Milpitas City Council
August 9, 2022

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) J100 Standard, Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater System (J100 Standard), recommends the Hazus methodology to estimate the damage states and restoration times for individual facilities, such as pump stations and storage tanks.

However, West Yost understands that the draft version of the forthcoming update to the J100 Standard recommends the use of the ALA methodology for estimating damages to pipelines and distribution systems under a selected earthquake event. The authors of Hazus acknowledge its limitation for pipelines.

As described in the “Message to Users” section of the Hazus Manual, while the Hazus methodology has been tested against the judgment of experts and, to the extent possible, against records from several past earthquakes, limited and incomplete data about actual earthquake damage precludes complete calibration of the methodology.

Although the revised J100 Standard has not yet been released by AWWA, West Yost considers it to reflect best management practices for conducting earthquake consequence analyses for public water systems.

Therefore, West Yost is using two methods in this analysis:
• Hazus for non-linear assets (i.e., storage tanks, pump stations, and treatment facilities). The methodologies presented herein are based on the Hazus Multi-Hazard Technical Manual, Version 2.1 (Hazus Manual).
• ALA Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems, Part 1, April 2001 (ALA Manual) for linear assets.

Hazus deals with all aspects of the built environment, including water system infrastructure. Chapter 8 focuses on direct damage to Utility Systems, including a loss estimation methodology for water system supply, storage, transmission, and distribution components. The ALA Manual provides recommended pipe vulnerability functions and fragility curves in Chapter 4.

The following sections document the specific steps taken to estimate consequences associated with an earthquake event, using the Hazus and ALA methodologies to assess select assets within the City’s water system.

EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO SELECTION
In order to apply the Hazus and ALA methodologies, a user must first identify specific parameters associated with a potential ground shaking event, including peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and peak ground deformation (PGD). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Scenario Catalogs (also referred to as ShakeMaps) were examined to identify a relevant earthquake scenario for the utility’s service area.
696
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
The earthquake scenario selected for the City of Milpitas is the Hayward-Rodgers Creek event described in the USGS Northern California Legacy Catalog. At magnitude 6.8, this event represents the largest magnitude event described by ShakeMap in relatively close proximity to key City utilities. The scenario map from the USGS site is shown on Figure 1; the scenario selected for the utility is highlighted in blue. 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 31.02 percent chance of occurrence within the next 50 years. This event is a scenario (i.e., it is not a historical event) and is intended for planning purposes only.

Figure 1. USGS ShakeMap—6.8 Magnitude Earthquake Event for the City of Milpitas Utilizing the interactive geospatial data interface provided by USGS, ground motion contours were examined based on the scenario epicenter and fault location(s). Values for PGA and PGV were visually interpolated for the location of each asset. For the selected scenario, PGD values were not specified on the USGS ShakeMaps. Table A-1 of Attachment A shows the PGA values assigned to each of the City’s selected non-linear assets.
697
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A

ESTIMATED DAMAGE STATES AND RESTORATION TIMES
The Hazus and ALA methodologies are intended to provide a high-level estimate of damage states for select assets. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify and prioritize more detailed evaluation and mitigation measures in the future.

Based on the PGA and asset type, the Hazus methodology yields an estimate of the damage state for each non-linear asset, along with an associated restoration time as part of the Hazus program. Damage states estimated in this analysis include moderate and extensive for both pump stations and storage tanks.

Descriptions of these damage states are included below.

Pump Stations
• Extensive damage for pump stations is defined as extensive damage to facility buildings or damage to pumps beyond repair.
• Moderate damage for pump stations is defined by the loss of electric power for approximately one-week, considerable damage to mechanical and electrical equipment, or moderate damage to buildings.

Storage Tanks
• Extensive damage for storage tanks is defined as damage to the tank extensive enough to require removal of the tank from service, including, for example, elephant foot buckling for steel tanks with loss of content or shearing of concrete tank walls. • Moderate damage for storage tanks is defined by the tank being considerably damaged but with only minor loss of content. Examples of moderate damage include elephant foot buckling for steel tanks without loss of content, or moderate cracking of concrete tanks with minor loss of content.

Similarly, the ALA methodology yields estimated numbers of breaks and leaks among linear assets, based on PGV, PGD, and specific asset attributes (e.g., pipeline material, joint type, etc.). The following sections describe these methodologies and the results of their application to the City’s assets in greater detail.

Restoration Times
Restoration time is defined as the time to restore the facility to a functioning level. This analysis considered the time to restore select assets owned and operated by the City. Assets which are required for the delivery of both San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Valley Water (VW) source water from the wholesaler to the City were not included in this analysis; it should be noted that, on a regional level, an earthquake event could disrupt supply infrastructure from SFPUC and VW to the City’s distribution system, limiting the City’s capacity to any wells that are repaired or remain functional.

In this analysis, total restoration time consists of the time to repair the damage (construction and repair activities) plus the preconstruction activities, such as the time involved with the immediate post event, pre-restoration assessment, planning, and mobilization activities. The total restoration time is estimated by using construction/repair duration provided in the Hazus method and adding to this an estimate of the time required for preconstruction activities. Engineering judgement and input from the City were utilized 698
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
to fine tune the total restoration times. For linear assets (Pipelines) engineering judgement and input from the City were utilized to estimate restoration times.

Hazus conducted statistical analyses method to provide estimate of the amount of time needed to conduct construction and repair activities for a variety of non-linear assets and a range of damage states.

They provide the “mean restoration time” and the standard deviation. This analysis is using the “mean restoration time” provided by Hazus.

Methodology Summary
The overall methodology to this analysis is to estimate the damage to non-linear and linear utility assets from an earthquake, estimate the restoration time for each damaged asset, and then calculate cost to restore the system based on the restoration time needed for each asset. Repair and replacement costs are calculated using the crew size available to the City, the labor rate, the shift duration and order of magnitude material costs for the City. The next section describes how damage is estimated for non-linear and linear assets.

Non-Linear Assets: Reservoirs, Pump Stations, and Key City Properties Non-linear assets include reservoirs, pump stations, and key city properties. Each facility was assigned a Hazus “facility classification.” Classifications are generally based on the type of facility and whether the facility features anchored components/equipment. Hazus defines anchored as “equipment designed with special seismic tiedowns or tiebacks,” while unanchored equipment refers to equipment designed with no special considerations other than the manufacturer’s normal requirements. Based on review of previously prepared seismic facility assessments and observations made during site visits, all of the utility’s assets were assigned to the anchored component facility classification.

The resulting Hazus facility classifications for the City’s assets are presented in Table A-1. Hazus Tables 8.3,

8.6, 8.7 and 8.9 (reproduced in Figures A-1 through A-4 in Attachment A) were used to assign damage states based on PGA or PGV values obtained for the selected earthquake event. In the utility’s case, there are several non-linear facility classifications deemed susceptible to PGD, including reservoirs and pump stations.

Hazus Table 8.1.a (reproduced as Figure A-5 of Attachment A) was used to estimate the damage state and associated mean restoration time for each facility. Hazus-recommended restoration time estimates are based on Hazus restoration function curves and represent an average time for the facility classification. In addition to the restoration time suggested by Hazus, three days were added to account for the immediate post-event, pre-restoration assessment, planning, and mobilization activities. Table A-1 shows the resulting estimated restoration time for each asset.

Non-Linear Asset Damage State
Using the Hazus Method for non-linear assets, the Hayward-Rogers Creek 6.8 magnitude earthquake scenario is estimated to cause moderate damage to the City’s pump stations, storage tanks, and buildings.

This is primarily due to the high Peak Ground Acceleration and Velocity (PGA, PGV) that the earthquake will produce in the City’s service area. Liquefaction susceptibility ranges from very low to moderate for non-linear assets in the City’s service area as well. Probabilities are assigned to each liquefaction susceptibility, as described in Table 3.
699
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
The Country Club, Tularcitos, and Ayer pump stations are expected to have extensive damage and require approximately seventeen days for restoration. Extensive damage for pump stations is defined as extensive damage to facility buildings or damage to pumps beyond repair. The Gibraltar pump station (SFPUC and VW) is expected to have moderate damage and take approximately six days for restoration. Moderate damage for pump stations is defined by the loss of electric power for approximately one-week, considerable damage to mechanical and electrical equipment, or moderate damage to buildings. By deploying portable generators in the event of an outage, the City can reduce service losses and associated costs lower than estimated using the Hazus Method.

The Tularcitos, Minnis, and Ayer reservoirs are expected to have extensive damage and require approximately 96 days each for restoration. Extensive damage for storage tanks is defined as damage to the tank extensive enough to require removal of the tank from service, including, for example, elephant foot buckling for steel tanks with loss of content or shearing of concrete tank walls.

Moderate damage was estimated for the Gibraltar Reservoirs (SFPUC and VW) and each are estimated to require six days for restoration. Moderate damage for storage tanks is defined by the tank being considerably damaged but with only minor loss of content. Examples of moderate damage include elephant foot buckling for steel tanks without loss of content, or moderate cracking of concrete tanks with minor loss of content.

The City Hall and Corporation Yard buildings are expected to have moderate damage and take approximately six days for restoration. Moderate damage could include rotation of steel members at connections, cracks through welds, or broken bolts for steel frame buildings; hairline cracks on beams and columns; and larger flexural cracks and concrete spalling. Buildings with red or yellow tags cannot be occupied until an onsite assessment is made by an engineer and will require additional time as needed for restoration.

Reservoir Sloshing Wave Assessment
To supplement the Hazus assessment, a review of the maximum operating levels of each of the City’s water storage reservoirs was performed to determine if operating levels are appropriately set to mitigate against the impact of seismically induced sloshing waves. When operating levels within reservoirs are too high, the sloshing wave within the reservoir that is produced by the seismic forces can cause damage to the significant reservoir structure, including potential roof collapse.

The site-specific seismic design parameters for each reservoir site are summarized in Table 1; these parameters were used to calculate the height of the sloshing wave. 700
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Table 1. Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
Reservoir
Seismic Risk
Category Site Soil Class(a) TL(b) SD1(c) SDs(d)
Ayer IV D – Stiff Soil 12 0.82 1.341
Gibraltar IV D – Stiff Soil 12 0.682 1.147
Minnis IV C – Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock 8 0.886 1.638 Tularcitos IV C – Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock 8 0.828 1.535 (a) Site soil class from City of Milpitas Seismic Isolation Study, ABR Engineers, January 2002. Additional study of the site-specific soil conditions could change the soil classification, which would in turn impact the seismic design parameters. (b) Long-period transition period
(c) Design spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1-s (d) Design spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods Typically, a reservoir is constructed so that the distance between the overflow and the reservoir roof is great enough to accommodate the full height of the produced sloshing wave. In concrete reservoirs, the concrete roof may be designed to withstand some of the force of the sloshing wave, allowing for less distance to be provided between the overflow and reservoir roof (potentially up to half of the sloshing wave height). West Yost reviewed the maximum operating water levels and reservoir roof heights for each of the reservoirs and compared this distance to the sloshing wave height. A sloshing wave height that is greater than the distance between the maximum water level and the roof indicates that that the standard is not met, and the sloshing wave could collide with the roof structure, potentially causing structural damage. The results of the sloshing wave analysis are presented in Table 2. The analysis shows that none of the City’s reservoirs currently meet the standard for sloshing waves.

Table 2. Sloshing Wave Analysis
Reservoir
Inside
Diameter, ft
Normal Operating
Range (el.)
Overflow
Height (el.)
Roof
Height (el.)
Sloshing Wave
Height, ft
Sloshing Wave
Assessment
Ayer 181 78.2 – 83 85.0 89.96 14.2 Does not meet
standard (a)
Gibraltar 158 37 – 46.5 48.0 49.7 10.4 Does not meet
standard (b)
Minnis 51 900.5 – 907 908.5 909.5 10.0 Does not meet
standard (c)
Tularcitos 48 559.2 – 565.7 567.2 568.2 9.2 Does not meet standard (d)
(a) A distance of 4.96 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the overflow, and a distance of 6.96 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the high operational level; the calculated sloshing wave height of 14.2 ft exceeds both distances. The concrete tank roof may be capable of withstanding the force of the sloshing wave, but additional structural analysis is needed to confirm this. (b) A distance of 1.7 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the overflow, and a distance of 3.2 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the high operational level; the calculated sloshing wave height of 10.4 ft exceeds both distances. The concrete tank roof may be capable of withstanding the force of the sloshing wave, however, as a rule of thumb, the roof is typically assumed to be capable of withstanding a maximum of only half of the sloshing wave height. (c) A distance of 1.5 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the overflow, and a distance of 2.5 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the high operational level; the calculated sloshing wave height of 10.0 ft exceeds both distances. (d) A distance of 1.0 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the overflow, and a distance of 2.5 ft is provided between the reservoir roof and the high operational level; the calculated sloshing wave height of 9.2 ft exceeds both distances. 701
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
For steel tanks (e.g., the Minnis and Tularcitos Reservoirs), the tank may be retrofitted to meet the sloshing wave standard by adding a steel ring to the top of the tank, thereby increasing the total tank height so that the height of the sloshing wave may be accommodated. Steel tanks typically have a distance between the tank overflow and the tank roof of the sloshing wave height plus one additional foot. When preparing detailed tank retrofit plans, other damage mechanismsshould be considered to better reinforce the structure against potential risks, not limited to shearing off inlet/outlet pipes, anchorage system failure causing uplift, and tank shell failure.

Non-Linear Asset Restoration Time
Hazus Table 8.1.a (reproduced as Figure A-3 of Attachment A) was used to estimate the associated mean restoration time for each facility, using the damage state from Hazus Tables 8.6 and 8.9.

Hazus-recommended restoration time estimates are based on Hazus restoration function curves and available crews for restoration and represent an average time for the facility classification. In addition to the restoration time suggested by Hazus, three days were added to account for the immediate post-event, pre-restoration assessment, planning, and mobilization activities. Table A-1 showsthe resulting estimated restoration time for each asset.

Two, four- person crews working 12-hour days were assumed to be available to repair and restore facilities following the selected earthquake event. This assumption forms the basis of the overall restoration time for repair and replacement work. This assumption does not include utilizing mutual aid via the Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN). Utilizing WARN can significantly reduce the time of restoration, which is scalable in the results. The number of days vary based on the size and damage state severity of the facility. Table A-1 shows the resulting estimated restoration time for each asset.

Non-Linear Consequences Cost Estimates
Utility lost water production and utility economic loss were calculated using the total restoration time and service level for each facility, along with the City of Milpitas’ cost of water ($7,981/million gallons).

Replacement costs for reservoirs and pump stations were calculated using the replacement costs documented in the 2020 WY Asset Management TM scaled to reflect the severity of damage (50% for extensive and 25% for moderate damage). This value was selected to represent the repair/replacement cost for all reservoirs and pump stations.

As shown in Table A-1, the analysis found that Ayer Reservoir, Gibraltar Pump Stations (SFPUC and VW) and Gibraltar Reservoirs (SFPUC and VW) had the largest repair and replacement costs and water lost costs of all non-linear assets for the selected earthquake event. Repair and replacement costs are calculated using crew size, labor rate, shift duration and order of magnitude material costs.

The total cost consequence of the non-linear assets is $5,967,160. This cost includes the total cost of repair and the total cost of water loss.

Linear Assets: Pipelines
The City owns and maintains 183 miles of pipelines, with pipe sizes ranging in diameter from 6 inches to 24 inches. Based on available pipeline material information contained in the utility’s pipeline geographic information system (GIS), the majority of the system is made up of asbestos cement (approximately 133.5 miles by length) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (approximately 27.4 miles by length) pipe. The system also contains concrete cylinder, cast iron, ductile iron, and steel pipelines. Using the ALA methodology, 702
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
West Yost assed the distribution system as a whole to estimate the number of anticipated leaks and breaks. The results of this assessment are presented in Table B-2.

The City had previously identified a select subset of pipelines within the City’s service area and designated it as the “backbone”. The “backbone” pipelines are pipelines which transmit water from the sources to all parts of the service area. West Yost broke the “backbone” pipeline network into 28 individual pipeline reaches and assessed the individual reach to estimate the number of anticipate leaks and breaks that would occur on the individual pipeline reaches as a result of a seismic event. Pipeline reaches are identified in Figure B-1. The results of this assessment are presented in Table B-1.

Linear Asset Damage State
The ALA methodology considers two damage states for buried pipelines: leaks and breaks. The methodology assumes that damage due to seismic waves (represented by PGV) will consist of 80 percent leaks and 20 percent breaks, while damage due to ground failure (represented by PGD) will consist of 20 percent leaks and 80 percent breaks. Two damage algorithms are used to estimate the number of leaks and breaks:

For Ground Shaking:

𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
1000 𝑓𝑡 ⁄ = 𝐾1 × 0.00187 × 𝑃𝐺𝑉
Where K1 is a fragility constant related to the expected performance of a given pipe material1.

Units for PGV are inches per second. Assigned K1 values can be found on table B-1 and B-2 in Attachment B.

For Peak Ground Deformation:

𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
1000 𝑓𝑡 ⁄ = 𝐾2 × 1.06 × 𝑃𝐺𝐷0.319 × 𝐿𝑆
Where K2 is a fragility constant related to the expected performance of a given pipe material2, and LS is the estimated probability that PGD will occur during ground shaking. Units for PGD are inches. Assigned K2 values can be found on table B-1 and B-2 in Attachment B.

ShakeMap information was used to obtain an average PGV value for all pipelines. Spatial liquefaction susceptibility data published by USGS were used to identify areas within the distribution system with “very low”, “low”, “moderate”, “high” and “very high” susceptibility to liquefaction (and therefore, PGD). The estimated probabilities of liquefaction occurring in each liquefaction susceptibility category are listed in Table 3 below. For very low, low, moderate, and high liquefaction susceptibility areas, a PGD of six inches was assumed in accordance with J100 Standard recommendations; for very high liquefaction susceptibility areas, a PGD of 12 inches was assumed. The PGV and PGD calculations were considered additive, and resulted in conservative estimates for breaks and leaks, as summarized on Tables B-1 and B-2 in Attachment B. 1 See Figure B-1 in Attachment B for a reproduction of K1 values recommended by the ALA methodology. 2 See Figure B-2 in Attachment B for a reproduction of K2 values recommended by the ALA methodology. 703
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Table 3. Liquefaction Susceptibility and Probability
Liquefaction Susceptibility Probability of Liquefaction Very High 0.50
High 0.25
Moderate 0.10
Low 0.05(a)
Very Low 0.02(a)
(a) Hazus recommends using 0.05 for low and 0.02 for very low liquefaction susceptibility.

Two, four-person crews working 12-hour days were assumed to be available to repair breaks and leaks following the selected earthquake event. This assumption forms the basis of the overall restoration time for leaks and breaks. An additional 3 days were added to the resulting total to account for the immediate post-disaster assessment, planning, and mobilization time. Total restoration time and total pipeline repair labor and material cost is summarized on Table B-3 in Attachment B.

Using the ALA methodology for linear assets, the Hayward-Rodgers Creek - 6.8 magnitude earthquake scenario is estimated to cause 192 breaks and 58 leaks to the collective transmission pipeline and distribution pipeline. Break and leak estimates and total restoration time for transmission pipelines and distribution pipelines is summarized on Table B-2 in Attachment B. It is estimated to take approximately 113 days to reach total restoration. This includes 3 days for the immediate post-disaster assessment but does not assume the utilization of mutual aid for pipeline restoration, which would shorten the time of restoration significantly if pipe repair crews were to be brought in from other entities in an isolated event.

However, the regional impacts of the anticipated earthquake scenario pose a threat to the availability of mutual aid resources, which consequently may need to be sourced from a significant distance away. The City’s emergency response preparation should consider the regional impacts of this earthquake scenario.

Estimated Service Denial
Using the Hazus Method for non-linear assets, the Hayward-Rodgers Creek 6.8 magnitude earthquake scenario is estimated to cause extensive damage to the City’s facilities due to an estimated maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.65 g, with g being earth’s gravitational acceleration. Hazus predicts significant damage to City facilities would equate to loss of electrical power and backup power and extensive damage to pumping stations and storage tanks. It is also assumed that a loss of water quality would be imminent. Due to the damage anticipated it is expected that there would be a loss of service equivalent to approximately 165 million gallons.

Linear Consequences Cost Estimates
The analysis found the City’s trunk lines could have 8 breaks and 32 leaks, as shown in Table B-1. The overall distribution system was estimated to experience 192 breaks and 58 leaks, as shown in Table B-2.

Repair and replacement costs are calculated using crew size, labor rate, shift duration and order of magnitude material costs.

The direct linear consequence costs by type of pipeline are presented in Table B-3. The total cost consequence of the linear assets is $334,173 for the trunk lines and $2,515,349 for the overall distribution system. This total includes the cost of the estimated water loss and the cost of repair labor and material. 704
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Consequence Costs Summary
The Hayward-Rodgers Creek - 6.8magnitude earthquake is estimated to cause significant damage to the City’s non-linear and linear assets, with a total consequence cost of approximately $10,322, 527. The consequence cost of all linear assets is approximately $4,355,366, and the consequence cost of all non-linear assets is approximately $5,967,160. The Hazus Method estimates moderate damage to the buildings and moderate/severe damage to the pump stations and reservoirs. The ALA Method estimates 8 breaks and 32 leaks from the trunk lines and 192 breaks and 58 leaks from the distribution pipelines. Table 4 below shows the consequence costs of each asset from the Hayward-Rodgers Creek earthquake. For the purposes of this TM, the costs indicated below reflect the repair and replacement costs and loss of service. See Table A-1 for a breakdown of these individual cost components.

Table 4. Earthquake Threat Asset Pair Consequence Costs Threat Asset
Consequence Cost,
dollars
Earthquake / Landslide Tularcitos Reservoir 1,550,471
Earthquake / Landslide Minnis Reservoir 1,690,507
Earthquake / Landslide Country Club Pump Station 1,235,196 Earthquake / Landslide Tularcitos Pump Station 1,390,946 Earthquake / Liquefaction City Hall 50,020
Earthquake / Liquefaction Corporation Yard 50,020
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 1 / McCarthy PRV 106,632 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 2 / California Circle PRV 26,291 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 3 12,984
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 4 / Junipero PRV 34,911 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 5 / Live Oak PRV 4,631
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 6 11,516
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 7 / Main PRV 14,069
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 8 / Parc Metro PRV 8,335 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 9 / Curtis PRV 13,982
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 10 17,501
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 11 31,285
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 12 / Gibraltar PRV / Gibraltar Turnout 23,650 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 13 / Capitol PRV 20,874 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 14 8,672
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 15 / Sunnyhills PRV 17,575 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 16 2,569
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 17 6,297
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 18 4,424
Earthquake / Landslide Reach 19 / Calera Creek Heights & Tularcitos PRVs 9,028 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 20 / North Milpitas PRV 21,612 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 21 / Montague PRV 4,882 705
Item # 16.

TM – City of Milpitas
October 28, 2020

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Table 4. Earthquake Threat Asset Pair Consequence Costs Threat Asset
Consequence Cost,
dollars
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 22 11,495
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 23 / Yosemite PRV 14,714 Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 24 3,830
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 25 12,547
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 26 6,210
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 27 2,952
Earthquake / Liquefaction Reach 28 7,433
Earthquake / Liquefaction Distribution System 3,894,466 Total 10,322,527

CONCLUSION AND DISCLAIMER
The methodology and results presented in this TM were based on the Hazus Earthquake Model Methodology and Manual and the ALA Methodology. The Hazus and ALA methodologies have been utilized as best management practice, as recommended in the J100 Standard. Data and assumptions used in the analysis were based on best available information. The methodologies have been interpreted to best suit specific City assets and site conditions. Also note that the ALA pipeline damage results are subject to a range of minus 50 percent to plus 100 percent in accuracy.

