CHAPTER 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout

Transcription

1 CHAPER 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout 6.1 OVERVIEW his chapter presents an evaluation of the City s future expanded water distribution system and its ability to meet recommended water system service and performance standards under buildout water demand conditions based on the projected developments described in Chapter 2 Water Demands (see Figure 6-1 for the projected land use at locations of new development 1 ). West Yost conducted this evaluation using an updated hydraulic model of the City that incorporated improvements needed to eliminate deficiencies identified previously in the existing water system evaluation (see Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System). his chapter identifies the additional improvements required to support the City s projected buildout water demands. 6.2 FRE PIPELINES A BILDO New distribution pipelines were added to the hydraulic model in areas where future potable water demands were to occur as indicated by the water use projections in Chapter 2. Figure 6-2 presents the recommended future distribution pipeline improvements along with the City s Specific Plan Areas boundaries and locations of proposed development. Figure 6-3 presents the locations of the system improvements based on recommendations from the evaluation of the existing system, as presented in Chapter 5, and also presents the new required distribution pipelines to serve buildout water demands. As such, Figure 6-3 represents the status of the hydraulic model that was used to evaluate the system at buildout for Chapter FRE POABLE WAER DEMANDS A BILDO able 6-1 summarizes the potable water demands used for the buildout water system evaluation by pressure zone. he buildout water demands were spatially allocated into the hydraulic model using water use projections developed in Chapter 2 and locations shown on Figure 6-2. Buildout water demands were calculated based on a land use based water demand projection methodology described in Chapter 2 Water Demands (able 2-13). he City s buildout water demands are expected to increase by approximately 48 percent from the existing water demand. Most of the projected growth will occur in the southwest portion of the City s Aqueduct Pressure Zone, in the northeast area of the City s Hillside Pressure Zones, and in the southeast portion of the City s Hillside Pressure Zones. 1 Does not include locations of near-term pending developments because City staff provided specific planned land use data for each pending development. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch6 6-1 City of Santa Rosa

2

3 Pressure Zone(s) able 6-1. Future Potable Water Demands by Pressure Zone Average Day Demand (a) Maximum Day Demand (b) Peak Hour Demand (c) gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd Aqueduct Zone A1 2, , , A2 3, , , A3 3, , , A4 1, , , A5 1, , , A6 1, , , A , A Aqueduct Zone Subtotal 13, , , Hillside Zones Fountaingrove 1 R1, R1R Fountaingrove 2 R2, R2R1, R2R2, R2R3, R2R , , Fountaingrove 3 R Skyfarm R Fountaingrove and Skyfarm Subtotal , , Montecito High Level R4, R4R1, R4R2, R4R3, R4R , , Fountaingrove nit 2 Lower Level R Fountaingrove nit 2 High Level R17, R17R Montecito and Fountaingrove nit 2 Subtotal , , Rincon Reduced R6, R6R1 2, , , Rincon High Level R , , Los Alamos R Rincon and Los Alamos Subtotal 2, , , Bennett High Level (d) (includes Valley View and R9, R9R1 1, , , Bennett View Areas) Fairway R Bennett and Fairway Subtotal 1, , , Southeast Zone 2 R , Southeast Subtotal , Oakmont High Level R , Wild Oak R13, R13R Wild Oak pper Level R14, R14R Meadow Ridge/Oakmont R Oakmont and Wild Oak Subtotal , Hillside Zones Subtotal 6, , , otal 20, , , (a) Existing demand is based on water meter records and adjusted to reflect average water purchased between Additional 2035 water use from new development, intensification, and private water systems were based on data provided by the City, as described in Chapter 2 of this report, and on 2010 WMP demand projections. Water meter records were spatially located and then aggregated by pressure zone. Source of water meter record data was from WaterMeters_geocode.shp file provided by the City. (b) Maximum day demand calculated using a peaking factor of 2.0 times the average day demand. (c) Peak hour demand calculated using a peaking factor of 3.5 times the average day demand. (d) Valley View and Bennett View areas are served privately by others. he City has capacity to incorporate them into the City's water system at buildout. he estimated average demand for Valley View is 73 gpm, and the estimated average demand for Bennett View is 41 gpm. o\c\405\ \e\5\ch6_tables Last Revised: City of Santa Rosa

4

5 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout 6.4 EVALAION OF PMPING CAPACIY A BILDO he City s pumping facilities are used to deliver water to pressure zones that cannot be supplied directly from the SCWA Aqueduct. Locations of the City s existing pump stations are shown on Figure 6-3. Currently, the City operates twenty booster pump stations 2 to deliver water to the City s Hillside Pressure Zones. It should be noted that a new pump station, designated as S9B, was recommended in a previous study to provide operational flexibility and emergency supply reliability to R9 Pressure Zone and has been included in this buildout pumping capacity evaluation. Details regarding this recommendation are presented in Appendix D. A discussion of the pumping capacity evaluation is provided below Evaluation Criteria he City s pump stations were evaluated based on the criteria described in Chapter 3 Water System Service and Performance Standards (see able 3-1). hese criteria include the ability to deliver a firm, reliable capacity equal to the maximum day demand within each pressure zone, or any pressure zones located above that pressure zone. Furthermore, pump stations serving pressure zones without storage are required to deliver a firm capacity equal to a peak hour demand or maximum day demand plus fire flow, whichever is larger. Firm capacity is defined as the total capacity of all pumps serving a pressure zone with the largest pump assumed to be out of service for redundancy purposes. However, for zones served by a pump station(s) equipped with a spare pump(s) then the firm capacity is equal to the total pumping capacity (without the spare pump(s) that is available to serve the zone). he total firm pumping capacity at each station was also reduced by 15 percent 3 to account for the reduction in pumping capacity when multiple pumps are operated in parallel Evaluation Results he evaluation of the City s pumping facilities and their ability to meet future water demand conditions at buildout is summarized in able 6-2. able 6-2 assumes the adoption and implementation of the recommendations made in Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System. his evaluation indicates that all of the City s pump stations, as projected at buildout, have the ability to meet the firm pumping capacity criteria except for Stations S6 and S15. For Station S6, the City is able to mitigate the pumping capacity deficiency with an existing turnout connection to the SCWA Aqueduct (PRA 66). his turnout connection is operated as a secondary supply into Pressure Zone R6 when Station S6 cannot meet the supply required in Pressure Zone R6. 2 Station S4 includes three locations S4, S4R and S4B. 3 Percentage reduction estimated based on a review of pump flow data from the City s SCADA system. his reduction is intended for planning purposes only and specific flow capacity testing should be performed related to any specific design modifications. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch6 6-3 City of Santa Rosa

6

7 able 6-2. Future Buildout Pumping Capacity Evaluation in the Hillside Pressure Zones (a) Pressure Zones with Storage Pressure Zones without Storage Pressure Zone(s) Pumping Capacity Requirement, gpm (e) Pumping Capacity Requirement, gpm (f) Fountaingrove and Skyfarm Fountaingrove 1 R1, R1R1 S1 4,275 3, ,855 0 Stationary Generator Fountaingrove 2 R2, R2R1, R2R2, R2R3, R2R4 S2 3,000 2,550 1,043 1,423 0 Stationary Generator Fountaingrove 3 R3 S3 (g) 3,000 1, Stationary Generato (h) Skyfarm R5 S5 3,740 2, Stationary Generator Montecito and Fountaingrove nit 2 Montecito High Level R4, R4R1, R4R2, R4R3, R4R4 S4 (i) 6,100 5,260 1,322 1,893 0 Stationary Generator Fountaingrove nit 2 Lower Level R16 S16 1, Stationary Generator Fountaingrove nit 2 High Level R17, R17R1 S17 1, Stationary Generator S18 (j) 1, Stationary Generator Rincon and Los Alamos Rincon Reduced R6, R6R1 S6 5,600 4,760 4,043 5, (k) Stationary Generator Rincon High Level R7 S7 2,000 1,700 1,242 1,470 0 Stationary Generator Los Alamos R8 S8 1, Stationary Generator Bennett and Fairway Bennett High Level (include Valley View and Bennett View Areas) R9, R9R1 Pump Station otal Station Capacity, gpm (b) Firm Capacity, gpm (c,d) Maximum Day Demand, gpm Required Additional Pumping Capacity, gpm S9, S9B (l) 13,900 12,265 2,831 2,874 0 Stationary Generator Fairway R10 S Stationary Generato (h) Southeast Zone 2 Southeast Zone 2 R11 S11 1,800 1, Stationary Generator Oakmont and Wild Oak Oakmont High Level R12 S12 1,750 1, Stationary Generator Wild Oak R13, R13R1 S13 (g) 2,250 1, Stationary Generator Wild Oak pper Level R14, R14R1 S14 (g) 2,250 1, Stationary Generator Meadow Ridge/Oakmont R15 S15 1,842 1, , (m) Stationary Generator (a) he Aqueduct Pressure Zone is fed directly from the SCWA. SCWA delivery pressures are sufficient to provide adequate service without additional pumping. herefore, this pressure zone does not require pumping capacity. (b) otal pump station capacity is based on design flow as provided by City staff and does not include capacity from spare pumps, which are located at S1, S2, S4, S6, S7, S9, S11, and S12. Capacity for Stations S3, S13 and S14 are based on upgrades recommended for the existing system in Chapter 5 of this report. (e) Calculated based on cascaded maximum day demand of each pressure zone. For example, S1 pumping capacity requirement of 1,849 gpm equals the sum of the maximum day demand in Pressure Zones R1, R2, R3 and R5. (f) In pressure zones without storage, firm pumping capacity must meet the peak hour demand or maximum day demand plus fire flow demand, whichever is larger. (g) Capacity for Pump Stations S3, S13 and S14 are based on upgrades recommended in Chapter 5 of this report. (h) hese stationary generators were recommended in Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System to improve reliability during fire flow or emergency condition at this critical pump station. (i) Includes Pump Stations S4 (3 x 1650 gpm), S4R (500 gpm) and S4B, Proctor Heights (2 x 1150 gpm). (j) S18 is used only in emergencies. (k) Pressure Reducing Station PRA 66 an existing turnout connection betwen the SCWA Aqueduct and Pressure Zone R6 can be opened in an emergency to provide supply in addition to Pump Station S6. (l) A new pump station, designated as S9B, was recommended in a previous study to provide operational flexibility and emergency supply reliability to R9 Pressure Zone and has been included in this buildout pumping capacity evaluation. Details regarding this recommendation are presented in Appendix D. Required Additional Pumping Capacity, gpm (c) Firm capacity definition: (1) In zones served by a station(s) equipped with a spare pump(s), firm capacity is equal to the total pumping capacity available to serve the zone. (2) For stations not equipped with a spare pump, firm capacity is defined as the total capacity of the individual pump station with the largest unit in the pump station out of service. However, in zones served by more than one pump station, only the largest pump serving the zone will be assumed out of service. Fire pumps are not accounted for as the largest unit (e.g., S5 and S15). (d) For pumps that can be operated in parallel under firm capacity assumptions, a 15 percent reduction in pumping capacity is also applied to account for the reduction in actual pumping capacity when multiple pumps are operated in parallel. his percentage was estimated based on a review of pump flow data from the City's SCADA system. his pumping capacity reduction is intended for planning purposes only, and specific flow capacity testing should be performed related to any specific design modifications. Backup Power at Pump Station (m) Based on the 2013 Groundwater Master Plan, a new emergency groundwater well (assumed to produce 700 gpm, or 1 mgd) is recommended in the next 5 years for the Oakmont/S-12 Master Zone (GW-A-007), which will assist in meeting the identified pumping capacity deficiency. he well planned for the Oakmont/S-12 Master Zone could be used to meet deficiencies in the Oakmont High and Wild Oak Hillside Zones, R12 to R15, by pumping water to these zones through pump stations. o:\c\405\ \e\5\ch6_ables.xlsx Last Revised: City of Santa Rosa

