KELLER BEACH SANITARY SEWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRAFT
August 13, 2026
City of Richmond
BKF Project No. C20250596-10
Prepared by
Adam Brown, PE
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2. Existing Conditions................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Hydraulic Overview................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 As-Built Plan Information ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Site Visit Observations...........................................................................................................................................14
2.4 Discussions with Residents ..................................................................................................................................20
3. Document Review...................................................................................................................................................................21
4. Pipeline Condition Assessment Information ................................................................................................................22
4.1 Summary of Industry Standards ........................................................................................................................22
4.2 2021 Inspection Summary....................................................................................................................................22
4.3 2026 Inspection Summary....................................................................................................................................25
4.4 Leak Detection Investigation...............................................................................................................................25
5. Survey and Elevation Data...................................................................................................................................................27
6. Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................28
7. Definition of Alternatives .....................................................................................................................................................30
7.1 Interim Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................30
7.2 Group A: Flow Diversion Alternatives ..............................................................................................................30
7.3 Group B: Beach Alternatives ................................................................................................................................35
7.4 Group C: Roadway Alternatives..........................................................................................................................39
7.5 Alternative Definition Summary.........................................................................................................................42
8. Pumping Considerations......................................................................................................................................................43
8.1 Municipal Pumping.................................................................................................................................................43
8.2 Private Pumping.......................................................................................................................................................46
8.3 Keller Beach Pump Station...................................................................................................................................49
9. KBSS Rehabilitation Considerations.................................................................................................................................52
9.1 Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP)...................................................................................................................................52
9.2 Sliplining and Swagelining (close fit sliplinling)...........................................................................................52
9.3 Fold and Form PVC lining.....................................................................................................................................53
9.4 Spray-In-Place Liner (SIPL) ...................................................................................................................................53
9.5 Pipe Bursting .............................................................................................................................................................53 City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers ii
9.6 Flexible Fabric Reinforced Pipe (FFRP).............................................................................................................54
9.7 Spiral-Wound Lining...............................................................................................................................................54
9.8 Rehabilitation Summary........................................................................................................................................54
10. Geotechnical considerations ............................................................................................................................................55
10.1 General Geologic Setting......................................................................................................................................55
10.2 Groundwater and Tidal Effects ...........................................................................................................................55
10.3 Landslide Considerations......................................................................................................................................56
10.4 Bedrock and Excavation Conditions .................................................................................................................56
10.5 Trenchless Construction Considerations ........................................................................................................56
10.6 Corrosivity and Long‑Term Exposure ..............................................................................................................57
10.7 Comparative Geotechnical Implications for Alternatives .........................................................................57
10.8 Geotechnical Consideration Summary ............................................................................................................57
11. Environmental Regulatory and Permitting Considerations ..................................................................................59
11.1 Agency Engagement..............................................................................................................................................59
11.2 Resource Areas and Constraints ........................................................................................................................59
11.3 Aquatic Resources...................................................................................................................................................59
11.4 Upland and Developed Areas .............................................................................................................................60
11.5 Special‑Status Species and Sensitive Biological Resources.....................................................................60
11.6 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................60
11.7 Comparative Regulatory Assessment of Alternatives................................................................................60
11.8 Planning-Level Cost Comparison ......................................................................................................................61
11.9 Planning-Level Schedule Comparison.............................................................................................................61
12. Erosion and Sea Level Rise Considerations ................................................................................................................62