REFERENCES
ABR Engineers. City of Milpitas Seismic Isolation Study, January 2002.

American Lifelines Alliance. Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems Part 1 – Guideline. April 2001.

American Lifelines Alliance. Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems Part 2 – Appendices. April 2001.

Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Division. Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, Hazus-MH 2.1 Technical Manual.

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. M 6.8 Scenario Earthquake – Hayward-Rodgers Creek. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/scenarios/eventpage/nclegacyhaywardrodgerscreekhsm6p8_se/executive 706
Item # 16.

Hazus Methodology Results for Non-Linear Assets
Attachment A
707
Item # 16.

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Table A-1. HAZUS Methodology Results for Non-Linear Assets Facility/Asset Year Built
Service Level,
MGD
ShakeMap
PGA,
g
ShakeMap
PGV,
cm/s
Liquefaction
Susceptibility,
%
Assumed
PGD,
In
HAZUS
Damage
State,
PWT1
HAZUS Mean
Restoration
Time,
d
Days to
assess and
plan (prerestoration
time),
d
Total Time to
Restoration,
d
Lost Water
Production,
MG
Utility
Economic Loss
– Water,
$
Repair /
Replacement
Crew Cost,
$/d
Repair /
Replacement
Cost,
$
Reservoirs
Tularcitos Reservoir 1980 0.06 0.42 41 2%, Very Low - extensive 93 3 96 5.76 45,971 8,200 1,504,500 (a)
Minnis Reservoir 1980 0.17 0.42 41 5% Low - extensive 93 3 96 16.32 130,250 8,200 1,560,258 (a)
Ayer Reservoir 1993 4.14 0.4 40 10%, Moderate 6 extensive 93 3 96 397.44 3,171,969 8,200 7,145,000 (a)
Gibraltar Reservoir (SFPUC) 1991 4.03 0.35 37 10%, Moderate 6 moderate 3.1 3 6.1 24.58 196,197 8,200 3,272,500 (a)
Gibraltar Reservoir (VW) 1991 5.99 0.35 37 10%, Moderate 6 moderate 3.1 3 6.1 36.54 291,618 8,200 3,272,500 (a)
Pump Stations
Country Club Pump Station 1981 0.06 0.42 49 2%, Very Low - extensive 13.5 3 16.5 0.99 7,901 8,200 1,227,295 (a)
Tularcitos Pump Station 1981 0.17 0.42 41 2%, Very Low - extensive 13.5 3 16.5 2.81 22,387 8,200 1,368,560 (a)
Ayer Pump Station 1995 4.14 0.4 40 10%, Moderate 6 extensive 13.5 3 16.5 68.31 545,182 8,200 2,489,563 (a)
Gibraltar Pump Station
(SFPUC) 1993 4.03 0.35 37 10%, Moderate 6 moderate 3.1 3 6.1 24.58 196,197 8,200 4,366,522 (a)
Gibraltar Pump Station (VW) 1993 5.99 0.35 37 10%, Moderate 6 moderate 3.1 3 6.1 36.54 291,618 8,200 4,366,522 (a)
Other
City Hall 2000 - 0.365 39 10%, Moderate 6 moderate 3.1 3 6.1 - - 8,200 50,020 (b)
Corporation Yard - - 0.38 40 10%, Moderate 6 moderate 3.1 3 6.1 - - 8,200 50,020 (b)
Total - - - - - - - - - - 613.87 $4,899,288 30,673,259
(a) Cost based on percentage of replacement cost as documented in the 2020 WY Asset Management TM (50% for extensive damage and 25% for moderate damage). (b) Costs based on (Total Time to Restoration) X (Repair/Replacement Crew Cost) 708
Item # 16.

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Figure A-1. Hazus Table 8.3
Figure A-2. Hazus Table 8.6
Figure A-3. Hazus Table 8.7
709
Item # 16.

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Figure A-4. Hazus Table 8.9
Figure A-5. Hazus Table 8.1.a
710
Item # 16.

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
ALA Methodology Results for Linear Assets
Attachment B
711
Item # 16.

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Table B-1. Trunk Pipeline Lengths and Fragility
Pipe
Reach
Total Pipe
Length, miles
Average Pipe
Diameter,
inches
Most Common
Pipe Type K1 K2 Average PGV, cm/s
No. Leaks No. Breaks
Ground Shaking Ground Deformation Total Ground Shaking Ground Deformation Total 1 3.9 13 DIP 0.5 0.6 35.5 0.6 11.4 11.9 0.1 2.8 3.0
2 1.6 12 ACP 0.5 0.8 40.8 0.3 2.5 2.7 0.1 0.6 0.7
3 0.5 11 ACP 0.5 0.7 39.8 0.1 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.3
4 3.3 12 ACP 0.5 0.8 36.5 0.5 2.9 3.4 0.1 0.7 0.8
5 0.4 11 ACP 0.5 0.7 33.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1
6 1.0 12 DIP 0.5 0.6 34.3 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2
7 0.5 18 ACP 0.5 0.7 36.5 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.2
8 0.7 19 DIP 0.5 0.5 36.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1
9 1.1 18 DIP 0.5 0.5 36.3 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2
10 0.9 14 ACP 0.5 0.6 36.5 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.2
11 0.2 24 STL 0.3 0.3 36.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 0.1 12 ACP 0.5 0.8 36.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 1.2 17 ACP 0.5 0.7 34.5 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.2
14 1.4 14 ACP 0.5 0.6 35.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
15 3.5 11 ACP 0.5 0.8 38.5 0.5 0.6 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.3
16 0.0 10 ACP 0.5 0.8 41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17 1.1 10 ACP 0.5 0.8 41.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
18 0.3 12 ACP 0.5 0.8 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 2.0 11 ACP 0.5 0.8 41.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
20 2.9 15 ACP 0.5 0.7 37.3 0.4 1.2 1.7 0.1 0.3 0.4
21 0.4 10 ACP 0.5 0.8 35.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1
22 0.8 18 DIP 0.5 0.5 37.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1
23 1.8 14 ACP 0.5 0.6 37.3 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.3
24 0.3 16 DIP 0.5 0.6 39.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
25 1.3 12 ACP 0.5 0.8 38.8 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2
26 0.3 22 STL 0.2 0.2 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
27 0.1 18 DIP 0.5 0.5 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
28 0.8 11 ACP 0.5 0.8 39.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total 32.6 - - - - - 4.8 26.7 31.5 1.2 6.7 7.9
712
Item # 16.

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Table B-2. Overall Pipeline Distribution Lengths and Fragility Pipe Material
Total Pipe Length,
miles
Average Pipe
Diameter K1 K2 Average PGV, cm/s
No. Leaks No. Breaks
Ground Shaking
Ground
Deformation Total Ground Shaking
Ground
Deformation Total
AC/ACP 133.5 Small 0.5 0.8 36.1 7.4 36.2 43.7 1.9 144.9 146.8 CCP 0.2 Small 0.8 1.0 36.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2
CIP 0.9 Small 0.8 0.8 36.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.1
DIP 15.3 Large 0.5 0.5 36.1 0.3 0.9 1.2 0.1 3.5 3.5
PVC 27.4 Small 0.5 1.0 36.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5
STL 5.3 Large 0.15 0.15 36.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4
Total 182.6 - - - 36.1 10.3 47.2 57.5 2.6 188.9 191.4
Table B-3. Pipeline Repair Cost Estimates
Evaluation Total Repair Time, crew days Total Pipeline Repair Labor and Material Cost, dollars Trunk Lines 14.8 $334,173
Overall Distribution 113.0 $2,515,349
(a) Total Pipeline Repair Labor and Material Cost based on crew size 4 workers, 2 crews, $150/hr labor cost, $2500/crew day material cost, and a $50,000 administrative adder. 713
Item # 16.
0 1,5003,000
ScaleinFeet
FigureB-1
BackbonePipelineReaches
CityofMilpitas
RiskandResilienceAssessment
Last Saved: 10/29/2020 7:53:46 PM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Earthquake TM\Fig2_ Backbone Pipelines.mxd : wsandelin 2!!
Turnout
n7
Well
"5
EmergencyIntertie
[PS ±
PumpStation
TU
StorageReservoir
CityLimits
^_B
erryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
£¤101
ÄÆ84
§¨¦880 §¨¦680
§¨¦280
TUTU
TU
TU
TU
[PS ±
[PS ±
[PS ±
[PS ±
"5
"5
"5
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
n7
UV237
§¨¦
§¨¦680
880
J
A
C
K
L
I
N
R
D

PIEDMONT RD

MONTAGUE
EX

S PARK VICTORIA DR

N ABEL ST

W CALAVERAS BL

ESCUELA PK
E
CALAV
E
RAS
B
L
DIXON

LANDING
RD

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR
CALAVE
RAS
RD

YOSEMITE
DR

GREAT MALL PK

N MILPITAS BL S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
12 9
1 5
1 13
10 23
26 7
21 25
22 1
9 8
20 14
17 18
28 23
11 16
5 24
15 3
27 20
4 2
4 6
1 714
Item # 16.

OTC – 270 – 60-19-16 – E – T6 – App –App A
Figure B-2. ALA-Recommended K1 Fragility Constants for Pipelines Figure B-3. ALA-Recommended K2 Fragility Constants for Pipelines 715
Item # 16.

Water Utility Financial Plan
Appendix F
716
Item # 16.
5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 850, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 www.raftelis.com
Project Memo
DATE: June 9, 2022
TO: Tony Ndah
Public Works Director
FROM: Todd Cristiano
Senior Manager
SUBJECT: Water Financial Plan Options
Introduction
The City of Milpitas retained Raftelis to complete a comprehensive financial planning forecast for their water, wastewater1, and stormwater utilities2. Separate financial plans and memorandums were developed for each utility and this memorandum summarizes the water financial plan results. The analysis included the following:

1. Revenue forecast. Includes the projection of rate revenues, the number of accounts, growth in accounts, and billed volume per account; projection of other operating and non-operating income, and development fees.

2. Expenditures forecast. Includes the projection of operation and maintenance expenses, transfers to the general fund, payments on existing debt service, and capital projects identified in the most recent master plan documents.

3. Revenue adjustments. Optimizing the use of rate revenues and bond issues to minimize revenue adjustments while meeting annual revenue requirements, debt service coverage, and reserve targets.

The forecast presented in this memo is for the study period FY 2022 through FY 2040. The City’s water utility is financially self-sufficient with funding for capital and operating requirements derived primarily from rates.
1 Wastewater and sewer utility are used interchangeably throughout this memo. 2 Stormwater activities are currently within the general fund and is not a stand-alone utility. For the purposes of this study, we created a cash flow consolidating the O&M costs for the various areas in the general fund and projects identified in the most recent master plan.
717
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Water Financial Plan Study
Version 3 - Final 2
Financial Planning Process
A primary consideration in developing an ‘optimal’ financial plan is minimizing annual revenue increases by balancing the use of reserves, existing rate revenue, and debt proceeds. This balance is subject to the constraints of meeting the City’s target reserve policies and debt service coverage requirements on any proposed debt.

This approach is an iterative process. For
example, while issuing debt to fund a capital
project may keep revenue increases low, new debt
payments may decrease the coverage below the
target level. As a result, a revenue increase may be
needed to maintain compliance with the target.

This revenue may produce an ending balance
which exceeds the target reserve. This excess can
be used to partially fund the capital project which,
in turn, could reduce the proposed debt issuance
amount.

Reserves
The City maintains three reserves for the wastewater utility. The excerpts below are from the City’s financial reserve policy 11. These descriptions can also be found in the City’s consolidated annual financial report. The proposed financial plan allows the City to maintain reserves in compliance with this policy.

Capital reserves for emergencies. The City will maintain capital reserves in the Water and Sewer utility enterprise funds to provide for future capital projects and unanticipated emergencies. The City will attempt to maintain a capital reserve of approximately 30% of the annual operating and maintenance expenses for the Water utility fund and 25% of the annual operating and maintenance expenses for the Sewer utility fund.

Rate stabilization reserve. The City will maintain a Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) in the Water and Sewer utility enterprise funds with a goal of at least 16.67% or two months of the respective annual operating expenditures after the Capital Reserve requirements have been met. The RSR shall be used to mitigate the effects of occasional shortfalls in revenue or unanticipated expenditures that cannot be rebalanced within existing budgeted resources in any given fiscal year.

Public Employees Retirement (PERS) Rate Stabilization Reserve. The City will maintain in the Utility Enterprise Funds or in a Section 115 Trust a Public Employees Retirement (PERS) Rate Stabilization Reserve to be funded by 20% of any General Fund or Enterprise Funds annual operating surpluses. The Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Funds’ portion of the Unfunded Actuarial Liability for the Miscellaneous Retirement Plan is 8.5% and 6.6%, respectively. The Utility Funds’ portion of the contribution to the PERS Rate Stabilization Reserve shall be consistent with the General Fund contributions and only be funded after the Capital Reserve and Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) requirements in the Water and Sewer utility funds have been met.

Capital Funding
Options
Loans & Cash
Meet Reserve
Targets
Meet Debt
Service Coverage
Ratios
Optimize
Revenue
Increase
718
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Water Financial Plan Study
Version 3 - Final 3
Water Utility Findings
Raftelis used the assumptions shown in Table 1 to develop the financial plan options. Changes in these assumptions could materially affect the results. These assumptions were based on information provided by Staff over the course of the study including annual budgets, detailed billing data, forecasts of new customer connections, and master plan reports. The detailed water cash flows are attached at the end of this memorandum.

Table 1: Water Utility Assumptions
Item Description
FY 2022 Beginning Fund Balance
Capital Reserve for Emergencies
Rate Stabilization Reserve
Capital Fund
TASP Fund
$8,614,458
$4,347,276
$13,199,527
$17,869,842
Average growth in number of accounts 2.2%
Annual average O&M Inflation [1] 5.7%
Average Annual Capital Projects Inflation

6.0% (FY 2023 – FY 2026)

4.0% (FY 2027 – FY 2040)
Study period average ~4.3%
Projected Wholesale Water Rate Increases [2]
Year SFPU Valley Water
FY 2023
FY 2024
FY 2025
FY 2026
FY 2027
FY 2028
FY 2029
FY 2030 – FY 2040

15.9%

11.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

4.5%

4.5%

4.5% Annually

15.0%

15.0%

15.0%

9.1%

9.1%

9.1%

9.1%

5.0% Annually
[1] Includes the water purchase cost increases.
[2] Current FY22 Rates
SFPUC ($4.10/Ccf FY22 rate)
Valley Water ($3.71/Ccf FY22 rate)
The water utility financial plan consists of three sub-funds:
 Operating Fund. Funds activities associated with annual operation and maintenance of the utility, maintaining emergency and rate stabilization reserves, and transfers of any surplus to the Capital Fund.
 Capital Fund. Tracks activities associated with debt service on bond issues, previously adopted CIP projects, and projects identified in the master plan. Sources of funding include capital fees, transfers from the operating fund, and debt issuance proceeds.  TASP Fund. Tracks funding and projects that have specifically been identified as being funded by TASP or future METRO development fees3.
3 Future METRO fees have not been adopted as of the date of this memorandum 719
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Water Financial Plan Study
Version 3 - Final 4
Separation of these sub-funds ensures that sources of funds were being used for their appropriate purposes. For example, capital fees and bond issues fund the capital improvement program but should not fund operations.

Operating Fund
Sources of Funds
Sources of funds consist primarily of rate revenue, other operating income, and non-operating income.

Rate revenue consists of a bimonthly base charge and a uniform volume rate. Rate revenues with proposed increases is projected to increase from $33.0 million in FY 2023 to $44.2 million in FY 2040.

This includes an average annual account growth of 2.2% from FY 2023 to FY 2040 based on future METRO plan development forecasts.

Uses of Funds
Uses of Funds consist of operation and maintenance expense and transfers to the capital fund to assist in funding the capital improvement program. O&M consists of the items required to distribute water to customers as well costs associated with administration of the utility, and customer services.

Water purchases make up approximately 70% of O&M. The City purchases water from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) on an annual basis. The wholesale rate is set annually by each wholesale water agency. The City expects the water purchase rate from SFPUC to increase by 15.9% in 2023 and 11.2% in 2024; 0.0% in FY 2025 and FY 2026, 0.8% in FY 2027, and 4.5% from FY 2028 through FY 2040. Valley Water purchased water rates are expected to increase by 15.0% each year from FY 2023 through FY 2025, 9.1% from FY 2026 to FY 2029, and 5.0% annually from FY 2030 through FY 2040.

O&M expenses for the City’s core operations (personnel services, general supplies, contractual services excluding water purchases, etc.) will increase by 4.0% from FY 2023 through FY 2025. This short-term inflation estimates are based on publications from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve. Inflation from FY 2026 through FY 2040 is estimated at 3.0% based on historical trends of Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Total O&M including water purchases will increase by an average of 5.7% annually over the study period or from $31.2 million in FY 2023 to $84.9 million in FY 2040.

Capital Fund
Sources of Funds
Funding includes the capital surcharge, transfers from the operating fund, and bond proceeds. The capital surcharge currently collects approximately $4.0 million per year. Transfers from the operating fund are made in years where operating revenue exceeds operating expenses and required transfers to reserve funds.

Uses of Funds
Expenditures include debt service on the City’s existing Series 2019 bonds and capital projects identified in the adopted FY 2023 – FY 2040 capital budget and master plan. Capital improvement program costs total $82.0 million for the study period which includes an annual inflation of 6.0% from FY 2023 through FY 2025 and 4.0% from FY 2026 through FY 2040.
720
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas, CA
Water Financial Plan Study
Version 3 - Final 5
Revenue Requirement
Revenue from rates and other miscellaneous revenue should be sufficient to meet annual revenue requirements in the operating and capital funds. Revenue requirements include operation and maintenance expenses, capital project funding, and meeting target reserves. Raftelis and City staff developed a financial plan to fully fund expenses, including the master plan projects, using revenue derived from user rates and the capital surcharge.

Proposed Financial Plan
The financing plan developed by Raftelis and City staff proposes to fully fund the expenses described above using rate revenue.
 Operating Fund. Annual increases to water user charges of 6.0% are required in FY 2024 through FY 2026, 4.0% from FY 2027 through FY 2031, and 3.0% from FY 2031 through FY 2040. The revenue from these increases will adequately fund O&M, water purchases, reserve requirements, and provide surplus revenue to transfer to the CALPERS and capital funds.  Capital Fund. The proposed financing plan does not require the use of bonds in any year of the forecast. Payment on existing debt service, the adopted CIP projects, and master plan projects can be fully funded by the capital surcharge with annual increases of 10.0% from FY 2024 through 2030.
 TASP Fund. Several projects in the master plan, including Curtis Well and assets associated with the Valley Water Second Water Supply, have been identified as requiring funding from the TASP fund. However, the existing fund balance and expected 2023 proceeds from TASP development fees are insufficient to fully fund all identified projects. This plan assumes that future METRO development fees will be able to provide an additional $4.1 million by FY 2027 to fully finance these projects.
 Water Monthly Bill Impact. Based on the rate increases proposed in this financial plan, the bimonthly bill for typical single-family residential customer with a 5/8” meter is projected to increase $9.19 from $143.02 to $152.51 based on usage of 14 hcf.

Reliance on City Provided Data
During this project, the City (and/or its representatives) provided Raftelis with a variety of technical information, including cost and revenue data. Raftelis did not independently assess or test for the accuracy of such data – historic or projected. Raftelis has relied on this data in the formulation of our findings and subsequent recommendations, as well as in the preparation of this memorandum.

There are often differences between actual and projected data. Some of the assumptions used for projections in this memorandum will not be realized, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, there are likely to be differences between the data or results projected in this memorandum and actual results achieved, and those differences may be material. As a result, Raftelis takes no responsibility for the accuracy of data or projections provided by or prepared on behalf of the City, nor do we have any responsibility for updating this memorandum for events occurring after the date of this memorandum.
721
Item # 16.

Table A-1
City of Milpitas, CA
Water Utility Cash Flow Analysis
Line
No. Operating Fund
Sources of Funds
1 Revenue from Adopted Water Rates
2 Add'l Revenue from Proposed Rate Increases
3 Total Water Rate Revenue
4 Investment Interest
5 Other Misc. Revenue
6 Total Sources
Uses of Funds
7 Operation and Maintenance Expense
8 Transfer to General Fund
9 Total Uses of Funds
10 Operating Surplus
Reserve Fund Summary
11 Capital for Emergencies
12 Rate Stabilization
13 CALPERS
14 Infrastructure
15 Total Reserves
Line
No. Reserve Fund Detail
Capital Reserve for Emergencies
1 Beginning Balance
2 Contribution
3 Use
4 Ending Balance
5 Target
Rate Stabilization Reserve
6 Beginning Balance
7 Contribution
8 Ending Balance
9 Target
CALPERS Reserve
10 Beginning Balance
11 Contribution
12 Ending Balance
13 Transfer to Infrastructure Replacement
Check
Infrastructure Replacement
14 Beginning Balance
15 Contribution
16 Ending Balance
17 Target
18 Annualized Water Service Revenue Increase
19 Cumulative Revenue Increase
20 Debt Service Coverage
Budget Projected
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 $ 31,013,210 $ 32,994,216 $ 33,108,574 $ 33,783,900 $ 34,458,744 $ 35,133,589 $ 35,808,434 $ 36,483,279 $ 37,158,124 $ 37,861,346 - - 1,986,514 4,175,690 6,582,172 8,384,864 10,320,095 12,394,502 14,615,043 17,001,754 31,013,210 32,994,216 35,095,088 37,959,590 41,040,916 43,518,454 46,128,529 48,877,781 51,773,167 54,863,099 $ 372,000 $ 369,729 $ 187,521 $ 202,530 $ 220,657 $ 231,585 $ 244,112 $ 260,891 $ 279,020 $ 294,383 17,601 - - - - - - - - -
$ 31,402,811 $ 33,363,945 $ 35,282,609 $ 38,162,120 $ 41,261,573 $ 43,750,038 $ 46,372,641 $ 49,138,671 $ 52,052,187 $ 55,157,482 $ 25,734,839 $ 28,566,070 $ 31,737,245 $ 33,869,560 $ 35,603,584 $ 37,601,626 $ 40,305,556 $ 43,231,859 $ 45,694,157 $ 48,324,559 2,571,407 2,687,393 2,794,889 2,906,684 2,993,885 3,083,701 3,176,212 3,271,499 3,369,644 3,470,733 $ 28,306,246 $ 31,253,463 $ 34,532,133 $ 36,776,244 $ 38,597,469 $ 40,685,328 $ 43,481,769 $ 46,503,358 $ 49,063,801 $ 51,795,292 $ 3,096,565 $ 2,110,482 $ 750,476 $ 1,385,876 $ 2,664,105 $ 3,064,711 $ 2,890,872 $ 2,635,313 $ 2,988,386 $ 3,362,190 $ 8,614,458 $ 9,376,039 $ 10,126,515 $ 11,032,873 $ 11,579,241 $ 12,205,598 $ 13,044,531 $ 13,951,007 $ 14,719,140 $ 15,538,588 4,718,651 5,209,952 5,209,952 5,689,469 6,434,198 6,782,244 7,248,411 7,752,110 8,178,936 8,634,275 545,038 716,558 716,558 716,558 991,160 1,409,221 1,726,376 1,971,403 2,330,089 2,747,569 13,464,473 16,625,757 7,629,326 3,827,790 2,689,612 5,059,757 5,306,748 6,426,325 11,413,754 12,457,408 $ 27,342,620 $ 31,928,306 $ 23,682,351 $ 21,266,690 $ 21,694,210 $ 25,456,820 $ 27,326,065 $ 30,100,845 $ 36,641,919 $ 39,377,840 Budget
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 $ 8,614,458 $ 8,614,458 $ 9,376,039 $ 10,126,515 $ 11,032,873 $ 11,579,241 $ 12,205,598 $ 13,044,531 $ 13,951,007 $ 14,719,140 761,581 750,476 906,358 546,367 626,358 838,932 906,477 768,133 819,447 - - - - - - - - -
$ 8,614,458 $ 9,376,039 $ 10,126,515 $ 11,032,873 $ 11,579,241 $ 12,205,598 $ 13,044,531 $ 13,951,007 $ 14,719,140 $ 15,538,588 8,491,874 9,376,039 10,359,640 11,032,873 11,579,241 12,205,598 13,044,531 13,951,007 14,719,140 15,538,588 $ 4,347,276 $ 4,718,651 $ 5,209,952 $ 5,209,952 $ 5,689,469 $ 6,434,198 $ 6,782,244 $ 7,248,411 $ 7,752,110 $ 8,178,936 371,375 491,301 - 479,517 744,729 348,046 466,167 503,699 426,826 455,340 $ 4,718,651 $ 5,209,952 $ 5,209,952 $ 5,689,469 $ 6,434,198 $ 6,782,244 $ 7,248,411 $ 7,752,110 $ 8,178,936 $ 8,634,275 4,718,651 5,209,952 5,756,507 6,130,600 6,434,198 6,782,244 7,248,411 7,752,110 8,178,936 8,634,275 $ - $ 545,038 $ 716,558 $ 716,558 $ 716,558 $ 991,160 $ 1,409,221 $ 1,726,376 $ 1,971,403 $ 2,330,089 545,038 171,520 - - 274,602 418,061 317,155 245,027 358,686 417,481 $ 545,038 $ 716,558 $ 716,558 $ 716,558 $ 991,160 $ 1,409,221 $ 1,726,376 $ 1,971,403 $ 2,330,089 $ 2,747,569 $ 2,180,152 $ 686,080 $ - $ - $ 1,098,407 $ 1,672,246 $ 1,268,619 $ 980,110 $ 1,434,742 $ 1,669,923

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
$ 13,199,527 $ 13,464,473 $ 16,625,757 $ 7,629,326 $ 3,827,790 $ 2,689,612 $ 5,059,757 $ 5,306,748 $ 6,426,325 $ 11,413,754 264,946 3,161,284 (8,996,431) (3,801,537) (1,138,178) 2,370,145 246,991 1,119,577 4,987,430 1,043,653 $ 13,464,473 $ 16,625,757 $ 7,629,326 $ 3,827,790 $ 2,689,612 $ 5,059,757 $ 5,306,748 $ 6,426,325 $ 11,413,754 $ 12,457,408 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 12.4% 19.1% 23.9% 28.8% 34.0% 39.3% 44.9%

6.71 5.77 4.87 5.98 7.78 8.79 9.33 9.41 10.10 10.61
Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
722
Item # 16.

