Attachment — San Jose City Council, August 19, 2025

City of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity Assessment
Phase III and Updates to Phase II

FINAL REPORT
M
arch
2025 CITYOF A

SANJOSE

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
i
City of San José
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity Assessment
Phase III and Updates to Phase II
March 2025
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2. Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.3. Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4. Existing Sewer System and Pump Stations ..................................................................................... 1-6 All-Pipe Hydraulic Model Development ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1. Modeling Team and Software ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2. Modeled System ............................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.3. Model Development ....................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4. Phase II and Phase III Model Comparison ....................................................................................... 2-4

2.5. Datum Adjustments ........................................................................................................................ 2-4 Planning Scenario Wastewater Flows ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1. Existing Scenario ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 Wastewater Flow Components.......................................................................................................... 3-1 Base Wastewater Flow Methodology ................................................................................................ 3-2 Large Dischargers ............................................................................................................................... 3-5 Tributary Agencies ............................................................................................................................. 3-6 Subcatchment Loading to Sewer ....................................................................................................... 3-7

3.2. Background Scenario ...................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.3. GP2040 Scenario ........................................................................................................................... 3-10 Accounting for Growth .................................................................................................................... 3-10 Planning Areas and North San José.................................................................................................. 3-10 Flow Calibration ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1. Past and Current Flow Monitoring Programs ................................................................................. 4-1 Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II

4.2. Dry Weather Flow Calibration......................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3. Wet Weather Flow Calibration ..................................................................................................... 4-16 Rain Data .......................................................................................................................................... 4-16 Capacity Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1. Design Flow Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 5-1 Design Storm ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2. Sewer Criteria Comparison by Municipalities ................................................................................. 5-4

5.3. System Performance Criteria .......................................................................................................... 5-5

5.4. Major Interceptor System ............................................................................................................. 5-17

5.5. Pump Station Capacities ............................................................................................................... 5-19 Project Development ............................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1. Project Development Process ......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2. Design Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.3. Project Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................... 6-1 Baseline Pipeline Construction Cost .................................................................................................. 6-2 Site Specific Construction Costs ......................................................................................................... 6-6 Other Construction Costs ................................................................................................................... 6-8 Other Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 6-8 Project Implementation ........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1. Prioritization Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 Hydraulic Prioritization Rating ........................................................................................................... 7-1 Flow Confirmation Ratings ................................................................................................................. 7-1 Pavement Scheduling ......................................................................................................................... 7-2 Equity Index ....................................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.2. CIP Program .................................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.3. Master Plan and Model Updates .................................................................................................. 7-13 CIP .................................................................................................................................................... 7-13 Flow Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 7-13 New Development Review and Growth Areas ................................................................................ 7-13

Appendices
Appendix A – Detailed Project Descriptions and Maps
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1 City of San José Sanitary Sewer Inventory ................................................................................. 1-7 Table 2-1 Summary of Modeled Sewers .................................................................................................... 2-5 Table 3-1 Scenario Flow Comparison ......................................................................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2 Large Dischargers ....................................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3 Background Scenario Summary ................................................................................................. 3-8 Table 3-4 GP2040 Growth Areas .............................................................................................................. 3-17 Table 3-5 Land Use Designations ............................................................................................................. 3-18 Table 4-1 Rain Gauge Sites ......................................................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Long-Term Meter Sites............................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Dry Weather Flow Calibration Summary ................................................................................... 4-9 Table 4-4 Groundwater Infiltration Distribution Summary ..................................................................... 4-10 Table 5-1 Hydraulic Criteria Comparison ................................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-2 System Performance Criteria Matrix ......................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-3 Modeled Pump Station Capacities ........................................................................................... 5-20 Table 6-1 Example Project Cost Summary ................................................................................................. 6-2 Table 6-2 Estimate Unit Costs for Open Cut Construction of Gravity Sewers ........................................... 6-4 Table 6-3 Estimated Unit Costs for Trenchless Pipe Construction ............................................................ 6-6 Table 6-4 Site Specific Construction Costs ................................................................................................. 6-7 Table 6-5 Sheeting and Shoring Costs ........................................................................................................ 6-7 Table 6-6 Other Construction Costs ........................................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-7 Other Costs................................................................................................................................. 6-9 Table 7-1 Prioritization Rating ................................................................................................................... 7-1 Table 7-2 Proposed CIP Schedule .............................................................................................................. 7-7 Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Agencies Tributary to the City of San José Collection System ................................................. 1-4 Figure 1-2 Trunk System Basins ................................................................................................................. 1-5 Figure 2-1 Comparison of MPP2 and MPP3 Subcatchment ...................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Phase II / III Model Component Comparison ............................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-3 San José Sanitary Sewer System .............................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-4a San José Sanitary Sewer System Central................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-4b San José Sanitary Sewer System East ..................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-4c San José Sanitary Sewer System North ................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-4d San José Sanitary Sewer System South ................................................................................. 2-10 Figure 2-4e San José Sanitary Sewer System West .................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 3-1 Wastewater Flow Components ................................................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2 Residential Diurnal Profiles ....................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Non-Residential Diurnal Profiles ............................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4 Background Developments ...................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-5a GP2040 Growth Areas Central ............................................................................................. 3-12 Figure 3-5b GP2040 Growth Areas East .................................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-5c GP2040 Growth Areas North ............................................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-5d GP2040 Growth Areas South ............................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-5e GP2040 Growth Areas West ................................................................................................ 3-16 Figure 4-1 Flow Monitoring Program Long-Term Meters .......................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-2 Dry-Weather Calibration at Meter 12.01.030 .......................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-3 Modeled GPCD ......................................................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-4 Modeled GWI ............................................................................................................................ 4-9 Figure 4-5a Dry Weather Flow Calibration Central .................................................................................. 4-11 Figure 4-5b Dry Weather Flow Calibration East....................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-5c Dry Weather Flow Calibration North .................................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-5d Dry Weather Flow Calibration South .................................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-5e Dry Weather Flow Calibration West ..................................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-6 DDF Analysis for Selected Storms ........................................................................................... 4-16 Figure 4-7 Rainfall Distribution, February 19-22, 2017 Storm ................................................................ 4-17 Figure 4-8 RDI/I Hydrograph Components .............................................................................................. 4-18 Figure 4-9 WWF Calibration at Meter FSR06 ........................................................................................... 4-19 Figure 4-10a Wet Weather Calibration Basins Central ............................................................................ 4-20 Figure 4-10b Wet Weather Calibration Basins East ................................................................................. 4-21 Figure 4-10c Wet Weather Calibration Basins North .............................................................................. 4-21 Figure 4-10d Wet Weather Calibration Basins South .............................................................................. 4-22 Figure 4-10e Wet Weather Calibration Basins West ............................................................................... 4-23 Figure 5-1 Mean Precipitation Over San José ............................................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-2 Phase III Design Storm Comparison .......................................................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3a Dry Weather Level of Service Comparison Central ................................................................. 5-7 Figure 5-3b Dry Weather Level of Service Comparison East ..................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-3c Dry Weather Level of Service Comparison North ................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-3d Dry Weather Level of Service Comparison South ................................................................. 5-10 Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II

Figure 5-3e Dry Weather Level of Service Comparison West .................................................................. 5-11 Figure 5-4a Capacity Improvement Areas Central ................................................................................... 5-12 Figure 5-4b Capacity Improvement Areas East ........................................................................................ 5-13 Figure 5-4c Capacity Improvement Areas North ..................................................................................... 5-14 Figure 5-4d Capacity Improvement Areas South ..................................................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-4e Capacity Improvement Areas West ...................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-5 Interceptor System ................................................................................................................. 5-18 Figure 5-6 Nortech Pump Curve............................................................................................................... 5-19 Figure 6-1 Construction Cost Factors ......................................................................................................... 6-8 Figure 7-1 Hydraulic Priority and Flow Confirmation Over Schedule. ....................................................... 7-3 Figure 7-2 Project Costs by Trigger ............................................................................................................ 7-3 Figure 7-3a Proposed Capacity Improvement Projects Central ................................................................. 7-8 Figure 7-3b Proposed Capacity Improvement Projects East ..................................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-3c Proposed Capacity Improvement Projects North ................................................................. 7-10 Figure 7-3d Proposed Capacity Improvement Projects South ................................................................. 7-11 Figure 7-3e Proposed Capacity Improvement Projects West .................................................................. 7-12

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II

Acknowledgments
City of San José
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Matt Loesch, Director
Katherine Brown, Assistant Director
Mathew Nguyen, Deputy Director
Norman Mascarinas, Principal Engineer,
Transportation & Hydraulics Services Division
Wilton Chang, Acting Storm & Sanitary Sewer
Master Planning Section Manager
Christopher Mar, Lead Project Engineer and
Main Report Contributor
Hazen O’Malley, Project Engineer
Mohammad Peirowsalehi, Engineering
Technician
Additional support from: Shelley Guo, Casey
Hirasaki, Titus Raceles, Amanda Lei, Joe
Provenzano
Previous support from: Winola Cheong, Aubrey
Proctor, Raymond Leung, Kayla Kim, Rosemary
Chen, Luke Qu, Rhodora Macaraeg
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Jennifer Seguin, Ben Nguyen, Alberto Gaxiola
Department of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement (PBCE)
Kara Hawkins
Department of Environmental Services
(ESD)
Nick Ajluni

City Attorney’s Office (CAO)
Arlene Silva, Julie Nguyen, Anh Tran
GHD
Support for CEQA Document Preparation: Brian
Bacciarini, Kristine Gaspar
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Executive Summary

1-1

Executive Summary
This report summarizes the approach and findings of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Phase III and Updates to Phase II project (Phase III) of the City of San José (City). This Master Plan provides a substantial update to the City’s previous Master Plan project, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity Assessment Phase II and Update of Phase I (Phase II).

Phase II was the development of a computer model of the City’s sanitary sewer system and use thereof to identify the City’s sewer capacity needs and create a capacity improvement program to relieve them.

The model consisted of all City-owned pipes of 10-in diameter and larger, large subcatchments to estimate sewer outflow, and projected future growth to analyze future needs.

Phase III extended the model to include all City-owned sanitary sewer lines; a major expansion as the majority of City-owned lines are under 10-in and were not in Phase II. Phase III also updated sewer usage estimates in the model based on more recent data. This report evaluated the City’s sanitary sewer needs with the updated model. Along with new small-diameter pipes that hadn’t been modeled , Phase III provided an opportunity to re-evaluate the projects from Phase II.

Along with the modeling work, Phase III also updated the master planning aspects of Phase II. Topics that Phase III tackled included: the criteria used to identify whether a pipe had sufficient capacity ; the cost estimate of a proposed improvement project; and prioritization and scheduling of projects.

Overall, seventy-six (76) CIP projects, which includes four (4) project alternatives and one project in two phases, were generated for Phase III , having an estimated capital cost of $118.0 million (based on an Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index representative of August 2021 costs for the San Francisco Bay Area) . Forty-five (45) of these projects, accounting for $ 72.8 million, were identified to relieve the City’s existing needs. The remaining thirty-one (31) projects and $45.2 million were identified based on the City’s future needs, a combination of upcoming development projects and the projected growth areas from the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.

As of the creation of this report, the sewer model continues to be updated and the capacity improvement program along with it. Changing conditions, ranging from new developments to water restrictions all impact the demands placed upon the sewer system.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Introduction

1-2

Introduction
This report presents the results and recommendations of the City of San José’s (City’s) Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Phase III (Phase III) project. This introductory chapter provides background information on the scope and objectives of the Master Plan, the City’s sewer system and service area, and the contents and organization of this study.

1.1. Background
In 2002, the City initiated development of a comprehensive capacity assessment and master plan of its sanitary sewer system. The City’s previous comprehensive planning study of the sanitary sewer system had been completed in 1979 by staff of the City’s Department of Public Works (Sanitary Sewer Capacity Deficiencies Report, October 1979 ). Since that time, the City had grown considerably and a number of major interceptor and trunk sewer improvements had been constructed.

As part of the new master planning effort, the City was divided into five major areas: South, Central, North, East, and West, as shown in Figure 2-3. To prepare the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity Assessment for the South, Central, and North Areas (Phase I), the City retained three consultant teams to develop hydraulic models and prepare capacity-related capital improvement programs for three of the five areas of the sewer system (South, Central, and North). These areas were given priority because of the potential for near-term development (e.g., downtown redevelopment in the Central Area, industrial development in the Edenvale and North Coyote Valley a reas in the South, and industrial development in the Golden Triangle area in the North). The remaining two areas (East and West) were to be addressed in Phase II of the Master Plan.

Phase I established basic master planning tools and methodologies. Hydraul ic modeling software (InfoWorks™ CS) was selected as the tool for analyzing the capacity of the system; land use and population data were developed to estimate existing and projected future flows; and criteria were established for estimating each of the co mponents of dry - and wet -weather wastewater flows. Based on the work conducted under the Phase I study, 37 potential capacity improvement projects totaling $104 million in capital costs (in 2004 dollars) were identified in the South, Central, and North areas. The Phase I Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity Assessment was completed in October 2004.

In 2007, the City initiated the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity Assessment Phase II and Update of Phase I (Phase II) to address the East and West areas, as well as to update the planning for the Phase I areas. Phase II identified 93 projects, totaling $175 million (in 2013 dollars). The report was completed in 2013.

Phase II included an addendum report, Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment North San José Area , which expanded the model to include all City-owned pipes in the North basin. Previously both Phase I and II only included the trunk system, with pipes that are 10-in or larger. This addendum identified approximately $36 million (in 2013 dollars) in projects; however, several projects totaling $16 million overlapped with Phase II projects.

The City developed its new General Plan, Envision San José 2040 (GP2040), as the work for Phase II was being conducted. Phase II was able to incorporate elements from the adopted GP2040 plan, such that several potential General Plan land use scenarios could be analyzed as part of the finalized Phase II Master Plan.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Introduction

1-3

1.2. Study Objectives
This report is the c ompletion of Phase III of the sanitary sewer master planning effort. The primary objective was to extend the all -pipe model beyond just North basin to encompass the entire City. The goal was to have every City-owned manhole, pipeline, pump station, siphon, etc. modeled and analyzed for capacity needs.

While the Phase II model had been updated with new developments over time, the new model presented an opportunity to completely overhaul the sewer flow data. Since the completion of Phase II there had been new sewer billing data, GP2040 updates and a new Census. With such a large overhaul to the flow data, the model was also re-calibrated to sync up with flow meter data.

In addition to the model updates, Phase III re-examined the criteria for selecting and creating projects.

The criteria to identify whether a pipe needed improvement was compared with other agencies. Project cost estimates were redone based on costs for completed Phase II projects.

Finally, this model was used for the creation of an updated Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Using the model, capacity needs were identified and proposed solutions developed. The team developed costs and prioritization for the projects to generate a CIP schedule for project construction up to 2040.

1.3. Study Area
The City of San José is located in Santa Clara County and shares borders with the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga, Santa Clara, and Los Gatos to the west ; the City of Milpitas to the north; and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County to the south, east, and within the City’s boundaries. Also to the east are the unincorporated areas of Alum Rock and East Foothills.

San José residents and businesses are served by the City-owned sanitary sewer system. The sewer system discharges into the San José -Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) , which is jointly used and owned by both the City of San José and the City of Santa Clara . Additionally, the RWF serves the City of Milpitas, the West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD), and the Cupertino Sanitary District.

The study area for this Master Plan includes areas tributary to the City’s sewer collection system. The City of Milpitas, a portion of the City of Santa Clara, and most of the area served by the Cupertino Sanitary District (via City of Santa Clara) discharge directly to the RWF and do not contribute flows to the City’s collection system. WVSD, a small portion of the Cupertino Sanitary District, and portions of the City of Santa Clara discharge to City’s wastewater collection system. Additional small County Sanitation Districts, including Burbank Sanitary District and County Sanitation District 2 & 3 serve unincorporated pockets within or adjacent to the City and are also tributary to the City’s system. Figure 1-1 shows the locations of these tributary agencies. The total study area (area discharging to the City’s sewer system) encompasses approximately 176 square miles including the portions of the tributary agencies that discharge into the City’s collection system.

To facilitate discussion and presentation of capacity assessment results, the five major areas of the sanitary sewer system have been divided into 2 0 trunk sewer system basins, each representing the area tributary to one or more major trunk sewers. The basins have been given names corresponding to the names of those major trunk sewers. Figure 1-2 shows the trunk system basins.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Introduction

1-4

Figure 1-1
Agencies Tributary to the City of San
José Collection System
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Introduction

1-5

Figure 1-2
Trunk System Basins
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Introduction

1-6

1.4. Existing Sewer System and Pump Stations
The City’s wastewater collection system consists of almost 11 million feet of sewer pipelines (approximately 2,000 miles) ranging from 4 to 90 inches in diameter. Like most cities, the majority of City pipes are 6 or 8 inches in diameter, with 6 -inch pipes comprising nearly 60 percent of the total length of pipe, and 8-inch pipes comprising another 20 percent. Table 1-1 itemizes the approximate length of city- owned pipe by diameter in the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS).

Most of the wastewater collected in the City’s sewer system ultimately reaches a set of four major interceptor sewers located along Zanker Road (called the “North San José Interceptor”), which convey the flows to the RWF. In general, flows from the South, East, and West areas (including WVSD and other small tributary agencies discharging to the West area) feed in to the Central Area, where flows are then conveyed to the interceptor system. Flow from a portion of the City of Santa Clara that is tributary to the City’s collection system enters the City on De La Cruz Boulevard and is conveyed down Trimble Road through a dedicated large diameter pipeline. This flow ultimately discharges to the City’s interceptor system at the intersection of Trimble Road and Zanker Road.

The interceptor system consists of a series of parallel, large diameter pipelines that extend from 7th and Empire Streets, north along 7th, 5th, and 4th Streets to Highway 101, and across Highway 101 along Zanker Road to the RWF located north o f Highway 237. The interceptor sewers range in diameter from 36 to 90 inches. The interceptor has traditionally been broken into seven major sections, or “phases”, with Phases I through V located north of Highway 101 and Phases VI and VII located south of the highway.

Several major junction structures, identified by letters (e.g., Structure A, B, C, etc.) are located at intervals along the interceptors, at locations where flows can be diverted between the parallel pipes.

The parallel interceptor lines were design ed for redundancy, so that individual interceptors may be shutdown w ithout impacting the system. The ability to empty an interceptor makes inspection and maintenance much simpler. Over the years, the City has rehabilitated portions of the interceptor, including construction of the fourth major interceptor, lining of corroded portions of reinforced concrete pipe, and replacement of the oldest, 60-inch brick sewer. Separate planning and predesign studies have been conducted specifically for the interceptor pipelines, including the Preliminary Design Report for a Fourth Major Interceptor, prepared in 1986 and the San José North Interceptor Facilities Plan, prepared in 2002.

The City’s sewer system also includes 17 sewer pump stations, with one abandoned in 2016, as shown in Table 1-2. The largest of the pump stations is the Lamplighter Pump Station located at North First Street between Headquarters Drive and Holger Way. The Santa Teresa Pump Station, which served the North Coyote Valley area of San José, was decommissioned in early 2003 following construction of a 2,000-foot, 42-inch diameter deep gravity sewer that allowed the pump station to be abandoned. The other pump stations in the system are primarily smaller facilities that serve localized areas that cannot drain by gravity to the trunk and interceptor system.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Introduction

1-7

Table 1-1 City of San José Sanitary Sewer Inventory
Diameter
(in.)
Number of Sewer
Segments
Estimated Pipe
Length
(lf)
Miles of Pipe Percent of Total
6 or less 27,083 6,159,270 1,166.5 57.71%
8 10,147 2,274,890 430.9 21.32%
10 2,529 566,960 107.4 5.31%
12 1,619 364,980 69.1 3.42%
14-16 1,020 251,120 47.6 2.35%
18 844 204,190 38.7 1.91%
20-21 632 158,230 30.0 1.48%
23-25 394 109,550 20.7 1.03%
27-28 222 58,080 11.0 0.54%
30 446 112,050 21.2 1.05%
32-33 159 34,430 6.5 0.32%
36-37 228 56,570 10.7 0.53%
38-39 13 4,100 0.8 0.04%
42 265 72,910 13.8 0.68%
45 0 0 0.0 0.00%
48 242 66,500 12.6 0.62%
53-54 148 52,510 9.9 0.49%
57-60 51 16,810 3.2 0.16%
65-66 53 27,590 5.2 0.26%
72 35 18,210 3.4 0.17%
78 8 7,220 1.4 0.07%
84 70 53,300 10.1 0.50%
90 or larger 5 3,060 0.6 0.03%
Total 46,213 10,672,530 2,021 100.00%
Note: Based on City-owned pipes in the City’s GIS as of February 2022.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Introduction

1-8

Table 1-2 Summary of City of San José Pump Stations
Pump Station Year
Built
Year
Renovated
No. of
Pumps
Location Firm
Capacity
(MGD)
Basking Ridge 2007 2 6997 Basking Ridge Ave 0.5
Brookside
Estates
2012 2 Redwood Creek & Lavender Creek 0.27
Communication
Hill
2008 2 2001 Donnici St & Altino Blvd 0.26
Gateway 1988 2 Airport Pkwy & Gateway Pl 0
Junction 1992 2 Junction Ave and Zanker Rd 0.78
Lamplighter 1984 4 3141 Lamplighter Way & N 1st St 6.57 Margaret 1952 1984 2 697 Margaret St & 15th St 0.34
Montague 1976 3 N 1st St & Montague Expwy 1.4
Nordale 1960 2018 2 Nordale Ave & Senter Rd 0.78
Nortech 1983 3 1161 Nortech Pkwy & Disk Dr 1.22
Padres 2012 2 Bird Ave & Minnesota Ave 1.15
Ridder Park 1982 2 Ridder Park Dr & Fox Ln 0.52
San Felipe* 1989 1996 2 5702 San Felipe Rd & Scenic
Meadow Ln

0.25 Spreckles 1975 2017 3 3288 Spreckles Ave & State St 1.69 Tea Gardens 1967 1997 2 Kelley Park near Tea Garden 0.48 Willow 2001 2018 2 460 Minnesota Ave & Willow St 0.55
Zoo 1967 1988 2 1300 Senter Rd inside of park 0.36
* San Felipe Pump Station has been abandoned since December 2016.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-1

All-Pipe Hydraulic Model Development
The City’s Master Plan Phase II effort was completed in 2013 and developed a hydraulic model that consisted of mostly trunk sanitary sewer lines (pipes that are 10” or larger in diameter) and major pump stations, which represented approximately 20% of the entire system. While a trunk model is common in most master planning efforts and is generally sufficient in reviewing capacity issues for a large system, it does not show the hydraulic conditions of smaller diameter pi pes, which are more susceptible to rain- dependent inflow and infiltration and may also have a more direct impact on residents should any capacity bottlenecks develop. As such, the City expanded the trunk model in Phase III to include all sanitary sewer lines and pump stations in the system. The new model provides a more accurate estimate of flow and allows the City to perform capacity analysis on smaller sewer lines.

2.1. Modeling Team and Software
This Phase III Master Plan was developed by City staff, since the Master Plan team had extensive training and involvement with the creation, maintenance, and application of the Phase II model. The City’s five major basins: East, West, North, Central, and South; were each assigned to an individual modeler. Eac h area is hydraulically independent as much as possible from each other; except for the Central area which receives flows from the East, West, and South basins. This approach was used in the City’s very first Phase I Master Plan effort and has been adopted in all subsequent efforts. It reduces simulation time (because the model network is smaller) while also allowing calibration and analysis to be done simultaneously for each area.

In the beginning of the Phase III effort, the City retained Woodard and Cu rran (formerly RMC Water and Environment) consulting team to assist in developing the model since they were an integral part of the City’s Phase I and Phase II efforts. At that time, the West area was assigned to the Woodard and Curran team. Upon completion of the dry weather calibration of the model, it was evident that City staff had the capability to perform subsequent analysis in-house for all areas and doing so would also allow for easier coordination and control on project schedule. As such, the West area was then transferred to the City team for wet weather calibration and subsequent master planning processes.

The City had used Infoworks CS for hydraulic and hydrologic modeling for Phase I. During Phase II, Innovyze released a replacement for Infoworks CS, Infoworks ICM, and the model was completely converted to the new software. The City continued to use Infoworks ICM for the Phase III update . The City owns multiple licenses and will continue to use it to update the model and conduct sewer system analyses as needed.

InfoWorks provides a fully dynamic solution for modeling storm water and sanitary sewer systems. Unlike static or pseudo -dynamic models, InfoWo rks realistically represents the effects of flow splits, storage, surcharge, backwater, and spill (overflow) conditions over time. InfoWorks provides a GIS -like model interface for building and running the model and viewing model results. Importing data from GIS or other formats is simple and straightforward, as is exporting model data and results. InfoWorks was originally developed by Wallingford Software, Ltd. in the U.K. Wallingford Software merged with MWHSoft in 2009, and the combined company changed its name to Innovyze in 2011. In 2021, AutoDesk acquired Innovyze.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-2

2.2. Modeled System
Gravity Lines: Significant research effort was invested into building every single gravity line and sewer manholes into the all -pipe model, including months of as -built research and surveying. The City’s GIS database served as the initial data source that was imported into the model. Flow tracing was conducted in the model to check for connectivity. Manhole surveys were used to supplement areas where connectivity was questionable or when as-built drawings were not available. And since as-built drawings from different periods of time used different vertical datums, additional effort was made to sync the elevations from all these different sources into the same NAVD 88 datum in the model.

Inverted Siphons: In addition to gravity lines, all inverted siphons in the system were individually researched to the extent possible and incorporated into the model that accurately reflect s their length and depth in order to accurately p redict flow capacity and velocity. During Phase II, each siphon was represented by a single segment; the downslope and upslope were excluded leaving only the bottom of the siphon. According to the InfoWorks software vendor, the simplified setup would red uce run times and model instability, without significantly impacting accuracy of the results.

For Phase III, the downslope and upslope were re-added. By adjusting the head loss and solution model for the siphons, a more accurate record of the sewer system could be created, with no instability issues at the siphons.

Pump Stations: City-owned pump stations are maintained by the City’s Department of Transportation (DOT). The Master Plan team conducted as-built research for all pump stations in the City and surveyed DOT staff for pump configurations and setups. DOT provided a report for every City sanitary pump station which included the number of active and backup pumps at a station and the make of the pumps. Using that information, City staff were able to research appropriate pump curves to apply and model the pumps.

Subcatchments: Phase III also increased the resolution of sewer subcatchments to parcel -level, meaning each parcel in the City is represented by a sewer subcatchment in the model. Using the City’s parcel GIS database, the Master Plan team imported parcel polygons into the modeling software, and together with billing data and census data, each parcel has its own designated subcatchment and corresponding loading point(s) in the system, thus allowing a much more refined analysis of flow.

Outfalls: Outfalls represent locations where flow leaves the modeled system. Three outfalls were at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility where the majority of sewage from the City drains to.

There’s one outfall each for Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, which have small pockets of parcels draining to them.

Inflow and Level Files: City of Santa Clara provided a table for their flows under various scenarios. These were entered via inflow file, which allows direct input of flow without modeling the associated pipes and subcatchments. Similarly, the hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation at the RWF was input with a level file, which specifies the depth blocking flow at the RWF without needing to model the intricate operations of the plant. Phase III reuses the same data from Phase II.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-3

Figure 2-1
Comparison of MPP2
and MPP3 Subcatchment
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-4

2.3. Model Development
The model developed under Phase III is referred to as the “All -Pipe” network, in that it includes all City- owned gravity lines, manholes, siphons, force mains, and pump stations. The previous model under Phase II covered approximately 20% of the City-owned lines, while this all-pipe model expanded the scope five- fold to include 100% of City-owned lines. Figure 2-4 shows what was in the trunk model, and what is now in the all-pipe model. The all-pipe model served as the primary analytical tool used in Phase III’s study to estimate flows and assess sewer capacities in the system. The following sections describe the model development process, including the extensive research effort that was invested to include every single pipe, the datum adjustment effort, the development and validation of the required data for the network, and the delineation of sewer subcatchments (areas tributary to the model system) used to define flow inputs into the model.
• Starting from the Phase II trunk model, add small diameter pipes and manhole. Adjust to fit the new lines into network such that flow splits are accurately modeled. • Replace the trunk -level subcatchments with parcels. Determine appropriate flow rates and loading points for the new subcatchments.
• Sort through the City’s historical flow meter data and select meters suitable for use in a City-wide calibration effort. Calibrate the model by refining the residential and non -residential unit flow rates, 24 -hour diurnal flow patterns and non -rainfall period groundwater infiltration (GWI) to match the observed flow volumes and peaks at each metered location. • Select suitable historical storms based on intensity and available flow data. Obtain Gauge Adjusted Radar Rainfall (GARR) data for selected events. Calibrate model results by refining rain response parameters to match the observed wet-weather events. • Create future scenarios based on upcoming developments and the City’s G eneral Plan 2040 report.
• Run the updated model for existing and future flow scenarios under dry and wet weather.

2.4. Phase II and Phase III Model Comparison
Much of the previously summarized sewer system was not present in the trunk-only Phase II model. As stated previously, the trunk model excluded most pipes below 10-in in diameter, which accounts for nearly 80% of the City’s overall system. The missing system is not limited to pipes, but can include missing manholes, pump stations and siphons as well. The following tables and figures compare the Phase II and Phase III model components.

2.5. Datum Adjustments
Prior to Phase III, the sanitary sewer model had been in NGVD29 datum, the official City datum until around the year 2000. The City has been using NAVD88 since then. Part of the Phase III update included converting the model to match the City standard. A uniform adjustment factor of 2.55 feet was applied.

Additionally, the City’s Digital Elevation Model was adjusted to the new datum as well.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-5

Table 2-1 Summary of Modeled Sewers
Pipe Length (miles) Count
Pipe Diameter (inches) Phase II Phase III Sewer Feature Phase II Phase III <6-in 0 2 Sewer
Segments 9,500 52,765
6-in to 8-in 35 1778 Manholes 9,100 47,251
10-in to 12-in 184 207 Pumps 12 36
14-in to 18-in 82 103 Pump Stations 5 16
21-in to 28-in 68 74 Siphons 153 236
30-in to 39-in 34 38 Single-barrel 113 126
40-in to 58-in 38 38 Double-
barrel 40 109
60-in to 72-in 10 10 Triple-barrel 0 1
76-in+ 13 13 Subcatchments 2,000 216,884
Total 464 2263

Figure 2-2 Phase II / III Model Component Comparison
0 50
100
150
200
250
Sewer
Segments
(x1000)
Manhole
(x1000)
Subcatchment
(x1000)
Pumps Pump Stations Siphons
Phase II / III Model Component Comparison
Phase II Phase III
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-6

Figure 2-3
San José Sanitary Sewer
System
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-7

Figure 2-4a
San José Sanitary
Sewer System Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
All-Pipe Hydraulic Model
Development

2-8

2-9

2-10

2-11

Figure 2-4a
San José Sanitary
Sewer System Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-1

Planning Scenario Wastewater Flows
The Phase III Master Plan has three main planning scenarios: Existing, Background and GP2040. Each of these represent anticipated growth in San José, and therefore the anticipated sanitary flow within the system. This chapter covers what each of these scenarios are comprised of.

