Solvang City Council
January 24, 2022

Continued, see next page.
366 367
Project A3, continued
Location Map:
367 368
Project A4
Lift Station Structural Improvements
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 104,000
Need for Project:

The Fjord Lift Station is experiencing extensive corrosion on the metering wet well lid and hinge as well as the drain line leading back to the wet well. Additionally, the drywell is beginning to exhibit signs of corrosion of the internal wall. Operations staff has noted that pump removal is difficult in the drywell.

The Alisal Lift Station fiberglass valve vault is experiencing drainage issues, which has resulted in standing water and hydrogen sulfide in the vault. This has led to accelerated corrosion of the valves in the vault.

The area under the pumps in the wet well has shown signs of settlement Recommended Solution:

Replace the metering wet well lid and hinges, repair the drywell wall and floor, and replace or relocate the girder crane at the drywell at the Fjord Lift Station. Add a backwater shutoff valve to the drain line, grout the valve vault floor and/or fix the drain pipe, and replace damaged valves within the valve vault at the Alisal Lift Station. Investigate the cause of the settlement in the Alisal Lift Station wet well and correct the deficiency.

Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$66,000
Construction Contingency (25%): $17,000
Construction Total: $83,000
Project Development and Implementation (25%): $21,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $104,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix F for more detailed cost estimates.

Continued, see next page.
368 369
Location Map:
369 369
Project A5
Fjord Lift Station Cathodic Protection System
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 50,000
Need for Project:

Inspection of the Fjord Lift Station’s cathodic protection system revealed the sacrificial anode has reached the end of its useful life and is no longer providing adequate protection against corrosion.

Recommended Solution:

Evaluate drywell wall thickness and condition, check cathodic protection system to determine replacement needs. Replace the existing cathodic protection system with a new cathodic protection system and make repairs to drywell wall as needed. Coat interior of drywell.

Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$32,000
Construction Contingency (25%): $8,000
Construction Total: $40,000
Project Development and Implementation (25%): $10,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $50,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix F for more detailed cost estimates.

Location Map:
370 371
Project A6
Flow Monitoring Manhole Covers
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 11,000
Need for Project:

The hydraulic model identified capacity deficiencies (d/D greater than 0.75 for the pipelines between manholes MC-008 and MD-001 under existing PHWWF conditions. The deficiency is only present when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping. Additional flow data is needed to understand if there are operational concerns associated with these mains during storm conditions.

Recommended Solution:

Install flow monitoring manhole cover at manhole MC-008 to provide flow data to verify whether capacity constraints are present. Data from the flow monitoring manhole can inform the City as to whether upgrades will be needed.

Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$7,000
Construction Contingency (25%): $2,000
Construction Total: $9,000
Project Development and Implementation (25%): $2,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $11,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix F for more detailed cost estimates.

Continued, see next page.
371 371
Location Map:
372 372
Project B1
Lift Station Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls Improvements Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 468,000
Need for Project:

Lift station electrical components, including motor control centers (MCCs), programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) components, should be replaced on a 12 to 20-year basis. It is anticipated that these components at the Fjord and Alisal Lift Stations will begin to reach the end of their useful life in the next 5 to 10 years and require replacement.

Operations staff have noted that the Fjord Lift Station building can get hot which can inhibit the operation of the variable frequency drives (VFDs) on the pumps. VFDs generate heat and can shut down if their operating temperature exceeds a threshold.

Recommended Solution:

A. Install new MCC, PLC, and SCADA controls.

B. Replace transducers and floats (pending condition)
C. Replace meter sensor supports at metering wet well (Fjord Lift Station only) D. Install air conditioning unit to serve the building and manage VFD temperatures Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$299,000
Construction Contingency (25%): $75,000
Construction Total: $374,000
Project Development and Implementation (25%): $94,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $468,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix F for more detailed cost estimates.

Continued, see next page.
373 374
Location Map:
374 375
Project B2
Fjord Lift Station Emergency Storage Evaluation
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 15,000
Need for Project:

The Fjord Lift Station handles flows from the City of Solvang and Santa Ynez Community Services District and is a key component of the City’s collection system. The lift station currently does not have any emergency storage in the event of failure. The City would like an evaluation of options to increase response time and generally improve lift station reliability.

Recommended Solution:

Evaluate storage volume at the Fjord Lift Station to determine if addition of emergency storage is practical to mitigate lift station failure and provide additional response time for City staff to respond to a problem at the lift station.

Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$15,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $15,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix E for more detailed cost estimates.

Note: Construction Contingency and Implementation Markups are not applicable to this Project.

Location Map:
375 375
Project C1
Fjord Lift Station Pump Upgrades
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 345,000
Need for Project:

The three pumps at the Fjord Lift Station were replaced in 2006. Pumps have an assumed useful life of approximately 20 years. While the existing pumps are close to 15 years old, visual inspection of the pumps indicates there is close to 75% of its estimated useful life remaining.

Recommended Solution:

All three pumps at the Fjord Lift Station should be rebuilt or replaced at the end of their useful life.

Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$221,000
Construction Contingency (25%): $55,000
Construction Total: $276,000
Project Development and Implementation (25%): $69,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $345,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix F for more detailed cost estimates.

Location Map:
376 377
Project C2
Alisal Lift Station Pump Upgrades
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 86,000
Need for Project:

The two pumps at the Alisal Lift Station were replaced in 2008. Pumps have an assumed useful life of approximately 20 years. While the existing pumps are close to 13 years old, visual inspection of the pumps indicates there is close to 75% of its estimated useful life remaining.

Recommended Solution:

Both pumps at the Alisal Lift Station should be rebuilt or replaced at the end of their useful life.

Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$55,000
Construction Contingency (25%): $14,000
Construction Total: $69,000
Project Development and Implementation (25%): $17,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $86,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix F for more detailed cost estimates.

Location Map:
377 378
Project C3
Alisal Force Main Replacement
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $ 455,000
Need for Project:

The Alisal Lift Station force main is anticipated to reach the end of its useful life near the end of the 20- year planning horizon based on the age of the pipe.

Recommended Solution:

The current Alisal Lift Station force main crosses a creek to pump sewage from the golf course area to meet the remaining portion of the collection system. An alternative redirecting the force main directly to the wastewater treatment plant was evaluated to eliminate the creek crossing but it was found not to be feasible due to existing utility conflicts. Based on these findings, the recommended alternative consists of replacing the existing force main with a new 8-inch force main along the existing alignment.

Estimated Project Costs:

Base Construction Costs:

Base Construction Costs:
$291,000
Construction Contingency (25%): $73,000
Construction Total: $364,000
Project Development and Implementation (25%): $91,000
Opinion of Total Project Cost: $455,000
Cost estimates are in 2021 dollars (ENR Construction Cost Index of: 12,237 for July 2021). See Appendix F for more detailed cost estimates.

Location Map:
378 379
SECTION 10
10 References

1. Wastewater Committe of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Health and Environmental Managers. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten State Standards). Albany : Health Research, Inc, 2014.

2. Lindenburg, Michael R. Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam 15th ed. Belmont :

Professional Publications, Inc. , 2015. ISBN 978-1-59126-508-5.

3. Jones, Garr M. Editor-in-Chief. Pumping Station Design Revised 3rd Edition. Burlington : Elsevier, 2008.

ISBN 978-1-85617-513-5.

4. Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Inc. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R-97; Cost Estimate Classification System; TCM Framework: 7.3 - Cost Estimating and Budgeting;. 2011.

5. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Diversion Policy.

Whittier : Industrial Waste Section, 2014.

6. Robles, City of El Paso de. Land Use Element Update for the City of El Paso de Robles General Plan.

March 2014.

7. State Water Resources Control Board. Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water (Recycled Water Policy). 2013.
379 3
Appendix A. Modeling
Approach Technical
Memorandum
380 381
Date: 8/17/2021
To: Matt van der Linden, P.E. Phone: (805) 688-5575
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Solvang
CC: Nathan Giacinto; Paul Matsukas
Prepared by: Adam Donald, P.E.

Reviewed by: Joshua Reynolds, P.E.

Project: 2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
Subject: Modeling Approach Technical Memorandum
As part of the 2021 Sewer Master Plan Update project for the City of Solvang (City), Water Systems Consulting (WSC) has developed a hydraulic model to evaluate the capacity of the sewer collection system. This Technical Memorandum (TM) describes the development of the hydraulic model while the capacity analysis and modeling results will be included in the updated Master Plan prepared by WSC.

The purpose of this TM is to outline the model development process which includes the importation of infrastructure attribute data, assessment of model connectivity, development and allocation of existing and future flows, and model calibration.

This TM is organized in the following sections:

Section 1. Model Development.................................................................................................................2 Section 2. Sewer Flow Development and Allocation.................................................................................3 Section 3. Population Projections............................................................................................................11 Section 4. Model Loading ........................................................................................................................11 Section 5. Calibration...............................................................................................................................11 Section 6. References ..............................................................................................................................14 Appendix A. Modifications to GIS Shapefiles..............................................................................................15 Appendix B. Initial Flattening Analysis Results ...........................................................................................22 Appendix C. Existing and Future Flows.......................................................................................................26 Appendix D. Model Loading........................................................................................................................27 Appendix E. Flow Meter Locations .............................................................................................................28 381 381
Section 1. Model Development
WSC has constructed an updated model of the City’s wastewater collections system using SewerGEMS, a fully dynamic sanitary sewer modeling platform developed by Bentley Systems, Inc. SewerGEMS is a Geographic Information System (GIS) friendly software capable of running within ArcGIS or as a standalone application.

The model was built using the City’s sewer system shapefiles, which have been maintained and routinely updated by the City and are reflective of the current sewer collection system layout. Upon review of the City’s shapefiles, the collection system infrastructure including manholes, cleanouts, lift stations, gravity pipes, and force mains were imported into SewerGEMS. Unique identifiers were used to maintain the connection between the GIS and SewerGEM features. Throughout the process, alterations were made to address connectivity or import errors and obtain a working SewerGEMS model. Alterations to the shapefiles and general configuration assumptions made during the model build are summarized below and presented in more detail in Appendix A.
➢ Features identified in the geodatabase as abandoned, removed, proposed, or private were not included in the model build. Proposed features will be included in model scenarios representative of future conditions.
➢ Manholes were added upstream of gravity pipes if missing from GIS shapefiles ➢ Invert data was estimated based on adjacent pipe slopes when GIS data indicated a negative slope.

In addition to the geospatial location of the collection system features, infrastructure attributes, such as pipe material and diameter, were carried over from the City’s shapefiles to SewerGEMS in the import process.

1.1. Elevation Data
Invert elevation data for the model was pulled from the City’s manhole and cleanout shapefiles. Two (2) manholes out of the City’s 645 manholes and 28 out of the City’s 85 cleanouts were missing invert and depth information. In locations where this data was missing or where the invert data from GIS resulted in negative pipe slopes, the invert data was interpolated based on the slope of the adjacent main. The City estimates their invert data for manholes by measuring the depth from the rim elevation to the pipe channel. Since this data is not surveyed, the level of accuracy associated with these measurements can result in invert discrepancies that can impact the model. A total of 73 of the City’s 733 gravity sewer mains (10%) had invert-related changes that required interpolation for model connectivity.

WSC has developed a method called “flattening” that can be used to estimate the minimum capacity of each pipe segment within the collection system to establish a threshold for pipelines that do not have slope data. This method is further explained in Section 1.2. 382 382

1.2. Flattening Analysis
WSC analyzed actual pipeline diameter and assumed minimum pipe slope to determine theoretical pipeline capacity and compare that to the projected Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow (PHWWF) for that pipeline section. Pipelines with a projected PHWWF less than the theoretical minimum pipeline capacity should have adequate capacity and therefore do not need to be further evaluated. Pipeline segments for which the projected PHWWF exceeds the minimum capacity were flagged for future surveying prior to recommending a project.

In this instance, the assumed minimum slope was conservatively set at 1/4th of the City’s standard minimum allowable slope (e.g. 0.00125 ft/ft for an 8” main) and the maximum depth-to-Diameter (d/D) was set at 50%. Theoretical maximum wet weather flow rates were estimated using the buildout PHWWF calculated in Section 2.6. Appendix B presents the capacity curves for 6-in, 8-in, and 10-in pipelines and the map of pipelines that exceed the theoretical pipeline capacity. Pipelines that are flagged on this map as potentially capacity constrained will be included in the detailed capacity analysis. 6-in, 8-in, and 10-in pipelines that pass this test, meaning the projected buildout PHWWF for those pipelines is less than the theoretical minimum pipe capacity, should have adequate capacity to meet projected buildout PHWWF even if the actual slope of the sewer is less than recorded in the record drawings. Pipelines that are 12-in diameter and larger typically carry a large volume of sewage and should not be excluded from detailed analysis.

Section 2. Sewer Flow Development and Allocation

2.1. Wastewater Flows and Water Consumption
The City’s wastewater system receives flow from approximately 2,033 customer connections. The wastewater flow from individual customers is not typically metered. However, the City maintains meters for its water accounts that record monthly consumption. A significant portion of water consumption eventually becomes wastewater flow and water meters have a geographic location.

Therefore, water meter consumption and location data can be used to geographically allocate Using Manning’s
equation, WSC can
calculate the theoretical
minimum capacity for
sewer pipelines of varying
diameters.
383 383
wastewater flows contributing to the collection system. Allocated flows are then assigned to pipes in the hydraulic model.

The City provided billed metered water consumption data for the purposes of analyzing historical consumption trends and estimating wastewater flows. The water consumption data included monthly consumption for 2,033 accounts from 2015 through 2019 as shown in Figure 2-1. Billing data associated with agricultural parcels (except Alisal Guest Ranch and Mission Santa Inés) and open spaces were excluded as this water is assumed to be irrigation water that will not enter the sewer system. All outdoor water use was also excluded for this reason. Billing data was mostly unavailable for October 2016, April 2017, and February 2018. However, it appears the water consumption for these months was billed in the subsequent month as the subsequent month shows consumption about twice that of what would be expected.

Figure 2-1. 2015-2019 Monthly & Annual Average Water Consumption Historic water usage, flow monitors, and Fjord lift station flows were analyzed to estimate baseline water usage and wastewater flow contributions. WSC deployed flow meters from December 30, 2020 through February 8, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting water consumption pattern changes, the flow monitoring data revealed lower than average flows for the system. The water billing data was from prior to COVID-19, thus the average effluent from the Fjord Lift Station from 2017-2019 was used to estimate the average wastewater flow for the purposes of loading the model.

Sanitary wastewater flow is typically more closely related to winter water use than summer water use, given that there is generally less outdoor water use for landscape irrigation in the winter when rainfall amounts are high and evapotranspiration (ETo) is low. WSC reviewed the monthly water consumption data and selected the winter months of December, January, February, and March as the most representative months with the least amount of outdoor water use. The daily water consumption for each account was averaged from December – March over the years 2018 to 2019 to provide an estimate 0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
Consumption (gpd)
Monthly Consumption (gpd) Average Annual Consumption (gpd) 384 384
of water usage for each account. The years 2015-2017 were excluded as Stage 2 drought restrictions were in place with penalties during there years, which ultimately resulted in flows that do not reflect typical sewer flow. Water to sewer factors were developed for each land use type and applied to each account’s corresponding water usage to estimate the average sewer flow within the collection system.

These water to sewer factors were iterated to align with the average effluent flow from the Fjord Lift Station from 2017-2019, which is representative of the average wastewater flow within the collection system, or Average Annual Flow (AAF).

2.2. Spatial Allocation
The City’s AAF data was associated with GIS data to spatially allocate existing wastewater flows and develop wastewater generation factors used for projecting future wastewater flows. The process to establish wastewater generation factors for flow projection is shown in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2. Spatially Allocated Wastewater Flow Projection Process The original water consumption account data discussed in Section 2.1 was used to spatially allocate the AAF data to geographic locations. Each consumption record consisted of a unique address that could be tied to the parcel data provided by the City by matching the address fields.

There were only 20 parcels in which a water billing address could not be matched to the parcel. For these parcels, flow was estimated using the wastewater generation factors developed for future flows (discussed in Section 2.3). This level of matching is considered accurate enough for loading the wastewater model.

A map showing the spatially allocated existing loading by land use zone is attached as Appendix C.

2.3. Wastewater Generation Factors
As discussed in Section 2.2, AAF data was associated with parcels’ land use and development data to aid in developing wastewater generation factors to project future wastewater flows. The unassociated accounts discussed in Section 2.2 were excluded from wastewater generation factor development due •Associate AAF data to
GIS meter data
Spatially Allocate
AAF Data
•Associate spatially
allocated AAF data to
parcel and land use
data
Incorporate Parcel
and Land Use Data •Calculate and
summarize AAF per
land use category
•Calculate AAF per acre
Develop
Wastewater
Generation Factors
•Apply wastewater
generation factors to
future development
units
Apply Wastewater
Generation Factors to
Projected Wastewater
Flows
385 385
to the lack of water billing data. However, these parcels were included as loads in the model by applying the calculated wastewater generation factors to approximate a load.

The parcel underlying each associated spatially allocated AAF record was matched to the corresponding Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) from GIS parcel data provided by the City. The acreage associated with each parcel and therefore each AAF record, was used to calculate wastewater generation factors by land use category. A summary of the wastewater generation factors is shown in Table 2-1.