Table A-1
City of Milpitas, CA
Water Utility Cash Flow Analysis
Line
No. Operating Fund
Sources of Funds
1 Revenue from Adopted Water Rates
2 Add'l Revenue from Proposed Rate Increases
3 Total Water Rate Revenue
4 Investment Interest
5 Other Misc. Revenue
6 Total Sources
Uses of Funds
7 Operation and Maintenance Expense
8 Transfer to General Fund
9 Total Uses of Funds
10 Operating Surplus
Reserve Fund Summary
11 Capital for Emergencies
12 Rate Stabilization
13 CALPERS
14 Infrastructure
15 Total Reserves
Line
No. Reserve Fund Detail
Capital Reserve for Emergencies
1 Beginning Balance
2 Contribution
3 Use
4 Ending Balance
5 Target
Rate Stabilization Reserve
6 Beginning Balance
7 Contribution
8 Ending Balance
9 Target
CALPERS Reserve
10 Beginning Balance
11 Contribution
12 Ending Balance
13 Transfer to Infrastructure Replacement
Check
Infrastructure Replacement
14 Beginning Balance
15 Contribution
16 Ending Balance
17 Target
18 Annualized Water Service Revenue Increase
19 Cumulative Revenue Increase
20 Debt Service Coverage
Projected
FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040 $ 39,269,521 38,565,143 $ 39,974,483 $ 40,680,033 $ 41,386,178 $ 42,092,920 $ 42,800,265 $ 43,508,218 $ 44,216,783 $ 22,277,434 19,553,114 25,183,430 28,280,236 31,577,431 35,085,056 38,813,634 42,774,199 46,978,313 58,118,257 61,546,955 65,157,912 68,960,270 72,963,609 77,177,976 81,613,900 86,282,417 91,195,096 $ 328,230 310,772 $ 346,630 $ 366,013 $ 386,608 $ 408,284 $ 431,281 $ 455,659 $ 481,282 $ - - - - - - - - -
$ 61,875,185 58,429,029 $ 65,504,542 $ 69,326,282 $ 73,350,217 $ 77,586,260 $ 82,045,181 $ 86,738,075 $ 91,676,378 $ $ 54,089,550 51,130,227 $ 57,209,530 $ 60,528,366 $ 64,023,861 $ 67,735,937 $ 71,674,528 $ 75,817,014 $ 80,206,062 $ 3,574,855 3,682,101 3,792,564 3,906,341 4,023,531 4,144,237 4,268,564 4,396,621 4,528,519 $ 57,771,651 54,705,082 $ 61,002,093 $ 64,434,707 $ 68,047,392 $ 71,880,174 $ 75,943,092 $ 80,213,635 $ 84,734,581 $ $ 4,103,535 3,723,947 $ 4,502,449 $ 4,891,575 $ 5,302,826 $ 5,706,086 $ 6,102,089 $ 6,524,441 $ 6,941,796 $ $ 17,331,495 16,411,524 $ 18,300,628 $ 19,330,412 $ 20,414,218 $ 21,564,052 $ 22,782,928 $ 24,064,090 $ 25,420,374 $ 9,119,337 9,630,534 10,169,049 10,741,266 11,343,500 11,982,425 12,659,713 13,371,613 14,125,255 3,220,759 3,755,232 4,354,193 5,012,108 5,735,465 6,518,930 7,360,115 8,266,391 9,232,765 13,577,145 14,785,579 16,085,586 17,444,638 18,877,091 20,344,739 21,825,055 23,328,490 24,825,865 $ 45,502,841 42,328,765 $ 48,909,456 $ 52,528,423 $ 56,370,274 $ 60,410,147 $ 64,627,811 $ 69,030,584 $ 73,604,258 $ FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040 $ 16,411,524 15,538,588 $ 17,331,495 $ 18,300,628 $ 19,330,412 $ 20,414,218 $ 21,564,052 $ 22,782,928 $ 24,064,090 $ 919,971 872,937 969,133 1,029,784 1,083,805 1,149,835 1,218,875 1,281,163 1,356,284 - - - - - - - - -
$ 17,331,495 16,411,524 $ 18,300,628 $ 19,330,412 $ 20,414,218 $ 21,564,052 $ 22,782,928 $ 24,064,090 $ 25,420,374 $ 16,411,524 17,331,495 18,300,628 19,330,412 20,414,218 21,564,052 22,782,928 24,064,090 25,420,374 $ 9,119,337 8,634,275 $ 9,630,534 $ 10,169,049 $ 10,741,266 $ 11,343,500 $ 11,982,425 $ 12,659,713 $ 13,371,613 $ 511,197 485,062 538,515 572,217 602,235 638,925 677,288 711,899 753,642 $ 9,630,534 9,119,337 $ 10,169,049 $ 10,741,266 $ 11,343,500 $ 11,982,425 $ 12,659,713 $ 13,371,613 $ 14,125,255 $ 9,119,337 9,630,534 10,169,049 10,741,266 11,343,500 11,982,425 12,659,713 13,371,613 14,125,255 $ 3,220,759 2,747,569 $ 3,755,232 $ 4,354,193 $ 5,012,108 $ 5,735,465 $ 6,518,930 $ 7,360,115 $ 8,266,391 $ 534,473 473,190 598,960 657,915 723,357 783,465 841,185 906,276 966,374 $ 3,755,232 3,220,759 $ 4,354,193 $ 5,012,108 $ 5,735,465 $ 6,518,930 $ 7,360,115 $ 8,266,391 $ 9,232,765 $ $ 2,137,894 1,892,759 $ 2,395,841 $ 2,631,659 $ 2,893,428 $ 3,133,861 $ 3,364,740 $ 3,625,103 $ 3,865,496 $

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
$ 13,577,145 12,457,408 $ 14,785,579 $ 16,085,586 $ 17,444,638 $ 18,877,091 $ 20,344,739 $ 21,825,055 $ 23,328,490 $ 1,208,434 1,119,737 1,300,008 1,359,052 1,432,453 1,467,648 1,480,316 1,503,435 1,497,375 $ 14,785,579 13,577,145 $ 16,085,586 $ 17,444,638 $ 18,877,091 $ 20,344,739 $ 21,825,055 $ 23,328,490 $ 24,825,865 $ 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

50.7% 56.7% 63.0% 69.5% 76.3% 83.4% 90.7% 98.3% 106.2%

11.08 11.57 12.10 12.63 13.20 13.71 14.24 14.75 15.34
Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
723
Item # 16.

Table A-2
City of Milpitas, CA
Water Utility
Water Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Line Budget Projected
No. Capital Financing Plan FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 Sources of Funds
1 Beginning Balance $ 13,199,527 $ 13,464,473 $ 16,625,757 $ 7,629,326 $ 3,827,790 $ 2,689,612 $ 5,059,757 $ 5,306,748 $ 6,426,325 $ 11,413,754 2 Revenue Bonds - - - - - - - - - -
4 Capital Charge Revenue 3,913,678 3,926,784 4,333,879 4,868,338 5,466,553 6,135,726 6,884,069 7,229,405 7,589,265 7,737,742 5 Development Fees 297,000 1,002,155 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 6 Misc. Revenue 7,216 7,215 7,431 7,654 7,884 8,121 8,364 8,615 8,874 9,140 7 Interest 221,000 192,000 332,515 152,587 76,556 53,792 101,195 106,135 128,526 228,275 8 Transfer of Surplus from O&M 2,180,152-
686,080- -
-
-
-
1,098,407- 1,672,246- 1,268,619- 980,110- 1,434,742- 1,669,923- 9 Subtotal: Sources $ 19,818,573 $ 19,278,707 $ 21,599,583 $ 12,957,905 $ 10,777,189 $ 10,859,496 $ 13,622,004 $ 13,931,013 $ 15,887,732 $ 21,358,834 Uses of Funds
10 CIP Projects $ 5,310,050 $ 1,605,900 $ 12,925,806 $ 8,083,666 $ 7,043,128 $ 4,753,039 $ 7,267,306 $ 6,456,488 $ 3,426,528 $ 7,855,726 11 Debt Service 1,044,050-
1,047,050- 1,044,450- 1,046,450- 1,044,450- 1,046,700- 1,047,950- 1,048,200- 1,047,450- 1,045,700- 12 Subtotal: Uses $ 6,354,100 $ 2,652,950 $ 13,970,256 $ 9,130,116 $ 8,087,578 $ 5,799,739 $ 8,315,256 $ 7,504,688 $ 4,473,978 $ 8,901,426 13 Ending Balance $ 13,464,473 $ 16,625,757 $ 7,629,326 $ 3,827,790 $ 2,689,612 $ 5,059,757 $ 5,306,748 $ 6,426,325 $ 11,413,754 $ 12,457,408 CIP Adjustments
15 Completion Percentage 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 16 Annual Cost Inflation 0.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 17 Cumulative Inflation Rate 100.0% 106.0% 112.4% 119.1% 123.9% 128.8% 134.0% 139.3% 144.9% 150.7% Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
724
Item # 16.

Table A-2
City of Milpitas, CA
Water Utility
Water Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Line
No. Capital Financing Plan
Sources of Funds
1 Beginning Balance
2 Revenue Bonds
4 Capital Charge Revenue
5 Development Fees
6 Misc. Revenue
7 Interest
8 Transfer of Surplus from O&M
9 Subtotal: Sources
Uses of Funds
10 CIP Projects
11 Debt Service
12 Subtotal: Uses
13 Ending Balance
CIP Adjustments
15 Completion Percentage
16 Annual Cost Inflation
17 Cumulative Inflation Rate
Projected
FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040 $ 13,577,145 12,457,408 $ 14,785,579 $ 16,085,586 $ 17,444,638 $ 18,877,091 $ 20,344,739 $ 21,825,055 $ 23,328,490 $ - - - - - - - - -
8,035,005 7,886,322 8,183,791 8,332,683 8,481,679 8,630,781 8,779,990 8,929,307 9,078,731 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 9,696 9,414 9,987 10,287 10,595 10,913 11,241 11,578 11,925 271,543 249,148 295,712 321,712 348,893 377,542 406,895 436,501 466,570 2,137,894 1,892,759 2,395,841 2,631,659 2,893,428 3,133,861 3,364,740 3,625,103 3,865,496 - - - - - - - - - $ 24,331,282 22,795,050 $ 25,970,910 $ 27,681,927 $ 29,479,234 $ 31,330,189 $ 33,207,605 $ 35,127,544 $ 37,051,213 $ $ 8,496,754 8,169,955 $ 8,836,624 $ 9,190,089 $ 9,557,692 $ 9,940,000 $ 10,337,600 $ 10,751,104 $ 11,181,148 $ 1,048,950 1,047,950 1,048,700 1,047,200 1,044,450 1,045,450 1,044,950 1,047,950 1,044,200 - - - - - - - - - $ 9,545,704 9,217,905 $ 9,885,324 $ 10,237,289 $ 10,602,142 $ 10,985,450 $ 11,382,550 $ 11,799,054 $ 12,225,348 $ $ 14,785,579 13,577,145 $ 16,085,586 $ 17,444,638 $ 18,877,091 $ 20,344,739 $ 21,825,055 $ 23,328,490 $ 24,825,865 $ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
156.7% 163.0% 169.5% 176.3% 183.4% 190.7% 198.3% 206.2% 214.5% Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
725
Item # 16.

Table A-3
City of Milpitas, CA
Water Utility
Water TASP Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Line Budget Projected
No. Capital Financing Plan - TASP FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 Sources of Funds
1 Beginning Balance 17,869,842 $ 17,869,842 $ 24,484,221 $ 17,798,801 $ 17,798,801 $ 17,798,801 $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ 2 TASP Development Fees - 6,932,379 - - - - - - - $ -
- - - - - - - - - -
3 Subtotal: Sources $ 24,802,221 17,869,842 $ 24,484,221 $ 17,798,801 $ 17,798,801 $ 17,798,801 $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ Uses of Funds
4 CIP Projects - $ 318,000 $ 6,685,420 $ - $ - $ 21,836,327 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - - - - - - - - 5 Subtotal: Uses $ 318,000 - $ 6,685,420 $ - $ - $ 21,836,327 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6 Ending Balance $ 24,484,221 17,869,842 $ 17,798,801 $ 17,798,801 $ 17,798,801 $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ 7 Cumulative Inflation Rate 100.0% 106.0% 112.4% 119.1% 123.9% 128.8% 134.0% 139.3% 144.9% 150.7% Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
726
Item # 16.

Table A-3
City of Milpitas, CA
Water Utility
Water TASP Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Line
No. Capital Financing Plan - TASP
Sources of Funds
1 Beginning Balance
2 TASP Development Fees
3 Subtotal: Sources
Uses of Funds
4 CIP Projects
5 Subtotal: Uses
6 Ending Balance
7 Cumulative Inflation Rate
Projected
FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 FY 2039 FY 2040 $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- - - - - - - - -
$ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
- - - - - - - - -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) $ (4,037,526) 156.7% 163.0% 169.5% 176.3% 183.4% 190.7% 198.3% 206.2% 214.5% Draft-For Discussion Purposes Only
727
Item # 16.

Capital Improvement Program
Mapbook and Project Summary Sheets
Appendix G
728
Item # 16.
0 1,2502,500
ScaleinFeet
FigureG-1
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:55:33 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1_ECIP_Overview.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
Berryessa
Cupertino
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
101
84 880
680
280
237
237
680
880
J
A
C
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
D
IXO
N
LA
N
D
I
N
G
R
D

W MONTAGUE EX

N PARK VICTORIA DR GREAT MALL DR

TASMAN DR

YOSEMITE DR

CALAVERAS
RD
GREAT

MALL PK

N MILPITAS BL

S ABEL ST

S MILPITAS BL
2 3
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
15 16
12 14
729
Item # 16.
0 100200
ScaleinFeet
FigureG-1.1
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
13 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880
12"
12"
8"
6"
12"
12"
10"
12"
12"

D XI ON

LAND NI G
CENTER

CALIFORNIA CR
DIXON

LANDING
RD

MILMONT DR
12" EC
IP-PI-06
730
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
Figure G-1.2
Recommended Improvements
for Existing Water System
City of Milpitas
La
2020 Water Master Plan st Saved: 10/29/2020 10:04:55 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu Recommended Facilities
Emergency PRV
Improvement at Pump Station
Isolation Valve
Pipeline Upsize
New Pipeline
Existing Facilities
Existing Turnout
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve
Existing Emergency PRV
Existing Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
12 14
3 1
4 5 6 7
8 9
10 11
13 15
16 237
237
680
880
ECIP-V-03
8"
8"
8"
8"
8" 12"
8"
6"
6"
8"
4"
6"
8"
6" 6"
8"
12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
10"
8"
6"
12" 8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
6"
6"
8"
6"
8"
6"
12"
8"
8" 8"
6"
8"
8"
4"
6 6"
"
6"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
6"
10"
12"
12"
8"
8"
4"
8"
10"
8" 6"
8"
8"
12"
8"
12"
8"
8"
10"
6" 10"
6"
6"
10"
8"
6"
6"
8"
6"
6"
8"
6"
8"
6"
8"
6"
8"
8"
6"
6"
8"
8"
10"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8" 680

DIEL DR

WELLINGTON
DR
HETCH
HETCHY
PARK
CORTEZ
ST

CURTNER
DR

DIXON RD

AUGUSTINE
PARK

HASTINGS
DR

CURTNER
CT
N

PARK VICTORIA DR

LONDON DR
LINDEN
LN

COELHO CT

BERYLWOOD LN

AUTREY ST
HAZEN
ST

MANFERD ST
PECO
PA
T
RK

MAZEY ST
BAD
G
E
RWOO
D
LN

TOSCANO
ST

ARIZONAAV
CONWAY
ST

FIRETHORN
CT

BARON PL

KIRKWALL PL

GROSS ST

WOODCOCK CT

MATTHEWS CT

GOSSER ST

BERKSHIRE PL

TINY ST

COELHO ST
DEVON
PL

LEVIN ST

STIRLING DR

OLIVER ST

BOYD ST

BOULDER ST

TAYLOR DR
VEGAS
AV

MURRAY ST

BUSKIRK ST
N

MILPITAS
B
L

CALLAN ST

STRATFORD
DR

GREATHOUSE DR

SUNNYHILLS
DR
Diel EPRV
ECIP-PI-28
ECIP-PI-31
ECIP-PI-23
8"
8"
8"
731
Item # 16.
0 150300
ScaleinFeet
FigureG-1.3
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
2 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
13 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880

ECIP-BG-TL
6"
6"
6"
6 "
8"
12"
1 2"
8 "
1 2
"
12"
12"
12"
8"
6 "
8"
8 "
8"
6"
12"
T
U
L
A
R
C
I
T
O
S
D
R

PINEHURST
CT
A
U
G
U
S
TA
C
T

HILLTOP CT

ST ANDREWS
CT
C
A
L
E
R
A
C
R
E
E
K
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
D
R
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
S
I
D
E
C
T

TERRA VISTA CT

COUNTRY CLUB DR
P
E
B
B
L
E
B
E
A
C
H
C
T
8"
ECIP-PI-26
732
Item # 16.
0 100200
ScaleinFeet
FigureG-1.4
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline12 14
2 3
1 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
13 15
16 237
237
680
880

ECIP-BG-CC
12"
12"
8"
8"
12"
6" 6"
4"
12"
6"
6"
12"
6"
12"
12"
12"
14 "
4"
6"
12"
1 4
"
6"
14"
6"
8"
6"
6"
6"
12"
14"
6"
8 1
"
4 "
14"
12"
1 4
"
6"
8"
8"
680

SHERMAN
CT

CALAVERAS RIDGE DR
ST
JOSEPH
CT

CARSON WY
ZAMORA
CT

BLALOCK

ST CREED

ST N PARK VICTORIA DR

EL CAMINO HIGUERA

COUNTRY

CLUB DR

NICKLAUS AV

EVANS RD

CAMARILLO CT
FOX
HOLLOW
CT

RANKIN DR

CERVANTEZ CT

HORCAJO CR
8" EC
IP-PI-39
733
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
Figure G-1.5
Recommended Improvements
for Existing Water System
City of Milpitas
La
2020 Water Master Plan st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu Recommended Facilities
Emergency PRV
Improvement at Pump Station
Isolation Valve
Pipeline Upsize
New Pipeline
Existing Facilities
Existing Turnout
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve
Existing Emergency PRV
Existing Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
2 3 1
4 6 7
8 9
10 11
13 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880
ECIP-PI-21
8"
8"
10"
10"
8"
12"
6"
6" 6"
12"
8"
12"
12"
6"
10"
12"
8"
8"
12"
12"
6"
8"
14"
6"
12"
8"
6"
12"
12"
8"
4"
8"
12"
14"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
8"
8 6
"
"
8"
12"
6"
8"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6" 4"
12"
12"
8"
12"
6"
6"
6"
10"
6" 8"
8"
6"
8"
6"
6"
10"
8"
6"
10"
4"
6"
8"
12"
6"
12"
6" 6"
12"
10"
8"
12"
12"

N MILPITAS BL
KOVAN
DA
WY

JACKLIN CR

STRICKROTH
PARK

SUDBURY CT
ERIE
CT

ERIE CR
ERIE
PL
FULTON
CT

JACKLIN RD

ERIE DR

HAMILTON
AV

FOOTHILL
SQUARE

TRAMWAY DR

MICHIGAN RD

PESCADERO
ST

JACKLIN CT
SUP
ERIO
R
RD

OREGON CT

N ABEL ST

STRICKROTH
DR

CHAD DR

OREGON WY

ENRIQUEZ CT
JAC
KLIN
PL

COYOTE ST

MERZ CT

SUDBURY DR
ARIZO
NA
AV

MARTIL WY

GEMMA DR
AARON
PARK
DR

BELBROOK
WY

COVENTRY WY
HAN
SO
N
CT

COVENTRY CR
8"
1 2"
ECIP-PI-05
734
Item # 16.
0 100200
ScaleinFeet
FigureG-1.6
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
2 3
1 4
5 7
8 9
10 11
13 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880
ECIP-PI-33
16"
16"
4" 12
"
4"
4"
8"
6"
6"
8"
6"
8"
1 2
"
8"
4"
8"
6"
8"
16"
8"
4 "
1 2
"
1 2
"
10"
4"
8"
4"
6"
1 2
"
8"
6"
6"
6 "
1 2
"
4 "
10"
6 "
6"
6"
1 2"
6"
6"
4 "
8"
16"
8"
16"
16"
1 2"
8"
16"
4"
16"
16"
8"
6"
8"
8"
680
J
A
C
K
L
I
N
R
D
KEN
NE
DY
DR

