HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-11 Council Agenda PacketThursday, December 11, 2014
1:00 PM
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
Council Chambers
City Council
Meeting Agenda - Final
Regular Session
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled. If you require special
assistance to participate in the meeting, notify the Office of the City Clerk at
559-621-7650 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Please keep the
doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open and accessible. If you need
assistance with seating because of a disability, contact Security.
The City Council welcomes you to the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 2nd
Floor, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno CA 93721.
The agenda and related staff reports are available on (www.fresno.gov) as well as in
the Office of the City Clerk. The Council meeting can also be heard live at the same
web site address, and viewed live on Comcast Channel 96 and AT&T Channel 99
from 8:30 a.m. and re-played beginning at 8:00 p.m.
PROCESS: For each matter considered by the Council there will first be a staff
presentation followed by a presentation from the involved individuals, if present.
Testimony from those in attendance will then be taken. All testimony will be limited to
three minutes per person. If you would like to speak fill out a Speaker Request Form
available from the City Clerk’s Office and in the Council Chambers. The three lights
on the podium next to the microphone will indicate the amount of time remaining for
the speaker.
The green light on the podium will be turned on when the speaker begins. The yellow
light will come on with one minute remaining. The speaker should be completing the
testimony by the time the red light comes on and tones sound, indicating that time
has expired. A countdown of time remaining to speak is also displayed on the large
screen behind the Council dais.
No documents shall be accepted for Council review unless they are submitted to the
City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to the Council Agenda item being heard.
Following is a general schedule of items for Council consideration and action. The
City Council may consider and act on an agenda item in any order it deems
appropriate. Actual timed items may be heard later but not before the time set on
agenda. Persons interested in an item listed on the agenda are advised to be present
throughout the meeting to ensure their presence when the item is called.
AGENDA ITEMS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (***) ARE SUBJECT TO MAYORAL
VETO OR RECONSIDERATION
Page 2 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
1:13 P.M. ROLL CALL
Invocation by Pastor Brent Deffenbacher of the Peoples Church
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS
Honoring the Hmong Health Care WorkersID#14-662
Sponsors:Council Member Xiong
Recognizing DOCTOR KOOM SIABID#14-671
Sponsors:Council Member Xiong
Recognition of Peach Avenue as the APWA (Central
California Chapter) Transportation Project of the Year
ID#14-667
Sponsors:Vice President Quintero
APPROVE MINUTES
Approve Council minutes of December 4, 2014
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
APPROVE AGENDA
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
All Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine and will be treated as
one agenda item. The Consent Calendar will be enacted by one motion. Public
comment on the Consent Calendar is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a
Councilmember, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent
Calendar and will be considered as time allows.
Annual review and acceptance of the FY 2014 Impact Fee
Annual Report (the “Annual Audited Financial
Report”) as required by California Government Code
ID#14-5221-A
Sponsors:Public Works Department
RESOLUTION - Authorizing execution of State of ID#14-6221-B
Page 3 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
California Department of Housing and Community
Development Standard Agreement for Housing-Related
Parks Program grant (Districts 3, 5, & 7)
Sponsors:Parks, After School and Recreation and Community
Services Department
Actions related to Measure “C” Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Projects in the Cultural Arts District
(Council District 3)
1.Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with FFDA
Properties LLC, (a branch of Granville Homes) for
$116,342 for the Met Block Project Off-site Improvements
under the Measure “C” TOD Program
2.***RESOLUTION - 13th amendment to the Annual
Appropriation Resolution (AAR) No. 2014-95
appropriating $129,600 for the Measure “C” TOD Program
Reimbursement Agreement for the Met Block Off-site
Improvements Project on Fulton, Stanislaus and
Calaveras Streets (Requires 5 affirmative votes)
ID#14-6231-C
Sponsors:Public Works Department
Actions related to Measure “C” Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Projects in the Cultural Arts District
(Council District 3)
1.Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with FFDA
Properties LLC (a branch of Granville Homes) for
$298,658 for Broadway-Fulton off-site improvements from
Calaveras to San Joaquin Streets under the Measure “C”
TOD Program
2. ***RESOLUTION - 14th amendment to the Annual
Appropriation Resolution (AAR) No. 2014-95 to
appropriate $331,400 for the Measure “C” TOD Program
reimbursement agreement for the Broadway-Fulton off-site
improvements project from Calaveras to San Joaquin
Streets (Requires 5 affirmative votes)
ID#14-6241-D
Sponsors:Public Works Department
Actions pertaining to Digester 12 Cleaning at the
Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
(Bid File No. 3358) (Council District No. 3)
ID#14-6431-E
Page 4 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
1.Adopt a finding of Class 1 Categorical Exemption,
pursuant to Section 15301(b) existing facilities) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
2.Award a $155,690 contract to Wastewater Solids
Management Inc., of Yachats, Oregon
Sponsors:Department of Public Utilities
RESOLUTION - Declaration of Results from November 4,
2014, Consolidated General Election
ID#14-6561-F
Sponsors:Office of the City Clerk
Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a
contract with CBRE to provide real estate management
services
ID#14-6581-G
Sponsors:Office of Mayor & City Manager
CONTESTED CONSENT CALENDAR
2. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Actions pertaining to the Recycled Water Distribution
System, Southwest Quadrant State Revolving Fund loan
documents (Council District 3)
1.RESOLUTION - To authorize the Director of Public
Utilities to sign a financing application for a financing
agreement with the California State Water Resources
Control Board
2.***RESOLUTION - To finance the cost of
improvements
3.***RESOLUTION - To pledge revenues and funds to
satisfy repayment obligations for the financing agreement
ID#14-5202-A
Sponsors:Department of Public Utilities
Actions pertaining to the energy efficiency programs under
the Local Government Partnership Program for 2015
1.Authorize the Director of the Development and
Resource Management Department to extend the master
service agreement between the City of Fresno and Pacific
Gas and Electric Company until December 31, 2015 and
receive $2,847,000 in funding from the California Public
ID#14-5762-B
Page 5 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Utilities Commission for energy efficiency programs
2.Authorize the Director of Development and Resource
Management Department to amend the current Consulting
Services Contract with ConSol to December 31, 2015 and
provide funding for the extended year of $2,200,000 for
the Fresno Home Energy Tune-Up program
Sponsors:Planning and Development Department
Adopt the 2014 Revision of the City of Fresno Sewer
System Management Plan (SSMP) as required by the
Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Sanitary Sewer Systems
ID#14-6362-C
Sponsors:Department of Public Utilities
Actions pertaining to the Sewer Mains in Loma Linda
Avenue and Sequoia Drive (Council District 2)
1.Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption of Class 4,
pursuant to Section 15304(f) (Minor trenching and
backfilling where the surface is restored) and Statutory
Exemption pursuant to Section 15282(k) (The installation
of new pipeline or maintenance, repair, restoration,
removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline as set forth in
Section 21080.21 of the Public Resources Code, as long
as the project does not exceed one mile in length) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
2.Award a $375,840 contract to Bill Nelson G.E.C., Inc. of
Fresno, California
3.Authorize the Director of Public Utilities or his designee
to sign the contract on behalf of the City
ID#14-6382-D
Sponsors:Department of Public Utilities
3. CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION -In support of the draft policy for the use of
Measure C trail funds to maintain new trails
ID#14-6593-A
Sponsors:Council President Brandau
4. CLOSED SESSION
5. SCHEDULED COUNCIL HEARINGS AND MATTERS
Page 6 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
5:00 P.M. (HEARING TO BE HELD AT THE CONVENTION CENTER EXHIBIT HALL III
- 848 "M" STREET, FRESNO CA. 93721)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed
General Plan Update (Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification
of the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No.
