyhills Turnout 3.0
Main Street Turnout 3.0
Abel PRV 3.0
Gibraltar PRV 3.0
Live Oak PRV 3.0
McCarthy PRV 3.0
Montague PRV 3.0
North Vault PRV 3.0
Sinclair PRV 3.0
South Vault PRV 3.0
Ayer Reservoir 3.0
Tularcitos Reservoir 3.0
Country Club Pump Station 3.2
Tularcitos Pump Station 3.2
Pinewood Well 3.4
Ayer Pump Station 3.6
Gibraltar Pump Station 3.7
676
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
16 City of Milpitas
October 2020

CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE METHODOLOGY
Consequence of failure (COF) rates the severity of consequences should an asset fail. Consequences typically include system performance impacts; economic or social impacts to the City, residents, or the community; safety impacts; and local or regional environmental impacts.

COF factors were developed in collaboration with City staff to reflect both City Council Core Goals and Priority Areas.

6.1 Consequence of Failure Framework
The Milpitas City Council has adopted a series of goals and priority areas that identify critical elements important to the City in the services it provides. These Goals and Priority Areas are outlined in the City’s 2020 fiscal budget as shown below.

Core Goals Priority Areas
• Superior Customer Service
• Integrity and Accountability
• Recognition and Celebration
• Open Communication
• Trust and Respect
• Public Safety
• Transportation and Transit
• Neighborhoods and Housing
• Governance and Administration
• Environment
• Economic Development and Job Growth
• Community Wellness and Open Space
Council objectives such as these can typically align with the critical objectives of a utility’s performance and can therefore be related to asset performance and the consequence of an asset failing. A COF framework was developed based on the Council Goals and Priority Areas. Each goal and priority area were evaluated for applicability to asset COF and, for those that could be developed, were categorized, measured, and rating definitions developed. Every objective except for: Recognition and Celebration; Open Communication; Neighborhoods and Housing; and Community Wellness and Open Space were developed into factors within the COF framework. Table 10 presents the COF framework and eight proposed COF factors.
677
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 10. COF Framework
Council Goals and
Priority Areas Category COF Factor
Rating and Metric
1 Negligible
2 Minimal
3 Moderate
4 Severe
Superior Customer Service Reliable, High Quality Customer Service in General (1) Water Service Interruptions Negligible Impact toWater Service Water pressure below 30 psi Interruption of Water Service Over Localized Area Interruption of Water Service
Over Large Area
Integrity and Accountability
Public Perception/Response (2) Magnitude and Method
of Public Response No Public Response May result in telephone calls May Result in Social Media Coverage May Result in Local or Greater
Media Coverage or
Public Comment
Trust and Respect
Public Safety Health and Safety of Public and City
Employees (3) Severity of Injury or Illness No Health or Safety Impact Minor Injury, First Aid Injury, Medical Attention Severe Injury or Loss of Life Environment
Compliance with Environmental
Regulations or other Water Quality
Concern
(4) State and Federal Regulatory
Violations or Public Response No Impact Reportable violation, no enforcement action May Result in Strong Warning
or Fine
Non-compliance resulting in
administrative or consent order
Transportation and Transit Public Transit Service (5) Public Transit Service Interruptions No Impact Minor Detours Bus Service is impacted >15% to sensitive groups/locations
Community Access to BART is
Interrupted
Requires Coordination with
Outside Agencies i.e., County,
CalTrans, VTA, etc.

Economic Development and Job Growth Economic Impacts (6) Local Business Impact No Impact Localized Short-term Business Impact, no Adverse Impact on Economic Vitality
Long-term or Area-wide Economic
Impact, Adverse Impact to
Economic Vitality
Governance and Administration Utility Operations
(7) Response Time to Restore an Asset Recovery measured in days Recovery could require up to Two (2) weeks
Recovery Could Require up to
One (1) Month
Recovery Requires Greater Than
One (1) Month
(8) Restoration Costs or Impact on
Utility Rates
Can be absorbed within fiscal
budget without adjustment
Could impact multiple
budget objects May Require Council Action May Impact Reserves 678
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
18 City of Milpitas
October 2020

6.2 Consequence of Failure Rating Defined
The COF framework presented in Table 10 was further developed into a model to assess COF for both horizontal and vertical assets by defining rating interpretations for all factors. Interpretations were developed into metrics such that COF ratings could easily be assigned with asset characteristics or geospatial data, avoiding manual evaluation of individual assets. For horizontal assets, this included assessment based on pipe size, street classification, land use, and hydraulic modeling. For vertical assets this included similar assessment criteria along with asset type.