MARTIL WY

DEL RIO CT
CALLE

ORIENTE
PARK

JONES MEMORIAL PARK

DECOTO CT
M
E
RCAD
O
CT
TRA
MWAY
D
R

ALISAL CT
CA
L
L
E
O
R
I
E
N
T
E

TORRES AV
D
E
A
N
ZA
C
T

SANTA RITA DR

DEL VAILE
CT

ABERDEEN WY

N HILLVIEW DR

CALLE DEL PRADO

CLAUSER
DR

BURDETT WY
V
I
A
BAJA
D
R

WYOMA PL

FLUME CT PARV
I
N
D
R

SINGLEY DR

PRINTYAV

CORINTH
IA
D
R
TRAUG
HBER
ST
TASS
AS
ARA
D
R
C
A
N
A
D
A
D
R
LOS
P
I
N
OS
AV

WOOL DR
8"
8" E
CIP-PI-32
735
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
Figure G-1.7
Recommended Improvements
for Existing Water System
City of Milpitas
La
2020 Water Master Plan st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu Recommended Facilities
Emergency PRV
Improvement at Pump Station
Isolation Valve
Pipeline Upsize
New Pipeline
Existing Facilities
Existing Turnout
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve
Existing Emergency PRV
Existing Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
2 3 1
4 5 6
8 9
10 11
13 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880
6"
12"
6"
6"
8"
6" 18"
8"
6"
6"
12"
6"
8"
8"
6"
8"
4"
6"
8"
10"
4"
6"
4"
6"
6"
6"
12"
6"
8"
6"
8"
10"
12"
6"
8"
12"
12"
6" 10"
6"
10"
8"
6"
6"
4"
10"
8"
6"
8" 8"
18"
12"
8"
12"
6"
10"
6"
10" 10"
6"
8"
6"
6"
4"
6" 12"
10"
18"
4" 18"
18"
10"
FANYON
ST
FAIR

HILL DR
N
TEMPLE
DR

GUERRERO
CT

ARANA CT

CARDOZA
PARK
MIC
H
A
EL S
T

KENNEDY DR

QUAIL DR

EVANS RD
RAM
O
S
C
T

ADMIRE CT
PRADA
D
R
TOP
HA
M
CT
N
PARK

VICTORIA
D
R
P
B
A
AYVIEW
RK DR

BRIAN CT
QUINCE
LN

STEMEL WY

VIEW DR

MICHAEL CT

OLD EVANS RD

TRAUGHBER ST
SIMAS
DR

PRADA CT

ALEXANDER WY
SANTOS
CT

SERPA DR
LYNN
AV
ECIP-PI-36
ECIP-PI-37
ECIP-PI-34
8"
8"
8"
736
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
Figure G-1.8
Recommended Improvements
for Existing Water System
City of Milpitas
La
2020 Water Master Plan st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu Recommended Facilities
Emergency PRV
Improvement at Pump Station
Isolation Valve
Pipeline Upsize
New Pipeline
Existing Facilities
Existing Turnout
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve
Existing Emergency PRV
Existing Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
2 3 1
4 5 6 7
9 10
11 13 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880

ECIP-PS-AY
ECIP-PI-38
8"
16" 16"
6"
10"
6"
8"
6"
8"
12"
16"
6"
14"
8"
10"
8" 10"
16"
12"
10" 10"
6"
6"
8"
6"
6"
8"
8"
6"
6"
12"
10"
16"
6"
6" 6"
8"
12"
8"
12"
6"
6"
12"
8"
4"
12"
6"
6"
6"
12"
6"
8"
8"
12"
6"
12"
8"
6"
8"
6"
6"
18"
6"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8" 8"
6"
12"
10"
6"
12"
8"
12"
8"
8"
6" 6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
6"
8"
6"
10"
6"
8" 8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
16" 6"
6"
8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
6"
6"
6"
10"
8"
12"
8"
12"
8"
6"
6"
8" 10"
6"
6"
12"
6"
8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
6"
6"
6"
12"
12"
8"
8"
10"
12"
18"
12"
8"
16"
8"
6"
12"
12"
10"
8"
6"
12"
8"
8"
10"
6"
4"
16"
4"
12"
12"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"

FALCATO
DR

CARNEGIE
D
R
N
TEMPLE
DR
EVANS
RD
JUPITE
R
WY
PO
PPY
LN

JASMINE
CT
LOUISE
CT

SURREY C
P
T
O
PPY
CT

HEMLOCK CT
ALVISO
ADOBE
PARK

E CALAVERAS BL

MIRABELLA CT

ASHLAND DR

BURLEY DR

CANTON DR
BIXBY
D
R
LA
CROSSE
DR

RODRIGU
ES
AV

WYLIE DR

ADAMS AV
LYNN
AV

ALBANY CT
S
TEMPLE
DR
SOLAR
CT

PIEDMONT RD

ROSWELL
DR

FRANK CT

SEPULVEDAAV
LACEY
DR
N
GADSD
EN
DR

JUPITER CT

SATURN CT
GOLDEN

HILLS DR

CALAVERAS RD
STU
LMAN
DR
S
GADSD
EN
DR

PEDRO AV

HEMLOCK LN
CALAVE
RAS
CT

STRAWBERRY LN
LA
BAREE
D
R

DENNIS AV

TERFIDIA
LN
CARLAV

ELLWELL DR

FINDLEY DR

GIRARD DR

DALTON DR
PERRY
ST
M
O
N
M
O
U
T
H
D
R

BRALYAV

URIDIAS

RANCH RD
LAWTON
DR
BEACON
DR

ARMAND DR
FANYON
ST

JUPITER DR
8"
737
Item # 16.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
Figure G-1.9
Recommended Improvements
for Existing Water System
City of Milpitas
La
2020 Water Master Plan st Saved: 10/29/2020 10:04:55 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu Recommended Facilities
Emergency PRV
Improvement at Pump Station
Isolation Valve
Pipeline Upsize
New Pipeline
Existing Facilities
Existing Turnout
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve
Existing Emergency PRV
Existing Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
12 14
2 3 1
4 5 6 7
8 10
11 13 15
16 237
237
680
880
12"
8"
8"
12"
6"
12"
18"
6"
10"
18"
8"
6"
18"
12"
12"
12"
8"
6"
8"
6"
24"
6"
8"
8"
6"
8"
12"
12"
24"
2"
8"
8"
12"
8"
6"
6"
8"
6"
12"
8"
10"
8"
14"
8"
8"
12"
8"
4"
8"
12"
16"
8"
8"
12"
16"
14"
6" 8"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
10"
10" 8"
16"
10"
8"
10"
6"
6"
12"
12"
12"
12"
8"
8"
6"
16"
4"
4"
4"
6"
12"
12"
12"
8"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
16"
237
S
AB
E
L
ST
BOTH
E
LO
AV
DIAMO
N
D
WY

OHIO CT
SERRA
CENTER

OGDEN CT
ABEL
PLAZA

W CARLO ST
ABEL
SQUARE
W

CALAVERAS
BL

ORION CT

BERESFORD
SQUARE

CENTRAL
PLAZA

SPENCE AV
ETHYL
ST

RAILROAD
AV

E CARLO ST
N

MILPITAS
BL
N
MAIN
ST
S

MILPITAS
BL
S
M
AIN
ST
ALTON
ST

NORWICH AV
CHYSIS
RD

CALYPSO CT
B
UT
L
E
R
S
T

CALYPSO
LN

S ABBOTT AV

WELLER LN

OPHIR CT

E CALAVERAS BL

SINNOTT LN
WIN
SO
R
ST
LOS

COCHES ST

JUNIPERO DR

HEARST DR

SERRA WY
TOPAZ
ST
HAM
M
ON
D
WY
CAS
P
E
R
ST
W
B
W
C
B
T
O
N
M
A
NI S
T
N
A
B
E
L
S
T

CALADENIA
LN
12"
12"
1 2"
ECIP-PI-01
ECIP-PI-01
ECIP-PI-07
738
Item # 16.
0 100200
ScaleinFeetF
igureG-1.10
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline12 14
2 3
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 11
13 15
16 237
237
680
880
ECIP-PI-16
8"
8"
6"
8"
8 "
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
6"
8"
4"
8 "
6"
6"
8"
6"
8 "
8"
6"
8"
8 "
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6" 8"
8"
16" 16"
6"
6"
8"
8"
16"
8"
16" 16"
8 "
16"
8"
10"
16"
8"
1 0"
10"

PIEDMONT RD

BEN RODGERS PARK

GLENVIEW
DR
P
I
N
A
R
D
S
T

GLENVIEW CT

WESTRIDGE DR CARLS
BA
D
C
T
MESA
VE
RD
E
D
R
LAURYN

RIDGE CT
I
N
C
L
I
N
E
C
T

SHENANDOAH AV

CARLSBAD ST

CHIPMAN
DR

LYNWOOD TR

WHITCOMB CT

CRATER LAKE AV

RIDGEMONT DR

GREENROCK RD

KRISTIN RIDGE WY
GRAND
TETON
DR
BLI
SS
AV
S
KY
L
I
N
E
D
R

SEACLIFF
D
R
SHI
LOH
AV
ECIP-PI-25
1 2
"
8"
739
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
Figure G-1.11
Recommended Improvements
for Existing Water System
City of Milpitas
La
2020 Water Master Plan st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu Recommended Facilities
Emergency PRV
Improvement at Pump Station
Isolation Valve
Pipeline Upsize
New Pipeline
Existing Facilities
Existing Turnout
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve
Existing Emergency PRV
Existing Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
2 3 1
4 5 6 7
8 9
10 13 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880
ECIP-V-02
12"
12"
12"
14"
12"
12"
10"
8"
12"
12"
14"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
12"
12"
6"
8"
12"
6" 6"
16" 8"
8"
6"
8" 8"
12"
12"
6"
6"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
6"
14"
14"
14"
12"
8"
18"
12"
14"
6"
12"
12"
6"
14" 8"
14"
12"
16"
8"
12"
12"
12"
8"
12"
12"
8"
14"
12" 12" 12"
10"
8"
12"
12"
12"
8"
8" 8"
14"
8"
18"
8"
8"
6"
12"
8 8
"
"
8"
8"
8"
14" 12"
24"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
16"
JO
H
N
M
C
D
E
R
M
OT
T
PA
R
K
SYLVIA
CT
BRISA

SUAVE CM
E
TOM
VAT
PA
T
RK
CIELO

LINDO CM

JUNIPERO DR

ETHYL ST
S
AB
E
L
ST
VIENTO
TR
LUZ
DEL
SOL TR

TERNURA LP
PALMER
ST

ETHYL CT
CARIN
O
TR
SAN
MIGUEL
CT
RIO
VERDE
PL
SAN

PETRA CT

CORNING AV

ALVAREZ CT

S ABBOTT AV
S
MAIN
ST
VIDA
LARGA
LP

LUZ DEL
SOL LP

CLARIDAD
LP
MENTE

LINDA L
AL
P

VAREZ CM

SYLVIAAV
THOM
PSO
N
CT

MACHADO AV
8"
ECIP-PI-11
740
Item # 16.
0 2550
ScaleinFeetF
igureG-1.12
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
2 3
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
15 16
14 237
237
680
880
ECIP-V01
ECIP-PN-02
8"
8"
8"
1 2
"
18"
8"
18"
24"
8"
12"
18"

HAMMOND WY

S MAIN ST
HammondEPRV
8"
741
Item # 16.
0 100200
ScaleinFeetF
igureG-1.13
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
2 3
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 15
16 12
14 237
237
680
880
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"

NESTWOOD WY

COYOTE CREEK WY

MURPHY RANCH RD SOBECK LN

CREEKSIDE WY

WARNER LN

BOETCHER LN

AVIAN LN

BRIDGEWATER LN

LARKSPUR LN

WILLOW LN

TECHNOLOGY
DR

FERNLEAF DR ELDERBERRY DR

SANDISK
DR
12"EC
IP-PI-04
742
Item # 16.
0 2550
ScaleinFeetF
igureG-1.14
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
2 3
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
15 16
12 237
237
680
880
ECIP-PN-01
12"
12"
8"
1 8"
8"
8"
1 8"
1 8"
16"
1 2"
8"
1 8"
18"
8"
14"
14"
10"
1 0"
CU
RTIS
AV

S ABEL ST

S MAIN ST
12"
743
Item # 16.
0 100200
ScaleinFeetF
igureG-1.15
RecommendedImprovements
forExistingWaterSystem
CityofMilpitas
La
2020WaterMasterPlan
st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu RecommendedFacilities
EmergencyPRV
ImprovementatPumpStation
IsolationValve
PipelineUpsize
NewPipeline
ExistingFacilities
ExistingTurnout
ExistingGroundwaterWell
ExistingPressureReducingValve
ExistingEmergencyPRV
ExistingPumpStation
ExistingStorageReservoir
ExistingPipeline
2 3
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
16 12
14 237
237
680
880
1 2"
12 "
8"
14"
6"
14"
14"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
6"
6 "
12"
12"
6"
16"
12"
6"
8"
14"
6"
12"
8"
8 8"
"
12"
8"
8"
8"
14"
6"
8"
12"
12"
6"
12"
14"
6"
14"
12"
14"
8"
16"

S PARK VICTORIA DR

DEMPSEY RD

SEASONS

MARKETPLACE

MADRUGA WY

SASSONE CT
BEE CT

HIGHLAND CT
PA
R
K
T
O
W
N
P
L
A
Z
A
CH
EWPO
N
AV
BIG
BASI
N
D
R

FRENCH CT
CUCIZ
LN

LANDESS AV
DAVID
LN
B
U
TA
N
O
D
R

CLEAR LAKE AV
8"
ECIP-PI-08
744
Item # 16.
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
Figure G-1.16
Recommended Improvements
for Existing Water System
City of Milpitas
La
2020 Water Master Plan st Saved: 10/29/2020 9:36:27 AM N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\FigG-1.XX_Sheets.mxd : rchu Recommended Facilities
Emergency PRV
Improvement at Pump Station
Isolation Valve
Pipeline Upsize
New Pipeline
Existing Facilities
Existing Turnout
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve
Existing Emergency PRV
Existing Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
2 3 1
4 5 6 7
8 9
10 11
13 15
12 14
237
237
680
880
10"
6"
12"
12"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6"
8"
12"
14"
8"
6"
12"
6"
10"
8"
8"
6"
12"
8"
8"
6"
10"
6"
6"
6"
6"
10"
10"
6"
6"
6"
14"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
12"
8"
12"
12"
12"
8"
14"
12"
6"
8"
8"
6"
12"
880
FALLE
N
LEAF
D
R

PINEWOOD
PARK

GREENWOOD WY

TIMBER WY

CEDAR WY

GIBBONS CT
CE
DAR
CT

W MONTAGUE EX

COTTONWOOD DR
BLUE
SPRUCE
CT

GREENTREE WY

FIR TREE CT
BLUE

SPRUCE WY

MOONLIGHT CR

LIVE OAK CT

PINEWOOD WY

FOREST CT

STARLITE DR

MANZANITA CT

LONETREE CT

PINEWOOD CT

SILVERTIP CT
BAR
B
E
R
LN
8"
ECIP-PI-10
745
Item # 16.
18"
8"
24"
18"
8"
8" 12"
8"
8"
S
MAIN
ST
HAM
M
O
N
D
WY
ECIP-V-01
ECIP-V-01
Hammond Emergency PRV
Figure G-2.1
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (ECIP-V-01)
High
Fire Flow
Hammond Way near Tom Evatt Park
SF1/VW1

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Provide fire flows from Zone SF1 to Zone VW1.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

PRV costs include the installation of control valve(s), a concrete utility vault, access hatches, site piping,
earthwork, paving, SCADA, and related sitework.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
8-inch diameter PRV and piping.
1 inch = 200 feet
$ 282,000
$ 479,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.1_HammondEPRV.mxd - rchu - 6/12/2022

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Emergency PRV
Existing SF1 Pipeline
Existing VW1 Pipeline
746
Item # 16.
14"
10"
12"
10"
8"
18" 10"
10"
12" 12"
18"
12"
24"
ADAMS
AV
FANYON
ST

E CALAVERAS BL

CALAVERAS
CT
CARN
EGIE
DR

ECIP-PS-AY

ECIP-PS-AY
New Fire Pump at Ayer Pump Station
Figure G-2.2
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (ECIP-PS-AY)
Medium
Fire Flow Backup
Ayer Pump Station
SF2

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Provide fire flows to Zone SF2 in the event of an
SFPUC supply outage.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

Pump station costs are based on enclosed stations
with architectural and landscaping treatment suitable
for residential areas. Since this improvement entails
adding a pump to an existing pump station, costs for a
new pump station (5.76 mgd firm capacity) have been
discounted by 50 percent.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
Install one new fire pump at the existing Ayer Pump
Station. Capacity shall be 4,00 gallons per minute
(gpm) (5.76 million gallons per day (mgd)).
1 inch = 200 feet
$ 1,216,733
$ 2,068,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.2_AyerPump.mxd - rchu - 6/12/2022

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Improvement at Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
747
Item # 16.
6"
8"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
12"
6"
12"
12"
6"
12"
6"
10"
8"
12"

DIEL DR
COELHO
CT

TAYLOR DR

CURTNER
CT

CURTNER DR
N PARK

VICTORIA DR

COELHO ST

GREATHOUSE DR
ECIP-V-03
ECIP-V-03
Diel Emergency PRV
Figure G-2.3
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (ECIP-V-03)
Medium
Fire Flow Backup
Intersection of Coelho Street and Diel Drive
SF2/SF1

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Supplement existing Sunnyhills PRV in providing fire
flows from Zone SF2 to Zone SF1.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

PRV costs include the installation of control valve(s), a concrete utility vault, access hatches, site piping,
earthwork, paving, SCADA, and related sitework.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
8-inch diameter PRV and piping.
1 inch = 200 feet
$ 282,000
$ 479,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.3_DielEPRV.mxd - rchu - 6/12/2022

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Emergency PRV
Existing SF1 Pipeline
Existing SF2 Pipeline
748
Item # 16.
4"
6"
6" 6"
6"
6"
12" 12"
12"
12"
16"
8"
12"
12"
8"
6"
14"
12"
12"
6"
8"
8"
14"
12"
8"
8"
8" 12"
14"
8"
6"
8"

CALAVERAS

RIDGE PARK

TULARCITOS DR

CALAVERAS RIDGE DR

AUGUSTA
CT

CAMARILLO
CT
DANIEL
CT
QUINCE
LN

EVANS RD

HILLTOP CT

ST ANDREWS CT
CALERA
CREEK

HEIGHTS
DR

COUNTRYSIDE
CT
TERRA

VISTA CT

COUNTRY CLUB DR
PEBBLE

BEACH CT
ECIP-BG-CC and ECIP-BG-TL
ECIP-BG-CC and ECIP-BG-TL
Backup Generators at Country Club and Tularcitos
Pump Stations
Figure G-2.4
City of Milpitas - Project Summary Sheet
(ECIP-BG-CC and ECIP-BG-TL)
Low
General Reliability
Country Club and Tularcitos Pump Stations
SF3 and SF4

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Ensure continued pump operation in the event of a
power outage.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
Generators shall be sized to meet the power demands
of each pump station.
1 inch = 900 feet
$ 200,000 per generator ($400,000 total)
$ 340,000 per generator ($680,000 total)
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.4_BackupGenerators.mxd - rchu - 6/12/2022

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Improvement at Pump Station
Existing Storage Reservoir
Existing Pipeline
749
Item # 16.
20"
18"
18"
10"
18"
12"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
12"

MONTAGUE EX

GARDEN ST

THISTLE PL
NIG
HTS
HAD
E
RD
MYRTLE
LN

CLOVER CR
PIPER
DR
BCIP-TO-01
BCIP-TO-01
Piper Turnout
Figure G-2.5
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (BCIP-TO-01)
High
Firm Supply Capacity
Piper Drive south of Garden Street
VW2

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Insufficient firm supply capacity in the Valley Water
service area at buildout.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

Turnout costs include the installation of control
valve(s), a concrete utility vault, access hatches,site piping, earthwork, paving, SCADA, and related
sitework.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
Same capacity as the existing Gibraltar turnout:
10,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (14.4 million gallons
per day (mgd)).

Connection from the turnout to the existing 18-inch
diameter transmission main on Piper Drive shall be a
20-inch diameter pipeline.
1 inch = 200 feet
$ 313,000
$ 532,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.5_Piper.mxd - rchu - 6/12/2022

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Turnout
Turnout Pipeline
Existing Pipeline
750
Item # 16.
237
237
680
880
BCIP-S-01
BCIP-S-01
Storage Reservoir in Valley Water Service Area
Figure G-2.6
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (BCIP-S-01)
High
Storage Capacity
Valley Water Service Area (Specific Location TBD)
VW1 or VW2

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Insufficient storage capacity in the Valley Water
service area at buildout.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

Storage reservoir will be aboveground steel tank.

Costs include installation of the storage tank, site
piping, earthwork, paving, instrumentation, and
related sitework.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE

2.0 million gallons (MG).
1 inch = 3,500 feet
$ 3,254,000
$ 5,532,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.6_Storage.mxd - rchu - 6/12/2022

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Existing SFPUC Pipeline
Existing VW Pipeline
751
Item # 16.
237
237
680
880
BCIP-PS-01
BCIP-PS-01
Pump Station for Reservoir in Valley Water Service Area Figure G-2.7
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (BCIP-PS-01)
High
Deliver Stored Water from New Reservoir
Valley Water Service Area (Specific Location TBD)
VW1 or VW2

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Pump station for recommended storage reservoir
(BCIP-S-01).

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

Costs assume an enclosed pump station with
architectural and landscaping treatment suitable for
residential areas.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) firm capacity.
1 inch = 3,500 feet
$ 2,433,466
$ 4,137,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.7_Pump.mxd - rchu - 10/29/2020

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Existing SFPUC Pipeline
Existing VW Pipeline
752
Item # 16.
10"
12"
10"
12"
18"
10" 10"
16"
16"18"
12"
18"
16"
12" 24" 18"
16"
18" 24" 18"
PARC
EA
METRO

ST PARK
TOWNE
DR

CELEBRATION DR

FASCINATION
PL
CURTIS
AV

IMAGINATION PL

GREAT MALL DR
BCIP-W-01
BCIP-W-01
Curtis Well
Figure G-2.8
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (BCIP-W-01)
High
Storage Capacity (Groundwater Credit)
Curtis Avenue near Parc Metro East
VW2

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Increase supply reliability and reduce storage
requirement via emergency groundwater storage
credit.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

Well construction consists of pilot hole drilling, water quality/soil sampling, pilot hole reaming, well
construction, well development and providing the
necessary housing, pump, motor, automatic control
equipment, discharge piping, supervisory control and
data acquisition (SCADA), disinfection equipment, and
a backup power generator. Costs assume a well
capacity between 500 and 1,000 gpm. A higher
capacity may increase costs.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
Well capacity will be based on subsequent
groundwater analysis that is not part of this report.
1 inch = 200 feet
$ 3,500,000
$ 5,950,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.8_Curtis.mxd - rchu - 6/12/2022

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Groundwater Well
Well Pipeline
Existing Pipeline
753
Item # 16.
6"
8"
6"
8"
6"6" 6" 6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
S
MAIN
ST
C
E
DAR
CT

CEDAR WY
DIAZ
S
T

LONETREE CT

GREENTREE WY

EMERGENCY

ACCESS RD

MIHALAKIS ST
BCIP-V-01
BCIP-V-01
Cedar Emergency PRV
Figure G-2.9
City of Milpitas
Project Summary Sheet (BCIP-V-01)
High
Fire Flow
Intersection of Cedar Way and South Main Street
SF1/VW1

REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Provide fire flows from Zone SF1 to Zone VW1.