2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of
Fresno, citywide application
a. RESOLUTION - Certifying Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) No. SCH 2012111015 prepared for the
General Plan Update and the Development Code Update;
and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public
Resources Code, section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required
by Public Resources Code, section 21081.6 and CEQA
Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as
required by Public Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. RESOLUTION - Adopting the proposed Fresno General
Plan as an update to the 2025 General Plan, including all
text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in
the Fresno General Plan document dated December,
2014
c. RESOLUTION - Adopting plan modifications
recommended by staff and identified as “City of Fresno
Staff Preferred Land Use” in the “Land Use Change
Requests” and “Land Use and Circulation Map,” and
denying the remaining plan modifications
d. RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Development and
Resource Management Director or her designee to update
ID#14-653
Page 7 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in
the Fresno General Plan document to reflect the final
action taken by Council, to the extent that such updates
are necessary to maintain consistency
Sponsors:Planning and Development Department
Page 8 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
PLEASE NOTE: UNSCHEDULED COMMUNICATIONS IS NOT SCHEDULED FOR A
SPECIFIC TIME AND MAY BE HEARD ANY TIME DURING THE MEETING
UNSCHEDULED COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING SCHEDULED COUNCIL HEARINGS AND MATTERS
DECEMBER 18
2:00 P.M #1. HEARING re:Final Tract Map No. 6051 annexed to CFD No. 11
(southeast corner of N. Garfield and W. Barstow Avenues) (Council District 2)
DECEMBER 18
2:00 P.M.#2 HEARING re:Resolution approving the Final Map of Tract No. 6051
(Public Works Dept)
DECEMBER 18
2:00 P.M #3. HEARING approving the renewal of the Fresno-Clovis Tourism
Business Improvment Distridct (TBID)
DECEMBER 18
2:30 P.M. CONTINUED HEARING to consider a Resolution of Public Use and
Necessity, to authorize acquisition by eminent domain, and to adopt a mitigated
negative declaration to acquire street right-of-way for intersection improvements at
Shields Avenue and Fowler Avenue through and across real property owned by
Forest Sunrise, LLC, (APN 496-192-10s) in the City of Fresno (Council District 4)
DECEMBER 18
5:00 P.M. CONTINUED HEARING regarding the General Plan (Continued from
Decemrber 11, 2014 and the public comment was closed)
JANUARY 29, 2015
10:00 AM HEARING re: Annexation No. 29 of the City of Fresno Community
District No. 11, Final Tract Map No. 5626, to revise the rate and method of
apportionment of the special tax and to levy a new maximum special tax
(southeast corner of North Fowler and East Hamilton Avenues) (Council District 5)
FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Page 9 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
December 11, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
5:00 P.M. HEARING re: proposed increase of water utility rates
UPCOMING EMPLOYEE CEREMONIES
JANUARY 29, 2015
8:30 A.M. Presentation of Employee of the Quarter Awards (Reception immediately
following - 2nd floor foyer)
APRIL 8, 2015 (Weds.)
2:00 P.M. Presentation of Employee Service Awards (Reception immediately following -
2nd floor foyer)
APRIL 30, 2015
8:30 A.M. Presentation of Employee of the Quarter Awards (Reception immediately
following - 2nd floor foyer)
JULY 16, 2015
8:30 A.M. Presentation of Employee of the Quarter Awards (Reception immediately
following - 2nd floor foyer)
OCTOBER 1, 2015
8:30 A.M. Presentation of Employee of the Quarter Awards (Reception immediately
following - 2nd floor foyer)
OCTOBER 21, 2015 (Weds.)
2:00 P.M. Presentation of Employee Service Awards (Reception immediately following -
2nd floor foyer)
2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
DECEMBER 18 - 1:30 P.M.
DECEMBER 25 - NO MEETING - CHRISTMAS WEEK
JANUARY 1 2015 - NO MEETING
JANUARY 8 2015 - 8:30 A.M.
JANUARY 15 2015 - 1:30 P.M.
JANUARY 22 2015 - NO MEETING
JANUARY 29 2015 - 8:30 A.M.
Page 10 City of Fresno ***Subject to Mayoral Veto
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-662 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:
CEREMONIAL PRESENTATION
Honoring the Hmong Health Care Workers
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-671 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:
CEREMONIAL PRESENTATION
Recognizing DOCTOR KOOM SIAB
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-667 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:
CEREMONIAL PRESENTATION
Recognition of Peach Avenue as the APWA (Central California Chapter) Transportation Project of the
Year
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-522 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-A
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:SCOTT L. MOZIER, PE, Director
Public Works Department
BY:ANDREW J. BENELLI, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Director
Public Works Department - Traffic & Engineering Services Division
SUBJECT
Annual review and acceptance of the FY 2014 Impact Fee Annual Report (the “Annual Audited Financial
Report”) as required by California Government Code
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the FY2014 Impact Fee Annual Report
(the “Annual Audited Financial Report”) as required by California Government Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1974,the City embarked upon a direction of financing certain public facilities and infrastructure
from the establishment of impact fees commonly referred to as Urban Growth Management (UGM)
fees.The stated objective of the Urban Growth Management process is to facilitate urban
development in such a way that the expansion of urban service delivery systems can be
accomplished in a fiscally sound manner,while still providing required City services on an equitable
basis to all community residents.The accompanying Annual Audited Financial Report is a
complete accounting of the UGM and citywide impact fees for the fiscal year ended June 30,2014,
in accordance with Section 66006 (b)of the California Government Code.The Annual Audited
Financial Report was independently audited by the accountancy firm of Paul C.Chen Accountancy
Corporation.
BACKGROUND
The Annual Audited Financial Report was prepared pursuant to the reporting requirements of
Section 66006 (b)of the California Government Code.This legislation requires that local agencies
account for impact fees and report the beginning balances,fees collected,interest income,
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-522 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-A
account for impact fees and report the beginning balances,fees collected,interest income,
transfers,reimbursements,expenditures and the ending balances for each fiscal year.The
legislation also requires that the report include information on the status of the project(s)to be
constructed with the impact fees.The Annual Audited Financial Report materially includes this
information from July 1,2013 through June 30,2014.It should be noted that the Annual Audited
Financial Report does not purport to examine the relationship (“nexus”)between the amount of an
impact fee and the cost of public facilities or portion thereof.
The City collected $9,022,345 of impact fees during the year.These fees,in addition to the
balances on hand and inclusive of other transactions specified in the Annual Audited Financial
Report, totaled $30,845,473 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.
An audit of the Annual Audited Financial Report was performed by the accountancy firm of Paul C.
Chen Accountancy Corporation in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America.The audit examined,on a test basis,evidence supporting the amounts in
the Annual Audited Financial Report so that they could obtain a reasonable assurance that the
financial statements were free of material misstatement.The audit also included assessing the
accounting principles used.The conclusion of the audit was an issuance of an opinion stating that
the Annual Audited Financial Report presents fairly,in all material respects,the financial position of
impact fees as of June 30, 2014, in conformity with the cash basis of accounting.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The Annual Audited Financial Report is not defined as a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act and does not require an environmental finding.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Local preference does not apply as this item is only for acceptance of the Annual Audited Financial
Report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact of implementing the staff recommendation.