Table 3-1 Scenario Flow Comparison
Scenario Average Foul
Flow (MGD)
Average
Trade Flow
(MGD)
Average Base
Flow (MGD)
Average Total
(MGD)
Existing 57.24 15.92 10.16 83.32
Background 65.08 21.41 9.92 96.41
GP2040 78.74 27.31 9.92 115.97

3.1. Existing Scenario
The existing scenario represents the state of San José’s sanitary sewer system at the start of the all-pipe model update using data collected in 2017.

Wastewater Flow Components
There are three elements that wastewater flow is comprised of: rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow (RDII), base wastewater flow (BWF), and groundwater infiltration (GWI). RDII is stormwater intrusion and inflow that enters the sewer system via direct connections such as defects in pipes, laterals, and manholes; manhole cover pick holes; and illegal roof connections and building area drains.

RDII may lead to short-term peak flows in direct response to rainfall events. BWF includes any flow contributions from commercial, industrial, residential, and institutional sewer system users. GWI is groundwater that infiltrates into the sewer system via defects in pipes and manholes. GWI is generally seasonal in nature; however, it may be heavily affected by artificial groundwater recharge activities in the Santa Clara Valley. These three elements are illustrated in Figure 3-1.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-2

Figure 3-1 Wastewater Flow Components
Base Wastewater Flow Methodology
The primary data sources for base wastewater flow were Census 2010, water billing data from 2015- 2017, and the Santa Clara County Tax Assessor. Census data provided population, a key component to determining residential sanitary flow. Water billing data provided dwelling units and non-residential water use. Dwelling units are static, so only the latest year’s data was used. However, water use can vary year-by-year, so the average of all three years was used. Tax assessor data provided land use which determined non-residential diurnal patterns.

ESD maintains water use billing records for most parcels in the City. City facilities are not included in ESD’s records and were provided by CFAS as records from three utilities: Great Oaks Water Company, San José Municipal Water System and San José Water Company. The first step was to process all sources of water billing data into similar formatting and then apply the City’s GIS address locator to map the data to appropriate subcatchments.

Billing data was matched in Address Locator primarily by address and second arily by APN. While these two methods were effective for most of the billing addresses, some had to be manually matched, especially for newer developments, or billing to many individual units to a single parcel.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-3

Average Residential Flows
The model generated residential flows by calculating population and applying a gallon per capita per day (GPCD) factor to obtain the average flow out of a subcatchment. A diurnal pattern applied to the average modeled the changes in flow rate throughout a typical day.

Census 2010 had the necessary population data, but the smallest available area given is census block size, which typically contain between 600 and 3,000 people and is too large for the parcel level analysis.

An additional concern was the impact of data outliers, such as group quarters. Instead, larger census tracts were used to obtain population, which was then split into parcel size subcatchments.

The dwelling unit numbers from the billing data was used to re-distribute the census population into parcels. Each dwelling unit within a census block group was assumed to hold the same number of people. So all of the billing data within a census block group was summed and used to create a ratio of dwelling units per parcel. Then the population of the census block was distributed according to that ratio. Missing data was assumed to have the City average of three people per dwelling unit.

Population was fixed within the model after the initial distribution. Initial gallon per capita per day factor, diurnal pattern and GWI came from the Phase II model, but were adjusted during calibration.

Average Non-Residential Flows
Average non-residential is entered directly into the model. Similar to residential flow, a diurnal pattern is applied to the average to model the change over a day.

Non-residential water use billing is given in terms of hundred cubic feet ( HCF) over the billing period.

Water use billing during winter months (December through April) was used to approximate discharge into the sanitary system as that would minimize outdoor water use and therefore most closely correlate to sanitary discharge).

Like population for the residential flow, water use from the billing data was considered locked. However, there was no flow factor to apply for non-residential flow, and the diurnal pattern was determined by the land use. So for non-residential flows, the only parameter available to adjust was GWI.

Diurnal Profiles
ICM models flow changes over a day with a diurnal profile, an hourly factor over a 24-hour period that is applied to the average flow from a subcatchment. Residential and non -residential flows can have different diurnal patterns applied to them. The typical diurnal pattern has a high morning peak, and lower evening peak , which represent the typical peak water usage in a residence on starting the day and returning from work. Low points are mid -day when people are out of the house and late-night/early- morning when people are sl eeping. Phase II originally had 4 residential profiles: “ Peaky”, “ Equal”, “Reverse” and “Santa Clara” , representing variations on the typical diurnal. “Peaky” for example has a more pronounced morning peak, while “Reverse” has an evening peak higher than the morning peak.

Phase II had one general non -residential profile, “preliminary commercial”. Additionally, it had seven other non-residential profiles to represent specific operating hours of the large dischargers. For example, “16/7” would discharge consistently 16-hours every day, and nothing for the remaining 8 hours.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-4

The North San José Policy Area (NSJPA) update, as part of Phase II, focused on evaluating smaller diameter pipes serving smaller watersheds. Flows at these locations tend to be more variable and therefore have larger peaking factors, because small changes in flow would have a relatively large impact compared with a trunk pipe carrying large amounts of flow. Therefore, a fifth residential diurnal, “extra peak y”, was added for the NSJPA update.

All profiles were re -evaluated in Phase III, resulting in six new residential and 4 non -residential diurnal profiles. As with the NSJPA update, Phase III dealt with many meters with small, variable flows which led to expanding “extra peaky” to morning and evening versions, as well as “extreme” versions. A new naming convention was used to make it easier to interpret the pattern from the name. The new residential profiles were: “Equal Peak”, “Morning Peak”, “Evening P eak”, “Extra AM Peak”, “Extra PM Peak”, “Extreme AM Peak”.

The non -residential profiles were: “Preliminary Commercial”, “Business District”, “Hotel”, “Office”. “Preliminary Commercial” is the same general pattern from Phase II . It is applied to trade f low that doesn’t fall within the other categories. The other three were developed from City flow data. The large dischargers still have the specific operating hour patterns from Phase II.

The Phase III diurnals were developed using isolated flow meters with relatively homogenous drainage areas; by neighborhoods for residential and by land use for non-residential. Suitable flow metering sites were difficult to find. Small amounts of flow can have highly variable responses, and very small amounts of flow may not be accurately measured by the meter. However, sites with higher flow will often have a flows from a variety of areas, making it difficult to associate a pattern with a specific land use.

Figure 3-2 Residential Diurnal Profiles
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-5

Figure 3-3 Non-Residential Diurnal Profiles
Large Dischargers
Large dischargers are treated somewhat differently from regular customers since most of them are manufacturing facilities that operate in shifts and therefore have different sewer discharge patterns.

Oftentimes, a large discharger has much more specific operating times available than the generalized patterns used for smaller dischargers.

Large dischargers that were previously identified in Phase II were reviewed individually to determine if their operations had continued. Those that are still in operation and are discharging more than 20,000 gpd, were added to Phase III. One of the large dischargers, Maxim Integrated, closed their facility in 2015, and was therefore removed from the large discharger list.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-6

Winter Average (HCF per Month)
Monitored Industry Address 2015 2016 2017
ALSCO, INC. (Exchange Linen) 2275 Junction Ave 15.72 17.03 20.34 Clean Harbors San José, LLC 1021 Berryessa Rd 3.18 4.63 6.57 Dharma Realm Buddhist Assoc 11455 Clayton Rd 0.07 0.03 0.03 Eggo Company (Kelloggs Company) 475 Eggo Way 7.16 9.03 9.96 GE Mobile (Ionics) 5900 Silver Creek Valley Rd 49.48 47.45 41.57 Gordon Biersch Brewing 357 East Taylor St 12.13 14.31 17.59 Guadalupe Landfill
15999 Guadalupe Mines
Rd 3.83 4.2 7.52
Hitachi GST, Inc -Outfall 013 5601 Great Oaks Parkway 11.63 9.83 14.54 Hitachi GST, Inc -Outfall 100 5601 Great Oaks Parkway 0.03 1.4 0.02 Hitachi GST, Inc -Outfall 050 5601 Great Oaks Parkway 101.16 91.71 93.71 IBM Corp Santa Teresa 555 Bailey Ave 5.59 4.32 4.14
J. Lohr Winery 1000 Lenzen Ave 2.91 4.87 2.85
Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility
800 Thomas Foon Chew
Wy 8.28 13.2 12.98
Maxim Integrated Products 3725 North 1st St 69.28 -- -- Metcalf Energy Center, LLC 1 Blanchard Rd 121.21 97.11 75.28 Micrel Semiconductor, Inc. 1849 Fortune Dr 66.62 64.07 7.9 Mohawk Packing Company 1660 Old Bayshore Hwy 10.43 11.33 9.9 O.L.S. EnergyAgnews, Inc. 3800 Cisco Way 0.39 1.86 0.42 Philips Lumileds Lighting (formerly
Agilent Technologies) 350 West Trimble Rd 71.6 68.42 97.29 San José State University Cogeneration
Facility 436 E San Fernando St 11.33 12.85 7.23
Sanmina Corp Plant I 2101 O'Toole Ave 33.58 35.24 35.06 Sanmina Corp Plant II 2068 Bering Dr 50.03 46.73 43.96
Supertex 71 Vista Montana 7.62 -- --
Teltec Corp DBA Gorilla Circuits 1509 Berger Dr 24.3 29.3 23.36 Viasystems Corp (formerly:Merix San
José) 335 Turtle Creek Ct 10.77 10.42 12.72
Wafer Reclaim Service 2240 Ringwood Ave 14.85 18.19 14.33 WD Media, Inc. (Komag, Inc. Bldg 10) 1710 Automation Parkway 21.14 21.65 33.38 ALSCO, INC. (Exchange Linen) 2275 Junction Ave 15.72 17.03 20.34 Zero Waste Energy Development 685 Los Esteros Rd -- -- 1.71 Table 3-2 Large Dischargers
Tributary Agencies
Tributary agencies were added separately from the Flow Estimating Methodology section above. All tributary agencies in the model include flows for both existing and future scenarios.

West Valley Sanitation District : West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) provided the City with a copy of their sanitary sewer model. WVSD is considered to be mostly built -out, so a model of existing loads is Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows
3-7
sufficient for the City’s analysis. WVSD’s model required several adjustments before integrating into the City’s model:
• Minor invert adjustments to align with the City’s datum • Removal of redundant subcatchments already present in the City’s model • Converting the wastewater profile and connectivity to fit with the City’s formatting.

City of Santa Clara: City of Santa Clara provided the City inflow files of their model results based on six scenarios: existing loads under dry and wet weather; long-term loads under dry and wet weather with sanitary sewer upsizing; and long-term loads under dry and wet weather with sanitary sewer diversion.

Burbank, Cupertino and County Sanitary District: Burbank, Cupertino and County Sanitary District 2 & 3 are estimated from real estate data from RealQuest, including dwelling units for residential addresses, and square footage for non-residential addresses. Similar to City residential parcels, population is estimated from the number of dwelling units multiplied by the population density from the Census. Non-residential data is estimated from a flow coefficient applied to the square footage.

Subcatchment Loading to Sewer
To model sewer flow, the load point of every subcatchment must be defined. The connections points were generated from three methods: CCTV confirmation, GIS confirmation, and nearest eligible pipe:
• CCTV: The City’s condition assessment team has been tasked with conducting CCTV inspections for the sanitary system. In addition to recording pipe defects, they also keep GIS records of lateral lines found during the inspection. While this is very useful for seeing where laterals connect into the sanitary system, the upstream end of the lateral is still unknown so assumptions must still be made to link a parcel to a lateral. The sanitary sewer CCTV record was incomplete during the creation of the model, so many pipes connections could not be confirmed with this method.
• GIS: GIS maintains a feature layer of laterals, which covers most parcels in the City, but most do not have plan verification. Only laterals with an identified plan were matched with this method. • Nearest eligible: Parcels not matched to a sewer segment by the previous two methods were assigned to the nearest eligible pipe. Eligible pipes were less than or equal to 18-in in diameter, and were not pressurized. The requirement also eliminated siphon pipes, which were modeled as pressure lines. While not automatically disqualifying, railroad, major street, and creek crossings were identified for manual review.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-8

3.2. Background Scenario
Background scenario represents the expected near-term flows into the sanitary sewer system. It is made up of upcoming construction from the Key Economic Development Projects Map ( Private Development Projects Map (https://gis. sanjoséca.gov/maps/devprojects/)), which includes major projects under planning review, planning approved and under construction. Major projects are defined as residential projects greater than 50 dwelling units (DUs), commercial projects greater than 25,000 square feet and industrial projects greater than 75,000 square feet. Background flows are further supplemented with developments submitted for Master Plan review from Development Services.

The projects in this scenario are continuously updated with new projects being added as they are received.

Table 3-3 presents a summary of the background developments.

Developments are typically given in terms of DUs and square footage by land use. Each DU is assumed to discharge 192.4 gal/day. Non-residential flow is dependent on the building square footage and the land use of the development. That combined with the building square footage provides an average flow rate for the development.

Some tributary agencies provided their own future scenario estimates. For example: West Valley Sanitation District’s model included subcatchments with their long -term estimates; and Santa Clara’s inflow were given with both existing and long-term values. ABAG estimates account for the background growth outside of City boundaries.

Table 3-3 Background Scenario Summary

Dwelling
Unit
Additional
Foul Flow
(MGD)
Hotel
Room
Office (Sq
Ft)
Retail (Sq
Ft)
Other Non-
Residential
(Sq Ft)
Trade
Flow
(MGD)
Development
Reviews
13,749 2.76 550 6,527,705 112,557 1,466,863 1.2873 Key Economic
Development
Projects
19,715 3.79 2,182 16,298,071 7,965,841 6,940,464 4.3935 Grand Total 33,464 6.55 2,732 22,825,776 8,078,398 8,407,327 5.6808

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-9

Figure 3-4
Background
Developments
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows
3-10

3.3. GP2040 Scenario
The GP2040 scenario represents the expected sanitary flows in 2040. It incorporates the “Envision San José 2040 General Plan” (GP2040) with the Background scenario. North San José includes a more detailed plan, the “North San José Development Policy General Plan 2 040 Land Use/Transportation Diagram”, which further divides North San José growth area. Table 3-4 and Figure 3-5 summarize the growth areas incorporated into this scenario from the GP2040 report.

GP2040 provides planned dwelling unit and jobs by growth areas throughout the City. These growth areas are shown in maps Figures 3-5 through 3-10 and the anticipated growth from GP2040 is given in Table 3-4. The growth areas vary in size from a couple of acres up to several thousand acres. Many of these growth areas are too large to evaluate an all-pipe model working with parcel-level subcatchments. In order to utilize the growth areas for analysis, they were broken down and distributed to parcels.

The corrected population and trade flow were distributed to the parcels based on ratios of expected dwelling units or square footage growth. The GP2040 report presented land use designation density, in terms of dwelling units per acre (DU/AC and Floor Area Ratios (FAR. Table 3-5 summarizes the density assigned from the report.

Land uses of each parcel within a growth area were categorized as either: Residential, Employment, Mixed-Use or Other. DU/AC multiplied with a parcel’s area would determine the available DU growth of Residential and Mixed Use parcels. Likewise FAR multiplied with a parcel’s area determined the available square footage growth of Employment and Mixed Use parcels. Vacant land was prioritized so that all available growth was assigned there first. The rest of a growth area’s dwelling units and jobs would be distributed proportionally by ratio of available dwelling unit and ratio of available square footage accordingly.

Accounting for Growth
Because GP2040 was originally adopted in Novembe r 2011, and the Master Plan existing scenario was built from 2010 census with 2015-2017 water billing data, the planned capacity had to be reduced so that growth that had already taken place wouldn’t be double-counted with the planned growth.

Job growth was estimated through ABAG projections. ABAG data was given by census tract in 5-year intervals. The job adjustments were calculated from the difference in jobs between 2010 to 2020. Census tracts do not generally align with the growth areas, so jobs were distributed using an area ratio. Dwelling unit growth came from a comparison of Census 2010 dwelling units with the City’s 2015-2017 billing data used to create the existing scenario.

Additionally, developments from the Background scenario had to be considered in the GP2040 scenario.

The model assumed that developments from the Background scenario were part of the expected GP2040 growth, which meant that: growth capacity had to be reduced by any Background developments within the growth area; and the new development wouldn’t be altered so none of the new GP2040 growth could be assigned to that parcel.

Planning Areas and North San José
Some ar eas were model ed for GP2040 differently . Diridon and Goog le Village wer e bo th large development plan s which had been reviewed by the Mast er Plan team. These developments Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-11

encompassed many parcels, over several city blocks and had more detail than what was available for most GP2040 growth areas. Subcatchments for these areas were brought in directly from their earlier reviews.

The GP2040 report presented North San José as a single large growth area. The “Nor th San José Development Policy General Plan 2040 Land Use/Transportation Diagram” was used instead. The diagram further split up the North San José into Industrial Core Area, Transit/Employment Residential Districts, Urban Villages, etc.

GP2040 flows are updated constantly as new developments are reviewed. Anytime a new development is built within a growth area, the development reduces the remaining growth capacity. The distributed flow is then re-calculated based and all other parcels within the growth area are updated.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-12

Figure 3-5a
GP2040 Growth Areas
Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-13

Figure 3-6b
GP2040 Growth Areas
East
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-14

Figure 3-7c
GP2040 Growth Areas
North
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-15

Figure 3-9d
GP2040 Growth Areas
South
Figure 3-8d
GP2040 Growth Areas
South
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-16

Figure 3-10e
GP2040 Growth Areas
West
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-17

Table 3-4 GP2040 Growth Areas
ID Name Type Jobs Housing
DT Downtown Downtown 48500 10360
ECI Evergreen Campus Industrial Employment Area 12000 0 EG East Gish Employment Area 2300 0
ICA Industrial Core Area Employment Area 0 0
BIBP Berryessa International Business Park Employment Area 10155 0 NCV North Coyote Valley Employment Area 50000 0
NE New Edenvale Employment Area 16000 0
NSJ North San José Employment Area 100000 32640
OE Old Edenvale Employment Area 31000 780
OETEC Old Edenvale Transit Employment Center Employment Area 0 0 SR Senter Road Employment Area 2275 0
DTTEC Downtown Transit Employment Center Employment Area 0 0 M Mabury Employment Area 2265 0
MBC Monterey Business Corridor Employment Area 1095 0
VT1 Lundy/Milpitas BART Employment Area 28400 0
VT5 Santa Clara/Airport West (FMC) Employment Area 1600 0 C42 Story Rd Employment Area (Former
Village)
7020 0
C45 County Fairgrounds Employment Area (Former
Village)
4120 0
VT25 W. Capitol Ex/Monterey Rd Employment Area (Former
Village)
870 0
VR16 S. Capitol Av/Capitol Ex Employment Area (Former
Village)
260 0
VR24 Monterey Hy/Senter Rd Employment Area (Former
Village)
1280 0
VR26 E. Capitol Ex/McLaughlin Av Employment Area (Former Village)
630 0
VR27 W. Capitol Ex/Vistapark Dr Employment Area (Former Village)
680 0
VT7 Blossom Hill Rd/Monterey Rd Employment Area (Former Village)
1940 0
CHSP Communications Hill Specific Plan Area 1700 2775
MSP Midtown Specific Plan Area 1000 1600
TSSP Tamien Station Area Specific Plan Area 600 1060
ESP Evergreen Specific Plan Area 0 25
JTSP Jackson-Taylor (Residential Strategy) Specific Plan Area 100 1190 MGSP Martha Gardens Specific Plan Area 0 1760
AMP Alviso (Master Plan) Specific Plan Area 25520 70
CR31 W. San Carlos St (East) Urban Village 380 480
CR32 Stevens Creek Bl (Mid) Urban Village 950 1750
CR32 Stevens Creek Bl (West) Urban Village 750 810
CR32 Stevens Creek Bl (East) Urban Village 700 1300
C34 Tully Rd/S. King Rd Urban Village 1900 1000
C35 Valley Fair/Santana Row Urban Village 2410 2635
C36 Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village 3000 2500
C37 Santa Teresa Bl/Bernal Rd Urban Village 1500 524
C38 Winchester Bl Urban Village 4600 2000
C39 S. Bascom Av (North) Urban Village 1440 1560
C40 S. Bascom Av (South) Urban Village 1705 805
C41 Saratoga Av Urban Village 3605 1115
C43 S. De Anza Bl Urban Village 2140 845
C44 Camden Av/Hillsdale Av Urban Village 3500 1000
CR20 N. 1st St Urban Village 2520 1678
CR21 Southwest Ex Urban Village 4965 3007
CR28 E. Santa Clara St (West of 17th St) Urban Village 795 850 CR28 E. Santa Clara St (5WBT Plan Area) Urban Village 605 650 CR29 Alum Rock Av (NBD Area) Urban Village 870 1010
CR29 Alum Rock Av (East of 680) Urban Village 1010 1175 CR29 Alum Rock Av (5WBT Area) Urban Village 270 310
CR30 The Alameda (West) Urban Village 440 400
CR31 W. San Carlos St (Mid) Urban Village 260 330
CR31 W. San Carlos St (West) Urban Village 340 435
N77 Rincon South 1 Urban Village 0 0
N78 Rincon South 2 Urban Village 0 0
V47 Landess Av/Morrill Av Urban Village 600 270
V48 Piedmont Rd/Sierra Rd Urban Village 400 150
V49 McKee Rd/Toyon Av Urban Village 400 180
V60 Santa Teresa Bl/Snell Av Urban Village 500 140
V61 Bollinger Rd/Miller Av Urban Village 400 160
V62 Bollinger Rd/Lawrence Ex Urban Village 200 70
V63 Hamilton Av/Meridian Av Urban Village 1000 710
V64 Almaden Ex/Hillsdale Av Urban Village 800 370
V65 Foxworthy Av/Meridian Av Urban Village 700 710
V67 Branham Ln/Meridian Av Urban Village 650 310
V68 Camden Av/Branham Ln Urban Village 650 450
V69 Kooser Rd/Meridian Av Urban Village 850 350
V70 Camden Av/Kooser Rd Urban Village 1080 623
V50 McKee Rd/White Rd Urban Village 300 168
V52 E. Capitol Ex/Foxdale Dr Urban Village 400 212
V53 Quimby Rd/S. White Rd Urban Village 500 225
V54 Aborn Rd/San Felipe Rd Urban Village 500 310
V55 Evergreen Village Urban Village 600 385
V57 S. 24th St/William Ct Urban Village 415 217
V58 Monterey Rd/Chynoweth Av Urban Village 1200 120
V59 Santa Teresa Bl/Cottle Rd Urban Village 1090 313
VR12 N. Capitol Av/Hostetter Rd Urban Village 500 1230
VR13 N. Capitol Av/Berryessa Rd Urban Village 2022 1465 VR14 N. Capitol Av/Mabury Rd Urban Village 250 700
VR15 N. Capitol Av/McKee Rd Urban Village 2812 1930
VR9 Race St Light Rail (West of Sunol) Urban Village 2207 1937 VT2 Berryessa BART Urban Village 22100 4814
VT3 Five Wounds BART Urban Village 4050 845
VT6 Blossom Hill Rd/Hitachi Urban Village 0 2930
VT4 The Alameda (East) Urban Village 1610 411
VR17 Oakridge Mall and Vicinity (Cambrian/Pioneer) Urban Village 3375 2712 VR17 Oakridge Mall and Vicinity (Edenvale) Urban Village 5715 4487 VR18 Blossom Hill Rd/Cahalan Av Urban Village 1780 600
VR19 Blossom Hill Rd/Snell Av Urban Village 2598 770
VR22 Arcadia/Eastridge Urban Village 3690 250
VR23 E. Capitol Ex/Silver Creek Rd Urban Village 900 1000 VR8 Curtner Light Rail/Caltrain Urban Village 1380 1440 VR9 Race St Light Rail (Reed & Graham Site) Urban Village 700 675 V71 Meridian Av/Redmond Av Urban Village 505 120
VR10 Capitol Ex/Hy 87 Light Rail Urban Village 2768 1195 VR11 Penitencia Creek Light Rail Urban Village 1013 920 Diridon Diridon Plan Urban Village 0 0
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Planning Scenario
Wastewater Flows

3-18

Master Plan
Category
GP2040 Land Use Designation Residential
Density
FAR

DU/AC

Employment Commercial Downtown 0 15
Employment Transit Employment Center 0 12
Employment Regional Commercial 0 12
Employment Combined Industrial Commercial 0 12
Employment Industrial Park 0 10
Employment Light Industrial 0 1.5
Employment Heavy Industrial 0 1.5
Employment Urban Village Commercial 0 8
Mixed Use Downtown 350 15
Mixed Use Urban Village 250 10
Mixed Use Mixed Use Commercial 50 3
Mixed Use Transit Residential 250 12
Mixed Use Urban Residential 95 4
Mixed Use Mixed Use Neighborhood 30 2
Mixed Use Neighborhood/Community Commercial 250 10
Other Public/Quasi-Public 0 0
Other Transportation and Utilities 0 0
Other Agriculture 0.05 0.35
Other Private Recreation and Open Space 0 0
Other Open Space, Parklands and Habitat 0 0
Other Open Hillside 0.05 0.02
Residential Residential Neighborhood 8 0.7
Residential Rural Residential 2 0.35
Residential Lower Hillside 0.2 0.35
Table 3-5 Land Use Designations

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-1

Flow Calibration
Model calibration is the process of comparing model -computed flows to observed flows, then adjusting model parameters to fit the model to actual flows. Through calibration, modelers can verify that the model reflects real conditions in the sewer system. The following section describes the calibration process and results.

4.1. Past and Current Flow Monitoring Programs
The City has deployed several monitoring programs since the completion of Phase II for various purposes including: flow analysis for development appli cations; flow confirmation for capacity improvement projects; and flow split studies to better understand system configurations. While not all of this data was specifically taken for Phase III, some it contributed to the flow calibration of the latest model.

Flow monitoring data provide the basis for comparing and refining model flows to better match actual flows measured in the field. In 2008, the City deployed 132 flow meters across the entire system for a period of 4 months; the meters collected flow and rain data that was used for model calibration for the Phase II project. Upon completion of the Phase II project, the City initiated a long-term flow monitoring program with ADS Environmental Services (ADS) in July 2017 that consisted of 54 sites and 16 rain gauges at strategic locations throughout the City s o that the City could continue to monitor flow trends in its system. An overview of the long-term flow meter locations is shown in Figure 4-1.

As of completion of Phase III, the City continues to maintain the sanitary flow monitoring program. The long-term flow monitoring program had been re-examined and re-prioritized, leading to removal of some sites and addition of others. Overall, the program has been reduced to 36 sites and the rain gauges remain unchanged. Table 4-2 and Table 4-1 summarize the current long-term flow monitoring program.

Additionally, the City continues to install temporary flow meters . These can be either dry-weather flow (DWF) meters which typically collect two weeks of data or wet -weather flow (WWF) meters which can collect data for several months to capture a suitable rain event. Temporary meters are not necessarily meant for calibration; they can be used for confirmation of a CIP project, or investigation of field conditions. Even when calibration is not the focus of a temporary meter, the data can be used to refine the model and to verify capacity improvement needs. Similarly, DOT currently has approximately 25 meters installed across the city to investigate and monitor field conditions.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-2

RG ID Location
R01 Library - Almaden (6445 Camden Ave)
R03 Library - Santa Teresa (290 International
Cir)
R04 Fire Station - #18 (4430 Monterey Hwy)
R06B Fire Station - #21 (2100 S White Rd)
R09 Fire Station - #23 (1771 Via Cinco de Mayo)
R10 Park - Houge (NE/C Twilight Dr & White
Oaks Ave)
R11 Park - San Tomas (San Tomas Aquino Rd at
Valerie)
R13 Fire Station - #10 (511 S Monroe St)
R14 Utility pole (SW/C of Bascom Ave & Dry
Creek Rd)
R15 Pump Station Storm - Chynoweth (890
Chynoweth Ave)
R17 Fire Station - #26 (528 Tully Rd)
R18 Fire Station - #16 (2001 S King Rd)
R19 Fire Station - #20 (1433 Airport Blvd)
R21 Pump Station - Spreckles (3288 Spreckles
Ave)
R22 Library - Calabazas (1230 S Blaney Ave)
R23 Fire Station - #11 (2840 The Villages
Parkway)
Table 4-1 Rain Gauge Sites

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-3

FM ID Location Pipe Dia (in)
Active
BAY_02 McKee Rd at N 33rd St 24
BKW_02 Lundy Ave near Murphy Ave 30
C_203A Stockton Ave 21
C_207 Bassett St between Terraine St and Hwy 87 27
CTI_01 N 5th St between Washington St & E Empire St 36 x 54 CTI_02 7th and St John Street 72
CTI_03 N 9th St between Washington St & E Empire St 54
CTI_05 5th St between Empire St and Jackson St 36 x 54
DNC_01 Hillsdale Ave at Darya Ln 48
EDV_02 Monterey Rd, south of Senter Rd 54
FSR_05 Blackford Ave at Rebecca Way 27
FSR_06 N Cypress Ave south of Forest Ave 24
FSR_07 San Tomas Expwy south of W Campbell Ave 30
FSR_08 San Tomas Aquino Rd south of Keith Dr 24
KSA_03 E San Antonio St at San Antonio Pl (west of Lynette Way) 36 LMP-4 E Brokaw Rd west of Bering Dr 15
Santa Clara W Trimble Rd west of Orchard Pkwy 48
Seaboard Seaboard Av & east of 101 12
EC_203 San Antonio St and 16th St 42
EC_204 Story Rd and Remillard Ct 46
L84 Zanker Road northwest of Plumeria Dr (Structure B) 72 L85 Zanker Road northwest of Plumeria Dr (Structure B) 72 L86 Zanker Road northwest of Plumeria Dr (Structure B) 80 N_206 1st St between Headquarters Dr and Lamplighter Way 30 N_207 Trimble Rd between Zanker Rd and Junction Ave 24
N_215 Brokaw Rd between Rogers Ave and Junction Ave 42
N_216 Old Bayshore Highway 30
S_211 Winfield Blvd between Terrace View Dr and Almaden Lake Dr 33 S_215 Pomona Ave between San José Ave and Barnard Ave 46 S_216 Almaden Expressway between W Alma Ave and Stonegate Cir 28 S_224 7th St between Alma Ave and Phelan Ave 66
W_215 North end of Vicar Ln 34.63
WC_202 Bel Air Ave and Garden Dr 42
WC_203 Hedding St and NE/O Dana Ave 30
WC_205 Northup St just north of Paula St 32.25
Removed
BKW_07A Berryessa Rd & Coyote Cir 16
BKW_07B San José Municipal Golf Course 15
DNC_03 Vacant area north of Hwy 85, between Colony Field Dr and Barron Park Dr 36 DNC_04 Intersection of Hyde Park Dr & Vista Park Dr 42
EDV_01 Senter Rd between Alma Ave and Phelan Ave, adjacent to Kelley Park 24 EVG_02 Flanigan Dr between Alvin Ave and S King Rd 42
EVG_03 Enesco Ave at Othello Ave 36
FSR_04 Forest Ave at Harold Ave 30
FSR_09 Newhall St at Coleman Ave 21
JLS_06 Union Ave north of Assunta Way 24
JLS_07 Potrero Dr at La Jolla Ave (parallel to JLS_08) 18 KSA_02 S King Rd at Kammerer Ave, adjacent to Rancho del Pueblo Golf Course 30 KSA_04 Cunningham Ave between Wonderama Dr and Supreme Dr 27 KSA_05 Intersection of E Williams Ct & McLaughlin Ave 15 L87 Zanker Road northwest of Plumeria Dr (Structure B) 58 Monterey Intersection of Cottle Rd & Beswick Dr 30
MTR_02 Snell Ave at Hillcap Ave 30
MTR_04 Cottle Rd & Hwy 85 33
Riverside Beswick Dr and Herlong Ave 28
S_204A Chesbro Ave b/w Alamo Dr & Chemeketa Dr 18
WLG_01 Three Creeks trail, parallel to Lincoln Ave, Leona Ct and Coe Ave 18 Table 4-2 Long-Term Meter Sites
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-4

Figure 4-1 Flow
Monitoring Program
Long-Term Meters
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-5

4.2. Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Dry weather flow calibration involves determining the per-capita flow rates, 24-hour diurnal flow profiles, and groundwater infiltration rates in the model that result in a best match to monitored flows for the average dry period. In a complex system such as the City’s where there are numerous flow split locations, DWF calibration also involves verifying and adjusting the routing of flow through the model system.