8

9 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Station S15 continues to have a minor pumping capacity deficit of 96 gpm in the buildout water system. No improvement is recommended at this time as a future groundwater well recommended in the Oakmont/S-12 Master Zone 4 may mitigate this minor pumping capacity deficit. While no significant pumping deficiencies are indicated, deficiencies in system storage capacity, as discussed below, may require the upsizing of a specific pump station in lieu of providing additional storage. able 6-2 also indicates which pump stations have on-site generators and which stations rely on portable generators for backup power. he two existing pump stations without on-site generators are Stations S3 and S10. In Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System, on-site backup power generators are recommended for both Stations S3 and S10 to improve reliability during a power outage; therefore, no additional improvements are required under this future system evaluation. 6.5 EVALAION OF SORAGE CAPACIY A BILDO As shown on Figure 6-3, water storage facilities are located throughout the City s water distribution system to provide for equalization of peak demands, provide storage volume for fire protection, and a storage reserve for emergency conditions. he City also has access to water stored in SCWA-owned reservoirs (per existing agreements) to serve the Aqueduct Pressure Zone, while City-owned reservoirs serve the Hillside Pressure Zones. In addition to the available reservoirs, the City can also access approximately 4.39 MG per day from four emergency groundwater wells (currently only Farmers Lane Wells 1 and 2, Carley and Peters Springs Wells are operational). 5 his evaluation considers 48 hours 6 of continuous pumping from these wells to be available for emergency storage supply, for a total of approximately 8.78 MG. In addition to the existing wells, the City plans to add 11 new groundwater wells to its water system (based on the 2013 Groundwater Master Plan). Each new well was assumed to provide up to 2 MG of emergency storage (based on 48 hours of continuous pumping) SCWA-Owned Storage Capacity As discussed in Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System, the City operates under the understanding that during an emergency outage of supply from the SCWA Aqueduct, the City has access to 40 percent (approximately 24.6 MG) of the water stored in the SCWA reservoirs located in the City. 7 he evaluation of storage capacity at buildout assumes that the City will continue to operate under this understanding. As noted in Chapter 5, the assumption of full SCWA storage tanks is consistent with the previous storage evaluations completed for the City s 4 Project GW-A-007 in the 2013 Groundwater Master Plan. 5 Leete Well located in Pressure Zone R4, with a capacity of 0.35 mgd, is not included because it is currently inactive. 6 he emergency storage capacity requirement is equal to two times the average day demand. 7 Source: 2006, West Yost. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch6 6-5 City of Santa Rosa

10 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout 2006, but is different from the assumption used in the City s recent 2013 Groundwater Master Plan, which conservatively assumes that the SCWA tanks will only be half full when an emergency supply condition occurs. Based on additional discussions with City staff, it was determined that for planning purposes in this, the assumption of full SCWA tanks is more appropriate in sizing water system facilities for the Aqueduct Pressure Zone City-Owned Storage Capacity he City owns 24 reservoirs providing a combined storage of 22.1 MG for future operations, fire protection, and emergency conditions. his total storage volume does not include the two Proctor Heights anks (2.6 MG each) which are currently off-line and not being used due to operational difficulties with filling and/or tank turnover. Also, Reservoir R9C, with an existing capacity of 1.0 MG, is not included in the evaluation of the future system because the City is planning to decommission this reservoir. he storage capacity evaluation criteria and results from the evaluation are provided below Evaluation Criteria Reservoir storage capacity was evaluated for each of the City s pressure zones and includes operational, fire, and emergency storage components. Specific volume requirements for each storage component are as follows: Operational Storage: 25 percent of maximum day demands (equivalent to 50 percent of an average day); Emergency Storage: 2 times the average day demand (equivalent to a maximum day demand); and Fire Flow Storage: he maximum fire flow rate times the fire flow duration period, as required by the City s Fire Chief Evaluation Results able 6-3 summarizes the City s projected storage capacity evaluation at buildout by pressure zone, and able 6-4 presents recommendations to address projected storage capacity deficiencies at buildout. 8 As indicated in Chapter 3 (able 3-1), which presents the performance standards on which this chapter s analysis is based, individual properties may have fire flow requirements exceeding the general requirements for anticipated design flows based on land use and zoning. Such requirements for individual properties are not considered in this report. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch6 6-6 City of Santa Rosa