Attachment:FY 2014 Impact Fee Annual Report
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno Impact Fee Annual Report
Table of Contents
For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2014
INTRODUCTORY SECTION:
Transmittal Letter from Controller and Public Works Director ......................................... i
Urban Growth Management Area Map ............................................................................ iii
History and Development of Urban Growth Management Process ...................................v
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ......................................................................... ix
IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT - ALL FUNDS ..........................................................3
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT ............7
CITYWIDE IMPACT FEE FUNDS
Citywide Impact Funds - Summary Report .....................................................................13
Master Fee Schedules .......................................................................................................14
Citywide Impact Fee Service Areas .................................................................................19
UGM FIRE STATION FUNDS
Fire Station Funds - Summary Report ..............................................................................51
Master Fee Schedule ........................................................................................................52
Urban Growth Management Fire Station Service Areas ..................................................55
UGM PARK FUNDS
Park Funds - Summary Report .........................................................................................77
Master Fee Schedule ........................................................................................................78
Urban Growth Management Neighborhood Park Service Areas .....................................81
UGM SEWER SYSTEM FUNDS
Sewer System Funds - Summary Report ........................................................................103
Master Fee Schedule ......................................................................................................104
Trunk Sewer Service Areas ............................................................................................107
Urban Growth Management Oversize Sewer Service Areas .........................................119
UGM STREET & SAFETY FUNDS
Street and Safety Funds - Summary Report ...................................................................213
Master Fee Schedule ......................................................................................................214
Urban Growth Management Major Street Zones ...........................................................219
Urban Growth Management Major Street Bridge Zones ...............................................253
Urban Growth Management AG-Railroad Cross Zones & Grade Separation Zone ......277
UGM WATER SYSTEM FUNDS
Water System Funds - Summary Report ........................................................................301
Master Fee Schedule ......................................................................................................303
Urban Growth Management Water System Service Areas ............................................307
COPPER RIVER RANCH FUNDS
Copper River Ranch Funds – Summary Report .............................................................415
Master Fee Schedule ......................................................................................................416
Copper River Ranch Service Areas ................................................................................417
City of
)UHVQR6WUHHW6XLWH )$;
)UHVQR&DOLIRUQLD
www.fresno.gov
Finance Department
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Citywide Fees Citywide Fees
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Fire Stations
Fire Stations
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood Parks
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Sewer Funds
Sewer Funds
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
Street Safety Street Safety
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
Water Systems
Water Systems
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
Copper River
Copper River
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-622 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-B
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:MANUEL A. MOLLINEDO, Director
Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services Department
BY:IRMA YEPEZ-PEREZ, Grant Writer
KAREN M. NORRIS, Administrative Manager
Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services Department
SUBJECT
RESOLUTION - Authorizing execution of State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development Standard Agreement for Housing-Related Parks Program grant (Districts 3, 5, & 7)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1)Adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of State of California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD)Standard Agreement for Housing-Related Parks
Program (Proposition 1C)grant funds for rehabilitation and recreation improvements at Radio,
Holmes, and Pilibos Parks; and
2)Authorize the PARCS Director or designee to sign all necessary documents to implement the
grant, subject to prior approval as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Parks,After School,Recreation and Community Services (PARCS)Department submitted a
Housing-Related Parks Program grant application in response to the October 2,2013,Notice of
Funding Availability (NOFA)provided for by the passage of Proposition 1C (Housing and Emergency
Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006).The State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development awarded $1,486,425 in Housing-Related Parks Program funds to the City of Fresno
and has requested that this amount be included in the resolution.
BACKGROUND
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-622 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-B
The State’s Housing-Related Parks Program is designed to encourage cities and counties to develop
new low-income housing by rewarding those jurisdictions that create affordable housing,with
program funds.The Housing-Related Parks Program is a non-competitive no-match grant with funds
available based on building permits for residential units,and substantial rehabilitation of affordable
housing completed from January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013.
On October 2,2013,the HCD issued an NOFA for the 2013 funding round.On January 9,2014 the
City Council approved a resolution authorizing the application submittal and subsequent participation
in the Program to complete the following park improvements:
·Radio Park (2233 N.First Street)-Public restroom,picnic tables,safety lighting,irrigation and
sidewalk improvements;
·Holmes Park (212 S.First Street)-New splash park equipment,new gym floor,bleachers,
irrigation/turf,court resurfacing,restrooms,safety lighting,landscaping,and parking lot
improvements;
·Pilibos Park (4945 E.Lane)-Soccer field improvements that include grading,new irrigation
system, reseeding, bleachers, concrete repairs, fencing, and tree planting.
The three parks are located in community areas with less than three (3)acres of usable parkland per
1,000 residents.Holmes and Pilibos Parks are located in disadvantaged “Park Deficient
Communities”where at least 51 percent of residents are of low or moderate-income levels.Both
Holmes and Radio Parks are adjacent to newly constructed low income housing units.The targeted
park deficient sites allowed the City of Fresno to obtain the maximum amount of funds available
under the grant application.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Staff will return to Council with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)determination for the
park projects before contracts are awarded.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Local preference was not considered because this Resolution does not include a bid or award of a
construction or service contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City’s General Fund.The program funds have been included in the
2014/2015 budget and the State will reimburse the City for expenditures upon submittal of the
attached resolution.
Attachment:Resolution
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1 of 3
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval: ______ Resolution No.
____________
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESOLUTION OF THE FRESNO CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR
HOUSING-RELATED PARKS PROGRAM GRANT
[Qualifying Park Project (“Project”): Rehabilitation of
the City of Fresno’s Radio, Holmes and Pilibos Parks]
WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community
Development (Department) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) dated
October 2, 2013 under its Housing-Related Parks (“HRP”) Program;
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2014-3 the City of Fresno, a California municipal
corporation (“Applicant”) was authorized to apply for a HRP Program Grant and
submitted the 2013 Designated Program Year Application Package released by the
Department for the HRP Program; and
WHEREAS, the Department is authorized to approve funding allocations for the
HRP Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, Program Guidelines,
Application Package, and Standard Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Department awarded Applicant an HRP Program Grant in the
amount of $1,486,425.00.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
2 of 3
Resolution No.
____________
1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and
deliver a State of California Standard Agreement (Standard Agreement), for an HRP
Program Grant in the amount of $1,486,425.00 and any and all other documents
required or deemed necessary or appropriate to secure the HRP Program Grant from
Department, and all amendments thereto (collectively, the “HRP Grant Documents”).
2. Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the
Standard Agreement. Funds are to be used for allowable capital asset project
expenditures to be identified in Exhibit A of the Standard Agreement. The application in
full is incorporated as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded,
information provided, and timelines represented in the application are enforceable
through the Standard Agreement. Applicant hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible
capital asset(s) in the manner presented in the application as approved by the
Department and in accordance with the NOFA and Program Guidelines and Application
Package.
3. Council appoints and authorizes the Parks Director or designee(s), and
each of them as agent of the City of Fresno, to execute the HRP Grant Documents as
required by the Department for participation in the HRP Program, subject to approvals
as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.
3 of 3
Resolution No.
____________
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
CITY OF FRESNO )
I, YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the
day of , 2014.