WSC evaluated the sensitivity of each wastewater generation factor by excluding the largest parcel for each land use to understand if this skewed the factor such that it was not representative of the land use type. Two land use zones saw noticeable impacts when excluding the largest parcel – institutional (I) and professional office (P-O). Of these, only P-O land use had undeveloped parcels that would use the wastewater generation factor to estimate loading. Two of these parcels (1925 & 1927 Windmill Lane) are fully undeveloped and each is close to an acre in size. The remaining five undeveloped P-O parcels are unoccupied office suites at 650 Alamo Pintado rather than undeveloped land. Water billing data for these five office suites identifies these meters as “empty.” The parcel data treats each individual suite as its own parcel resulting in small footprints of only 0.02 acres. Due to the location and size of the undeveloped P-O parcels, WSC elected not to alter the wastewater generation factor as it would not result in significant system impacts.
386 387
Table 2-1. Wastewater Generation Factors
Wastewater Generation Factors
Column A B C D E
Column Formula C=B/A E=B/D
Land Use Code1Land Use Classification Existing Water Consumption (gpd)2 AAF (gpd)2 Water to Wastewater Return (%)
Existing Served Area (Acres) Wastewater Generation
Factor (gpd/acre)
Residential
1-E-1 Low Density Residential (1Dwelling
Unit/Acre)
73,496 33,073 45 197.1 168
3-E-1 Estate Residential (1 Dwelling
Unit/3 Acres)
1,694 881 52 15.8 56
7-R-1 Medium Density Residential (1
Dwelling Unit/7,000 SF)
76,707 75,173 98 98.0 767
8-R-1 Medium Density Residential (1
Dwelling Unit/8,000 SF)
15,739 15,424 98 22.7 679
10-R-1 Medium Density Residential (1
Dwelling Unit/10,000 SF)
60,863 59,646 98 105.7 564
20-R-1 Low/Medium Density Residential
(1 Dwelling Unit/20,000 SF)
77,885 62,308 80 184.6 338
DR High Density Residential 69,923 68,524 98 47.6 1,439 MHP Mobile Home Park 24,594 22,873 93 45.7 501
Residential Subtotal 400,901 337,902 717.2
Non-Residential
Land Use Code1Land Use Classification Existing Water Consumption (gpd)2 AAF (gpd)2 Water to Wastewater Return (%)
Existing Served Area (Acres) Wastewater Generation
Factor (gpd/acre)
AG (Mission Only) Mission Santa Inés (subset of the
Agriculture land use zoning)
275 206 75 25.4 8
AG (Alisal Guest House) Alisal Guest House (subset of
Agriculture land use zoning)
22,409 17,255 77 29.8 578
C-2 Retail Commercial 7,771 7,615 98 13.3 575
C-3 General Commercial 40 39 98 1.0 39
I Public/Institutional 13,065 12,412 95 35.4 351
M-I Light Industry 2,667 2,534 95 10.2 248
P-O Professional/Office 6,620 6,289 95 4.0 1,568
TRC Tourist Related Commercial 115,727 114,569 99 55.1 2,081 Non-Residential Subtotal 168,574 160,919 174.2
Total 569,475 498,821 891.4

1. REC and RES land use codes are excluded from the table as these represent open space and recreation where sewer loads are not anticipated. Similarly, AG (agriculture) land use codes are excluded with the exception of the parcels for the Alisal Guest House and the Mission Santa Inés. All other agriculture water use is assumed to be used for irrigation purposes and not contribute to the sewer.

2. Table excludes parcels where water billing data could not be matched to parcel data. Using land use factors to estimate existing loading at parcels with expected loading that are missing billing data increases the residential AAF by 993 gpd and the non-residential AAF by 3,735 gpd for a total of 503,550 gpd. 387 388

2.4. Future Loading Projection
Buildout loading was estimated using the land use generation factors identified in Table 2-1. WSC identified parcels that do not have an existing load but could potentially be developed. Buildout loads were then estimated by applying the appropriate land use generation factor to the acreage of that parcel. The buildout loading for parcels with an existing load are assumed to have the same loading as their existing load. A map of the buildout loading is included in Appendix C.

As part of this master plan, the City wanted to incorporate the impacts of infill development associated with the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). The City identified all residential parcels as suitable for infill development. WSC assumed 30% of these parcels will have infill associated with ADU construction at buildout. An additional load of 140 gpd/ADU was applied to the parcels designated for infill (30% of residential parcels) to determine the system loading under the buildout plus infill scenario. 388 389
Table 2-2. Existing and Projected Flows
Existing and Projected Flows
Land Use Code Land Use Description Existing AAF (gpd) Future Buildout (gpd) Infill (gpd) Total Existing and Future Buildout AAF (gpd)
Total Existing, Future Buildout,
and Infill AAF (gpd)
1-E-1 Low Density Residential (1Dwelling
Unit/Acre)
33,250 7,867 10,080 41,117 51,197
3-E-1 Estate Residential (1 Dwelling Unit/3 Acres) 881 0 280 881 1,161 7-R-1 Medium Density Residential (1 Dwelling
Unit/7,000 SF)
75,472 741 18,200 76,213 94,413
8-R-1 Medium Density Residential (1 Dwelling
Unit/8,000 SF)
15,424 669 4,060 16,093 20,153
10-R-1 Medium Density Residential (1 Dwelling
Unit/10,000 SF)
59,646 9,297 13,580 68,943 82,523
20-R-1 Low/Medium Density Residential (1 Dwelling
Unit/20,000 SF)
62,825 5,674 13,300 68,499 81,799
DR High Density Residential 68,524 5,530 0 74,054 74,054 MHP Mobile Home Park 22,873 0 0 22,873 22,873
Residential Subtotal 338,895 29,778 59,500 368,673 428,173 AG (Mission Only) Mission Santa Inés (subset of the Agriculture land use zoning)
206 0 0 206 206
AG (Alisal Guest House) Alisal Guest House (subset of Agriculture land use zoning)
17,255 0 0 17,255 17,255
C-2 Retail Commercial 7,615 155 0 7,770 7,770
C-3 General Commercial 39 0 0 39 39
I Public/Institutional 12,677 0 0 12,677 12,677
M-I Light Industry 2,569 0 0 2,569 2,569
P-O Professional/Office 6,289 3,102 0 9,391 9,391
TRC Tourist Related Commercial 117,755 3,490 0 121,245 121,245 Public Restroom 250 0 0 250 250
Non-residential Subtotal 164,655 6,747 0 171,402 171,402 Total (gpd) 503,550 36,525 59,500 540,075 599,575
389 390

2.5. Peak Wet Weather Flow
The PHWWF peaking factor was derived from the flow monitoring data collected during the peak rainfall event occurring from January 27 – January 28, 2021. The storm had a total volume of 2.12 inches over 24 hours on January 28, 2021, with a peak hourly intensity of 0.48 in/hr. The collection system’s peak wet weather response was estimated by looking at the peak flow of the meters at manholes MA-003 and MC-004. Using the peak flow response during the storm, the PWWF peaking factor was estimated as 3.72 relative to the AAF. However, after conversations with the City, a PWWF peaking factor of 4.00 was selected to be more conservative. The peak rainfall event was not preceded by any other rainstorms so the soils were not saturated with groundwater. Since the soils were not saturated, some of the rainwater that normally percolates into the collection system was likely taken up by soils and plants and did not reach the collection system. Slightly increasing the peaking factor should allow for analysis representative of wet weather conditions in which the soils are saturated with groundwater.

Peak hour dry weather flow (PHDWF) was not estimated as part of this analysis. The PHDWF is lower than the PHWWF flow due to infiltration and inflow (I/I) causing additional flow volume on top of the dry weather flow. While the peak I/I following a storm does not typically fall at the same time as the PHDWF, the total volume of I/I still results in PHWWF being larger. For the purposes of evaluating system capacity, WSC will use the more conservative PHWWF for identifying capacity deficiencies.

The PHWWF factor is summarized in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Peak Flow Factor
Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow Factor

4.00 2.6. Flow Summary
Table 2-4 provides a summary of the estimated AAF and PHWWF for the City’s collection system for existing and buildout conditions. PHWWF was developed by multiplying the peaking factors from Table 2-3 by the AAF of each scenario.

Table 2-4. Summary of Flow Estimates
Existing (gpd) Buildout (gpd) Buildout + Infill
(gpd)
Average Annual Flow (AAF)1 502,450 540,075 599,575
Peak Hour Wet Weather
Flow (PHWWF)
2,009,800 2,160,300 2,398,300

1. The existing AAF is estimated as the 3-year average (2017-2019) at the Fjord Lift Station. The model was loaded with an AAF of 503,550 gpd as calculated in Table 2-2 390 391
Section 3. Population Projections
Population growth was estimated using data collected by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). The SBCAG has developed traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data that projects growth within cities in Santa Barbara County. WSC used SBCAG’s data as the basis for projecting population growth within the City. Based on City staff input, the 2030 population was adjusted from 6,000 to 6,100 people. The results are presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Population Projections (1)
Year Population
2020 5,800
2025 6,000
2030 6,1001
2035 6,200
2040 6,300
2050 6,300

1. Population adjusted based on
input by City staff.

Section 4. Model Loading
As discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.4, estimated wastewater flows were spatially allocated based on the centroids of the parcels with water billing data or the parcels identified for development. Appendix D displays the loading nodes with respect to estimated flows.

The loading nodes were imported into the hydraulic model and flows were distributed to manholes based on the nearest manhole method. This method locates the manhole nearest to a loading node and allocates the total flow of that node to the nearest manhole. The nearest manhole method was also used for allocating the buildout and buildout plus infill scenarios.

Section 5. Calibration
The model was calibrated to existing conditions using flow meters placed in each sewer basin, as shown in Appendix E. Flow meter data was collected from December 30, 2020 through February 8, 2021. The monitoring period was primarily dry with the exception of one major storm on January 27-January 28, 2021 with 2.12 inches of rain resulting in a peak wet day flow of 989,940 gpd. Flow was averaged across each flow meter to estimate the average daily flow (ADF).

COVID-19 restrictions heavily impacted the spatial allocation and quantity of flow during the flow monitoring period. To calibrate the model, water billing data from January 2021 was used to align with the monitoring period. The water to sewer factors used for developing the loading for calibration are shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The January 2021 water billing data showed significantly higher water consumption relative to the winter billing data for 2018 and 2019 used to develop loading.

This can largely be attributed to the dry winter conditions present in January 2021. With minimal rain, 391 391
outdoor water use was still elevated, thus the water to sewer ratios for January 2021 needed to be lower than those used for 2018/2019 data. Residential land uses factors targeted an average flow of around 160 gpd/dwelling unit.

Table 5-1: Water to Sewer Ratios for Calibration
Land Use January 2021 Water to Sewer
Ratio
Final Model Water to Sewer
Ratio
1-E-1 37% 45%
3-E-1 37% 52%
7-R-1 85% 98%
8-R-1 75% 98%
10-R-1 75% 98%
20-R-1 55% 80%
DR 95% 98%
MHP 60% 93%
AG (Mission Only) 75% 75%
AG (Alisal Guest House) 125% 77%
C-2 90% 98%
C-3 90% 98%
I 90% 95%
M-I 90% 95%
P-O 90% 95%
TRC 99% 99%
The resulting calibration for the January 2021 data is shown in Table 5-2. Modeled flow was within 5% of the metered flow at all flow meters with the exception of MC-004 and MB-048, which is considered good. Both MC-004 and MB-048 consist of a significant number of tourist related commercial (TRC) zoning. TRC zoned properties were significantly impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. Some TRC properties drastically reduced their hours due to COVID-19 restrictions while others maintained relatively normal hours. For example, some hotels saw their water use reduced by 80% relative to winter billing data from 2018/2019 due to COVID-19. However, other hotels saw increased water usage relative to 2018/2019.

Given the wide range of industries and the nature of COVID-19 impacts, there was no discernable pattern for predicting how TRC zoned properties would respond. Without the ability to predict the response pattern in TRC zoned parcels, the water to sewer ratio used over predicted TRC flow in the various zones which resulted in too little flow to flow meter MB-048 and too much flow going to flow meter MC-004. Additionally, it should be noted that the flow metering data at manhole MB-048 consisted of many peaks that did not follow the expected diurnal flow patterns typically seen in a collection system.
392 393
Table 5-2. Model Calibration Results
Flow Meter
Manhole
Recorded ADF
(gpd)
Model Dry Weather Flow
(gpd)
Percent Difference
MA-003 276,229 288,690 5%
MC-004 151,567 214,276 41%
MB-048 96,3071 79,221 -18%
MD-018 91,458 95,544 4%
MA-048 65,511 66,475 1%
ME-002 25,621 26,451 3%
The City would like to plan infrastructure improvements around non-COVID conditions. For the final capacity evaluation, the loading outlined in Table 2-2 was used in the calibrated model. Table 5-1 shows how the water to sewer ratios varied between the COVID-influenced loading used for the model calibration and the final model loading. The following subsections highlight explanations for key differences between the two loading scenarios:

Residentially Zoned Parcels
Under standard conditions, all residential parcels were assigned a water to sewer ratio to achieve an average flow of approximately 150 gpd/dwelling unit. This is slightly lower than the target flow of 160 gpd/dwelling unit used under COVID conditions because the stay-at-home orders resulted in residents spending more time in their homes. The stay-at-home orders resulted in higher residential water use and is believed to have increased sewer flows by roughly 10%.

Commercially Zoned Parcels
Due to stay-at-home orders, many people who typically worked in commercially zoned buildings were forced to stay at home or work from home. This resulted in lower water to sewer ratios for the January 2021 data, which corresponded with lower overall water and sewer flows during this time.

Alisal Guest House
For calibration, the Alisal Guest House water to sewer ratio was set to greater than 100% to align with overall flow monitoring values. A water to sewer ratio greater than 100% was used since the Guest House was closed for a portion of the monitoring period. When calculating the average daily flow at flow meter ME-002, this meant that the total flow contributed from the Guest House was divided by the total days of the monitoring period when in reality it was only contributing flow for a portion of this time. To account for a representative flow, a water to sewer ratio greater than 100% was used to produce a representative flow value for this time. This was lowered below 100% for non-COVID conditions. 393 394
Section 6. References

1. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. Regional Growth Forecast 2050 Santa Barbara County. 2019.
394 395
Appendix A. Modifications to GIS Shapefiles
Piping Modifications
Pipe ID Modification to GIS Shapefile within Model
SWP0388 Converted from gravity conduit to force main to match field conditions
SWP0518 Modification to GIS Shapefile within Model
SWP0669 Converted from gravity conduit to force main to match field conditions
SWP0734 Split pipe into two segments to include Manhole MC-115 SWP0325 Removed. Per City Staff this pipe is not present in the field.

WSC-1 Added this pipe to connect Manhole MC-001 to the Fjord Lift Station wet well.
395 395
Manhole Modifications
Manhole
ID
Modification
MC-081 WSC updated manhole invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 483.05 ft.

Interpolated invert using mains SWP0638 and SWP0345
CB-030 WSC updated invert. GIS had rim elevation of 611.00 ft and an invert elevation of 605 ft.

GIS had downstream manhole with invert of 610.08 ft. WSC calculated a revised invert for this cleanout assuming a slope of 0.004 ft/ft from the downstream manhole. WSC updated the rim elevation so that it was 6 ft higher than invert to be consistent with the depth measurement from GIS.

MC-009 WSC updated invert. GIS had an invert of 378.14 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0652, SWP0651, SWP0468, and SWP0469.

MC-011 WSC updated invert. GIS had invert of 377.78 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0652, SWP0651, SWP0468, and SWP0469.

MA-001 WSC updated invert to remove negative slope. GIS invert was 372.32 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0656, SWP0655 and SWP0657
MA-007 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slopes. GIS slope was 379.12 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0499 and SWP0512
MC-076 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slopes. GIS invert was 473.98 ft. Invert interpolation was done with mains SWP0355, SWP0369 and SWP0370 MC-079 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slopes. GIS invert was 473.42 ft. Invert interpolation was done with mains SWP0355, SWP0369 and SWP0370 MD-035 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slopes from GIS. GIS had an invert of 467.30 ft.

Interpolated updated invert using mains SWP0102, SWP0103 and SWP0104.

MD-036 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slopes from GIS. GIS had an invert of 461.31 ft.

Interpolated updated invert using mains SWP0102, SWP0103 and SWP0104.

MC-077 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slope. Original GIS invert was 475.58 ft.

Interpolated invert using mains SWP0371 and SWP0372.

MB-008 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slope. Original GIS invert was 409 ft.

Interpolated between mains SWP0457 and SWP0480 to calculate invert.

MB-023 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slope. GIS invert was 408.91 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0454 and SWP0451. Interpolating using main SWP0452 causes invert to be greater than rim.

MC-004 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slope. Field investigations note that depth measurements were not meant to represent inverts due to some manhole rims above ground elevation. Interpolated between manholes MC-005 and MC-002 to address slope issues. Original GIS invert was 382.97 ft.

MC-003 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slope. Field investigations note that depth measurements were not meant to represent inverts due to some manhole rims above ground elevation. Interpolated between manholes MC-005 and MA-002 to address slope issues. Original GIS invert was 380.62 ft.

MC-002 WSC updated invert to eliminate negative slope. Field investigations note that depth measurements were not meant to represent inverts due to some manhole rims above ground elevation. Interpolated between manholes MC-005 and MA-001 to address slope issues. Original GIS invert was 381.79 ft.
396 397
MC-001 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slopes. GIS had invert of 381.33 ft. Updated invert to assume a slope of 0.004 ft/ft in main SWP0654 to align with upstream pipe interpolation.

MB-074 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. Original GIS invert was 517.50 ft.

Interpolating invert based on pipes SWP0328 and SWP0321 resulted in a negative slope for adjacent pipe. Instead, WSC adjusted invert to match the slope of pipe SWP0327 (0.004 ft/ft). Estimated invert was higher than GIS rim elevation of 522.54 ft. Assumed rim to be 2 ft greater than new invert.

MA-129 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS indicated manhole invert was 494.98 ft, which resulted in a negative slope. Interpolating between mains SWP0259 and SWP0261 resulted in an invert above the GIS rim elevation and a negative slope for adjacent main SWP0260. This interpolation yielded a slope of 0.011 ft/ft for both SWP0259 and SWP0261. To mitigate this issue, WSC assumed a steeper slope for upstream main SWP0259 of 0.020 ft/ft to estimate the invert.

MB-054 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. Original GIS invert was 472.33 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0359 and SWP0360
MD-115 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 487.22 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0129 and SWP0128
MA-127 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 483.20 ft. Interpolating invert using mains SWP0262 and SWP0268 results in invert higher than the rim elevation.