A typical DWF calibration effort would involve conducting a systemwide metering program to collect flow data from a dry period of about two to four weeks . However, the City has been very proactive in conducting regular flow monitoring programs in the past and has already built a robust library of flow data that is fully digitized in its ICM software . Because the expansion to an all -pipe network under Phase III greatly increased the network, historical flow data was used to provide a basis of calibration for as much of the system as possible.

A schematic was developed within ArcMap to indicate the hydraulic relationships among the meter basins so that modelers could better understand the impact of flow splits and how calibration in one basin could influence basins downstream. Minor flow splits are identified by assuming the parcels with Phase II calibration produce results with reasonably accurate flows. At each manhole, the ratio of modeled peak flow of all outgoing pipe is compared. Any outgoing pipe with less than 20% is conside red minor and removed from the schematic. Thus, only pipes carrying a proportionally substantial amount of flow would remain. City staff invested substantial time and resources into self -learning and developing this schematic, and it proved to be a power ful tool in supporting the calibration work. With the aid of the schematic, staff filtered out suitable meters with the following process:
• Review Data Quality: Flow, velocity, and depth data from all meters installed since 2008 were reviewed against a lis t of criteria such as : constant dry weather, consistent flow, clear diurnal patterns, etc. Meters that met these criteria were compiled into flow reports in ICM. Meters that did not meet these criteria were removed from the list.

• Evaluate Flow Trends: Some locations in the system were metered multiple times in the past.

Data from each flow monitoring program was compared and evaluated. Meters that showed inconsistent flows between two periods of time may indicate a change of connectivity upstream (e.g., new flow split) ; the addition of flow from new developments; or CIP diversions upstream, thus rendering the meter unusable for calibration. Meters with inconsistent flows were removed from the list.

• Identify Lead Meters: Lead meters are meters that best reflect the current hydraulic condition of a sewer line. A sewer line might have multiple suitable meters to choose from, and if the flow has been consistent, one single meter was selected to be the lead meter for that line or area for the purpose of calibration.

• Select DWF Data Period: A 7-day period of dry weather was selected for each lead meter to be used for calibration. Ideally, such a period would begin on a Friday for ease of wet weather calibration and simulations later; but in the event that this could not be achieved, data from any 7-day period was pulled out and re-arranged to begin on a Friday.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-6

• Normalize Data: All selected DWF data was then normalized to start on June 1, 2040 (Friday) to allow for easy hydrograph comparison in ICM.

At the end of this process, a total of 577 lead meters were selected. The flow, velocity and depth data were compiled in into ICM flow survey files . Subcatchments were assigned to each lead meter using ArcMap’s geometric network tools. Flow splits were evaluated similarly to the creation of the schematic (Preliminary model results were used to estimate flow in the system. A split branch that accounted for less than 20% of flow into the branch was considered minor and blocked.) With the splits evaluated, the network could be traced upstream from a lead meter without subcatchments that do not actually contribute. By tracing all contributing subcatchments between two lead meters, an effective delineated basin could be created. Figure 4-5 shows the calibration basins created by this process.

For subcatchments that are upstream of a flow split such that its flow could end up in both meters, a combined meter basin is assigned. Some subcatchments, on the other hand, have no meter downstream of its loading points; these are mostly located in the north area by the Regional Wastewater Facility. These subcatchments were assigned no meter basins. Some basins would be very small and removed or appended onto an adjacent basin. The initial lead meter basins would be whittled down to a total of 448 for DWF calibration. DWF model parameters, described in more detail below, were adjusted in the model until an acceptable match was achieved between the modeled data and the metered data for each basin:
• GPCD (Connectivity): Residential flow in the model is estimated by multiplying the population in each parcel with a per capita water usage rate. Population is considered fixed within the model because it comes from a solid source (census and billing data). Per capita water usage is unknown and therefore a suitable factor to adjust residential flow. It is measured in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and is assigned under the “connectivity” parameter in ICM. According to this DWF calibration effort, the City has a gpcd range of 35 to 80, with an average of 52. This is in line with the average gpcd for most cities in the Bay Area. Figure 4-3 shows the distribution of gpcd across the City.

• Wastewater Diurnal Profile: The wastewater diurnal profile represents the flow pattern in residential dry weather flow over a typical 24-hour period on an hourly basis. Diurnal profiles are defined for both weekdays and weekends; and due to the size and diversity of the City, a total of 12 diurnal profiles were developed during calibration to more accurately represent patterns in different residential areas.

• Non-Residential Flow (Trade Flow) : Non-residential flow is the average water usage by non - residential users, such as offices, retail stores, hospitals, etc. The model refers to this to as “trade flow” and is measured in MGD. Non-residential flow is estimated using water billing data.

• Trade Flow Profile: Similar to wastewater diurnal profiles, trade flow profile refers to change in non-residential dry weather flow over a typical 24-hour period on an hourly basis. Diurnal profiles are defined for both weekdays and weekends and are developed to represent typical commercial patterns (e.g., offices, hospitals, etc.) and industrial (e.g., manufacturers) patterns.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-7

• Groundwater infiltration: Groundwater infiltration (GWI) is an important component for both dry and wet weather flows. It fluctuates seasonally depending on the elevation of the groundwater table relative to the elevation of the pipes in a system, as well as the condition of those pipes.

Groundwater depletes during prolonged droughts or from heavy usage, which could result in a reduction of GWI . Likewise, if an area is subject to heavy rain s or a groundwater recharge program, GWI may increase because of raised groundwater table. Areas with newer pipes also usually result in less GWI, whereas areas with older pipes would expect higher GWI. GWI is referred to as “base flow” in the model and is assigned as a constant flow to each meter basin in order to match the minimum metered flow. The overall GWI for the basin can then be divided by the total contributing area of a meter basin (the sewered portion of the basin) to represent a unit flow rate in gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac). Figure 4-4 shows a map of the modeled infiltration throughout the City. Table 4-4 summarizes the groundwater infiltration distribution.

For Phase III, the modeling team aimed to achieve a match of 10% between the modeled flow and metered flow. However, calibration cannot simply match model data to metered data. Metered data may exhibit abnormal patterns, perhaps due to disruption of the meter sensors or real impacts on typical flow such as holidays or sporting events. Furthermore, since the calibration for a basin will impact the flow rates downstream, meters will sometimes contradict each other.

In such cases, staff would need to use engineering judgement to decide on the validity of the data. The model can be re -examined; for example double -checking flow splits, or population/trade flow assumptions. If the data cannot be reconciled, staff will have to decide on whether to accept a larger acceptance threshold or discard that data and match those basins to another meter instead.

Figure 4-2 presents dry-weather calibrated data. The metered flow is shown as the blue line and modeled flow is shown as the red line.

Figure 4-2 Dry-Weather Calibration at Meter 12.01.030
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-8

Figure 4-3
Modeled GPCD
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-9

Figure 4-4
Modeled GWI
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-10

Table 4-3 Dry Weather Flow Calibration Summary
Area DWF
Meter
Count
Populatio
n
Flow (MGD) Connectivity (gpcd)
Residentia
l
Non-
Residentia
l
Groundwa
ter
Infiltration
Range Average
Central 85 111,407 6.72 3.68 3.36 30 - 80 58.4
North 75 115,634 6.31 2.62 1.35 35 - 75 55.5
South 84 297,309 15.78 3.50 2.83 40 - 80 53.8
East 102 295,658 14.35 2.30 1.66 40 - 75 48.8
West 89 178,697 9.37 1.97 0.04 40 - 85 52.3
Citywide 435 998,706 52.53 14.07 9.23 30 - 85 52.1

Table 4-4 Groundwater Infiltration Distribution Summary Area DWF
Meter
Count
Contributi
ng Area
(acre)
Groundwater Infiltration (gpd/ac)
0-100 100-500 500-1000 1000-5000 >5000
Central 85 7,386 81.5% 8.3% 1.3% 8.1% 0.9%
North 75 7,633 51.9% 42.5% 4.8% 0.9% 0.0%
South 84 18,147 83.4% 10.1% 3.3% 3.1% 0.1%
East 102 16,495 82.1% 13.2% 3.1% 1.5% 0.0%
West 89 9,811 96.6% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Citywide 435 59,472 80.9% 13.8% 2.6% 2.5% 0.1%

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-11

Figure 4-5a
Dry Weather Flow
Calibration Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-12

Figure 4-5a
Dry Weather Flow
Calibration Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-13

Figure 4-5a
Dry Weather Flow
Calibration Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-14

Figure 4-5a
Dry Weather Flow
Calibration Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-15

Figure 4-5a
Dry Weather Flow
Calibration Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-16

4.3. Wet Weather Flow Calibration
Rainfall induced inflow and infiltration (RDI/I) can impact flows in a sanitary system. Therefore, accurate precipitation data is as important as accurate sewer monitoring data when determining the magnitude and characteristics of RDI/I entering the sewer system.

Rain Data
In order to analyze significant flow responses to rainfall and changes in rainfall patterns, the City utilized data from the 16 rain gauges in its long-term metering program. City staff reviewed rain and flow meter data to select suitable storms for the P hase III wet -weather calibration. The goal was to select high intensity storms that coincided with a good numbers of active flow meters with good RDI/I responses.

Intensity-duration-frequency analysis was used to classify the severity of the storms. Figure 4-6 shows the DDF analysis of the storms at the Airport rain gauge. Five of the most severe storms were chosen for further data processing:
• 1/15/2010-1/25/2010
• 11/25/2014-12/25/2014
• 2/5/2015-2/12/2015
• 1/1/2016-1/31/2016
• 1/1/2017-2/28/2017

Figure 4-6 DDF Analysis for Selected Storms

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Rainfall (in)
Duration
DDF Analysis for RG19 (Airport)
County 2-yr Storm
County 5-yr Storm
County 10-yr Storm
Storm on Dec 11, 2014
Storm on Feb 06, 2015
Storm on Jan 06, 2016
Storm on Jan 07, 2017
Storm on Feb 20, 2017
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-17

The City subcontracted HDR to acquire radar rain data for the selected storms. HDR collected radar data from the National Weather Service’s Doppler Dual -Polarization Next Generation Radar and corrected it against rain gauge data to produce a Gauge-Adjusted Radar Rainfall (GARR) grid that could be used in the model. HDR used the City’s permanent rain gauges, along with 4 gauges from other sources. The GARR data was given in 1 km x 1 km grid at 5 -min intervals over the City of San José’s service region, approximately 180 square miles. Figure 4-7 shows the results of the Feb 19-22, 2017 storm and the rain gauges used for adjustment.

The subcatchments were initially delineated based on selected flow meters. There were a total of 137 sub-basins created: 48 from long-term meters and 89 from temporary meters that captured data during one of the major storms.

City staff then adjusted RDI/I parameters in the model to achieve a best-match between the modeled flow and metered flow for each WWF meter basin. RDI/I sewer flows are defined by the magnitude, shape, and timing of the RDI/I response. RDI/I varies depending on many factors, including the magnitude and intensity of the storm event, area topography, type of soil, and t he condition of the sewers, manholes, and sewer service laterals. Within the model, there are two parameters to adjust:
• Contributing Area: Contributing area, different from Total Area, is how ICM determines how much rain lands within a subcatchment. For most subcatchments, Contributing Area and Total Area are equivalent. In reality, RDI/I can only enter the sanitary sewer where sanitary sewer pipes are present. Therefore, large subcatchments with limited plumbing such as golf courses or parks, need a reduced contributing area. Contributing Area is a minor part of calibration because adjustments are limited to those large subcatchments.

Figure 4-7
Rainfall Distribution, February 19-22,
2017 Storm
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-18

• R-values: R -values represent a percentage of the rainfall falling on the contributing area of a subcatchment becoming o utflow according to a set response, as illustrated in Figure 4-8.

Summing all of the component hydrographs for the entire duration of the rainfall event results in the total RDI/I hydrograph for the event for that subcatchment. Note that although the “slow” RDI/I component can contribute significantly to the total RDI/I volume, the “fast” component has the biggest impact on the magnitude of the peak wet weather flow. Phase II started with three rain response patterns; a fourth faster response was added for the creation of the North San José Addendum. Phase III added a fifth slower response pattern.

Figure 4-8 RDI/I Hydrograph Components

There was less flow data for Phase III than Phase II, which had a major effort to collect wet-weather flow data prior to calibration. In order to maintain the resolution of Phase II, the Phase III and Phase II calibrations were merged. The original 65 basins divided into 194 basins comprised of: 137 MPP2 basins, 52 WVSD basins, and 5 temporary meter basins which captured a significant rain response from storms in 2017.. The newly split basins had their r -values proportionally adjusted. Figure 4-10 shows the WWF basins developed for Phase III. The subcatchments are colored by the original 137 subcatchment delineations. The sub-basin borders show the 194 basins used for re-distribution.

Figure 4-9 presents wet-weather calibrated data. The metered flow is shown as the blue line and modeled flow is shown as the red line. This is only one of the storms, from early 2017.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-19

Figure 4-9 WWF Calibration at Meter FSR06
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-20

Figure 4-10a
Wet Weather Calibration
Basins Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-21

Figure 4-11b
Wet Weather Calibration
Basins East
Figure 4-12c
Wet Weather Calibration
Basins North
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-22

Figure 4-13d
Wet Weather Calibration
Basins South
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Flow Calibration

4-23

Figure 4-14e
Wet Weather Calibration
Basins West
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-1

Capacity Evaluation
Sewer capacity was evaluated for specific flow resulting from the various scenarios from Chapter 3 in combination with system performance criteria. This chapter covers some assumptions made for generating the design flow, the City’s performance criteria, and the results of applying the criteria to the model.

5.1. Design Flow Assumptions
The gpcd for residential areas were assumed to remain consistent with the calibrated rate; any future residential developments would be modeled with the same gpcd and wastewater profiles as what was determined from calibration. This assumes that any new developments would continue to use a similar flow and pattern as the surrounding neighborhood.

Similarly, the wet-weather parameters were assumed to remain consistent through all scenarios. This assumes that new developments would not cause any net change in rainfall response; any deterioration will be offset by repair and rehabilitation.

Design Storm
A design storm is used to simulate peak wet weather flow condition to test system capacity and determine the size and scope of needed projects. The City uses a 10-year, 24-hour storm event, meaning that over 24-hours, the average rainfall intensity would be the highest expected for a 10-year period based on historical rainfall data. Another way to interpret it is to say that each year, there is a 10% chance that the storm of this magnitude may occur; however, it does not mean that there cannot be multiple storms of this magnitude in any given year. To represent geographic differences in rainfall across the City, a isohyetal map was used (Figure 5-1) to apply a factor to the design storm. Figure 5-2 shows a comparison of the design storm at three different areas in the City. Areas near high elevation, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and west, and Diablo Range to the east, tend to have high precipitation. Central and north San José, as it nears the San Francisco Bay, is flatter and tends to have lower precipitation.

Phase I used a 10-year, 24-hour storm, with 1-hour and 6-hour 10-year events, included within the 24- hour event. This storm was based on the Santa Clara County intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curve, representing rainfall statistics at the San José International Airport. The design storm was scaled to an isohyetal map of average annual rainfall from the Sanitary Sewer Infiltration / Inflow Analysis for the Cities of San José and Santa Clara and Tributary Agencies report, created by Consoer, Townsend & Associates in 1974.

Phase II updated the design storm based on the Santa Clara County California Drainage Manual released by Schaaf & Wheeler in 2007. The manual included updated mean annual precipitation isohyetal lines from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and updated, distinct IDF curves for each mean annual precipitation area. Furthermore, the manual included a 24-hour design storm based on an actual event from December 1955.

In 2018 AECOM completed a new 10-year 24-hour design storm for the Storm Sewer Master Plan.

Sanitary Master Plan adopted the design storm for Phase III. This design storm came from the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s work, which incorporated historic data from 40 rain gauges between 1960 Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-2

and 2011. Per the memorandum’s recommendation, the previous isohyetal map from the Santa Clara County California Drainage Manual was reused to spatially distribute the design storm.

The design storm was timed such that peak rainfall response would align with typical peak wastewater flows in most areas of the system (“peak-on-peak”). A peak-on-peak analysis would maximize demand placed on the sewer system and provide a more conservative evaluation of the system’s capacity. As such, the design storm was set to peak at 8 AM on a weekend.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-3

Figure 5-2 Phase III Design Storm Comparison
0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1

1.2 1.4

1.6Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
Hour
MAP 13-14 MAP 14-15 MAP 22-24
Figure 5-1 Mean
Precipitation Over
San José
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-4

5.2. Sewer Criteria Comparison by Municipalities
The Phase III update presented an opportunity to re-evaluate the criteria used to determine whether a sewer line was needed. Staff compared the sewer criteria for several California agencies and applied them to the Phase III model. Table 5-1 summarizes the criteria and triggered projects when applied to the Phase III model and Figure 5-3 shows the triggered pipe segments under the existing, dry-weather scenario. As can be seen, San José’s Phase II criteria tended to select fewer pipes than other agencies, except for Fullerton. Fullerton’s criteria is dependent solely on freeboard. While that may be sufficient for preventing SSO’s, that would ignore the problems caused by pipes under constant surcharge, such as sewer gas build up and odor issues.

Several other agencies also ap plied different criteria depending on specific conditions. Chula Vista, Escondido and Santa Ana all used 12 -in as the cutoff point for applying a more lenient criterion. Santa Clara also separates its criterion, but is unique in that it depended on groun d cover instead of pipe size.

These adjustments are sensible in that larger / deeper pipes can be less conservative without risking SSO’s.

San José’s previous Phase II criteria had a similar separation for 18-in pipes.

One of the key differences between the San José’s criteria and the other agencies is that San José compares flow and flow capacity of the system, while other agencies compare depth and pipe size. While the depth comparison appears to be more conservative, it tends to over select pipe segments as it can be triggered by bottleneck conditions downstream. In a situation like that, a project would not relieve system capacity.

Staff decided that the overall procedure set by Phase II using flow capacity as the primary guide for determining capacity provided more satisfactory results. There was no compelling reason to make minor changes like tweaking the percent capacity considered to trigger. Ultimately, the Phase II criteria was re- used for Phase III.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-5

Table 5-1 Hydraulic Criteria Comparison

DWF CRITERIA WWF CRITERIA Triggered Projects
Depth Freeboard Depth Freeboard Length DWF
Projects (ft)
Length WWF
Projects (ft)
Chula
Vista
<=12” diameter n/a n/a 70% n/a n/a 610,978 >12” diameter n/a 85% n/a Escondido <=12” diameter 50% n/a 75% n/a 536,234 589,391 >12” diameter 75% n/a n/a Fullerton 2 ft 5 ft 2 ft 5 ft 38,834 129,132
Los
Angeles
75% n/a 197,019 n/a
San Diego 100% n/a 100% n/a 112,935 391,320
Santa Ana <12” diameter 50% n/a 100% n/a 536,234 324,154 >=12” diameter 75% n/a 2 ft 5 ft Santa
Clara
<6 ft cover 100% n/a 100% n/a 112,935 391,293 >6 ft cover n/a 1 ft n/a Sonoma 100% n/a n/a 5 ft 112,935 54,528
San José
Phase II
>18” diameter
90% (flow)
110% (flow)
65,366 73,230 <=18” diameter
110% (flow) AND
• less than 20%
surcharge of
cover OR
• less than 4 ft
freeboard

5.3. System Performance Criteria
Phase III continues using the Phase II criteria for evaluating system performance. Table 5-2 summarizes the criteria used. This section presents the identified needed capacity improvements based on the system performance criteria. Figure 5-8 shows the sanitary sewer system’s identified capacity needs based on the system performance criteria.

Table 5-2 System Performance Criteria Matrix
Pipe Size Dry-Weather Criteria Wet-Weather Criteria
Smaller than 18-inch
Diameter
Pipe flow is over 90%
capacity
Pipe flow is over 110% capacity
18-inch Diameter and larger
Pipe flow is over 110% capacity IF:
• less than 20% surcharge of cover OR
• less than 4 ft freeboard

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-6

Pipe segments that exceed the criteria do not necessarily trigger the need for a capacity project. In some cases, capacity is low due to an isolated section of shallow slope. Oftentimes, such pipes do not surcharge or cause any problems for the rest of the system. Staff used engineering judgement to determine whether these situations warrant a project.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-7

Figure 5-3a Dry Weather
Level of Service
Comparison Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-8

Figure 5-4b Dry Weather
Level of Service
Comparison East
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-9

Figure 5-5c Dry Weather
Level of Service
Comparison North
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-10

Figure 5-6d Dry Weather
Level of Service
Comparison South
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-11

Figure 5-7e Dry Weather
Level of Service
Comparison West
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-12

Figure 5-8a Capacity
Improvement Areas
Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-13

Figure 5-9b Capacity
Improvement Areas
East
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-14

Figure 5-10c
Capacity
Improvement Areas
North
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-15

Figure 5-11d
Capacity
Improvement Areas
South
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-16

Figure 5-12e
Capacity
Improvement Areas
West
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-17

5.4. Major Interceptor System
The interceptor system comprises large diameter pipes and control structures starting from 7th and Empire St and extending to the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF). Because they are towards the end of the system, the interceptors are designed to carry large amounts of flow; ranging from the 36” x 54” egg-shaped at Empire Street to the 84” pipe at the treatment plant.

The interceptor system is made up of nine flow control structures (Structures A-I) and seven reaches (Phase I-VII). Downstream of Structure E, the interceptors run as four parallel lines (Interceptor No. 1-4).

Figure 5-13 shows the major interceptor system.

The proximity to the RWF and the high flow create unique challenges for the interceptor system. The downstream end of the system is below the RWF headworks water level, which results in significant, constant surcharge. For this reason, manholes in Phase I and II reaches are sealed, but there are also concerns with sedimentation in surcharged sections, and corrosion in the unsurcharged sections.

Because of the differences from the rest of the system, the major interceptors are subject to different criteria. These originated from Preliminary Design of a Fourth Major Interceptor, created for the City by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. in 1986. Phase III continues with the same criteria:
• Phase I-IV: Surcharged allowed, provided Structure A has a minimum freeboard of 4.5 feet. No surcharge allowed at Structure C.
• Phases V-VII: Same criteria as general trunk system.
• For maintenance purposes, all phases must have sufficient capacity to convey PDWF with the largest capacity barrel out of service.

In addition to analyzing the system and developing service criteria, the Montgomery report proposed improvement projects at each phase of the interceptors to meet the criteria. At the time of this report, the City had completed all improvements except for Phase VII.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-18

Figure 5-13
Interceptor
System
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-19

5.5. Pump Station Capacities
The Phase II analysis included six pump stations, but only one, Lamplighter, evaluated pump capacity with the manufacturer’s pump curve. The other stations did not have pump curve data and were instead evaluated based on the stated design point for one pump.

For the Phase III expansion, the pump make and model were provided by DOT, and staff were able to associate manufacturer’s pump curves with most of the City’s pump stations and determine approximate pump capacity. As an example, Figure 5-14 shows the chart developed for the Nortech pump station. Data was found for firm capacity (with the largest pump out of service) and total capacity (with all pumps running). A 10% wear & tear factor was assumed to reduce the theoretical capacity down to an expected real firm capacity of 1.22 MGD and total capacity of 1.77 MGD. Figure 5-14 summarizes the results of the pump capacity analysis.

Analysis showed no pump capacity projects were needed except at Lamplighter, which had already been identified as a project prior to Phase III.

Figure 5-14 Nortech Pump Curve
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Capacity Evaluation

5-20

Table 5-3 Modeled Pump Station Capacities
Modeled Average DWF (MGD) Modeled Peak DWF (MGD) Modeled Peak WWF (MGD) Station Name Address Number
of Pumps
Make of
Pumps
Type of
Pumps
Emergency
Bypass
Firm
Capacity
(mgd)1
Existing Background GP2040 Existing Background GP2040 Existing Background GP2040 Basking Ridge 6997 Basking Ridge Ave 2 Flygt 3085 No 0.50 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Brookside
Estates
Redwood Crk & Lavender
Crk 2 Flygt 3102-
463 Yes 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 Cerone 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.41 0.02 0.02 0.41 Communication
Hill
2001 Donnici St & Altino
Blvd 2 Flygt 3127 No 0.26 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.04 Gateway
Airport Parkway & Gateway
Place
(behind Double Tree Hotel)
2 Smith &
Loveless 4B2 Yes 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.16 Junction Junction Ave & Zanker Rd 2 Flygt 3140 No 0.78 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Lamplighter 3141 Lamplighter Way & N
1st St 4 Flygt 3300 No 6.57 3.39 3.91 5.37 5.45 6.36 15.13 7.08 7.98 16.76 Margaret 697 Margaret Street & 15th
Street 1 Flygt 3085 0.34 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.25 Montague N 1st Street & Montague
Expwy 3 Smith &
Loveless 6C3A N/A 1.4
Nordale Nordale Ave & Senter Rd 2 GE AH260 0.78 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.32 Nortech 1161 Nortech Pkwy & Disk
Dr 3 Flygt 3152 No 1.22 0.09 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.43 0.13 0.12 0.43 Padres Bird Ave & Minnesota Ave 2 Flygt 3127 No 1.15
Ridder Park Ridder Park Dr & Fox Ln 2 Flygt 3102 No 0.52 0.48 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.13 San Felipe 5702 San Felipe Rd & Scenic
Meadow Ln 2 Flygt 3152 No 0.25
Spreckles 3288 Spreckles Ave & State
St 2 Flygt 3171 Yes 1.69 0.16 0.20 0.26 0.24 0.29 0.41 0.24 0.29 0.41 Tea Gardens Kelly Park Near Tea Garden 2 Flygt 3102 No 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 Willow 460 Minnesota Ave &
Willow St 2 Flygt 3153
Zoo 1300 Senter Rd inside of
park 2 Flygt 3102
Zero Waste 2 Flygt 3127 Yes

Notes:

1. Estimate from Master Plan Phase II based on manufacturer's pump curves and approximate system curve under high wet well level; assumes 10% reduction in theoretical pump performance. Large pump assumed out of service.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-1

Project Development
Capital improvement projects were developed for each improvement need identified in Chapter 5. This chapter provides the methodology for developing solutions and estimating project costs which build upon the procedure from Phase I and Phase II. Details and maps for each individual project are included in Appendix A.

6.1. Project Development Process
The simplest solution is to upsize the pipe with capacity needs to increase capacity, but better solutions may be possible. Modelers would also look for possible diversions to relieve improvement needs by reducing flow. Ideally, a flow control structure (typically a weir) would divert flows into an existing pipe with sufficient capacity. However, many diversion solutions require additional work. The pipes receiving the diversion may need to be upsized to handle the increased flow, or pipes may need to be re-sloped or even reversed to make the diversion possible.

Possible solutions were evaluated based on cost and constructability. Some construction issues have a monetary cost associated, such as the casing and trenchless installation requirements for crossing a railroad. However, that cost does not fully account for added complexity like additional permitting and coordination with other agencies. Where possible, railroad/creek/highway crossings and private property were avoided even if the estimated cost were lower than other alternatives.

6.2. Design Criteria
The projects were developed based on design criteria from the City’s Design Guidelines for Sanitary Sewers, which are different from the LOS criteria used to evaluate capacity. The design criteria provide guidance on velocity and suitable pipe connections as well as stricter capacity criteria for new lines.

New improvement projects are not just designed to meet capacity needs, but an opportunity to include some buffer for possible unforeseen need in the future.

The key design criteria were:
• All new facilities were sized for GP2040 loads under wet weather flow conditions. • New pipes sized were to not exceed 2/3 capacity.
• Manning’s n assumed to be 0.013 for all pipes.
• Daily cleaning velocity of at least 2 fps for gravity pipes. • New pipes could not connect into a pipe of smaller diameter.