12.1 Document Review....................................................................................................................................................62
12.2 Coastal Process Analysis .......................................................................................................................................62
12.3 Sea Level Rise............................................................................................................................................................62
12.4 Causes of Erosion ....................................................................................................................................................62
12.5 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................................63
13. Community Engagement...................................................................................................................................................64
13.1 Meetings, Workshops, and Presentations......................................................................................................64
14. Costs..........................................................................................................................................................................................68
14.1 Overall Cost Comparison......................................................................................................................................68 City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers iii
14.2 Contingencies and Budgeting ............................................................................................................................70
14.3 Operations and Maintenance Considerations..............................................................................................70
15. Criteria Development..........................................................................................................................................................72
15.1 Meets Legal Requirements ..................................................................................................................................72
15.2 Constructability ........................................................................................................................................................72
15.3 Environmental Compliance and Permitting...................................................................................................72
15.4 Construction Costs..................................................................................................................................................73
15.5 Operation & Maintenance ...................................................................................................................................73
15.6 Social & Community Impacts .............................................................................................................................73
15.7 Risk & Resilience......................................................................................................................................................73
15.8 Right-of-Way.............................................................................................................................................................73
16. Weighting and Scoring ......................................................................................................................................................74
17. Evaluation................................................................................................................................................................................75
17.1 General Scoring Overview....................................................................................................................................75
17.2 Alternatives A1 & A2..............................................................................................................................................75
17.3 Alternative A3............................................................................................................................................................76
17.4 Alternatives B1 & B2...............................................................................................................................................76
17.5 Alternatives C1 & C2 ..............................................................................................................................................76
18. Results & Recommendation.............................................................................................................................................77
18.1 Alternative A1 Implementation..........................................................................................................................77
18.2 Preferred Alternative ..............................................................................................................................................77
18.3 Construction Contract Procurement................................................................................................................78 City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Existing Point Richmond Sewer System......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-1: Typical Trench Section.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-2: Retaining Wall Section........................................................................................................................................10 Figure 2-3: Type "A" manhole used for MH Q-1 and Q-25 and standard “cleanout”.......................................11 Figure 2-4: Type D “Watertight” Manhole (all manholes except Q-1 and Q-25)................................................12 Figure 2-5: 1986 Retaining Wall Rehab (Plan 10-E-1897)............................................................................................13 Figure 2-6: 1986 Manhole Rehab (Plan 10-E-1897) .......................................................................................................13 Figure 2-7: Junction structure at the tip of Cypress Pt..................................................................................................14 Figure 2-8: Manhole at north end of Keller Beach..........................................................................................................14 Figure 2-9: Exposed pipes confirm concrete encasement...........................................................................................15 Figure 2-10: Exposed pipeline near cleanout....................................................................................................................15 Figure 2-11: Existing sewer lateral connects to pipe within “wall”............................................................................15 Figure 2-12: Pipe within “wall”................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 2-13: Looking north on Ocean Avenue towards Marine St...........................................................................16 Figure 2-14: Looking to Ocean Ave from Grandview Ct...............................................................................................16 Figure 2-15: Looking to Grandview Ct from Ocean Ave...............................................................................................16 Figure 2-16: No beach access exists from Clarence Dr.................................................................................................17 Figure 2-17: No beach access exists from Marine St.....................................................................................................17 Figure 2-18: Looking south along rip rap...........................................................................................................................18 Figure 2-19: Looking north along rip rap...........................................................................................................................18 Figure 2-20: Looking north along the encased pipeline...............................................................................................18 Figure 2-21: Last exposed cleanout along the pipe .......................................................................................................18 Figure 2-22: Exposed lateral with concrete support.......................................................................................................19 Figure 2-23: Half exposed, half buried lateral...................................................................................................................19 Figure 2-24: Looking south toward the dead-end..........................................................................................................19 Figure 2-25: Looking up the footpath towards Cypress Point Road........................................................................19 Figure 4-1: 2021 Pipeline Condition Assessment Summary........................................................................................24 Figure 7-1: Alternative A1.........................