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
Costs are in 2020 dollars and assume normal
construction conditions. Special or difficult conditions would significantly increase costs. Capital costs are
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and 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).

PRV costs include the installation of control valve(s), a concrete utility vault, access hatches, site piping,
earthwork, paving, SCADA, and related sitework.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT SIZE
8-inch diameter PRV and piping.
1 inch = 200 feet
$ 282,000
$ 479,000
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\270 City of Milpitas\60-19-16 Water Master Plan\GIS\MXD\Appendix G\FigG-2.9_CedarEPRV.mxd - rchu - 10/29/2020

PRIORITY

PURPOSE

LOCATION

PRESSURE ZONE

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
Legend
Emergency PRV
Existing SF1 Pipeline
Existing VW1 Pipeline
754
Item # 16.

WE SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITIES

WE ARE WATER FOCUSED

WE TAKE PRIDE IN WHAT WE DO

WE STRIVE TO BECOME OUR BEST
WE DO WHAT’S RIGHT

WE BELIEVE IN QUALITY

WE LISTEN

WE SOLVE CHALLENGING PROBLEMS

WE SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE

WE TAKE OWNERSHIP

WE COLLABORATE

WE HAVE FUN

WE ARE WEST YOST
755
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas Sewer Master Plan
Mechanical Equipment Photos
Mechanical Observation Comments None
Condition
Page: 59 of 77
Page: 25 of 77
Mechanical Observation Comments Never been used
Mechanical Condition Score 1 - Good – No defects observed.

Mechanical Performance Score 1 - Good – Asset functioning as intended.

Condition
Performance
Pinch Valve 1
Page: 4 of 77
ble coupling here
d – No defects observed.
d – Asset functioning as intended.

Building
y
n walls
Page: 29 of 42
January 2021 | Adopted August 2022
756
Item # 16.
www.hydroscience.com 757
Item # 16.

January 2021 | Adopted August 2022

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master
Plan
Prepared by HydroScience Engineers, Inc.
758
Item # 16.
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
759
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page I
www.hydroscience.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 Services and Service Area .......................................................................................................... 1 Condition Assessment ................................................................................................................ 1 Hydraulic Model Land Use and Network Development ................................................................ 4 Wastewater Flow Analysis .......................................................................................................... 8 Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10 Capital Improvement Plan ......................................................................................................... 12 SECTION 1 – Introduction and Purpose ...............................................................................1-1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................1-1

1.1.1 Previous Studies/Existing Documents ...................................................................1-1

1.2 Objectives .....................................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Report Organization ......................................................................................................1-3 SECTION 2 – Service Area and Wastewater Services .........................................................2-1

2.1 Service Area ..................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Land Use ..............................................................................................................2-3

2.2 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal .............................................................................2-4

2.3 Recycled Water .............................................................................................................2-4 SECTION 3 – Existing Wastewater Collection System ........................................................3-1

3.1 Wastewater Collection System ......................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Pipelines and Manholes ........................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Lift Stations ......................................................................................................... 3-11 SECTION 4 – Condition Assessment ....................................................................................4-1

4.1 CCTV Condition Assessment ........................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 CCTV Inspection Results ......................................................................................4-1

4.2 Desktop Condition Assessment .....................................................................................4-7

4.2.1 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) ....................................................................................4-7

4.2.2 Consequence of Failure (CoF) ..............................................................................4-9

4.2.3 Business Risk Exposure (BRE, Risk of Failure) .................................................. 4-12

4.3 Lift Station Condition Assessment ............................................................................... 4-14

4.3.1 Main LS Inspection ............................................................................................. 4-14

4.3.2 Venus Way LS Inspection ................................................................................... 4-15 SECTION 5 – Analysis of Land Uses for Hydraulic Modeling .............................................5-1

5.1 Land Use Designations for Model Analysis – Existing Condition ...................................5-1

5.2 Land Use Designations for Model Analysis – Future Condition ......................................5-4 SECTION 6 – Hydraulic Model Development ........................................................................6-1

6.1 Model System Development ..........................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Model Network Development ................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Load Allocation .....................................................................................................6-5

6.2 Scenario Development ..................................................................................................6-7 SECTION 7 – Wastewater Flow Analysis ..............................................................................7-1

7.1 Typical Wastewater Flow Components ..........................................................................7-1 760
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page II
www.hydroscience.com

7.2 Flow Monitoring Program ..............................................................................................7-2

7.2.1 Flow Meter Sewer Sub-Basins ..............................................................................7-6

7.3 Dry Weather Flow (DWF) ............................................................................................ 7-11

7.3.1 Dry Weather GWI ............................................................................................... 7-11

7.3.2 Base Sanitary Flow (BSF) ................................................................................... 7-12

7.3.3 Diurnal Patterns .................................................................................................. 7-15

7.3.4 Dry Weather Calibration ...................................................................................... 7-15

7.4 Wet Weather Flow (WWF) ........................................................................................... 7-22

7.4.1 RDI/I Volume ...................................................................................................... 7-22

7.4.2 Total Rainfall ....................................................................................................... 7-23

7.4.3 R-Factor Development ........................................................................................ 7-23

7.4.4 Wet Weather Calibration ..................................................................................... 7-24 SECTION 8 – Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................8-1

8.1 Design Storm.................................................................................................................8-1

8.2 Deficiency Criteria .........................................................................................................8-2

8.3 Assumed Condition .......................................................................................................8-2

8.4 Future Condition ............................................................................................................8-2

8.4.1 Large Dischargers ................................................................................................8-2

8.5 Hydraulic Capacity Deficiencies ....................................................................................8-3 SECTION 9 – Project Development .......................................................................................9-1

9.1 Rehabilitation Selection Methodology ............................................................................9-1

9.1.1 CCTV Inspected Segments...................................................................................9-1

9.1.2 Segments without CCTV Inspection ......................................................................9-2

9.2 Basis of Cost Assumptions ............................................................................................9-6

9.2.1 CCTV Costs ..........................................................................................................9-6

9.2.2 Pipeline Costs .......................................................................................................9-6

9.2.3 Soft Costs .............................................................................................................9-6 SECTION 10 – Capital Improvement Plan ........................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Existing CIP Projects ................................................................................................... 10-1

10.2 Proposed CIP Projects ................................................................................................ 10-2

10.2.1 CCTV Inspection ................................................................................................. 10-3

10.2.2 Pipeline Improvements ....................................................................................... 10-3

10.2.3 Lift Station ........................................................................................................... 10-9

10.3 CIP Budget and Schedule ........................................................................................... 10-9

10.4 Other Recommendations ........................................................................................... 10-11

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Sewer Utility Asset Renewal and Replacement Study (R&R Study) Appendix B: Milpitas Sewer Flow Monitoring Report 2019-2020 (ADS Report) Appendix C: Summary of GIS Updates
Appendix D: Dry Weather Calibration Charts
Appendix E: Wet Weather Calibration Charts
Appendix F: Los Esteros Ranch Agreement
Appendix G: Raftelis Wastewater Financial Plan Options Report Appendix H: Sanitary Sewer Force Main Cleaning and CCTV Inspection Project Report 761
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page III
www.hydroscience.com

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1: Project Location .................................................................................................... 2 Figure ES-2: Wastewater Collection System Overview .............................................................. 3 Figure ES-3: Business Risk Exposure Score Map ...................................................................... 5 Figure ES-4: Model-Based Land Use Designations – Existing ................................................... 7 Figure ES-5: Sub-Basin Delineation ........................................................................................... 9 Figure ES-6: Capital Improvement Projects ..............................................................................14 Figure 2-1: Project Location Map ............................................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2-2: City General Plan Land Use .................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 3-1: Wastewater Collection System Overview .............................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2: Collection System Pipeline Material ...................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3: Collection System Pipeline Diameter .................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4: Collection System Pipeline Age ............................................................................ 3-6 Figure 3-5: Example High Point Flow Split .............................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-6: Example Even Flow Split ...................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-7: Example Overflow Flow Split ................................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-8: Example Flow Diversion Structure ........................................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-9: Flow Splits and Diversion Structures ................................................................... 3-10 Figure 4-1: NPS CCTV Inspection Plan................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Completed CCTV Inspection ................................................................................. 4-3 Figure 4-3: PACP Overall Peak Scores ................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-4: Risk of Failure Assessment Matrix ...................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-5: Business Risk Exposure Score Map ................................................................... 4-13 Figure 5-1: Model-Based Land Use Designations – Existing ................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-2: Model-Based Land Use Designations – Future ..................................................... 5-5 Figure 6-1: Model Network ...................................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6-2: Manhole Rim Elevations ....................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-3: InfoWorks Profile View .......................................................................................... 6-5 Figure 6-4: InfoWorks Data Flags............................................................................................ 6-6 Figure 6-5: Sample Load Allocation ........................................................................................ 6-6 Figure 7-1: Typical Wastewater Flow Components ................................................................. 7-1 Figure 7-2: Flow Monitors and Rain Gauges ........................................................................... 7-3 Figure 7-3: Rainfall during Monitoring Period .......................................................................... 7-5 Figure 7-4: Sub-Basin Delineation ........................................................................................... 7-7 762
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page IV
www.hydroscience.com
Figure 7-5: Schematic Flow Diagram ...................................................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-6: Dry Weather Flow ............................................................................................... 7-11 Figure 7-7: Large Dischargers ............................................................................................... 7-14 Figure 7-8: Diurnal Patterns .................................................................................................. 7-16 Figure 7-9: Flow Diversion and Obstruction .......................................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-10: Example of Dry Weather Model Calibration Charts ........................................... 7-20 Figure 7-11: Wet Weather Flow ............................................................................................ 7-22 Figure 7-12: Storm Rainfall ................................................................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-13: Tri-Triangular R-Factor Method ......................................................................... 7-25 Figure 7-14: Example of Wet Weather Model Calibration Charts .......................................... 7-27 Figure 8-1: 10-Year 24-Hour Design Storm ............................................................................. 8-1 Figure 8-2: Surcharged Pipeline Segments ............................................................................. 8-4 Figure 8-3: Surcharged Location 1 with 4.7 feet of Freeboard ................................................. 8-5 Figure 9-1: Rehabilitation Decision Tree ................................................................................. 9-3 Figure 9-2: Recommended Rehabilitation Method .................................................................. 9-4 Figure 9-3: Recommended CCTV Priority ............................................................................... 9-5 Figure 10-1: Capital Improvement Projects ......................................................................... 10-10

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1: Model-Based Land Use Designations for Existing Conditions ................................. 6 Table ES-2: UF Factor Summary by Land Use .......................................................................... 8 Table ES-3: R-Factor Summary by Sub-Basin ..........................................................................10 Table ES-4: InfoWorks Surcharge States ..................................................................................11 Table ES-5: Model Flow Summary ............................................................................................11 Table ES-6: Proposed CIP Schedule and Budget .....................................................................13 Table 2-1: General Plan Land Use Categories ........................................................................ 2-3 Table 3-1: Collection System Pipeline Material ....................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: Collection System Pipeline Diameter ...................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3: Collection System Pipeline Age .............................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-4: Collection System Manhole Age ............................................................................. 3-7 Table 3-5: Venus Way LS Asset Inventory List...................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-6: Main LS Asset Inventory Summary ...................................................................... 3-12 Table 4-1: Completed CCTV Inspection by Pipe Diameter ...................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2: Condition Grade Definitions ................................................................................... 4-5 763
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page V
www.hydroscience.com
Table 4-3: LoF Criteria and Ratings ........................................................................................ 4-8 Table 4-4: Council Core Values/Priorities and Related CoF Criteria ........................................ 4-9 Table 4-5: CoF Criteria and Ratings ...................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-6: Business Risk Exposure Score Distribution by Length ......................................... 4-12 Table 4-7: Condition and Performance Score Definitions ...................................................... 4-14 Table 4-8: Main LS Deficiencies ............................................................................................ 4-15 Table 5-1: Model-Based Land Use Designations for Existing Conditions ................................ 5-2 Table 5-2: Summary of Future Land Use Updates .................................................................. 5-4 Table 7-1: Flow Monitoring Data Summary ............................................................................. 7-4 Table 7-2: NOAA Rainfall Frequency vs. Rain Gauge Data..................................................... 7-6 Table 7-3: Sub-Basins and Corresponding Flow Meters ......................................................... 7-8 Table 7-4: Total Acreage of Each Land Use by Sub-Basin .................................................... 7-10 Table 7-5: Large Dischargers ................................................................................................ 7-12 Table 7-6: Calibrated UF Factors .......................................................................................... 7-19 Table 7-7: Calibrated Model vs. Observed Weekday Dry Weather Flow Comparison ........... 7-21 Table 7-8: Final Calibrated R-Factors ................................................................................... 7-26 Table 8-1: InfoWorks Surcharge States .................................................................................. 8-2 Table 8-2: Summary of Large Discharger Sites Planned for Redevelopment .......................... 8-3 Table 8-3: Model Flow Summary ............................................................................................ 8-3 Table 9-1: Sample of Defect Codes with Associated Rehabilitation Methods .......................... 9-2 Table 9-2: CCTV Unit Costs .................................................................................................... 9-6 Table 9-3: Soft Cost Estimating Parameters ........................................................................... 9-7 Table 10-1: Recent Sewer Improvement Projects ................................................................. 10-1 Table 10-2: Existing CIP Financing for 2020-2025 ................................................................ 10-2 Table 10-3: Highest Priority Pipe with Significant Defects (Year 1: 2022) .............................. 10-4 Table 10-4: Medium- to High-Priority Improvements (Years 2-5: 2023-2026) ........................ 10-5 Table 10-5: Medium-Priority Improvements (Years 6-10: 2027-2031) ................................... 10-6 Table 10-6: Low-Priority Improvements (Years 11-15: 2032-2036) ....................................... 10-7 Table 10-7: Very Low-Priority Improvements (Years 16-20: 2037-2041) ............................... 10-8 Table 10-8: Main LS Deficiencies .......................................................................................... 10-9 Table 10-9: Proposed CIP Schedule and Budget ................................................................ 10-11 764
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page VI
www.hydroscience.com

ABBREVIATIONS
A Amperes
ABS Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene
AIC Ampere Interrupting Capacity
BRE Business Risk Exposure
BSF Base sanitary flow
CCTV Closed caption television
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Plan/Capital Improvement Program, Cast Iron Pipe CIPP Cured-in-Place Pipe
City City of Milpitas
CoF Consequence of failure
d Wastewater depth
D Pipe diameter
DEM Digital elevation model
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe
DU Dwelling unit
DWF Dry weather flow
ESDC Engineering services during construction
FM Flow meter
ft, ‘ Foot, feet, linear feet
ft/s Feet per second
FY Fiscal year
GIS Geographic Information Systems/ArcGIS geodatabase
GP General Plan
gpd Gallons per day
GWI Groundwater infiltration
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
HGL Hydraulic grade line
Hp Horsepower
IAP InfoAsset Planner by Innovyze®
in, “ Inch, inches
InfoWorks InfoWorks ICM by Innovyze®
kV Kilovolt
kVA Kilovolt-ampere
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LoF Likelihood of failure
Main LS Milpitas Main Lift Station
MGD Millions of gallons per day
MH Manhole
NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies
765
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page VII
www.hydroscience.com
NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NGVD 29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
O&M Operations & Maintenance
P Pole
PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
ph phase
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QC Quality control
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RDI/I Rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration
RG Rain gauge
ROW Right-of-way
RWF San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SBWR South Bay Water Recycling
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utility Commission
SMP Sewer Master Plan
SOI Sphere of Influence
SSMP Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow
TASP Transit Area Specific Plan
UF Unit flow
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
USA Urban Service Area
USGS United States Geological Survey
V Volts
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
Venus Way LS Venus Way Lift Station
VFD Variable frequency drive
W Watts
WDR RWQCB General Waste Discharge Requirements
WWF Wet weather flow
766
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page VIII
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
767
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-1
www.hydroscience.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HydroScience Engineers, Inc. (HydroScience) was retained by the City of Milpitas (City), to prepare the City Sewer Master Plan (SMP) and develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based on the current (2020) and future (2040) planning horizons. This executive summary provides a concise discussion of the project elements including background information, analyses conducted, and recommendations.

Services and Service Area
The City is in Santa Clara County and is bounded by the cities of Fremont to the north, San Jose to the south and west, and unincorporated Santa Clara County to the east. The City encompasses 14 square miles and is approximately 45 miles southeast of San Francisco (see Figure ES-1).

The City provides wastewater collection services to a population of 77,961 according to the Department of Finance.

The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 160 miles of gravity sewers, with pipe diameters ranging from 4- to 66-inches. The collection system generally flows from east to west and south to north towards the San Francisco Bay. Most of the collection system flows by gravity to the Milpitas Main Lift Station (Main LS) then is pumped to the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) through dual force mains. The Venus Way Lift Station (Venus Way LS) pumps sewage from a small portion of the City that is at a lower elevation up to a higher elevation where it then flows by gravity to the Main LS. Figure ES-2 provides an overview of the wastewater collection system.

The City’s wastewater collection system includes pipelines and structures of varying age, size, and material. According to the City’s ArcGIS geodatabase (GIS), most the City’s wastewater collection system pipelines are vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and 4- to 12-inches in diameter, and approximately 70% of all pipelines were built before 1990. The collection system also includes almost 3,000 manholes, of which approximately 60% were built before 1990. Of these manholes, 177 were identified as flow splits – manholes that allow outflow via two or more pipes.

Condition Assessment
As part of the City’s Master Plan project, a Sewer Utility Asset Renewal and Replacement Study (R&R Study) was conducted. The study documents the City’s Business Risk Exposure (BRE) based on the physical condition and desktop assessment of the City’s collection system applying a set of factors developed to determine the relative risk of failure for each pipeline segment.

The first element of the study involved performing a field investigation using closed-circuit television (CCTV) to assess the condition of key pipeline segments in the collection system.

National Plant Services Inc. (NPS) successfully inspected 105,211 ft (approximately 20 miles) of pipeline. For each pipeline segment inspected, structural and operations and maintenance (O&M) related defects were identified and graded on a scale of one (least severe) to five (most severe) based on the type and severity of the defect in accordance with the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP). 768
Item # 16.

SSAA NN JJ OO SS EE

FF RR EE MM OO NN TT

SSAA NN TTAA CC LL AA RR AA SSAA NN JJ OO SS EE

M I L P I T A S
§¨¦680
UV §¨¦880
237
UV262
FIGURE ES-1

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

PROJECT LOCATION MAP
N
_
LEGEND

CITY OF MILPITAS

URBAN SERVICE AREA

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
769
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE ES-2

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
SIPHON

GRAVITY MAIN

FORCE MAIN
770
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-4
www.hydroscience.com
The second element of the study involved a desktop assessment of the entire collection system based on relative risk of failure of each pipeline segment. A pipeline’s risk of failure is determined by a combination of the likelihood and the consequence of the failure of the segment.

Likelihood of failure (LoF) and consequence of failure (CoF) scores were assigned to each pipeline segment by considering various factor ratings with assigned factor weightings. Factor ratings were given on a scale of one (least likely to fail/least consequential) to five (most likely to fail/most consequential). The weighting of each factor was assigned based on the relative criticality of that factor, with higher weighting factors assigned to the most critical factors. The following factors, typical for sewer renewal/replacement, were selected for this Study:

LoF Factors:
 Pipe age
 Pipe material
 Structural condition
 Presence of pipe obstructions
 Required pipe cleaning
 Proximity to landslide zones
 Proximity to earthquake faults
Local geology (liquefaction)
CoF Factors:
 Sewer size (pipe diameter)
 Proximity to critical facilities
 Road type (impact to transit/traffic)
 Railroad proximity
 Easement (access restriction)
 Pipeline depth
 Proximity to waterway or waterbody
The following equations were used to calculate a risk score for each pipeline segment:

Figure ES-3 presents the resulting BRE scores for all pipelines in the entire city.

Hydraulic Model Land Use and Network Development
To develop base sanitary flows (BSF) – the flow directly contributed by the customer – wastewater flows were assigned to every contributing parcel in the City. For planning level analysis, parcels of similar land use types are estimated to have similar wastewater flow rates either on a per parcel basis (gpd/parcel) or per acre basis (gpd/acre) and similar diurnal patterns. City General Plan (GP) land use designations were reviewed for each parcel in the City. For modeling purposes, some modifications to the land uses were warranted to ensure relevance to the sewer analysis.

Land use types expected to generate similar wastewater flows were consolidated into modelbased land use designations to facilitate unit flow (UF) analysis (listed in Table 5-1). Land uses that have little to no contribution to the sewer system were excluded from further analysis. Figure ES-4 presents the City according to the model-based land designations.

Risk (BRE) = LoF Score x CoF Score
LoF Score = ∑ (LoF Rating x LoF Weighting) CoF Score = ∑ (CoF Rating x CoF Weighting) 771
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE ES-3

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

BUSINESS RISK EXPOSURE SCORE MAP
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
1 - NEGLIGIBLE
2 - LOW
3 - MODERATE
4 - HIGH
5 - EXTREME
772
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-6
www.hydroscience.com
The City has identified “Opportunity Areas” which refers to parcels identified within the City that may be considered for future redevelopment. The future land uses identified in the “Opportunity Areas” were reviewed and assigned the model-based land use designations listed in Table ES-1 according to the anticipated use, density, and wastewater flow rates.

Table ES-1: Model-Based Land Use Designations for Existing Conditions GP Land Use Code Model-Based Land Use Code
Hillside Very Low Density HVL
Hillside Single-Family Low Density HSFL
Hillside Low Density HLD
Hillside Medium Density HMD Hillside Single Family Medium Density HSFM Valley Floor Single-Family Low Density SFL Valley Floor Single-Family Low Density SFL Valley Floor Single-Family Medium
Density SMD Valley Floor Single-Family Medium
Density SFM
Multi-Family Medium Density MFM
Multi-Family High Density MFH Valley Floor Multi-Family High Density MFH Multi-Family Very High Density VHD Valley Floor Multi-Family Very High Density MFVH
Mobile Home Park MHP Mobile Home Park MHP
Mixed Use MXD Mixed Use MXD
Boulevard Very High-Density Mixed Use BVMU
High Density Mixed Use HDMU
Residential-Retail Mixed Use RRMU
Professional & Administrative Offices PAO Professional & Administrative Offices PAO General Commercial GNC
Commercial COM
Retail Sub-Center RSC
Industrial Park INP Industrial Park INP
Manufacturing MFG Manufacturing MFG
Public Facilities PF
Public Facilities1 PF
Elmwood Correctional Facility2 COR
TWC, MXD, GNC, INP, HWS, RSC Hotels3 HOTEL
Park Open Space POS NF
Waterways WATERWAYS NF
Highway Services HWS
Parcels reviewed and model-based land use
designation assigned, as appropriate.