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Mayor Approval: , 2014
Mayor Approval/No Return: , 2014
Mayor Veto: , 2014
Council Override Vote: , 2014
YVONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
BY:
Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
By____________________________
Amanda Freeman Date
Deputy City Attorney
10-31-14
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-623 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-C
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 11, 2014
FROM:SCOTT L. MOZIER, PE, Director
Public Works Department
THROUGH:ANDREW J. BENELLI, PE, City Engineer/Assistant Director
Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division
BY:DAVID CISNEROS, Manager, Special Projects
Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division
SUBJECT
Actions related to Measure “C” Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Projects in the Cultural Arts
District (Council District 3)
1.Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with FFDA Properties LLC, (a branch of Granville
Homes) for $116,342 for the Met Block Project Off-site Improvements under the Measure “C”
TOD Program
2.***RESOLUTION - 13th amendment to the Annual Appropriation Resolution (AAR) No. 2014-
95 appropriating $129,600 for the Measure “C” TOD Program Reimbursement Agreement for
the Met Block Off-site Improvements Project on Fulton, Stanislaus and Calaveras Streets
(Requires 5 affirmative votes)
RECOMMENDATION
1.Staff recommends that the Council approve a Reimbursement Agreement in the amount of
$116,342 for construction of off-site improvements under the Measure “C”TOD Program,
approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.
2.Staff recommends the Council adopts the 13th Amendment to the Annual Appropriation
Resolution No. 2014-95 appropriating $129,600 for the project (requires five affirmative votes).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 27,2014,the Council adopted Resolution No.2014-37,authorizing submission of an
application for grant funds under the TOD program.The Resolution included the off-site
improvements for the Met Block Development and the Broadway Project,in the amount of $533,457.
The project scope for the Met Block Project will include the construction of off-site improvements
along the abutting frontages of the project site,such as curbs,gutters,sidewalks and paving on
Stanislaus Street,Fulton Street and Calaveras Street.On September 10,2014,the FCTA Board
approved the allocation of TOD funds for the Met Block Project.The attached Reimbursement
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-623 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-C
approved the allocation of TOD funds for the Met Block Project.The attached Reimbursement
Agreement will allow for the City to reimburse FFDA Properties LLC for eligible project costs.
BACKGROUND
The Measure "C"Extension (2007-2027)approved by the voters of Fresno County includes a
number of subprograms including regional street and highway projects,airport funding,transit,
flexible funding,street maintenance,bicycle lanes,trails and environmental enhancements,as well
as several others.Under the Environmental Enhancement Allocation Program,the Measure "C"
Expenditure Plan includes the TOD Program,the purpose of which is to provide funding to support
planning,incentives and infrastructure related to higher-density infill development where occupants
use the public transit system.
On February 27,2014,the Council adopted Resolution No.2014-37,authorizing submission of an
application for grant funds under the TOD program.This resolution included the Met Block Project off
-site improvements along the abutting frontages of Calaveras Street,Stanislaus Street,and Fulton
Street, in the amount of $121,342.
In order to complete the project and allow for reimbursement of project costs from the Measure "C"
TOD funds, the City and FCTA, on September 10, 2014, entered into a Cooperative Agreement.
Staff has now negotiated a reimbursement agreement for this project with FFDA Properties LLC in
anticipation of the developer obtaining bids,managing the construction contract and submitting the
necessary financial documentation for reimbursement of eligible project costs.
Staff recommends the Council approve the attached Reimbursement Agreement which has been
approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office prior to execution.Upon approval by the Council
and City Attorney's Office,the agreement will be executed on behalf of the City by the Public Works
Director, in accordance with the City Manager's delegation of the signing authority.
In addition,the Department’s FY 2015 budget should be increased to fund this project.Staff
recommends that the City Council adopt the 13th Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Resolution
No.2014-95 allocating $129,600 for expenditure on activities related to the reimbursement
agreement.
The City will reimburse Granville Homes $116,342 for the street improvements and use $13,258 to
pay for staff time that has and will be used to prepare,process and review the agreements and
reports.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
On July 3,2014,a Notice of Determination for City of Fresno Environmental Assessment No.C-13-
137/T-6059/T-6060 was filed with the Fresno County Clerk.
The property owner,FFDA Properties,LLC has filed a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)Application No.
C-13-137 and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Nos.T-6059 and T-6060 pertaining to approximately 2.30
net acres of property bounded by Van Ness,Calaveras,Fulton and Stanislaus Streets (the “Met
block”)in downtown Fresno.The CUP authorizes construction of an 85-unit residential and
commercial mixed use development on the subject property.Vesting Tentative Tracts 6059 and 6060City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-623 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-C
commercial mixed use development on the subject property.Vesting Tentative Tracts 6059 and 6060
propose common lot air space subdivisions for condominium purposes on portions of the property.
The project includes demolition of an existing accessory building,vacations of portions of existing
public street rights-of-way and installation and construction of both public and private facilities and
infrastructure in accordance with the standards,specifications and policies of the City of Fresno.
Approval of the Reimbursement Agreement will facilitate implementation of a portion of the Project.
An analysis has been performed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162 to determine whether
subsequent environmental review is required for the Reimbursement Agreement.Based upon this
analysis the following findings are made to support the determination that no subsequent
environmental review is required:
1.No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.In this
case, there are no changes to the project.
2.No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.In this case,there have been no changes in
circumstances.
3.There is no new information,which was not known and could not have been known at the time of
the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration that the project will have significant effect not
discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Not applicable because this is not a competitive bid. This is a funding mechanism only.
FISCAL IMPACT
The $129,600 project cost to construct off-site improvements abutting frontages of the project,is
being primarily funded by Measure "C"TOD dollars in the amount of $121,342.An additional $8,258
in Measure “C”Flexible funding is for expenditures not eligible for Measure “C”TOD Funds.
Approximately $13,258 of the $129,600 will be applied to cover City administrative costs.There will
be no impact to the General Fund.The attached 13th Amendment to the Annual Appropriation
Resolution No.2014-95 will provide the appropriations necessary to fund the Reimbursement
Agreement in FY 2015.
Attachment:Reimbursement Agreement
Resolution
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-624 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-D
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:SCOTT L. MOZIER, PE, Director
Public Works Department
BY:ANDREW J. BENELLI, PE, City Engineer/Assistant Director
Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division
DAVID A. CISNEROS, Manager, Special Projects
Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division
SUBJECT
Actions related to Measure “C” Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Projects in the Cultural Arts
District (Council District 3)
1.Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with FFDA Properties LLC (a branch of Granville Homes)
for $298,658 for Broadway-Fulton off-site improvements from Calaveras to San Joaquin Streets
under the Measure “C” TOD Program
2. ***RESOLUTION - 14th amendment to the Annual Appropriation Resolution (AAR) No. 2014-95
to appropriate $331,400 for the Measure “C” TOD Program reimbursement agreement for the
Broadway-Fulton off-site improvements project from Calaveras to San Joaquin Streets
(Requires 5 affirmative votes)
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Council take the following actions:
1.Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with FFDA Properties LLC for $298,658 for Broadway
Project Off-Site Improvements from Calaveras to San Joaquin Streets under the Measure “C”
TOD Program.