COF ratings were assigned for each factor using standard definitions presented in Table 11. Ratings range from 1 – indicating the consequence of asset failure would be “negligible”, to 4 – indicating the consequence of asset failure would be “severe”. Tables 11 and 12 present the COF factors, metrics, and ratings for horizontal and vertical assets, respectively.

Table 11. COF Definition and Ratings
LOF Rating
1 2 3 4
COF Definition Negligible Minimal Moderate Severe
679
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 12. COF Factors and Ratings – Horizontal Assets (Pipes, Valves, Hydrants, Meters) Factor Description Data Source
Rating and Metric
1 Negligible
2 Minimal
3 Moderate
4 Severe
(1) Water Service Interruption Asset failure may cause interruptions to water service
GIS Pipe Diameter(c);
GIS Meter Size Pipes ≤8-inch Pipes 10 to 12-inch; All Other Meters Pipes 14 to 18-inch;
Meters 6 to 8-inch
Pipes >18-inch
(2) Magnitude and Method of Public Response Asset failure may cause a loss in public confidence
GIS Pipe Diameter(c);
Critical Facilities(a) -
Pipes ≤8-inch;
All Other Meters
Pipes 10 to 12-inch;
Meters 6 to 8-inch
Pipes >14-inch within 500
feet of a Critical Facility
(3) Severity of Injury or Illness Asset failure may cause injury or illness to public or utility operations staff GIS Pipe Diameter(c) Pipes ≤8-inch;All Other Meters Pipes 10 to 12-inch;
Meters 6 to 8-inch Pipes 14 to 18-inch Pipes >18-inch
(4) State and Federal Regulatory Violations or Public Response Asset failure may result in violation of
state or federal environmental
regulations
Asset Type All Valves;
All Meters
All Pipes;
All Hydrants - -
(5) Public Transit Service Interruptions
Asset failure may cause an impedance
to public and private transportation
function
GIS Road Speed; GIS Land Use; BART
stations; and Sensitive
Groups/Locations(b)
Streets with speeds up to
25 mph
Streets with speeds from
30-50 mph in Residential
LU
Streets with speeds from
30-50 mph in NonResidential LU; or
Adjacent to a Sensitive
Group/ Location
Highways, Highway
crossings, or Within 100-
feet of BART station
(6) Local Business Impact Asset failure may have a negative impact to the City economy
GIS Land Use (LU) All Other LU Types -
LU types including PF,

RRMU, M
LU types including TWC,

VHDMU, GNC, RSC, INP,

MFG, PAO
(7) Response Time to Restore an Asset The City’s ability to respond depends on the location of the asset GIS Road Speed Streets with speeds up to 25 mph Streets with speeds from
30-50 mph in Residential
LU
Streets with Speeds from
30-50 mph in NonResidential LU
Highways or Highway
Crossings
(8) Restoration Costs or Impact to Utility Rates The asset failure may have an impact to utility fiscal performance GIS Pipe Diameter(c) Pipes ≤12-inch;All Meters Pipes 14 to 16-inch Pipes 18 to 24-inch Pipes >24-iinch or
Highway Crossings
(a) Critical Facilities include Schools, Fire Stations, and Hazardous Pipelines. (b) Sensitive Groups/Locations include Fire Stations and Schools. (c) Hydrants were assigned the rating of adjacent/service pipeline; Valves were assigned the rating of connecting pipeline. 680
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 13. COF Factors and Ratings – Vertical Assets
Factor Description Data Source
Rating and Metric
1 Negligible
2 Minimal
3 Moderate
4 Severe
(1) Water Service Interruption Asset failure may cause interruptions to water service Asset Type - - PRVs
Interties, Turnouts,
Reservoirs, Pumping
Stations, Wells,
Emergency PRVs
(2) Magnitude and Method of Public Response Asset failure may cause a loss in public confidence Asset Type - - -
Interties, Turnouts,
Reservoirs, Pumping
Stations, Wells, PRVs
(3) Severity of Injury or Illness Asset failure may cause injury or illness to public or utility operations staff Asset Type - - PRVs Interties, Turnouts,
Reservoirs, Pumping
Stations, Wells,
Emergency PRVs
(4) State and Federal Regulatory Violations or Public Response Asset failure may result in violation of
state or federal environmental
regulations
Asset Type and location All Others - Wells
Wells within 50-feet to a
surface water source and
Surface Water Interties
(5) Public Transit Service Interruptions
Asset failure may cause an impedance
to public and private transportation
function
GIS Road Speed; GIS Land Use; BART
stations; and Sensitive
Groups/Locations(b)
Streets with speeds up to
25 mph
Streets with speeds from
30-50 mph in Residential
LU
Streets with speeds from
30-50 mph in NonResidential LU; or
Adjacent to a Sensitive
Group/ Location
Highways, Highway
crossings, or Within 100-
feet of BART station
(6) Local Business Impact Asset failure may have a negative impact to the City economy GIS Land Use All Other LU Types - LU types including PF,