The 2/3 capacity criteria and cleaning velocity criteria conflict with each other; upsizing the pipe is the simplest way to improve capacity, but also causes a decrease in velocity. In some cases, it was not possible to achieve both criteria. Generally, it was considered better to meet the cleaning velocity criteria because low velocity is a consistent problem. Conversely, the capacity criteria may only be triggered briefly during peak flow. However, it is not always better to choose one over the other; engineering judgement was needed to choose the best solution.

6.3. Project Cost Estimates
Planning level cost estimates were developed for each recommended CIP project. This level of cost estimate corresponds to the “Program Estimate” discussed in the City Council Policy 8-12, “Estimated Construction Costs and Development of Project Budget” (adopted August 2000). As defined by the Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-2

Policy, the Program level of cost estimate is intended for long-term, multi-year planning, with a level of certainty of +/-35%.

The original Master Plan Phase I cost estimates were developed in 2001, based on bid results from northern California sewer projects that included gravity pipelines, force main, and special structures installed under various conditions. The cost estimates for Master Plan Phase II built on the Phase I estimates. Costs were adjusted using the Engineering News Records Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area as of January 2011 (CCI of 10,116) and compared with bids for two major sewer projects recently bid at the time.

Project costs for Phase III were updated for the San Francisco Bay Area for August 2021 (CCI of 13818).

The pricing was further refined with a comparison against recently completed Phase II projects. Projects were selected on the basis of typical scope/construction to give the best comparison.

Table 6-1 Example Project Cost Summary

Baseline Pipeline Construction Cost
Baseline costs include materials, equipment, and labor to construct a pipeline project except for site specific items and general items detailed later. Table 6-2 summarizes the unit baseline pipeline construction costs used for the Phase III cost estimates. The baseline gravity sewer construction costs assume the following items:
• Pipe material (solid wall VCP for 6- to 36-inch sewers; and PVC-lined RCP for 39-inch and larger sewers).
• Select, imported backfill in the pipe zone and native backfill above the pipe zone to the pavement structural base. Spoil assumed to be hauled to a local disposal site. Backfill would be compacted to 90 percent to within 2 feet of the ground surface. • Geotextile and permeable fabrics.
• Manholes located every 450 feet for trunk and collector systems. • Vertical trench walls.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-3

• Standard shoring (i.e. trench box or “speed shore” shoring). • Temporary pavement to be placed over excavated areas in traveled roads at the end of each day.
• Daily street clean-up.
• Final pavement (includes required revegetation, replanting, or landscape restoration if the project is not in a street and construction operations disturb the area). • Sales tax.

Lower lateral replacement and cleanout installation covers the costs associated with laterals currently connecting into the existing pipe. Lower laterals are defined as the portion of the lateral between the edge of right-of-way (or edge of easement) and the sewer main line. For the purpose of cost estimating, it is assumed that all laterals connecting to an existing sewer will be replaced. The number of laterals connecting to an existing pipe was confirmed by CCTV, where available; otherwise, it was assumed based on surrounding parcels.

Weir costs cover any alteration of a manhole to re-direct flow for the CIP solution. While the master plan recommends adjustable weirs for their flexibility in flow control, these may be plugs or re- channelization of a manhole may be constructed instead.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-4

Table 6-2 Estimate Unit Costs for Open Cut Construction of Gravity Sewers Pipe Unit Cost ($/LF)1
Diameter Pipe Depth3
8' to 16' 16' to 20' 20' to 25' 25' to
30'
6-in $370 $389 $408 $428
8-in $385 $404 $424 $446
10-in $400 $420 $441 $463
12-in $450 $473 $496 $521
15-in $500 $525 $551 $579
18-in $550 $578 $606 $637
21-in $600 $630 $662 $695
24-in $650 $683 $717 $752
27-in $750 $788 $827 $868
30-in $850 $893 $937 $984
33-in $950 $998 $1,047 $1,100
36-in $1,000 $1,050 $1,103 $1,158
39-in $1,200 $1,260 $1,323 $1,389
42-in $1,400 $1,470 $1,544 $1,621
48-in $1,600 $1,680 $1,764 $1,852
54-in $1,800 $1,890 $1,985 $2,084
60-in $2,000 $2,100 $2,205 $2,315
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Installation $7,000 each
Weir $35,000
each
(1) Includes Contractor’s overhead and profit. Also includes backfill, geotextile, manholes, standard shoring, temporary pavement, daily street clean-up, and final pavement.
(2) Does not include mobilization/demobilization or traffic control. (3) Depth to invert of pipe. Excavation depth is approximately 1 to 2 feet deeper.

Trenchless construction incurs additional costs as shown in Table 6-3. However, it may be necessary where open-cut construction is not possible. Trenchless construction was assumed for the following scenarios:
• Crossings of creeks, drainage channels, expressways, highways and railroads. • All pipelines running within an expressway.
• Under large wet/dry utilities that are not easy to trench around.

Additionally, casing is required for:
• Any pipe smaller than 48-in under a highway or railroad Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-5

Figure 6-1 shows creeks, railroads, and major roads which may trigger a need for trenchless construction. It also shows areas with high groundwater, which impacts costs of the jacking pits needed for trenchless construction, as well as site specific construction costs.

Pilot tube guided auger boring (PTGAB) was assumed for smaller pipes, from 8- to 36-inch diameter while microtunneling was used for larger pipes; over 36-inches. Casing size is determined by the outside diameter of the carrier pipe bell plus 12-in, with a minimum casing size of 36-in. Table 6-3 shows the corresponding casing size and cost needed for a carrier pipe’s diameter.

Trenchless construction was assumed to require jacking and receiving pits, which carry their own associated costs. A jacking was assumed to be 400 ft from each direction at a jacking pit, so a jacking pit would be needed every 800 feet. Jacking pits were assumed to be usable as receiving pits where multiple pits are needed. Groundwater can make jacking pits considerably more complicated which is reflected in the cost estimate with higher costs for jacking pits in areas with high groundwater.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-6

Table 6-3 Estimated Unit Costs for Trenchless Pipe Construction Pipe Unit Cost ($/LF)1
Diameter
Direct Jack (No
Casing)
Casing Required2
PTGAB or
Microtunneling3
($/lf)
Casing
Size
Microtunnel ($/lf) PTGAB
($/lf)
6-in $600 36-in N/A $800
8-in $600 36-in N/A $800
10-in $600 36-in N/A $800
12-in $800 36-in N/A $800
15-in $800 36-in N/A $800
18-in $800 42-in $1,200 N/A
21-in $800 43-in $1,200 N/A
24-in $900 49-in $1,500 N/A
27-in $900 51-in $1,800 N/A
30-in $900 56-in $2,000 N/A
33-in $900 59-in $2,300 N/A
36-in $1,000 64-in $2,500 N/A
39-in $1,000 68-in $2,700 N/A
42-in $1,000 72-in $3,000 N/A
Jacking Pit With High Groundwater $170,000
Without High Groundwater $85,000
Receiving Pit With High Groundwater $120,000
Without High Groundwater $55,000
(1) Does not include costs for jacking and receiving pits (see paragraph below on “Microtunneling and PTGAB Pit Costs”) (2) Does not include carrier pipe. The cost of the carrier should be included on the cost estimate sheet in the gravity sewer portion of the sheet using the same unit costs as for open-cut construction. (3) Assumes PTGAB for 36-inch and smaller pipes and microtunneling for pipes larger than 36-inch diameter. An additional cost equivalent to the unit cost of an open-cut gravity pipe should be added for short crossings. (300 feet and less). If longer reaches are microtunneled this additional cost is not needed due to economies of scale.

Site Specific Construction Costs
Site specific construction costs cover complications from the location of the project that don’t directly alter the pipeline. These include things like high groundwater and the associated costs with pumping, reinforced trenching, etc. and or street classification which may indicate the need for traffic control.

These costs are summarized in Table 6-4 and Table 6-5.

High groundwater incurs two additional costs: dewatering, and sheeting and shoring. Dewatering costs cover dewatering wells, sand screens, permitting, and pumping. Sheeting and shoring costs are dependent on whether the construction is also within a developed area. In undeveloped areas, the sheeting and shoring is assumed to use a wider trench section with trench box. In developed areas, solid shoring is assumed, which carries a higher cost. Projects are considered to have high groundwater if they are within the following areas:

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-7

• North of Highway 237 and west of Interstate 880
• Alamitos Creek area: within 1,000 feet of Camden Avenue between Redmond Avenue and Harry Road.
• Coyote Creek area: 1,000 feet of Monterey Highway south of Metcalf Road • Any areas with groundwater 0-5 feet below ground as identified by Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Bypass pumping and flow diversions cover costs to remove flow from an existing pipe for construction.

Actual costs vary depending on the amount of flow that needs to be removed and the proximity of available sewers to divert flow to. Any pipe with existing flows was assumed to need bypass pumping and have a set 10% increase in cost.

Remove and replace delay factor is an additional construction cost for replacing an existing sewer line, which is slower than construction of a new pipe. This cost also covers disposal of replaced pipes. The cost was applied to any pipe segment that replaces or upsizes an existing line.

Traffic control includes costs such as developing a traffic control plan, traffic control equipment and flaggers and police officers. While traffic control costs vary depending on site conditions such as traffic density, proximity to traffic signals, proximity to schools, etc., the master plan estimate applied a flat 10% cost increase. Any project on a public road was assumed to need traffic control.

Table 6-4 Site Specific Construction Costs
Item Description/Assumptions Unit Cost
High
Groundwater
Area
Additional dewatering $70 / LF
Remove &
Replace Delay
Factor
% of baseline pipeline construction cost 2%
Bypass Pumping % of baseline pipeline construction cost 10% Traffic Control for
Large Collectors
% of baseline pipeline construction cost 10%

Table 6-5 Sheeting and Shoring Costs
Sheeting and Shoring Unit Cost ($/LF)
Developed Area? Pipe Depth
8’ to
16’
16’ to
20’
20’ to 25’ 25’ to
30’
No (Partially Laid
Back Trench with
Trench Box)
$35 $55 $80 $105
Yes (Solid Shoring) $70 $110 $150 $190

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-8

Other Construction Costs
Table 6-6 presents the cost estimates for mobilization/demobilization and contingency.

Mobilization/Demobilization covers costs incurred prior to the beginning of construction. The master plan estimate was an additional 5% of the construction subtotal cost.

An additional 10% contingency factor is applied. Generally contingency accounts for unexpected costs that arise during construction, but during the development of the master plan design costs it also covers: potholing, backfill, pavement, restoration of survey monuments and bedding stabilization material.

Table 6-6 Other Construction Costs
Item Description/Assumptions Unit Cost
Mobilization/Demobilization % of construction subtotal 5% Contingencies % of construction subtotal 10%

Other Costs
Other non-construction costs cover land acquisition and “soft” costs for design and inspection. Table 6-7 presents the cost estimates for these items.

Figure 6-1
Construction Cost
Factors
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Development

6-9

Easement costs cover the acquisition of land needed for construction. Any projects that required construction outside of the public right-of-way were assumed to require easements. Encroachment permits are also included as part of these costs.

Engineering and inspection costs include project specific costs for both design and construction phases.

These costs may include such items as environmental studies. Engineering and inspection is assumed to make up a lower percentage of project costs as the total cost of the project increases. $1.2 million construction total is the cutoff for using either the higher or lower cost estimate. The engineering and inspection costs were applied to the total estimated construction costs.

A supplemental memo circulated on May 6, 2022 by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region1, to municipal regional stormwater permittees, including the City, noted that any roadway utility trenching projects that have an 8-foot or wider trench spanning one contiguous acre may warrant retrofit with clean water controls. Given that the identified open-cut Master Plan projects in this report are less than a mile in length and trenches are not expected to be 8- foot or wider, neither the 8-foot or one contiguous acre threshold will be met, and hence, the cost to implement clean water controls are not noted here.

Table 6-7 Other Costs
Item Description/Assumptions Unit Cost
Easement Temporary easement; width of 80 feet $7 / sf
Permanent easement width of 30 feet $10 / sf
Engineering and Inspection % of construction total; over $1,200,000 42% % of construction total; under $1,200,000 45%

1 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/stormwater/MRP/mrp5 - 22/MRP_3%20Supp.pdf
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-1

Project Implementation
All of the recommended improvements were organized into a proposed schedule based on the severity of the capacity need, confidence in the model results, and the estimated cost for the improvement.

These are summarized in the project details in Appendix A. This section details how these criteria were evaluated to develop a capacity improvement program.

7.1. Prioritization Criteria
Hydraulic Prioritization Rating
Hydraulic prioritization ranks the severity of improvement needs under existing conditions. Model results were evaluated for both dry- and wet-weather scenarios. Dry-weather flow was ranked from A to C, based on the flow and amount of surcharge. Wet-weather flow was ranked from A to D, based on available freeboard.

The dry- and wet-weather rankings were combined to generate a hydraulic prioritization rating from “Priority 1” (highest priority) to “Priority 4” (lowest priority). An asterisk (*) denotes projects expected to become “Priority 1” under Background conditions. “Priority 5” projects are not needed during Existing conditions, only GP2040 conditions. Table 7-1 shows a matrix on the scenario ratings and the resultant hydraulic prioritization rating.

Table 7-1 Prioritization Rating
Existing WWF Condition A B C D
Existing
DWF
Condition
Less than
1’
freeboard
Surcharge
with 1’ to 4’
freeboard
Surcharge
with over 4’
freeboard
Minimal or
no surcharge
A
Over 90% flow capacity used
and surcharge over 1’ 1 1 2
Contradictory

DWF WWF
conditions
B Over 90% flow capacity used
1’ or less surcharge 1 2 3 4
C 90% or less flow capacity
used 1 2 3
5 (not an
existing term
project)

Flow Confirmation Ratings
Flow confirmation ranks confidence in the modeled flows based on the available flow data for comparison. The five rankings are:
• Level 1: Flow meter on or very near to this project reach surcharged during metered storm. • Level 2: Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow but did not surcharge during metered storm.
• Level 3: Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow. • Level 4: No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow. • Level 5: Conflicting flow between meter and model.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-2

Pavement Scheduling
City policy specifies a pavement moratorium, which prohibits digging up streets that have had pavement maintenance within the previous two years. Because this moratorium can often conflict with the scheduling of CIP projects, it is important to consider when scheduling a project. DOT is responsible for street paving projects across the City and provided their pavement plan through 2025.

Pavement scheduling doesn’t impact where a project is placed in the schedule but is noted to aid the CIP team with project selection. Because the capacity improvement program is anticipated to extend to 2040, the Master Plan team will have to coordinate with DOT to keep the pavement schedule up-to- date.

Equity Index
Equity Index is from the City’s San José Equity Atlas. It is a set of maps presenting data on race (percentage of people of color) and income (by median household income) to help inform equity work.

The scores are quintile classifications assigned to census tracts based on data from the American Community Survey 2021. Each classification represents roughly 20 percent of the population; race is scored from 1 (lowest percentage of people color) to 5 (highest percentage of people of color), and income is scored from 1 (highest income) to 5 (lowest income). These two scores are summed to create the equity score.

As with pavement scheduling, equity index does not impact when the project is scheduled in the program, but is noted to aid CIP team with project selection.

7.2. CIP Program
The CIP program has a total of eighty-seven (87) CIP projects: eleven (11) unchanged projects remaining from MPP2, and seventy-six (76) MPP3 CIP projects. Those seventy-six projects, include sixty-four (64) newly identified projects from the all-pipe network, and twelve (12) projects from Phase II which were re-scoped as a result from the updates. Four include project alternatives and one was split into two phases. Forty-five (45) projects were identified to have an existing trigger, totaling $72.8 million in estimated capital costs (based on an Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index representative of August 2021 costs for the San Francisco Bay Area). The other projects have a future trigger, either Background or GP2040, and have $45.2 million in estimated capital costs. Overall, the projects total $118.0 million in estimated capital costs.

In the previous Phase II program, projects were divided into four CIP groups, which were based on hydraulic prioritization and flow confirmation scores. In Phase III, 2040 was set as the target year for completion of all the projects. Instead of grouping solely by scores, the projects were grouped into 5- year intervals between 2022 and 2040. While the hydraulic and confirmation rankings were still the primary factor, the plan also sought to distribute the projects evenly (by cost) throughout the program, except for the last five-year interval (which took all the very low hydraulic priority projects). Actual construction is dependent on available funding.

Figure 7-2 shows the distribution of project costs by hydraulic priority and flow confirmation, as of this report, to demonstrate how they were used for scheduling.

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation
7-3
Figure 7-1 Hydraulic Priority and Flow Confirmation Over Schedule.

Figure 7-2 and Table 7-2 presents a quick summary of the schedule by year. * Unchanged projects from MPP2
Table 7-2 provides an in-depth summary of the schedule, with details on individual projects. Figure 7-3 presents maps of the recommended improvements by their scheduled year.

Figure 7-2 Project Costs by Trigger
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
Project Costs by Hydraulic
Priority
1 2 3 4 5 2* 5*
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
Project Costs by Flow
Confirmation
1 2 3 4 5
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
2022 2023-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040
Project Costs by Trigger
Existing Background GP2040
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-4

CIP ID DWF Trigger WWF Trigger
Hydrauli
c
Priority
Flow
Confirmatio
n
Pavement
Conflict
Cost
Estimates (in
2021 dollars)
2022
ALM-
3B* None Existing 3 3 -- $1,388,000
EVG-
1-
MPP3
-opt1
Existing Existing 4 2 Yes $2,513,000
JLS-4* Existing Existing 1 1 -- $2,616,000
KSA-
5* None Existing 4 2 Yes $2,387,000
LMP-7 Existing Existing 1 1 -- $7,465,000
KSA-
6n8
Phase
I
Existing GP2040 4 2 Yes $1,602,000
KSA-
6n8
Phase
II
Existing GP2040 4 2 Yes $1,479,000
2022 Total: $19,450,000
2023-2025
ALM-
10 None Existing 1 2 -- $677,000
ALM-
11 None Existing 1 4 Yes $3,936,000
ALM-
13 None Existing 3 1 Yes $1,515,000
ALM-
14 None Existing 2 1 Yes $2,180,000
EVG-7 Existing Existing 3 1 Yes $1,894,000
JLS-14 Existing Existing 3 1 Yes $4,947,000
M-R-1 Existing Existing 2 4 Yes $1,955,000
2023-2025 Total $17,104,000
2026-2030
ALM-
8 None Existing 2 3 -- $794,000
BKW-
10 Alt
1 Existing Existing 2 2 -- $84,000
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-5

BKW-
4n9
Alt 1
Existing Existing 2 2 Yes $1,611,000
DNC-3 Existing None 1 1 -- $9,178,000
DNC-4 Existing Existing 2 4 -- $263,000
FSR-
19 Existing Existing 2 5 -- $1,780,000
JLS-19 None Existing 3 1 -- $64,000
KSA-
10 Alt
1 Existing Existing 2 3 -- $882,000
KSA-
11 None Existing 3 4 -- $439,000
KSA-
12 Alt
1 Existing Existing 2 3 -- $982,000
KSA-
15 Existing Existing 2* 5 Yes $3,393,000
MNT-
1 None Existing 2 1 Yes $241,000
ALM-
2A None Existing 3 2 -- $1,711,000
ALM-
5 Existing Existing 3 3 Yes $64,000
DNC-
2A None Existing 3 2 Yes $4,078,000
DNC-
2B None Existing 3 2 -- $1,737,000
DNC-5 None Existing 3 2 -- $910,000
EDV-3 Existing None 4 4 -- $661,000
EDV-4 Existing None 4 1 -- $883,000
EDV-5 Existing None 4 4 Yes $472,000
EDV-7 Existing None 4 4 -- $702,000
EVG-6 Existing Existing 2 3 -- $1,425,000
FSR-
12* Existing Existing 4 1 -- $70,000
FSR-
20 Existing Existing 3 2 Yes $612,000
FSR-
22 Existing Existing 3 5 -- $1,272,000
JLS-17 Background Existing 3 4 -- $633,000
2026-2030 Total $34,941,000
2031-2035
ALM-
12 None Existing 3 4 -- $1,206,000
ALM-
15 None Existing 3 5 Yes $936,000
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-6

ALM-
16 None Existing 3 4 -- $215,000
BKW-
11 None Existing 3 4 -- $1,730,000
CTI-4* GP2040 Existing 3 5 -- $532,000
FSR-
21 Existing None 4 5 Yes $658,000
FSR-
23 Existing None 4 5 -- $64,000
FSR-
25 Background Background 5* 4 -- $1,229,000
JLS-16 Existing Existing 3 5 -- $64,000
JLS-23 Background Background 5* 4 -- $1,551,000
JLS-25 Background Background 5* 4 Yes $1,299,000
KSA-
13 None Existing 3 4 -- $1,032,000
KSA-
14 None Existing 3 4 -- $1,384,000
KSA-9 Existing None 4 4 -- $436,000
BAY-
11 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 Yes $1,267,000
BKW-
4* GP2040 GP2040 5 2 Yes $70,000
BKW-
8* None Background 5 4 -- $730,000
CTI-3* Background Background 5 5 Yes $5,034,000
EVG-
3* None Background 5 2 -- $70,000
JLS-15 Background Background 5 4 -- $64,000
JLS-20 Background Background 5 4 -- $1,669,000
JLS-21 Background Background 5 4 -- $1,043,000
JLS-24 Background Background 5 4 Yes $504,000
LMP-
1* Background Background 5 3 -- $2,238,000
LMP-5 Background None 5 2 -- $549,000
LMP-6 GP2040 GP2040 5 3 -- $2,816,000
NSJPA
-10 Background Background 5 2 -- $1,873,000
NSJPA
-7 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $2,532,000
2031-2035 Total $32,795,000
2036-2040
ALM-
17 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $741,000
ALM-
9 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $227,000
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-7

BAY-
12 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $399,000
BAY-
4* GP2040 GP2040 5 4 Yes $1,874,000
EDV-6 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 Yes $6,320,000
FSR-
26 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 Yes $1,997,000
JLS-18 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $166,000
JLS-22 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 Yes $969,000
JLS-26 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 Yes $603,000
KSA-
16 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $1,432,000
NSJPA
-1 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $590,000
NSJPA
-12 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $1,356,000
NSJPA
-15 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $5,478,000
NSJPA
-3 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $2,171,000
NSJPA
-5 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $1,614,000
NSJPA
-8 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $941,000
NTI-3 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $867,000
NTI-4 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $1,264,000
NTI-5 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $1,546,000
NTI-6 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 -- $175,000
2036-2040 Total $30,730,000
Grand Total $135,020,000
* Unchanged projects from MPP2
Table 7-2 Proposed CIP Schedule

Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-8

Figure 7-3a Proposed
Capacity Improvement
Projects Central
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-9

Figure 7-4b Proposed
Capacity Improvement
Projects East
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-10

Figure 7-5c Proposed
Capacity Improvement
Projects North
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-11

Figure 7-6d Proposed
Capacity Improvement
Projects South
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-12

Figure 7-7e Proposed
Capacity Improvement
Projects West
Attachment
City of San Jose Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Capacity
Assessment – Phase III and Updates to Phase II
Project Implementation

7-13

7.3. Master Plan and Model Updates
The hydraulic model is to be updated regularly to maintain and refine the model results. As a result, many projects may have altered scopes, changed priorities, or even be removed entirely as the model is updated.

CIP
Master plan capacity projects are the cause for many, but not all, changes of the pipe network. While a model was developed with all the recommended improvements to anticipate their impacts, other network changes will have to be modeled as they’re encountered. Maintenance issues and repair projects can change capacity in the system or re-route flows to other pipes.

Flow Monitoring
As stated in Section 4.1, the City maintains its long-term flow monitoring program and continues to implement temporary meters at strategic locations to verify model flows. Temporary meters have been used to verify flows specifically at locations with identified capacity improvement needs.

Monitoring verification is even more important with the all-pipe model. It is cost-prohibitive to meter all the small diameter pipes in the City and as such, assumptions had to be made with how calibration factors in the model were distributed.

New Development Review and Growth Areas
As detailed in Section 3.2, future scenarios are updated with new developments as they come in. These will often increase flows to the system. In GP2040 growth areas, new developments can re-focus future flows, assigning assumed growth to the development.

Attachment

APPENDIX A
Detailed Project Descriptions and
Maps
Attachment

No. P ro ject
N ame C ity A rea P ro ject
T ype P ro ject Lo catio n D escriptio n Length (ft) D WF T rigger
WWF
T rigger
H ydraulic
P rio rity 1
F lo w C o nf.

Level 2
Equity
Index 3 P ro ject C o st
1 ALM ‐2A South Upsize Camden Ave, from Bret Harte Dr to M t Carmel Dr Upsize 1 ,360 feet of 1 2‐inch pipe to 1 5‐inch 1 ,360 None Existing 3 2 3 $ 1,711,000 2 ALM ‐5 South Diversion
Plug Branham Ln and Almaden Expwy Plug siphon 0 Existing Existing 3 3 3 $ 64,000 3 ALM ‐8 South Upsize /
Reverse
Foxhurst Way, from Queensbridge Way to Almaden Rd to Almaden Pl
Upsize 374 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch and
reverse 481 ft of 1 0‐inch pipe
860 None Existing 2 3 3 $ 794,000
4 ALM ‐9 South Upsize South of Blossom River Dr and Blossom River Way Upsize 31 0 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 31 0 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 5 $ 227,000 5 ALM ‐10 South Upsize /
Reslope Glenview Dr from Prentiss Dr to Corvallis Dr to Lenwood Way Upsize 529 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch and reslope 274 feet of 8 ‐inch pipe
800 None Existing 1 2 3 $ 677,000
6 ALM ‐11 South Upsize Hampton Dr, from Chateau Dr to Landerwood Ln to Lone Pine Ln to Trinidad Dr to Crown Blvd to Almaden Expwy Upsize 4,1 20 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 4,1 20 None Existing 1 4 3 $ 3,936,000 7 ALM ‐12 South Upsize Crystal Springs Dr, south of Littman Dr and easement south of Rio Hondo Dr Upsize 960 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 960 None Existing 3 4 2 $ 1,206,000 8 ALM ‐13 South Upsize Bose Lane, from Dwyer Ave to Almaden Expwy Upsize 1 ,21 0 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch 1 ,21 0 None Existing 3 1 2 $ 1,515,000 9 ALM ‐14 South Upsize Firefly Dr, from between Nancarrow Way and Big Talk Ct to Redmond Ave, to M cAbee Rd Upsize 2,1 30 feet of 8 to 1 0‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch 2,1 30 None Existing 2 1 2 $ 2,180,000 10 ALM ‐15 South Upsize M cAbee Rd, from Crossgates Ln Pampas Dr to M ojave Dr and Juli Lynn Dr to Redmond Ave
Upsize 500 feet of 1 0‐inch pipe to 1 5‐inch and 400
feet of 8-inch pipe to 1 0-inch 900 None Existing 3 5 2 $ 936,000 11 ALM ‐16 South Upsize Trinidad Dr, from Elwood Rd to Lazy River Way Upsize 270 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 270 None Existing 3 4 3 $ 215,000 12 ALM ‐17 South Upsize Furlong Dr, from Windsor Hills Dr to Winfield Blvd Upsize 750 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch and reslope 75 feet of 8-inch pipe
820 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 5 $ 741,000
13 BAY ‐11 North Upsize Clearview Dr at Eversole Dr, south to M abury Rd, and west to N Capitol Ave Upsize 1 ,590 feet of 6 to 8‐inch pipe to 8 to 1 0‐inch 1 ,590 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 7 $ 1,267,000 14 BAY ‐12 East Upsize On Alum Rock Ave at Hwy 680 off ‐ramp Upsize 1 40 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 1 40 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 10 $ 399,000 15 BKW‐9 North Upsize Flickinger Ave at Ulster Dr, north to Hostetter Rd, along Frost Dr to Lundy Ave
Upsize 4,390 feet of 8 to 1 0‐inch pipe to 1 0 to
12‐inch
4,390 Existing Existing 2 2 6 $ 4,395,000
1 5a BKW-4n9 Alt 1 North Upsize /
Reverse
Hostetter Rd between Clampett Way and Timber Creek Dr;
Hostetter Rd at Four Oaks Rd and Coral Tree Pl; Old Abbey Pl, Old Stone Pl to Camino Del Rey
Upsize 1 1 feet of 6-inch pipe to 8-inch, reverse
slope of 1 90 feet of 6-inch pipe; upsize and
reslope 1 20 feet of 6-inch pipe to 8-inch; upsize
1 1 63 feet of 6-inch pipe to 8-inch
1 ,540 Existing Existing 2 2 6 $ 1,611,000
16 BKW‐10 North Upsize Ensign Way at Branbury Way, east to N Jackson Ave to Berryessa Rd Upsize 1 ,020 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 1 ,020 None Existing 2 4 6 $ 1,328,000 1 6a BKW-1 0 Alt 1 North Diversion Ensign Way between Branbury Wy and Seaman Pl Construct 1 30 feet of 8-inch pipe 1 30 Existing Existing 2 2 6 $ 84,000 17 BKW‐11 North Upsize Autumnsong Way at Springsong Dr to Vinci Park Way, and west to Lundy Rd Upsize 1 ,250 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 1 ,250 None Existing 3 4 6 $ 1,730,000 18 DNC ‐2A South Upsize Suisse Dr, from easement beyond Dunn Ave to Snell Ave Upsize 2,880 feet of 1 2 to 1 5‐inch pipe to 1 5 to 18‐inch
2,880 None Existing 3 2 3 $ 4,078,000
19 DNC ‐2B South Upsize Through La Colina Park, from Los Pinos Way and Fieldcrest Dr to 400 ft west on Allegan Cir Upsize 1 ,470 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch 1 ,470 None Existing 3 2 3 $ 1,737,000 20 DNC ‐3 South Upsize Chesbro Ave, from Los Huecos Dr to Blossom Hill Rd Upsize 5,230 feet of 1 8 to 21‐inch pipe to 21 to 30‐inch 5,230 Existing None 1 1 3 $ 9,178,000
21 DNC ‐4 South Upsize Dow Dr, from Farm Dr to Hillsdale Ave Upsize 300 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch 300 Existing Existing 2 4 6 $ 263,000 22 DNC ‐5 South Upsize Hyde Park Dr, from Wellington Park Dr to Vista Park Dr Upsize 830 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch 830 None Existing 3 2 4 $ 910,000 23 EDV‐3 South Upsize /
Reverse Cas Dr from Ezie St to corner near East Capitol Expwy Upsize 523 feet of 6 ‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch and reverse 263 feet of 8 ‐inch pipe
790 Existing None 4 4 10 $ 661,000
24 EDV‐4 South Upsize Senter Rd, from El Cajon Dr to Hellyer Ave Upsize 960 feet of 1 0‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch 960 Existing None 4 1 10 $ 883,000 25 EDV‐5 South Upsize Pegasus Ct Upsize 41 0 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 41 0 Existing None 4 4 4 $ 472,000 26 EDV‐6 South Upsize Bailey Ave, from IBM access road to Santa Teresa Blvd Upsize 4,240 feet of 1 0 to 1 2‐inch pipe to 1 5‐inch 4,240 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 6 $ 6,320,000 27 EDV‐7 South Upsize Serenade Wy, between Rhapsody Wy and Concerto Dr Upsize 730 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 730 Existing None 4 4 8 $ 702,000 28 EVG‐1‐MP P 3
‐Opt1 East Upsize On M cLaughlin Ave between Idlewood Dr and Tully Rd Upsize and reslope 1 ,71 0 feet of 1 2 to 1 5‐inch pipe to 1 5‐inch
1 ,71 0 Existing Existing 4 2 7 $ 2,513,000
29 EVG‐6 East Upsize On M cLaughlin Ave between Turtlerock Dr and Phelan Ave Upsize 1 ,450 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0 to 1 2‐inch 1 ,450 Existing Existing 2 3 8 $ 1,425,000 30 EVG‐7 East Upsize On S White Rd between North of Keaton Loop and Westgrove Ln Upsize 1 ,450 feet of 1 2‐inch pipe to 1 5‐inch 1 ,450 Existing Existing 3 1 8 $ 1,894,000 Attachment

No. P ro ject
N ame C ity A rea P ro ject
T ype P ro ject Lo catio n D escriptio n Length (ft) D WF T rigger
WWF
T rigger
H ydraulic
P rio rity 1
F lo w C o nf.