2.Adopt the 14th Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Resolution No.2014-95 to appropriate
$331,400 for the Measure “C”TOD Program reimbursement agreement for the Broadway Project
Off-Site Improvements from Calaveras to San Joaquin Streets in FY 2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed reimbursement agreement will cover a second phase of infrastructure improvements
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-624 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-D
The proposed reimbursement agreement will cover a second phase of infrastructure improvements
for the Broadway/Calaveras Multi-family project being developed by FFDA Properties LLC.The
infrastructure to be paid for using Measure “C”TOD funding consists of the construction of off-site
improvements along the abutting frontages of the project site,such as curbs,gutters,sidewalks and
paving on San Joaquin Street,Broadway and Calaveras Streets,and installation of a new eight-inch
water main in Broadway Street.The Council has previously taken action related to the use of TOD
funds for this project,including the adoption of Resolution No.2014-37 on February 27,2014,
authorizing submission of an application for grant funds under the TOD program;and the approval of
a Cooperative Agreement with the Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA)on August 28,
2014.The project also previously received $456,800 for the undergrounding of overhead utilities and
repaving of the Broadway-Fulton Alley from Calaveras to San Joaquin Street.Approval of the
agreement and AAR amendment will allow the developer to be reimbursed for the infrastructure costs
in accordance with the proposed agreement.
BACKGROUND
The Measure “C”Extension (2007-2027)approved by the voters of Fresno County includes a number
of subprograms for regional street and highway projects,airport funding,transit,street maintenance,
bicycle lanes,trails and environmental enhancements,as well as several others.Under the
Environmental Enhancement Allocation Program,the Measure “C”Expenditure Plan includes the
TOD Program,the purpose of which is to provide funding to support planning,incentives and
infrastructure related to higher density infill developments that are designed to encourage the
occupants to use the public transit system.
On April 11,2013,the Council adopted Resolution No.2013-46,authorizing submission of application
for grant funds under the TOD program.This resolution included the Broadway-Fulton Alley
Improvements from Calaveras Street to San Joaquin Street in the amount of $456,800.The project
scope included the repaving of the alley to provide for proper circulation and drainage in the vicinity
of the Broadway Project development.On August 7,2013,the FCTA Board approved the TOD
application for funding.
In order to complete the project and allow for reimbursement of project costs from the Measure “C”
TOD funds,the City and FCTA entered into a Cooperative Agreement and now the City desires to
enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with FFDA Properties LLC.Staff recommends the Council
approve the Reimbursement Agreement in substantially the form attached subject to approval as to
form by the City Attorney’s Office prior to execution.Upon approval by the Council and City
Attorney’s Office,the agreement will be executed on behalf of the City by the Public Works Director
or his designee, in accordance with the City Manager’s delegation of the signing authority.
In addition,the Department’s FY 2015 budget should be increased to fund this project.Staff
recommends that the City Council adopt the 14th Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Resolution
No.2014-95 to allocate $331,400 for expenditure on activities related to the reimbursement
agreement.
The City will reimburse FFDA Properties LLC $298,658 for the street improvements and use $32,724
to fund staff time that has and will be used to prepare,process and review the agreements and
reports.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-624 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-D
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted on May 1,2013 for C-
11-163/C-12-002/VTTM 6015.Conditional Use Permit Application C-11-163,Conditional Use Permit
Application C-12-002 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6015 pertain to approximately1.29 acres (2.15
gross acres)of property located on the easterly side of Broadway Street between Calaveras and San
Joaquin Streets in Downtown Fresno.The Conditional Use Permit Applications and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map collectively propose multi-family residences and a one lot subdivision for condominium
purposes.The project includes demolition of an existing accessory building,vacations of portions of
existing public street rights-of-way and installation and construction of both public and private
facilities and infrastructure in accordance with the standards,specifications and policies of the City of
Fresno.Approval of the Reimbursement Agreement will facilitate implementation of a portion of that
project.
An analysis has been performed pursuant CEQA Guidelines §15162 to determine whether
subsequent environmental review is required for the Reimbursement Agreement.Based upon this
analysis the following findings are made to support the determination that no subsequent
environmental review is required:
1.No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.In this
case, there are no changes to the project.
2.No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.In this case,there have been no changes in
circumstances.
3.There is no new information,which was not known and could not have been known at the time of
the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration that the project will have significant effect not
discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Not applicable because this is not a competitive bid process. This is a funding mechanism only.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project to construct off-site improvements and a water main for the Broadway Project from
Calaveras to San Joaquin Streets,located in Council District 3,is being funded with $303,658 in
Measure “C”TOD dollars.An additional $27,700 in Measure “C”Flexible funding is for expenditures
not eligible for the Measure “C”TOD funds.Approximately $32,733 of the $331,400 will be applied to
cover City administrative costs.There will be no impact to the General Fund.The attached 14th
Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Resolution No.2014-95 will provide the appropriations
necessary to fund the reimbursement agreement in FY 2015.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-624 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-D
Attachment:Reimbursement Agreement
Resolution
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-643 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-E
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:THOMAS C. ESQUEDA, Director
Department of Public Utilities
THROUGH:STEPHEN A. HOGG, Assistant Director
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
BY:KEVIN L. NORGAARD, Supervising Professional Engineer
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
SUBJECT
Actions pertaining to Digester 12 Cleaning at the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation
Facility (Bid File No. 3358) (Council District No. 3)
1.Adopt a finding of Class 1 Categorical Exemption,pursuant to Section 15301(b)existing
facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
2.Award a $155,690 contract to Wastewater Solids Management Inc., of Yachats, Oregon
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a finding of Class 1 Categorical Exemption,pursuant to
Section 15301(b)(existing facilities)of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines
for Digester 12 Cleaning at the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF)and
award a contract in the amount of $155,690 to Wastewater Solids Management Inc.,of Yachats,
Oregon, for Digester 12 Cleaning at the RWRF.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Periodic cleaning of the 13 digesters at the RWRF is required to keep the plant functioning within
regulatory requirements.The Department of Public Utilities,Wastewater Management Division is
seeking to award a contract for the cleaning of Digester 12 at the RWRF in the amount of $155,690
to Wastewater Solids Management Inc.,of Yachats,Oregon,as the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder.Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a finding of Class 1 Categorical
Exemption; pursuant to Section 15301(b) of the CEQA Guidelines for the cleaning.
BACKGROUND
The Fresno/Clovis RWRF operates thirteen mesophilic anaerobic digesters.The digesters range in
size from 860,000 to 1,870,000 gallons.The digesters are used in the treatment of the solids
generated at the FRWRF to eliminate the pathogens and volatile organic compounds.Over the
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-643 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-E
generated at the FRWRF to eliminate the pathogens and volatile organic compounds.Over the
period of approximately eight years these digesters accumulate debris associated with the treatment
(i.e.solids consisting of sludge,sand,plastics and hair).This project will remove all the accumulated
debris and inspect the interior surfaces for corrosion,wear,and structural stability for Digester 12.
Once removed from the digester,the debris will be screened and transported to an appropriate class
landfill.After the screening,the sludge will be dewatered and processed along with the other
dewatered bio solids from the facility.The interior of the digester will be pressure washed and then
inspected for any structural or coating issues.
Plans and specifications were prepared for the project. A Notice Inviting Bids was published on
October 2,2014 and posted on the City’s website.The specifications were distributed to twenty four
(24)prospective bidders,and posted at ten (10)Builder Exchanges.The Bid will expire within 26
days of bid opening on November 4,2014.Three sealed bid proposals were received and publicly
opened on November 4, 2014. The bid proposals were $155,690, $230,226 and $259,400.