Town Center TWC
Urban Residential URR
Parcels with no land use designation -
Notes:

1. Includes schools, churches, health facilities, libraries, and fire stations.

2. The correctional facility is categorized as PF in the GP. For modeling purposes, it was given a distinct code.

3. Hotels are categorized under various land uses in the GP. They were identified and assigned a distinct code. 773
Item # 16.
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE ES-4

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

MODEL-BASED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - EXISTING
LEGEND
HSFL
HSFM
SFL
SFM
MFH
MFVH
MHP
HOTEL
MXD
HDMU
PAO
COM
INP
MFG
PF
COR
NF
774
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-8
www.hydroscience.com
Wastewater Flow Analysis
The City contracted with ADS Environmental Services (ADS) to perform dry and wet weather flow monitoring within the City collection system. ADS installed 23 FlowShark Triton flow meters throughout the City and monitored flow between November 16, 2019 and March 9, 2020. The collection system was divided into 21 sub-basins based on the location of the flow meters, and the data from the flow monitoring program was used to calibrate the hydraulic model. Dry weather flow data from the flow monitoring program was used to develop dry weather groundwater infiltration (GWI) for each sub-basin and BSF. For modeling purposes, this document defines GWI as any, and all sources of constant flow. GWI is comprised both of groundwater infiltration and any other constant flow that is generally detected during low flow periods. BSF is represented by a combination of UF factors and diurnal patterns for a given land use. The dry weather calibration involved comparing modeled flows to observed flows and iteratively adjusting GWI values, UF factors, and diurnal patterns until modeled flows were reflective of observed flows.

Table ES-2 summarizes the UF factors developed for each land use type and the total modeled dry weather flows for both existing and future conditions.

Table ES-2: UF Factor Summary by Land Use
Land Use
Designation
UF Factor
(gpd)
Existing
Quantity
Future
Quantity
Quantity
Units
Existing Model

BSF (MGD)
Future Model

BSF (MGD)
HSFL 400 56 56 Parcel 0.022 0.022
HSFM 465 107 107 Parcel 0.050 0.050
SFL 200 9619 9677 Parcel 1.924 1.935
SFM 1200 266 264 Acre 0.319 0.316
MFH 1500 292 449 Acre 0.438 0.674
MFVH 2000 56 187 Acre 0.113 0.373
MHP1- - - Acre - -
HOTEL 4000 60 24 Acre 0.244 0.095
MXD 1000 67 71 Acre 0.067 0.071
HDMU 2200 64 175 Acre 0.141 0.385
PAO 500 65 520 Acre 0.031 0.260
COM 900 467 367 Acre 0.420 0.330
INP 450 727 236 Acre 0.327 0.106
MFG 1500 550 499 Acre 0.825 0.748
PF 190 310 305 Acre 0.059 0.058
COR1 - - - - - -
Large Dischargers2 38 32 Discharger 1.176 1.006
Total - - - - 6.1573 6.2493
Notes:

1. Mobile home parks (3) and the correctional facility were considered large dischargers and assigned flows based on water use data.

2. Large dischargers are defined as those customers that discharge a disproportionately large volume of wastewater for the parcel size and use type. They were assigned a diurnal pattern based on the original parcel land use codes.

3. Represents the total BSF. The total BSF plus the total GWI is the total DWF. 775
Item # 16.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
"
"
B
I
C
P
S
O
E
F
D
H
N
Q
L2
K
A
L1
T
G
M
J
I_L
R
543
539
1779
2488
1152
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE ES-5

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

SUB-BASIN DELINEATION
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
# FLOW METER
!. CRITICAL FLOW SPLIT

MODEL SEWER MAIN

X SUB-BASIN
776
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-10
www.hydroscience.com
The largest storm identified during the flow monitoring period occurred on December 7, 2019 (Storm event 1); this was used to estimate the extent of rainfall-dependent inflow and infiltration (RDI/I) in each sub-basin. RDI/I is characterized by an R-factor, which represents the percentage of rainfall volume that enters the sewer system. GWI also tends to fluctuate throughout the wet season as the groundwater table rises and falls. Modeled flows were compared to observed flows for Storm event 1, and wet weather GWI values and R-factors were iteratively adjusted until modeled flows were reflective of observed flows. Table ES-3 summarizes the calibrated RFactors for each of the 21 sub-basins.

Table ES-3: R-Factor Summary by Sub-Basin
Sub-Basin Total R-Factor
A 1.48%
B 1.59%
C 0.30%
D 1.90%
E 0.60%
F 0.86%
G 3.40%
H 0.24%
I 0.42%
J 2.17%
K 0.81%
L1 0.40%
L2 0.31%
M 1.39%
N 2.06%
O1 1.50%
P 1.26%
Q 0.60%
R 3.71%
S 1.64%
T 0.64%
Notes:

1. There is no flow meter at the outfall for sub-basin O. Values were estimated based on surrounding sub-basins.

Capacity Analysis
To estimate wet weather wastewater flows, a design storm is applied to the model and wet weather flows are represented based on the calibrated R-factors for each sub-basin. Under this condition, the existing and future performance of the wastewater collection system can be evaluated. For this Study, the collection system performance was evaluated using the typical 10- year 24-hour storm with a peak hour coinciding with the peak of the typical diurnal curve. 777
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-11
www.hydroscience.com
The initial deficiency criteria used to evaluate the capacity of the modeled pipes under design flow conditions was the ratio of wastewater flow depth (d) to pipe diameter (D), or d/D. In InfoWorks, if d/D is greater than one, this means the pipe is flowing full under pressure and the hydraulic grade line (HGL) is higher than the crown of the pipe. InfoWorks reports a “surcharge state” for each pipe, which is defined in Table ES-4.

Table ES-4: InfoWorks Surcharge States
Surcharge
State Definition Deficiency if:
< 1 1 When depth of flow is less than the diameter of the pipe Not considered hydraulically deficient = 1 Pipe is surcharged due to backwater from a
downstream deficiency. Not considered hydraulically deficient = 2 Pipe is hydraulically under capacity and needs to be upsized. Freeboard < 5 feet
Notes:

1. Surcharge State = d/D
In the hydraulic model, the HGL reaching the ground surface indicates a potential SSO. Even for a pipe flowing under capacity or surcharged, if the freeboard – the distance between the ground surface and the HGL – is five feet or greater, the risk of SSO is minimal. Where pipes were shown as surcharged due to inadequate hydraulic capacity (surcharge state of “2”), a pipe was identified as deficient if the freeboard in these locations is also less than five feet.

There is a 6% increase from existing to future conditions, from 7.5 MGD to 7.9 MGD, in average dry weather flow at the outfall. Table ES-5 presents the total system flows for all modeled conditions.

Table ES-5: Model Flow Summary
Scenario Average Dry Weather
Flow (MGD)
Peak Dry Weather Flow
(MGD)
Peak Wet Weather Flow
(MGD)
Existing 7.5 10.4 14.9
Future 7.9 11.0 18.5
There were no major capacity deficiencies identified as part of this analysis. There were six pipeline segments with a recorded surcharge state of “2” indicating that they are under capacity.

Of these six segments, five of them have freeboard values greater than five feet, so they do not fulfill the criteria for a deficiency, and thus are not considered hydraulically deficient. There were no additional capacity deficiencies identified under future conditions that were not seen under existing conditions.

There is a single pipeline segment that has a freeboard of 4.7 ft., slightly less than the freeboard criteria; however, for a single pipe reach that is considered marginally deficient, replacement is not recommended without further cause. It is recommended that the City monitor this location for potential surcharging. This location (MH GID 1392) is a good candidate for installing a SmartCover to monitor the wastewater level to prevent SSOs. 778
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-12
www.hydroscience.com
Capital Improvement Plan
The City’s capital improvement program (CIP) is intended to serve as a comprehensive planning tool for budgeting and carrying out capital projects. Capital projects are designed to adhere to the City Council goals and priorities; among them is to maintain a superior level of service to the community. To that end, a compilation of improvement projects was identified as part of the detailed risk and condition assessment. The PACP peak scores from the CCTV inspection and the risk scores calculated from the LoF/CoF desktop condition assessment drive the pipeline rehabilitation selection process. Using the defect coding assigned by NPS and the desktop assessment software, the pipe segments with defects were assigned a defect-level rehabilitation method.

With the rehabilitation method established for each defect code, a decision tree was established to determine the final overall rehabilitation method for the pipeline. This decision tree was prepared based on the following factors:
 CCTV structural peak score and overall peak score;
 Number of point repairs and lining recommendations by the defect-level rehabilitation methods module;
 Number of defects;
 Length of major (score of 4 or 5) and/or minor (score of 3) defects; and  Presence of specific defects such as infiltration drippers (ID) or Reinforcement Corroded Chemical (SRCC).

Of the approximately 105,000 ft (449 segments) of sewer pipeline inspected, approximately 50,000 ft (178 segments) requires improvement. Recommended improvements include:
 Pipe Replacement
 Full Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP)
 Point Repair(s) by Excavation
 Sectional Liner(s)
It is noted that some pipeline segments include more than one recommended rehabilitation method.

For segments without CCTV inspection data, risk scores and diameter were used to develop a prioritized set of segments that are recommended for CCTV inspection and further analysis.

Projects are prioritized based on risk of failure along with consideration for type of proposed rehabilitation and project location. The general strategy is to address the highest risk/highest priority projects in the near-term (Years 1-5) with lower risk projects deferred to the medium- (Years 6-10) and long-term (Years 11-20).

Costs were developed to represent capital construction costs along with soft costs. Soft costs consisting of engineering design and consulting; permitting and obtaining right-of-way; and ESDC, construction management and inspection services are included in the capital project costs. 779
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021
Page ES-13
www.hydroscience.com
Provided below in Table ES-6 is a proposed budget and schedule for the CIP and recommended projects over 20-years in 5-year increments. The most critical projects are scheduled for earlier implementation. It is noted that the timing of projects can be adjusted based on results of CCTV and future operating conditions. Figure ES-6 presents the proposed improvement projects in 5- year increments.

Table ES-6: Proposed CIP Schedule and Budget
Projects 5-Year
(2022-2026)
10-Year
(2027-2031)
15-Year
(2032-2036)
20-Year
(2037-2041)
Existing Projects
6124 Pump Station Rehabilitation Program $200,0001 -- -- -- 6126 Minor Sewer Projects $200,0002 -- -- --
6130 Main Lift Station Odor Emissions
Control $200,000 -- -- --
6131 Sanitary Sewer Cathodic Protection
Improvements $500,000 -- -- --
6134 On-Call Sewer Maintenance & Repair
Services $98,000 -- -- --
Total Existing Projects $1,198,000 -- -- --
Proposed Projects
CCTV large diameter and high-risk assets $400,000 -- -- -- Highest Priority Improvements $1,562,000 -- -- --
Medium- to High- Priority Improvements $5,266,000 $6,424,000 -- -- Low Priority Improvements -- -- $6,888,000 $1,240000
Allocation for improvements identified from
ongoing CCTV $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Total Proposed Projects $8,478,000 $7,674,000 $8,138,000 $2,490,000 Existing and Proposed Projects $9,676,000 $7,674,000 $8,138,000 $2,490,000 Notes:

1. Original allocation is $200,000 through 2023 with $148,000 in prior year funding from Sewer Infrastructure Fund to be allocated for other projects in FY2020-21.

2. Original allocation is $200,000 with $37,000 in prior year funding from Sewer Infrastructure Fund to be allocated for other projects in FY2020-21.

780
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE ES-6

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
YEAR 1
YEARS 2-5
YEARS 6-10
YEARS 11-15
YEARS 16-20

GRAVITY MAIN
781
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
HydroScience Engineers (HydroScience) was retained by the City of Milpitas (City), to prepare the City Sewer Master Plan (SMP), which includes development of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based on the current (2020) and future (2040) planning horizons. This section outlines the background and SMP objectives.

1.1 Background
The City’s wastewater system infrastructure was constructed in the 1950s when the City was established, and it was expanded with the growth of the City. Today, the City is essentially built out. The most recent SMP was completed in 2002 with a revision completed in 2004 and an update completed in 2009.

1.1.1 Previous Studies/Existing Documents
The following is a brief description of previous studies and documents reviewed and used in the preparation of this SMP.
 City of Milpitas Capital Improvement Program 2020-2025 Final Report, July 2020: Every year the City prepares a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that provides the City Council, staff, and the public with a comprehensive planning tool for budgeting and carrying out a range of capital projects. Also known as a Capital Budget, this document enables the City to identify estimated costs, priorities and schedules, funding sources and financing methods necessary for delivering critical services to meet community demands. The CIP is a necessary first step for planning the implementation and construction of new capital assets including public facilities such as water, sewer, and storm, and for repairs and replacements of aging infrastructure. The CIP reflects Council’s priorities and policies to ensure that the needs of the community are met. The CIP documents the existing planned sewer related projects and the allocated funding for each project.
 City of Milpitas Sewer Master Plan Revision, RMC, August 2004: This study assessed the capacity of the wastewater collection system as well as investigated the conditions of the system. The SMP Revision updated the 2002 SMP, also completed by RMC. It provided information required for the City planning and financial efforts and defined the sanitary sewer system improvements necessary to accommodate the City’s future land use development plans to the year 2018. During this study, the hydraulic model built using Hydra for the 2002 SMP was updated based on a wet weather flow monitoring program.  City of Milpitas Sewer Master Plan Update, RMC, December 2009: This study was an update to the 2004 SMP Revision to reevaluate the City’s sewer system capacity needs as a result of several development projects that were not considered for the 2004 SMP Revision.

The Hydra hydraulic model was updated using updated large discharger information as well as updated future land use conditions. A CIP was developed to address any projected capacity deficiencies based on this updated modeling analysis.  Sewer System Management Plan 2016 Update, City of Milpitas, December 2016: In accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), public wastewater collection system agencies are required to develop a sanitary sewer management plan (SSMP) that designates sewer system management practice to minimize 782
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and provide reliable sewer service to the public. The 2016 SSMP describes the City’s specific maintenance protocols to meet and exceed all requirements and documentation of the requirements set forth by the RWQCB General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR).
 Milpitas General Plan Update – Land Use Alternatives Report, De Novo Planning Group, September 2018: State law requires that every city and county in California prepare and maintain a general planning document. As part of the General Plan (GP) update process, the City must update its GP Land Use Map. This Land Use Alternatives Report was developed as a tool to identify and evaluate a range of geographic locations (“Opportunity Areas”) within the City where some changes to existing land uses may be appropriate.

The following studies were completed in conjunction with the Master Plan Study and are incorporated as appendices to the Master Plan. Where appropriate, details and summaries of findings have been included in the body of the Master Plan Study. For additional detail, the reader is directed to the appendices.
 Sewer Utility Asset Renewal and Replacement Study, Brown and Caldwell, August 2020 (R&R Study): This study was conducted as part of this Master Plan Study to assess the current condition of the City’s wastewater collection system. This includes CCTV inspection results, an assessment of the relative risk of failure of all pipe segments in the City, as well as lift station inspection results. The purpose of this study is to provide the City with a set of priorities for asset renewal and replacement. This study is included as Appendix A.  Main and Venus Way Lift Station Inspections Report, Brown and Caldwell, May 2020 (LS Report): This study was conducted as part of the Master Plan Study to assess the current operations and condition of the Main Lift Station (Main LS) and Venus Way Lift Station (Venus Way LS). This study presents the results of the on-site inspection performed for these two facilities. It is included as part of Appendix A (R&R Study App. K [App. K]).  Milpitas Sewer Flow Monitoring Report 2019-2020, ADS Environmental Services, April 2020: This program was completed for the months of November 2019 – March 2020 for the purposes of measuring wastewater flows in the City’s collection system. Both wet weather and dry weather flows were captured, and the resulting data was used for the calibration of the hydraulic model for this Study. This report is included as Appendix B.

1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this Master Plan project are:
 To perform a condition assessment on the current state of the collection system;  To evaluate the hydraulic performance of the system under current conditions and under projected future conditions;
 To identify any hydraulic capacity deficiencies or pipes in poor condition, and  To develop a CIP to address physical and hydraulic deficiencies.

These objectives were developed in collaboration with City Staff through technical review of available asset data and development of a hydraulic model. Through these analyses, projects were identified to help maintain the City’s collection system level of service standards.. 783
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

1.3 Report Organization
This Master Plan consists of ten sections followed by appendices that provide supporting documentation for the analyses present in the body of the SMP. The sections are as follows:
 SECTION 1 – Introduction and Purpose: This section presents the background leading to the development of this SMP, a description of previous work, and objectives and organization of the SMP.
 SECTION 2 – Service Area and Wastewater Services: This section describes the City as well as the related wastewater services.
 SECTION 3 – Existing Wastewater Collection System: This section describes the existing wastewater collection system and the overall system operation within the service area.  SECTION 4 – Condition Assessment: This section presents the results of the condition assessment performed as part of the SMP, including the results of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspections.
 SECTION 5 – Analysis of Land Uses for Hydraulic Modeling: This section outlines the land use categories identified by the GP and details the methodology for using these land use categories for the development and calibration of the hydraulic model.  SECTION 6 – Hydraulic Model Development: This section presents the process and assumptions associated with building the hydraulic model infrastructure and filling in any existing data gaps.
 SECTION 7 – Wastewater Flow Analysis: This section presents the results of the flow monitoring program and analysis of that data. This section also presents the development of the wastewater flows used to develop and calibrate the hydraulic model and the results of the model calibration.
 SECTION 8 – Capacity Analysis: This section presents identified hydraulic capacity-related deficiencies under existing and future modeled conditions.  SECTION 9 – Project Development: This section presents the recommended improvements resulting from the condition assessment and the basis for cost development.  SECTION 10 – Capital Improvement Plan: This section presents the recommended capital improvement projects, costs, and timeline for implementation. 784
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
785
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
SECTION 2 – SERVICE AREA AND WASTEWATER SERVICES
The City provides wastewater collection services to all customers within the City boundary. This section describes the service area and related wastewater services.

2.1 Service Area
The City is located along the northern boundary of Santa Clara County at the southern tip of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 45 miles southeast of San Francisco. It is bounded by the Cities of Fremont to the north, San Jose to the south and west, and unincorporated Santa Clara County to the east (see Figure 2-1).

Incorporated in 1954, the City encompassed 2.9 square miles and housed a population of 825.

The Ford Motor Company assembly plant was built in 1955 and this brought the start of the City’s rapid growth period; this growth was maintained by the high technology industry in the 1970s. By 1992, the City encompassed 13.6 square miles, which is approximately its current area. Today, the City is almost completely built out, so any future increases in wastewater flows would come from increases in density or changes in land use through redevelopment.

Today, the City encompasses 14 square miles and provides wastewater collection services to a population of 77,961 according to the Department of Finance. There are two distinct areas of the City referred to as the “valley floor,” which is relatively flat, and the “hillside” on the eastern edge of the City limits. Elevations gently slope from west to east along the valley floor from approximately 10 ft to 120 ft and up to approximately 700 ft in the hillside area. The valley floor includes a mixture of industrial, manufacturing, commercial, and residential land uses, while the hillside is reserved solely for residential use. Parks and open spaces are scattered throughout the residential areas.

The following boundaries are identified on Figure 2-1:
 City Limits: The City Limits includes the area within the City’s corporate boundary, over which the City exercises land use authority and provides public services.  Urban Service Area (USA): In 1998, voters in the City established an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) limiting development in its eastern hill areas. The initiative was set to expire in 2018 but was extended through the recent passage of Measure I by Milpitas voters in November 2016. Contiguous with the UGB the USA restricts the extension of public service and infrastructure to new development in eastern areas of the City Limits.  Sphere of Influence (SOI): An SOI is the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency, as adopted by a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). An SOI includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas within which a city or special district will have primary responsibility for the provision of public facilities and services. The SOI also coincides with the Planning Area – the area included in the analysis and planning for the 20- year horizon of the City’s proposed GP.
786
Item # 16.

SSAA NN JJ OO SS EE

FF RR EE MM OO NN TT

SSAA NN TTAA CC LL AA RR AA SSAA NN JJ OO SS EE

M I L P I T A S
§¨¦680
UV §¨¦880
237
UV262
FIGURE 2-1

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

PROJECT LOCATION MAP
N
_
LEGEND

CITY OF MILPITAS

URBAN SERVICE AREA

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
787
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

2.1.1 Land Use
The City’s current land uses, according to the GP, are listed in Table 2-1 and displayed in Figure 2-2. These land uses served as the basis for the model-based land use designations and analysis, which are described in SECTION 5.

Table 2-1: General Plan Land Use Categories
GP Land Use Categories Land Use Code
Hillside Very Low Density HVL
Hillside Low Density HLD
Hillside Medium Density HMD
Single-Family Low Density SFL
Single-Family Medium Density SMD
Multi-Family Medium Density MFM
Multi-Family High Density MFH
Multi-Family Very High Density VHD
Mobile Home Park MHP
Urban Residential URR
Mixed Use MXD
Boulevard Very High-Density Mixed Use BVMU
Residential-Retail Mixed Use RRMU
General Commercial GNC
Retail Sub-Center RSC
Highway Services HWS
Town Center TWC
Industrial Park INP
Manufacturing MFG
Professional & Administrative Offices PAO
Public Facilities PF
Park Open Space POS
Waterways WATERWAYS
Source: Milpitas General Plan Update – Land Use Alternatives Report, September 2018 There are several “Opportunity Areas” identified throughout the City as areas of potential growth and/or redevelopment; these “Opportunity Areas” are identified on Figure 2-2. The Midtown Specific Plan and Metro Specific Plan are detailed below:
 Midtown Specific Plan: This plan, updated in 2010, provides a new vision for approximately 589 acres of land which is currently undergoing changes related to its growing role as a housing and employment center in Silicon Valley. This plan presents an opportunity to reinvigorate the “historic” commercial and industrial core of Milpitas and bring it into the life of the City. The overall strategy of the Midtown Specific Plan is to create a mixed-use community 788
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
that includes high-density, transit-oriented housing and a central community “gathering place,” while maintaining needed industrial, service, and commercial uses. This plan provides for up to 2,328 new dwelling units and supporting retail development, new office developments at key locations; bicycle and pedestrian trails linking the areas together and new parks to serve residential development.
 Metro Specific Plan: Of the 443 acres of the Metro Specific Plan, approximately 403 acres were previously included as part of the Midtown Specific Plan but have since been broken off into a new standalone specific plan. The goal of the Metro Specific Plan is to bring about an attractive and livable neighborhood that takes advantage of public investment in light rail and BART, and to transform an older light industrial district to meet high demand for housing, offices, and shopping in the Bay Area. The plan creates a structure for a walkable, transitoriented area with a mix of land uses, which encourages walking, biking, and transit trips and minimizes vehicle trips. This type of development can accommodate substantial growth, minimize impacts on local roadways, and reduce urban sprawl at the periphery of the region.

2.2 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Wastewater from the City’s collection system is conveyed to and treated by the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF). Eight tributary agencies contribute flow to the RWF including the City of Santa Clara, Cupertino Sanitary District, West Valley Sanitation District, the City of San Jose, County Sanitation District 2-3, Burbank Sanitary District, and the City of Milpitas.

The City of Milpitas pays a share of the capital cost of the RWF, based on the City’s capacity rights in proportion to the 167 MGD total capacity of the RWF. The City also pays a share of the operating cost, based on the volume of wastewater discharged to RWF. The City has rights to discharge 14.25 MGD to the RWF under its current allotment.

To calculate dry weather flows from each agency, the RWF identifies the peak week – five-day period during June through October with the highest flows based on the plant’s influent data – and each tributary agency is asked to provide an estimate of their average flow for the peak week.

2.3 Recycled Water
The City purchases recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) Program. The SBWR Program is an on-going, multi-year effort to use high quality recycled water produced at the RWF and distribute for irrigation, industrial, and other purposes. The SBWR Program is administered through the City of San José’s Environmental Services Division.