11 able 6-3. Future Buildout Storage Capacity Evaluation Pressure Zone: Subzones Aqueduct Zone (e) Reservoir Available Storage from Emergency Groundwater Supply Wells, Required Fire Flow Duration, Required Fire Flow, Required Storage Capacity, MG Available navailable Fire Reservoir Reservoir Capacity, MG Capacity, MG MG hours (a) gpm (a) Operational (b) Flow (c) Emergency (d) otal [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]=[3]+[4]+[5] A Storage Capacity Surplus (Deficit), MG [7]=[1]+[2]-[6] A A A A (f,g) A , (3.08) A8 (h) (g) 3 2, A9 (i) Proctor Heights A1-A9 SCWA Storage (j) Aqueduct Zone Subtotal (k) (3.08) Hillside Zones Fountaingrove 1: R1, R1A R1R1 R1B , Fountaingrove 2: R2, R2A R2R1, R2R2, R2R3, 4 2, R2R4 R2B Fountaingrove 3: R3 R , (0.13) Skyfarm (m) :R5 R , Fountaingrove and Skyfarm Subtotal (0.01) Montecito High Level: R4A R4, R4R1, R4R2, R4R3, (n) 4 2, (0.48) R4R4 R4B Fountaingrove nit 2 Lower Level: R16 R , (0.02) Fountaingrove nit 2 High Level: R17, R17R1 R , (0.37) Montecito FG 2 Subtotal (0.87) Rincon Reduced: R6, R6R1 R (g) 4 2, Rincon High Level: R7 R , (0.84) Los Alamos: R8 R , Rincon and Los Alamos Subtotal R9A (g) Bennett High Level: R9, R9R1 R9B , R9C (o) Fairway: R10 R , (0.06) Bennett and Fairway Subtotal Southeast Zone 2: R11 R , (0.55) Southeast Subtotal (0.55) Oakmont High Level: R12A (p) R12 R12B (p) 4 2, (0.37) Wild Oak: R13, R13R1 R (p) 2 1, (0.15) Wild Oak pper Level: R14, R14R1 R (p) 2 1, (0.15) Meadow Ridge / Oakmont (q): R (p) 2 1, (0.09) Oakmont and Wild Oak Subtotal (p) (0.67) (k) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) (l) Hillside Zones Subtotal otal (3.0) (a) Based on most severe fire flow requirement within the pressure zone. (b) Equal to 25 percent of maximum day demand. (c) Equal to the fire flow requirement (gpm) multiplied by the required duration (hours). (d) Equal to two times average day demand. (e) hese are not distinct hydraulic pressure zones. However, these sub areas were used to calculate demand areas to develop the total storage volume required for the Aqueduct Pressure Zone. (f) Available emergency groundwater supply includes Farmers Lane Wells No. 1 2, Peters Springs and Carley Wells with production equal to 4.39 MG per day. (g) Future groundwater supplies are based on recommendations in the 2013 Groundwater Master Plan (GWMP), able 7-1, which recommends that seven new wells be constructed to serve the Aqueduct Zone (including one in the Oakmont area), and four new wells be constructed in the Hillside Zones, by approximately Each well is assumed to produce 700 gpm, or 1 mgd. Supply capacity from the recommended wells were preliminarily allocated to the main master zone and correspond to the projects in the GWMP as follows: Zone A5: GWMP recommendations for the "Central City Master Zone" are grouped above in Zone A5 (though they will serve Aqueduct Zones A1-A6) and correspond to projects GW-A-005, GW-A-006, GW-B-001, and GW-C-001. Zone A8: GW-A-007. he well planned for the Oakmont area is included here as a supply for Zone A8, but it could also be used to meet storage deficiencies in the Oakmont High and Wild Oak Hillside Zones R12, R13, R14 and R15, referred to in the GWMP as the "S-12 Master Zone". Zone R6 (Rincon Valley Area): GW-B-002 and GW-C-002 were recommended for the S-6 Master Zone (R6, R7 and R8). Zone R9 (Bennett Valley Area): GW-B-003 was recommended for the S-9 Master Zone (R9, R10, and R11). (h) Sub area A8 is separate from A1-A6 and served by the SCWA. (i) Sub area A9 is served by PRA Valves 80A B, which are assumed to provide sufficient fire flow. (j) Assumes that 40 percent of the total existing capacity of SCWA storage tanks is available for the City. he total existing capacity of SCWA storage tanks is 61.5 MG, which includes the Kawana anks (20 MG), Annadel ank No. 1 (2.5 MG), Annadel ank No.2 (3.0 MG) and Ralphine anks (36.0 MG). (k) Storage deficiency in the Aqueduct Zone can be mitigated by re-engaging the use of the Proctor anks. (l) Storage deficiency can be mitigated if the pump station providing flow into this reservoir/zone has excess firm pumping capacity, so that storage volumes can be maintained (see able 6-4). (m) No fire flow storage is required because the S5 pump station has a 3,000 gpm fire pump which is available for fire events. he City is currently evaluating the potential demolition of Reservoir R5. Since the City is currently evaluating alternative options to serve the R5 Pressure Zone, no CIP costs have been included in this report to address this issue. (n) Available emergency groundwater supply does not include Leete Well (previously with production equal to 0.35 MG per day) because it is out of service. (o) he City plans to decommission Reservoir R9C by (p) See footnote (g) regarding future groundwater availability. (q) No fire flow storage is required because the S15 pump station has a 1,580 gpm fire pump which is available for fire events. o:\c\405\ \e\5\ch6_ables.xlsx Last Revised: City of Santa Rosa

12

13 able 6-4. Recommended Mitigation Methods to Address Storage Capacity Deficiencies Projected at Buildout Pressure Zone Reservoir Pump Station Storage Capacity Deficit, MG Required Pumping Capacity to Mitigate Storage Capacity Deficit, gpm (a) Existing Pumping Capacity Surplus, gpm (b) Additional Pumping Capacity Required to Mitigate Storage Capacity Deficit, gpm Remaining Storage Capacity Deficit, MG (c) Recommended Mitigation Method Aqueduct Zone A1-A6 (3.08) 6,417-6,417 (3.08) Re-engage Proctor Heights anks (d) Fountaingrove 3 R3 R3 S3 (0.13) 271 1, se existing pumping capacity surplus Montecito High Level R4 S4 S4 (0.48) 1,000 3, se existing pumping capacity surplus Fountaingrove nit 2 Lower Level R16 R16 S16 (0.02) se existing pumping capacity surplus Fountaingrove nit 2 High Level R17, R17R1 R17 S17 (0.37) (0.22) psize pump station Rincon High Level R7 R7 S7 (0.84) 1, ,520 (0.73) psize pump station Fairway R10 R10 S10 (0.06) se existing pumping capacity surplus Southeast Zone 2 R11 R11 S11 (0.55) 1, (0.11) psize pump station and/or rely on proposed emergency groundwater well (e,f) Oakmont High Level R12 R12A R12B S12 (0.37) se existing pumping capacity surplus Wild Oak R13, R13R1 R13 S13 (0.15) 313 1, se existing pumping capacity surplus Wild Oak pper Level R14, R14R1 R14 S14 (0.15) 313 1, se existing pumping capacity surplus Meadow Ridge/Oakmont R15 S15 (0.09) (0.05) psize pump station and/or rely on proposed emergency groundwater well (e,g,h) (a) Pumping capacity required to meet storage capacity deficit based on eight hours of pumping. (b) (c) Refer to able 6-2 (pumping capacity requirement subtracted from firm capacity). Pumping capacity surplus does not account for fire and emergency pumps. Calculated based on additional pumping capacity required to mitigate storage capacity deficit with eight hours of pumping. (d) See discussion in Section (e) he remaining storage capacity deficiency is minor and may not justify an improvement project. he City may consider delaying an improvement until the next renewal and replacement project for pump replacement at this pump station. (f) Based on the 2013 Groundwater Master Plan, a new emergency groundwater well is recommended in the next 5-10 years for Master Zone S-9, which will assist in meeting the identified storage deficiency. (g) he existing fire pump at S15 was not considered in the evaluation and could potentially provide excess pumping capacity if the City chose to operate it. (h) Future groundwater supplies are based on recommendations in the 2013 Groundwater Master Plan, able 7-1, which recommends that seven new wells be constructed to serve the Aqueduct Zone (including one in the Oakmont area) by approximately Each well is assumed to produce 700 gpm, or 1 mgd. he well planned for the Oakmont area is included here as a supply for Zone A8, but it could also be used to meet storage deficiencies in the Oakmont High and Wild Oak Hillside Zones, R12 to R15, by pumping water to these zones through pump stations. o:\c\405\ \e\5\ch6_ables.xlsx Last Revised: City of Santa Rosa

14

15 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Aqueduct Pressure Zone Based on storage from SCWA, the City s Aqueduct Pressure Zone is provided with 24.6 MG of projected storage capacity from SCWA (40 percent of 61.5 MG), as well as MG in available supply from groundwater wells, for a total available storage capacity of MG. he groundwater supply is calculated as the amount of water the City s emergency wells can produce over a 48-hour period based on the City s 2013 Groundwater Master Plan, and includes future groundwater supply based on recommendations in that plan 9. As discussed above, this evaluation does not include storage available in the Proctor Heights anks. 10 he City s Aqueduct Pressure Zone at buildout is projected to require a total of 50.5 MG of storage to serve operational, emergency and fire flow demands. herefore, as shown on able 6-3, the City s Aqueduct Pressure Zone has a projected storage capacity deficit of approximately 3.1 MG. his storage deficiency could be mitigated by re-engaging the use of the Proctor Heights anks. As discussed previously, the Proctor Heights anks are not hydraulically available to serve the Aqueduct Pressure Zone due to the average HGL of the Aqueduct Pressure Zone, 288 feet 11, is lower than the overflow elevation of the Proctor Heights anks which is at 306 feet. herefore, these tanks cannot be filled from the Aqueduct Pressure Zone. In addition, when the HGL of the Aqueduct Pressure Zone was increased (by increasing the PRV settings that serve the Proctor Heights anks to enable these tanks to fill), it became difficult to facilitate turnover of the Proctor Heights anks, leading to stale water issues. If these tanks are reactivated to serve the future storage deficiency, additional hydraulic study to optimize the operation of these tanks is recommended. Because the Proctor Heights anks could possibly be re-engaged to mitigate the storage deficiency in the Aqueduct Zone, no additional recommendations have been identified to mitigate the storage deficiency Hillside Pressure Zones As shown in able 6-3, there are several Hillside Pressure Zones that are projected to have a slight deficiency in storage capacity at buildout. hese storage deficiencies can be mitigated either by using/providing excess firm pumping capacity from the pump station serving this reservoir or by expanding storage. he pumping option can involve utilizing existing excess pumping capacity, if sufficient, to move water up the hill, or expanding the existing pumping capacity, if possible. he storage option involves constructing new storage reservoir(s) or expanding existing storage reservoir(s), if possible. he pumping option was evaluated to determine if the storage deficiencies can be mitigated by providing additional pumping capacity. he required pumping capacity to mitigate the storage deficiency is based on a flow rate equivalent to the storage capacity deficiency within the pressure zone being evaluated over an 8-hour period. 9 able 7-1, City of Santa Rosa 2013 Groundwater Master Plan. 10 While the Proctor Storage tanks are not considered available for this evaluation, the storage deficiency in the Aqueduct Pressure Zone indicated in able 6-4 can be mitigated by re-engaging the use of the Proctor anks. 11 he hydraulic grade line is estimated from the recent pressure settings provided by the City for pressure reducing stations that supply water from the SCWA Aqueduct to the City s Aqueduct Pressure Zone. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch6 6-9 City of Santa Rosa