Wastewater Solids Management Inc.,was the lowest responsive bidder with a submitted bid of
$155,690.Staff determination was posted on the City Website on Tuesday November 18,2014.Staff
recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $155,690 to Wastewater Solids
Management Inc.,as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.Their bid price is 43.4%below
the original Engineer’s Estimate of $275,000.Wastewater Management Division annually cleans one
to two digesters and based on those bids this price is well within reason.Upon approval by the City
Council,the agreement will be executed by the Director of Public Utilities or designee,who has been
delegated this authority by the City Manager.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Staff has performed a preliminary environmental assessment for Digester 12 Cleaning and has
determined that it falls within Class 1 Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines,Section
15301(b)(existing facilities)because this contract involves normal operation and maintenance of
existing public sewer facilities.Furthermore,none of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set
forth in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 apply to this project.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
The local preference according to the Fresno Municipal Code Section 4-108 did not affect the award
of this contract because all the proposers were not local businesses and the lowest proposer was
selected.
FISCAL IMPACT
This project is identified in the five-year Capital Improvement Plan.Funds in the amount of $275,000
for the project are budgeted in the FY15 Sewer Enterprise Fund No.40501.The project is located in
Council District 3, and it has not financial impact on the General Fund.
Attachments:
Bid Evaluation
Vicinity Map
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-656 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-F
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE:December 11, 2014
FROM:YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
SUBJECT
RESOLUTION - Declaration of Results from November 4, 2014, Consolidated General Election
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution declaring the results of the
November 6, 2014 General Election.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 4, 2014, the City Clerk’s Office received from the County Clerk a certified abstract of
the canvass of the results of the General Election held on November 4, 2014. Under the Elections
Code, the City Council must now declare the results of the election. An appropriate resolution has
been prepared and is being presented for adoption.
BACKGROUND
The results of the General Election held on November 4, 2014, illustrate that Esmeralda Soria
received the majority of votes cast within District 1. Esmeralda Soria will begin serving her term as
Councilmember for District 1 of the City of Fresno upon administration of the oath of office currently
scheduled for January 8, 2015.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
N/A
LOCAL PREFERENCE
N/A
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-656 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:1-F
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachment:Resolution
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1 of 2
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
Resolution Declaring the Election Results
for the November 4, 2014 General
Election.
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION
HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF FRESNO ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014.
WHEREAS, On November 4, 2014, there was a general election, held in the City of Fresno, pursuant to
Section 1400 of the Charter of the City of Fresno; and
WHEREAS, the Council has met at the hour of 8:30 a.m. on December 11, 2014 at its usual meeting
place to declare the results of such election; and
WHEREAS, the County Clerk of Fresno County has canvassed the returns of the general election and
has prepared and presented to the Council a certified abstract of such returns setting forth the results of such
election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as follows:
1.The certified statement of votes cast heretofore presented to this Council by the County Clerk of
Fresno County is accepted and adopted as the official canvass of the returns of the November 4, 2014, general
election held in the City of Fresno, and the Council finds, determines, and declares the results of the returns of
the election as follows:
(a) The whole number of votes cast in District 1, the names of the persons voted for, and for
what office each person was voted for, are as set forth in the attached certified abstract (Exhibit A), which is on
file with the City Clerk and herby made a part hereto as if fully set forth herein.
2 of 2 Resolution Declaring the Election
Results for the November 4, 2014
General Election.
Resolution No.
2.ESMERALDA SORIA, having received the majority of votes cast for the office of
Councilmember for District 1, is hereby declared elected to that office.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
CITY OF FRESNO )
I, YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing resolution was
adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of December, 2014.
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
“Exhibit A”
YVONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
BY:
Deputy
n t cf tvED
STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST
AT THE
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION¿ÛiII DIO 5 RN 9 05
HELD ON
NOVEMBER4,20t4
IN THE
CITY OF FRESNO
COUNTY OF FRESNO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY CLIRK, FRTSNO CA
CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CLERK TO RESULTS OF THE CANVASS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
County of Fresno )
I, BRANDI L. ORTH, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters of the County of Fresno, State of
California, do hereby certifu that pursuant to the provisions of Section 15301 et seq of the
Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the retums of the vote cast in the City of
Fresno, County of Fresno, at the election held on November 4,2074, for the Local Offices,
submitted to the vote of the voters, and that the Statement of the Vote Cast, to which this
certificate is attached, shows the whole number of votes cast in the city and in each of the
respective precincts therein, and that the totals of the respective columns and the totals shown for
the offices are full, true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and Off,rcial Seal this 2"d day of December,2014.
BRANDI L. ORTH
County Clerk/Registrar of Voters
Statement of Votes Cast Date:t2tÙ4tt4
Statewide General Election Time:0e:06:44
Page:l of6
November 4,2074
Fresno County, California
SOVC For 601 1 Fresno City Council Dist #1, All Counters, Fresno City Council District 1
TURN OUT
Reg. Voters lCards Cast %
Tumout
risdiction Wide
0000225
Polling
Vote hv Mail
352
15)
33 938v,
R0 2211o/,
Total
0000294
Polling
352
I 156
I156
ll3
203
276
32.10o/,
t7.56V,
23 88ot
Total
0000295
Polling
I156
r009
1 ôno
479
145
tco
4r.44?
l4.37ot
lQ 12.ot
Total
0000296
Polling
Vofe hr
1009
t393
r 10?
334 33.l0ot
363 2606ot
1¿S )A11ot
0000297
Polling
Vote bv Mail
1393 708 50.8301
llTl 265 22.63011111 ?67 ?l 000r
Total
0000298
Polling
ttTt 628 53.6301
1129 258 228501
I I tO ?nn )Á \101
Total
0000299
Polling
t129 558 49.4201
I 195 189 15 .8201
ll95 263 22.0lot
Total
0000300
Polling
I 195
914
914
452
t22
150
37.82o1
13.3501
l6 41o/,
Total
0000301
Polling
Mal
914
774
774
272 2976v,
80 10340/,lll 1434r,
Total
0000302
Polling
774
s93
{o?
l9l 24 68ot,
32 5.40v
?? { 5Áo;
Total
0000303
Polling
Vote bv Mail
593
t646
1646
6s t0.969
259 15.'l4ot
530 32.209
Total
0000304
Polling
r646
l4t2
1 A1)
789
t39
?nl
47.93ot
9 84ot
) t '1,)ot
Total
0000305
Polling
Vote bv Mail
l4t2 440 3t.169
l2l7 104 8.5502
1217 2tt 17.349
Total
0000306
Polling
t2l'7 315 25.8801
804 ll8 14.6801R04 175 21 '7701
Total
0000307
Polling
Vote by Mail
804
878
878
293 36.4
79 9.0
169 192
SOVC For 601 I Fresno City
Statement of Votes Cast
Statewide General Election
November 4,20t4
Fresno County, California
Council Dist #1, All Counters, Fresno City
Date:l2l04ll4
Time:09:06:44
Page:2 of 6
Council District 1
TURNOUT
Reg. Voters lCrds Cast %
Tumout
0000308
Polling
878 248 28.2501
1040 67 6.Mo/,
lnán OR Q A)ot
Total
0000309
Polling
Vote hr
1040
1796
1796
165
160
407
15.87o/,
8 9l'/
22 669,
Total
00003 I 0
Polling
Vote br
r796
841
all
567 31.57?
139 l6.53ot
)JA )Á, Q10t
Total
00003 I I
Polling
841
I 135
lt?5
365 43.40v
I 11 9.78ot
'R?