Instead, WSC assumed a minimum slope of 0.004 ft/ft for main SWP0268 to create an invert below the rim elevation.

MB-094 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 478.46 which is lower than invert of downstream manhole. Assumed a slope of 0.004 ft/ft for updated invert.

MA-034 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 470.37 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0069 and SWP0618
MA-059 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 410.44 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0279 and SWP0280
ME-009 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 388.55 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0398 and SWP0399.

MA-049 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 384.17 ft. Interpolated between Mains SWP0502 and SWP0504 to calculate invert.

MA-008 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS invert was 378.77 ft. Interpolated invert by using mains SWP0511 and SWP0516
MC-111 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 539.78 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0686 and SWP0222
MB-093 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 484.67 ft. Assumed slope of

0.007 ft/ft to match main SWP0338
ME-075 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 429.22 ft. Interpolated between Mains SWP0583 and SWP0582 to get revised invert.

MA-057 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 408.64 ft. Interpolated between mains SWP0418 and SWP0419 for invert.

MD-009 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 396.44 ft. Interpolated invert using main SWP0245 and SWP0246.

MC-008 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 377.18 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0652, SWP0651, SWP0468 and SWP0469.

MB-089 WSC updated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert as 640.12 ft. Interpolated from SWP0312 and SWP0311 to generate model invert. Modeled invert was very close to the 397 398
GIS rim elevation. WSC updated the rim elevation using the same manhole depth as shown in GIS with the calculated invert. GIS rim elevation was 646.62 ft MB-030 WSC updated invert to address negative slopes from GIS. GIS had invert of 452.69 ft. WSC assumed main SWP0030 had slope of 0.004 ft/ft to align with slope from GIS.

MB-031 WSC updated invert to address negative slopes from GIS. GIS had an invert of 453.58 ft.

WSC recalculated invert assuming main SWP0384 has a slope of 0.004 ft/ft MB-026 WSC updated invert to address negative slopes from GIS data. GIS had invert of 451.72 ft.

WSC assumed main SWP0619 had slope of 0.003 ft/ft to align with upstream pipes.

MB-027 WSC updated invert to address negative slopes from GIS data. GIS had an invert of 453.36 ft. Assumed main SWP0028 has slope of 0.003 ft/ft to align with upstream mains.

MD-042 WSC updated invert to address negative slope from GIS. GIS had invert of 479,24 ft.

Calculated new invert by interpolating using mains SWP0099 and SWP0100.

MB-019 WSC updated invert to address negative slope from GIS. GIS had invert of 450.54 ft.

Updated invert calculated by interpolating using mains SWP0462, SWP0460, and SWP0459.

MB-018 WSC updated invert to address negative slope from GIS. GIS had invert of 446.98 ft.

Updated invert calculated by interpolating using mains SWP0462, SWP0460, and SWP0459.

MA-040 WSC updated invert to address negative slope from GIS inverts. GIS had invert of 480.83 ft. WSC assumed a slope of 0.003 ft/ft in mains SWP0059, SWP0410, and SWP0409 to alleviate negative slope.

MA-044 WSC updated invert to address negative slope from GIS inverts. GIS had invert of 479.56 ft.

WSC assumed a slope of 0.003 ft/ft in mains SWP0059, SWP0410, and SWP0409 to alleviate negative slope.

MA-043 WSC updated invert to address negative slope from GIS inverts. GIS had invert of 477.92 ft.

WSC assumed a slope of 0.003 ft/ft in mains SWP0059, SWP0410, and SWP0409 to alleviate negative slope.

MD-112 WSC updated invert elevation to eliminate negative slopes. GIS had invert as 499.80 ft.

Interpolated invert based on pipes SWP0111 and SWP0109
MC-115 WSC split the GIS pipe associated with this manhole. GIS had manhole MC-115 located off to the side of pipe SWP0734 but it was not connected so the pipe ran from Manhole MC116 to Manhole MA-181. To have a connected model, WSC split pipe SWP0734 at the location of the manhole such that pipe flows in and out of this manhole as seen in the field.

MC-033 WSC revised invert elevation. GIS had invert elevation of 387.12 but this was creating negative slopes. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0646 and SWP0647 ME-083 WSC recalculated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 443.30 ft. Interpolated invert using mains SWP0590 and SWP0588
MB-081 WSC interpolated to calculate invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 537.28 ft.

Interpolated using mains SWP0319 and SWP0320
MA-002 WSC interpolated invert to avoid negative slopes. GIS had invert of 374.54 ft. Interpolated using mains SWP0656, SWP0655 and SWP0657.

MA-104 WSC interpolated invert to avoid negative slope. GIS had invert of 534.5 ft. Interpolated based on mains SWP0299 and SWP0300
MH-2 WSC interpolated from Manhole ME-040 to ME-039 to get invert and rim elevation CD-012 WSC assumed rim elevation is 2 ft above invert elevation 398 399
CA-011 WSC assumed invert. Assumed slope of 0.013 ft/ft based on slope of upstream pipe at connection (SWP0057)
CB-020 WSC assumed invert. Using same slope as downstream pipe results in invert above rim elevation. Assumed invert is 2 ft below rim elevation
CC-011 WSC assumed invert. Slope assumed to be 0.005 ft/ft CA-005 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using slope of 0.024 ft/ft to align with downstream pipe (SWP0481)
CB-013 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using slope of 0.016 ft/ft to align with adjacent main (SWP0430)
CB-006 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using slope of 0.009 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0024)
CB-017 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using slope of 0.009 ft/ft based on downstream main (SWP0357)
CD-001 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using slope of 0.008 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0239)
CB-003 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using slope of 0.003 ft/ft to align with adjacent pipe (SWP0020)
CE-006 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.041 ft/ft to match downstream main (SWP 0552). WSC assumed ground/rim elevation of 2 ft above invert.

CE-003 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.040 ft/ft based on upstream pipe slope
MH-6 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.032 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0324). Assumed rim/ground elevation to match that of Manhole MC-092 due to proximity.

CB-004 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.028 ft/ft to align with downstream pipe at junction (SWP0442)
CB-014 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.016 ft/ft to align with downstream pipe (SWP0430)
CE-011 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.011 ft/ft which is slope of downstream pipe (SWP0393)
CB-019 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.010 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0348)
CE-004 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.009 ft/ft, which is slope of downstream main (SWP0520)
CA-008 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.009 ft/ft to align with pipe upstream of junction (SWP0425)
CB-021 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.007 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0416)
CB-018 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.004 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0349)
CC-010 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a slope of 0.004 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0230)
CD-002 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a 0.010 ft/ft slope to match downstream pipe (SWP0141)
CA-017 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using a 0.008 ft/ft slope to align with downstream main slope (SWP0690)
399 400
CA-004 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated using 0.010 ft/ft slope to match downstream main (SWP0435)
CB-026 WSC assumed invert. Invert calculated based on slope of 0.009 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0335)
MH-5 WSC assumed invert. Invert based on slope of 0.107 ft/ft based on downstream main (SWP0314). WSC assumed rim/ground elevation of 2 ft above invert.

MC-120 WSC assumed invert. Invert based on slope of 0.096 ft/ft from downstream main (SWP0220)
CC-012 WSC assumed invert. Invert based on slope of 0.043 ft/ft to match downstream main (SWP0222)
CB-010 WSC assumed invert. Invert based on slope of 0.019 ft/ft based on downstream main (SWP0032)
CA-009 WSC assumed invert. Invert based on slope of 0.003 ft/ft based on downstream pipe (SWP0414).

CB-025 WSC assumed invert. Invert based on same slope as downstream main (SWP0312) which has slope of 0.072 ft/ft
CC-005 WSC assumed invert. Invert assumes slope of 0.029 ft/ft to match downstream main (SWP0372)
CB-027 WSC assumed invert. Invert assumes slope of 0.024 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0336). WSC assumed rim/ground elevation is 2 ft above invert CA-006 WSC assumed invert. Invert assumed using a slope of 0.009 ft/ft based on upstream pipe (SWP0070)
MH-9 WSC assumed invert. Invert assumed to be 0.007 ft/ft to match adjacent pipe (SWP0101).

WSC assume rim/ground elevation to be 2 ft greater than invert.

CA-016 WSC assumed invert. If use the slope of the downstream main, the invert elevation calculated is higher than the rim elevation. Instead assumed the invert to be 2 ft lower than the rim elevation.

MA-020 WSC assumed invert. GIS had invert of 445.45 ft which matches downstream manhole (MA-019). Interpolated between Manhole MA-021 and MA-019 to get invert.

ME-059 WSC assumed invert. Calculated using a slope of 0.083 ft/ft based on upstream pipe (SWP0570). Downstream pipe has very steep slope
CA-010 WSC assumed invert. Calculated using a slope of 0.012 ft/ft based on downstream pipe (SWP0061)
CE-009 WSC assumed invert. Calculated using a slope of 0.005 ft/ft which matches downstream pipe (SWP0596)
CB-015 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using slope of 0.084 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0362)
CE-010 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using slope of 0.045 ft/ft which is slope of downstream pipe (SWP0604)
CB-024 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using slope of 0.016 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0329). WSC assumed rim/ground elevation to be 2 ft above rim elevation.

CC-004 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using slope of 0.005 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0615)
CB-002 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using same slope as main SWP0620 (0.031 ft/ft) CE-008 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using same slope as downstream main (SWP0591).

WSC assumed a rim elevation 2 ft higher than invert elevation 400 400
CA-021 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using a slope of 0.066 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0266)
CD-006 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using a slope of 0.023 ft/ft based on downstream pipe (SWP0213)
CB-007 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using a slope of 0.013 ft/ft based on downstream pipe (SWP0375)
CB-008 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using a slope of 0.005 ft/ft based on downstream pipe (SWP0366)
CB-009 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert using a slope of 0.005 ft/ft based on downstream pipe (SWP0366)
CE-007 WSC assumed invert. Calculated invert based on the slope of the downstream main (SWP0580)
CC-007 WSC assumed invert. Assuming the same slope as downstream pipe results in invert elevation above rim elevation. Assumed invert to be 2 ft below rim elevation.

CA-012 WSC assumed invert. Assuming the same slope as downstream pipe results in an invert above rim elevation. Assumed invert to be 2 ft below rim elevation CB-016 WSC assumed invert. Assuming invert to match downstream pipe slope results in invert above rim elevation. Assumed invert is 2 ft below rim elevation.

CB-011 WSC assumed invert. Assumed slope of 0.011 ft/ft based on upstream main (SWP0432).

CB-012 WSC assumed invert. Assumed slope of 0.011 ft/ft based on upstream main (SWP0432).

CD-005 WSC assumed invert. Assumed slope of 0.010 ft/ft to match downstream pipe (SWP0236) MH-1 WSC assumed invert. Assumed slope of 0.005 ft/ft. WSC interpolated rim elevation based on upstream and downstream manhole.

CA-019 WSC assumed invert. Assumed invert to be 3 ft below rim elevation. Using slope of downstream main results in invert above rim elevation.

CD-007 WSC assumed invert to match upstream pipe slope of SWP0115 (0.009 ft/ft) MC-067 WSC assumed invert to eliminate negative slope. GIS had an invert of 453.34 ft. City confirmed flow is from manhole MC-068 to manhole MC-067.

MH-11 WSC assumed invert by using same slope of downstream pipe. Rim elevation assumed to be 2 ft higher than invert elevation
CC-013 WSC assumed invert based on interpolation between Manhole MC-119 and MC-113 CC-014 WSC assumed invert based on interpolation between Manhole MC-119 and MC-113 MH-3 WSC assumed invert based on interpolation between Manhole MB-048 & MB-047. WSC assumed rim/ground elevation based on interpolation between Manhole MB-048 & MB047 MH-4 WSC assumed invert based on interpolation between Manhole MB-048 & MB-047. WSC assumed rim/ground elevation based on interpolation between Manhole MB-048 & MB047 MC-068 Based on flow metering data and loading analysis, WSC assumed diversion manhole sends 75% of flow to MB-031 and 25% of flow to MC-067.
401 401
Appendix B. Initial Flattening Analysis Results
402 403

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Calculated Flow Depth (in)
Pipe Flow (gpd)
6-in Sewer with Min Design Slope of 0.0100 ft/ft
Min Slope
1/2 Min Slope
1/4 Min Slope
Power (Min Slope)
Power (1/2 Min
Slope)
Theoretical minimum
pipe capacity of 90,000
gpd for 6-in pipes with
unknown slope
403 404

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 Calculated Flow Depth (in)
Pipe Flow (gpd)
8-in Sewer with Min Design Slope of 0.0040 ft/ft
Min Slope
1/2 Min Slope
1/4 Min Slope
Power (Min
Slope)
Power (1/2 Min
Slope)
Theoretical minimum pipe
capacity of 120,000 gpd for 8-in
pipes with unknown slope
404 405

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Calculated Flow Depth (in)
Pipe Flow (gpd)
10-in Sewer with Min Design Slope of 0.0028 ft/ft
Min Slope
1/2 Min Slope
1/4 Min Slope
Power (Min Slope)
Power (1/2 Min Slope)
Power (1/4 Min Slope)
Theoretical minimum pipe
capacity of 180,000 gpd for 10-in
pipes with unknown slope
405 405
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1 $1 $1 $1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
!2!
2!! !2!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
!!2! 2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!!2! 2!
2!!
2!!
!!2! 2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2! 2!! !2! !2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!!2!
!2!
!!2!2! !2!
!2! 2!!!2!
!2!
!2! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
!!2! 2!
!2! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
! 2!! 2!! 2!
!2!
!2!
2!! !2!
!2! 2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2! !2!
!2!
!2! !2! 2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!2!!
!2!
2!! !2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
!2!
!2!
!2! 2!!
!2!
2!!
2!! !2!
2!!
! !2! ! 2! ! 2! 2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!! !2! 2!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! !2! !2! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!! !2!
!2!
!2!
2!! !2!
!2!
!2!
2!! 2!!!
2!! !2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
! 2!! !2! !2! 2!
2!!
!2! 2!!
!2!
!2!
2!! !2! !2!
2!!
!2!
!2! 2!!
!2! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2! !2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! !2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!! !2!
2!!
!2!
2!! 2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2! !2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2! !2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2! 2!!
!2!
2!! !2! !2!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2! 2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!2! !22!!!
!2!
! 2!! ! 2! 2!
!2! !2! 2!!
2!! 2!!
!2!
2!!!2!
!2!
!2!
!2! !2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2! 2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! !2! 2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2! 2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!!2! 2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!! !2!!2! 2!!
! !2! 2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!2!!
!!2! 2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!!2! ! 2! 2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!!2!
!2!!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!! ! 2!! 2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!2!! !!2! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!2!
! !2! 2!
!2!
!2! !2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
! !2! 2!! !2! !2! 2!! 2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!! !2!
2!!
!2!
!2! !2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!!2!!2!
!2!!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!!
2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
! !2! 2! 2!! !2!
2!
!!
2!2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!2!
!2! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!2!! 2!
!2!
!2!
!2! !2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
!2!2!!2!
!!2! 2!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
!2! !2! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! !2!
2!!2!!
!2!
2!!
!2! 2!!
2!!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! !2!
!2!
2!!
!2!! 2!
!2!
2!!
!2! 2!!
!2!
2!!
!!2! 2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
!2! 2!!
!2!
!2! 2!!
!2!
!2!
!2!
!2!
2!!
!!2! 2!! 2!
2!!
!2!
!2!!2!
!2!
2!!
! !2! 2!
!2!
2!!
Ö
Ö
City of Solvang
2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
Flattening Analysis for 6", 8", and 10" Pipe
BO+Infill PHWWF
±
Legend
Ö Sewer Lift Station
!2!
Manhole
$1 Cleanout
Force Main
Gravity Pipelines
Flattening Analysis Results
Potentially Capacity Constrained
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Name: Flattening_Results Date: 8/26/2021
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
(c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
user community
406 407
Appendix C. Existing and Future Flows
407 408
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !( !( !(!( !(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!( !(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(!( !(!(
!( !( !( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !( !(
!( !(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(
!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!(!(!(!( !(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(!( !(!(
!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
") ") ")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ¯
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
City of Solvang
Existing Loading Analysis
Legend
Land Use Based Load (gpd)
) 0 - 175
) 176 - 580
) 581 - 1,775
) 1,776 - 4,200
) 4,201 - 9,790
) 9,791 - 21,650
Scaled Water Meter Usage
( 0 - 175
( 176 - 580
( 581 - 1,775
( 1,776 - 4,200
( 4,201 - 9,790
( 9,791 - 21,650
Assessor Parcel
ZONING
1-E-1
10-R-1
20-R-1
3-E-1
7-R-1
8-R-1
AG
C-2
C-3
DR
I
M-I
MHP
P-O
REC
RES
TRC
408 409
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !( !( !(!( !(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!( !(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(!( !(!(
!( !( !( !(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !(!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!( !( !(
!( !(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(
!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!(!(!(!( !(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(!( !(!(
!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
") ") ")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*#* # #* *
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ¯
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
City of Solvang
Buildout Loading Analysis
Legend
Buildout Land Use Projected Load (gpd)
* 0 - 175
* 176 - 580
* 581 - 1,775
* 1,776 - 4,200
* 4,201 - 9,790
* 9,791 - 21,650
Land Use Projected Existing Load (gpd)
) 0 - 175
) 176 - 580
) 581 - 1,775
) 1,776 - 4,200
) 4,201 - 9,790
) 9,791 - 21,650
Scaled Water Meter Usage (gpd)
( 0 - 175
( 176 - 580
( 581 - 1,775
( 1,776 - 4,200
( 4,201 - 9,790
( 9,791 - 21,650
Assessor Parcel
ZONING
1-E-1
10-R-1
20-R-1
3-E-1
7-R-1
8-R-1
AG
C-2
C-3
DR
I
M-I
MHP
P-O
REC
RES
TRC
409 410
Appendix D. Model Loading
410 411
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ¯
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
City of Solvang
Buildout Flow Impact
Legend
Buildout Sewer Generation Scale (gpd)
( 0 - 222
( 223 - 793
( 794 - 2,023
( 2,024 - 4,201
( 4,202 - 9,792
( 9,793 - 21,644
Assessor Parcel
Buildout Flow Increase (gpd)
0 - 400
401 - 1,275
1,276 - 3,100
3,101 - 5,000
5,001 - 14,325
14,326 - 21,000
ZONING
1-E-1
10-R-1
20-R-1
3-E-1
7-R-1
8-R-1
AG
C-2
C-3
DR
I
M-I
MHP
P-O
REC
RES
TRC
411 411
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!(
!(
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ¯
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
City of Solvang
Buildout+Infill Flow Impact
Legend
Buildout Sewer Generation Scale (gpd)
( 0 - 222
( 223 - 793
( 794 - 2,023
( 2,024 - 4,201
( 4,202 - 9,792
( 9,793 - 21,644
Buildout + Infill Increase (gpd)
0 - 400
401 - 1,275
1,276 - 3,100
3,101 - 5,000
5,001 - 14,325
14,326 - 52,053
Parcel Eligible for Infill
Assessor Parcel
ZONING
1-E-1
10-R-1
20-R-1
3-E-1
7-R-1
8-R-1
AG
C-2
C-3
DR
I
M-I
MHP
P-O
REC
RES
TRC
412 412
Appendix E. Flow Meter Locations
413 414
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1$1 $1 $1
$1
$1
$1 $1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!! 2!!
!2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2 !!!2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!2!!! 2!!
2!! 2!!2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
!2!! 2!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
! 2!! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!2!!!
2!!
2! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!!
! 2! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2!! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
!! 2!! 2!! 2
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!! 2!! !2!! 2!! 2!
2!! 2!!2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! !2!! 2!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!
!!
2!2!!
2!!
2!! !2!!2!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!! 2!!2!! 2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!!
!2!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!!2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!2!!
!2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!!
2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
22!!!!
2!!2!!
2!!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! ! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!2!!! !2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!! 2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!2!!!
2!2!!!
22!!!!!2!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
22!!!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! !2!! 2!! 2!
2!!!2!2!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!!2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2!
2!2!!2!!
2!2
!
!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!2!! 2!!
2!!
2!! 2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!
2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
!2!! 2!
2!! 2!!
!2!! 2!
2!! 2!!
!2!! 2! 2!!
2!! 2!!
!2!! 2!
2!!!2!! 2!
!2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
2!!
!2!!
2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
2!!2!!
2!!
2!!
! 2!! 2!
2!!
2!!
Ö
Ö
! !2! 2!! 2!
!2!
2!!
2!!
City of Solvang
2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
Flow Monitoring Locations
±
Legend
!2! Flow Meter
Ö Sewer Lift Station
2!! Manhole
$1 Cleanout
Private Sewer Manhole
Sewer Pipe
Private Sewer Pipe