16 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout As shown in able 6-4, R7, R15, R11, and R17 Pressure Zones continue to have storage capacity deficiencies, even after surplus pumping capacity is considered. he storage capacity deficiency in R11 and R15 Pressure Zones can be mitigated by upsizing the existing pump stations S11 and S15. However, the projected storage capacity deficiency at buildout is minor and may not justify an improvement project. In addition, new groundwater wells recommended in the 2013 Groundwater Master Plan may provide additional supply to mitigate the storage deficiencies identified in R11 and R15 Pressure Zones 12. herefore, the City should consider delaying these projects until the next renewal and replacement project for pump replacement and then consider pump upsizing at that time. In addition, the existing fire pump at Station S15 was not considered in the evaluation and could potentially provide excess pumping capacity if the City chose to operate it. he projected storage capacity deficiencies in R7 and R17 Pressure Zones are more substantial. Pump station upgrades are recommended in these zones to meet projected buildout demand conditions. However, the timing of these upgrades will depend on the pace of eventual buildout in these areas. Recommended pump station improvements to mitigate the identified storage capacity deficiencies in the Hillside Pressure Zones are summarized below: Replace booster pumps at Station S7 with a firm pumping capacity of 3,200 gpm and design head of 170 feet to mitigate projected storage deficiencies in R7 Pressure Zone. NOE: nder current existing conditions, when running any pumps at Station S7, Station S6 must be running simultaneously in order to avoid severely low pressures in the Sullivan Way area in R6 Pressure Zone. While this recommendation involves increasing the pumping capacity at Station S7, it should be noted that doing so will not alleviate the need to run Station S6 simultaneously. Replace booster pumps at Station S17 with a firm pumping capacity of 1,300 gpm and design head of 200 feet to mitigate projected storage deficiencies in R17 Pressure Zone. 6.6 WAER DISRIBION SYSEM PERFORMANCE EVALAION his section discusses and evaluates the hydraulic performance of the City s water distribution system under buildout conditions, and identifies recommended system/facility improvements to meet the recommended water system service and performance standards. It should be noted, there is future growth projected to occur in the western portion of the Bennett Valley Pressure Zone, R9 as shown on Figure 6-2. his future growth is located near the Farmers Lane Extension (Southeast Area Plan). A recent hydraulic study for optimizing the water system operations to serve this area is presented in Appendix D. Furthermore, Reservoir R9C, with an existing capacity of 1.0 MG, is not included in the evaluation of the future water system because the City is planning to decommission the reservoir. 12 GW-B-003 was recommended for Master Zone S-9 (R9, R10 and R11) in the next 5 to 10 years. GW-A-007 was recommended in Oakmont/Master Zone S-12 in next 5 years and could meet storage deficiencies in R12 to R15 by pumping water to these zones through pump stations. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

17 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Also shown on Figure 6-2 is the potential future additional service area of Holland Heights Holland Drive southwest of Bennett Valley Road, and Bennett View Drive southwest of Bennett Valley Road which is currently served by a private water system. Evaluation results for this area are not presented because the City does not necessarily plan to incorporate these existing distribution facilities into the City s future water distribution system. However, the City is prepared to provide water supply to this area at a future date if required/requested to do so by City Council, and therefore the projected demand for this area has been allocated in the future water system to several connection points along Bennett Valley Road. he City expects that when and if the City begins providing water to Holland Heights, it will be the responsibility of the Holland Heights private water system customers to maintain and upgrade any required storage and pipeline facilities to meet City standards Evaluation Criteria he water distribution system at buildout was evaluated based on the evaluation criteria presented in Chapter 3 Water System Service and Performance Standards (see able 3-1) under the following demand scenarios: Peak Hour Demand: Peak hour demands are met by the combined flows from the SCWA through the City s Aqueduct Zone and City pump stations and storage reservoirs in the Hillside Pressure Zones. A peak hour flow condition was simulated for the future system to evaluate the capability of the City s distribution facilities to meet a peak hour demand condition at buildout. Maximum Day Demand: Maximum day demand conditions are met by flows from the SCWA through the City s Aqueduct Zone and City pump stations and storage reservoirs in the Hillside Pressure Zones. A maximum day demand condition was simulated for the future system to evaluate the City s supply facilities and transmission/distribution system capabilities. Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow: o evaluate the system under maximum day plus fire flow conditions a two-step analysis was followed. he first step used the Infowater Available Fire Flow Analysis tool within the Infowater software program to determine if the City s future water system infrastructure was capable of maintaining minimum required residual system pressures and flow. If the analysis indicated that the system failed to meet the minimum requirements for pressure and flow, a second analysis was performed. he second analysis involved re-analyzing the water system assuming the implementation of various pipeline and/or other facility improvements, to eliminate the previously identified system constraints and/or deficiencies. Each of the above demand conditions was simulated with the hydraulic model developed for this WMP pdate. he buildout water system is expected to deliver peak hour flows, maximum day flows and maximum day demand plus fire flow within the acceptable pressure, velocity and head loss ranges as identified in the performance criteria presented in Chapter 3. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

18 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Recommended system improvements were identified to address and fix any pressure deficiencies found, and to fix any fire flow deficiencies in the distribution system. System improvements were not recommended for existing pipelines that did not meet the velocity criterion, if no pressure deficiencies were associated with those particular pipelines Evaluation Results and Recommendations Peak Hour Demand and Maximum Day Demand Steady state hydraulic analyses were conducted using the hydraulic model to evaluate system performance under buildout peak hour demand and maximum day demand conditions. he hydraulic model used for the future system evaluation was first updated to include all improvements recommended for the existing system (see Figure 6-3), as well as the distribution pipelines required to serve future developments within the City s rban Growth Boundary. he purpose of the future water system performance evaluation is to identify any additional improvements that will be required to support the City s projected water demands at buildout within the rban Growth Boundary. As shown in able 6-1, the peak hour demand for the City service area at buildout was estimated to be 71,811 gpm (103 mgd), and the maximum day demand was estimated to be 41,035 gpm (59 mgd). Analysis for peak hour and maximum day demand conditions assumed that storage reservoirs are 50 percent full (consistent with the system performance criteria established in Chapter 3, and as requested by the City s Operations Staff). In addition, all pumps were operated based on SCADA control settings provided by the City. Based on the control settings and assumptions being made, most pump stations would not be operating (consistent with the conservative criteria requested to be used by the City s Operations Staff), with the exception of five (5) pump stations. hese pump stations are S4, S10, S14, S15 and S17, which were assumed to be operating. he minimum pressure that must be maintained at service connections throughout the entire water system during peak hour demands is 35 psi, and the minimum pressure that must be maintained during maximum day demand scenario is 40 psi. In addition, for pipelines, it is recommended that the maximum velocities should not exceed 8 fps for both peak hour and maximum day demand conditions, to help minimize excessive head loss due to undersized pipelines. Because the minimum pressure requirement for the maximum day demand scenario was higher than the requirement for peak hour demand, any improvements identified in this section to meet the minimum requirement for the peak hour scenario would also be required to meet the minimum requirement for maximum day scenario. herefore, the discussion of results for these two scenarios is combined in this section. Results from the peak hour demand and maximum day demand simulations indicate that the future water system could adequately meet the City s minimum pressure criterion of 35 psi and 40 psi, respectively, at all customer services, except for the locations shown in red on Figure 6-4 which illustrates peak hour demand simulation results and Figure 6-5 which illustrates maximum day demand simulation results. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

19 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Pressure deficiencies throughout the buildout water system occur almost exclusively at service locations that are above the maximum service elevations that can be adequately served by their respective pressure zones under the conditions stipulated for these evaluations. For this reason, the following results and recommendations under buildout conditions are nearly identical to those under existing conditions, as presented in Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System (see Section ). While the buildout evaluation assumes that the Capital Improvement Project recommendations from Chapter 5 have been implemented, these recommendations are almost all related to fire flow deficiencies, and have little impact on system pressures under the operating conditions evaluated for maximum day and peak hour demand conditions without fire flow. he recommendation in Chapter 5 to install individual in-line booster pumps at individual service locations to address local pressure deficiencies was not simulated in the hydraulic model for the buildout evaluation; therefore similar pressure deficiencies are seen in the buildout system evaluation results. Details of several areas with pressure deficiencies are discussed below. Aqueduct Pressure Zone A4, A5, A6 and A8: Pressure deficiencies in the Aqueduct Pressure Zone were observed in a few localized areas. hese pressure deficiencies were also observed in the existing water system evaluation. he areas with low pressure in the Aqueduct Pressure Zone, as shown on Figures 6-4 and 6-5, are located at elevations which are technically too high to be served from the aqueduct system, and are regulated by turnout connections along the SCWA Aqueduct which has a hydraulic grade line of 288 feet. o meet a 40 psi minimum pressure at any service location in the Aqueduct Zone during a maximum day demand condition would require the service location to be located at a maximum elevation of 195 feet. Similarly, to meet a 35 psi minimum pressure during a peak hour demand condition, the service location in the Aqueduct Zone has to be located at a maximum elevation of 207 feet. he areas with low pressure in the Aqueduct Zone are located at elevations which are higher than 195 feet or higher than 207 feet. As discussed in Chapter 5, to mitigate these low pressures, installation of individual home booster pumps or an in-line system booster pump is recommended. Pressure Zone R2R1: Pressure in Zone R2R1 is regulated by PRC 25 located on Parker Hill Road at an elevation of 457 feet msl 13. With the existing valve setting of 35 psi, the highest service elevation that can be provided with minimum required system pressures is approximately 445 feet during a maximum day demand condition, and 457 feet during a peak hour demand condition. he hydraulic model indicated that pressure throughout Pressure Zone R2R1 ranges from 30 psi at the end of Moss Hollow Court (elevation 469 feet) to 89 psi along Leete Avenue (elevation 333 feet) during both maximum day and peak hour demand conditions. hese pressure deficiencies were also observed in the existing water system evaluation. 13 PRC Station 25 has a 4-inch valve and a 6-inch valve in the vault. he 4-inch valve has a setting of 35 psi, and the 6-inch valve has a setting of 30 psi. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