)AQ?OI
Total
0000312
Polling
Mail
1135 394 34.7lol
1012 126 12.4501
1o1) l?5 11 7401
Total
00003 I 3
Polling
1012
1354
I ?{¿
261
202
)9.Ã
25.7901
14.9201
)'l 1)ot
Total
0000314
Polling
1354 488 36.04ot
1659 180 10.85o/
1659 273 16.460/,
Total
00003 I 5
Polling
1659 4s3 27.31v,
l0I2 123 12 l5o/,l0l). 27O 227?0/.
Total
0000359
Polling
Mail
1012
1089
1089
353
t43
224
34.88v
13.139
20.57ot
Total
0000360
Polling
1089
989
oRo
367
ll5
J1¡
33 7001
ll.630t
)1 )ao/,
Total
0000361
Polling
989 325 32.8601
lllS t34 ll 9901
1118 185 16.550t
Total
00003ó2
Polling
I118
1000
I nnn
319
184
)1t\
28 5301
l8.40ot
)1 nt\ot
Total
0000363
Polling
r000
926
926
394 39 40ot
l2l t3.07y,
195 21.060/,
Total
0000364
Polling
926
550
550
3r6
76
59
34.13o/,
13.82v,
10 73o/
Total
0000365
Polling
Vote by Mail
550
835
835
135 24 5
81 9'l
17t 20 4
Statement of Votes Cast
Statewide General Election
November 4,2014
Fresno County, California
Date:12/04114
Time:09:06:44
Page:3 of 6
SOVC For 601 1 Fresno City Council Dist #1, All Counters, Fresno City Council District 1
TURN OUT
Reg. Voters lCards Cust %
Turnout
0000368
Polling
835
36s
?Á{
252
43
<Q
30.l8ou
ll ]lïot
I { QOo;
Total
0001 123
Polling
365 l0l 27 679
0
ll
0
n
Tot¿l
0001 124
Polling
Mail
0 0
0
0
0
0
Total
0001127
Polling
0 0
I 200001n n nôo/
5
{
Total
000ll5r
Polling
5 I 20.00"/,
2
2
0 0 00oz0 000?
Total
0001 152
Polling
2 0 0.0002
5 2 40.00ot
< ô lì ôtìo;
Total
0001 163
Polling
Vote b.
5 2 40 009
0
0
0
0
Total
Tot¿l
Polling
0 0
4397 t3.5801
Ã1LÁ )^ QLot
32376
2,)2,14
Total 32376 ttt43 344
Statement of Votes Cast
Statewide General Election
November 4,2014
Fresno County, California
Date:l2/04/14
Time:09:06:44
Page: of 6
SOVC For 601 Fresno City Council Dist #1, All Counters, Fresno City Council District
FRESNO CITY COI]NCIL DISTRICT I
Reg vorers lTimes Counted lTotal Votes leswnaroe sonn ICARY CATALANO llfriteJn Vot"s
0000225
Polling 3s2
15?
33
RO
30
73
12
23
40.00Y.
31 51o/"
18
49
60.00%
67.12'/r
0 0 00o/
I | 37o/
Tot¿l
0000294
Polling
Vofe hr
352
I 156
il{Á
lt3
203
)'tÁ
103
188
)6?
35
r08
l6R
33.98%
s7.45%
61 RNo/"
6'.1
79
94
65 05%
42 02o/o
15 140/"
0.979
0.53'/
0 38ou
Total
000029s
Polling
Mail
I 156 479
145
tRg
4sl
13l
lr5
276 61200/0
67 5r.rs%
lll 6000%
173
64
38.36/.
48.85%
39.46V.
2 0 4401
1009
I nOq
0 000%
I 0 5401
Total
0000296
Polling
1009
t393
1 393
334
363
14s
3t6
328
319
178 5633Vo
166 50.61'/.
153 4'l.96Vo
137 43.35yo
159 48.48%
162 50.78%
I
3
4
0 3201
0.9lol
1.2501
Total
0000297
Polling
1393
ltTt
I 171
708
265
363
647
239
345
3t9 49.30%
117 48.95V"
182 52.75%
32t 49.6r%
r22 51.05%
162 46.96%
7 I 08%
0 0 00o/
| 029y,
Total
0000298
Polling
rtTr
tt29
11).9
628
2s8
?00
s84 299 st.20%
ll7 49.79o/o
142 49.82o/o
284 48.630/o
tt& s02r%
142 4982%
I
0
I
0 t1v,
0 00oz
035ot
235
285
Total
0000299
Polling
Vote hr
rt29
I 195
I 195
558
189
263
520
164
2sl
259 49.81o/o
72 43.90%
109 4343%
260 5000Yo
92 56t0%
r42 5657%
I
0
0
0 199
0 00ou
0 00oz
Total
0000300
Polling
I 195
914
9t4
452
122
t50
4t5 t&t 43.6r%
'll 65.74./.
74 s068%
234 56.39yo
37 34.26%
72 49.32%
0 0.009
0 0.00o2
0 0.009
108
146
Total
000030r
Polling
914
774
774
111
80lll
254
7r
l0l
t45 57.09%
42 59.l5Yo
6s 64.36%
109 429l%o
27 38.03Y.
34 3f.66%
0 0.007
2 2.82o12 1 98o/,
Total
0000302
Polling
774 l9l
32
172 107 62.210/o
14 77.78o/o
18 6207Vo
61 35.47o/o
4 22.22Y.t0 34.48%
4 2.33y,
0 0.00o/| 3.4sV,
593
ssl
l8
29
Total
0000303
Polling
593
t646
1646
65
259
530
47
239
501
32 68090/o
96 40.17%
r92 38.32%
14 29790/"
142 59.41o/o
307 61.28%
2 139
| 04292 040ot
Total
0000304
Polling
1646
r4t2
't 41)
789 740
ll3
278
288 3892%
59 52210/.
151 54.32Vo
449 6068%
54 47.79V.
126 45.32%
J 041 v
139
i0t
0 0009
1 O36ot
Total
0000305
Polling
Vote hr
t4t2
t2t7
l2t7
440
104
2It
39t
93
195
210
58
105
s3.71%
6237o/o
53.85%
r80 4604%
34 3656Y.
89 4564%
l 0 2601
I 08%
o 5101
I
1
Total
0000306
Polling
t2t7
804
R04
3ls
ll8
l't5
288
103
l6l
r63
53
6'1
56.600/o
51.46o/o
4t 6t%
r23
50
94
42.71%
4854%
58.39o/o
2 0 6901
0 0 0001
0 0 00or
Total
0000307
Polling
Vote by Mail
804
878
878
293
79
t69
264
72
163
t20 45.45Vo
36 5000%
71 43 56Vo
144 54.55yo
36 50.00%9l 55.83%
0
0
I 061
SOVC For 601 1 Fresno Ci
Statement of Votes Cast
Statewide General Election
November 4,2014
Fresno County, California
Council Dist #1, All Counters, Fresno Ci
Date:l2l04l14
Time:09:06:44
Page:5 of 6
Council District 1
FRESNO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT I
Reg. Voters lTimes Counted lTotal votes lEstvmnarle sonre ICnw CATALANO I write-In Votes
Total
0000308
Polling
878
1040
I 040
248
67
98
235
6s
96
107 45.53Yo
42 6462%
45 46880/"
127 54.04Yo
23 35.38%
51 5l.1lo/"
I
0
0
0 43V
0.00o2
0.0Oou
Total
0000309
Polling
Mail
1040
r796
1796
165
160
407
l6l
t43
391
87 54.04%
75 52.45%
r97 s0.38%
74 4s.96%
68 47.ss%
194 4962%
0 0.00?