The City uses recycled water for irrigating public and private areas such as parks, medians, and industrial uses to supplement potable water use. The City’s existing recycled water pipeline system connects to the SBWR system near Technology Drive and Coyote Creek, southeast of the State Route 237/Interstate-880 interchange. Recycled water provided by the SBWR Program is delivered through an existing transmission line. It is then distributed through a series of mains that provide landscape irrigation to business/retail areas surrounding McCarthy Ranch and Oak Creek Industrial Park, and to central Milpitas. The City maintains and operates approximately

22.4 miles of SBWR-owned recycled water lines that serve approximately 224 service connections. The City has an agreement with SBWR to be reimbursed for its costs to operate and maintain the SBWR-owned system within the City.
789
Item # 16.
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
FIGURE 2-2

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
N
_
LEGEND
HVL
HLD
HMD
SFL
SMD
MFM
MFH
VHD
MHP
URR
MXD
RRMU
BVMU
PAO
RSC
GNC
HWS
TWC
INP
MFG
PF
POS

WATERWAYS

OPPORTUNITY
AREAS

MIDTOWN
METRO
790
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
791
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
SECTION 3 – EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
This section describes the City’s existing wastewater collection and conveyance system.

Information from previous studies, regulatory documentation, field investigation, and discussions with the City Planning Department Staff were compiled herein. A wholesale review and update of the City’s ArcGIS geodatabase (GIS) was conducted using an extensive database of record drawings. A summary of the updates made to the GIS is included in Appendix C.

3.1 Wastewater Collection System
According to the updated GIS, the wastewater collection system consists of 844,114 feet (ft) (approximately 160 miles) of gravity sewers ranging from pipe diameters of 4- to 66-inches. The eastern side of the City has predominantly residential customers, with the western side of the City on the valley floor dominated by industrial and manufacturing. Commercial and mixed use are scattered throughout the valley floor as well. The topography is generally flat on the valley floor, with gradual elevation drops from the southeast to the northwest. The entire system flows to the Milpitas Main Lift Station (Main LS) in the northwestern corner of the City where it is pumped to the RWF through two force mains. An additional lift station, located on Venus Way, connects a small portion of low-elevation flow to the higher-elevation gravity system. Figure 3-1 contains an overview of the City’s wastewater collection system.

3.1.1 Pipelines and Manholes
The City’s wastewater collection system includes pipelines and structures of varying age, size, and material. According to the City’s GIS, the majority of the City’s wastewater collection system pipelines are vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and 4- to 12-inches in diameter. Approximately 70% of the system was built before 1990. Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3 provide breakdowns of the distribution of existing pipe material, size, and age according to the City’s GIS, and are reflected in Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3, and Figure 3-4.

As part of the preventative maintenance program, City Staff schedule weekly cleaning for high problem areas of the system. Areas with a moderate frequency of problems receive cleaning on a monthly or biannual basis, and low problem areas including the remainder of the system are cleaned on a recurring 18-month basis.

Based on review of record drawings and existing GIS, 15 siphons were identified throughout the collection system that divert flow under the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) water supply pipeline, creeks, and highways. The siphons are shown in Figure 3-1. As part of the preventative maintenance schedule, one problem siphon is cleaned weekly, and the others are cleaned quarterly.

792
Item # 16.
"
"

VENUS WAY LS
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237

MAIN LS
N
_
FIGURE 3-1

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
SIPHON

GRAVITY MAIN

FORCE MAIN
793
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
Table 3-1: Collection System Pipeline Material
Pipe Material Total Length (ft) Length as Percentage
Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) 13,812 1.64%
Cast Iron Pipe (CIP) 2,027 0.24%
Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) 2,017 0.24%
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 15,898 1.88%
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 59,188 7.01%
Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) 36,414 4.32%
Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) 650,411 77.05%
VCP/ABS 14,337 1.70%
Unspecified 50,011 5.92%
Total 844,114 100.00%
Table 3-2: Collection System Pipeline Diameter
Pipe Diameter (in) Total Length (ft) Length as Percentage < 8 392,365 46.48%
8-12 300,557 35.61%
15-18 49,886 5.91%
21-24 20,400 2.42%
27-30 24,421 2.89%
33-37 36,479 4.32%
39-42 5,756 0.68%
48-66 5,970 0.71%
Unspecified 8,280 0.98%
Total 844,114 100.00%
Table 3-3: Collection System Pipeline Age
Installation Date Total Length (ft) Length as Percentage 1951-1959 82,527 9.78%
1960-1969 173,537 20.56%
1970-1979 146,186 17.32%
1980-1989 196,192 23.24%
1990-1999 63,195 7.49%
2000-2009 58,136 6.89%
2010-2019 23,611 2.80%
Unspecified 100,729 11.93%
Total 844,114 100.00%
794
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 3-2

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINE MATERIAL
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
ABS
CIP
DIP
HDPE
PVC
RCP
VCP

VCP/ABS

UNKNOWN
795
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 3-3

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINE DIAMETER
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
< 8 IN
8 - 12 IN
15 - 18 IN
21 - 24 IN
27 - 30 IN
33 - 37 IN
39 - 42 IN
48 - 66 IN

UNKNOWN
796
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 3-4

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINE AGE
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
1951-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2019

UNKNOWN
797
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
Based on the City’s GIS, the collection system includes almost 3,000 manholes. Of these manholes, approximately 60% were built before 1990. Table 3-4 provides a breakdown of the age distribution of the existing manholes based on the City’s GIS.

Table 3-4: Collection System Manhole Age
Installation Date Total Count Count as Percentage (%)
1951-1959 229 7.69%
1960-1969 440 14.77%
1970-1979 415 13.93%
1980-1989 631 21.18%
1990-1999 286 9.60%
2000-2009 204 6.85%
2010-2019 125 4.20%
Unspecified 649 21.78%
Total 2,979 100.00%
To facilitate operations and maintenance and prevent SSOs, the City has implemented SmartCover technology to monitor the wastewater collection system. They have installed 33 SmartLevel™ Monitoring Systems in sewer manholes throughout the City to provide real-time remote level monitoring to operations staff. SmartCovers can be installed under any manhole lid and can be moved to monitor areas of concern, as needed.

Flow Splits
There are 177 identified flow splits throughout the City’s collection system. Flow splits are manholes that allow outflow via two or more pipes. There are three types of flow splits within the City’s collection system, including:
 High point flow splits – high points from which sewage flows in opposing directions (see Figure 3-5);
 Even flow splits – manholes where incoming flow is split proportionally in two (or more) directions where downstream pipes have matching inverts (see Figure 3-6); and  Overflow flow splits – manhole flow splits with overflow. At an overflow split during normal flow conditions, the flow takes one path and during high flow conditions, if the manhole begins to surcharge and flow reaches a certain depth, there is an “overflow” pipeline that is activated and will carry flow (see Figure 3-7).

798
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
As part of the network review and hydraulic model calibration processes, three flow diversion structures (MH 1053, MH 2578, and MH 1152) were identified for inclusion in the hydraulic model.

These were identified by reviewing record drawings and available CCTV information. They are described as follows:
 Flow diversion structure – alters an existing even flow split to mimic an overflow flow split.

A typical flow diversion structure is depicted in Figure 3-8. As can be seen in the figure, during normal dry weather operating conditions, all inflow is directed to one outflow pipe by the diversion structure. During higher flow conditions as the manhole begins to surcharge, the diversion structure is overtopped, and some flow is diverted to an overflow pipe. To represent these structures in the model, the height of the overflow pipe invert was adjusted to match the height of the diversion structure.

All identified flow splits and flow diversion structures are displayed on Figure 3-9.

Figure 3-5: Example High Point Flow Split
799
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

Figure 3-7: Example Overflow Flow Split Figure 3-8: Example Flow Diversion Structure Figure 3-6: Example Even Flow Split
800
Item # 16.
#0
#0 #0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0 #0 #0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0 #0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
!
!
!
"
"

VENUS WAY LS
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237

MAIN LS
N
_
FIGURE 3-9

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

FLOW SPLITS AND DIVERSION STRUCTURES
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
#0 FLOW SPLIT
! FLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE

GRAVITY MAIN
801
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

3.1.2 Lift Stations
In February and March 2020, a condition assessment of the two lift stations was conducted as part of the Master Plan effort. An inspection report detailing the assessment and a full asset inventory list of the lift stations are included as part of Appendix A (R&R Study App. K, LS Report).

The Venus Way Lift Station (Venus Way LS) serves approximately 1,200 single-family homes surrounding Pinewood Park in the southwestern corner of the City. It is designed to lift wastewater collected from the lower elevations and transmit it the collector main parallel to, and to the east of, Interstate 880. It is a single pump (with stand-by pump) lift station, equipped with two 5 hp 3- phase 540 gpm non-clog sewage pumps in a packaged dry-well plus wet-well configuration. The wet well is a 72-inch diameter RCP wet well equipped with an aluminum hatch and safety grate.

The City rehabilitated this lift station during 2008. As part of the preventative maintenance program, the Venus Way LS is inspected annually. Table 3-5 provides a summary of the asset inventory list for the Venus Way LS; a detailed asset inventory is provided in Appendix A (R&R Study App. K, LS Report Sections 2.2 and 4.1).

Table 3-5: Venus Way LS Asset Inventory List
Asset Name Asset Description Asset Type Year Installed
Mechanical
Pumps (2) #1 & #2 FLYGT CP3102-441, 5 hp 3-PH
230 V Submersible Pump Pump 2008
Pump Guide Rails Reinstalled in 2008 2008
8” Gate Valves (3), Pumps 1 & 2 8” Gate Valve, Pump 1 & 2 Valve 2008 8” Check Valves (2), Pump 1 & 2 8” Check Valve, Pump 1 & 2 Valve 2008 4” Flap Gate 4’ Flap Gate in Wet Well Valve 2008
2” Combo Air/Vacuum Valve 2” Combo Air/Vacuum Valve Valve 2008 Electrical
Utility Transformer 240/120 V, 3-Ph, 3 W Transformer 2000 Service Pedestal Service Disconnect and Metering 2008
Pump Control Panel Starter Panel for Pumps 1 & 2
(each 5 hp) Panel 2008
Instrumentation
Level Instrument Wet Well Level Sensor Level Switch 2008 Structural
Wet Well 72” Diameter RCP Tank 1964
Valve Vault Vault 1964
Aluminum Hatch-Vault Aluminum Hatch, slide-in Vault 2008 Aluminum Hatch-Wet Well Aluminum Hatch w/ safety grate Vault 2008 All wastewater is collected at the Main LS, the terminal point in the gravity collection system, where it is pumped to the RWF. The Main LS is located to the west of Interstate 880 between North McCarthy Blvd and Coyote Creek Trail. Flow enters the lift station site through a single 54- inch diameter RCP pipe.
802
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
The site consists of three buildings that house the lift station components. The Main LS consists of four grinders and four large submersible 170 hp 3 phase 705 rpm pumps with variable frequency drives (VFDs). Pumps #1 and #6 are slated for future installation though the base assembly, piping, and rail system were installed under Project 6103/2-1066. Grinders #5-8 are also slated for future installation. According to the City’s 2016 SSMP, the Main LS has a wet weather capacity of 45 MGD. Table 3-6 provides a summary of the asset inventory list for the Main LS; a detailed asset inventory is provided in Appendix A (R&R Study App. K, LS Report Sections 2.2 and 3.1).

Table 3-6: Main LS Asset Inventory Summary
Asset Name Asset Description Asset Type Year
Installed
Mechanical
Pig Launchers (2) A & B 36" Pig Launcher Pig Launcher 2002 Pinch Valves (3) 1-3 36'' Pinch Valve Valve 2002
Mag Meter (Flow Meter A) 24'' Magnetic Meter Flow Meter 2002 Venturi Meter – Removed in 2008 36'' Venturi Meter (taken out) Flow Meter 1975 Butterfly Valve 36'' Butterfly Valve, FM interconnect Valve 1970 Manifold Piping Butterfly Valve 36” diameter BFV, middle of manifold Valve 2008 Manifold Piping Plug Valve #1 36” diameter PV, pumps 1, 2, 3 Valve 2008 Manifold PV #1 & #2 Actuators (2) plug valve electric actuator Actuator 2008 Manifold Piping Plug Valve #2 36” diameter PV, pumps 4, 5, 6 Valve 2008 Pumps (3) #2-4 FLYGT CP3531-775, 170 hp
Submersible Pump Pump 2008
Pumps (4) #2-5 Piping
20” Ductile Iron Vertical Discharge
Pipe, 20” Ductile Iron 90 Elbow, 20”
Flanged Coupling Adapter
Piping 2008
Pumps (4) #2-5 Check Valves 20” Diameter Spring Loaded Check Valve Valve 2008
Pumps (4) #2-5 Plug Valves 20” Diameter Plug Valve Valve 2008 Pump #5 (not installed yet) FLYGT CP3531-775, 170 hp
Submersible Pump Pump
Main Head Gate 54” sluice gate with manual actuator Gate 2008 Head Gate (4) #1-4 48” sluice gate with electric actuator Gate 2008 Grinder (2) #1 & #4 5-hp electric driven Grinder 2008
Grinder (2) #2 & #3 10-hp electric driven Grinder 2008
2” combo air/vac valve
Force Main A B Flow Recorder
Flow Meter B This is for force main B
Main Transformer 1000 kVA, 12 kV-480 V, 3-ph (PG&E) Transformer 2000 Outdoor Utility Disconnect and
Metering Panel Outdoor NEMA 3R Enclosure Panel 2000
Main Switchgear Located in Existing Generator Building Switchgear 2000 803
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
Asset Name Asset Description Asset Type Year
Installed
Variable Frequency Drives (4) P2-P5 VFD for Pump (170 hp) VFD 2008 Local Disconnect for Engine Jacket
Water Heater 30A/3P Switch 2000
Motor Control Center (2) 2 & 2A 600 A, 480 V, 3-ph, 3W, 65000 AIC MCC 2000 Dry Type Transformers (2) 30 kVA, 480-208/120 V, Dry Type Transformer 2000 & 2008 Lighting panel (LP-1) Panel 2008
Lighting panel (LA) 100 A, 1-ph, 3 Wire Panel 2000
Motor Control Center (2) A &B 400 A, 480 V, 3-ph, 3W, 65000 AIC MCC 2008 Dry Type Transformer 10 kVA, 480-240/120 V, Dry Type Transformer 2008 Distribution panels (2) (DP-1 & DP-2) 125 A, NEMA Type 1 Panel 2008 Dry Type Transformer 75 kVA, 480-208/120 V, Dry Type Transformer 2008 Local Control Panels (4) for Grinders
#1-4 LCP grinder 1 Panel 2008
Local Disconnects (4) for CU-1 (for
FC-1), EF-1 (for Control Room), HP-1
(for FC-2) & FC-1 (for Control Room)
30A/3P Switch 2008
Local Disconnects (2) for EF-5 & SF-1
(for Wet Well) 60A/3P Switch 2008
Generator 1000 kVA, 480 V Diesel Driven Engine
Generator Generator 2000
Automatic Transfer Switch ATS, 1600 A Switch 2000
Instrumentation
Level Switch Level High High Level Switch 2008
Level Switches (2) Ultrasonic level Level Switch 2008
Structural
Pinch Valve Vaults (3) 1-3 Pinch Valve Vault Vault 2002 Mag Meter Vault 24'' Magnetic Meter Vault Vault 2002
Venturi Meter Vault 36'' Venturi Meter Vault Vault 1975 Butterfly Valve Vault 36'' Butterfly Valve Vault Vault 1997 Fuel Tank (bulk) 2,000-gal UL-2085 above ground vault
tank Tank 2008
Fuel Tank (day) Tank 2000
Grit Chamber/Inflow Structure Tank 2008
Wet Well Tank 2008
804
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
805
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
SECTION 4 – CONDITION ASSESSMENT
As mentioned in Section 1.1.1, as part of the City’s Master Plan project, a Sewer Utility Asset Renewal and Replacement Study (R&R Study) was conducted. Included in this study is a condition assessment of the City’s current collection system based on a set of factors developed to determine the relative risk of failure for each pipeline segment. This section describes the development of the factors established for the Business Risk Exposure (BRE) analysis and the results of the collection system condition assessment. The R&R Study is attached as Appendix A.

4.1 CCTV Condition Assessment
Part of evaluating the condition of the City’s collection system is understanding the pipe condition based on the level of structural and/or operations and maintenance (O&M) related defects. For this part of the condition assessment, key segments of the system were selected for closed-circuit television (CCTV) investigation based on the following criteria:
 Diameter greater than 8-inches;
 Older pipe (pre-1990) and pipe materials susceptible to corrosion/failure (RCP, VCP);  Located within high traffic areas; and
 Located within commercial/industrial areas.

Figure 4-1 presents the segments selected for CCTV inspection based on these criteria. The pipelines indicated as “Contract” were the priority for inspection while the “Misc” were completed as time and budget permitted.

National Plant Services Inc. (NPS) was contracted to complete the CCTV assessment (168,180 ft, 31 miles, approximately 20% of the entire system) and performed this inspection between March and May 2020. Additional details regarding the planned scope of the assessment can be found in the Appendix A (R&R Study Section 2.1). It is expected that additional CCTV assessment will be performed by City forces in the future as part of a City-wide CCTV program.

4.1.1 CCTV Inspection Results
As part of the assessment work performed by NPS, NPS inspected 105,221 ft. (approximately 20 miles) of pipeline. This constitutes approximately 12% of the entire system. Figure 4-1 shows the pipelines fully inspected by NPS in green.

There were some pipe segments where NPS attempted inspection but was unable to conduct or complete inspection. NPS reported various reasons for not completing inspection of pipe segments including the presence of siphons; manholes that were paved over or did not exist; and obstructions such as root balls, grease, and rocks. These pipe segments are shown in Figure 4-2 in red; this includes segments for which inspection was only partially completed. Where there were obstructions observed, the survey was attempted from the next manhole in the opposite direction.
806
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 4-1

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

NPS CCTV INSPECTION PLAN
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
CONTRACT 8-24-INCH

CONTRACT TRUNK
MISC. 12-36-INCH

NOT IN NPS CONTRACT
807
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 4-2

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

COMPLETED CCTV INSPECTION
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION

CCTV COMPLETE

UNABLE TO CCTV

GRAVITY MAIN
808
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
A breakdown of the completed segments by pipe diameter is presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Completed CCTV Inspection by Pipe Diameter
Pipe Diameter (in) Length Inspected (ft)
8 8,221
10 3,540
12 19,003
15 25,552
16 195
18 15,292
21 10,268
24 1,995
27 5,337
30 7,393
33 574
39 2,487
42 2,547
66 1,037
Unspecified 1,788
Total 105,221
Defect Coding
Defects were identified and sewer pipeline conditions were assessed according to the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP). PACP-certified NPS staff coded all inspected pipelines. As part of the quality control (QC) process, approximately 20% (89 out of 449 pipe segments) of inspection CCTV and PACP reports were additionally reviewed by PACP-certified staff. A detailed description of the QC process can be found in Appendix A (R&R Study Section 2.3).

For the condition assessment, the following steps were taken for each pipeline segment, which is defined from manhole to manhole:

1. Defects identified through review of CCTV footage.

2. Individual grade assigned based on the type and severity of defect(s).

3. Overall condition grade developed by assessing the type and number of defects along the segment.

4. Final condition rating assigned based on the condition grades and the potential for further deterioration and/or failure.

Per NASSCO PACP, each defect is categorized as either structural or O&M-related. Structural defects directly impair the structural condition of the pipe and are typically addressed through repairs, rehabilitation, or replacement. O&M-related conditions are those that directly affect the performance of the sewer or are indicative of potential future structural defects and are typically 809
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
addressed through maintenance, though some (such as infiltration) may require additional rehabilitation.

Both structural and O&M-related condition grades range from one to five. Table 4-2 provides a description of each rating as well as some examples of structural and O&M-related defects at each rating.

Table 4-2: Condition Grade Definitions
Condition
Grade
Condition
Rating Structural Examples O&M Examples
1 Minor defect
grade
Circumferential crack; roughness
increased due to surface damage;
spalling of coating
Fine roots at lateral, connection, or
joint; infiltration stains on barrel, lateral,
connection, or joint; vermin cockroach
2 Minor to
moderate defect
grade
Spiral or longitudinal crack;
circumferential fracture; aggregate
visible due to surface damage
Factory tap intruding <10%; infiltration
weeper on barrel, lateral, connection, or
joint; vermin rat
3 Moderate defect
grade
spiral or longitudinal fracture, lining
feature blistered; medium joint offset
Deposits (grease, rags, gravel, etc.)
attached 10-20%; medium roots at
lateral, connection, or joint
4 Significant
defect grade
Broken pipe; surface damage with
aggregate missing; large joint offset
Deposits attached 20-30%; medium
roots at barrel; infiltration runner at
barrel, lateral, connection, or joint
5 Most significant
defect grade
Broken pipe with visible void; flexible
pipe deformed >10%; collapsed pipe
Deposits attached >30%; root ball at
barrel; infiltration gusher at barrel,
lateral, connection, or joint
Each defect identified along a pipeline segment is categorized and rated according to Table 4-2.

The condition of each pipeline segment is ultimately given the following three scores:
 Structural Peak Score – The most severe condition grade for structural defects present in a pipeline segment.
 O&M Peak Score – The most severe condition grade for O&M-related defects present in a pipeline segment.
 Overall Peak Score – The greater of the two peak scores, either the structural or O&M peak score.

The structural and O&M peak scores are used in the BRE analysis. The structural and overall peak scores developed from this CCTV condition assessment are used to develop project recommendations for the City’s CIP (see Section 9.1.1).

Figure 4-3 presents the overall peak scores resulting from this PACP condition assessment.

Additional detail including breakdown by pipe diameter of the structural and O&M peak scores and maps of the structural and O&M peak scores can be found in Appendix A (R&R Study Section 2.2.1 and Appendices D and E).

810
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 4-3

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

PACP OVERALL PEAK SCORES
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
1 - NEGLIGIBLE
2 - LOW
3 - MEDIUM
4 - HIGH
5 - EXTREME

GRAVITY MAIN
811
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

4.2 Desktop Condition Assessment
In addition to the PACP condition assessment performed using the CCTV footage, a desktop condition assessment was performed to determine the relative risk of failure of each pipeline segment. A pipeline’s risk of failure is determined by a combination of the likelihood and the consequence of the failure of the pipe segment. The results of this assessment represent the City’s BRE.

Likelihood of failure (LoF) and consequence of failure (CoF) scores were assigned to each pipeline segment by considering various factor ratings with assigned factor weightings. LoF and CoF ratings were given on a scale of one (least likely to fail/least consequential) to five (most likely to fail/most consequential). The weighting of each factor was assigned based on the relative criticality of that factor, with higher weighting factors assigned to the most critical LoF/CoF factors.

Both the factors and the weightings were established by industry standard along with input from the City Staff through a workshop between BC, HydroScience, and City Staff in April 2020. A summary of the discussion at this workshop can be found in Appendix A (R&R Study Section

3.4).

The following equations were used to calculate a risk score for each pipeline segment:

4.2.1 Likelihood of Failure (LoF)
The first factor in determining the relative risk of failure of a pipeline was the likelihood that the segment is unable to provide the function for which it was installed. This was determined by assigning LoF criteria and ratings based on characteristics, condition, and location of each pipeline. In cases where pipeline characteristics (age and material) were missing or unavailable, medium risk was assigned as this is the equivalent to “neutral.” The following criteria were selected for this analysis and are typical for sewer renewal/replacement projects:
 Pipe age – In general, as a pipe ages, it has a higher likelihood to fail.  Pipe material – Different pipe materials have different life expectancies and failure modes.  Structural condition – Known structural defects based on 2020 CCTV inspection by NPS.  Presence of pipe obstructions – Known O&M-related defects based on 2020 CCTV inspection by NPS.
 Required pipe cleaning – Pipe requiring more frequent cleaning are typically subject to chronic O&M issues (i.e., oil, grease, and roots) when not maintained. However, the act of cleaning with high pressure water jets can contribute to premature failure of older or compromised pipe and inadvertently remove the top layer of corroded concrete or metal pipe.