20 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout As discussed in Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System, there are two options available to mitigate the low pressure issues in Pressure Zone R2R1. Option 1 is to increase the pressure setting at PRC 25 by 10 psi. However, by increasing PRC 25 by 10 psi, some areas along Leete Avenue located at lower elevations will experience higher pressures that reach almost 100 psi. hese areas along Leete Avenue may then require installation of individual pressure reducing valves. Option 2 is to mitigate the low pressures in this reduced zone, R2R1, by installing booster pumps on individual service lines along Moss Hollow Court, which is the recommended option. Pressure Zone R4: he areas with low pressure are located along Alta Vista Avenue, between Happy Valley Road to Montecito Avenue. hese pressure deficiencies were also observed in the existing water system evaluation, and are associated with service connections located at elevations higher than can be served by the City s water system assuming both storage tanks in Pressure Zone R4 are 50 percent full. he HGL in this pressure zone with both tanks at 50 percent full is 552 to 560 feet. At this HGL, the maximum elevation of service connections in Pressure Zone R4 that can be served with a minimum pressure of 40 psi is 467 feet. he elevations of low pressure areas are above 467 feet. When both tanks in Pressure Zone R4 are full, the HGL of the system in this zone can be raised to 574 feet. Results indicated that there would still be several service locations where the system would be inadequate to maintain minimum required system pressures. It is recommended that booster pumps be installed at individual service locations that have elevations above 467 feet to address these isolated low system pressures. Pressure Zone R6: Some areas near Reservoir R6 for which new development is projected by buildout (Harville Rd, Creekmont Ct) are above the maximum elevation that can be served by the current facilities serving Pressure Zone R6. Individual booster pumps are recommended for any new development in this zone above an elevation of 332 feet. Pressure Zone R9R1: Hydraulic results indicated that the City s water distribution system configuration was inadequate to maintain minimum required system pressures at eight locations. hese pressure deficiencies were also observed in the existing water system evaluation, As discussed in Chapter 5, to increase the system pressure at the upper service elevations in Zone R9R1, the pressure setting for nine PRCs (11, 12, 17, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 55) could be increased by 10 psi. However, under the current PRC settings, the highest pressure in the system under a maximum day demand condition is 91 psi, and under a peak hour demand condition is 90 psi. herefore, by increasing the Zone s PRC pressure settings, some service locations at these lower service area elevations may increase to around 100 psi and require installation of individual pressure reducing valves. Because low pressures are currently only about 2 to 4 psi lower than the required performance criteria, except for one location that is located downstream of PRC 11 where pressure is 28 psi, instead of changing the PRC settings, it is recommended that booster pumps be installed on individual service connections to mitigate these isolated low pressure areas. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

21 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Pressure Zone R10: Service elevations in Pressure Zone R10 range from 458 feet to 622 feet. At this range, most service locations in Pressure Zone R10 are at elevations above the maximum elevation which can be provided with the minimum required system pressures when ank R10 is 50 percent full. his maximum service elevation is 548 feet when ank R10 is 50 percent full (or 641 feet HGL). When storage tank R10 is 100 percent full or 657 feet HGL, the highest service connection elevation that can be served while maintaining a 40 psi minimum pressure requirement during a maximum day demand scenario is 565 feet, which again is lower than the highest service connection elevation in the R10 service area (622 feet). Based on these hydraulic grade line results, for all service locations that have elevations above 565 feet, individual booster pumps are recommended. Pressure Zone R17: he service elevation range in Pressure Zone R17 is 670 to 890 feet. When storage tank R17 is 50 percent full or 923 feet HGL, the highest service locations that can be served with a 40 psi minimum pressure requirement during maximum day demand is 830 feet, which is less than the highest service connection elevation in the R17 service area (890 feet). When storage tank R17 is 100 percent full or at 952 feet HGL, the highest service locations that can be served with a 40 psi minimum pressure requirement is 860 feet, which is also less than the top elevation of R17 service area (890 feet). Based on these results, any service locations that have elevation above 860 feet would require installation of individual booster pumps. he pressure deficiencies in the other remaining zones as shown on Figures 6-4 and 6-5 are similar to what was described for Pressure Zone R17. All deficiencies identified are related to service locations above the maximum topographic elevation to which the City can provide service at either 35 psi or 40 psi, under a peak hour or maximum day demand, respectively. herefore, replacing existing pipelines with larger-diameter pipelines would not mitigate any of the identified deficiencies. o mitigate these very localized and/or individual service connection pressure deficiencies, the following improvements are recommended for the future water system: Install individual booster pumps in these identified low pressure areas Pipeline Velocity Results Figures 6-4 and 6-5 also present simulated pipeline velocities for the peak hour demand and maximum day demand conditions, respectively. As shown on the insets presented on these figures, some existing pipelines have velocities that exceed the maximum criterion of 8 fps, however, no new pipelines have velocities that exceed the maximum criterion. Because pipeline velocity is a secondary criterion, no improvements for existing pipelines exceeding the velocity criterion are recommended unless the primary criterion (pressure) is not met. A review of these pipelines indicated they were not in the vicinity of low system pressures. herefore, no mitigation is recommended for pipelines exceeding the velocity criterion at this time. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

22 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow o evaluate the buildout water system under the maximum day demand plus fire flow scenario, InfoWater s Available Fire Flow Analysis tool was used to determine the available fire flow at a minimum residual system pressure of 20 psi. For the buildout system fire flow analysis, key junctions that represent hydrant locations were evaluated to determine the available flow that can be provided, in addition to meeting the maximum day demand. he analysis assumed that storage reservoirs are 50 percent full and booster pump stations are operating at their firm capacity. As discussed in Chapter 3 Water System Service and Performance Standards, recommended fire flow criteria were developed based on land use designations. he fire flow criteria for each tested location was assigned using the adjacent general land use categories to assess the adequacy of the buildout water distribution system in meeting the required fire flow demand. It should be noted that individual properties may have fire flow requirements exceeding the general requirements for anticipated design flows based on land use and zoning. However, requirements for individual properties are not considered in this planning report, but should be considered during specific project approvals. In this WMP pdate, fire flow availability was simulated at either 1,500 or 2,500 gpm, depending on the projected buildout land use fire flow requirement. 14 Fire flow availability was modeled at all junctions in the zone, except for junctions without nearby hydrants. 15 he junctions that were not evaluated for fire flow included junctions on transmission mains, junctions near reservoirs, and junctions on some dead-end pipelines. While fire flow availability was not simulated at these junctions, these junctions were included in the analyses of system locations required to maintain a minimum of 20 psi during a fire flow event, regardless of whether or not there were hydrants nearby, provided those customer services were not above the maximum service elevation for the zone As indicated in Chapter 3 (able 3-1), which presents the performance standards on which this chapter s analysis is based, individual properties may have fire flow requirements exceeding the general requirements for anticipated design flows based on land use and zoning. Such requirements for individual properties are not considered in this report. 15 Hydrant locations were based on the City s GIS data, COMPHY_WaterHydrant.shp, received by West Yost Associates on October 8, he maximum service elevation for Aqueduct Pressure Zones A1-A6 was estimated as 205 feet msl, based on an average hydraulic grade line of approximately 288 feet, and a minimum residual pressure of 35 psi. Aqueduct Pressure Zones A1-A6 includes several service locations between 205 feet and 227 feet msl. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

23 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Aqueduct Pressure Zone Figure 6-6 presents the comparison of available fire flow compared to required design fire flow at tested hydrant junctions while meeting the minimum residual criterion of 20 psi. he hydrant junctions colored in green indicate locations where the available fire flow is greater than the fire flow design of either 1,500 gpm or 2,500 gpm based on the land use type. hose hydrant junctions colored red indicate locations where available fire flow is less than 1,500 gpm and fail to meet the fire flow requirement. he hydrant junctions colored orange are locations where available fire flow is less than the 2,500 gpm fire flow criterion, but above 1,500 gpm. On Figure 6-6, in areas at the outskirts of the City that are expected to serve new water system demands under buildout conditions, red lines indicate new pipelines recommended to serve these new demands. he evaluation indicates that these recommended pipelines are sufficient to meet fire flow requirements in these locations during a maximum day demand condition. As future growth occurs in certain currently developed areas, additional system improvements will be required to meet fire flow requirements under buildout maximum day demand conditions in the Aqueduct Pressure Zone. hese areas are 1) Apache Street and Apple Valley Lane, north of West Steele Lane; 2) McBride Lane between West Steele Lane and erry Lane, 3) Major Drive and Rowe Drive, and 4) John Richards Way at Aston Avenue. Figure 6-6 identifies these four areas in the Aqueduct Pressure Zone where additional system improvements are required to mitigate simulated fire flow deficiencies under buildout maximum day demand conditions. wo methods were evaluated to determine improvements that mitigate the identified fire flow deficiencies: When a single hydrant could not meet the fire flow requirement but a nearby, adjacent hydrant is available to provide supplemental flow to meet the required fire flow in the area, no improvement is recommended. When a single hydrant could not meet the fire flow requirement and there is no nearby hydrant available to provide supplemental flow to meet the required fire flow in the area, improvements were evaluated and are recommended. Details of recommended improvements to mitigate fire flow deficiencies are presented in able 6-5, which also includes descriptions of pipeline projects recommended to meet buildout water demands. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