RRMU, M
LU types including TWC,

VHDMU, GNC, RSC, INP,

MFG, PAO
(7) Response Time to Restore an Asset The City’s ability to respond depends on the location of the asset Asset Type - PRVs, Interties Turnouts Reservoirs, Pumping
Stations, Wells
(8) Restoration Costs or Impact to Utility Rates The asset failure may have an impact to utility fiscal performance Asset Type PRVs, Interties Turnouts - Reservoirs, Pumping
Stations, Wells
(a) Sensitive Groups/Locations include Fire Stations and Schools 681
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
21 City of Milpitas
October 2020

6.3 Horizontal Asset COF Results
The eight asset COF ratings were averaged to obtain an overall COF rating on the 1 to 4 scale. Table 14 presents the COF rating results for horizontal assets, summarized by percent of total asset type (i.e. for hydrants, 32 percent of all hydrants were evaluated to have a COF rating of 1). Horizontal assets with a moderate (3) COF rating are shown spatially in Figure 2. Individual asset COF results are provided in the Asset Registry and Risk Results Excel workbook.

Table 14. Horizontal Asset COF Results, Percent of Total Asset by Type Horizontal Assets
COF Rating, percent
1 2 3 4
Pipelines(a) 45 46 9 0
Hydrants 32 53 15 0
Meters 100 0 0 0
Valves 43 52 5 0
(a) Pipeline results are shown as percent of total pipeline length. 682
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure2
ExistingHorizontalAssets
withCOFScore≥3
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlanUpdate
st Saved: 11/2/2020 10:40:03 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Risk Assessment\Fig2_Horizonatal Asset COF Scores.mxd : coconnor !?
Valves
XW
Hydrants
Pipelines
CityLimits
^_B
erryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
£¤101
ÄÆ84
§¨¦880 §¨¦680
§¨¦280
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXWXW
XWXW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXW
XWXW
XW
XWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW

XWXWXWXWXW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXW
XWXW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW

XWXWXWXWXWXW
XWXW
XWXW
XW
XWXW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XWXWXW
XWXW
XW
XWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXWXW
XWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXW
XW
XWXWXW
XW
XWXWXW
XW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XWXWXW
XW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XWXWXW
XWXW
XW
XWXW
XWXWXW
XW

XWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XWXWXW
XWXW
XW
XWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXW

XWXWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXW
XW
XWXWXW
XW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
XWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XWXWXW
XW
XWXWXW
XW

XWXWXWXW
XWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW

XWXWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XWXW

XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
XWXW

XWXWXWXW
XWXW
XW

XWXWXWXWXW
XWXW
XW
XW
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?
!?
!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!?!?
!?!?!?
!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?!?
!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?
!?!?!?
!?
!?!?
!?!?
!?!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?
!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?
!?!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!?!?
!!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?
?
!?!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?
!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?!?
!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?!?!?
UV237
§¨¦880
§¨¦680
JAC
KL
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
BL
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
REAT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
^_B
erryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
£¤101
ÄÆ84
§¨¦880 §¨¦680
§¨¦280
683
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
23 City of Milpitas
October 2020

6.4 Facility COF Results
For vertical assets, COF ratings were assigned at the facility level (i.e. pump station, reservoir, well, etc.), with all facility components inheriting the COF rating of its parent facility. Table 15 presents the overall COF rating results for each facility on the same 1 to 4 scale, rounded to the nearest decimal.