BASIN A

BASIN B

BASIN C

BASIN D

BASIN E
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Name: Flow_Monitor_Final Date: 8/17/2021
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS user community
MC-004
ME-002
MA-003
MA-048
MD-018
MB-048
414 414
Appendix B. Flow
Monitoring Technical
Memorandum
415 415
Date: 8/27/2021
To: Matt van der Linden, P.E. Phone: (805) 688-5575
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Solvang
CC: Nathan Giacinto; Paul Matsukas
Prepared by: Adam Donald, P.E.

Reviewed by: Joshua Reynolds, P.E.

Project: 2021 Sewer Master Plan Update
Subject: Flow Monitoring Technical Memorandum
Section 1. Introduction
Water System Consulting’s (WSC) subconsultant Utility Systems Science and Software (US3) deployed flow monitors within the City of Solvang’s (City) collection system from December 30, 2020, through February 9, 2021. Flow meters were placed in six locations throughout the City’s collection system to capture flow in each of the City’s sewer collection system basins as well as capture all types of land use.

A map of the flow meter locations is shown in Figure 2-1.

The goal of the flow monitoring was to understand typical flow patterns within the City’s sewer collection basins as well capture a rainstorm of significant intensity to understand the collection system’s response to wet weather conditions. This data will provide a reference point for calibrating the hydraulic model. The following sections provide a summary of the flow monitoring results.

Section 2. Average Daily Flow
Flow meter for each location was analyzed to determine the average daily flow (ADF) for use in model calibration. The ADF is the average of all flow during the flow monitoring period and includes both dry and wet conditions. The ADF for each flow meter is presented in Table 2-1. 416 417
Figure 2-1: Flow Monitoring Map
417 418
Table 2-1: Average Daily Flow at Flow Meter Locations
Flow Metering Manhole Average Daily Flow (gpm) Average Daily Flow (gpd) MA-003 191.8 276,229
MC-004 105.3 151,567
MB-048 74.1 106,644
MD-018 63.5 91,458
MA-048 45.5 65,511
ME-002 17.8 25,621
System (MA-003 + MC-004) 297.1 427,796
Graphs of flow during the monitoring period for each flow meter are in Appendix A. Meter installation information, representative graphs, and inflow and infiltration (I/I) charts for each meter are attached as Appendices B-G. Most flow meters exhibited a typical diurnal pattern with peak flows occurring in the morning as people prepare for their day, a drop in flow throughout the afternoon, and a second peak in the late afternoon/evening as people return home from work. The flow meter located at manhole MB048 exhibited erratic flows that did not follow an obvious pattern. This flow meter contained a significant number of parcels zoned as tourist related commercial properties. These properties were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and erratic flows could be a result of atypical tourist patterns during this time. The flow meter located at manhole ME-002 saw a drop in flow for the weeks when the Alisal Guest Ranch was closed.

Section 3. Wet Weather Flow
The 2020-2021 was a relatively dry winter for the City. During the flow monitoring period, there was one significant storm that occurred from January 27-January 28, 2021. The key parameters of this storm are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Peak Rainfall Parameters
Storm Parameter Value
24-hr Rainfall 2.12 in
Peak Hourly Intensity 0.48 in/hr
The 95th percentile design storm for the Solvang area is 1.9 inches in 24 hours, see Appendix H. So, the observed storm was representative of the design storm. Hourly flow rates were examined for each flow meter during this storm to estimate the peak hour wet weather flow (PHWWF) observed within the system. The estimated PHWWF for each flow meter is shown in Table 3-3. Since the storm was largely an isolated event, the soils within the collection system were not saturated with water. Infiltration is at its peak when soils are saturated. As a result, the PHWWF observed during the flow monitoring may underestimate the inflow and infiltration response of the collection system. Observation of historic Fjord Lift Station pumping records indicates that the metered daily flow of 0.99 mgd observed on January 28, 2021 compares reasonably well to other historic storms. Table 3-2 presents data for recent storms and 418 419
the resulting total daily flow, as can be seen the 2021 storm rainfall total and observed sewage flow are consistent with prior storms.

Table 3-2: Observed 24-hr Rainfall and Total Flow for Recent Storms Date
Flow at
Fjord LS
(mgd)
24-hr
Rainfall
(inches)
1/17/2019 0.77 1.95
2/2/2019 0.91 2.27
12/23/2019 0.62 1.88
4/6/2020 0.79 2.13
1/27/2021 0.61 1.44
1/28/2021 0.99 2.12
Table 3-3: Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow
Flow Metering Manhole Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow
(gpm)
Peaking Factor (PHWWF to
ADF)
MA-003 599.7 3.1
MC-004 489.6 4.7
MB-048 172.8 2.3
MD-018 176.5 2.8
MA-048 157.6 3.5
ME-002 55.4 3.1
System (MA-003 + MC-004) 1,089.3 3.7
Although the observed flow and rainfall appear reasonably representative compared to prior storm totals, City observations during 2021 storms are that Alisal Creek and other creeks in the City had limited flow in them and inflow could be underrepresented. City observations of creek flow and past inflow issues suggests the need for additional flow monitoring upstream of the Alisal Lift Station combined with CCTV inspection of the collection system to assess and document pipeline condition and manhole locations for (I/I) issues.

One method to rank I/I issues is to assess I/I by volume compared to the inch-diameter-miles (IDM) of pipeline above the flow meter, this is I/I intensity in gal/IDM. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t pinpoint any one area as significantly higher in I/I intensity since the data from meter MB-048 is erratic. 419 419
Table 3-4: I/I Intensity
Meter
Observed
peak I/I
rate (gpm)
I/I volume
1/28/21 IDM
I/I intensity
(gal/IDM) Notes
MA-003 420.81 299,860 118.5 2,529
Alignment has sections parallel to
creek. About half the collection
system above the meter.

MC-004 404.22 330,444 137.4 2,405
Alignment has sections parallel to
creek. About half the collection
system above the meter.

MB-048 99.17 72,313 16.2 4,467
Highest I/I intensity, but also the
most variability in dry weather flow
patterns. Dry weather peak almost
matches wet weather peak.

MD-018 124.49 110,539 52.5 2,106
Alignment has sections parallel to
creek.

MA-048 117.78 88,385 46.7 1,893
Showed some infiltration evidence
as the day after the storm had
about the same I/I volume.

Parallels a creek.

ME-002 37.25 25,115 26.9 934
Has lines that parallel a creek. I/I
possibly underrepresented because
Alisal Creek was low.

Section 4. Conclusion
The flow monitoring conducted from December 30, 2020 through February 9, 2021 provided a baseline estimate for calibrating the hydraulic model. The ADF from the flow metering data at each flow meter can be used as a reasonable estimate as to what the average annual flow should be at these manholes within the hydraulic model. During the flow monitoring period, a significant rainstorm was captured to estimate peaking factors within the collection system. However, this storm occurred as an isolated event so the surrounding soils were unsaturated, leading to the peaking factors potentially underestimating the impacts of I/I on the collection system.
420 421
Appendix A. Flow Meter Graphs
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
12/25/2020 1/4/2021 1/14/2021 1/24/2021 2/3/2021 2/13/2021 Flow (gpm)
Date
MA-003
Flow Data ADF
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
12/25/2020 1/4/2021 1/14/2021 1/24/2021 2/3/2021 2/13/2021 Flow (gpm)
Date
MA-048
Flow ADF
421 421
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
12/25/2020 1/4/2021 1/14/2021 1/24/2021 2/3/2021 2/13/2021 Flow (gpm)
Date
MB-048
Flow ADF
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
12/25/2020 1/4/2021 1/14/2021 1/24/2021 2/3/2021 2/13/2021 Flow (gpm)
Date
MC-004
Flow ADF
422 422
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
12/25/2020 1/4/2021 1/14/2021 1/24/2021 2/3/2021 2/13/2021 Flow (gpm)
Date
MD-018
Flow ADF
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
12/25/2020 1/4/2021 1/14/2021 1/24/2021 2/3/2021 2/13/2021 Flow (gpm)
Date
ME-002
Flow ADF
423 423
Appendix B. Flow Meter Data Sheets – MA-003
424 424
2021.01 MA-003
MH at ~147 Paseo Del Rio
MH in the green space west of road,
2nd MH US from MA-001
X
Install Date: 12/30/2020
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 213.5"
MH Coordinates: 34.590817, -120.152446
Turbulent open channel hydraulics due to inflow
from lateral
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

1.5 fps 4.5" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
Inlets from east & north; monitored the
downstream line to get total flow to MA-001.

Traffic Safety
No formal TCP required; used cones & signs per
site-specific CA MUTCD TC requirements.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
12"
234"
Round
12"/12"
Good
Brick
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

20.54"

8.54"
Downstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Water Systems Consulting
Solvang, CA 93463
MH # MA-003
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
Southeast
Sewer Plan
2/17/2021
425 4
2021.01 MA-003
MH at ~147 Paseo Del Rio
Solvang, CA 93463
Meter Site Document
Site Manhole Before Install
Monitored Pipe Size Downstream
Installation Process Installed
426 427
Temporary Flow Study
Water Systems Consulting
2021.01 MA-003
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 12/30/2020
Meter Stop Date To 2/9/2021
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 1.534 4.466 0.277
Maximum 2.270 12.050 0.973
Minimum 0.536 2.537 0.047
Pipe Size 12.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
427 428
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.606 4.463 200.523 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.034 6.121 351.711
Minimum 0.810 2.831 51.448 0.030 2/17/2021
428 429
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.488 4.203 173.251 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.099 5.910 354.887
Minimum 0.571 2.633 32.741 2/17/2021
429 429
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.493 4.203 172.303 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.023 5.780 324.753
Minimum 0.536 2.537 33.110 2/17/2021
430 431
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.479 4.268 174.661 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.270 6.154 389.390
Minimum 0.560 2.730 34.050 0.360 2/17/2021
431 431
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.658 5.227 250.733 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.210 12.050 676.030
Minimum 0.770 2.900 52.680 4.760 2/17/2021
432 432
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.528 4.442 189.809 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.990 6.490 369.050
Minimum 0.790 2.800 53.620 2/17/2021
433 433
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.493 4.286 177.762 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.000 6.620 385.510
Minimum 0.720 2.620 41.630 2/17/2021
434 435
2/17/2021 3:07:43 PM
12/30/2020 thru 2/09/2021
435 435
INI Report for 2021.01 MA-003
Max: 324.75 Min: 33.11 Avg: 171.97 Max: 676.03 Min: 51.05 Avg: 248.31 Dry Week Statistics Wet Week Statistics
Dry Week Starting 01/09/2021
Wet Week Starting 01/23/2021
Report Date: 02/17/2021
Customer: Water Systems Consulting
Group: Sewer flow monitoring
Site: 2021.01 MA-003
436 437
Appendix C. Flow Meter Data Sheets – MA-048
437 437
2021.01 MA-048
MH at ~1341 Mission Dr
MH in open space north of
road/address
X
Install Date: 12/30/2020
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 105.5"
MH Coordinates: 34.594762, -120.150798
Slow to moderate open channel hydraulics
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

1.0 fps 2.25" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
Inlet from NE; monitored the downstream line as
it provided the best hydraulics.

Traffic Safety
MH in open space, no traffic control required.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
12"
125"
Round
12"/12"
Good
Brick
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

19.5"

7.5"
Downstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Water Systems Consulting
Solvang, CA 93463
MH # MA-048
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
Sewer Plan
Southwest
2/17/2021
438 439
2021.01 MA-048
MH at ~1341 Mission Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
Meter Site Document
Site Manhole Before Install
Installation Process Installed
Monitored Pipe Size Downstream
439 440
Temporary Flow Study
Water Systems Consulting
2021.01 MA-048
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 12/30/2020
Meter Stop Date To 2/9/2021
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 0.933 2.274 0.066
Maximum 1.910 3.870 0.231
Minimum 0.442 1.328 0.015
Pipe Size 12.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
440 441
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.881 2.182 41.611 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.136 2.823 71.835
Minimum 0.545 1.328 14.112 0.030 2/17/2021
441 441
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.839 2.155 37.284 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.105 2.959 70.799
Minimum 0.453 1.366 13.433 2/17/2021
442 442
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.855 2.168 38.126 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.234 2.863 66.191
Minimum 0.442 1.443 10.698 2/17/2021
443 443
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.905 2.223 42.082 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.286 2.981 80.407
Minimum 0.570 1.480 16.200 0.360 2/17/2021
444 445
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.081 2.577 64.213 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.640 3.870 160.430
Minimum 0.530 1.470 13.020 4.760 2/17/2021
445 445
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.008 2.313 49.299 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.910 3.150 98.070
Minimum 0.460 1.530 13.140 2/17/2021
446 447
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.916 2.157 41.050 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.180 2.840 73.560
Minimum 0.560 1.460 15.210 2/17/2021
447 448
2/17/2021 4:51:39 PM
12/30/2020 thru 2/09/2021
448 449
INI Report for 2021.01 MA-048
Max: 66.19 Min: 10.70 Avg: 37.83 Max: 160.43 Min: 13.02 Avg: 60.34 Dry Week Statistics Wet Week Statistics
Dry Week Starting 01/09/2021
Wet Week Starting 01/23/2021
Report Date: 02/17/2021
Customer: Water Systems Consulting
Group: Sewer flow monitoring
Site: 2021.01 MA-048
449 449
Appendix D. Flow Meter Data Sheets – MB-048
450 451
2021.01 MB-048
MH at ~1614 Oak St
MH on the CL of road, north of address X
Install Date: 12/30/2020
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 115"
MH Coordinates: 34.594074, -120.142267
Turbulent open channel hydraulics due to change
in slope within MH
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

2.0 fps 2.25" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
Inlets from N, S & W; very little flow noted from
laterals, but monitored downstream line to get
total flow.