24

25 Existing Diameter able 6-5. Recommendations for Future System CIP Projects (a) New Diameter Length Location Notes CIP Group (b) Pressure Zone A1 BO CIP ,219 Along Dennis Ln from Pascal St to Bluegrass Ln FF IM CIP Apache St from W. Steele Ln to Huron Ct FF IM CIP Apple Valley Ln from W. Steele Ln to Rockwood Ct FF IM CIP McBride Ln from W. Steele Ln toward erry Ln Pressure Zone A3 BO CIP ,831 Price Ave from Merced Ave to S Wright Rd BO CIP ,956 Chico Ave from S Wright Rd to Merced Ave BO CIP S Wright Rd from Price Ave to Miles Ave BO CIP ,806 Miles Ave from Merced Ave to S Wright Rd BO CIP Merced Ave from Price Ave to Miles Ave BO CIP Merced Ave from Chico Ave to Price Ave BO CIP ,725 Fresno Ave from Golden Gate Ave to Finley Ave; Finley Ave from Fresno Ave to west BO CIP Finley Ave between Fresno Ave and Leddy Ave BO CIP Finley Industrial Park BO CIP ,218 Finley Industrial Park BO CIP Finley Industrial Park BO CIP Finley Industrial Park BO CIP ,462 S Wright Rd from Miles Ave to Madera Ave BO CIP ,949 Bellevue Ave - Stony Point Rd BO CIP Stony Point Rd from Ludwig Ave toward Yuba Dr BO CIP ,593 Ludwig Ave from Stony Point Rd to Fresno Ave BO CIP ,870 Yuba Dr from Stony Point Rd to Ash Dr BO CIP Yuba Dr from Fresno Ave toward Ash Dr BO CIP Yuba Dr from Ash Dr toward Fresno Ave BO CIP Fresno Ave from Yeager Dr to Yuba Dr BO CIP ,307 Fresno Ave from Yuba Dr to Ludwig Ave BO CIP ,435 Burbank Ave, north from Hearn Ave BO CIP ,716 S Wright Rd from Madera Ave to Ludwig Ave, and Ludwig Ave from S Wright Rd to Fresno Ave BO CIP ,956 Madera Ave from S Wright Rd to Yeager Dr BO CIP ,631 Moorland Ave from W Robles Ave to odd Rd Pressure Zone A4 FF IM CIP Schuman Dr from Mendocino Ave to Rowe Dr FF IM CIP Meyers Dr from Steele Ln to Young Dr Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. he recommended project on Schuman replaces the shortest length of pipeline that would be necessary to provide sufficient fire flow to Rowe Dr. psizing the water main on Mendocino Ave, part of which is in the City's CIP plan, will also result in sufficient fireflow. If possible, eliminating the dead ends on Rowe Dr and Major Dr by connecting them would be helpful, but an easement may not be feasible. Installing a hydrant on Major Dr at Little Dr would also provide better fireflow to Major Dr without replacing the pipeline on Meyers Dr. Pressure Zone A6 BO CIP ,522 Miller Rd south of Winterhaven Ave BO CIP ,327 Miller Dr end, through to Elsa Dr. BO CIP ,151 Future Miller Rd from Miller/Elsa to Future E Bellevue Ave BO CIP ,054 Future E Bellevue Ave, east from end to Future Miller Rd BO CIP ,213 E Robles Ave from Santa Rosa Ave to Brooks Ave BO CIP ,045 Magnolia Ave from Brooks Ave, east toward Petaluma Hill Rd BO CIP ,735 E odd Rd, east from end BO CIP ,842 Future Rd from Magnolia Ave to E odd Rd BO CIP ,559 Future Rd from E Bellevue Ave to Magnolia Ave BO CIP ,273 Future E Bellevue Ave from Miller Rd to Petaluma Hill Rd BO CIP ,446 Brooks Ave from E Robles Ave to Bucks Rd BO CIP ,182 Bucks Rd from Santa Rosa Ave to Brooks Ave BO CIP ,799 BO CIP ,080 FF IM CIP Pressure Zone A9 Franz Kafka Ave from Kawana er, south, then west to Petaluma Hill Rd Petaluma Hill Rd from Kawana Springs Rd to Yolanda Ave Aston Ave from Petaluma Hill Rd to John Richards Way BO CIP Pepperwood Rd from Bader Rd, north toward Aleppo Dr BO CIP Pepperwood Rd from Bader Rd to Violetti Rd BO CIP Violetti Rd from Pepperwood Rd to Bader Rd BO CIP Bader Rd from Violetti Rd to Pepperwood Rd Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. o\c\405\ \e\5\ch6_ables.xlsx, able 6-5 Last Revised: of 3 City of Santa Rosa

26

27 Existing Diameter able 6-5. Recommendations for Future System CIP Projects (a) New Diameter Length Location Notes CIP Group (b) Pressure Zone R4 BO CIP Happy Valley Ave from Happy Valley Ct to Happy Valley Rd BO CIP Happy Valley Ave from Montecito Ave to Happy Valley Ct BO CIP Happy Valley Ct BO CIP Happy Valley Rd from Happy Valley Ave to Montecito Ave BO CIP Montecito Ave from Happy Valley Ave to Happy Valley Rd BO CIP Montecito Ave from Happy Valley Rd toward Zieber Rd BO CIP Montecito Ave from Ridgeway Dr to Happy Valley Ave Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. BO CIP ,028 Ridgewview Dr from Montecito Ave toward Zieber Rd Pressure Zone R6 BO CIP ,746 Harville Rd from Calistoga Rd to Baird Rd; Baird Rd from Harville Rd to Rincon Ave BO CIP ,004 Anderson Dr from Badger Rd to Ranchette Rd BO CIP Wallace Rd from Ranchette Rd toward Badger Rd BO CIP Wallace Rd from Ranchette Rd to Deer rail Rd BO CIP ,433 Deer rail Rd BO CIP Wallace Rd from Deer rail Rd to Future Rd BO CIP ,247 Creekmont Ct BO CIP ,852 Wallace Rd from Future Rd to Creekmont Ct BO CIP Future Rd from Wallace Rd to east. BO CIP ,083 Ranchette Rd from Anderson Dr to Wallace Rd BO CIP Future Rd north of Anderson Rd, from Ranchette Rd north to Future Rd BO CIP ,341 Future Rd north of Anderson Rd and Ranchette Rd, from Future Rd to Creekmont Ct BO CIP Maria Ln dead end to Santa Rosa Creek Dr; Santa Rosa Creek Dr from Maria Ln to S. Boas Dr FF IM CIP Randall Ln FF IM CIP Bridle rl from Jackson Dr toward Montgomery Ln Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. FF IM CIP Culebra Ave from Primavera Dr to Las Raposas Ct FF IM CIP Culebra Ave from Mission Blvd to Primavera Dr FF IM CIP ,096 Fistor Dr from Brush Creek Rd to Cox Dr FF IM CIP Bridgewood Dr from Greenmeadow Dr to first hydrant toward Eastside Ct Pressure Zone R6R1 FF IM CIP Mayette Ave from Wanda Way to Albert Dr FF IM CIP Matanzas Way from Hahman Dr to Rock Creek Dr FF IM CIP Princeton Way from Mayette Ave north to first cul de sac FF IM CIP Mayette Ave from Princeton Way to Impala Ct FF IM CIP Mayette Ave from Impala Ct to Kodiak Ct FF IM CIP Mayette Ave from Kodiak Ct to Elkhorn Ct FF IM CIP Mayette Ave from Elkhorn Ct to Caribou Ct FF IM CIP Mayette Ave from Caribou Ct to Evans Dr FF IM CIP Mayette Ave from Evans Dr to Yulupa Ave FF IM CIP Yulupa Ave from Montgomery Dr to Midway Dr FF IM CIP Yulupa Ave from Midway Dr to Magowan Dr FF IM CIP Yulupa Ave from Magowan Dr to Sonoma Ave FF IM CIP Magowan Dr between Franquette Ave and Yulupa Ave FF IM CIP Midway Dr, east from Yulupa Ave Pressure Zone R7 BO CIP ,142 Melita Rd from Melita Cr to Hwy 12 BO CIP Melita Rd from Hwy 12 to Kensington Rd BO CIP ,201 nnamed way from Melita Rd and Kensington Rd to Austin Rd BO CIP Austin Rd, southwest of La Sierra Dr BO CIP La Sierra Dr from Austin Rd to Los Alamos Rd; Los Alamos Rd from La Sierra Dr to Scottland Dr BO CIP Fairway Dr from Fairway Ct to dead end BO CIP Fairway Dr from Hwy 12 to Fairway Ct FF IM CIP Del Monte Ct from St. Francis Rd to end BO CIP970 Pressure Zone R8 Replace booster pumps at Station S7 with a firm pumping capacity of 3,200 gpm and design head of 170 feet to mitigate storage deficiencies in R7 Pressure Zone. BO CIP ,166 Wildwood rl, south BO CIP ,298 Wildwood rl, north BO CIP Los Alamos Rd from Scotland Dr to Fawn Dr BO CIP Los Alamos Rd from Fawn Dr to Futura Way BO CIP Los Alamos Rd from Futura Way to Leggerini Rd BO CIP ,477 Futura Way from Los Alamos Rd to Fawn Dr BO CIP ,019 Fawn Dr from Los Alamos Dr to Futura Way BO CIP ,076 Leggerini Rd from Los Alamos Rd to Sunhawk Dr Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. An alternative is to install a hydrant on Del Monte Ct near St Francis Rd. Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. o\c\405\ \e\5\ch6_ables.xlsx, able 6-5 Last Revised: of 3 City of Santa Rosa