Level 2
Equity
Index 3 P ro ject C o st
31 FSR ‐19 West Upsize /
Reslope Bollinger Rd between Avondale St and S Blaney Ave Upsize 1 ,760 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch and adjust slopes
1 ,760 Existing Existing 2 5 6 $ 1,780,000
32 FSR ‐20 West Upsize Kiely Blvd between Albany Dr and Stevens Creek Blvd Upsize 740 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch 740 Existing Existing 3 2 7 $ 612,000 33 FSR ‐21 West Upsize Venice Way between M alibu Dr and Saratoga Ave Upsize 660 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 660 Existing None 4 5 3 $ 658,000 34 FSR ‐22 West Upsize M iddletown Ct and M iddletown Dr between San Tomas Aquino Creek and Valarie Dr Upsize 1 ,1 30 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 5‐inch 1 ,1 30 Existing Existing 3 5 2 $ 1,272,000 35 FSR ‐23 West Diversion Intersection of Adra Ave and Ardis Ave Plug or install a weir in M H 38656 to force all flow into the 21 " instead of the 6"
0 Existing None 4 5 6 $ 64,000
36 FSR ‐25 West Upsize M aplewood Ave between Olin Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd, plus two lines upstream on Olin Ave and an alley way Upsize 1 ,460 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 1 ,460 Background Background 5* 4 6 $ 1,229,000 37 FSR ‐26 West Upsize Stevens Creek Blvd from east of Lawrence Expwy to Albany Dr Upsize 2,080 feet of 6 to 1 0‐inch pipe to 1 0 to 12‐inch
2,080 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 7 $ 1,997,000
38 JLS‐14 West Upsize Fruitdale Ave between M eridian Ave and Southwest Expwy; and Southwest Expwy between Fruitdale Ave and Stokes St
Construct 4,540 linear feet of 1 0-, 1 2-, 1 5- and 1 6- inch pipe; remove and replace 820 linear feet of 8-
inch pipe to 1 5-inch
5,360 Existing Existing 3 1 7 $ 4,947,000
39 JLS‐15 West Diversion Intersection of Camden Ave and Union Ave Install weir in M H 1 2023 0 Background Background 5 4 3 $ 64,000 40 JLS‐16 West Diversion Intersection of Ross Ave and Nelson Wy Install weir in M H 442 0 Existing Existing 3 5 3 $ 64,000 41 JLS‐17 West Upsize Redstone Dr from De Soto Dr to Adonis Wy, and continue on Adonis Wy to Elaster Dr Upsize 780 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 780 Background Existing 3 4 2 $ 633,000 42 JLS‐18 West Upsize Private walkway west of Leigh Ave and Kingman Ave Upsize 220 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch 220 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 8 $ 166,000 43 JLS‐19 West Upsize Intersection of S Bascom Ave and Elden Dr Install weir in M H 1 1 779 0 None Existing 3 1 3 $ 64,000 44 JLS‐20 West Upsize / New
Pipe Intersection of Samaritan Dr and Samaritan Pl
Upsize 1 ,590 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch, res lo pe and realign 1 0-in, and install a new 1 0‐in to co nnect M H 991 to 8735
1 ,590 Background Background 5 4 2 $ 1,669,000
45 JLS‐21 West Upsize From Wyrick Ave to Bercaw Ln, and along Bercaw Ln from Wyrick Ave to Camden Ave Upsize 1 ,1 40 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 1 ,1 40 Background Background 5 4 3 $ 1,043,000 46 JLS‐22 West Upsize College Dr between Kingman Ave and M oorpark Ave Upsize 1 ,050 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 1 ,050 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 8 $ 969,000 47 JLS‐23 Central Upsize /
Reslope Dupont St to Los Gatos Creek crossing (under W San Carlos St) Upsize 765 feet of 6-inch pipe to 1 2-inch, 90 feet
of 1 0-inch pipe to 1 2-inch pipe, and reslope 1 00
feet of 1 2-inch pipe
940 Background Background 5* 4 7 $ 1,551,000
48 JLS‐24 Central Upsize W San Carlos St between Josefa St and Gifford Ave Upsize 470 feet of 1 2‐inch pipe to 1 5‐inch 470 Background Background 5 4 5 $ 504,000 49 JLS‐25 Central Upsize N Autumn St at Autumn Ct to W Old Julian St, east to the Guadalupe River crossing Upsize 880 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0 to 1 5‐inch 880 Background Background 5* 4 5 $ 1,299,000 50 JLS‐26 Central Upsize M eridian Ave, north of Douglas Ave, to W San Carlos Ave Upsize 340 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 340 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 7 $ 603,000 51 -1 KSA-6n8
Phase I East Upsize /
Diversion Fontaine Rd, between Alvin Ave and 700 ft north-west of Flanigan Dr Remove and replace 1 ,780 linear feet of 1 0-in to 1 0- in and 1 2-in sanitary sewer, including reslope and
reverse slope
1 ,780 Existing GP2040 4 2 10 $ 1,602,000
51 -2 KSA-6n8
Phase II East Reverse Tully Rd, from S King Rd to Alvin Ave; Alvin Ave from Tully Rd to Fontaine Rd
Remove and replace 1 ,020 linear feet of 1 0-in to 8-
in sanitary sewer, including reverse slope and
abandoning lines
1 ,020 Existing GP2040 4 2 10 $ 1,479,000
52 KSA ‐9 East Upsize On Norwood Ave between Gumdrop Dr and Taffy Dr Construct 570 feet of 8 ‐inch pipe with a new slope
570 Existing None 4 4 6 $ 436,000
53 KSA ‐10 East Upsize /
Diversion On Ocala Ave between Parkdale Way and S White Rd Install weir in M H 50774 and reslope 1 20 feet of 1 0- inch pipe
1 20 Existing Existing 2 3 8 $ 164,000
53a KSA-1 0 Alt 1 East Upsize /
Diversion
Ocala Ave between Wesley Court and Everwood Court; at
Ridgemont Dr; and at Parkdale Way to Rosenelfe Cir
Install weir between M anhole 20789 and M anhole
50774; reslope 1 1 5 feet of 1 0-inch pipe; install a
weir in M H 1 7845 on northern siphon; upsize 71 6
feet of 8-inch pipe to 1 0-inch
830 Existing Existing 2 3 8 $ 882,000
54 KSA ‐11 East Upsize /
Reslope
On Rocky M ountain Dr between M t. Zion Ave and M t. Rushmore Dr and M t. Zion Ave between Rocky M ountain Dr and M t. Rainier Dr Install a new manhole. Upsize approximately 1 47
feet of 6 ‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch and res lo pe 385 feet of SS1 9449 and the upsized segment
530 None Existing 3 4 9 $ 439,000
55 KSA ‐12 East Upsize On S White Rd between Buckner Dr and Westboro Dr Upsize 620 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch and re‐s lo pe the lines
620 Existing Existing 2 3 9 $ 843,000
55a KSA-1 2 Alt 1 East Upsize M ilford Way between South White Road and Stonehedge Way; South White Road between Buckner Drive and Westboro Drive
Reslope 1 43 feet of 6-inch pipe, upsize and
reslope 487 feet of 8-inch and 1 0-inch pipe to 1 0-
inch and 1 2-inch; upsize 1 37 feet of 8-inch pipe to
1 2-inch
770 Existing Existing 2 3 9 $ 982,000
56 KSA ‐13 East Upsize On Highwood Dr and Doris Ave between Lyndale Ave and Westboro Dr Upsize 640 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 640 None Existing 3 4 10 $ 1,032,000 57 KSA ‐14 East Upsize /
Reslope
On E Hills Dr between M eadow Ln and West of M cCovey Ln and M eadow Ln between E Hills Dr and North of Jerilyn Dr
Upsize 1 ,085 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch and
reslope 400 feet of 8 ‐inch pipe
1 ,490 None Existing 3 4 8 $ 1,384,000
Attachment

1 Priority
1 ‐ Priority 1 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings
2 ‐ Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings
3 ‐ Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings
4 ‐ Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings
5 ‐ Not a project under existing condition
2* ‐ Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future 3* ‐ Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future 4* ‐ Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future 5* ‐ Not a project under existing condition, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future 2 Flow Confirmation Level
1 ‐ Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm 2 ‐ Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm 3 ‐ Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow 4 ‐ No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow
5 ‐ Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments. * Total length and project cost excludes greyed out line items BKW‐9, BKW‐10, KSA‐10, and KSA‐12

No. P ro ject
N ame C ity A rea P ro ject
T ype P ro ject Lo catio n D escriptio n Length (ft) D WF T rigger
WWF
T rigger
H ydraulic
P rio rity 1
F lo w C o nf.

Level 2
Equity
Index 3 P ro ject C o st
58 KSA ‐15 East Upsize On Alum Rock Ave and S White Rd between Harriet Ave and E Hills Dr Upsize 3,1 30 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 2‐inch 3,1 30 Existing Existing 2* 5 8 $ 3,393,000 59 KSA ‐16 East Upsize On Amos Way between Oldfield Way and Fowler Rd Upsize 1 ,070 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8 ‐inch 1 ,070 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 5 $ 1,432,000 60 LM P‐5 North Upsize E Plumeria Dr to N 1 st St Upsize 71 0 feet of 8-inch pipe to 1 0-inch 71 0 Background None 5 2 4 $ 549,000 61 LM P‐6 North Upsize Baypointe Pkwy to E Tasman Dr, west to N 1 st St Upsize 3,070 feet of 8 to 1 0‐inch pipe to 1 2 to 15‐inch
3,070 GP2040 GP2040 5 3 5 $ 2,816,000
62 LM P‐7 North Remove and
Replace N 1 st St between W Trimble Rd and M ontague Expwy Repair or replace 4,41 0 feet of existing 27-inch pipe
4,41 0 Existing Existing 1 1 5 $ 7,465,000
63 M NT‐1 South Upsize M onterey Rd, segment south ‐eas t o f Bernard Ave Upsize 270 feet of 6-inch pipe to 1 0‐inch 270 None Existing 2 1 10 $ 241,000 64 M ‐R ‐1 South Upsize Cheltenham Way, from M iddlebury Way to Pawtucket Way Upsize 1 ,923 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch pipe and reverse 355 feet of 6 ‐inch and 8 ‐inch pipe
2,280 Existing Existing 2 4 4 $ 1,955,000
65 NSJPA-1 North Upsize Tasman Dr from Champion Ct to Vista M ontana Upsize 670 feet of 8-inch pipe to 1 0-inch 670 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 5 $ 590,000 66 NSJPA-3 North Upsize E Tasman Dr from east of Baypointe Pkwy to N 1 st St Upsize 1 ,930 feet of 8-inch pipe to 1 0-inch 1 ,930 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 5 $ 2,171,000 67 NSJPA ‐5 North Upsize Baypointe Pkwy, to Descanso Dr, to N 1 st St Upsize 1 ,770 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch 1 ,770 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 5 $ 1,614,000 68 NSJPA-7 Central Upsize Charcot Ave and Bering Dr to N 1 st St and Component Dr Upsize 2,520 feet of 8-inch pipe to 1 0 to 1 2-inch 2,520 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 4 $ 2,532,000 69 NSJPA-8 Central Upsize N 1 st St from north of Gish Rd to Sonora Ave Upsize 470 feet of 6-inch pipe to 8-inch 470 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 8 $ 941,000 70 NSJPA-1 0 Central Upsize Technology Dr from Skyport Dr to Airport Pkwy Upsize 1 ,770 feet of 6 to 8-inch pipe to 1 0 to 1 5- inch 1 ,770 Background Background 5 2 8 $ 1,873,000
71 NSJPA-1 2 Central Upsize N 1 st St from south of Component Dr to E Trimble Rd Upsize 1 ,260 feet of 1 2-inch pipe to 1 5-inch 1 ,260 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 4 $ 1,356,000 72 NSJPA ‐15 Central Upsize /
Reslope
Extending CTI‐1 o n N 1 s t St fro m s o uth o f So no ra Ave to Airpo rt Pkwy
Upsize 3,500 feet of 6 to 1 2‐inch pipe to 1 0 to
15‐inch and res lo pe 1 ,590 feet o f exis ting pipe
5,1 00 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 8 $ 5,478,000
73 NTI‐3 North Upsize Epic Way to Seely Ave Upsize 750 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0 to 1 2‐inch 750 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 4 $ 867,000 74 NTI‐4 North Upsize River Oaks Pkwy to M ontague Expwy, before Research Pl Upsize 1 ,1 20 feet of 1 2‐inch pipe to 1 8‐inch 1 ,1 20 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 4 $ 1,264,000 75 NTI‐5 North Upsize /
Reslope River Oaks Pkwy to Zanker Rd Upsize and reslope 1 ,450 feet of 1 2 to 1 8‐inch pipe to 1 2 to 1 8‐inch
1 ,450 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 4 $ 1,546,000
76 NTI‐6 North Upsize Crescent Village Cir, between Loggia St and River Oaks Pkwy Upsize 220 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 1 0‐inch 220 GP2040 GP2040 5 4 4 $ 175,000 T OT A L: 103,040 $ 118,011,000
Attachment
Project: ALM-2A
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,711,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
41732 6663 41732.1 41732 12 15 220 0.42 10.23 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 110,000$ 6663 6662 6663.1 6663 12 15 115 0.60 11.25 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 57,500$ 6662 6658 6662.1 6662 12 15 200 0.56 11.00 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 100,000$ 6658 6659 6658.1 6658 12 15 100 0.39 11.08 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 50,000$ 6659 6657 6659.1 6659 12 15 223 0.43 11.30 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 111,500$ 6657 6653 6657.1 6657 12 15 80 0.89 10.45 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 40,000$ 6653 6655 6653.1 6653 12 15 147 0.60 10.72 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 73,500$ 6655 6523 6655.1 6655 12 15 277 0.54 12.25 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 138,500$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 681,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 681,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area 95,340$
Dewatering 95,340$
Bypass Pumping 68,100$
Remove & Replace Factor 13,620$
Traffic Control 68,100$
Subtotal: 1,021,500$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 51,075.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,072,575$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 107,258$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,179,833$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 530,925$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,711,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Camden Ave, a major arterial. (i)
(iii)
(i) Project is within an area identified to have high groundwater and additional costs are included in the estimate.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-2A
Camden Avenue, from Bret Harte Drive to Mt Carmel Drive Upsize 1,360 feet of 12‐inch pipe to 15‐inch
Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-5
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$64,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii) Survey shows siphon is blocked with debris and flow monitor downstream of siphon confirms little to no flow.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii) Investigate lateral connections in segment 15350 before abandoning siphon. (i)
(i) The project includes a plug at MH 15093 to intercept all upstream flow and divert it from Branham to Almaden Expwy. The new segment 14734.3 is to divert upstream flow away from 12" to the parallel 36" line along Pearl. The plug diversion will relieve the capacity improvement need located along Branham and allow for abandonment of the siphon. The new segment diversion will relieve the capacity improvement need located along Pearl.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-5
Branham Lane and Almaden Expwy
Plug siphon
Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-8
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ALM-8 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 374 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 10‐inch and reverse 481 ft of 10‐inch pipe.

Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$794,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Construct weir in MH 6558 to divert flow away from pipe 6558. (ii) Reverse flow between MH 6558 to 6547, along Foxhurst Way.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Foxhurst Way, from Queensbridge Way to Almaden Rd to Almaden Pl

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii) Lower segments 6547 and 6476 on Almaden Rd to catch lowered invert from reversed line. (i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Almaden Rd, a major arterial.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-9
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ALM-9 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 310 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$227,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
41464 41465 41464.1 51606 6 8 314 0.48 8.29 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 120,890$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 120,890$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 120,890$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 12,089$
Remove & Replace Factor 2,418$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 135,397$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 6,769.84$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 142,167$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 14,217$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 156,383$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 70,372$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 227,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
South of Blossom River Drive and Blossom River Way

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-10
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 529 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch and reslope 274 feet of 8‐inch pipe Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Priority 1 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$677,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Lower segments 6369 and 6351 on Corvallis Dr to so that inverts are even in MH 6369. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
6368 6370 6368.1 6368 8 10 265 0.47 4.66 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 106,000$ 6370 6369 6370.1 6370 8 10 264 0.47 4.99 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 105,600$ 6369 6351 6369.1 6369 8 8 60 0.24 5.69 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 23,100$ 6351 6349 6351.1 6351 8 8 214 0.24 5.94 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 82,390$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 317,090$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 49,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 366,090$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 31,709$
Remove & Replace Factor 6,342$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 404,141$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 20,207.04$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 424,348$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 42,435$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 466,783$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 210,052$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 677,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-10
Glenview Drive from Prentiss Drive to Corvallis Drive to Lenwood Way

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) A continued upsize along Glenview Dr was considered. That alternative is not preferred because it would be approximately twice the length and cost. (iii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-11
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ALM-11 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 4,120 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Priority 1 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$3,936,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
(iii)
Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Trenchless construction assumed at the end of the project due to connection to Almaden Expwy, a major arterial. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (iii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 4347 since it is under a 30" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
4347 4348 4347.1 4347 6 8 224 0.41 6.87 4 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 134,400$ 4348 4267_CO 4348.1 4348 6 8 232 0.41 6.80 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 89,320$ 4267_CO 4269 4267_CO.1 4267 6 8 131 0.40 8.54 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 50,435$ 4269 4272 4269.1 4269 6 8 203 4.32 9.89 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 78,155$ 4272 4274 4272.1 4272 6 8 248 1.96 8.37 5 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 95,480$ 4274 4275 4274.1 4274 6 8 338 1.51 7.55 7 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 130,130$ 4275 4326 4275.1 4275 6 8 155 1.53 7.79 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 59,675$ 4326 4325 4326.1 4326 6 8 62 0.95 7.93 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 23,870$ 4325 4324 4325.1 4325 6 8 231 0.93 7.29 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 88,935$ 4324 4306 4324.1 4324 6 8 214 0.75 6.76 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 82,390$ 4306 4302 4306.1 4306 6 8 288 1.10 7.24 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 110,880$ 4302 4304 4302.1 4302 6 8 288 1.10 6.91 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 110,880$ 4304 4303 4304.1 4304 6 8 159 1.08 6.91 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 61,215$ 4303 5319 4303.1 4303 6 8 165 0.97 7.07 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 63,525$ 5319 4225 5319.1 5319 6 8 267 0.60 8.19 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 102,795$ 4225 5321 4225.1 4225 6 8 463 0.60 7.88 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 178,255$ 5321 5322 5321.1 5321 6 8 338 0.60 9.79 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 130,130$ 5322 5342 5322.1 5322 6 8 118 1.19 12.88 0 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 70,800$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 1,456,070$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 205,200$
2 Jacking Pit(s) 170,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 252,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 2,193,270$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 166,127$
Remove & Replace Factor 33,225$
Traffic Control 7,080$
Subtotal: 2,399,702$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 119,985.12$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 2,519,688$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 251,969$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 2,771,656$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 1,164,096$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 3,936,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hampton Drive, from Chateau Drive to Landerwood Lane to Lone Pine Lane to Trinidad Drive to Crown Boulevard to Almaden Expwy

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Almaden Expwy, a major arterial. (i) A diversion across Greystone Creek at Olive Branch Ln into upsized Elwood Rd line was considered as part of a project to relieve capacity improvement needs in the area prior to Phase III. This alternative was not preferred due to the complications from crossing the creek. (ii) An alternative includes a full system lining project (rehabilitation).

Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-12
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 960 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,206,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) One segment on easement, project manager needs to coordinate work with resident. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
4466 4468 4466.1 4466 6 8 403 0.58 8.38 4 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 241,800$ 4479 4508 4479.1 4479 6 8 146 0.48 5.48 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 56,210$ 4468 4469 4468.1 4468 6 8 409 0.60 10.78 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 157,465$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 213,675$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 241,800$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 70,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 665,475$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 45,548$
Remove & Replace Factor 9,110$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 720,132$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 36,006.60$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 756,139$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 75,614$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 831,752$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 374,289$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,206,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-12
Crystal Springs Drive, south of Littman Drive and easement south of Rio Hondo Drive

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) A considered alternative would implement two diversions: one away from the capacity improvement need on Crystal Springs Dr, and one away from the deficiency on Rio Hondo Dr and Cranbrook Ct. The first diversion would remove an easement and siphon crossing Golf Creek and instead connect flow down Leyland Park Dr. The second diversion removes another easement and would connect flow to Oakcrest Dr instead. The alternative would take an additional 600 ft and $400k. (iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 4466 since it is under a 65" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-13
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ALM-13 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,210 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 12‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,515,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
4281 4550 4281.1 4281 8 12 414 0.58 13.90 7 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 186,300$ 4550 4553 4550.1 4550 8 12 111 0.71 13.78 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 49,950$ 4553 5363 4553.2 4553 8 12 289 0.26 14.10 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 130,050$ 5363 5364 5363.1 5363 8 12 246 0.45 14.25 4 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 110,700$ 5364 5331 5364.1 5364 8 12 150 0.35 12.96 0 450$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 120,000$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 477,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 120,000$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 84,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 821,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 59,700$
Remove & Replace Factor 11,940$
Traffic Control 12,000$
Subtotal: 904,640$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 45,232.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 949,872$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 94,987$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,044,859$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 470,187$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,515,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Bose Lane, from Dwyer Ave to Almaden Expressway

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Almaden Expwy, a major arterial. (i) Diversion upstream of deficiency at Washoe Dr and Bose Ln considered. The diversion would require an additional 2200 ft and $3.5M, and so is not preferred. (iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed at the end of the project due to connection to Almaden Expwy, a major arterial. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-14
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 2,130 feet of 8 to 10‐inch pipe to 12‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$2,180,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
4568 4569 4568.1 4568 8 12 141 0.46 5.43 3 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 63,450$ 4569 5093 4569.1 4569 8 12 163 0.29 5.48 2 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 73,350$ 5093 5095 5093.1 5093 8 12 315 0.29 5.67 7 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 141,750$ 5095 5083 5095.1 5095 8 12 302 0.29 5.55 6 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 135,900$ 5083 5084 5083.1 5083 8 12 443 0.29 5.61 6 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 199,350$ 5084 5096 5084.1 5084 8 12 221 0.29 6.06 2 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 99,450$ 5096 5097 5096.1 5096 10 12 200 1.10 6.49 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 90,000$ 5097 50929 5097.1 5097 10 12 340 0.98 5.98 5 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 153,000$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 956,250$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 224,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,180,250$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 95,625$
Remove & Replace Factor 19,125$
Traffic Control 34,245$
Subtotal: 1,329,245$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 66,462.25$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,395,707$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 139,571$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,535,278$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 644,817$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 2,180,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-14
Firefly Drive, from between Nancarrow Way and Big Talk Court to Redmond Ave, to McAbee Road

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) A diversion was considered to move flows into ALM‐15 capacity improvement need through Crossgates Ln, and upsize the line on McAbee Rd to handle both capacity improvement needs. Combining the projects would take 2000 ft, compared with a total of 2500 ft, if built individually. (iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Redmond Ave, a major arterial.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-15
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 500 feet of 10‐inch pipe to 15‐inch and 400 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments.

Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$936,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
4578 4579 4578.1 4578 10 15 63 0.15 9.49 1 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 31,500$ 5587 5588 5587.1 5587 8 10 305 0.21 10.48 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 122,000$ 4579 5259 4579.1 4579 10 15 437 0.15 8.66 10 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 218,500$ 5588 4586 5588.1 5588 8 10 97 0.60 9.59 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 38,800$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 410,800$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 77,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 487,800$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 41,080$
Remove & Replace Factor 8,216$
Traffic Control 21,850$
Subtotal: 558,946$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 27,947.30$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 586,893$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 58,689$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 645,583$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 290,512$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 936,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-15
McAbee Road, from Crossgates Lane Pampas Drive to Mojave Drive and Juli Lynn Drive to Redmond

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) An alternative was considered to combine ALM‐14 with ALM‐15. See ALM‐14 for details. (iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Redmond Ave, a major arterial.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-16
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 270 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$215,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
4320 6501 4320.1 4320 6 8 265 0.53 11.77 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 102,025$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 102,025$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 14,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 116,025$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 10,203$
Remove & Replace Factor 2,041$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 128,268$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 6,413.40$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 134,681$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 13,468$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 148,150$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 66,667$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 215,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-16
Trinidad Drive, from Elwood Road to Lazy River Way

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: ALM-17
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 750 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 12‐inch and reslope 75 feet of 8‐inch pipe Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$741,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Raise and upsize segments on Furlong Dr to reconnect into the 33‐in line on Furlong Dr, rather than the 8‐in line. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
1968 51491 1968.2 2224 8 8 74 0.59 6.38 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 28,490$ 2224 2225 2224.1 2225 8 12 354 0.24 7.65 2 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 159,300$ 2225 2588 2225.1 43649 8 12 115 0.24 8.98 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 51,750$ 51491 2224 51491.1 51491 8 12 74 0.24 6.91 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 33,300$ 2588 2675 2588.1 2588 8 12 202 0.24 9.74 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 90,900$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 363,740$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 35,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 398,740$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 36,374$
Remove & Replace Factor 7,275$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 442,389$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 22,119.44$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 464,508$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 46,451$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 510,959$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 229,932$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 741,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ALM-17
Furlong Drive, from Windsor Hills Drive to Winfield Boulevard

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: BAY-11
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,590 feet of 6 to 8‐inch pipe to 8 to 10‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,267,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Upstream of Existing CIP BAY‐4. Increasing scope to account for increase in growth projection from MPP2 to MPP3. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
30342 30367 30342.1 30343 8 10 254 0.29 10.70 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 101,600$ 30011 30012 30011.1 30011 6 8 247 0.61 6.06 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 95,095$ 30367 30874 30367.1 30368 8 10 288 0.52 9.71 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 115,200$ 30012 30009 30012.1 30012 6 8 255 0.60 7.59 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 98,175$ 30874 30875 30874.1 30874 8 10 212 0.45 8.16 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 84,800$ 30875 30877 30875.1 30875 8 10 249 0.45 6.20 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 99,600$ 30877 31340 30877.1 30877 8 10 89 0.45 6.08 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 35,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 630,070$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 7,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 637,070$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 63,007$
Remove & Replace Factor 12,601$
Traffic Control 43,680$
Subtotal: 756,358$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 37,817.92$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 794,176$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 79,418$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 873,594$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 393,117$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,267,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BAY-11
Clearview Dr at Eversole Dr to Boncheff Dr and at Glen Heather Dr south to Mabury Rd, and west to N Capitol Ave

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Mabury Rd and N Capitol Ave, two major arterials.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: BAY-12
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 140 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$399,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) This project should not be implemented until triggered by more developments upstream, otherwise the cleaning velocity would not be met. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
20297 91233 20297.2 91944 6 8 24 0.50 12.03 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 9,240$ 91233 91232 91233.1 91945 6 8 119 0.50 12.02 0 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 71,400$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 9,240$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 71,400$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 220,640$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 8,064$
Remove & Replace Factor 1,613$
Traffic Control 8,064$
Subtotal: 238,381$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 11,919.04$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 250,300$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 25,030$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 275,330$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 123,898$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 399,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BAY-12
On Alum Rock Ave at Hwy 680 off‐ramp.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Alum Rock Ave, a major arterial. (i)
(iii)
(i) Assumed trenchless construction for Segment 91945 along Alum Rock Ave, a major arterial, since it's at the offramp from Hwy 680. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pits. Did not assume trenchless construction used for Segment 91944 since 24 ft too short.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: BKW-9
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 4,390 feet of 8 to 10‐inch pipe to 10 to 12‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$4,395,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii) Segment 32015 crosses parcel without known easement, project manager to verify easement availability.

Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
32022 32023 32022.1 32022 8 10 448 0.32 15.74 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 179,200$ 900010 91260 90010.2 91999 10 12 56 1.03 9.32 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 25,200$ 32023 75036 32023.1 32023 8 10 308 0.32 13.93 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 123,200$ 91260 32013 91260.1 32015 10 12 312 0.40 9.30 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 140,400$ 75036 32024 75036.1 55437 8 10 126 0.32 12.86 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 50,400$ 32013 32012 32013.1 32013 10 12 455 0.38 9.74 9 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 204,750$ 32012 42966 32012.1 32012 10 12 404 0.50 11.16 1 450$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 323,200$ 32024 75037 32024.1 32024 8 10 66 0.32 12.66 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 26,400$ 75037 32025 75037.1 55436 8 10 158 0.32 13.52 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 63,200$ 42966 32936 42966.1 32935 10 12 41 0.61 13.09 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 18,450$ 32025 75038 32025.1 32025 8 10 34 0.32 12.82 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 13,600$ 75038 32311 75038.1 55433 8 10 149 0.32 13.11 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 59,600$ 32311 75035 32311.1 32311 8 10 43 0.32 12.91 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 17,200$ 75035 32315 75035.1 55431 8 10 39 0.32 10.88 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 15,600$ 32315 32330 32315.1 32329 8 10 182 0.32 10.73 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 72,800$ 32330 32327 32330.1 32330 8 10 143 0.32 10.90 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 57,200$ 32327 32328 32327.1 32327 8 10 101 0.32 11.29 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 40,400$ 32328 32026 32328.1 32328 8 10 275 0.40 10.84 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 110,000$ 32026 32008 32026.1 32026 8 10 36 0.69 10.47 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 14,400$ 32008 32280 32008.1 32008 8 10 369 0.41 11.55 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 147,600$ 32008 32945 32008.2 NEW NEW 10 24 3.13 11.29 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 9,600$ 32280 32281 32280.1 32280 10 10 400 0.23 11.30 6 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 160,000$ 32281 32009 32281.1 32281 10 10 80 0.44 9.88 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 32,000$ 32009 91261 32009.1 32009 10 10 143 0.36 8.33 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 57,200$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 1,638,400$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 323,200$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 147,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 2,248,600$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 196,160$
Remove & Replace Factor 39,040$
Traffic Control 196,160$
Subtotal: 2,679,960$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 133,998.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 2,813,958$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 281,396$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 3,095,354$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 1,300,049$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 4,395,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BKW-9
Flickinger Ave at Ulster Dr, north to Hostetter Rd, along Frost Dr to Lundy Ave

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 32012 since it is under a 27" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i)
(iii)
(i) Assumed that the full length of the project requires traffic control since it is on major arterials for the length of it. (i) Divert flow at MH 32008 to MH 32945 by lowering segment 32944 (US invert lowered 2.25', DS invert lowered 2'). Goal is to achieve a 2:1 flow split, directing more flow to the existing 21" pipe along Hostetter Rd.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: BKW-4n9 (Alternative 1)
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………BKW-4n9 (Alternative 1) Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Cumulative Condition per land use projections in GP2040 WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Cumulative Condition per land use projections in GP2040 Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,611,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Since flow will be diverted away from siphon #41349, assumed pipes from MH#32286 to MH#32228 will be (ii) Will require coordination with three private residents, given easements crossing private properties Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) New diameter based on pipe replacement. (ii) Locations where existing pipe diameter matches new diameter only require re-sloping to achieve desired slope in table below Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
32438 32412 32438.1 32412 6 6 121 2.62 4.98 0 370$ #N/A No Casing 370$ 44,770$ 32285 32952 32285.2 32951 8 8 19 0.32 9.74 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 7,315$ 32286 32949 32286.2 32948 6 8 11 6.37 8.07 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 4,235$ 32412 31781 32412.1 31781 6 8 189 0.30 7.67 5 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 72,765$ 31781 51116 31781.2 51115 6 8 145 0.33 8.70 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 55,825$ 51116 51117 51116.1 51116 6 8 125 0.33 8.64 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 48,125$ 51117 51119 51117.1 51117 6 8 91 0.33 8.99 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 35,035$ 51119 31791 51119.1 51119 6 8 136 0.33 7.86 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 52,360$ 31791 31792 31791.1 31791 6 8 262 0.60 7.31 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 100,870$ 31792 32511 31792.1 31792 6 8 307 0.64 9.09 7 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 118,195$ 32511 32389 32511.1 32511 6 8 131 0.60 9.57 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 50,435$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 589,930$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Plug Construction 70,000$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 231,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 890,930$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 57,838$
Remove & Replace Factor 11,799$
Traffic Control 1,155$
Subtotal: 961,722$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 48,086.08$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,009,808$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 100,981$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,110,788$
Temporary ROW/Easement Acquisition ($7/SF) -$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 499,855$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,611,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
abandoned. Since flow will be reversed at Old Stone Pl, the 6-in line crossing 680 may be abandoned.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hostetter Rd between Clampett Way and Timber Creek Dr; Hostetter Rd at Four Oaks Rd and Coraltree Pl; Old Abbey Pl, easement to Old Stone Pl; Old Stone Pl to Camino Del Rey, easement west of Camino Del Rey
Upsize 11 feet of 6-inch pipe to 8-inch bypass pipeline from ex. 8-inch to parallel 21-inch, and abandon pipes from MH#32286 to MH#32228 via plug; re-slope 19 feet of 8-inch bypass pipeline; abandon pipe 32438 crossing 680 via plug, reverse slope of 190 feet of 6-inch pipe and upsize and re-slope 120 feet of 6-in pipe to 8-inch, upsize 1163 feet of 6- inch pipe to 8-inch
(i) BKW-4, BKW-9
Attachment
32511
31792
31791
31781
32412
32438
51119
51117
51116
32389
32952
3294932286
32285
8 in.(6 in.)
680
Four Oaks Rd
Hostetter Rd
Zoria Cir
N Capitol Ave
Flickinger Ave
Coraltree Pl
Fujiko Dr
Nunes Dr
Camino Del Rey
McKenzie Pl
Purcell Pl
Doxey Dr
Croner Pl
Olivestone Way
Old Post Way
Shumaker Way
Villagetree Dr
Orangestone Way
NB 680 To Hostetter Ramp
Woodranch Rd
Four Oaks Cir
Marcross Dr
Ramstree Dr
Brookhollow Dr
Clampett Way
SB 680 From Hostetter Ramp
Doxey Ct
Doxey Pl
Timber Creek Dr
Emerald Hills Cir
Old Park Pl
Zuni Ct
Old Abbey Pl
Four Seasons Ct
Saugus Ct
Laketree Ct
Four Oaks Ct
Woodranch Ct
Grovetree Ct
Renfrew Ct
Ladymuir Ct
680
680
0 400 900 1,000
Feet
C:\Users\christopher.mar\OneDrive - City of San Jose\Shared Documents - PW_Sanitary Master Plan\General\Flow Monitoring\Recalibration\Recalibration2.aprx ±
1 10 2
3 6 7 8
9 4
13 Existing Sewers
CIPP
Resize Pipe [New D (Ex D)]
New Pipe
Reslope
Reverse Slope
Weir
Plug
Manholes
Capacity Improvement Project
BKW-4n9 (Alternative 1)
(Priority 2)
City of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment
Phase III and Update of Phase II
36D 37C36C
51C
51A
51D
51B
52C
52A
32949
32286
8 in.(6 in.)
32952
32285
Hostetter Rd
Attachment

Project: BKW-10
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,020 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,328,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
32062 32061 32062.1 32062 6 8 376 0.61 9.59 13 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 144,760$ 32061 32128 32061.1 32061 6 8 165 0.60 12.73 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 63,525$ 32128 32127 32128.1 32128 6 8 230 0.58 17.15 0 404$ #N/A No Casing 404$ 92,978$ 32127 32020 32127.1 32127 6 8 247 1.28 19.76 0 404$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 148,200$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 301,263$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 148,200$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 119,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 708,463$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 44,946$
Remove & Replace Factor 8,989$
Traffic Control 30,470$
Subtotal: 792,868$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 39,643.41$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 832,512$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 83,251$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 915,763$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 412,093$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,328,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BKW-10
Ensign Way at Branbury Way,east to N Jackson Ave to Berryessa Rd

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 32127 since it is under a 30" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i)
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Jackson Ave and Berryessa Rd, major arterials.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: BKW-10 (Alternative 1)
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………BKW-10 (Alternative 1) Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Construct 130 feet of 8-inch pipe Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$84,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
(iii)
Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) BKW-10 U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
32062 32120 32062.2 NEW NEW 8 131 0.77 8.05 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 50,435$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 50,435$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir Construction -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 50,435$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping -$
Remove & Replace Factor -$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 50,435$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 2,521.75$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 52,957$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 5,296$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 58,252$
Temporary ROW/Easement Acquisition ($7/SF) -$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 26,214$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 84,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ensign Way between Branbury Wy and Seaman Pl

PROJECT COST DETAIL
Attachment
32062
32120
8 in.

Ensign Way
Admiral Pl
Seaman Pl
Branbury Way
0 80 200 200
Feet
C:\Users\christopher.mar\OneDrive - City of San Jose\Shared Documents - PW_Sanitary Master Plan\General\Flow Monitoring\Recalibration\Recalibration2.aprx ±
1 10 2
3 6 7 8
9 4
13 Existing Sewers
CIPP
Resize Pipe [New D (Ex D)]
New Pipe
Reslope
Reverse Slope
Weir
Plug
Manholes
Capacity Improvement Project
BKW-10 (Alternative 1)
(Priority 2)
City of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment
Phase III and Update of Phase II
51D
51B
52C
52A
67B
Attachment
Project: BKW-11
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,250 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,730,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
31959 31961 31959.1 31959 6 8 258 0.53 8.10 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 99,330$ 31961 31962 31961.1 31961 6 8 261 0.39 8.80 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 100,485$ 31962 31963 31962.1 31962 6 8 247 0.43 8.84 5 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 95,095$ 31963 31964 31963.1 31963 6 8 140 0.36 8.12 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 53,900$ 31964 31966 31964.1 31964 6 8 132 0.40 8.14 0 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 79,200$ 31966 42678 31966.1 31966 6 8 188 0.45 9.02 3 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 112,800$ 42678 31967 42678.1 42678 6 8 24 0.42 9.28 0 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 14,400$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 348,810$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 206,400$
2 Jacking Pit(s) 170,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 140,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 975,210$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 55,521$
Remove & Replace Factor 11,104$
Traffic Control 12,720$
Subtotal: 1,054,555$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 52,727.76$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,107,283$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 110,728$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,218,011$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 511,565$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,730,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BKW-11
Autumnsong Way at Springsong Dr to Vinci Park Way, and west to Lundy Rd

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for three most downstream segments since they are under 27" storm mains along Vinci Park Wy and Lundy Ave. Assume two jacking pits and two receiving pits.
(i)
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Lundy Ave, a major arterial.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: DNC-2A
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 2,880 feet of 12 to 15‐inch pipe to 15 to 18‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$4,078,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) One segment on easement, need to coordinate work with resident. (ii)
(iii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (iii) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Snell Ave, a major arterial.

Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
7472 7280 7472.1 7472 12 15 144 0.19 8.62 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 72,000$ 7280 7281 7280.1 7280 12 15 256 0.60 7.92 3 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 128,000$ 7281 7282 7281.1 7281 12 15 320 0.22 7.99 8 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 160,000$ 7282 7283 7282.1 7282 12 15 255 0.20 8.09 7 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 127,500$ 7283 7284 7283.1 7283 12 15 250 0.20 8.64 6 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 125,000$ 7284 7285 7284.1 7284 12 18 175 0.20 9.02 4 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 96,250$ 7285 7286 7285.1 7285 12 18 137 0.20 9.03 3 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 75,350$ 7286 7287 7286.1 7286 12 18 254 0.20 8.91 3 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 139,700$ 7287 7288 7287.1 7287 12 18 274 0.20 9.19 3 550$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 219,200$ 7288 7289 7288.1 7288 12 18 254 0.15 9.66 3 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 139,700$ 7289 7290 7289.1 7289 15 18 264 0.15 9.89 3 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 145,200$ 7290 5635 7290.1 7290 15 18 292 0.15 10.91 3 550$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 233,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 1,208,700$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 452,800$
2 Jacking Pit(s) 170,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 322,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 2,263,500$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 166,150$
Remove & Replace Factor 33,230$
Traffic Control 23,360$
Subtotal: 2,486,240$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 124,312.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 2,610,552$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 261,055$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 2,871,607$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 1,206,075$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 4,078,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DNC-2A
Suisse Drive, from easement beyond Dunn Avenue to Snell Avenue

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segments 7287 and 7290 since they are under 42" storm mains. Assume 2 jacking and 2 receiving pits. (i) An alternative to divert flow away at Madison Dr and upsize Santa Teresa Blvd and Pineland Ave. The alternative would allow for the removal of a siphon, and an easement between two parcels, but require a 3,800 ft project at $6.1 M. Furthermore, an additional diversion at Banner Dr may be possible with the alternative to remove an additional easement and siphon, if the downstream portion is further upsized. (i) Sizing assumes construction of DNC‐2B, rather than ALT DNC‐2B. ALT DNC‐2B would divert flow away from this deficiency and impact the design.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: DNC-2B
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,470 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 12‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,737,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
5821 5822 5821.1 5821 8 12 240 0.32 13.23 0 450$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 192,000$ 5822 5780 5822.1 5822 8 12 354 0.28 13.10 2 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 159,300$ 5780 5781 5780.1 5780 8 12 216 0.32 13.54 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 97,200$ 5781 7867 5781.1 5781 8 12 224 0.31 12.83 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 100,800$ 7867 7866 7867.1 7867 8 12 25 0.32 11.31 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 11,250$ 7866 7865 7866.1 7866 8 12 411 0.30 12.07 7 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 184,950$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 553,500$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 192,000$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 84,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 969,500$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 74,550$
Remove & Replace Factor 14,910$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 1,058,960$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 52,948.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,111,908$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 111,191$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,223,099$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 513,701$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,737,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DNC-2B
Through La Colina Park, from Los Pinos Way and Fieldcrest Drive to 400 ft west on Allegan Circle

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 5821 since it is under a 33" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i) An alternative was considered to abandon the sewer under La Colina Park and instead divert flow through Los Pinos Way to Curie Dr. This would avoid disturbing La Colina Park, but requires a 3,500 ft project at $3.5M.
(iii)
(i) Large portion of this project goes through La Colina Park; however, an easement already exists.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: DNC-3
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 5,230 feet of 18 to 21‐inch pipe to 21 to 30‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Priority 1 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$9,178,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Project designed to be compatible with potential Downer‐Canoas re‐slope to resolve poor cleaning velocities. (ii)
(iii)
Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segments 7325 and 7147 given storm main crossings above. Assume 2 jacking and 2 receiving pits. (iii) Upstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Santa Teresa Blvd, a major arterial.

Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
7325 7326 7325.1 7325 18 21 360 0.15 13.20 4 600$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 288,000$ 7326 7323 7326.1 7326 18 21 197 0.15 14.20 4 600$ #N/A No Casing 600$ 118,200$ 7323 7322 7323.1 7323 18 21 380 0.15 14.73 10 600$ #N/A No Casing 600$ 228,000$ 7322 7321 7322.1 7322 18 21 377 0.15 14.84 11 600$ #N/A No Casing 600$ 226,200$ 7321 7320 7321.1 7321 18 21 170 0.15 15.14 4 600$ #N/A No Casing 600$ 102,000$ 7320 7319 7320.1 7320 18 21 420 0.15 14.27 11 600$ #N/A No Casing 600$ 252,000$ 7319 7147 7319.1 7319 18 21 400 0.15 14.86 12 600$ #N/A No Casing 600$ 240,000$ 7147 7112 7147.1 7147 21 30 276 0.09 16.32 3 893$ PTGAB No Casing 900$ 248,400$ 7112 41947 7112.1 7112 21 30 260 0.09 16.17 2 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 232,050$ 41947 7111 41947.1 41947 21 30 265 0.09 16.30 8 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 236,513$ 7111 7110 7111.1 7111 21 30 182 0.09 16.39 5 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 162,435$ 7110 7109 7110.1 7110 21 30 122 0.09 16.62 0 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 108,885$ 7109 7108 7109.1 7109 21 30 135 0.09 16.73 2 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 120,488$ 7108 7107 7108.1 7108 21 30 143 0.09 16.90 2 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 127,628$ 7107 7106 7107.1 7107 21 30 100 0.09 17.01 2 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 89,250$ 7106 7105 7106.1 7106 21 30 245 0.09 17.16 3 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 218,663$ 7105 7104 7105.1 7105 21 30 60 0.09 17.44 1 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 53,550$ 7104 7103 7104.1 7104 21 30 358 0.09 17.77 9 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 319,515$ 7103 8392 7103.1 7103 21 30 418 0.09 18.30 6 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 373,065$ 8392 8362 8392.1 8392 21 30 309 0.09 18.77 5 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 275,783$ 8362 50073 8362.2 50072 21 30 56 0.09 19.69 0 893$ #N/A No Casing 893$ 49,980$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 3,534,203$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 536,400$
2 Jacking Pit(s) 170,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 728,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 5,078,603$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 407,060$
Remove & Replace Factor 81,412$
Traffic Control 28,800$
Subtotal: 5,595,875$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 279,793.74$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 5,875,669$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 587,567$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 6,463,235$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 2,714,559$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 9,178,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DNC-3
Chesbro Avenue, from Los Huecos Drive to Blossom Hill Road

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Though Segment 7322 crosses underneath a 24" storm main, the segment has too many laterals to consider trenchless methods. (iv) Though Segment 7105 crosses underneath a 30" storm main, the segment is too short for jacking/receiving pit. (i) I/I reduction program to reduce flows into the system in this area is a potential alternative.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: DNC-4
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………DNC-4 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 300 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 10‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$263,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
72740 50510 72740.1 50509 6 10 245 0.60 12.89 3 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 98,000$ 50510 50511 50510.1 50510 6 10 54 0.59 14.68 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 21,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 119,600$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 21,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 140,600$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 11,960$
Remove & Replace Factor 2,392$
Traffic Control 2,160$
Subtotal: 157,112$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 7,855.60$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 164,968$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 16,497$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 181,464$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 81,659$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 263,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Dow Drive, from Farm Drive to Hillsdale Avenue

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Hillsdale Ave, a major arterial. (i)
(iii)
(i) Though Segment 50510 crosses underneath a 27" storm main, the segment is too short for jacking/receiving pit.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: DNC-5
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………DNC-5 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 830 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 12‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$910,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Conflicts with potential Downer‐Canoas re‐sloping, which would divert flow from Vista Park Dr. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
50118 50117 50118.1 50118 8 12 304 0.41 15.21 6 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 136,800$ 50117 50116 50117.1 50117 8 12 218 0.42 15.78 5 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 98,100$ 50116 50115 50116.1 50116 8 12 211 0.40 16.66 4 473$ #N/A No Casing 473$ 99,698$ 50115 50114 50115.1 50115 8 12 94 0.40 17.28 2 473$ #N/A No Casing 473$ 44,415$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 379,013$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 119,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 498,013$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 37,901$
Remove & Replace Factor 7,580$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 543,494$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 27,174.70$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 570,669$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 57,067$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 627,736$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 282,481$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 910,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hyde Park Drive, from Wellington Park Drive to Vista Park Drive

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) An alternative was considered to abandon the siphon upstream at Hyde Park Dr by reversing flow along New Compton Dr. The alternative would take 2,500 ft at $2.6M. The alternative still conflicts with Downer‐Canoas re‐sloping. (iii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: EDV-3
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EDV-3 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 523 feet of 6 ‐inch pipe to 8‐inch and reverse 263 feet of 8‐inch pipe Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$661,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Reverse flow at Cas Dr. to direct flow towards Capitol Expwy. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
9858 9864 9858.2 9864 8 8 263 0.32 6.50 8 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 101,255$ 9864 10585 9864.1 10583 6 8 138 0.32 6.12 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 53,130$ 10585 10587 10585.1 10585 6 8 355 0.32 5.90 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 136,675$ 10587 10588 10587.1 10587 8 8 30 0.32 6.01 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 11,550$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 302,610$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 56,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 358,610$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 30,261$
Remove & Replace Factor 6,052$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 394,923$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 19,746.16$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 414,669$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 41,467$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 456,136$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 205,261$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 661,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Cas Drive from Ezie St to corner near East Capitol Expressway

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) Upsizing the line along Ezie St. was considered. The alternative project would be 1,900 ft at $2.1 M. (iii)
(i) Assumed Seven Trees Branch Library parking lot is public ROW and will not require traffic control.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: EDV-4
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EDV-4 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 960 feet of 10‐inch pipe to 12‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$883,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
9329 9323 9329.1 9329 10 12 128 0.22 11.60 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 57,600$ 9323 9324 9323.1 9323 10 12 178 0.22 11.90 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 80,100$ 9324 41983 9324.1 9324 10 12 255 0.22 12.56 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 114,750$ 41983 9683 41983.1 41983 10 12 90 0.29 12.87 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 40,500$ 9683 10725 9683.1 9683 10 12 237 0.28 13.38 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 106,650$ 10725 10724 10725.1 10725 10 12 30 0.77 15.43 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 13,500$ 10724 10712 10724.2 10724 10 12 42 1.43 15.90 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 18,900$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 432,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 432,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 43,200$
Remove & Replace Factor 8,640$
Traffic Control 43,200$
Subtotal: 527,040$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 26,352.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 553,392$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 55,339$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 608,731$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 273,929$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 883,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Senter Road, from El Cajon Drive to Hellyer Avenue

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Senter Rd, a major arterial. (i) I/I reduction program to reduce flows into the system in this area is a potential alternative. (iii)
(i) Though Segment 10724 crosses underneath a 27" storm main, the segment is too short for jacking/receiving pit.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: EDV-5
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EDV-5 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 410 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$472,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
3449 3452 3449.1 3449 6 8 200 0.83 5.91 5 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 77,000$ 3451 3450 3451.1 3451 6 8 120 0.53 6.66 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 46,200$ 3452 3451 3452.1 3452 6 8 88 0.68 6.54 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 33,880$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 157,080$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 49,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 206,080$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area 28,560$
Dewatering 28,560$
Bypass Pumping 15,708$
Remove & Replace Factor 3,142$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 282,050$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 14,102.48$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 296,152$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 29,615$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 325,767$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 146,595$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 472,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pegasus Court

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) I/I reduction program to reduce flows into the system in this area is a potential alternative. (iii)
(i) Project is within an area identified to have high groundwater and additional costs are included in the estimate. Assumed all pipes in high GW area.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: EDV-6
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EDV-6 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 4,240 feet of 10 to 12‐inch pipe to 15‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$6,320,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
(iii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (iii) Project is within an area identified to have high groundwater and additional costs are included in the estimate.

Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
41773 41774 41773.1 41773 10 15 440 0.32 7.64 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 220,000$ 41774 41775 41774.1 41774 10 15 438 0.32 7.03 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 219,000$ 41775 41776 41775.1 41775 10 15 438 0.32 8.76 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 219,000$ 41776 41777 41776.1 41776 12 15 358 0.32 9.67 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 179,000$ 41777 41778 41777.1 41777 12 15 358 0.32 9.35 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 179,000$ 41778 41779 41778.1 41778 12 15 358 0.32 9.93 3 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 179,000$ 41779 41780 41779.1 41779 12 15 407 0.32 12.73 0 500$ PTGAB 36 1,300 $ 529,100$ 41780 41781 41780.1 41780 12 15 257 0.32 18.78 0 525$ #N/A No Casing 525$ 134,925$ 41781 41782 41781.1 41781 12 15 375 0.32 17.03 0 525$ PTGAB 36 1,325 $ 496,875$ 41782 41783 41782.1 41782 12 15 375 0.32 12.01 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 187,500$ 41783 804382_F 41783.1 41783 12 15 375 0.32 13.60 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 187,500$ 804382_F 3670 804382_F.1 55539 12 15 64 0.32 15.49 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 32,000$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 1,736,925$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 1,025,975$
2 Jacking Pit(s) 170,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 21,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 3,063,900$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area 161,145$ Dewatering 297,010$
Bypass Pumping 276,290$
Remove & Replace Factor 55,258$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 3,853,603$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 192,680.15$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 4,046,283$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 404,628$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 4,450,911$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 1,869,383$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 6,320,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Bailey Avenue, from IBM access road to Santa Teresa Boulevard

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Assumed open cut despite Bailey Avenue being classified as major arterial due to being in undeveloped area. (i)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segments 41779 and 41781 since they cross under creeks. Require casing. Assume 2 jacking and 2 receiving pits.

Attachment
Attachment

Project: EDV-7
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EDV-7 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 730 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$702,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
9410 9406 9410.1 9410 6 8 260 0.40 8.38 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 100,100$ 9406 9399 9406.1 9406 6 8 468 0.30 9.20 11 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 180,180$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 280,280$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 105,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 385,280$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 28,028$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,606$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 418,914$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 20,945.68$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 439,859$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 43,986$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 483,845$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 217,730$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 702,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Serenade Wy, between Rhapsody Wy and Concerto Dr

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: EVG-1-MPP3-Opt1
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EVG-1-MPP3-Opt1 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize and reslope 1,710 feet of 12 to 15‐inch pipe to 15‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$2,513,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
22287 22286 22287.1 22287 12 15 494 0.26 14.17 13 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 247,000$ 22286 22285 22286.1 22286 12 15 53 0.26 13.87 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 26,500$ 22285 22857 22285.1 22285 12 15 458 0.26 13.53 11 500$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 366,400$ 22857 23152 22857.1 22857 12 15 271 0.20 12.88 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 135,500$ 23152 23151 23152.1 23152 12 15 51 0.20 12.37 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 25,500$ 23151 40712 23151.1 23151 12 15 363 0.20 11.32 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 181,500$ 40712 18215 40712.2 81691 15 15 19 16.96 12.13 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 9,500$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 625,500$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 366,400$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 182,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,313,900$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 99,190$
Remove & Replace Factor 19,838$
Traffic Control 99,190$
Subtotal: 1,532,118$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 76,605.90$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,608,724$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 160,872$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,769,596$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 743,230$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 2,513,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On McLaughlin Ave. between Idlewood Dr. and Tully Rd

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on McLaughlin Ave, a major arterial. (i) EVG‐1‐MPP3‐Opt2: Upsize 12‐in pipes to 15‐in along McLaughlin Ave. Construct a new 12‐in pipe and install a weir in manhole 18011 to divert all upstream flow to the new line.

Divert all upstream flow to East of Summerside Dr. It will eliminate deficiency upstream along Lucretia Ave. Please conduct surveys to confirm that the new line will not come into conflict with the storm system. Per Utility Viewer, there are storm pipes located near by and above the new sanitary pipe. (iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 22285 since it is under a 24" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i) Scope: Divert all upstream flow to Tully Rd. and eliminate deficiency upstream along McLaughlin Ave. Lower upstream invert of SS 81691 by 0.1 ft compared to upstream invert of SS 40712; Change the slope to an average slope of 0.231% between MH 22287 and MH 40712.

Attachment

Project: EVG-6
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EVG-6 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,450 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10 to 12‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,425,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
17517 17442 17517.1 17517 8 10 238 0.18 8.75 3 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 95,200$ 17442 17441 17442.1 17442 8 10 125 0.30 8.71 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 50,000$ 17441 17144 17441.1 17441 8 10 322 0.40 8.76 5 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 128,800$ 17144 17782 17144.1 17144 8 10 351 0.39 9.18 5 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 140,400$ 17782 17781 17782.1 17782 8 12 368 0.21 9.43 3 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 165,600$ 17781 17149 17781.1 17781 8 12 44 0.66 8.92 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 19,800$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 599,800$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 119,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 718,800$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 59,980$
Remove & Replace Factor 11,996$
Traffic Control 59,980$
Subtotal: 850,756$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 42,537.80$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 893,294$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 89,329$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 982,623$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 442,180$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,425,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On McLaughlin Ave between Turtlerock Dr and Phelan Ave

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on McLaughlin Ave, a major arterial.

Attachment

Project: EVG-7
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………EVG-7 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,450 feet of 12‐inch pipe to 15‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,894,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
13553 12538 13553.1 13553 12 15 146 1.42 10.28 0 500$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 116,800$ 12538 13310 12538.2 13309 12 15 331 1.56 10.83 3 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 165,500$ 13310 13311 13310.1 13310 12 15 324 1.51 11.55 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 162,000$ 13311 19384 13311.1 13311 12 15 162 1.57 12.58 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 81,000$ 19384 19385 19384.1 19384 12 15 148 1.57 13.49 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 74,000$ 19385 19387 19385.1 19385 12 15 324 1.28 14.23 4 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 162,000$ 19387 19386 19387.1 19387 12 15 15 1.40 14.33 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 7,500$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 652,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 116,800$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 77,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 985,800$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 76,880$
Remove & Replace Factor 15,376$
Traffic Control 76,880$
Subtotal: 1,154,936$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 57,746.80$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,212,683$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 121,268$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,333,951$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 560,259$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,894,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On S White Rd between North of Keaton Loop and Westgrove Ln

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 13553 since it may be crossing under a 24" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on San Felipe Rd and White Rd, major arterials.

Attachment

Project: FSR-19
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………FSR-19 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,760 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 12‐inch and adjust slopes Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments.

Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,780,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) This line receives flow from CuSD. Coordinate with CuSD on cost share prior to implementation.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Bollinger Rd. between Avondale St. and S. Blaney Ave.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Bollinger Rd, a major arterial. (ii) This site was metered in Nov 2021 but captured only DWF data. This site needs to be re‐metered for WWF confirmation before moving forward with implementation.

Attachment

Project: FSR-20
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………FSR-20 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 740 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$612,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
35738 35737 35738.1 35738 8 10 339 0.27 8.38 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 135,600$ 35737 35786 35737.1 35737 8 10 396 0.23 7.37 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 158,400$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 294,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 7,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 301,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 29,400$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,880$
Traffic Control 29,400$
Subtotal: 365,680$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 18,284.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 383,964$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 38,396$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 422,360$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 190,062$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 612,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Kiely Blvd. between Albany Dr. and Stevens Creek Blvd.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on S Kiely Blvd, a major arterial. (i) Check with Development Services prior to implementing this project. There was a development proposal where the developer proposed to remove the existing 8" between MH 35480 and MH 35778, and build a new 8" east of it along a new alley. Master Plan recommended that the developer install a weir in the new MH to divert all flow into their new 8".

If the developer implemented that recommendation, then the City no longer needs to install a weir in MH 35738.

Attachment

Project: FSR-21
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………FSR-21 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 660 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments.

Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$658,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
23537 24762 23537.1 23537 6 8 278 0.50 7.50 7 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 107,030$ 24762 24763 24762.1 24762 6 8 326 0.60 7.67 7 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 125,510$ 24763 42329 24763.1 24763 6 8 58 0.79 8.88 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 22,330$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 254,870$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 105,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 359,870$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 25,487$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,097$
Traffic Control 2,233$
Subtotal: 392,687$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 19,634.37$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 412,322$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 41,232$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 453,554$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 204,099$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 658,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Venice Way between Malibu Dr. and Saratoga Ave

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Saratoga Ave, a major arterial. (i) Should conduct survey dip to confirm the inverts of all pipes at MH 23534. Current record shows the 6" going north is lower than the 8" going east, hence causing capacity improvement needs downstream of the 6". If survey shows otherwise, then this project may not be needed. (ii) This site was metered in Nov 2021 but captured only DWF data. This site needs to be re‐metered for WWF confirmation before moving forward with implementation.