Traffic Safety
No formal TCP required; used cones & signs per
site-specific CA MUTCD TC requirements.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X X
Manhole Depth
8"
129"
Round
8"/8"
Good
Brick
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

13.89"

5.89"
Downstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Water Systems Consulting
Solvang, CA 93463
MH # MB-048
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
2/18/2021
Sewer Plan
Southwest
451 451
2021.01 MB-048
MH at ~1614 Oak St
Solvang, CA 93463
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Downstream
Site
Installation Process
Monitored Pipe Size
452 452
Temporary Flow Study
Water Systems Consulting
2021.01 MB-048
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 12/30/2020
Meter Stop Date To 2/9/2021
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 2.097 2.240 0.107
Maximum 3.580 3.910 0.270
Minimum 0.623 1.730 0.034
Pipe Size 8.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
453 453
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 2.118 2.472 87.633 RainFall Inches
Maximum 3.254 2.909 142.735
Minimum 0.802 2.057 28.623 0.030 2/17/2021
454 454
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 2.021 2.320 76.230 RainFall Inches
Maximum 3.241 2.779 153.966
Minimum 0.821 1.930 29.222 2/17/2021
455 455
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 2.080 2.268 73.604 RainFall Inches
Maximum 3.580 3.731 161.295
Minimum 0.623 1.741 26.369 2/17/2021
456 456
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 2.176 2.048 66.894 RainFall Inches
Maximum 3.234 2.450 104.727
Minimum 0.850 1.730 32.080 0.360 2/17/2021
457 457
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 2.148 2.305 79.248 RainFall Inches
Maximum 3.320 3.910 187.740
Minimum 1.140 1.760 40.910 4.760 2/17/2021
458 458
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 2.065 2.211 71.726 RainFall Inches
Maximum 3.070 2.800 120.070
Minimum 1.140 1.780 41.190 2/17/2021
459 459
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 2.004 2.140 66.000 RainFall Inches
Maximum 3.030 2.670 111.940
Minimum 0.660 1.780 23.450 2/17/2021
460 461
2/17/2021 5:04:21 PM
12/30/2020 thru 2/09/2021
461 461
INI Report for 2021.01 MB-048
Max: 161.29 Min: 26.37 Avg: 75.31 Max: 187.74 Min: 40.33 Avg: 77.96 Dry Week Statistics Wet Week Statistics
Dry Week Starting 01/09/2021
Wet Week Starting 01/23/2021
Report Date: 02/17/2021
Customer: Water Systems Consulting
Group: Sewer flow monitoring
Site: 2021.01 MB-048
462 462
Appendix E. Flow Meter Data Sheets – MC-004
463 464
2021.01 MC-004
MH at ~1474 Fjord Dr
MH in green space south of
road/address
X
Install Date: 12/30/2020
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 103.25"
MH Coordinates: 34.589120, -120.150703
Moderate open channel hydraulics
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

1.25 fps 3.0" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
Inlet from SE; monitored the upstream line as it
provided the best hydraulics.

Traffic Safety
MH in green space, no traffic control required.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
14"
125"
Round
14"/14"
Good
Concrete
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

21.74"

7.74"
Upstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Water Systems Consulting
Solvang, CA 93463
MH # MC-004
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
2/18/2021
Sewer Plan
Northwest
464 465
2021.01 MC-004
MH at ~1474 Fjord Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Site
Installation Process
Upstream Monitored Pipe Size
465 465
Temporary Flow Study
Water Systems Consulting
2021.01 MC-004
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 12/30/2020
Meter Stop Date To 2/9/2021
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 1.230 3.027 0.154
Maximum 2.240 6.620 0.709
Minimum 0.430 1.060 0.012
Pipe Size 12.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
466 467
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.239 2.835 96.140 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.600 3.938 175.200
Minimum 0.660 1.180 13.740 0.030 2/17/2021
467 467
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.157 2.694 83.641 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.560 3.740 153.970
Minimum 0.610 1.240 13.480 2/17/2021
468 469
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.164 2.703 84.988 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.570 3.750 159.940
Minimum 0.580 1.060 10.210 2/17/2021
469 470
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.124 2.662 82.220 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.590 3.830 157.250
Minimum 0.430 1.110 8.350 0.360 2/17/2021
470 471
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.430 3.579 161.090 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.240 6.620 492.060
Minimum 0.460 1.240 9.700 4.760 2/17/2021
471 471
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.267 3.441 123.264 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.710 4.560 230.510
Minimum 0.640 2.000 27.130 2/17/2021
472 472
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.003 2.767 95.506 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.600 4.760 230.050
Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/17/2021
473 473
2/17/2021 5:05:13 PM
12/30/2020 thru 2/09/2021
474 474
INI Report for 2021.01 MC-004
Max: 159.94 Min: 10.21 Avg: 84.10 Max: 492.06 Min: 9.70 Avg: 152.43 Dry Week Statistics Wet Week Statistics
Dry Week Starting 01/09/2021
Wet Week Starting 01/23/2021
Report Date: 02/17/2021
Customer: Water Systems Consulting
Group: Sewer flow monitoring
Site: 2021.01 MC-004
475 475
Appendix F. Flow Meter Data Sheets – MD-018
476 477
2021.01 MD-018
MH at ~1948 Old Mill Rd
MH next to dirt road south of Alamo
Pintado & Old Mill intersection
X
Install Date: 12/30/2020
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 69"
MH Coordinates: 34.594457, -120.129132
Moderate open channel hydraulics
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

1.33 fps 2.2" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
Inlet from north; monitored the upstream line as it
provided the best hydraulics.

Traffic Safety
MH in open space, no traffic control required.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
12"
88"
Round
12"/12"
Good
Concrete
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

19.11"

7.11"
Upstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Water Systems Consulting
Solvang, CA 93463
MH # MD-018
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
2/18/2021
Sewer Plan
Southwest
477 478
2021.01 MD-018
MH at ~1948 Old Mill Rd
Solvang, CA 93463
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Site
Installation Process
Upstream Monitored Pipe Size
478 479
Temporary Flow Study
Water Systems Consulting
2021.01 MD-018
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 12/30/2020
Meter Stop Date To 2/9/2021
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 1.317 2.205 0.092
Maximum 2.390 3.210 0.256
Minimum 0.400 1.430 0.014
Pipe Size 12.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
447980
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.123 2.123 51.058 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.910 2.800 104.210
Minimum 0.449 1.520 11.670 0.030 2/17/2021
480 481
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.177 2.078 52.305 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.880 2.700 109.420
Minimum 0.460 1.450 11.260 2/17/2021
481 481
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.123 2.049 48.864 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.910 2.580 105.000
Minimum 0.400 1.430 9.740 2/17/2021
482 483
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.153 2.037 49.547 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.890 2.630 108.010
Minimum 0.460 1.470 12.410 0.360 2/17/2021
483 484
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.634 2.406 87.529 RainFall Inches
Maximum 2.390 3.210 177.660
Minimum 0.840 1.600 26.340 4.760 2/17/2021
484 485
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.521 2.435 80.601 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.970 2.930 123.870
Minimum 0.880 1.890 32.670 2/17/2021
485 485
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.464 2.329 73.304 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.930 2.880 125.750
Minimum 0.760 1.810 27.170 2/17/2021
486 487
2/17/2021 5:05:55 PM
12/30/2020 thru 2/09/2021
487 488
INI Report for 2021.01 MD-018
Max: 105.00 Min: 9.74 Avg: 48.58 Max: 177.66 Min: 21.21 Avg: 83.42 Dry Week Statistics Wet Week Statistics
Dry Week Starting 01/09/2021
Wet Week Starting 01/23/2021
Report Date: 02/17/2021
Customer: Water Systems Consulting
Group: Sewer flow monitoring
Site: 2021.01 MD-018
488 489
Appendix G. Flow Meter Data Sheets – ME-002
489 490
2021.01 ME-002
MH at ~260 Alisal Rd
MH on golf course, SE of Alisal &
Rancho Alisal intersection
X
Install Date: 12/30/2020
Access: System Type:

Sanitary Storm
Map
Technology
Flow Meter
Meter Depth:

MH Coordinates: 34.583740, -120.144989
Moderate open channel hydraulics with slight
bend in trough
Avg Velocity Avg Measured Level Multiplier

0.875 fps 1.5" 1.0
Gas
O2 H2S CO LEL

20.9 0 0 0
Notes
Inlet from SE; monitored the upstream line as it
provided the best hydraulics.

Traffic Safety
MH in green space, no traffic control required.

Land Use
Residential Commercial Industrial Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
8"
143"
Round
8"/8"
Good
Concrete
None observed
Passed

0.4 2-D

18.24"

10.24"
Upstream
Flow Heading
Sensor Direction
Sensor Dist. to Crown
Sensor Offset
Velocity Profile Data
Velocity Profile Taken
Silt
Manhole Material
Pipe Condition
Pipe Shape
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
Monitored Pipe Size
Water Systems Consulting
Solvang, CA 93463
MH # ME-002
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
2/18/2021
Sewer Plan
Northeast
490 490
2021.01 ME-002
MH at ~260 Alisal Rd
Solvang, CA 93463
Meter Site Document
Manhole Before Install
Installed
Site
Installation Process
Upstream Monitored Pipe Size
491 491
Temporary Flow Study
Water Systems Consulting
2021.01 ME-002
Utility Systems, Science and Software
Santa Ana, CA 92705
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Meter Start Date From 12/30/2020
Meter Stop Date To 2/9/2021
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (mgd)
Average 0.879 1.472 0.026
Maximum 1.540 3.050 0.086
Minimum 0.350 0.870 0.005
Pipe Size 8.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd) Not Calculated
Capacity Used Not Calculated
Sensor Type Hach - Flodar
El Cajon, CA 92021
9314 Bond Av, Suite A
492 492
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.897 1.609 20.629 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.232 1.912 34.576
Minimum 0.430 1.390 7.980 0.030 2/17/2021
493 494
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.861 1.630 20.115 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.350 2.180 40.070
Minimum 0.350 1.370 6.400 2/17/2021
494 495
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.863 1.539 18.617 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.220 1.780 30.710
Minimum 0.370 1.330 6.300 2/17/2021
495 495
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.876 1.485 18.062 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.180 1.970 33.280
Minimum 0.400 0.870 3.720 0.360 2/17/2021
496 497
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 1.003 1.301 17.737 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.540 3.050 59.470
Minimum 0.400 0.890 3.840 4.760 2/17/2021
497 498
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.832 1.352 14.556 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.320 1.730 23.970
Minimum 0.390 1.080 6.100 2/17/2021
498 499
Velocity (fps) Level (in) Flow (gpm)
Average 0.730 1.433 14.243 RainFall Inches
Maximum 1.030 1.800 25.850
Minimum 0.350 1.180 5.060 2/17/2021
499 499
2/17/2021 5:06:38 PM
12/30/2020 thru 2/09/2021
500 501
INI Report for 2021.01 ME-002
Max: 30.71 Min: 6.30 Avg: 18.63 Max: 59.47 Min: 3.72 Avg: 16.89 Dry Week Statistics Wet Week Statistics
Dry Week Starting 01/09/2021
Wet Week Starting 01/23/2021
Report Date: 02/17/2021
Customer: Water Systems Consulting
Group: Sewer flow monitoring
Site: 2021.01 ME-002
501 501
Appendix H. Central Coast Region 95th Percentile 24-hour Rainfall Depth Map
502 503
2 1.7

1.6 1.5
1 1.3

1.4 1.8

1.9 1.2

2.2 2.1

2.4 2.3

1.1 2.8

3.2 4

3.6 0.9

4.4 0.8

1.6 1.6

2.2 1.5
1 1.9

1.8 1.5

2.1 3.6

1.7 2.8

1.7 1.9

1.1 2.1
2 1.2

1.4 1.3

1.9 2.8

1.8 1.3

2.2 2

1.9 1.4

1.8 1.5

2.4 1.3
2 3.2

2.4 1.7

1.3 2.2

1.2 1.6

1.2 2.8

1.7 2
2 2.4

2.3 1.3

2.2 1.8

1.6 1.4

2.4 2.4

1.8 1.8

1.2 1.6

2.3 1.7

1.4 2.4

1.1 2.8

1.7 1.4

1.9 2.4

1.2 2.1

2.2 1.5

1.5 1.4

2.4 2.4

2.2 1.9

0.9 3.2

1.6 2.8

1.7 1.8

2.1 2.8

1.6 1.4

1.8 2.8

1.2 1.7

1.8 2.3

1.9 2.4

1.4 1.6

1.8 1.9

2.1 1.7

2.4 1
2 2

2.1 1.7

1.6 1.9

1.5 2
1 1.5
2 2.4

1.3 2.3

2.2 1.1

1.7 1.5

1.7 2.3

2.2 2.8

1.2 1.6

0.9 1.2

1.8 1.1

1.5 1.4

1.6 1.4

1.7 1.7

1.8 1.4

2.3 1.8

1.6 1.3

2.3 1.9 2.1

1.5 2

3.2 2.8

2.1 1.8

3.6 1.9

2.1 2.3

1.6 2.2

1.7 2.3
1 1.7

2.8 2.3

1.6 2.3

2.3 2

1.4 2.2

1.7 1.7

1.4 1.8

2.1 1.3
2 2.3

1.7 1.7

1.5 1.3

1.9 1.8

2.4 1.6

1.5 1.9

1.3 1.4

2.1 1.7

2.4 1.1
Airline Hwy
Hwy 1
US Hwy 101
el Camino Real
Pozo Rd
Hwy 9
State Rte 198
Carrisa Hwy
State Rte 166
S Valley Fwy
State Hwy 1
W Pozo Rd
Metz Rd
Bolsa Rd
Morro Rd
W Main St
Santa Cruz Hwy
State Rte 246
Coast Rd
Webster Rd
Pacheco Pass Hwy
State Rte 33
State Hwy 41
Riverside Dr
Mission Dr
Cabrillo Hwy
Monterey Hwy
Salinas Hwy
Castroville Rd
State Rte 156
Cannon Rd
State Rte 135
Hecker Pass Hwy
Foothill Rd
State Rte 146
Cliff Dr
San Marcos Pass Rd
Hwy 152
Big Basin Hwy
Orcutt Expy
Antelope Rd
E Lake Ave
State Hwy 166
Broad St
1st St
San Felipe Rd
Cuyama Hwy
Main St
Peach Tree Rd
State Hwy 46
State Hwy 9
W State Rte 246
Carpenter Canyon Rd
Monterey Salinas Hwy
Calkins Rd
Shirtail Cyn Rd
Maricopa Hwy
Casitas Pass Rd
Green Valley Rd
Creston-Eureka Rd
State Hwy 33
W Side Hwy
Merritt St
Pinnacles Hwy
W Ocean Ave
US Hwy 399
Edna Rd
Hecker Pass Rd
Mission St
Willow Rd
Holman Hwy
Hollister Rd
Chittenden Rd
S Broadway
Monterey Rd
Big Basin Way
Calf Canyon Hwy
E Cabrillo Blvd
Bell St
Canyon del Rey Blvd
River St
W Market St
N H St
Las Positas Rd
John St
San Juan Rd
Ward Memorial Blvd
South St
Lasalle Canyon Rd
Zaca St
F St
Huasna Rd
E Centre St
W Centre St
Front St
State Rte 1
N Broadway
Mercedes Ave
E Main St
W Riverside Dr
S Main St
J St
Armour Ranch Rd
E 10th St
Cabrillo Hwy S
Pacific Blvd
Bloomfield Ave
E Branch St
Forest Ave
Cienaga St
S Salinas St
Palm Ave
Sycamore Canyon Rd
Chalone Creek Rd
East St
Summit Rd
Interlake Rd
Sunset Dr
S A Rd
Rincon Rd
Castillo St
Tres Pinos Rd
E Valley Rd
Vandenberg Rd
State Hwy 166
State Hwy 46
Casitas Pass Rd
State Rte 156
el Camino Real
Hwy 9
Cabrillo Hwy
Front St
Hwy 1
State Rte 156
el Camino Real
State Hwy 9
Cabrillo Hwy
Coast Rd
Cabrillo Hwy
el Camino Real
Monterey Rd
US Hwy 101
Cannon Rd
Hwy 1
Big Basin Hwy
State Hwy 166
Orcutt Expy
State Rte 166
State Rte 166
Cabrillo Hwy
Hwy 9
State Rte 166
Cuyama Hwy
State Rte 166
Cabrillo Hwy
State Hwy 41
State Hwy 166
Cabrillo Hwy
State Hwy 1
Coast Rd
Hwy 9
State Hwy 41
State Rte 1
Hwy 1
State Hwy 1
Big Basin Hwy
Pacheco Pass Hwy
el Camino Real
Cabrillo Hwy
State Rte 166
Hwy 9
State Rte 1
Hwy 9
Cabrillo Hwy
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, TomTom, USGS, Esri Japan, Esri China (Hong Kong) Legend
Isohyetal

0.1 inch interval

0.4 inch interval
Roads
Project Boundary
Precipitation (inch)
95 Percentile (1949 - 2010)
< 0.8

0.8 - 0.9

0.9 - 1.0

1.0 - 1.1

1.1 - 1.2

1.2 - 1.3

1.3 - 1.4

1.4 - 1.5

1.5 - 1.6

1.6 - 1.7

1.7 - 1.8

1.8 - 1.9

1.9 - 2.0

2.0 - 2.1

2.1 - 2.2

2.2 - 2.3

2.3 - 2.4

2.4 - 2.8

2.8 - 3.2

3.2 - 3.6

3.6 - 4.0

4.0 - 4.4
> 4.4
0 20 40 80
Miles
0 20 40 80
Kilometers
NAD 1983 California Teale Albers
Data Source (for spatial variation):

PRISM Climate Group
Oregon State University
http://prism.oregonstate.edu
Central Coast Region
95 Percentile 24-hour Rainfall Depth th
th
503 504
Appendix C. Pipe
Segments Exceeding
Capacity Criteria
504 545
Pipe ID
Upstream
MH
Downstream
MH
Diameter
(in)
Length
(ft)
Existing Over
Capacity d/D
Buildout Over
Capacity d/D
Buildout + Infill Over
Capacity d/D
Recommended
Action
Project
Number
Recommended Pipe Upgrade
Diameter (in)
Upgraded Pipe Buildout
+ Infill d/D
Notes
SWP0477 MB-005 MB-004 10 303 0.619 0.621 0.630 Monitor A5 N/A N/A The City has diverted flow away from this area to alleviate past capacity constraints.

SWP0478 MB-006 MB-005 10 154 0.591 0.592 0.601 Monitor A5 N/A N/A The City has diverted flow away from this area to alleviate past capacity constraints.

SWP0479 MB-007 MB-006 10 194 0.506 0.507 0.514 Monitor A5 N/A N/A The City has diverted flow away from this area to alleviate past capacity constraints.

SWP0480 MB-008 MB-007 10 167 0.531 0.532 0.540 Monitor A5 N/A N/A The City has diverted flow away from this area to alleviate past capacity constraints.