Table 15. Facility COF Results
Facility COF Rating
Live Oak PRV 2.0
Main PRV 2.0
North Vault PRV 2.0
South Vault PRV 2.0
Calera Creek Heights PRV 2.0
SCVWD Intertie 2.3
SJWC Intertie 2.3
Abel PRV 2.3
Gibraltar PRV 2.4
McCarthy PRV 2.4
Sinclair PRV 2.4
Sunnyhills PRV 2.4
Milpitas PRV 2.5
Main Street Turnout 2.5
ACWD Intertie 2.6
Capitol PRV 2.6
Curtis PRV 2.6
Montague PRV 2.6
Calaveras Turnout 2.8
Sunnyhills Turnout 2.8
Country Club Pump Station 2.9
Tularcitos Pump Station 2.9
Minnis Reservoir 2.9
Tularcitos Reservoir 2.9
Gibraltar Turnout 2.9
Ayer Reservoir 3.1
Gibraltar Pump Station 3.3
Gibraltar Reservoir (SC) 3.3
Gibraltar Reservoir (SF) 3.3
Curtis Well 3.3
Pinewood Well 3.3
Ayer Pump Station 3.4
684
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
24 City of Milpitas
October 2020

RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk combines both LOF and COF to determine the resulting level of risk exposure that an agency is likely to confront through a potential failure of an asset. Assets with the highest risk have both a high likelihood of failure (i.e., poor condition or increased potential to underperform) and a high consequence of failure (i.e., significant consequences should failure occur).

The conventional risk equation, which was employed in this assessment, is the product of LOF and COF:

Risk = COF x LOF

7.1 Risk Interpretation
Individual COF and LOF factor definitions were combined to define the overall risk of each asset, interpreted as a Low, Medium, Medium-High, or High risk level. Table 16 presents the risk level matrix and risk definitions.

Table 16. Risk Level Matrix
LOF Rating and Definition
1 Unlikely
2 Possible
3 Likely
4 Very Likely
COF Rating and Definition
1 Negligible Low Low Low Low
2 Minimal Low Low Medium Med-High
3 Moderate Medium Medium Med-High High
4 Severe Medium Med-High High High
685
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
25 City of Milpitas
October 2020

7.2 Risk Results
The risk results are summarized in the tables below, including notation of the median risk rating for each asset type.

7.2.1 Pipelines
Table 17 presents the risk results for pipelines by percent of total pipeline length in each risk level.

Table 18 presents the detailed LOF and COF ratings by pipeline length. The median risk level for pipelines is Low, with an associated LOF of 3 and COF of 1. Pipeline risk is also presented spatially in Figure 3.

Table 17. Pipeline Risk, Percent of Total Pipeline Length by Risk Level Risk Level Percent
Low 71
Medium 15
Medium-High 13
High 1
Table 18. Pipeline Risk by LOF and COF, Miles of Pipeline COF LOF Total
1 2 3 4 Length
COF
1 15.1 3.0 17.2(a) 46.4 81.8
2 23.6 24.7 15.7 19.8 83.8
3 5.7 5.6 2.9 1.9 16.2
4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.9
Total 44.7 33.5 36.2 68.2 183
(a) Denotes the median risk score for all pipelines
686
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
Figure3
ExistingPipelines
RiskClassifications
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlanUpdate
st Saved: 11/2/2020 10:41:23 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Risk Assessment\Fig3_Pipelines Risk Scores.mxd : coconnor CityLimits
Low
Medium
Med-High
High
^_B
erryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
£¤101
ÄÆ84
§¨¦880 §¨¦680
§¨¦280
UV237
§¨¦880
§¨¦680
JAC
KL
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E

CALAVERAS
BL
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

CALAVERAS
RD

YOSEMITE DR
G
REAT
MAL
L
P
K

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
687
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
27 City of Milpitas
October 2020

7.2.2 Hydrants
Table 19 presents the risk results for hydrants by percent of total hydrants in each risk level. Table 20 presents the detailed LOF and COF ratings for all hydrants. The median risk level for hydrants is Low, with an associated LOF of 2 and COF of 2.

Table 19. Hydrant Risk, Percent of Total Hydrants by Risk Level Risk Level Percent
Low 78
Medium 22
Medium-High <0.5
High 0
Table 20. Hydrant Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Hydrants COF LOF Total
1 2 3 4 Hydrants
COF
1 71 523 329 0 923
2 114 1,219(a) 216 0 1,549
3 54 376 4 0 434
4 0 0 0 0 0
Total 239 2,118 549 0 2,906
(a) Denotes the median risk score for all pipelines

7.2.3 Valves
Table 21 presents the risk results for valves by percent of total valves in each risk level. Table 22 presents the detailed LOF and COF ratings for all valves. The median risk level for valves is Low, with an associated LOF of 2 and COF of 2.