Attachment

Project: FSR-22
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………FSR-22 Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Upsize 1,130 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 15‐inch Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments.

Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,272,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Project is located downstream of WVSD's service area. Coordinate with WVSD on cost share prior to implementation.

Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
25949 25951 25949.2 25952 8 15 203 0.32 12.60 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 101,500$ 25951 25413 25951.1 25951 8 15 157 0.34 11.63 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 78,500$ 25413 25414 25413.1 25413 8 15 135 0.41 9.58 4 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 67,500$ 25414 25416 25414.2 25415 8 15 313 0.31 9.38 10 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 156,500$ 25416 44193 25416.1 25416 8 15 323 0.25 9.02 4 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 161,500$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 565,500$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 126,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 691,500$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 56,550$
Remove & Replace Factor 11,310$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 759,360$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 37,968.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 797,328$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 79,733$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 877,061$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 394,677$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,272,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(i)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Middletown Ct. and Middletown Dr. between San Tomas Aquino Creek and Valarie Dr (iv) One segment on Valley Water jurisdiction, project manager needs to check with Valley Water regarding encroachment permits and such. (ii) This site was metered in Nov 2021 but captured only DWF data. This site needs to be re‐metered for WWF confirmation before moving forward with implementation. (iii) One segment on easement, project manager needs to coordinate work with resident.

Attachment

Project: FSR‐23
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments.

Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$64,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Survey pipe inverts of the 21" and 6" in MH 38656 and have Master Plan re‐evaluate the solution using surveyed inverts.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FSR‐23
Intersection of Adra Ave and Ardis Ave
Plug or install a weir in MH 38656 to force all flow into the 21" instead of the 6" (i) This CIP solution is based on the assumption that the 21" in MH 38656 is at the same invert as the 6" to the north. (ii) This site was metered in Nov 2021 but captured only DWF data. This site needs to be re‐metered for WWF confirmation before moving forward with implementation. (iii) If surveyed inverts match what's in the current model, which means the 6" at the same invert as the 21", then lower the invert of the 21" in MH 38656 by about 0.5' to divert more flow into the 21" instead of the 6" to the north. If surveyed inverts show the 21" is lower already, then MP needs to update its model, and this project may no longer be needed.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) Raise the invert of the 6" in MH 38656 or lower the invert of the 21". (ii) Upsize the 6" between 38656 and 38596 to 12", and upsize the 8" between 38596 and 38565 to 15".

Attachment

Project: FSR-25
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5* - Not a project under existing condition, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,229,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) One segment on easement, project manager needs to coordinate work with resident/company. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
38514 38513 38514.1 38514 6 8 296 0.40 6.25 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 113,960$ 38513 38733 38513.1 38513 6 8 132 0.40 6.61 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 50,820$ 38733 38732 38733.1 38733 6 8 273 0.40 7.42 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 105,105$ 38732 38729 38732.1 38732 6 8 379 0.40 8.72 8 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 145,915$ 38729 38731 38729.1 38729 6 8 378 0.40 9.24 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 145,530$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 561,330$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 105,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 666,330$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 56,133$
Remove & Replace Factor 11,227$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 733,690$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 36,684.48$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 770,374$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 77,037$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 847,411$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 381,335$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,229,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FSR-25
Maplewood Ave. between Olin Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd., plus two lines upstream on Olin Ave. and an alley way Upsize 1,460 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch
(iii)
(i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: FSR-26
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,997,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
35776 35815 35776.1 35776 8 10 258 0.50 11.16 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 103,200$ 35815 35775 35815.1 35815 8 12 352 0.40 11.01 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 158,400$ 35775 35814 35775.2 42490 8 12 170 0.40 10.55 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 76,500$ 35814 35813 35814.1 35814 6 12 253 0.75 9.91 3 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 113,850$ 35813 91096 35813.1 35813 6 12 192 0.60 9.03 3 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 86,400$ 91096 35533 91096.1 35813 10 12 212 0.82 12.46 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 95,400$ 35533 35771 35533.1 35533 10 12 401 0.29 12.49 4 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 180,450$ 35771 35686 35771.1 35771 10 12 243 0.57 9.67 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 109,350$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 923,550$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 91,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,014,550$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 92,355$
Remove & Replace Factor 18,471$
Traffic Control 92,355$
Subtotal: 1,217,731$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 60,886.55$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,278,618$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 127,862$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,406,479$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 590,721$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,997,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FSR-26
Stevens Creek Blvd. from east of Lawrence Expwy. to Albany Dr.

Upsize 2,080 feet of 6 to 10‐inch pipe to 10 to 12‐inch. (iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Stevens Creek Blvd, a major arterial.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment
Project: JLS-14
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority….....................................................................................................................................................................................3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger…............................................................................................................................................................Existing Condtion WWF Trigger…....................................................................................................................................................Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level….........................................................................................................................................1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$4,947,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives…..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
40069 40070 40069.1 40069 8 15 263 0.3 8.75 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 131,500$ 40070 40071 40070.1 40070 8 15 137 0.21 8 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 68,500$ 72998 1001316 72998.1 1001232 8 15 140 0.46 10.3 1 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 70,000$ 1001316 40069 1001316.1 1001233 8 15 282 0.35 9.55 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 141,000$ 40071 SSMH1 40071.1 NEW NEW 16 196 1.01 9.18 0 500$ Steel Casing 24 1,300 $ 254,800$ SSMH7 72998 SSMH7.1 NEW NEW 15 122 1.1 10.36 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 61,000$ SSMH8 SSMH7 SSMH8.1 NEW NEW 12 450 0.5 9.96 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 202,500$ SSMH9 SSMH8 SSMH9.1 NEW NEW 12 400 0.49 10.3 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 180,000$ SSMH10 SSMH9 SSMH10.1 NEW NEW 12 400 0.5 10.95 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 180,000$ SSMH11 SSMH10 SSMH11.1 NEW NEW 12 400 0.5 11.42 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 180,000$ SSMH12 SSMH11 SSMH12.1 NEW NEW 12 400 0.5 11.67 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 180,000$ 40024 SSMH18 40024.2 NEW NEW 10 120 0.48 12.88 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 48,000$ SSMH18 SSMH17 SSMH18.1 NEW NEW 10 400 0.54 13.57 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 160,000$ SSMH17 SSMH16 SSMH17.1 NEW NEW 10 400 0.48 13.01 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 160,000$ SSMH16 SSMH15 SSMH16.1 NEW NEW 10 400 0.48 12.64 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 160,000$ SSMH15 SSMH14 SSMH15.1 NEW NEW 10 163 0.33 12.53 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 65,200$ SSMH14 SSMH13 SSMH14.1 NEW NEW 12 285 0.5 12.26 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 128,250$ SSMH13 SSMH12 SSMH13.1 NEW NEW 12 400 0.5 11.83 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 180,000$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 2,295,950$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 254,800$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
0 Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 21,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 2,711,750$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 41,100$
Remove & Replace Factor 8,220$
Traffic Control 255,075$
Subtotal: 3,016,145$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 150,807.25$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 3,166,952$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 316,695$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 3,483,647$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 1,463,132$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 4,947,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73) (i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-14
Fruitdale Ave between Meridian Ave and Southwest Expwy; and Southwest Expwy between Fruitdale Ave and Stokes St Construct 4,540 linear feet of 10-, 12-, 15- and 16-in sanitary sewer; remove and replace 820 linear feet of 8-in to 15-in sanitary sewer. (iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Southwest Expwy and Fruitdale Ave, major arterials.

Attachment

LOS GATOS CREEK
SSMH9
SSMH8
SSMH7 SSMH1
72998
400714007040069
40024
SSMH18
SSMH17
SSMH16
SSMH15
SSMH14
SSMH13
SSMH12
SSMH11
SSMH10
12 in.
16 in.
10 in.
15 in.
12 in.
12 in.
12 in.
12 in.
12 in.
10 in.
10 in.
12 in.
10 in.
10 in.
8 in.
(15 in.)Fruitdale Ave
Leigh Ave
Meridian Ave
Willow St
Bike Path
Stokes St
St Elizabeth Dr
College Dr
Cheney Dr
De Rose Way
Sherman Oaks Dr
Princess Anne Dr
Curci Dr
Goodwin Ave
Westwood Dr
Leon Dr
Willowleaf Dr
De Marietta Ave
Glen Eyrie Ave
Twin Brook Dr
Arbor Park Dr
Dandini Cir
Mardel Ln
New Street
Francisco Ave
Loop Dr
Camino MondeSanta Lucia Dr
Willowhaven Dr
Lawton Ave
Lynnhaven Dr
Roenoke Way
Vanessa Dr
McKinley CtMcKinley Ave
Rosebud Ct
Fairweather Ln
Liebelt Ct
Beatrice Ct
Kirkside Ct
Shelton Way
Raquel Ct
Longbranch Ct
Barden Way
Green Glen Dr
Triborough Ln
Nantucket Ct
Stokes St
Westwood Dr
0 700 1,000 2,000
Feet
C:\Users\christopher.mar\OneDrive - City of San Jose\Shared Documents - PW_Sanitary Master Plan\General\City Departments\Sanitary CIP\Project Review\2024\10294 (JLS-14)\JLS-14.aprx ±
1 10 2
3 6 7 8
9 4
13 Existing Sewers
CIPP
Resize Pipe [New D (Ex D)]
New Pipe
Reslope
Reverse Slope
Weir
Plug
Manholes
Capacity Improvement Project
JLS-14
(Priority 3)
City of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment
Phase III and Update of Phase II
82D 83C
99C98D
98B 99A
SSMH1
40071
16 in.

Meridian Ave
Fruitdale Ave
Attachment

Project: JLS-15
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$64,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Add weir in MH 12023 to divert flow up north into the 21" along Union Ave. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost -$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
1 Weir/Plug(s) 35,000$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 35,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping -$
Remove & Replace Factor -$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 35,000$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 1,750.00$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 40,000$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 4,000$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 44,000$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 19,800$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 64,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-15
Intersection of Camden Ave. and Union Ave.

Install weir in MH 12023
(iii)
(i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-16
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments.

Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$64,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost -$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
1 Weir/Plug(s) 35,000$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 35,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping -$
Remove & Replace Factor -$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 35,000$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 1,750.00$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 40,000$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 4,000$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 44,000$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 19,800$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 64,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-16
Intersection of Ross Ave. and Nelson Wy.

Install weir in MH 442
(iii)
(i)
(i) This site was metered in Nov 2021 but captured only DWF data. This site needs to be re‐metered for WWF confirmation before moving forward with implementation.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-17
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$633,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
421 422 421.1 421 6 8 143 0.45 7.41 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 55,055$ 422 426 422.1 422 6 8 136 0.40 8.00 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 52,360$ 426 428 426.1 426 6 8 242 0.41 7.77 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 93,170$ 428 1052 428.1 428 6 8 258 0.80 7.90 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 99,330$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 299,915$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 42,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 341,915$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 29,992$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,998$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 377,905$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 18,895.24$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 396,800$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 39,680$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 436,480$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 196,416$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 633,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-17
Redstone Dr. from De Soto Dr. to Adonis Wy., and continue on Adonis Wy. to Elaster Dr.

Upsize 780 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch
(iii)
(i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-18
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$166,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
39243 39239 39243.1 39243 8 10 221 0.48 10.60 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 88,400$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 88,400$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 88,400$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 8,840$
Remove & Replace Factor 1,768$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 99,008$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 4,950.40$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 103,958$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 10,396$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 114,354$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 51,459$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 166,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-18
Private walkway west of Leigh Ave. and Kingman Ave.

Upsize 220 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch
(iii)
(i) One segment on easement, project manager needs to coordinate work with resident.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-19
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$64,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Confirm flow split in MH #11779. There might already be a weir in there. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost -$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
1 Weir/Plug(s) 35,000$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 35,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping -$
Remove & Replace Factor -$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 35,000$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 1,750.00$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 40,000$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 4,000$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 44,000$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 19,800$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 64,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-19
Intersection of S. Bascom Ave. and Elden Dr.

Install weir in MH 11779
(iii)
(i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-20
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,669,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Optional add‐on: Remove existing 8" between MH 991 and 8732 if there is no lateral connection (not included below). (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
42850 1006 42850.1 42850 8 10 114 0.23 12.83 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 45,600$ 1006 1007 1006.1 1006 8 10 180 0.41 12.83 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 72,000$ 1007 1008 1007.1 1007 8 10 369 0.40 12.63 3 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 147,600$ 1008 1009 1008.1 1008 8 10 244 0.17 12.07 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 97,600$ 1009 1010 1009.1 1009 10 10 298 0.41 10.39 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 119,200$ 1010 991 1010.1 1010 10 10 372 0.40 9.25 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 223,200$ 991 8735 991.2 NEW NEW 10 14 7.26 8.56 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 5,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 487,600$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 223,200$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 49,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 899,800$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 71,080$
Remove & Replace Factor 14,216$
Traffic Control 11,760$
Subtotal: 996,856$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 49,842.80$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,046,699$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 104,670$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,151,369$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 518,116$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,669,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-20
Intersection of Samaritan Dr. and Samaritan Pl.

Upsize 1,590 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch, reslope and realign 10‐in, and install a new 10‐in to connect MH 991 to 8735 (iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 1010 since it is under a 27" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Upstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it crosses a signalized intersection at Samaritan Ct. (i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-21
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,043,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
73058 12158_CO 73058.1 51722 6 8 408 0.93 7.77 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 157,080$ 807987_F 71321 807987_F.1 51724 6 8 207 0.60 6.63 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 79,695$ 12158_CO 12163 12158_CO.1 12158 6 8 120 0.93 8.53 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 46,200$ 71321 73058 71321.2 51723 6 8 407 0.93 7.24 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 156,695$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 439,670$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 126,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 565,670$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 43,967$
Remove & Replace Factor 8,793$
Traffic Control 4,620$
Subtotal: 623,050$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 31,152.52$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 654,203$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 65,420$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 719,623$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 323,830$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,043,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-21
From Wyrick Ave. to Bercaw Ln., and along Bercaw Ln. from Wyrick Ave. to Camden Ave.

Upsize 1,140 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Camden Ave, a major arterial.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-22
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$969,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
40095 40089 40095.1 40095 6 8 301 0.60 6.09 9 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 115,885$ 40089 40090 40089.1 40089 6 8 510 0.60 6.88 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 196,350$ 40090 38315 40090.1 40090 6 8 239 1.62 9.28 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 92,015$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 404,250$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 126,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 530,250$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 40,425$
Remove & Replace Factor 8,085$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 578,760$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 28,938.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 607,698$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 60,770$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 668,468$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 300,811$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 969,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-22
College Dr. between Kingman Ave. and Moorpark Ave.

Upsize 1,050 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch
(iii)
(i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-23
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5* - Not a project under existing condition, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,551,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii) Will require permits and coordination work with Union Pacific Railroad Company.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-23
Dupont St to Los Gatos Creek crossing (under W San Carlos St) Upsize 765 feet of 6-inch pipe to 12-inch, 90 feet of 10-inch pipe to 12-inch pipe, and reslope 100 feet of 12-inch pipe. (iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 28298 since it is under Union Pacific RR tracks. Requires casing. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i) Remove plug in siphon to utilize both barrels. The condition of the south barrel (highlighted below) of double‐barrel siphon may need repair. Information from 2011 Survey DIP sheet of MH 28297 (Project #12‐014F).

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) Due to new information regarding development projects in that area provided in February 2022, Master Plan is working closely with Development Servies Division to refine the flow estimates for this area and may need to refine the scope of this CIP. Design engineer should confirm the final scope with Master Plan staff prior to implementation.

Attachment

Project: JLS‐24
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$504,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
28268 28269 28268.1 28268 12 15 310 0.40 12.79 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 155,000$ 28269 29367 28269.1 28269 12 15 160 0.31 12.53 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 80,000$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 235,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 14,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 249,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 23,500$
Remove & Replace Factor 4,700$
Traffic Control 23,500$
Subtotal: 300,700$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 15,035.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 315,735$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 31,574$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 347,309$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 156,289$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 504,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS‐24
W San Carlos St between Josefa St and Gifford Ave
Upsize 470 feet of 12‐inch pipe to 15‐inch
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on W San Carlos St, a major arterial.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS‐25
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5* - Not a project under existing condition, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,299,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Three segments on easements, project manager needs to coordinate work with resident. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
42103 42104 42103.1 42103 8 10 187 0.45 7.04 12 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 74,800$ 42104 16029 42104.1 42104 8 10 206 0.43 7.67 8 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 82,400$ 16029 16028 16029.1 16029 8 12 159 0.47 9.54 7 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 71,550$ 16028 15604 16028.1 16028 8 12 160 0.47 10.92 12 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 72,000$ 15604 81789 15604.1 81706 8 15 153 0.38 10.09 8 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 76,500$ 81789 81790 81789.1 81709 8 15 15 0.80 9.44 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 7,500$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 384,750$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 329,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 713,750$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 38,475$
Remove & Replace Factor 7,695$
Traffic Control 15,720$
Subtotal: 775,640$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 38,782.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 814,422$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 81,442$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 895,864$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 403,139$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,299,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS‐25
N Autumn St at Autumn Ct to W Old Julian St, east to the Guadalupe River crossing Upsize 880 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10 to 15‐inch.
(iii)
(i) Upstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on N Autumn St, a major arterial.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: JLS-26
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$603,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
38707 38708 38707.1 38707 6 8 305 0.58 8.54 7 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 117,425$ 38708 38709 38708.1 38708 6 8 38 0.47 10.03 0 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 22,800$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 117,425$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 22,800$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 49,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 329,225$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 14,023$
Remove & Replace Factor 2,805$
Traffic Control 14,023$
Subtotal: 360,075$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 18,003.73$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 378,078$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 37,808$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 415,886$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 187,149$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 603,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JLS-26
Meridian Ave, north of Douglas Ave, to W San Carlos Ave Upsize 340 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Meridian Ave, a major arterial.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 38708 since it is under a 30" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i)
Attachment

Attachment
Project: KSA-6n8 Phase I
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority…......................................................................................................................................................4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger…..............................................................................................................................................Existing Condition WWF Trigger…........................................................................................................................................... GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level…...........................................................................................................................2 - Flow meter on a very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Comments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives…...............................................................................................................................................

Remove & Replace Factor 15,308$
Traffic Control 15,705$
Subtotal: 956,701$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 47,835.07$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,004,536$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 100,454$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,104,990$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 497,246$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,602,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(i)
(iii)
(i) Upstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is at a signalized intersection

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-6n8 Phase I
Fontaine Rd, between Alvin Ave and 700 ft north-west of Flanigan Dr.

Remove and replace 1,780 linear feet of 10-in to 10-in and 12-in sanitary sewer $1,602,000
(i)
(ii)
Attachment
SSMH6
18202
18025
17841
17840
17839
17838
17837
17827
10 in.
10 in.
12 in.
(10 in.)
101
Alvin Ave
Fontaine Rd
Tully Rd
Flanigan Dr
NB 101 To Tully RampSB 101 From Tully Ramp
Carterwood Pl
Flory Dr
Tosca Way
La Boheme Way
Burdette Dr
Saluda Ct
Melissa Ct
101
101
0 300 600 900
Feet
C:\Users\christopher.mar\OneDrive - City of San Jose\Shared Documents - PW_Sanitary Master Plan\General\City Departments\Sanitary CIP\Project Review\2024\10132 - KSA6n8\KSA6n8.aprx ±
1 10 2
3 6 7 8
9 4
13 Existing Sewers
CIPP
Resize Pipe [New D (Ex D)]
New Pipe
Reslope
Reverse Slope
Weir
Plug
Manholes
Capacity Improvement ProjectCity of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment
Phase III and Update of Phase II
KSA-6n8 Phase I
(Priority 4)
101A
100A 100B
84C 84D 85C
SSMH6
18202
12 in.
10 in.
12 in.(10 in.)
Fontaine Rd
Attachment
Project: KSA-6n8 Phase II
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority…......................................................................................................................................................4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger…..............................................................................................................................................Existing Condition WWF Trigger…........................................................................................................................................... GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level…...........................................................................................................................2 - Flow meter on a very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Comments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii) Traffic control assumed on Tully Rd because it is a major arterial. (iii) Traffic control assumed on Alvin Ave due to traffic lights Alternatives…...............................................................................................................................................

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-6n8 Phase II
Tully Rd, from S King Rd to Alvin Ave; Alvin Ave from Tully Rd to Fontaine Rd.

Remove and replace 1,020 linear feet of 10-in to 8-in sanitary sewer. $1,479,000
(ii)
(iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed because Tully Rd is a major arterial. (i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
Attachment
17814
17815
17273
18074
1807818076
802649
8 in.(10 in.)
0 200 400 600
Feet
C:\Users\christopher.mar\OneDrive - City of San Jose\Shared Documents - PW_Sanitary Master Plan\General\City Departments\Sanitary CIP\Project Review\2024\10132 - KSA6n8\KSA6n8.aprx ±
1 10 2
3 6 7 8
9 4
13 Legend
Abandon
Manhole
New Manhole
Plug
Reslope
Reverse Slope
New Pipe
Resize Pipe [New D
(Ex D)]
Abandon
KSA-6n8 Phase II
(Priority 4)
City of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment
Phase III and Update of Phase II
101A100A 100B
84C
84A
84D 85C
85A
Attachment

Project: KSA‐9
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - Priority 4 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$436,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii) Per TR4320, there is an 127 ft of 8‐in pipe between MH 18548 and MH 18536 but plugged. Confirm if the 8‐in pipe is still in place.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA‐9
On Norwood Ave between Gumdrop Dr and Taffy Dr
Construct 570 feet of 8‐inch pipe with a new slope
(iii)
(i)
(i) Construct 8‐in pipes between MH 18548 and MH 18536 to eliminate deficiency upstream along Gumdrop Rd. The slope of new pipes should be changed to 0.98%.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) Install a weir in manhole 18515 to divert all upstream flow to Peppermint Dr. and eliminate deficiency along upstream of Gumdrop Rd. Upsize the existing 6‐in pipes to 8‐in.

Estimated cost of $0.8M.

Attachment

Project: KSA-10
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$164,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Install a weir in MH 50774 to divert 60% or more upstream flow to the resloped 10‐in pipe, crossing to Rosenelfe Cir.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-10
On Ocala Ave between Parkdale Way and S White Rd
Install weir in MH 50774 and reslope 120 feet of 10-inch pipe (iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Ocala Ave, a major arterial. (ii) Per TR8449, SS50775 is plugged. Please conduct survey at MH 50774 to confirm. If upstream inverts of SS 50774 and SS50775 are same, a weir needs to be installed. The weir crest is simulated to be 0.5ft higher than upstream invert of SS50774. If upstream invert of SS 50775 is higher than upstream invert of SS50774, SS50775 may need to be resloped.

Please verify it with the master plan team.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: KSA-10 (Alternative 1)
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………KSA-10 (Alternative 1) Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Priority 1 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$882,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
(iii)
Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) KSA-10 U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
50774 50775 50774.2 50775 10 10 115 0.45 8.71 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 46,000$ 17849 18030 17849.1 17849 8 10 252 0.3 10.41 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 100,800$ 18030 18029 18030.1 18030 8 10 45 0.3 10.36 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 18,000$ 18029 17793 18029.1 18029 8 10 419 0.3 9.83 7 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 167,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 332,400$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir Construction 70,000$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 56,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 458,400$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 28,640$
Remove & Replace Factor 6,648$
Traffic Control 33,240$
Subtotal: 526,928$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 26,346.40$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 553,274$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 55,327$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 608,602$
Temporary ROW/Easement Acquisition ($7/SF) -$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 273,871$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 882,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ocala Avenue between Wesley Court and Everwood Court; at Ridgemont Dr; and at Parkdale Way to Rosenelfe Cir.

Install weir between Manhole 20789 and Manhole 50774 to divert all flow towards Manhole 50775. Segment between Manhole 50774 to Manhole 50775 to be resloped for 115 feet. On Ridgemont Drive and Ocala Avenue, install a weir on northern siphon so low flow is diverted to southern siphon. Between Wesley Court and Everwood Court on Ocala Avenue upsize 3 segments from 8-inch to 10 inch for 716 feet.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
Attachment

LOWER SILVER CREEK

FLINT CREEK
17849
17793
1802918030
50775
50774
10 in.
(8 in.)
Ridgemont Dr
Hillmont Ave
El Monte Way
S Capitol Ave
Sundown Ln
Cunningham Ave
E Capitol Expy
Wonderama Dr
Ocala Ave
Rose Creek Dr
McGinness Ave
Home Gate Dr
Supreme Dr
Rosenelfe Cir
Woodridge Way
Parkdale Way
Pixanne Ct
Oakton Ct
S White Rd
Twin Oaks Ln
Wesley Ct
Woodmoor Dr
Montevideo Ln
Tanglewood Dr
Bluewater Ct
Home Crest Dr
Moonstar Ct
Cove Ct
Cragwood Ln
Everwood Ct
John Montgomery Dr
Ocala Ct
Cunningham Ct
Evermont Ct
0 400 900 1,000
Feet
C:\Users\christopher.mar\OneDrive - City of San Jose\Shared Documents - PW_Sanitary Master Plan\General\Flow Monitoring\Recalibration\Recalibration2.aprx ±
1 10 2
3 6 7 8
9 4
13 Existing Sewers
CIPP
Resize Pipe [New D (Ex D)]
New Pipe
Reslope
Reverse Slope
Weir
Plug
Manholes
Capacity Improvement Project
KSA-10 (Alternative 1)
(Priority 1)
City of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Capacity
Assessment
Phase III and Update of Phase II
85A
68D 69C

LOWER SILVER CREEK
Ocala Ave
50775
50774
Ocala Ave
Rosenelfe Cir
Parkdale Way
Ocala Ave
Attachment

Project: KSA-11
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$439,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
19449 19981 19449.1 19449 8 8 124 1.06 10.67 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 47,740$ 19981 NEW MH 19981.1 19981 6 8 147 0.83 9.66 3 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 56,595$ NEW MH 19450 NEW NEW NEW 8 261 0.08 9.87 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 100,485$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 204,820$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 35,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 239,820$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 20,482$
Remove & Replace Factor 2,087$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 262,389$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 13,119.44$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 275,508$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 27,551$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 303,059$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 136,377$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 439,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73) KSA-11
On Rocky Mountain Dr between Mt. Zion Ave and Mt. Rushmore Dr and Mt. Zion Ave between Rocky Mountain Dr and Mt Rainier Dr Install a new manhole. Upsize approximately 147 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch and reslope 385 feet of SS19449 and the upsized segment

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) Upsize 1,884 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch and re‐slope 546 feet of SS19449 and SS19981:Re‐slope SS19449 and SS 19981. Keep the upstream invert of SS 19449 as the same downstream invert of SS19452; and maintain the same downstream invert of SS 19981 then smooth out the slopes of pipes in‐between. Estimated cost of $2.6M. (iii)
(i)
(i) Install a new manhole at the intersection of Rocky Mountain Dr and Mt. Zion Dr. and split the existing 6‐ in pipe (SS 19981). Add a new 8‐in pipe between the new manhole and MH19450. Upsize the existing 6‐in at downstream of MH19981 to 8‐in and reslope between MH 19449 and the new manhole to smooth out. (ii) Per TR2449, there is 15‐in storm pipe located near by and above the proposed new sanitary pipe. Please conduct surveys to confirm that the new line will not come into conflict with the storm system.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachment

Attachment

Project: KSA-12
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$843,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Survey storm (MH90742, 21435) and sanitary manholes (MH21742, 73540, 21743, 20371) to avoid utility conflicts. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
21742 73540 21742.1 21742 8 10 317 0.48 9.45 5 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 126,800$ 73540 21743 73540.1 21744 8 10 22 0.48 9.86 0 400$ PTGAB 36 1,200 $ 26,400$ 21743 20371 21743.1 21743 8 10 137 0.48 10.06 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 54,800$ 20371 42853 20371.1 20371 8 10 139 0.38 10.80 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 55,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 237,200$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 26,400$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 42,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 445,600$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 26,360$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,272$
Traffic Control 26,360$
Subtotal: 503,592$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 25,179.60$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 528,772$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 52,877$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 581,649$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 261,742$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 843,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 21744 since it is crossing Babb Creek (culvert). Requires casing. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on S White Rd, a major arterial.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-12
On S White Rd between Buckner Dr and Westboro Dr
Upsize 620 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch and re‐slope the lines Attachment

Attachment

Project: KSA-12 (Alternative 1)
Project ID ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………KSA-12 (Alternative 1) Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$982,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Project adjacent to County District 2 & 3 (ii)
(iii)
Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Assumed trenchless construction for crossing North Babb Creek (ii)
Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) KSA-12 U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
21742 73540 21742.1 21742 8 10 317 0.66 9.73 5 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 126,800$ 21868 21871_CO 21868.1 21868 6 6 143 0.32 7.27 1 370$ #N/A No Casing 370$ 52,910$ 73540 21743 73540.1 21744 8 12 22 0.59 10.43 0 450$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 17,600$ 21743 20371 21743.1 21743 8 12 137 0.36 10.56 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 61,650$ 20371 42853 20371.1 20371 8 12 139 0.25 11.13 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 62,550$ 42853 20344 42853.1 42853 10 12 9 2.44 11.72 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 4,050$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 307,960$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 17,600$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir Construction -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 49,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 514,560$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 32,556$
Remove & Replace Factor 6,511$
Traffic Control 32,556$
Subtotal: 586,183$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 29,309.16$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 615,492$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 61,549$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 677,042$
Temporary ROW/Easement Acquisition ($7/SF) -$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 304,669$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 982,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Milford Way between South White Road and Stonehedge Way; South White Road between Buckner Drive and Westboro Drive.