SWP0025 MB-043 MB-041 8 191 0.524 0.526 0.531 Replace A1 10 0.365 SWP0032 MB-047 MB-043 8 305 0.510 0.512 0.517 Replace A1 10 0.342 SWP0736 MH-3 MB-047 8 94 0.521 0.523 0.527 Replace A1 10 0.404 MH-3 is a placeholder manhole due to manhole missing or segment split in GIS
SWP0735 MH-4 MH-3 8 56 0.632 0.635 0.640 Replace A1 10 0.396 MH-4 and MH-3 are placeholder manholes due to manhole
missing or segment split in GIS
SWP0033 MB-048 MH-4 8 155 0.645 0.648 0.653 Replace A1 10 0.424 MH-4 is a placeholder manhole due to manhole missing or segment split in GIS
SWP0432 MB-049 MB-048 8 386 0.523 0.525 0.529 No Action N/A N/A 0.483 Upsizing pipes downstream of this segment alleviates the capacity restriction
SWP0417 MB-058 MB-051 6 233 0.511 0.511 0.516 Replace A2 8 0.324 Downstream pipe is 8 inch diameter SWP0026 MB-044 MB-043 6 380 0.494 0.495 0.500 No Action N/A N/A 0.400 Upsizing SWP0025 alleviates the issue SWP0468 MC-009 MC-008 14 185 0.800 0.807 0.819 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0651 MC-011 MC-009 14 133 0.873 0.882 0.897 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0652 MC-012 MC-011 14 151 0.917 0.929 0.950 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0018 MC-014 MC-012 14 171 0.879 0.894 0.921 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0017 MC-015 MC-014 14 119 0.811 0.827 0.856 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0016 MC-017 MC-015 14 238 0.791 0.805 0.831 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0066 MC-018 MC-017 14 68 0.764 0.789 0.812 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0650 MC-020 MC-018 14 288 0.78 0.788 0.808 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0647 MC-033 MC-020 10 385 1.000 1.000 1.000 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Capacity exceedance only occurs when the Alisal Lift Station is actively pumping.

SWP0649 MC-034 MC-033 10 7 1.000 1.000 1.000 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Backwater from main run of pipe when the Alisal Lift Station is on.

SWP0648 MC-035 MC-034 10 198 0.315 0.403 0.505 Monitor A5 N/A N/A Backwater from main run of pipe when the Alisal Lift Station is on.
505 505
Appendix D. Pump
Curves
506 507
0 50
100
150
200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 Head (ft)
Flow Rate (gpm)
Fjord Lift Station
10-in SSFM
System Curve Flygt NT3202.090
Single Pump Operation -
NT3202.090
Dual Pump Operation -
NT3202.090
507 508
0 50
100
150
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Head (ft)
Flow Rate (gpm)
Alisal Lift Station
8-in SSFM
System Curve Flygt N 3102.095
Single Pump Operation - N
3102.095
Dual Pump Operation -N
3102.095
508 509
Appendix E. Lift
Station Condition
Technical
Memorandum
509 509
Date: 8/2/2021
To: Matt van der Linden, P.E. Phone: (805) 688-5575
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Solvang
CC: Nathan Giacinto; Paul Matsukas
Prepared by: Adam Donald, P.E.

Reviewed by: Joshua Reynolds, P.E.

Project: 2021 Sewer System Master Plan
Subject: Lift Station Condition & Pipe Age Analysis Technical Memorandum As part of the 2021 Sewer Master Plan project for the City of Solvang (City), Water Systems Consulting (WSC) has completed a condition assessment of the City’s Fjord and Alisal Lift Stations and performed a pipe age analysis of the City’s collection system. This assessment included visual inspection of each lift station and assessment of remaining useful life, an analysis of the pipe age and estimated remaining useful life of each pipeline, and improvement recommendations based on the gathered information.

This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the work performed and is organized in the following sections:

Section 1. Historical Rehabilitation and Replacement............................................................................2 Section 2. Lift Station Condition Assessment .........................................................................................2 Section 3. Pipeline Condition Assessment..............................................................................................8 Appendix A. Photo Log................................................................................................................................13 510 511
Section 1. Historical Rehabilitation and Replacement
Table 1-1 presents pump install dates and dates of major rehabilitation at each lift station.

Table 1-1: Pump Install Dates and Major Rehabilitation Efforts Since 2010 Year Description of Work Fjord Lift
Station
Alisal Lift
Station
2012 Install and retrofit new Flygt pumps X
2014 Build new control building around existing control panels
X
2015 Install new SCADA controls X
2015 Replace VFD #2 X
2016 Replace pump isolation valves X
2017 New 316 stainless steel wet well hatch installed X 2017 Pump #1 rebuild with new impeller and volute X
2017 VFD #1 replaced X
2017 Installed emergency bypass line X
2017 Replaced Fjord auto dialer X
2017 Replaced Alisal auto dialer X
2018 New impellers and volutes for Pump #2 and Pump #3 X 2018 Replace generator control system and wiring harness X 2019 Replace odor scrubber system X
2019 Replace level transducer X
2020 Replace output cards on PLC X
2020 Rebuild Pump #3 motor X
2020 Replace low level and high level floats X
Section 2. Lift Station Condition Assessment

2.1. Assumed Useful Life of Lift Station Components
Prior to inspection of the City’s lift stations, an assumed useful life was estimated for each component that was likely to be encountered. The assumed useful life is the number of years a component, or asset, is expected to be functional and in service. An asset’s assumed useful life is driven by a variety of factors, including but not limited to installation, application, operation and maintenance, material type, and exposure to environmental conditions. Typically, wastewater assets have a lower service life than water assets due to the differences in water quality and presence of corrosive gases like hydrogen sulfide. The assumed useful life for the components evaluated are presented in Table 2-1. These estimates were generated from industry standards and best professional judgment based on experience with similar projects.
511 511
Table 2-1. Assumed Useful Life of Lift Station Components Lift Station
Component
Description Assumed
Useful Life
(years)
Wet Well Concrete holding sump for gravity sewer system. 30-50 Wet Well Hatch Access lid atop of wet well. 15-25
Concrete Coatings Concrete coatings exposed to raw sewage 10-20 Discharge Piping Pressure pipe within wet well from pumps to manifold. 30-50 Valve Vault and
Hatch
Access lid atop of valve vault. 10-25
Manifold Piping Pressure pipe from the wet well discharge to the force main. 40-60 Check Valve Valve that allows flows in one direction. 15-25 Isolation Valve(s) Valve that stops the flow to a given location. 15-25 Backup Power
System
System that provides emergency power when main power
fails.
15-25
Pump Control Panel System designed to control one or multiple pumps. 15-20 SCADA System/PLC A computer system to gather and analyze data in real time. 10-15 Level Sensing System
(Reactive Air)
Instrument used to measure and relay levels within the wet well to the pumps.
10-15
Backup Alarms
(Floats)
Backup instruments used to measure and relay levels within the wet well to the pumps.
10-15
Pumps A device that moves fluids by mechanical action. 20 Building Structure housing equipment. 30-60
Site Location where lift station resides. N/A

2.2. Observations
The Fjord and Alisal Lift Stations were inspected on Thursday, March 11, 2021 alongside City staff. The various lift station components were assigned a physical condition rating as well as number grade correlating to percent useful life remaining. Physical condition ratings ranged from very poor to very good condition while the letter grades ranged from a one (1), representative of 100-85% useful life remaining, to a five (5), representative of 15-0% useful life remaining. In general, physical condition rating ‘very good’ correlates to the number one (1), ‘good’ correlates to the number two (2), ‘fair’ correlates to the number three (3), ‘poor’ correlates to the number four (4), and ‘very poor’ correlates to the number five (5). Observations recorded during the inspection are summarized below while the assigned number grades along with a complete breakdown of the grading system is presented in Table 2-2. Additionally, Appendix A provides a photo log of the key observations of the inspection.

2.3. Fjord Lift Station
The Fjord lift station is a critical piece of infrastructure for the City of Solvang and the Santa Ynez Community Services District. The Fjord lift station provides sewage pumping for all the sewage treated at the City’s wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, the Fjord lift station needs to operate consistently and reliably. The City’s concern is evident in its efforts to maintain the Fjord lift station in a good 512 513
operating condition. The lift station is comprised of a metering well, wet well, drywell, electrical building, odor scrubber, and backup generator.

Overall, the lift station is functional and ready to meet the needs of the community now and for years to come. The site visit highlighted a few areas where age and corrosion are concerns. Corrosion is often an issue for concrete and metals exposed to raw sewage, which can give off hydrogen sulfide gas creating an aggressively corrosive environment. There were signs of extensive corrosion on the metering wet well lid and hinge, and the drain line leading back to the wet well. Neither of these areas will be expensive to correct and neither is critical to operation. Both items should be corrected as they can lead to longer term issues or create a potentially unsafe work environment. The concrete exposed to raw sewage is coated.

The drywell appears to be a metal structure initially constructed in 1980. The age of the drywell and visual evidence of corrosion at the base of the internal wall is a cause for concern. Failure of the drywell would critically inhibit function of the lift station. The drywell walls should be tested and inspected in detail to determine if the current wall thickness is suitable, evaluate extents of corrosion both visible at the floor and hidden on the exterior of the drywell. Spot repairs, coatings, and replacement of the cathodic protection system may be required depending on future findings.

The three pumps are in good condition and have been replaced/rehabilitated recently as documented in Table 1-1. The City has added an emergency bypass connection accessible from the surface, allowing bypass of the drywell if the drywell was flooded or if the pumps were otherwise non-operational. The pipes and valves in the drywell appear to receive adequate cleaning and coating; there were no signs of major corrosion or neglect.

The electrical building is reasonably sized (especially since the generator has been relocated across the street, adjacent to the odor scrubber). The pumps run on variable frequency drives (VFDs) and are connected to the City’s wastewater SCADA system. The control panels have been maintained and upgraded; however, the electrical system will likely need a major overhaul in the next decade. Many of the panels and most of the enclosures date to the original construction in 1980. Electrical systems are expected to have a useful life of 15-25 years. The presence of VFDs in the building without an air condition system could lead to high temperature issues. Operators note that the building can get hot but have not had issues with VFD operation from the heat.

The backup generator is run on diesel and provides full redundancy for operation of the lift station in a power outage. The generator will start and provide power to the lift station autonomously. The generator receives regular maintenance and appears to be in good operating condition.

The City recently installed a replacement odor scrubber system to control odor emissions from the site.

City staff state that the system is working, and odor complaints have not been an issue since it was installed. Considering the size of the lift station and its proximity to a residential area, the odor scrubber system is an important aspect of operations. However, failure of the odor scrubber would not inhibit reliable operations and it is not considered critical to operation. 513 514

2.4. Alisal Lift Station
The Alisal lift station serves the Rancho Alisal area south of the Santa Ynez River along the Alisal golf course. The lift station was constructed in 2005 and had pumps and control panels upgraded in 2016. At that time a small building was installed to protect the control panels.

Access to the site is through a gate and down a dirt access road. Access during wet weather could be challenging. The lift station does not have permanent back up power or an odor scrubber system. The location of the lift station and the small service area means that an odor scrubber is not required. The City has a trailer mounted generator for backup power.

The lift station has two pumps and is a submersible pump design with the pumps sitting in a fiberglass wet well. Fiberglass will generally resist corrosion better than concrete. During the pump upgrades City staff noticed that the pump support area was settling, and they reinforced it while the lift station was down. The cause of the settlement is not known and should be monitored to determine if settlement is continuing.

The fiberglass valve vault does not drain properly which leads to standing water in the bottom of the vault. The drain also appears to allow hydrogen sulfide gas from the wet well into valve vault. The presence of standing water and hydrogen sulfide gas has accelerated corrosion of the valves in the vault.

The drainage should be corrected, a backwater valve should be placed on the drain to prevent intrusion of gases from the wet well, and the valves should be checked for corrosion and replaced if needed or cleaned and coated if the corrosion is not extensive.

2.5. Summary of Findings
In addition to observations made during the inspection, WSC evaluated the fundamental lift station components based on a grading system representative of percent useful life remaining. Table 2-2 below presents the breakdown of the grading scale and Table 2-3 presents the respective grade assigned to each component. Grades were assigned based on the observed physical condition, input from City staff regarding operations, and the typical life expectancy of the component. 514 514
Table 2-2: Condition Ratings Summary
Condition
Rating
Description RUL Description Maintain,
Rehabilitate
or Replace
1 Very good 95% of
EUL
New or
excellent
condition
Normal
preventative
maintenance
2 Good 75% of
EUL
Minor
defects only
Normal
preventative
maintenance,
minor
corrective
maintenance
3 Fair 50% of
EUL
Moderate
deterioration
(does not
require
immediate
action)
Normal
preventative
maintenance,
major
corrective
maintenance
4 Poor 25% of
EUL
Significant
deterioration
(requires
immediate
attention)
Rehabilitation,
if possible
5 Very poor 5% of
EUL
Virtually
unserviceable
Replace
Table 2-3. Lift Station Condition Assessment Summary
Lift Station Component Fjord Lift
Station
Alisal Lift
Station
Wet Well 3.5 3
Wet Well Hatch 2 3
Wet Well Concrete Coating 3 n/a
Metering Well 3 n/a
Metering Well Hatch 5 n/a
Metering Well Concrete Coating 3 n/a
Force Main Piping 2 2
Valve Vault and Hatch n/a 4
Manifold Piping 3 3
Check Valve(s) 3 3
Isolation Valve(s) 3 3
Backup Power System 2 n/a
Pump Control Panel 2.5 2
SCADA System/PLC 3 2
Odor Control System 2 n/a
Level Sensing System
(transducer) 3 3
Backup Alarms (Floats) 3 3
Pumps 2 2
Building (if applicable) 2 2
Site (grading, drainage, fencing,
paving, etc.)
2 2
515 515

2.6. Fjord and Alisal Lift Station Recommendations
Overall, it is clear that the City staff has done an exceptional job maintaining and operating the facilities.

However, while routine maintenance certainly assists with prolonging the life expectancy of a lift station, each individual component has its own maximum expected useful life. That said, the recommendations below are primarily a product of aging infrastructure.

It is important to note that this section is solely intended to outline the recommended condition-based projects. Upon discussion and receival of feedback from the City, the final recommended projects will be detailed and prioritized within the Sewer Master Plan to be prepared by WSC. 1) Fjord LS Metering Wet Well – Wet well lid shows signs of severe corrosion at the lid hinges.

Recommend replacing and upgrading the hinges with a corrosion resistant material to repair corrosion and prevent accumulation of water vapor.
2) Fjord LS Wet Well – Evaluate storage volume to determine if addition of emergency storage is practical to mitigate lift station failure and provide additional response time for City staff to respond to a problem at the lift station.
3) Fjord LS Drywell – The drywall is coated steel and is susceptible to corrosion. The floor and lower parts of the wall shows signs of corrosion. Recommend checking wall thickness and determining extents of corrosion. Repair wall and floor based on results of study and recoat drywell.

Pump removal in the drywell is difficult, evaluate replacement/relocation of the girder crane to facilitate pump removal.
4) Fjord Building – The lift station electrical building can get hot which could inhibit operation of the VFDs, since VFDs generate heat and can shut down if their operating temperate is excessive.

Evaluate addition of an air condition unit to serve the building and manage VFD temperatures. 5) Fjord Cathodic Protection System – The lift station contains a sacrificial anode cathodic protection system that has reached the end of its useful life. The sacrificial anode should be replaced or an upgraded cathodic protection system should be installed to provide continued protection against corrosion.
6) Pump Replacement – Replacement of pumps should be strategized based on the remaining useful life, which has been estimated based on visual observation and evaluation of pump install dates. The updated Sewer Master Plan will recommend a renewal strategy for replacement of all pumps within the City’s collection system.
7) Alisal LS Wet Well – The area under the pumps shows signs of settlement and should be investigated to determine the cause of the settling. Rehabilitate the wet well to correct the observed deficiency.
8) Alisal LS Valve Vault – The valve vault drain projects into the bottom of the valve vault preventing nuisance water from completely draining. The drain does not have a valve on it to prevent hydrogen sulfide gas from entering the vault. Therefore, the valves are showing excessive corrosion considering the age of the facility. Recommend correcting the drainage by grouting the floor and/or fixing the drainpipe and adding a backwater shutoff valve to the drain 516 516
line. Replace damaged valves and recoat after fixing the drainage and hydrogen sulfide gas issues.
9) Minor O&M Projects – The key to longevity of the facilities is the continuation of day-to-day maintenance activities. Throughout the inspection and through discussion with City staff, several additional non-routine minor projects were identified, including:
a. Keep MCCs, PLCs, and SCADA system up to date. Plan to replace these components on a 12 to 20-year basis.
b. Replace transducers and floats as needed.
c. Replace meter sensor supports at Fjord metering well as they age.

Section 3. Pipeline Condition Assessment

3.1. Gravity Mains
The remaining useful life of the City’s collection system pipelines was evaluated using the installation dates from the City’s GIS dataset and assumed useful life estimates. The pipelines that make up the City’s gravity collection system consist almost entirely of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, with other materials, including cast iron pipe (CIP), ductile iron pipe (DIP), concrete pipe (CP), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, making up a combined total of less than 3% of the total pipeline material. Therefore, for this assessment, an assumed useful life of 75 years was used for all gravity mains (cast iron, concrete, ductile iron, HDPE, PVC, and VCP) within the collection system. While the actual service life of an individual pipeline may vary, these values are a conservative estimate commonly accepted for these pipe materials.

Gravity main installation dates and assumed useful life estimates were used to calculate the miles of pipe expected to reach the end of its assumed useful life each year. Approximately 33% (245 of 735) of the City’s gravity mains did not have an installation date listed in GIS. For these mains with unknown installation years, an installation date was estimated by using a random number function to select an installation date. The function selects a random number between the oldest and newest installation date for its particular sewer basin based on the records available in the City’s GIS system. Figure 3-1 presents the results in terms of decade and the total length of pipe for each pipe material. 517 518
Figure 3-1. Estimated Miles of Pipeline at End of Useful Life by Material The figure indicates a significant portion of the distribution system is expected to reach the end of its assumed useful life in the next few decades. This is not intended to suggest that the City will experience an immediate simultaneous failure of these pipes but rather that they will have an increased likelihood of breakage or leakage. The likelihood of failure will increase as a pipe continues to remain in place beyond its assumed useful life expectancy. Actual failure patterns can be variable and depend on construction quality, manufacturer, pressure, water quality, soil type and condition, proximity to other utilities and many other attributes. This analysis is focused on identifying a system-wide strategy for gravity main replacement and therefore, does not include condition assessments on a pipe-by-pipe basis. Future analysis will be required to identify the best pipeline candidates for actual replacement.