Table 21. Valve Risk, Percent of Total Valves by Risk Level Risk Level Percent
Low 87
Medium 13
Medium-High <0.5
High 0
688
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
28 City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 22. Valve Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Valves
COF LOF Total
1 2 3 4 Valves
COF
1 412 1,370 967 0 2,749
2 509 2,248(a) 549 0 3,296
3 83 187 26 0 296
4 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,004 3,794 1,542 0 6,341
(a) Denotes the median risk score for all pipelines

7.2.4 Meters
Table 23 presents the risk results for meters by percent of total meters in each risk level. Table 24 presents the detailed LOF and COF ratings for all meters. The median risk level for meters is Low, with an associated LOF of 4 and COF of 1.

Table 23. Meter Risk, Percent of Total Meters by Risk Level Risk Level Percent
Low >99.9
Medium <0.1
Medium-High <0.1
High 0
Table 24. Meter Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Meters
COF LOF Total
1 2 3 4 Meters
COF
1 0 476 3,555 12,312(a) 16,343
2 0 2 4 2 8
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 478 3,559 12,314 16,351
(a) Denotes the median risk score for all pipelines
689
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
29 City of Milpitas
October 2020

7.2.5 Vertical Assets
Table 25 presents the risk results for all vertical assets by percent of total assets in each risk level. Table 26 presents the detailed LOF and COF ratings for all vertical assets. The median risk level for all vertical assets is Medium-High, with an associated LOF of 3 and COF of 3.

Table 25. Vertical Asset Risk, Percent of Vertical Assets by Risk Level Risk Level Percent
Low 1
Medium 25
Medium-High 25
High 48
Table 26. Vertical Asset Risk by LOF and COF, Count of Vertical Assets COF LOF Total
Vertical
1 2 3 4 Assets
COF
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 13 0 13
3 1 4 29(a) 40 74
4 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 4 38 40 87
(a) Denotes the median risk score for all pipelines

7.2.6 Facility Risk Results
The risk for each facility was evaluated based on the resulting facility LOF and COF ratings discussed previously and the risk equation. Table 27 presents the detailed LOF and COF ratings for each facility. Note the four-by-four risk matrix has been expanded to one decimal to provide greater granularity. The overall facility risk scores (LOF x COF) and risk levels are shown in Table 28 from lowest to highest risk. 690
Item # 16.
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 27. Risk of Facilities by LOF and COF

COF LOF

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
COF

0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2.0 -- -- -- --
Calera Creek Heights PRV,
Main PRV
Curtis Well, Live Oak PRV,
North Vault PRV, South
Vault PRV
-- --

2.5 -- -- -- --
SJWC Intertie, Sunnyhills
PRV, Milpitas PRV, ACWD
Intertie, Capitol PRV,
Curtis PRV
Abel PRV,
SCVWD Intertie, Gibraltar
PRV, McCarthy PRV,
Sinclair PRV, Main Street
Turnout, Montague PRV
-- --

3.0 -- -- -- Minnis Reservoir --
Calaveras Turnout,
Sunnyhills Turnout,
Tularcitos Reservoir,
Gibraltar Turnout, Country
Club Pump Station,
Tularcitos Pump Station,
Ayer Reservoirs
-- --

3.5 -- -- --
Gibraltar Reservoir (SC),
Gibraltar Reservoir (SF) -- --
Pinewood Well,
Gibraltar Pump Station,
Ayer Pump Station
--

4.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
691
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
31 City of Milpitas
October 2020
Table 28. Facilities by Risk Score and Risk Level
Facility
Risk Score
(LOF x COF) Risk Level
Calera Heights PRV, Main PRV 4.8 Medium
SJWC Intertie 5.4 Medium
Curtis Well 5.5 Medium
Minnis Reservoir 5.8 Medium
Live Oak PRV, North Vault PRV, South Vault PRV, 6.0 Medium ACWD Intertie, Capitol PRV 6.3 Medium-High
Gibraltar Reservoir (SC), Gibraltar Reservoir (SF) 6.5 Medium-High Curtis PRV 6.6 Medium-High
Abel PRV, SCVWD Intertie 6.8 Medium-High
Gibraltar PRV, McCarthy PRV, Sinclair PRV 7.1 Medium-High Sunnyhills PRV 5.7 Medium-High
Milpitas PRV 6.0 Medium-High
Main Street Turnout 7.5 Medium-High
Montague PRV 7.9 Medium-High
Calaveras Turnout, Sunnyhills Turnout 8.3 Medium-High
Tularcitos Reservoir, Gibraltar Turnout 8.6 Medium-High Country Club Pump Station, Tularcitos Pump Station 9.2 Medium-High Ayer Reservoir 9.4 Medium-High
Pinewood Well 11.1 High
Gibraltar Pump Station 12.0 High
Ayer Pump Station 12.2 High
692
Item # 16.
2020 Water Master Plan
Water Utility Condition Assessment
n\c\270 \60-19-16\wp\TM-RA
32 City of Milpitas
October 2020

CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Horizontal Assets
The desktop analysis indicates the horizontal infrastructure of the water system is well into its useful life curve with most assets rated 3 (“likely” asset failure) or higher for LOF.

The consequence of failure analysis indicates that horizontal assets expose mostly a negligible to minimal impact should they fail, with a small percentage of assets potentially yielding a moderate impact.

Overall, the majority (71%) of pipeline assets have a risk rating of Low, with a high LOF and low COF. There is a significant risk exposure to pipeline failure due to this high LOF, which is primarily due to asset age.

Hydrants, valves, and meters are also at a Low risk level with generally advanced age contributing to a higher LOF but a relatively low COF.

8.2 Vertical Assets – Facilities
Facilities were generally rated 2 or higher for LOF. The City has developed most of its newer infrastructure in well and reservoir facilities (Curtis Well, Gibraltar Reservoirs, Minnis Reservoir), which are rated with an LOF of less than 3. Remaining facility LOF was consistently rated between 2.4 and 3, except for the Country Club Pump Station, Tularcitos Pump Station, Pinewood Well, Ayer Pump Station and Gibraltar Pump Station which were rated from 3.2 to 3.7. These higher LOF values are indicative of higher asset values with advanced age, suggesting a greater and more immediate investment need in asset renewal.

Facility COF ratings ranged from 2 to 3.4, with the highest ratings assigned to pump stations, reservoirs, and wells. PRVs, interties, and turnouts were all rated below 2.9.

8.3 System Level Risk Summary
The overall risk of the water system is low for horizontal infrastructure and medium-high for facilities.

Table 29 illustrates the risk at the distribution system level, allocated by each asset type. Note that some facility types are noted in multiple risk levels.

Table 29. Risk at Water System Level
LOF
1 2 3 4
COF
1 -- -- Pipelines Meters
2 --
Hydrants
Valves
Well
PRVs --
3 -- Reservoir
PRVs
Turnouts
Reservoirs
Pump Stations
Well
Pump Stations
4 -- Reservoirs -- --
693
Item # 16.

Seismic Risk Assessment
Appendix E
694
Item # 16.
8950 Cal Center Drive
Bldg. 1, Suite 363
Sacramento CA 95826
916.306.2250 phone
530.756.5991 fax
westyost.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 28, 2020 Project No.: 270-60-19-16
SENT VIA: EMAIL
TO: Harris Siddiqui
FROM: Whitney Sandelin, PE, RCE #86703
Amara Cairns
REVIEWED BY: Mel Damewood III, PE
SUBJECT: City of Milpitas - Summary of Methodologies and Results from Hazus® Earthquake Model and American Lifelines Alliance® Analysis

PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to document the methodologies used to estimate consequences and risks associated with an earthquake event affecting the City of Milpitas (City) water system. The results of this analysis conclude in the estimation of the direct consequence of a representative earthquake scenario for the City. The consequence estimates presented herein do not include consideration of community economic losses (e.g. indirect or induced) that may occur due to extended periods without water service.

This TM is organized as follows:
• Introduction to Hazus and American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) Methodologies • Earthquake Scenario Selection
• Estimated Damage States and Restoration Times
• Estimated Service Denial
• Conclusion and Disclaimer
• References

INTRODUCTION TO HAZUS AND ALA METHODOLOGIES
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a standardized methodology for estimating losses from certain natural hazards, including earthquakes. The methodology, known as Hazus, addresses flooding, hurricanes, coast surge, tsunamis and earthquakes. Specifically, the Hazus Earthquake Model is designed to “produce loss estimates for use by federal, state, regional and local governments in planning for earthquake risk mitigation, emergency preparedness, response and recovery”. 695
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

Page 2 ends

Milpitas City CouncilAugust 9, 2022

Milpitas City Council
August 9, 2022