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 7-2: Alternative A2.........................................................................................................................................................33 Figure 7-3: Alternative A3.........................................................................................................................................................34 Figure 7-4: Alternative B1.........................................................................................................................................................37 City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers v
Figure 7-5: Alternative B2.........................................................................................................................................................38 Figure 7-6: Alternative C1.........................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 7-7: Alternative C2.........................................................................................................................................................41 Figure 8-1: Example Pump Station at Marine St. and Ocean Ave.............................................................................44 Figure 8-2: Example Pump Station at 320 Western Dr..................................................................................................44 Figure 8-3: Sewer "Push" Camera..........................................................................................................................................45 Figure 8-4: Sewer Inspection "Crawler"...............................................................................................................................45 City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: KBSS Parcel Summary............................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2-2: Sewer Generation Rates......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2-3: Total KBSS Flow Estimations ................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2-4: Sewer Slope Comparison ....................................................................................................................................12 Table 6-1: Regulations Governing Project Objectives ...................................................................................................28 Table 7-1: Summary of Alternatives .....................................................................................................................................30 Table 7-2: Alternative Definition Summary........................................................................................................................42 Table 9-1: Rehabilitation Method Summary .....................................................................................................................54 Table 10-1: Geotechnical Consideration Summary ........................................................................................................58 Table 11-1: Order-of-Magnitude CEQA and Regulatory Compliance Budgetary Ranges...............................61 Table 11-2: Order-of-Magnitude Environmental Review and Permitting Durations.........................................61 Table 13-1: Public Meeting Summary..................................................................................................................................64 Table 13-2: Summary of Community Interests and Concerns....................................................................................65 Table 14-1: Overall Project Cost Comparison...................................................................................................................68 Table 14-2: O&M Cost Assumption Summary .................................................................................................................71 Table 16-1: Summary of Criteria Weights and Scoring.................................................................................................74 Table 16-2: Scoring Descriptions...........................................................................................................................................74 Table 17-1: Weighted Scoring Summary............................................................................................................................75 City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Flow Generation Calculations
Appendix B: RFI#1 Technical Memo
Appendix C: Coastland Report
Appendix D: 2026 Inspection Results Narrative
Appendix E: Topographic Survey and Elevation Data
Appendix F: Force Main Sizing
Appendix G: Excerpt from City Standards
Appendix H: Geotechnical Feasibility Study
Appendix I: Environmental Memorandum
Appendix J: Coastal Erosion Analysis
Appendix K: Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Appendix L: Scoring Summary
City of Richmond August 13, 2026
BKF Engineers 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) is a critical piece of infrastructure serving approximately 290 homes in the Point Richmond area. Constructed in 1959 along the shoreline, the pipeline intercepts older sewer outfalls and conveys wastewater to the Keller Beach Pump Station (KBPS) for transport to the broader City wastewater collection and treatment system.
Over time, the system has become increasingly difficult to maintain due to its age, coastal exposure, and limited accessibility. In response to regulatory requirements, documented deterioration, and community concerns, the City initiated this feasibility study to identify a long-term solution that balances reliability, environmental protection, cost, and public impact.
This study evaluates multiple alternatives and recommends a path forward that meets legal requirements while accounting for the unique technical and community constraints of this project.
Existing Conditions and Key Issues
The KBSS is located directly within a dynamic coastal environment, where it is exposed to tides, wave action, and long-term erosion. Field observations and prior inspections confirm that portions of the pipeline are exposed, difficult to access, and in declining condition.
The system also presents ongoing regulatory challenges. Current requirements expect sewer systems to be routinely inspected and maintained; due to limited access and hydraulic constraints, reliably meeting requirements at the KBSS in its current configuration is difficult, placing the City at risk of noncompliance.
Future conditions further complicate the situation. Sea level rise is projected to increase water levels along the shoreline by approximately 3.6 to 6.5 feet over the next 50 to 75 years, which will make both maintenance and long-term operation more difficult.
In addition to these technical challenges, the project is highly sensitive from a community perspective.
Residents have expressed concerns about environmental impacts, construction disruption, and potential changes affecting private property and shoreline access.
Alternatives Considered
To address these challenges, the study evaluated three primary categories of alternatives: flow diversion options, shoreline (beach) improvements, and inland (roadway) relocation. These alternatives differ significantly in cost, complexity, environmental impact, and community implications.