3.2. Force Mains
The City’s collection system is currently comprised of two (2) force mains, totaling 0.56 miles. The force main at Fjord Lift Station is HDPE. The force main at Alisal Lift Station is composed of ductile iron and PVC pipe that is encased in the Alisal Road bridge sidewalk. Similar to the gravity main analysis, an assumed useful life of 75 years was used to assess the remaining useful life of each force main. The Alisal Lift Station force main is expected to reach the end of its assumed useful life within the 20-year planning period of this Master Plan. Recommendation for replacement of this force main will be included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

3.3. Gravity Pipeline Renewal Strategy
The City should plan to replace gravity mains in a proactive manner to avoid root problems, excessive infiltration and inflow, and costly emergency repairs. The anticipated need for rehabilitation and replacement (R/R) each year is estimated based on the total length of pipe reaching the end of its assumed useful life within that year. Two replacement strategies are presented in Figure 3-2, a linear replacement plan and phased replacement plan to better match the estimated pipeline failure curve.

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Miles of Pipeline at End of Useful
Life
Decade
Other
PVC
Vitrified Clay
Pipe (VCP)
518 519
Figure 3-2. Cumulative Pipeline End of Assumed Useful Life and Replacement Strategies 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120
Miles of Pipeline
Year
Cumulative Miles of Pipeline Beyond EUL Linear Replacement Strategy Phased Replacement Strategy
Linear
Replacement at:
$0.46M/year
Phased Replacement at:
0-20 years: $0.40M/year
20-40 years: $1.10M/year
Remainder: $0.16M/year
519 520
Under the linear replacement plan, pipeline replacement needs to occur at a rate of 0.40 miles per year, or about 1.3 percent of the total system length. Under the phased replacement plan, the recommend length and rate of pipe replacement varies based on the year:
▪ 2021–2041: 0.35 miles of pipeline replaced each year (1.12 percent) ▪ 2041–2061: 0.95 miles replaced per year (3.02 percent) ▪ 2061–2100: 0.14 miles replaced per year (0.44 percent) The linear replacement strategy allows the City to budget the same amount each year, over the next 79 years, for pipeline replacement. Due to the steepness of the failure curve, a linear replacement strategy will result in the replacement rate below the replacement curve through the year 2100, which suggests the likelihood of breaks and leaks is increased over this duration.

The phased replacement strategy follows the failure curve more closely but requires variable budgeting and spending over the next 79 years. Under this strategy, the City’s replacement rate will start off at a slower rate to allow for the City to adjust to budgeting needs. By 2041 the City will increase their replacement rate to catch up to the failure curve by 2061. Beyond 2061, the replacement rate slows to align with the more gradual repair rate.

The pipeline condition assessment is intended to estimate the level of investment required to replace gravity mains as they reach the end of their assumed useful life. Considering that some pipes may fail before the predicted end of their useful lifetime and some may exceed it, the City will need to monitor, inspect, and prioritize rehabilitation and replacement activities. This can be achieved by monitoring information such as historical breaks, in-situ pipe conditions (collected by CCTV inspection), wall thickness, gasket conditions, localized soil properties, and groundwater conditions. This information can be used in conjunction with the pipe material and estimated age to refine and optimize the renewal strategy.

3.4. Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs
The pipeline replacement unit costs for various main sizes were estimated using RS Means CostWorks®, adjusted to 2021 dollars (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) of 12,237 for July 2021) and are listed in Table 3-1. The unit costs assume a mix of classic “open trench” replacement, cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) rehabilitation, and pipe bursting. Trenchless rehabilitation such as CIPP and pipe bursting may reduce capital costs when viable. Alternative construction techniques should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For planning purposes, the unit costs assume 50% CIPP, 25% Pipe Burst, and 25% Open Trench.
520 521
Table 3-1. Estimated Pipeline Replacement Costs
Pipe Diameter
(in)
Open Trench
($/ft)
CIPP
($/ft)
Pipe Burst
($/ft)
Cost per Foot
($/ft)
6 $354 $112 $248 $207
8 $367 $112 $257 $212
10 $456 $129 $320 $259
12 $468 $151 $328 $275
15 $507 $204 $355 $318
Costs in Table 3-1 include a 25 percent construction contingency, 15 percent project development allowance for open-trench and 12 percent project development allowance for CIPP, and 10 percent construction phase allowance. The construction cost for each pipeline is based on the following assumptions:
▪ New open trench or pipe burst pipe material is PVC or HDPE. ▪ CIPP will be polyester resin impregnated felt tub cured with air or water. ▪ CIPP with epoxy resin is required around schools and sensitive receptors (cost is between CIPP with polyester and pipe burst). The mix of costs is intended to adequately cover occasional use of epoxy resins, but not use of all epoxy resin.
▪ Manholes are spaced at 500-ft.
▪ The sewer is at 8-ft of cover.
▪ Laterals occur once every 40 feet.
▪ Rehabilitation packages will be bundled to bid a minimum of 1 mile of pipe for CIPP (approximately one bid package every three years at 0.33 miles of pipe rehabilitation per year). ▪ Costs include allowances for contractor mobilization, SWPPP compliance, basic traffic control, bypass pumping, surveying, cleaning, and pressure testing.

Using the linear replacement strategy, the City will need to budget approximately $460,000 per year for pipeline replacement/rehabilitation. Under the phased replacement strategy, the City will need to budget approximately $400,000 per year from 2021-2041 for annual pipeline replacement. From 2041- 2061, the City will need to budget approximately $1.1 million per year for annual pipeline replacement and $162,000 per year from 2061-2100. This analysis should be updated periodically as pipelines are replaced. The costs should be escalated on an annual basis, since the dollar amounts given are in 2021 dollars as discussed previously.
521 521
Appendix A. Photo Log
Fjord Lift Station
Metering well hatch, wet well hatch, dry well hatch (left to right). Metering well hatch showing corrosion at support and hinge.

Detail of metering well hatch support and hinge corrosion.

Interior of metering well, coating looks good, some staining from corrosion of hatch and sensor supports, no bubbling or peeling. 522 523
Fjord Lift Station
Wet well interior, level sensors at left, coating looks good. Wet well interior backup float box, note corrosion of drain inlet.

Dry well, note crane alignment prevents movement of pumps. Dry well, pipes and valves look good, pumps recently replaced. 523 524
Fjord Lift Station
Dry well pump shut-off switches, pumps are rated for submersion service, but electrical systems inside dry well are not.

Dry well, Note corrosion at the bottom of the wall.

Dry well, bypass system connection in back. SCADA cabinet. 524 525
Fjord Lift Station
MCC. Electrical systems are likely reaching the end of their useful although, although they currently function satisfactorily.

Odor scrubber system, an uncommon but appreciated feature.

Onsite backup generator located adjacent to the odor scrubber. 525 525
Alisal Lift Station
Lift station is located at the golf course. Building is in good shape. Fiberglass wet well will not corrode from hydrogen sulfide gas.

Valve vault, note protruding drainpipe, standing water, and corrosion on valves.

Many electrical components were recently upgraded.
526 527
Appendix F. Cost
Estimates
527 528
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project A1 - Elverhoy & 2nd Street Pipeline Replacement City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
3 Survey 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
4 Site Clearing 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
5 SWPPP 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
6 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
7 Sawcut & Remove 520 SY $ 9.61 $ 5,000.00
8 Hauling Pavement 58 LCY $ 17.29 $ 1,000.00
9 Pavement Repair 520 SY $ 59.56 $ 31,000.00
10 Shoring 16,060 SF Wall $ 1.99 $ 32,000.00
11 Excavation-Trench 907 BCY $ 7.72 $ 7,000.00
12 Pipe Bedding (sand import) 194 LCY $ 36.00 $ 7,000.00 13 Bedding Compaction 194 ECY $ 5.14 $ 1,000.00
14 Native Backfill & Compaction 712 ECY $ 5.61 $ 4,000.00 15 Water Compaction 712 ECY $ 2.81 $ 2,000.00
16 Hauling Excavation 1,088 BCY $ 6.43 $ 7,000.00
17 10" PVC SDR 35 803 LF $ 64.76 $ 52,000.00
18 4" PVC for Sewer Laterals 600 LF $ 30.00 $ 18,000.00 19 Service Connection to 10" Gravity Main 12 EA $ 416.67 $ 5,000.00 20 Unaccounted for Items 1 LS $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00
21 Utility Conflict Resolution 1 LS $ 19,000.00 $ 19,000.00 Subtotal $ 249,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 62,000.00
Construction Total $ 311,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 78,000.00
Project Costs $ 389,000.00
528 529
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project A2 - Atterdag Road Pipeline Replacement
City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
3 Survey 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
4 Site Clearing 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
5 SWPPP 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
6 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00
7 Sawcut & Remove 147 SY $ 6.80 $ 1,000.00
8 Hauling Pavement 16 LCY $ 12.50 $ 200.00
9 Pavement Repair 147 SY $ 61.22 $ 9,000.00
10 Shoring 4,660 SF Wall $ 1.93 $ 9,000.00
11 Excavation-Trench 230 BCY $ 8.70 $ 2,000.00
12 Pipe Bedding (sand import) 55 LCY $ 36.36 $ 2,000.00 13 Bedding Compaction 55 ECY $ 5.45 $ 300.00
14 Native Backfill & Compaction 176 ECY $ 5.68 $ 1,000.00 15 Water Compaction 176 ECY $ 5.68 $ 1,000.00
16 Hauling Excavation 276 BCY $ 7.25 $ 2,000.00
17 8" PVC SDR 35 233 LF $ 57.94 $ 13,500.00
18 12" Steel Casing for Highway Crossing 100 LF $ 70.00 $ 7,000.00 19 4" PVC for Sewer Laterals 150 LF $ 30.00 $ 4,500.00
20 Unaccounted for Items 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
21 Utility Conflict Resolution 1 LS $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 Subtotal $ 107,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 27,000.00
Construction Total $ 134,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 34,000.00
Project Costs $ 168,000.00
529 529
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project A3 - Nyborg Open Space Pipeline Replacement
City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
3 Survey 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
4 Site Clearing 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
5 SWPPP 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
6 Traffic Control 1 LS $ - $ -
7 Sawcut & Remove 147 SY $ 34.01 $ 5,000.00
8 Hauling Pavement 16 LCY $ 62.50 $ 1,000.00
9 Pavement Repair 147 SY $ 224.49 $ 33,000.00
10 Shoring 4,660 SF Wall $ 7.30 $ 34,000.00
11 Excavation-Trench 230 BCY $ 34.78 $ 8,000.00
12 Pipe Bedding (sand import) 55 LCY $ 127.27 $ 7,000.00 13 Bedding Compaction 55 ECY $ 18.18 $ 1,000.00
14 Native Backfill & Compaction 176 ECY $ 22.73 $ 4,000.00 15 Water Compaction 176 ECY $ 17.05 $ 3,000.00
16 Hauling Excavation 276 BCY $ 25.36 $ 7,000.00
17 8" PVC SDR 35 233 LF $ 270.39 $ 63,000.00
18 Unaccounted for Items 1 LS $ 16,000.00 $ 16,000.00
19 Utility Conflict Resolution 1 LS $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 Subtotal $ 229,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 57,000.00
Construction Total $ 286,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 72,000.00
Project Costs $ 358,000.00
530 531
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project A4 - Lift Station Structural Improvements
City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
3 4" Gate Valve 2 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00
4 4" Check Valve 2 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00
5 4" x 4" Tee 1 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
6 4" 90 Bend 1 EA $ 500.00 $ 500.00
7 2" Backwater Valve 1 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
8 8' diameter WW lid and hinges 1 EA $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 9 Line drywell with epoxy coating 1 LS $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 10 Grout 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
11 Girder Crane 1 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
Subtotal $ 66,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 17,000.00
Construction Total $ 83,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 21,000.00
Project Costs $ 104,000.00
531 531
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project A5 - Fjord Lift Station Cathodic Protection System City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00
3 Sacrificial Anode 1 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
Subtotal $ 32,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 8,000.00
Construction Total $ 40,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 10,000.00
Project Costs $ 50,000.00
532 52
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project A6 - Flow Monitoring Manhole Covers
City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Flow Monitoring Manhole Cover 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2 Active Site Management 1 LS $ 600.00 $ 600.00
3 Installation 1 EA $ 400.00 $ 400.00
4 Tax and Shipping 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Subtotal $ 7,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 2,000.00
Construction Total $ 9,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 2,000.00
Project Costs $ 11,000.00
533 534
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project B1 - Lift Station Electrical, Instrumentation and Controls Improvements City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00
2 Fjord Lift Station MCC 1 LS $ 155,000.00 $ 155,000.00 3 Fjord Lift Station PLC 1 LS $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00
4 Fjord Lift Station SCADA 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 5 Alisal Lift Station MCC 1 LS $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00
6 Alisal Lift Station PLC 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
7 Alisal Lift Station SCADA 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
8 Fjord Lift Station HVAC Improvements 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Subtotal $ 299,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 75,000.00
Construction Total $ 374,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 94,000.00
Project Costs $ 468,000.00
534 535
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project B2 - Fjord Lift Station Emergency Storage Evaluation City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Emergency Storage Evaluation 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Project Costs $ 15,000.00
535 535
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project C1 - Fjord Lift Station Pump Upgrades
City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00
3 Lift Station Pump 3 EA $ 67,666.67 $ 203,000.00
Subtotal $ 221,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 55,000.00
Construction Total $ 276,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 69,000.00
Project Costs $ 345,000.00
536 537
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project C2 - Alisal Lift Station Pump Upgrades
City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
3 Lift Station Pump 2 EA $ 25,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Subtotal $ 55,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 14,000.00
Construction Total $ 69,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 17,000.00
Project Costs $ 86,000.00
537 538
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project C3 - Alisal Force Main Replacement
City of Solvang
11/8/2021
Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00
2 Insurance 1 LS $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
3 Survey 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
4 Site Clearing 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
5 SWPPP 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
6 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00
7 Sawcut & Remove 756 SY $ 9.26 $ 7,000.00
8 Hauling Pavement 84 LCY $ 11.90 $ 1,000.00
9 Pavement Repair 756 SY $ 59.52 $ 45,000.00
10 Shoring 9,600 SF Wall $ 1.98 $ 19,000.00
11 Excavation-Trench 474 BCY $ 8.44 $ 4,000.00
12 Pipe Bedding (sand import) 272 LCY $ 36.76 $ 10,000.00 13 Bedding Compaction 272 ECY $ 3.68 $ 1,000.00
14 Native Backfill & Compaction 202 ECY $ 4.95 $ 1,000.00 15 Water Compaction 202 ECY $ 4.95 $ 1,000.00
16 Hauling Excavation 569 BCY $ 5.27 $ 3,000.00
17 8" PVC C900 Force Main 1,200 LF $ 88.33 $ 106,000.00 20 Unaccounted for Items 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
21 Utility Conflict Resolution 1 LS $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 Subtotal $ 291,000.00
Construction Contingency (25%) $ 73,000.00
Construction Total $ 364,000.00
Project Development & Implementation (25%) $ 91,000.00
Project Costs $ 455,000.00
538 539
Plate 1. Recommended
Improvements
539 540
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
#
*
#
*
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community A1
A2
A3
A6
A4, A5, B1, B2, C1
A4, B1, C2
Legend
#
* Lift Station
Manhole Project Category
!( A
!( All Other Manholes
!( Cleanout
Pipeline Project Category
A
C
All Other Mains
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Sewer Master Plan ¯
Recommended Projects
C3
540 541
expectWSC.com
541 541
Agenda Item Number: 10
Solvang City Council STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: Xenia Bradford, City Manager
MEETING DATE: January 24, 2022
SUBJECT: MARKETING CONTRACT TOURISM ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive an update on Tourism Advisory Committee recommendations for Marketing contract and provide staff with policy direction.

DISCUSSION:

On August 9, 2022, the City Council established Tourism Advisory Committee (TAC) with the following duties and responsibilities:
2-5-4 Duties and responsibilities.

A. General. The tourism advisory committee shall have the following duties:

1. Serve in an advisory capacity for the city council.

2. Make recommendations on matters pertaining to tourism marketing initiatives, tourism projects, and long-range plans for the tourism industry.

3. Investigate, research, and report on the feasibility of adoption or implementation of ideas and initiatives to further the city’s tourism efforts and increase tax revenues and visitation numbers.

4. Make recommendations on the selection of consultants and/or agencies providing professional marketing/advertising services required by the city and any determination of appropriate scope of work.

5. Make recommendations for marketing budget allocations.

6. Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of marketing and tourism programs.

Seven Committee Members were appointed on September 13, 2022. The City Council directed staff to work on the development of a request for proposals for marketing services. The TAC met multiple times since September and had recommended extension of marketing contract with IDK through June 30, 2021. The recommendation was presented to City Council and was 542 542
approved with further amendment to the contract through July 2022 in order to accommodate July 4th event management.

On December 2nd, 2021, the TAC requested to expand the discussion to review composition and organizational structure of marketing management. The report shown in Attachment A was presented to the TAC on January 6th, 2022. The TAC received the report and by a vote of 5 (yes) and 1 (no) recommended further extension of marketing contract with IDK through December 31, 2022.

It should be formally noted at this time, that IDK (Scott Shuemake) has joined a larger company, Cogs & Marvel, which presents with a variety of marketing and management staff members. Cogs & Marvel have expressed desire to submit a proposal to the City for Marketing Services if a request for proposals is issued.

Staff does not recommend extension of the contract through December 31, 2022. Staff recommendation is to align Marketing management funding with Financial Plan developments to align the efforts with citywide goals set by the City Council. The Request for Proposals (RFP) has been developed by staff based on general TAC comments and preferences. Staff recommends issuing the RFP and allowing qualified applicants to apply so that the City can commit to a twoyear marketing program for the Fiscal Years 2022-24 Financial Plan. As part of this process the TAC will review and evaluate the proposal and provide their recommendations to the City Council.