28

29 Existing Diameter able 6-5. Recommendations for Future System CIP Projects (a) New Diameter Length Location Notes CIP Group (b) Pressure Zone R9 BO IM CIP ,228 Farmers Lane Extension BO IM CIP ,707 Farmers Lane Extension BO IM CIP Farmers Lane Extension BO IM CIP BO IM CIP BO IM CIP BO IM CIP961 Future Emergency Pump Station S9B Discharge Pipelines Future Emergency Pump Station S9B Discharge Pipelines Future Emergency Pump Station S9B Suction Pipelines Construct new Emergency Pump Station S9B with a firm pumping capacity of 3,500 gpm to support demand in R9 Pressure Zone. Pressure Zone R9R1 FF IM CIP achevah Dr from Bethards DR to Woodlake Dr FF IM CIP Woodlake Dr from achevah Dr entrance road to southeast. FF IM CIP Knolls Hills Cir from Knolls Dr (northwest) to Hydrant FF IM CIP Knolls Dr from achevah Dr to Knolls Hills Cir (northwest) FF IM CIP Ronne Dr between Deer Run and Neotomas Ave, completing loop FF IM CIP Ronne Dr between Deer Run and Neotomas Ave. FF IM CIP ownview Ave from Post Ranch Rd to Ronne Rd FF IM CIP Post Ranch Rd from Neotomas Ave to ownview Ave FF IM CIP Sidney Sq from Creekside Rd to end FF IM CIP Devonshire Pl from Stonehedge Dr to end FF IM CIP Stonehedge DR from Glencannons St toward Westminster Pl FF IM CIP Hoen Ave from Eliggi Ct to Burlington Pl FF IM CIP Hoen Ave from Burlington Pl to Rockmeadow Pl FF IM CIP Hoen Ave from Rockmeadow Plto Glencannon St Pressure Zone R11 BO CIP ,061 Linwood Ave, east of Hibiscus Dr BO CIP ,423 Future Rd near Kawana ank between Franz Kafka Ave and Kawana Springs Rd (east) BO CIP ,141 Franz Kafka Ave from Kawana er to south. BO CIP ,063 Future Rd near Kawana ank between Franz Kafka Ave and Kawana Springs Rd (west) Pressure Zone R17 BO CIP971 Replace booster pumps at Station S17 with a firm pumping capacity of 1,300 gpm and design head of 200 feet to mitigate storage deficiencies in R17 Pressure Zone. (a) Recommended groundwater wells are not included in this table because their specific location (pressure zone) has not been determined yet. (b) CIP group numbers including "FF" (e.g. FF BO CIP915) indicate projects recommended to meet fire flow requirements. "IM" identifies projects recommended for an Intermediate imeframe ( ). "BO" identifies projects recommended for Buildout imeframe of 2035, depending on the pace of eventual development. Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. An alternative would be to install a hydrant on Knolls Hills Cir at Knolls Dr, and replace only 134 feet of pipeline on Knolls Dr at achevah Dr. Costs for this project are not included in the City's CIP costs because the project is within a City-designated specific plan area or a future development area and is expected to be fully funded and installed by the project proponents. o\c\405\ \e\5\ch6_ables.xlsx, able 6-5 Last Revised: of 3 City of Santa Rosa

30

31 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout Hillside Pressure Zones Hydraulic evaluation results indicated that several of the Hillside Pressure Zones were not able to meet the minimum fire flow requirements. Fire flow deficiencies were caused by either accumulated head losses on downstream pipelines that convey water from the booster pump stations into the water system, or from insufficient capacity and/or head for those booster pumps that serve these zones. Figure 6-6 presents the comparison of available fire flow compared to required design fire flow at tested hydrant junctions while meeting the minimum residual criterion of 20 psi. he hydrant junctions colored in green indicate locations where the available fire flow is greater than the fire flow requirement of either 1,500 gpm or 2,500 gpm based on the land use type. hose hydrant junctions colored red indicate locations where available fire flow is less than 1,500 gpm. he hydrant junctions colored orange are locations where available fire flow is less than the 2,500 gpm fire flow criterion, but above 1,500 gpm. wo methods were evaluated to determine improvements that mitigate the identified fire flow deficiencies: When a single hydrant could not meet the fire flow requirement but a nearby, adjacent hydrant is available to provide supplemental flow to meet the required fire flow in the area, no improvement is recommended. When a single hydrant could not meet the fire flow requirement and there is no nearby hydrant available to provide supplemental flow to meet the required fire flow in the area, improvements were evaluated and are recommended. As noted in Chapter 5 Evaluation of Existing Water System, recommendations to address fire flow deficiencies in the Hillside Pressure Zones from the buildout water system evaluation were considered relevant for the existing water system in cases where the water demand increase due to new development was minimal and therefore have been included in the existing water system CIP instead so that these improvements can be constructed in the near-term timeframe. 17 Figure 6-7 identifies the remaining pipeline improvements required to mitigate expected fire flow deficiencies under a buildout maximum day demand condition in the Hillside Pressure Zones. A summary of the recommended capital improvements to mitigate the identified fire flow deficiencies in the Hillside Pressure Zones for the buildout water system is also provided in able Fire flow deficiencies in the following Pressure Zones are addressed by CIP projects recommended for the nearterm timeframe, and are presented in able 5-7 and on Figure 5-5: A8, R3, R4, R4R1, R4R2, R10, R12, R13, R13R1 and R14. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

32 Chapter 6 Evaluation of Future Water System at Buildout 6.7 SMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENS FOR HE BILDO WAER SYSEM Findings from the evaluation of the buildout water distribution system and the recommended improvements needed to eliminate deficiencies are summarized below and illustrated on Figure 6-7. However, the specific locations for the recommended groundwater wells are not shown on Figure 6-7 as they have not been determined yet (only general locations have been identified) Pumping Capacity Replace booster pumps at Station S7 with a firm pumping capacity of 3,200 gpm and design head of 170 feet to mitigate projected storage deficiencies in R7 Pressure Zone. NOE: nder current existing conditions, when running any pumps at Station S7, Station S6 must be running simultaneously in order to avoid severely low pressures in the Sullivan Way area in R6 Pressure Zone. While this recommendation involves increasing the pumping capacity at Station S7, it should be noted that doing so will not alleviate the need to run Station S6 simultaneously. Replace booster pumps at Station S17 with a firm pumping capacity of 1,300 gpm and design head of 200 feet to mitigate projected storage deficiencies in R17 Pressure Zone. Construct Pump Station R9B, as presented in Appendix D to provide operational flexibility and emergency supply reliability to R9 Pressure Zone Pipelines Recommendations for pipeline improvements to serve future growth and to meet fire flow requirements are presented in able Groundwater Wells Construct six emergency wells in the Central City Master Zone to provide emergency storage. his improvement corresponds to projects GW-A-005, GW-A-006, GW-B- 001 and GW-C-001 from the City s 2013 Groundwater Master Plan. Construct two emergency wells in the S-6 Master Zone to provide emergency storage. his improvement corresponds to project GW-C-002 from the City s 2013 Groundwater Master Plan. Construct one emergency well in the S-9 Master Zone to provide emergency storage. his improvement corresponds to project GW-B-003 from the City s 2013 Groundwater Master Plan. August \ \wp\mp\071613_6Ch City of Santa Rosa

33 Last Saved: 7/16/ :57:21 AM akwong; O:\Clients\405 City of Santa Rosa\ WMP pdate\gis\figures\fig 6-1 Projected L.mxd FIGRE 6-1 City of Santa Rosa PROJECED LAND SE FOR BILDO WIHIN HE CIY'S RBAN GROWH BONDARY 0 2,500 5,000 Scale in Feet Holland Heights LEGEND Land se Designation Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Low/Open Space Parks/Recreation Mobile Home Park Business Park General Industry Light Industry Retail and Business Service Retail/Med Residential Office Office/Med Residential Public/Institutional ransit Village Medium ransit Village Mixed se City Limits rban Growth Boundary Note: Does not include locations of near-term pending developments because City staff provided specific planned land use data.