Risk (BRE) = LoF Score x CoF Score
LoF Score = ∑ (LoF Rating x LoF Weighting) CoF Score = ∑ (CoF Rating x CoF Weighting) 812
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
 Proximity to landslide zones – Landslides can pose a threat to pipe segments that are buried at a depth of three feet or less. This factor also accounts for the impact of smaller seismic events on pipe structural integrity.
 Proximity to earthquake faults – Pipes located in the Hayward Fault Zone are given a higher LoF rating. This factor also accounts for the impact of smaller seismic events on pipe structural integrity.
 Local geology (liquefaction) – A liquefaction layer from County GIS provides soil resiliency ratings to seismic events. This factor also accounts for the impact of smaller seismic events on pipe structural integrity.

Sources include the City’s GIS; the City’s collection system maintenance schedule; and landslide, fault, and liquefaction zoning provided by the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development. The basis of scoring and weighting of each criteria is detailed in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: LoF Criteria and Ratings Broad Category Criteria LoF Rating
( Least likely to fail Most likely to fail )
1 2 3 4 5 Criteria Weighting Asset Characteristics Installation Year After 2000 1985 -1999 1970 – 19841 1955 – 1969 Before 1954 2 Pipe Material Force Main,
HDPE, PVC VCP1 RCP, STL, DIP, ABS, PPR - ACP, CIP 2 Asset Condition Structural
PACP
Grade/
Defect Type
Grade 2
defect(s) or
lower
Grade 3
defect(s)
(except hinge
defects)
One Grade 4
defect (except
hinge defects)
OR Grade 3
hinge defect
One Grade 5
defect (except
soil/void/collapse
deformation >10%)
OR multiple Grade
4 defects OR
Grade 4 hinge
defect
Multiple Grade 5
defects OR one
Grade 5 defect
(soil/void/
collapse
deformation
>10%)
5 O&M PACP
Grade
Grade 2
defect(s) or
lower
Grade 3
defect(s)
One Grade 4
defect
One Grade 5
defect or multiple
Grade 4 defects
Multiple Grade 5
defects 5
Required
Pipe
Cleaning
-
Require annual
cleaning
Requires
quarterly
cleaning
Requires monthly
cleaning
Requires weekly
cleaning 5 Asset Location
Proximity to
Landslide
Zone
Not within
landslide zone - - - Within landslide zone
3 Proximity to
Earthquake
Faults
Not within fault
area
- - -
Crossing or
within fault area 3
Likelihood
of
Liquefaction
- -
Prone to
liquefaction
High likelihood of
liquefaction
Very high
likelihood of
liquefaction
3 Notes:

1. Unknown or unspecified characteristics were classified at this rating. 813
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

4.2.2 Consequence of Failure (CoF)
The second factor in calculating the relative risk of failure of a pipeline is the CoF, or the predicted impacts resulting from the failure of the segment. Similar to the LoF analysis, CoF criteria and ratings were assigned based on the following groups: service interruption potential, repair/overflow potential, impact to transportation/transit, response time to potential failure, cost of potential failure, and environmental impacts. The criteria were selected to align with City Council core values and priorities and are typical for sewer renewal/replacement projects.

The CoF criteria and the relationship to City Council core values and priorities are summarized in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4: Council Core Values/Priorities and Related CoF Criteria Council Core
Value/Priority Area
Organization
Category Measure of Failure CoF Criteria
Superior Customer
Service
Community
Sewer service interruptions to large
areas
Pipe diameter
Integrity and
Accountability
Sewer service interruptions to critical
and educational facilities
Critical facilities
(proximity)
Trust and Respect Magnitude and method of public
response (sewer size) Pipe diameter
Transportation and
Transit
Public transit service and traffic
interruptions Road type
Railroad interruptions Railroad proximity
Governance and
Administration Finance
Response time to restore an asset Easement (access
restriction), road type
Restoration costs or impact on utility
rates
Pipe diameter and
depth
Environment Environment
State and Federal regulatory violations
or public response (discharge to
surface water)
Waterway/waterbody
(proximity)

814
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
Below is a more detailed description of the selected CoF criteria outlined in Table 4-4:
 Sewer size (pipe diameter) – Larger diameter pipes are more expensive to replace and provide service to a larger service area than smaller diameter pipes.  Proximity to critical facilities – Pipe proximity to an educational, police, fire, or health facility was calculated and rated for CoF. Pipelines servicing critical facilities were approximated by using a buffer of 500 feet. For context, the facility addresses were plotted as a point, so the buffer of 500 feet accounts for building size and nearby critical pipes.  Road type – Different road types such as arterial or highway will impact more people than a neighborhood street. Therefore, locations where pipe intersects with major traffic conveyance routes such as freeways, state routes, arterial streets, or major roads were identified.  Railroad proximity – Impacts to railroad operations and repairs on railroad property have significant cost and permitting impacts.
 Easement (access restriction) – Access restrictions were determined by overlaying the City GIS over an aerial basemap and manually assigning pipes which appeared to be within easements through private property or restricted areas. For example, the parking lot of a shopping mall would be assigned private but not restricted. However, if a pipe is near a swale between a park and a neighborhood, or between two properties, it was assigned “restricted access.” In a further analysis, parcels with easement information could provide a more refined outcome.
 Pipeline depth – Pipes that are buried deeper require more time and effort to excavate and as a result can be more costly to repair or replace.
 Proximity to waterway or waterbody – There are significant permitting impacts for repair or cleanup of failed pipes that discharge into a waterway or waterbody.

Data sources include the City’s GIS, Google Maps, major road locations provided by the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development, and railroad and waterbody locations provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

For a more detailed explanation of the City Council core values and how each criterion was rated, see Appendix A (R&R Study Section 3.2). The basis of scoring and weighting of each criteria is summarized in Table 4-5.

815
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
Table 4-5: CoF Criteria and Ratings Organization Category Group Criteria CoF Rating
( Negligible consequence Critical consequence )
1 2 3 4 5 Criteria Weighting Community Service Interruptions and Overflow Potential Pipeline Diameter1,2 < 6 in 8 – 12 in4
14 – 18 in 18 – 24 in > 24 in 1
Critical
Facilities - - School Fire/Police Hospital 1 Transportation/ Transit Road
Type1,3
Neighborhood
streets
Collector
streets Arterial streets
Expressway
and state
routes
Freeways 1
Railroad
Proximity
Not crossing or
within 50’ of
railroad
- - -
Crossing or
within 50’ of
railroad
1 Financial Response Time
Access
Restriction
Public right-ofway
-
Private
property - Limited access 2
Road
Type1,3
Neighborhood
streets
Collector
streets Arterial streets
Expressway
and state
routes
Freeways 2 Pipeline Cost
Pipeline
Diameter1,2 < 6 in 8 – 12 in4
14 – 18 in 18 – 24 in > 24 in 1
Pipeline
Depth All others - - -
Greater than
10’ (or special
configuration
requiring
substantial
excavation)
1 Environment Environment Waterway
or
Waterbody
-
Within 250’ of
waterway or
waterbody
Within 100’ of
waterway or
waterbody
Within 50’ of
waterway or
waterbody
Crossing
waterway or
waterbody
3 Notes:

1. Pipe diameter and road type affect the CoF in both the broad community and financial categories.

2. Pipe Diameter weighting = 1+1 = 2; 1 (Service Interruptions and Overflow Potential) + 1 (Pipeline Cost) = 2 (overall Pipe Diameter weighting).

3. Road Type weighting = 1+2 = 3; 1 (Transportation/Transit) + 2 (Response Time) = 3 (overall Road Type weighting).

4. Unknown or unspecified characteristics were classified at this rating. 816
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

4.2.3 Business Risk Exposure (BRE, Risk of Failure)
The LoF and CoF scores, as described above, were automatically calculated based on the criteria and weightings laid out in Table 4-3 and Table 4-5 using the InfoAsset Planner (IAP) software by Innovyze, a GIS extension risk assessment tool. As described at the beginning of Section 4.2, the relative risk was given by the product of the LoF and CoF scores calculated by IAP. Figure 4-4 illustrates the risk assignment for each LoF and CoF pairing.

Figure 4-4: Risk of Failure Assessment Matrix
Total risk scores were normalized within the dataset from one (negligible risk) to five (extreme risk). Table 4-6 provides a breakdown of the distribution of risk scores as a portion of the total length of pipe; for a more detailed breakdown of the risk scores, see Appendix A (R&R Study Section 3.6). Figure 4-5 presents a map of the resulting risk scores for the entire city, and these were used to provide CCTV recommendations (see Section 9.1.2).

Table 4-6: Business Risk Exposure Score Distribution by Length Risk Score Length of Pipe (ft) % of Total
1 – Negligible 610,497 77
2 – Low 77,844 10
3 – Medium 80,247 10
4 – High 9,674 1
5 – Extreme 5,922 1
Blank (no facility ID) 4,935 < 1
Total 789,119 100

817
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 4-5

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

BUSINESS RISK EXPOSURE SCORE MAP
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION
1 - NEGLIGIBLE
2 - LOW
3 - MODERATE
4 - HIGH
5 - EXTREME
818
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

4.3 Lift Station Condition Assessment
As part of the R&R Study, BC also performed an on-site inspection of the collection system’s two lift stations – the Main LS and Venus Way LS – described in Section 3.1. The results of this inspection are presented in the Main and Venus Way Lift Station Inspections Report (LS Report) which is included in Appendix A (R&R Study App. K). Assets in the following categories were evaluated during the inspection of these lift stations:
 Mechanical;
 Electrical;
 Instrumentation;
 Civil; and
 Structural.

Further breakdown of these categories and the specific assets evaluated are detailed in the LS Report.

Field inspections were completed on February 11 and March 11, 2020. Each asset inspected was reported with a condition score and a performance score from one to five; the breakdown of each score is summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: Condition and Performance Score Definitions
Score Description Condition Score Meaning Performance Score Meaning 1 Excellent/Good No defects observed. Functioning as intended. 2 Fair Only minor defects observed. In service, but higher than expected O&M.
3 Neutral
4 Poor Major defects observed. Asset
integrity may be compromised.

In service, but function is highly
impaired.
5 Failing or Failed Asset integrity is compromised.

Asset may be out of service.

Not functioning as intended or out
of service.

4.3.1 Main LS Inspection
Table 4-8 presents the major deficiencies identified at the Main LS that require timely attention.

A summary asset inventory list is provided in Table 3-6. A comprehensive list of the inspection notes and scoring for all Main LS components are included in Appendix A (R&R Study App. K, LS Report Section 3).

819
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
Table 4-8: Main LS Deficiencies
Asset Name Field Assessment/Comments Condition
Score
Performance
Score
Mag Meter (Flow Meter A)1 Not in operation 4 4
Manifold PV #2 Actuator Does not work 5 5
Pump #3 Has exceeded useful life2 4 4
Grinder #1 Excessive vibration and inadequate supports 5 5 2” Combination Air/Vacuum
Valve None 4 4
Flow Meter B1 Operable, but not accurate 4 4
Air Vacuum 1 to 15 Cavitation, coating failure, and inadequate supports 5 5
Variable Frequency Drive P2 No corrosion identified, arc flash labels missing 4 2 Variable Frequency Drive P3
No corrosion identified, confirmed by City that
IGBT was replaced in 2019, arc flash labels
missing
4 2
Variable Frequency Drive P4 No corrosion identified, arc flash labels missing 4 2 Variable Frequency Drive P5
No corrosion identified, confirmed by City that
cooling fans were replaced in 2019, arc flash
labels missing
4 2
Notes:

1. The City is replacing these meters as part of CIP Project 6131: Sanitary Sewer Cathodic Protection Improvements.

2. This pump has logged over 50,000 hours.

4.3.2 Venus Way LS Inspection
Condition and performance scores for all assets inspected were rated as 1 – no defects and functioning as intended. A summary asset inventory list is provided in Table 3-5. A comprehensive list of the inspection notes and scoring for the Venus Way LS can be found in Appendix A (R&R Study App. K, LS Report Section 4).
820
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
821
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
SECTION 5 – ANALYSIS OF LAND USES FOR HYDRAULIC MODELING To develop base sanitary flows (BSF) – the flow directly contributed by the customer – wastewater flows were assigned to every contributing parcel in the City. For planning level analysis, parcels of similar land use types are estimated to have similar wastewater flow rates either on a per parcel basis (gpd/parcel) or per acre basis (gpd/acre) and similar diurnal patterns. Thus, common land use types were consolidated, where appropriate. This section discusses the land use data used for planning level wastewater modeling.

5.1 Land Use Designations for Model Analysis – Existing Condition City land use designations were available as a parcel GIS shapefile containing GP land use information for each parcel in the City. For modeling purposes, some modifications to the land uses are warranted to ensure relevance to the sewer analysis. Land use types expected to generate similar wastewater flows were consolidated into general categories to facilitate unit flow (UF) analysis. Land uses that have little to no contribution to the sewer system were excluded from further analysis.

It is noted that the consolidations made for the purpose of this Study might not correspond directly to the land use categories used for the Water Master Plan Study because these categories were established based on expected similar wastewater flow generation, which do not always directly correspond to water use.

Data cleaning was necessary to assure an accurate representation of wastewater flow from individual parcels/customers. Below is a description of the GP land use categories that required further review in order to assign the appropriate model-based land use designation (see Table 2-1):
 The following GP Land Use categories and parcel types were assigned as “NF” (no flow) and excluded from this analysis;
 POS, WATERWAYS, parcels consisting of train tracks, streets, parking lots, or other open space; and parcels located in the City of San Jose or unincorporated areas not serviced by the City’s sewer system.
 All parcels with location specific land use codes (HWS, TWC, and URR) were reviewed using Google Earth Satellite and Street Views and assigned a model-based land use according to facilities present on each parcel as listed in Table 5-1.  Some parcels with GP land use of BVMU were assigned to COM if commercial facilities appeared to be present;
 All hotels in the City were identified and parcels assigned to a new model-based land use code: HOTEL;
 Elmwood Correctional Facility was assigned to its own model-based land use code: COR; and  All residential GP land use categories with parcels greater than one acre were reviewed to ensure the model-based land use designations were representative according to expected wastewater generation rates. Updated model-based land use designations were assigned, as appropriate.
822
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
Table 5-1 summarizes the GP land uses and associated codes included in the data set, and the model-based land uses developed for use in the model for this Study. Figure 5-1 presents the City according to the model-based land use designations.

Table 5-1: Model-Based Land Use Designations for Existing Conditions GP Land Use Code Model-Based Land Use Code
Hillside Very Low Density HVL
Hillside Single-Family Low Density HSFL
Hillside Low Density HLD
Hillside Medium Density HMD Hillside Single Family Medium Density HSFM
Valley Floor Single-Family Low
Density SFL Valley Floor Single-Family Low Density SFL
Valley Floor Single-Family Medium
Density SMD Valley Floor Single-Family Medium
Density SFM
Multi-Family Medium Density MFM
Multi-Family High Density MFH Valley Floor Multi-Family High Density MFH
Multi-Family Very High Density VHD Valley Floor Multi-Family Very High Density MFVH
Mobile Home Park MHP Mobile Home Park MHP
Mixed Use MXD Mixed Use MXD
Boulevard Very High-Density Mixed
Use BVMU
High Density Mixed Use HDMU
Residential-Retail Mixed Use RRMU
Professional & Administrative Offices PAO Professional & Administrative Offices PAO General Commercial GNC
Commercial COM
Retail Sub-Center RSC
Industrial Park INP Industrial Park INP
Manufacturing MFG Manufacturing MFG
Public Facilities PF
Public Facilities1 PF
Elmwood Correctional Facility2 COR
TWC, MXD, GNC, INP, HWS, RSC Hotels3 HOTEL
Park Open Space POS NF
Waterways WATERWAYS NF
Highway Services HWS
Parcels reviewed and model-based land use
designation assigned, as appropriate.

Town Center TWC
Urban Residential URR
Parcels with no land use designation -
Notes:

1. Includes schools, churches, health facilities, libraries, and fire stations.

2. The correctional facility is categorized as PF in the GP. For modeling purposes, it was given a distinct code.

3. Hotels are categorized under various land uses in the GP. They were identified and assigned a distinct code. 823
Item # 16.
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 5-1

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

MODEL-BASED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - EXISTING
LEGEND
HSFL
HSFM
SFL
SFM
MFH
MFVH
MHP
HOTEL
MXD
HDMU
PAO
COM
INP
MFG
PF
COR
NF
824
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

5.2 Land Use Designations for Model Analysis – Future Condition The City has identified “Opportunity Areas” (see Section 2.1.1) which refers to parcels identified within the City that may be considered for future redevelopment (see Figure 2-2). For modeling and planning purposes, it is important to understand the potential impact redevelopment can have on the wastewater collection system. Not all “Opportunity Areas” had proposed changes in land use.

Similar to the existing condition described in Section 5.1, the objective is to assign the modelbased land use designation to the parcel according to the type of redeveloped land uses planned/anticipated within the “Opportunity Areas”. The future land uses identified in the “Opportunity Areas” were reviewed and assigned the model-based land use designations listed in Table 5-1 according to the anticipated use, density, and wastewater flow rates.

Table 5-2 summarizes the changes in land uses from the existing condition within “Opportunity Areas” that are proposed for redevelopment. The table identifies the redeveloped future land use, the assigned model-based land use designation, and the corresponding area. Areas listed represent the acreage within each opportunity area that is changing and does not include areas within “Opportunity Areas” where land use remains the same. Figure 5-2 displays the identified “Opportunity Areas” where land use has changed, and the corresponding model-based land use designation within those areas.

Table 5-2: Summary of Future Land Use Updates
“Opportunity Areas” Proposed
Future LU
Model-Based
LU
Area
(acres)
Sunny Hills Neighborhood/Commercial Center NCMU HDMU 19.9 California Circle
NCMU HDMU 54.1
HDR MFH 18.3
Landess Neighborhood/Commercial Center NCMU HDMU 38.0
Calaveras & North Park Neighborhood/Commercial Center NCMU HDMU 28.3 Milpitas Town Center HDR MFH 38.1
Southwestern Employment Area BPR&D PAO 488.3
Jacklin & 680 Neighborhood/Commercial Center East NC COM 8.0 Jacklin & 680 Neighborhood/Commercial Center West NC COM 6.4 Jacklin Neighborhood/Commercial Center NC COM 9.8
Midtown Specific Plan Various Various 484.3
Metro Specific Plan (aka TASP)
HDR MFH 212.5
NC COM 85.4

825
Item # 16.
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 5-2

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

MODEL-BASED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - FUTURE
LEGEND
SFL
SFM
MFH
MFVH
MXD
HDMU
COM
PF
MFG
PAO

LOS ESTEROS
RANCH

OPPORTUNITY
AREAS
826
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
827
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
SECTION 6 – HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
This section summarizes the history of the City’s hydraulic model and describes the process of developing and building the most up-to-date version of the hydraulic model.

6.1 Model System Development
The City’s original hydraulic model was built using SANSYS as part of the 1994 master planning effort. As part of the 2002 master planning effort, the hydraulic model was converted to Hydra® software version 6.0 by Pizer, Inc. The Hydra® model was subsequently reviewed, updated, and calibrated as part of the 2004 and 2009 Master Plan Updates.

For this Master Plan, HydroScience recommended InfoWorks ICM by Innovyze® (InfoWorks) to model the City’s collection system because it is a fully dynamic software that uses the full set of St. Venant equations to model and evaluate complicated hydraulic systems. This recommendation was based on the knowledge that the City’s collection system includes 177 flow splits, which significantly increases the complexity of the system and model.

As part of the model build, a review and update of the City’s GIS was conducted using an extensive database of record drawings. A summary of the updates made to the GIS is included in Appendix C.

The updated GIS sewer system consists of 160 miles of gravity sewer main comprised of approximately 3,500 pipe segments and 3,000 manholes. For model development, the network was pared down to approximately 2,600 pipe segments and 2,400 manholes. All pipes 8-inches and larger were included, as well as all smaller pipes that included flow splits as they can affect the direction and quantity of flow downstream. The purpose of trimming the system is to reduce complexity of the system while maintaining all critical infrastructure. Smaller diameter pipes are generally less critical to the system operation. Including all pipe segments increases the complexity of the model but does not necessarily increase the value of the model and its analysis.

6.1.1 Model Network Development
The first step in developing the model network was to identify all pipelines for inclusion in the model. Using GIS, the pipe database was queried to select all pipes 8-inches and larger. To ensure the accuracy of flow representation, smaller pipelines downstream of flow splits were hand-selected where those flow splits would affect the direction and volume of downstream flow.

Where there were unselected pipe segments between selected pipes, presenting potential gaps, those pipes were also hand selected for inclusion in the model to ensure network continuity. Pipes that had a listed diameter of “0” inch or an unknown diameter were the most common reason for unselected pipe segments.

The second step in developing the model network was to identify all manholes for inclusion in the model. Using GIS, all manholes that coincided with the selected pipelines were also selected.

There were some instances where there was no manhole at the end of a terminal pipe segment 828
Item # 16.

City of Milpitas
Sewer Master Plan
January 2021

www.hydroscience.com
or at the junction between two pipe segments. These instances were most commonly one of the following two conditions:

1. Where a terminal pipe segment has a cleanout or flushing invert at its upstream end that was not represented in GIS; or

2. Where two pipe segments were built at different times and were directly connected without a manhole at the junction.

To remedy this, manhole placeholders were inserted at these locations for inclusion in the model network to prevent errors during the import into InfoWorks. These placeholders were given unique identification numbers to differentiate them from existing manholes.

The Venus Way LS was also included in the model network and the Main LS was modeled as the outfall. Figure 6-1 shows the final model network that was imported into InfoWorks.

Approximately 63% of the manholes did not have rim elevations documented in the GIS. To reconcile this data gap, regional digital elevation model (DEM) data was downloaded from the USGS web database to obtain surface elevations at each manhole. Two separate DEM files were needed for coverage of the entire modeled collection system. The DEM resolution for most of the collection system (over 99% of manholes) was 1/9 arc-second (approximately 10 feet). For the remaining (~25) manholes, rim elevations were supplemented by a 1/3 arc-second (approximately 30 feet) resolution DEM. Figure 6-2 shows the coverage for the 1/9 arc-second DEM data set.

DEM surface elevations were given in reference to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Most of the data in the City’s existing GIS is based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) due to the age of the system. For consistency, NGVD 29 was established as the reference datum in the hydraulic model. To adjust from NAVD 88 to NGVD 29, the following conversion, referenced from City record drawing #2-1228, was applied:

NGVD 29 = NAVD 88 - 2.743 ft
This equation is a simplified representation of conversion between the two datums but is generally representative within the bounds of the City. Small differences are not expected to affect the hydraulic model results as the relative elevation differences that affect inverts and slopes would be unchanged.

Generally, rim elevations contained in the GIS were used and supplemented by DEM where no rim elevation was documented. Existing rim elevations were compared to DEM elevations for confirmation. The average discrepancy between those listed in GIS and those calculated using the DEM data was approximately 0.8 ft. The cases that had the largest discrepancies were reviewed against record drawings and adjusted, as necessary.

829
Item # 16.
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 6-1

CITY OF MILPITAS

SEWER MASTER PLAN

MODEL NETWORK
LEGEND
" LIFT STATION

MODEL SEWER MAIN
830
Item # 16.
!(!(
!(!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
! !( (
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
"
"
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
UV237
N
_
FIGURE 6-2