Through this process the City Council may also review other options presented in the report prepared to TAC as alternative delivery methods for marketing services. The TAC can continue to review all options and provide Council with further recommendations.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council has full discretion to provide with any alternate policy direction.

The Council could elect to approve the TAC recommendations as stated and extend the marketing contract with Cogs & Marvel, with Scott Shuemake as staff on the team through December 31, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS
A – TAC Agenda Packet Staff Report
B – Request for Proposals for Marketing Services
543 543
 






  
! !"#$%&'()*+),-.+,/0(123)')4&+ 5!!6
7"6! 8)'9)+2:/;<;= >?#@!A6 ">A?>>5 B!6
7>! CA!>6D"!C!ED !AD55!
"6D
>FD  !G?!>6FD  DD>E>FD AD?
AEAD
>"! 6D
D  !AD55!
"
E6!
6C!>6 ?A6? !FD 5 B!6
7>! CA!> !AD55!
"6D
 H&I&J.K+&L.MM&',)1(.'N1.1O&0(120.9'L(J-.+J.'4&+P1&+M3)+Q&1('4R&+I(L&NL.'1+)L1('LJ9,('4NL.K&.- S.+Q)',.+4)'(T)1(.')JN1+9L19+&U ">A?>>D  0(120.9'L(J,(+&L1&,N1)--1.S.+QS(1OV.9+(NMW,I(N.+20.MM(11&&1.,&I&J.K+&L.MM&',)1(.'N-.+NL.K& .-S.+Q-.+M)+Q&1('4N&+I(L&N1.K9+N9&)J.'4&+P1&+ML.'1+)L1-.+M)+Q&1('4N&+I(L&N1O+.94O)L.MK&1(1(I& K+.L&NN)',(NN9&)+&X9&N1-.+K+.K.N)JNYZ[\]U ^'H&L&M_&+;/;<;=/V.9+(NMW,I(N.+20.MM(11&&+&X9&N1&,1O)11O&,(NL9NN(.'_&&`K)',&,/)',)'(1&M _&KJ)L&,.'1O&)4&',)1.L.'N(,&+)J1&+')1(I&.+4)'(T)1(.'N1+9L19+&N1.K+.I(,&M)+Q&1('4N&+I(L&N ('LJ9,('4-.+M('4)'.'PK+.-(1N(M(J)+1.R.JI)'40.'-&+&'L&ab(N(1.+*9+&)9.+K+.I(,('4M)+Q&1('4N&+I(L&N _2&MKJ.2('4)3)+Q&1('43)')4&+,(+&L1J2S(1O('.+4)'(T)1(.'.-1O&0(12U 0.MM(11&&3&M_&+c)'_&+4N9_M(11&,1O&&`O(_(1NO.S'('W11)LOM&'1W-.+,(NL9NN(.'U VO&V.9+(NMW,I(N.+20.MM(11&&+.J&a+&NK.'N(_(J(1(&N)+&&N1)_J(NO&,_20(1239'(L(K)J0.,&)N-.JJ.SNd efgfhijklmnopqrmnjlstjoomuuvvwkumvnxyqlvnzjynm{m|mumvn} ~€&'&+)JUVO&1.9+(NM),I(N.+2L.MM(11&&NO)JJO)I&1O&-.JJ.S('4,91(&Nd =UR&+I&(')'),I(N.+2L)K)L(12-.+1O&L(12L.9'L(JU ;U3)Q&+&L.MM&',)1(.'N.'M)11&+NK&+1)('('41.1.9+(NMM)+Q&1('4('(1()1(I&N/1.9+(NMK+.&L1N/)', J.'4P+)'4&KJ)'N-.+1O&1.9+(NM(',9N1+2U ‚Uƒ'I&N1(4)1&/+&N&)+LO/)',+&K.+1.'1O&-&)N(_(J(12.-),.K1(.'.+(MKJ&M&'1)1(.'.-(,&)N)', ('(1()1(I&N1.-9+1O&+1O&L(12„N1.9+(NM&--.+1N)',('L+&)N&1)`+&I&'9&N)',I(N(1)1(.''9M_&+NU U 3)Q&+&L.MM&',)1(.'N.'1O&N&J&L1(.'.-L.'N9J1)'1N)',†.+)4&'L(&NK+.I(,('4K+.-&NN(.')J M)+Q&1('4†),I&+1(N('4N&+I(L&N+&X9(+&,_21O&L(12)',)'2,&1&+M(')1(.'.-)KK+.K+()1&NL.K&.-S.+QU ‡‡ Attachment A
54445
 












  




 





































 


 











 


!" 
 


#

$















 











%
 



%



$


 













$



&'()*+,*-./*)0(10-23+*23'+4 





5







%6

$
 7 8

5


 










5





  
%

9
  %  %

  
 




 :

5




;
<



 %
 


 5

%;

%

5
=
>?
!









#?;<%



 
 






 
 





?5=? 




>


;<%







5
=
>?


 @
A




BCD

A






E

%  

"


























 



  











 









 




 &'()*+,F*/G023+,HII'/2-JK*LG,/'M+N4 5
8OPC%

 


5






5




Q?
 ;!5?;#%

R


>















 









5?;;











 

<
:C8O%





 
5?;


 



  
















<S<S








 
 T

  

U








 


 
5?;
T=:C8PR8O
VWW%CCC!$ 

;# 




 
<S

XY545 545





 

 




 

 



  


!"#$ 


 %%
"
&




'
 

 #$

 '
 
 


( 

 
# 

  &






)




 
 *
 +  


,

 !

 







 +  






 
-

.'

 / &


 

 


  




'
 '
 
*



-

, #$

 
 
 


0

*


 

 
1234567489426:5;<64812=>63? :85@25=89A?1;4?B=>C2?88 :85@25=89A?6323D>52@;425E63;F64;23 G4583E4HI  J! " 
 



 

 

!
 


 


 



 " 0

 "


*&(


  


 "   
 ,#


"


 0'
 


 "-*  K86L38II8I M

 
 
 




 
"
 



 !

  #


 
*

 "





!"
 +
-*  N>>254O3;4;8I &




 *
!  






*
 "
J
 
 (
 


 
*

"


'

"





 " 
*
 
!
   



 " 



!

 
*


 


 " &

! "0'
 -
*

 

 
"


 " +  PH5864I  
"

  #

 " 


*
 
" Q
 
'




 "

" 


! " *






 ! " 


 M
 "


*


  0


  


*
 
"
R65L84;3EG85<;78ISC485364;<8I
546 547 TU
 



   

 


  

 

 !"

#"
$ %"& ' ( ! 
  #

"(!") 
*   + %  #"*,! 
-. #"!!%"
$ %#"* 
%  

 !

%"



/!  %"(   

 .0


1# !! 
   " 
! * 
 


   !!%" #" 
. 


   /
!
 


   
/!   "!%"  $ .*


%"(  2
* 
 "*!   

" "  ! 

.3 !

"
 #"
$ 
  

"  .
456789:;<:= >?@ABC 7ADEF@ GHI89J:<JJ >?@ABC 7ADEF@ KL6LMNLKL6LMNL ( )OP3  *  P*
!- R
QQ


R
Q

R R 
S$
 RU
TT RVQ

( T RU 
W R

X 3+ R 
YZY[\]^_^`a^
R

bQ
RY QTW

ZY[\]^_^`a^ R R 
LcdLM4LLcdLM4L )OP3  * 
P*
!- R
W
b
W V R& V


+ 
3+ RUQQ

X! 
/!Q RW

Q R& T
U

&
S
 e3+ R
Q

&
  RU Tb

b R& U
bU 
f#(
3+ R


& R
bU
Q
Rb


Q& 
/  
' 
 S 3+ R



fg#W RQ bTQ
R&

U 
O/!3+ RV

* *  "'+
R
QWU R& QVbT

/&3+ RUVQ

3 '3 *
R

W
bW R&
TQ
b * &'* 
"3+ RT



%!Q RW 

 R& V
b &(* 
"3+ R
Q

& &(& 
'hS3+ RU


& &
S
 e3+ R
Q

& S3+ RU


& i
3+ RVQ

& iX3+ RVQ

f#S #ee3+ R


b
YZY[\^jk^`l^
R
QUW

RY QW
VT ZY[\^jk^`l^ R RT


b
03 R) )VTQQ-R0 V
bQVT- 3 R R)T


b
- 0
 e/! !" %%#"  $  ee*!   
mBnoF@pqE5rq@nB?@s4?rtFruvrnowps@rnx4AyyBnx
z{547 548























!"







#


$%


&

'()*+),-








.

/01
2

3


4

5#6
'(')+
0
'(')



0 

7






#


6
/01
2

3


4

5 #
6
'(''+
5#
'(''

$8





4


774

6

6 #











47
-

9:548 548
549 549
550 551
551 551



552 552
555453
555554
5555
556 557
557 558
558 558
559 559
560 560
561 561






562 562
563 564
556564
5566


  



  !
"
 #
$%&

'
#
$%&

(&&% )**#
+,+-.**.&$/&&% (&&% 
&

&
0 $ 1##

+&
23&*.
*& 
&
$0


23& &
*& 454675-467
$
&
'
$
&
2(&&% ,.0
&* 458675867
)3#
$%&

$
&
)3$
&
2(&&% 9.0
&* 456:75:67

&
 )3)
'&+&
* ;
&$
&/3&<,&**2= /9. =>#?*$0


456:75:67
@A.&
*&*@A.&
*&*$B& 6=2C6D$

& $'$0

&0'
2)3?** 5:675:67
E,&*&$
'&* )&$+>0+
*$

&$
'&*#

&+&

@
&


0= +

>.. '

* FGHI
J K#
0 K=$0
LK:.+)D K8MN,$,$

$,
0+&$
'%
/ &
&+&
$&<,&* KO, N$,
N1&'&+P&$ K1&*

' ,0&'*
',
.&$+* K3&<,&**
$&$/
$0&0$$&
&/
 456:75:67
&
#

+&
 >'',
1$&'$ (&&% #

&$#&&

*

Q+ #
N ;
)&$*
,
' #&&

3&.$
N ;
)&$*
D>3&.$ 45:675-67
R@
&
 @
&
#

+&
)$0,'&$0&*



0
&$*&&&
&

'$0


/ND> 3,
0* &
3&
&/ -5675467
@
&
)$0,'
-$0)
$)$0,'
** 54L6754L67
R@
&
 @
&
#

+&
)$0,'&$0&*



0
&$*&&&
&

'$0


/ND> 3,
0* &
3&
&/ -5675467
@
&
)$0,'
-$0)
$)$0,'
** 54L6754L67
S.

#&0
C,S.

$&.
'

&
&
 C P
$0),$'N
*&),$'N
*&P P
$0
0 &$*

5:675:67
)3C,),$'N
*&
0 &$*


)&$0'
TU&/*.
.&$ 5:675:67
1

>0C,),$'N
*&
0 &$*


'
$1

.
$+*  5:675:67
VWVFX YZ[\]^^^_^^
`a
klmnonpqrsst bccdefghicj
566 566

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Professional Services

MARKETING TOURISM DESTINATION SERVICES
Solvang: The “Danish Capital of America”
A Travel Destination
567 568
RFP Issued ........................................................... …..January 28, 2022 All questions must be received by 5:00 p.m.......... …February 11, 2022 Proposal Due by 5:00 p.m........................................ …..March 14, 2022 Evaluation Period Concludes...................................…..……..April 2022 Award Contract..................................................... …..……….May 2022 Contract Period Commences………………………….…..August 1, 2022
568 568

PUBLIC NOTICE

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

CITY OF SOLVANG

MARKETING TOURISM DESTINATION

SERVICES
The City of Solvang (“City”) is inviting qualified firms to submit proposals for Professional Services to market the City of Solvang as a tourism destination--the “Danish Capital of America.” All proposals will be compared on the basis of understanding the scope of work to be performed, methods and procedures to be used, management, personnel and experience, and consultation and coordination with the City of Solvang.

If your firm is interested and qualified, please submit five (5) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of your Proposal on or before March 14, 2022, by 5:00 p.m. to:

City of Solvang
Attn: Xenia Bradford,
City Manager
1644 Oak St.

Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected] and
[email protected]
Proposal shall be clearly labeled “PROPOSAL for Professional Services – Marketing Services.” Any changes, additions, or deletions to this Request for Proposal will be in the form of written addenda issued by the City. Addenda will be posted on the City website, along with the RFP. Prospective proposers must check the website for addenda or other relevant new information during the response period. The City is not responsible for the failure of any prospective proposer to receive such addenda. All addenda so issued shall become a part of this Request for Proposal. In addition, any questions submitted shall be posted with answers on the website as well.

EXHIBITS:

A City of Solvang Organizational Chart
B Architectural Design Guidelines
C SAMPLE City of Solvang Professional Services Agreement C Insurance Requirements
5569

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Marketing Tourism Destination Services
1) CITY PROFILE
Solvang, meaning “Sunny Field,” was founded in 1911 by a group of Danish educators from the Midwest who were in search of a site for a Danish-type folk school. They envisioned the location of the potential town, nestled between the Santa Ynez and San Rafael mountain ranges, as an ideal place to launch the school and where settlers could develop a Danish Colony that we now know as Solvang. The City is located inland along the Central Coast, some 45 miles north of Santa Barbara, in the historic Santa Ynez Valley. The City of Solvang provides a full range of municipal services, including contracted police services, the construction and maintenance of City streets, storm drains, bridges and similar infrastructure type assets, park maintenance and community recreation activities. Water, wastewater and transit services are provided through the use of an enterprise fund or business- type fund structure. The City was incorporated on May 1, 1985. It subsequently transitioned from a General Law City to a Charter City in November2006.

Although Solvang has since developed into one of California’s main tourist attractions, its many DanishAmerican residents continue to perpetuate their Danish heritage as seen by the architectural style in the downtown tourist area. With a residential population of 6,126, the City is host to approximately 1.5 million tourists per year. Tourist Occupancy Tax (TOT) is 50% of the General Fund revenues. With this emphasis on tourism as a strong tradition and a core contributor to the economic health of the City, the importance of the unique architectural feel of the City is part of the Solvang ‘brand.’ 2) PROJECT OBJECTIVES
570 570
The City of Solvang is requesting proposals from qualified firms or individuals interested in providing a comprehensive full-service travel destination marketing program for the City. The City of Solvang is the second most dependent City in the State of California on tourism as its economic engine.

The City wishes to select a single organization to provide a comprehensive marketing services program including strategy development, day to day marketing operations, and continuing to establish brand for the City of Solvang enhancing the City’s appeal to attack tourism.

PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST
The purpose for this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to evaluate qualified firms for providing a comprehensive set of Marketing Services.

Qualified firms are asked to prepare a proposal that addresses all value-added service requirements as outlined below. The initial contract is anticipated for a period of 2 years commencing on August 1, 2022 withthe option to renew for two additional one-year periods.
3) SCOPE OF WORK
Project tasks shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. If the Proposer feels that additional tasks are warranted, they must be clearly identified in the Proposer’s proposal. • Marketing Strategy
• Brand Development
• Social Media Management
• Quarterly Events Productions and Management to attract tourism • Tourism promotions strategy
• Visitor Center Management
• Film and Commercial management and promotions
• Print promotions and materials
Examples of Solvang Events:

Solvang Stomp Julefest Drone Show Danish Days
571 571
4) GENERAL CONDITIONS
Limitations
This Request for Proposals (RFP) does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal in response to this request, or to procure or contract for services or supplies. The City expressly reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or to waive any irregularity or information in any proposal or in the RFP procedure and to be the sole judge of the responsibility of any proposer and of the suitability of the materials and/or services to be rendered. The City reserves the right to withdraw this RFP at any time without prior notice. Further, the City reserves the right to modify the RFP schedule described above.

Award
The City may ask RFP finalists to present oral presentations regarding their firms and any special expertise in the necessary areas. All finalists may be required to participate in negotiations and submit such price, technical, or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. The City also reserves the right to award the contract without discussion or interviews, based upon the initial proposals. Selection will be based upon demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Following the initial qualifications-based selection, the price proposal provided will be the basis for negotiations to ensure the City receives a fair and reasonable price.

Inquiries and Responses
All questions pertaining to this RFP shall be submitted in writing to Xenia Bradford at [email protected] The question and its response will be forwarded via email to all potential proposers and/or posted on the RFP webpage.

Bidders are specifically directed not to contact any other City personnel for meetings, conferences, or technical discussionsrelated to this RFP. Failure to adhere to this policy may be grounds for rejection ofproposal.

The City of Solvang will not be responsible for oral interpretations given by any City employee, representative, or others. Bidders are cautioned that any statements made that materially change any portion of the proposal documents shall not be relied upon unless subsequently ratified by a formal written amendment to the proposal document. The issuance of a written addendum is the only official method whereby interpretation, clarification, or additional information can be given. Any changes, additions, or deletions to this Request for Proposal will be in the form of written addenda issued by the City. Prospective proposers must check the website for addenda or other relevant new information during the response period. The City is not responsible for the failure of any prospective proposer to receive such addenda. All addenda so issued shall become a part of this Request for Proposal.

Julefest Parade 4th of July Parade
572 572
Pre-contractual Expense
Pre-contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by proposers and selected contractor in:

1. Preparing proposals in response to this RFP;

2. Submitting proposals to City;

3. Negotiations with City on any matter related to proposals; and

4. Other expenses incurred by a contractor or proposer prior to the date of award of any agreement.

In any event, the City shall not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by any proposer or selected contractor. Proposers shall not include any such expenses as part of the price proposed in response to this RFP.

The City shall be held harmless and free from any and all liability, claims, or expenses whatsoever incurred by, or on behalf of, any person or organization responding to this RFP.

Proprietary Information
The proposals received shall become the property of the City of Solvang and are subject to public disclosure.