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers 2
Alternative Group Description Key Advantages Key Challenges A – Flow Diversion Redirect wastewater
away from the
existing pipeline
(partial or full
diversion)
Lower cost; faster
implementation; can
reduce risk in the near
term
Does not fully resolve
long-term regulatory
requirements unless
fully implemented with
extensive residentialbased pumping
B – Beach Rehabilitate or
replace the pipeline
in its current
shoreline location
Maintains gravity
system; aligns more
closely with community
preferences; avoids
major neighborhood
disruption
Most complex
environmental
permitting; construction
in tidal zone; continued
exposure to coastal
conditions
C – Roadway Relocate pipeline
inland into public
streets
Improves long-term
access for maintenance;
removes infrastructure
from shoreline hazards
Requires pump stations
and private property
impacts; significant
construction disruption;
higher public concern
A total of seven alternatives were evaluated within these categories, including both interim solutions and full long-term approaches.
Cost and Implementation Considerations
All viable long-term solutions represent major capital investments with broadly comparable total costs once construction, environmental compliance, and contingencies are considered.
Alternative Estimated Cost (Millions)
A1 – Interim Diversion $0.8
A2 – Interim Pumped Diversion $3.3
A3 – Full Pumped Diversion $18.1
B1 – Rehabilitate on Beach $17.4
B2 – Replace on Beach $20.9
C1 – Relocate to Roadways $19.9
C2 – Relocate to Roadways Using Trenchless $18.7
While shoreline rehabilitation and inland relocation have similar total costs, the drivers behind those costs differ. Shoreline alternatives are heavily influenced by environmental compliance and specialized construction methods, while roadway alternatives are driven by pumping infrastructure, street reconstruction, and impacts to private property.
All alternatives involve tradeoffs, and none clearly outperform the others across all criteria.
City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers 3
Key Tradeoffs
The decision facing the City is not simply technical; it requires balancing regulatory compliance, cost, environmental impact, and community acceptance.
• Diversion Alternatives: Partial diversion options can reduce risk in the near term but do not, by themselves, provide a compliant long-term solution. Full diversion is feasible but introduces system complexity and long-term operational burdens associated with pumping. • Shoreline (Beach) Alternatives: These options maintain the existing system configuration and minimize disruption to residential streets. However, they require the most complex environmental approvals and continued management of infrastructure in a challenging coastal environment. Continued risk of discharge to receiving waters is also a concern. • Roadway Alternatives: Relocating the system inland improves long-term access and reduces shoreline risks but introduces significant construction disruption, requires multiple pump stations, and would likely require private pumping systems for some homes—an issue that has raised substantial public concern.
Recommended Approach
Based on a comprehensive evaluation of technical feasibility, costs, environmental requirements, and community input, the study recommends a two-part approach. • Proceed with a near-term interim improvement (Alternative A1) which can be implemented relatively quickly and at low cost, reducing flows in the existing pipeline by approximately 16 percent and reducing the total sewage volume that could be spilled into the Bay while a longterm solution is developed. • Concurrently advance a long-term solution that maintains the pipeline along the shoreline, using a combination of rehabilitation and targeted replacement. This hybrid approach (i.e. combining rehabilitation and replacement) builds on the strengths of both beach alternatives (alternatives B1 and B2) and allows flexibility to address site-specific conditions while minimizing impacts to residents and controlling costs.
This approach is recommended for the following reasons:
• Meets regulatory requirements for inspection, maintenance, and system reliability • Avoids widespread disruption to neighborhood streets and private properties • Maintains a gravity-based system, reducing long-term operational complexity • Balances environmental considerations with constructability and cost City of Richmond - KBSS Feasibility Study August 13, 2026 BKF Engineers 4
Next Steps
The City will need to select a preferred alternative, identify funding sources, and initiate preliminary design and environmental review for the preferred approach. This next phase will refine the project scope, improve cost certainty, and support further informed decision-making through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
Given the complexity of construction and permitting in this setting, the study also recommends considering alternative project delivery methods, such as Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), to better manage risk and improve coordination during design and construction.
Conclusion
While all viable solutions involve significant cost and tradeoffs, the recommended approach is to implement near-term flow reduction followed by a shoreline-based rehabilitation and replacement strategy provides the most balanced path forward. This approach would involve designing both the near-term and long-term solutions simultaneously with the understanding it would take longer to implement the long-term solution. Including both near-term and long-term solutions would address regulatory requirements, limit community disruption, and would position the City to manage long-term risk in a complex coastal environment.