34

35 Last Saved: 6/20/2014 4:36:33 PM ddemaster; O:\Clients\405 City of Santa Rosa\ WMP pdate\gis\figures\fig 6-3 Projected Demands and Specific Plan Areas.mxd FIGRE 6-2 City of Santa Rosa CIP913 CIP905 CIP910 2 CIP91 12 P9 I C AREAS WIH PROJECED WAER DEMAND A BILDO CIP P9 CI CIP 90 6 CIP P9 CI CI P9 02 CIP ,500 5,000 Scale in Feet CIP904 2 CIP90 LEGEND Pending Development Private Water System Parcel Vacant Parcel; Inside City Limits Vacant Parcel; Outside City Limits 14 P9 CI CI P9 01 CIP908 CIP908 CIP908 CIP908 CIP901 CIP909 CIP901 CIP901 CIP CIP9 North Santa Rosa Station Area 0 CIP907 Downtown Station Area 6 CIP9 CIP P9 CI 01 P9 CI CIP901 CIP900 CIP 96 0 Southeast Area Plan Southwest Area Plan Holland Heights rban Growth Boundary Recommended CIP Projects to meet Buildout Demands

36

37 Last Saved: 6/23/2014 8:49:05 AM ddemaster; O:\Clients\405 City of Santa Rosa\ WMP pdate\gis\figures\fig 6-3 Future System used for Buildout Evaluation.mxd FIGRE 6-3 R5 City of Santa Rosa SCWA SPPLY CIP913 R2B S5 R1AR1B S2 S3 R3 S18 R17 R2A ") Leete S17 R16 CIP902 CIP902 CIP902 CIP902 CIP902 R6 FRE SYSEM SED FOR BILDO EVALAION SCWA SPPLY Russian River-Cotati Intertie Pipeline West Santa Rosa Pipeline O COAI CIP900 CIP900 CIP901 CIP901 CIP901 CIP901 CIP901 CIP901 Santa Rosa Aqueduct CIP901 CIP901 S1 Petaluma Aqueduct CIP909 CIP908 S4R CIP908 CIP908 CIP914 CIP912 R4B Santa Rosa Aqueduct CIP907 CIP908 CIP912 CIP960 Proctor Heights CIP960 CIP907 S11 ") S16 R11 R4A S4 Farmers Lane Kawana anks S4B Carley Peter Springs ")") CIP910 Ralphine anks S9 S7 S6 R9A R9B R10 S10 CIP906 R7 CIP911 S8 CIP904 CIP905 R8 Sonoma Aqueduct PRESSRE ZONE (RESERVOIR) FONAINGROVE 1 (R1A, R1B) FONAINGROVE 2 (R2A, R2B) FONAINGROVE 3 (R3) CIP905 S15 S13 SKYFARM (R5) MONECIO HIGH LEVEL (R4A, R4B) FONAINGROVE NI 2 LOWER LEVEL (R16) FONAINGROVE NI 2 HIGH LEVEL (R17) RINCON REDCED (R6) RINCON HIGH LEVEL (R7) LOS ALAMOS (R8) BENNE HIGH LEVEL (R9A, R9B, R9C) FAIRWAY (R10) SOHEAS ZONE 2 (R11) OAKMON HIGH LEVEL (R12A, R12B) WILD OAK (R13) WILD OAK PPER LEVEL (R14) MEADOW RIDGE / OAKMON A1, A3, A5 A2, A4, A6 A8 A9 S14 R13 Annadel ank 1 R14 R12A R12B Annadel ank 2 S12 NOES 0 2,500 5,000 Scale in Feet 1. Near-term CIP projects to mitigate fire flow deficiencies in Pressure Zone A8 and the Hillside Pressure Zones are not included on this figure because these deficiencies were not identified by the evaluation of the existing system. LEGEND SCWA Reservoir City Reservoir Recommended Pump Station Improvements for Existing System Existing Pump Station (No Recommended Improvement in Intermediate or Buildout imeframe) ") City Well SCWA Aqueduct System Recommended Pipeline Improvements Based on Evaluation of Existing System Recommended Pipeline Improvements for Projected Buildout Development Existing Pipelines rban Growth Boundary

38

39 '/ C32 %" 223: $. 973; A@. 7AF <4 '/ ; A/ <@/. +"% ) =2/ A3. '. 75B? 3@. 75 $ %3/ 8 <B? %? 3@@B? 3@ : E2 FIGRE 6-4 %7=397; 3 *39<17A73@? 3/ A3? ( 33A %3? '31<; 2 6/ ; ' ' SCWA SPPLY ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' nt Sa ar aa os ' ' qu uc ed t / 9=67; 3 ( / ; 8@ ta San ct e du Aqu ' a s Ro /? : " )!/ ; 3 So n 93F %3A3? /? '=? 7; 5@ " ) " ) ' West Santa Rosa Pipeline ' ; ; / 239 ( / ; 8 uc t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etaluma Aqueduct i I at A ot CO r- C ve e O Ri elin ian ip s s ie P R u te r t In / D/ ; / ( / ; 8@ qu ed ' ' om aa SCWA SPPLY '1/ 93 7; 33A ' %? <1A<?' 3756A@ BILDO SYSEM PRESSRES DRING A PEAK HOR DEMAND CONDIION ' City of Santa Rosa ' " ) ' ' ' '!33A3 H %? 3@@B? 3 H %? 3@@B? 3 H %? 3@@B? 3 H %? 3@@B? 3

40

41 '/ C32 " 223: $. 973; A@. 7AF <4 '/ ; A/ <@/. +"% ) =2/ A3. '. 75B? 3@. 75 $ "/ E / F %? 3@@B? 3@ : E2 FIGRE 6-5 %7=397; 3 *39<17A73@? 3/ A3? ( 6/ ; 33A %3? '31<; 2 ' ' ' ' SCWA SPPLY ' ' ' ' " )!33A3 nt Sa ' ar aa os qu uc ed t ta San ' ct e du u q A a ' Ros 93F %3A3? /? '=? 7; 5@" " ) ) ' So n om aa ' qu ed ; ; / 239 ( / ; 8 uc t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etaluma Aqueduct i I at A ot CO r- C ve e O Ri elin ian ip s s ie P R u te r t In '1/ 93 7; 33A ' / D/ ; / ' ( / ; 8@ BILDO SYSEM PRESSRES DRING A MAXIMM DAY DEMAND CONDIION ' ' ' ' ' ' SCWA SPPLY West Santa Rosa Pipeline ' / 9=67; 3 ( / ; 8@ " ) /?: 3?@!/ ; 3 ' ' ' City of Santa Rosa ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' H %? 3@@B? 3 H %? 3@@B? 3 H %? 3@@B? 3 H %? 3@@B? 3

42

43 Last Saved: 6/23/2014 2:30:14 PM ddemaster; O:\Clients\405 City of Santa Rosa\ WMP pdate\gis\figures\fig 6-6 Max Day with FF.mxd FIGRE 6-6 John Richards Way Existing System Locations with Recommended Improvements to meet Fire Flow Deficiencies at Buildout (see Section ). R5 R2B SCWA SPPLY S5 S3 S2 R1AR1B nta Sa sa Ro ct du ue Aq Apache Street and Apple Valley Lane R3 S18 R2A R17 R6 S17 R16 Leete " ) S1 S16 R4B R4A Major Drive and Rowe Drive R7 S7 AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW A 20 PSI NDER BILDO SYSEM MAXIMM DAY DEMAND R8 City of Santa Rosa S4R S8 0 S6 Ralphine anks McBride Lane Proctor Heights S4B S4 ct ed u Farmers A qu os a R Lane ta Sa n " ) Scale in Feet So no m Carley " )Peter " ) Springs aa qu S15 Annadel ank 2 ed uc t S9 R9A R9B SCWA SPPLY S13 Annadel ank 1 R13 S14 John Richards Way R11 R10 I A CO i at O ot r- C ve e Ri in n ip e l ia ss e P Ru ter ti In Kawana anks R12A S12 S11 5,000 West Santa Rosa Pipeline 2,500 R14 S10 R12B Petaluma Aqueduct NOES 1. Fire Flow Requirement shading and the fire flow valuation results are based on General Plan Land se. NOE: Some individual parcels may have fire flow requirements greater than indicated by the General Plan land use. 2. City tank levels are assumed to be at 50 percent full. 3. All pump stations are set up in the hydraulic model to operate at firm capacity (i.e., with all pumps active except the largest pump). 4. Some locations with deficient fire flow do not have related CIP recommendations because their fire flow requirements can be met by supplementing flow from nearby hydrants. 5. Fire flow deficiencies in the following Pressure Zones are addressed by CIP projects for the existing system: A8, R3, R4, R4R1, R4R2, R10, R12, R13, R13R1 and R14. LEGEND " ) SCWA Reservoir City Reservoir Pump Station City Well SCWA Aqueduct System City Pipelines Existing Pipelines Recommended CIP Pipelines for Buildout Demand 1,500 gpm Fire Flow Required Design 2,500 gpm Fire Flow Required Design Fire Flow Evaluation Results Deficient: Less than 1,500 gpm Deficient: 1,500 to 2,500 gpm Meets Design Fire Flow