On South White Road going west into Milford Way is reslope for 143 feet of pipe. South White Road and Buckner Drive to South White Road and Westboro Drive, upsize and reslope from 8-inch and 10-inch to 10-inch and 12-inch for 487 feet. Manhole 21743 to Manhole 20371 is upsized to 12-inch from 8-inch for 137 feet.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
Attachment
County District 2 & 3

NORTH BABB CREEK
21868
7354021743
20344
21742
20371
42853
10 in.(8 in.)
S White Rd
Story Rd
Buckner Dr
Bedford St
Griffith St
Kenilworth Way
Stonehedge Way
Endfield Way
Woodhaven Dr
Arthur Pl
Westboro Dr
Highwood Dr
Milford Way
Stonehedge Ct
Athene Dr
Cairo Ct
Eton Ave
Bethel Ct
Dennis Ct
Torrance Ave
0 300 500 800
Feet
C:\Users\christopher.mar\OneDrive - City of San Jose\Shared Documents - PW_Sanitary Master Plan\General\Flow Monitoring\Recalibration\Recalibration2.aprx ±
1 10 2
3 6 7 8
9 4
13 Existing Sewers
CIPP
Resize Pipe [New D (Ex D)]
New Pipe
Reslope
Reverse Slope
Weir
Plug
Manholes
Capacity Improvement Project
KSA-12 (Alternative 1)
(Priority 3)
City of San Jose
Sanitary Sewer Capacity
Assessment
Phase III and Update of Phase II
68C
68D
68B
69C
69A
20344
42853
12 in.
(10 in.)
12 in.
(8 in.)

NORTH BABB CREEK
73540
21743
12 in.(8 in.)
Woodhaven Dr
Attachment

Project: KSA-13
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,032,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
20181 20180 20181.1 20181 6 8 132 0.30 7.85 2 385$ PTGAB 36 1,185 $ 156,420$ 20180 20172_CO 20180.1 20180 6 8 88 0.44 7.80 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 33,880$ 20172_CO 20171 20172_CO.1 20172 6 8 76 0.95 7.48 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 29,260$ 20171 20347 20171.2 20179 6 8 339 0.25 8.10 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 130,515$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 193,655$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 156,420$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 84,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 574,075$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 35,008$
Remove & Replace Factor 7,002$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 616,084$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 30,804.20$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 646,888$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 64,689$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 711,577$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 320,210$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,032,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 20181 since it crosses under creek. Require casing. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-13
On Highwood Dr and Doris Ave between Lyndale Ave and Westboro Dr Upsize 640 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch
Attachment

Attachment

Project: KSA-14
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Priority 3 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,384,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
90907 90908 90907.1 21916 8 10 76 0.49 12.97 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 30,400$ 90908 21892 90908.1 21916 8 10 519 0.61 10.19 4 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 207,600$ 21892 21911 21892.1 21892 8 10 181 0.75 8.39 4 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 72,400$ 21911 21910 21911.2 21911 8 10 166 0.80 8.18 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 66,400$ 21910 21908 21910.1 21910 8 10 143 0.80 8.21 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 57,200$ 21908 21898 21908.1 21483 8 8 400 0.91 7.32 13 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 154,000$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 588,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 168,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 756,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 58,800$
Remove & Replace Factor 11,760$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 826,560$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 41,328.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 867,888$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 86,789$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 954,677$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 429,605$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,384,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-14
On E Hills Dr between Meadow Ln and West of McCovey Ln and Meadow Ln between E Hills Dr and North of Jerilyn Dr Upsize 1,085 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch and reslope 400 feet of 8‐inch pipe (iii)
(i)
(i) 8‐in pipe on Meadow Ln is located in the Santa Clara County jurisdiction and may require coordination. This needs to be resloped to split upstream flow evenly. Lower upstream invert of SS21483 to match with upstream invert of SS21980.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: KSA-15
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2* - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings, becomes a Priority 1 project in the near term future DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Conflicting flow between meter and model. See comments.

Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$3,393,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) The existing 8‐in pipes downstream of MH 21460 should also be upsized to 12‐in since the pipe upstream of MH 21460 is upsized to 12‐in.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-15
On Alum Rock Ave and S White Rd between Harriet Ave and E Hills Dr Upsize 3,130 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 12‐inch
(iii) Upstream of the project scope is located in the Santa Clara County jurisdiction and may require coordination. (i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on S White Rd and Alum Rock Ave, major arterials. (ii) This site was metered in Nov 2021 but captured only DWF data. This site needs to be re‐metered for WWF confirmation before moving forward with implementation.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: KSA-16
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,432,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
13102 13101 13102.1 13102 6 8 291 2.42 9.92 7 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 112,035$ 13101 13100 13101.1 13101 6 8 406 1.00 10.36 6 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 243,600$ 13100 13172 13100.1 13100 6 8 377 1.09 10.95 9 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 145,145$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 257,180$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 243,600$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 154,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 794,780$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 50,078$
Remove & Replace Factor 10,016$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 854,874$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 42,743.68$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 897,617$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 89,762$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 987,379$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 444,321$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,432,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KSA-16
On Amos Way between Oldfield Way and Fowler Rd
Upsize 1,070 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 8‐inch
(iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 13101 since it is under a 36" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: LMP-5
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$549,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
35209 35208 35209.1 35209 8 10 278 0.48 11.27 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 111,200$ 35208 35207 35208.1 35208 8 10 185 0.48 11.88 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 74,000$ 35207 35195 35207.1 35207 8 10 247 0.40 13.92 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 98,800$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 284,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 284,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 28,400$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,680$
Traffic Control 9,880$
Subtotal: 327,960$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 16,398.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 344,358$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 34,436$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 378,794$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 170,457$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 549,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on N 1st St, a major arterial.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LMP-5
E Plumeria Dr to N 1st St
Upsize 710 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch
Attachment

Attachment

Project: LMP-6
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - Flow meter near project reach (upstream or downstream) confirms flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$2,816,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Updated scope of CIP project NSJPA‐2. Increasing scope to account for increase in growth projection from MPP2 to MPP3. (ii) The 15" runs parallel to VTA light rail track and may therefore require permit and close coordination with VTA.

Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
34043 34042 34043.1 34043 8 12 455 0.30 5.63 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 204,750$ 34042 34041 34042.1 34042 8 12 129 0.30 5.50 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 58,050$ 34041 83389 34041.1 83438 8 12 89 0.38 5.11 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 40,050$ 83389 84437 83389.1 83439 8 12 160 0.36 3.54 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 72,000$ 84437 84429 84437.1 84754 8 12 130 0.14 3.40 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 58,500$ 84429 34040 84429.1 84429 8 12 160 0.20 3.63 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 72,000$ 34040 34039 34040.1 34040 8 12 107 0.25 4.20 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 48,150$ 34039 34038 34039.1 34039 8 12 116 0.40 6.11 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 52,200$ 34038 34037 34038.1 34038 8 12 113 0.37 6.05 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 50,850$ 34037 34028 34037.1 34037 8 12 95 0.39 5.95 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 42,750$ 34028 81687 34028.1 34028 8 12 239 0.36 6.68 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 107,550$ 81687 81688 81687.1 81565 10 15 46 0.39 7.52 1 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 23,000$ 81688 81689 81688.1 81566 10 15 246 0.40 7.86 1 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 123,000$ 81689 81690 81689.1 81567 10 15 231 0.43 8.38 1 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 115,500$ 81690 81691 81690.1 81568 10 15 201 0.33 9.33 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 100,500$ 81691 81692 81691.1 81569 10 15 219 0.41 10.13 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 109,500$ 81692 81693 81692.1 81570 10 15 220 0.38 11.03 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 110,000$ 81693 81694 81693.1 81571 10 15 31 0.42 11.96 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 15,500$ 81694 34021 81694.1 81572 10 15 82 0.43 11.59 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 41,000$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 1,444,850$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 35,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,479,850$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 144,485$
Remove & Replace Factor 28,897$
Traffic Control 63,800$
Subtotal: 1,717,032$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 85,851.60$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,802,884$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 180,288$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,983,172$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 832,932$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 2,816,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on E Tasman Dr, a major arterial.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LMP-6
Baypointe Pkwy to E Tasman Dr, west to N 1st St
Upsize 3,070 feet of 8 to 10‐inch pipe to 12 to 15‐inch Attachment

Attachment

Project: LMP-7
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Priority 1 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$7,465,000 Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
34709 35019 34709.1 35020 27 27 474 0.27 15.43 1 750$ PTGAB No Casing 900$ 426,600$ 34885 35237 34885.1 34885 27 27 253 0.28 16.89 0 788$ #N/A No Casing 788$ 199,238$ 35186 35188 35186.1 35186 27 27 435 0.17 16.98 1 788$ #N/A No Casing 788$ 342,563$ 35187D 35186 35187D.1 1190336 27 27 340 0.19 17.52 0 788$ #N/A No Casing 788$ 267,750$ 35188 34885 35188.1 35188 27 27 147 0.28 17.34 0 788$ #N/A No Casing 788$ 115,763$ 35236 34709 35236.1 35236 27 27 418 -0.05 14.40 1 750$ #N/A No Casing 750$ 313,500$ 35237 35236 35237.1 35237 27 27 449 0.08 14.95 3 750$ #N/A No Casing 750$ 336,750$ 35014 35021 35014.1 35014 27 27 162 0.33 14.95 0 750$ PTGAB No Casing 900$ 145,800$ 35017 35014 35017.1 35017 27 27 450 0.15 15.00 0 750$ #N/A No Casing 750$ 337,500$ 35019 35017 35019.1 35019 27 27 450 0.06 15.78 2 750$ #N/A No Casing 750$ 337,500$ 35021 35023 35021.1 35021 27 27 278 0.16 15.35 0 750$ #N/A No Casing 750$ 208,500$ 35022 35025 35022.1 35022 27 27 275 -0.03 15.75 1 750$ #N/A No Casing 750$ 206,250$ 35023 35022 35023.1 35023 27 27 275 0.18 15.85 1 750$ #N/A No Casing 750$ 206,250$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 2,871,563$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 572,400$
2 Jacking Pit(s) 170,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 70,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 3,793,963$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 344,396$
Remove & Replace Factor 68,879$
Traffic Control 344,396$
Subtotal: 4,551,634$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 227,581.71$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 4,779,216$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 477,922$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 5,257,138$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 2,207,998$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 7,465,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73) LMP-7
N 1st St. between W. Trimble Rd. and Montague Expy
Repair or replace 4,410 ft of existing 27‐inch pipe

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) A combination of trenchless and open cut may be most beneficial to work on this major street along VTA. The area where open cut is used will allow for inverts/gradient to be adjusted to help increase flow.
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on N 1st St, a major arterial. (ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segments 35020 and 35014 since they are under 48" and 30" storm mains, respectively. Assume 2 jacking and 2 receiving pits. (i) CIPP line the existing 27" instead of remove & replace. (i) Remove bulkhead at MH 35187 to reconnect segment 35149 to 35187 to utilize the existing 27" pipe along N. 1st St. Existing 27" between MH 35187 and MH 34709 was CCTV'd in 2017 and was found to be corroded; this project therefore assumes they need to be repaired/replaced. (ii) The 27" runs parallel to VTA light rail track and may therefore require permit and close coordination with VTA. (iii) Should CCTV the 27" downstream of 34709 in case more pipes are corroded and need to be replaced. (iv) The 27" is also parallel to a 60" RCP storm line. Should verify depth and exact distance from the 27" to see if construction activity would affect the storm line.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachment

Attachment

Project: MNT-1
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………None WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach surcharged during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$241,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
27899 27898 27899.1 55215 6 10 266 0.48 6.93 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 106,400$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 106,400$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 14,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 120,400$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 10,640$
Remove & Replace Factor 2,128$
Traffic Control 10,640$
Subtotal: 143,808$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 7,190.40$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 150,998$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 15,100$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 166,098$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 74,744$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 241,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Monterey Rd, a major arterial.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MNT-1
Monterey Road, segment south‐east of Bernard Avenue
Upsize 270 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 10‐inch
Attachment

Attachment

Project: M-R-1
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Priority 2 based on existing DWF & WWF rankings DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Existing Condition Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,955,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Reverse flow in segment 3445 with an even split, diverting some flow to Cheltenham Wy. (ii) Reslope sewer between MH 3432 and MH 3367 to match outgoing inverts Cheltenham Wy and Pittsfield Wy.

Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
3432 3444 3432.2 3445 8 8 230 0.34 7.06 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 88,550$ 3444 3967 3444.2 3444 6 8 152 0.34 7.71 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 58,520$ 3967 3966 3967.1 3967 6 8 214 0.34 7.33 9 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 82,390$ 3966 3367 3966.1 3968 6 8 260 0.58 6.91 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 100,100$ 3367 3351 3367.2 3353 6 8 125 0.34 7.38 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 48,125$ 3351 3352 3351.1 3351 6 8 98 0.34 8.26 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 37,730$ 3352 3607 3352.2 3352 6 8 139 0.34 8.16 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 53,515$ 3607 3608 3607.1 3607 6 8 45 0.34 7.48 0 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 17,325$ 3608 3364 3608.1 3608 6 8 113 0.34 7.25 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 43,505$ 3364 3362 3364.1 3364 6 8 170 0.34 8.23 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 65,450$ 3362 3361 3362.1 3362 6 8 227 0.34 8.40 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 87,395$ 3361 3360 3361.1 3361 6 8 230 0.34 7.18 4 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 88,550$ 3360 3358 3360.1 3360 6 8 275 0.34 6.54 6 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 105,875$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 877,030$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 210,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,087,030$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 87,703$
Remove & Replace Factor 17,541$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 1,192,274$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 59,613.68$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,251,887$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 125,189$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,377,076$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 578,372$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,955,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) Upsizing capacity improvement need line on Avenida Espana was considered. It would take 2900 ft at $3.4M. (iii) Reverse flow in segment 3353 and reslope downstream segments to catch reversed invert. (i)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
M-R-1
Cheltenham Way, from Middlebury Way to Pawtucket Way
Upsize 1,923 feet of 6‐inch pipe to 10‐inch pipe and reverse 355 feet of 6‐inch and 8‐inch pipe Attachment

Attachment

Project: NSJPA-1
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$590,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
33786 33787 33786.1 33786 8 10 266 0.35 7.78 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 106,400$ 33787 33788 33787.1 33787 8 10 399 0.35 8.49 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 159,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 266,000$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 28,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 294,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 26,600$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,320$
Traffic Control 26,600$
Subtotal: 352,520$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 17,626.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 370,146$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 37,015$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 407,161$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 183,222$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 590,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on W Tasman Dr, a major arterial.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-1
Tasman Dr from Champion Ct to Vista Montana
Upsize 670 feet from 8-inch pipe to 10-inch pipe
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NSJPA-3
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$2,171,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Split segment 34024 via a manhole to minimize length of pipe requiring casing. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
34024 NEW 34024.1 34024 8 10 246 0.34 9.50 0 400$ PTGAB 36 1,200 $ 295,200$ NEW 34020 34024.1 34024 8 10 100 0.34 9.50 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 40,000$ 34026 34024 34026.1 34026 8 10 436 0.35 9.46 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 174,400$ 34029 34026 34029.1 34029 8 10 254 0.35 8.25 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 101,600$ 34031 34029 34031.1 34031 8 10 499 0.28 7.11 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 199,600$ 34032 34031 34032.1 34032 8 10 399 0.35 6.21 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 159,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 675,200$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 295,200$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,110,400$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 97,040$
Remove & Replace Factor 19,408$
Traffic Control 97,040$
Subtotal: 1,323,888$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 66,194.40$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,390,082$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 139,008$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,529,091$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 642,218$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 2,171,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on E Tasman Dr, a major arterial. (i)
(iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for dowstream half of Segment 34024 since it crosses under VTA light rail line on N 1st St. Require casing. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-3
E Tasman Dr from east of Baypointe Pkwy to N 1st St
Upsize 1,930 feet of 8-inch pipe to 10-inch pipe
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NSJPA-5
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,614,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Upstream of Existing CIP NSJPA‐5. Increasing scope to account for increase in growth projection from MPP2 to MPP3. (ii) Makes use of existing 12" VCP line (Segment 53384) crossing VTA light rail tracks.

Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
53389 53387 53389.1 53389 8 10 124 0.33 11.60 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 49,600$ 53390 53389 53390.1 53390 8 10 150 0.32 11.15 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 60,000$ 53391 53390 53391.1 53391 8 10 240 0.34 10.51 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 96,000$ 53392 53391 53392.1 53392 8 10 222 0.34 9.22 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 88,800$ 53393 53392 53393.1 53393 8 10 44 0.25 8.70 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 17,600$ 74607 53393 74607.1 53371 8 10 138 0.32 8.87 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 82,800$ 74608 74607 74608.1 54982 8 10 151 0.40 8.43 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 60,400$ 74609 74608 74609.1 54983 8 10 56 0.39 8.02 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 22,400$ 74613 74609 74613.1 54984 8 10 90 0.40 7.73 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 36,000$ 74614 74613 74614.1 54985 8 10 57 0.40 7.44 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 22,800$ 74615 74614 74615.1 54986 8 10 60 0.40 7.20 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 24,000$ 53385 53384 53385.1 53385 8 10 189 0.50 11.73 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 75,600$ 53386 53385 53386.1 53386 8 10 145 0.40 11.46 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 58,000$ 53387 53386 53387.1 53387 8 10 104 0.36 11.49 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 41,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 652,800$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 82,800$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 875,600$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 73,560$
Remove & Replace Factor 14,712$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 963,872$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 48,193.60$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,012,066$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 101,207$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,113,272$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 500,972$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,614,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i) Possible option to divert flow, but involves the installation of a weir. (iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 53371 since it is under a 24" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-5
Baypointe Pkwy to Descanso Dr, Descanso Dr to N 1st St
Upsize 1,770 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NSJPA-7
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$2,532,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) The 12" runs parallel to VTA light rail track and may therefore require permit and close coordination with VTA. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
34996 34995 34996.1 34996 8 10 355 0.36 10.23 1 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 213,000$ 34995 34997 34995.1 34995 8 10 349 0.36 10.99 2 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 139,600$ 34997 35181 34997.1 34997 8 10 322 0.36 13.19 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 128,800$ 35181 35179 35181.1 35181 8 12 219 0.40 14.70 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 98,550$ 35179 35182 35179.1 35179 8 12 418 0.43 15.04 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 188,100$ 35182 35183 35182.1 35182 8 12 449 0.40 15.68 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 202,050$ 35183 35185 35183.1 35183 8 12 407 0.40 16.11 0 473$ #N/A No Casing 473$ 192,308$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 949,408$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 213,000$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 21,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,323,408$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 116,241$
Remove & Replace Factor 23,248$
Traffic Control 80,981$
Subtotal: 1,543,877$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 77,193.86$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,621,071$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 162,107$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,783,178$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 748,935$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 2,532,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segments 34996 since it is under a 27" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit. (i)
(iii)
(i) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on N 1st St, a major arterial.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-7
Charcot Ave and Bering Dr to N 1st St and Component Dr
Upsize 2,520 feet of 8-inch pipe to 10 to 12-inch
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NSJPA-8
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$941,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
36869 36870 36869.1 36869 6 8 246 0.19 7.54 2 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 94,710$ 36870 36368 36870.1 36870 6 8 153 0.19 7.36 3 385$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 91,800$ 36368 36777 36368.1 36368 6 8 72 0.19 7.38 0 385$ PTGAB 36 1,185 $ 85,320$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 94,710$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 177,120$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 35,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 501,830$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 27,183$
Remove & Replace Factor 5,437$
Traffic Control 27,183$
Subtotal: 561,633$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 28,081.63$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 589,714$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 58,971$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 648,686$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 291,909$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 941,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 36870 since it is under a 66" storm main. Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 36368 since it runs under a VTA light rail line. Require casing for Segment 36368. Assume 1 jacking and 2 receiving pits. (i)
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on N 1st St, a major arterial.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-8
N 1st St from north of Gish Rd to Sonora Ave
Upsize 470 feet of 6-inch pipe to 8-inch
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NSJPA-10
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Background Condition, includes known developments Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 - Flow meter on or very near to the project reach confirms flow, but did not surcharge during metered storm Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,873,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
34651 34650 34651.1 34651 8 12 405 0.30 8.08 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 182,250$ 34650 34649 34650.1 34650 8 12 373 0.29 7.94 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 167,850$ 34649 34648 34649.1 34649 8 15 368 0.30 7.64 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 184,000$ 34648 34647 34648.1 34648 8 15 238 0.24 7.23 1 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 119,000$ 34647 34646 34647.1 34647 8 15 215 0.30 7.34 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 107,500$ 34646 34646_S1 34646.1 34646 6 10 54 7.44 10.77 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 32,400$ 34646 34646_S3 34646.2 34646 6 10 54 7.44 10.27 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 32,400$ 34646_S1 34646_S2 34646_S1.1 34646 6 10 9 0.00 14.53 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 5,400$ 34646_S3 34646_S4 34646_S3.2 34646 6 10 9 0.00 13.53 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 5,400$ 34646_S2 34928 34646_S2.1 34646 6 10 24 -15.00 13.73 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 14,400$ 34646_S4 34928 34646_S4.2 34646 6 10 24 -15.00 13.23 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 14,400$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 760,600$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 104,400$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 28,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 1,033,000$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 86,500$
Remove & Replace Factor 17,300$
Traffic Control 5,220$
Subtotal: 1,142,020$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 57,101.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,199,121$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 119,912$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,319,033$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 553,994$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,873,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-10
Technology Dr from Skyport Dr to Airport Pkwy
Upsize 1,770 feet of 6 to 8-inch pipe to 10 to 15-inch
(iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segments 34646 (dual-barrel siphon) since it is under a 36" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii) Downstream end of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on Airport Pkwy, a major arterial. (i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NSJPA-12
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,356,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) The 15" runs parallel to VTA light rail track and may therefore require permit and close coordination with VTA. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
34810 34808 34810.1 34810 12 15 370 0.30 17.35 0 525$ #N/A No Casing 525$ 194,250$ 34808 34807 34808.1 34808 12 15 403 0.22 17.32 0 525$ #N/A No Casing 525$ 211,575$ 34807 81810 34807.1 34807 12 15 491 0.22 17.97 0 525$ #N/A No Casing 525$ 257,775$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 663,600$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) -$ Baseline Construction Cost: 663,600$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 66,360$
Remove & Replace Factor 13,272$
Traffic Control 66,360$
Subtotal: 809,592$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 40,479.60$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 850,072$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 85,007$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 935,079$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 420,785$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,356,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-12
N 1st St from south of Component Dr to E Trimble Rd
Upsize 1,260 feet of 12-inch pipe to 15-inch
(iii)
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on N 1st St, a major arterial.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NSJPA-15
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$5,478,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Updated scope for existing CIP project CTI‐1/NSJPA‐15.

Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
37639 36775 37639.2 37640 6 8 650 0.78 5.21 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 250,250$ 35033 84467 35033.1 35033 10 12 369 0.21 10.07 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 166,050$ 36776 36777 36776.1 36776 10 10 16 1.56 7.92 0 400$ PTGAB No Casing 600$ 9,600$ 36444 36775 36444.1 36444 8 8 234 0.21 5.91 1 385$ #N/A No Casing 385$ 90,090$ 84467 35032 84467.1 84790 10 12 146 0.21 10.65 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 65,700$ 36777 36773 36777.1 36777 10 10 379 0.16 8.08 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 151,600$ 35032 35031 35032.1 35032 10 12 68 0.29 9.32 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 30,600$ 36773 36014 36773.1 36773 10 10 33 0.00 7.99 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 13,200$ 35031 35030 35031.1 35031 10 12 132 0.14 8.50 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 59,400$ 36014 35029 36014.2 36774 10 10 544 0.24 8.10 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 217,600$ 35029 35028 35029.1 35029 10 10 380 0.29 8.25 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 152,000$ 35030 34766 35030.1 35030 10 15 258 0.53 8.55 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 129,000$ 34766 34765 34766.1 34766 10 12 425 0.20 8.39 5 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 191,250$ 35028 34767 35028.1 35028 10 12 50 0.29 8.36 0 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 22,500$ 34765 35243 34765.1 34765 10 12 425 0.20 7.84 5 450$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 340,000$ 35243 34764 35243.1 35243 10 15 443 0.20 8.46 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 221,500$ 34764 34762 34764.1 34764 10 15 450 0.20 9.14 2 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 225,000$ 34762 35244 34762.1 34762 12 15 93 0.28 9.25 0 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 46,500$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 2,032,240$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 349,600$
2 Jacking Pit(s) 170,000$
2 Receiving Pit(s) 110,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 154,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 2,815,840$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 238,184$
Remove & Replace Factor 47,637$
Traffic Control 238,184$
Subtotal: 3,339,845$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 166,992.24$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 3,506,837$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 350,684$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 3,857,521$
Engineering and Inspection (42% of construction cost) 1,620,159$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 5,478,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NSJPA-15
Extending CTI‐1 on N 1st St from south of Sonora Ave to Airport Pkwy Upsize 3,500 feet of 6 to 12‐inch pipe to 10 to 15‐inch pipe and reslope 1,590 feet of existing pipe (ii) Recommend removing existing siphon at the intersection of N 1st St and Sonora Ave. Seems feasible based on utilities in record drawings, but needs to be investigated. (iii) Updated scope of CIP project NSJPA‐15 (which includes CTI‐1, as well). Increasing scope to account for increase in growth projection from MPP2 to MPP3. (iv) The upstream portion of the project runs parallel to VTA light rail track and may therefore require permit and close coordination with VTA.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(i) Length of project assumed to require traffic control because it is on multiple major arterials. (ii) Trenchless construction assumed for Segments 36776 and 34765 since they are under 66" and 36" storm mains, respectively. Assume 2 jacking and 2 receiving pits. (i)
Attachment
Attachment

Project: NTI-3
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$867,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
83339 83340 83339.1 83378 8 10 45 0.36 7.67 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 18,000$ 83340 83341 83340.1 83379 8 10 161 0.35 8.03 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 64,400$ 83341 83342 83341.1 83380 8 10 191 0.35 8.65 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 76,400$ 83342 83343 83342.1 83381 8 10 127 0.35 9.21 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 50,800$ 83343 83344 83343.1 83382 8 10 150 0.35 9.70 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 60,000$ 83344 83822 83344.1 91392 8 12 77 0.31 8.35 1 450$ PTGAB No Casing 800$ 61,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 269,600$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost 61,600$
1 Jacking Pit(s) 85,000$
1 Receiving Pit(s) 55,000$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 7,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 478,200$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 33,120$
Remove & Replace Factor 6,624$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 517,944$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 25,897.20$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 543,841$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 54,384$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 598,225$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 269,201$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 867,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NTI-3
Epic Way to Seely Ave
Upsize 750 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10 to 12‐inch
(iii)
(i) Trenchless construction assumed for Segment 83383 since it is under a 30" storm main. Assume 1 jacking and 1 receiving pit.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: NTI-4
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,264,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
33862 33863 33862.1 33862 12 18 400 0.20 8.59 3 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 220,000$ 33863 33864 33863.1 33863 12 18 130 0.21 7.38 1 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 71,500$ 33864 33865 33864.1 33864 12 18 209 0.20 6.67 2 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 114,950$ 33865 33866 33865.1 33865 12 18 384 0.20 7.47 3 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 211,200$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 617,650$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 63,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 680,650$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 61,765$
Remove & Replace Factor 12,353$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 754,768$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 37,738.40$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 792,506$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 79,251$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 871,757$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 392,291$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,264,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NTI-4
River Oaks Pkwy to Montague Expwy, before Research Pl
Upsize 1,120 feet of 12‐inch pipe to 18‐inch
(iii)
(i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: NTI-5
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$1,546,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) Survey MH 33989 and 83589 to confirm need for project. (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
34008 90242 34008.1 83661 18 18 194 0.23 6.60 2 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 106,700$ 74528 33987 74528.1 54900 18 18 368 0.15 8.54 1 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 202,400$ 83378 33989 83378.1 83422 12 12 197 0.24 7.76 1 450$ #N/A No Casing 450$ 88,650$ 83590 83589 83590.1 83672 15 15 142 0.23 7.57 1 500$ #N/A No Casing 500$ 71,000$ 90242 83582 90242.2 90531 15 18 75 0.67 6.31 0 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 41,250$ 33987 33986 33987.1 33987 18 18 398 0.20 7.67 1 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 218,900$ 83582 83580 83582.1 83662 15 18 72 0.53 5.91 0 550$ #N/A No Casing 550$ 39,600$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 768,500$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 42,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 810,500$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 76,850$
Remove & Replace Factor 15,370$
Traffic Control 20,240$
Subtotal: 922,960$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 46,148.00$ Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 969,108$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 96,911$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 1,066,019$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 479,708$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 1,546,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NTI-5
River Oaks Pkwy to Zanker Rd
Upsize and reslope 1,450 feet of 12 to 18‐inch pipe to 12 to 18‐inch pipe (iii)
(i) Segment on Cisco Wy assumed to require traffic control because it is at a signalized intersection.

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

Project: NTI-6
Project ID ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Project Location ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Priority ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 - Not a project under existing condition DWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections WWF Trigger ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………GP2040, includes known developments and land use projections Flow Confirmation Level ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 - No flow meter near project reach to confirm flow Estimated Project Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$175,000 Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………(i) (ii)
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… U/S
MH ID
D/S
MH ID InfoWork Link ID Segment ID
Existing
Diameter
(inches)
New Diameter
(inches)
Length
(feet) Slope (%) Pipe Depth (feet
BGL)
Laterals
(estimates) Open Cut Cost Trenchless Method Trenchless Casing Size (inches)
Unit Cost
($/LF) Total Cost
83681 83682 83681.1 83775 8 10 97 0.35 12.63 1 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 38,800$ 83682 83683 83682.1 83774 8 10 69 0.36 12.72 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 27,600$ 83683 83684 83683.1 83776 8 10 52 0.35 12.39 0 400$ #N/A No Casing 400$ 20,800$ Total Baseline Pipe Construction Cost 87,200$
Total Trenchless Installation Cost -$
Jacking Pit(s) -$
Receiving Pit(s) -$
Weir/Plug(s) -$
Lower Lateral Replacement and Cleanout Cost ($7,000 per lateral) 7,000$ Baseline Construction Cost: 94,200$
Sheeting and Shoring for High Groundwater Area -$
Dewatering -$
Bypass Pumping 8,720$
Remove & Replace Factor 1,744$
Traffic Control -$
Subtotal: 104,664$
Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of subtotal) 5,233.20$
Estimated Construction Cost Subtotal: 109,897$
Contingencies (10% of construction subtotal) 10,990$
Total Estimated Construction Cost: 120,887$
Engineering and Inspection(45% ofconstruction cost) 54,399$ Estimated Capital Improvement Cost: 175,000$
(Note: Cost estimates are based on August 2021 ENR Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Area ENR CCI of13817.73)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NTI-6
Crescent Village Cir, between Loggia St and River Oaks Pkwy Upsize 220 feet of 8‐inch pipe to 10‐inch
(iii)
(i)

PROJECT COST DETAIL
(ii)
(i)
Attachment

Attachment

San Jose City CouncilAugust 19, 2025

San Jose City Council
August 19, 2025