0 0.0090 0 00oz
Total
00003 I 0
Polling
1796
841
R4l
56'l
139
?.?.6
s34
125
).1s
272 50.94%
43 34.40%
77 75 Xto/"
262 49.06%
8l 64.80%
179 64 190/"
0
I
0
0 009
0.80o2
0 00ou
Tot¿l
00003 I I
Polling
Vote h.
841
l 135
I 135
36s
lll
283
340
t07
270
t20
66
\45
35.29%
61.68%
53.70%
2r9
4t
125
64.41%
3832%
4630Vo
I
0
0
0.2901
0.00or
0.00or
Total
00003 12
Polling
I 135
t0t2
lfir2
394
126
115
377
n2
li0
2ll
49
57
5597%
43.75%
41 RSo/"
166
63
71
4403%
s6.2s%
5(\ I So/"
0 0 00or
0 0 000/0 O 00o/
Total
00003 l 3
Polling
Vote hr
l0l2
1354
I 354
261
202
286
242
r83
274
t06 43.80%
ttt 60.66%
165 6O22o/"
136 5620o/.
72 39.34%
107 39.05y"
0
0
2
0.00o/
0.00o/
O.73ot
Total
0000314
Polling
Vote bv M
1354
lós9
I Á<O
488
180
1'11,
457
t7t
t<o
276
96
l<,
6039%
56.14o/o
<e Áool^
179
75
l^1
39.r7%
43.86%
Ll 1104
2 0.44y
0 0.00o2
ô lì ôlìor
Total
00003 l s
Polling
l6s9
t0t2
tot2
4s3
123
230
430
tt7
222
248
68
120
57.67Yo
s8 t2%
54 O5o/.
182 42.33%
4t.03%
45.50o/.
0 0.00o2
0.85o2
0.45ot
48
t0l
Total
00003s9
Polling
Vote br
t0t2
1089
I oRg
353
143n4
3f9
125
)to
r88 5s.46%
77 61.60%
l)). 58 10-0/"
t49 4395%
47 37.60%
RR 4r S0%
2
I
0
0.5901
0.8001
0 0001
Total
00003ó0
Polling
I 089
989
98S
367
ll5
2to
33s
107
t96
t99 59.40%
76 7103%
l2O 61.22o/o
ll5 40.30o/o
28 97o/o
31 16%
I
n
2
0.3001
0.00%
1.0201
3l
74
Total
0000361
Polling
Vote b.
989
1118
ltte
325
134
I Q{
303
t20
l1A
196
58
ee
64.69%
48.33%
{n nno/^
105
62
RR
34.6s%
5l.67Yo
{n ôôo/^
2
0
n
0.6601
0.0001
n nnor
Total
0000362
Polling
lllS
1000
I 000
319
184
2to
296
170
t95
t46 4932%
97 57.06V.
91 46.670/.
150 50 68%
73 42.94%
104 5333y"
0 0007
0 0 00"/0 0 00oz
Total
0000363
Polling
Vote b.
1000
926
o)A
394
t2l
to<
365
110
rol
188
70
1)1
51.51%
63 64%
Ã2 2,<oA
177
40
1i
48.49%
36.36%
aÁ Á<oa
0 0 00o/
0 0.00o/
fr ô fìô0;
Total
0000364
Polling
Vote hr
926
550
550
3r6
76
59
301
72
57
r9t 63.46%
47 65.28%
34 59.65y.
LtO 3654%
25 34.72o/"
23 4035y"
0 0.000/
0 000?0 0 00oz
Total
0000365
Polling
Vote by Mail
550
835
835
135
8l
171
t29
73
159
8t 62.79%
39 53.42%
t02 6415%
48 37.21o/o
34 46 58Y.
57 35.85o/o
0
0
0
0
0
0
Statement of Votes Cast
Statewide General Election
November 4,2014
Fresno County, California
Council Dist #1, All Counters,
Date:l2lÙ4l14
Time:09:06:44
Page:6 of
SOVC For 601 1 Fresno Ci Fresno Citv Council District I
FRESNO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1
Reg. voters lTimes counæd lTotul votes lesvßnaroe sonle ICARY CATALANo l'ùr'rite-In votes
Total
0000368
Polling
835
36s
?Á{
252
43
{R
232
35
sÁ
t4l
20
¿,1
6078%
57.r4%
1?, )lo/^
9l
15
t?
39.22%
42.86%
)2, )lo/^
0 0.009
0 0 00oz
) ? \10t
Total
0001 123
Polling
Mail
365
0
0
l0l
0
0
9t
0
0
61 67.03%
0-0-
28 30.77%
0-0-
2 2.209
0
0
Total
0001 124
Polling
0
0
lì
0
0
lì
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
0
n
Total
000r127
Polling
0000-0-0
5 I I 0 0.00% 110000% 0 0.00or5000-0-0
Total
0001 ls I
Polling
5
2)
I
0
fl
I
0
n
0 0.00%
0-n_
I 100.00%
0-n_
0 0.000/
0
n
Total
000r 152
Polling
Vote hr
2000-0-0
5 2 I 0 0.00% 1100.00% 0 0.00o/{nnô-o-n
Total
0001 163
Polling
Vote br
5
0
0
2
0
o
I
0
0
0 0.00%
0-0-
l 100.00%
0-
0-
0 0 00ou
0
t)
Total
Total
Polling
0
32376
?)?1Á
0
4397
Á1AA
0
3969
Â2,Q)
0-
2122 53.46%
??nR s I 7<o/^
0-
1836 46.26yo
?n6fl L1 9.10/^
0
ll
)¿,
0.28ot
fr ?Ro;
Total 76 ll
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-658 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:BRUCE RUDD, City Manager
City Manager’s Office
SUBJECT
Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a contract with CBRE to provide real estate
management services
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a contract with CBRE for $60,000 to provide real
estate management services for City owned and leased properties.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 6,2014,the Fresno City Council adopted the Asset Management Act,which was
authorized by Councilmember Brand.The “Act”,included a provision that called for the issuance of a
Request for Proposals (RFP)in which the City would seek proposals from qualified real estate
professionals who could assist the City in developing a comprehensive listing of properties owned
and leased by the City.The selected firm would subsequently analyze this information in order to
prepare a strategic plan regarding the future use City owned or leased properties.
On September 26,2014,a RFP was issued seeking proposals for real estate management services
for properties owned or leased by the City of Fresno.On October 28,2014,the City received a
proposal from CBRE,in partnership with Cushamn &Wakefield/Pacific Commercial Realty Advisors,
to provide various real estate and asset management services,including the creation of a detailed
listing of all properties owned and/or leased by the City of Fresno as well as a Strategic Real Estate
Plan.
The plan will be used to identify opportunities to increase revenues or reduce expenses by identifying
the number and type of properties owned or leased by the City,evaluating the overall condition and
lease terms of these properties,determine if there are opportunities to reduce and renegotiate leases
based on market conditions,and whether additional revenue could be generated through the sale,
lease or auction of underutilized or surplus property.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-658 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:
BACKGROUND
On September 26,2014,a Request for Proposal (RFP)was issued in which the City sought
proposals for asset real estate management services for properties owned or leased by the City of
Fresno.The scope of work contained in the RFP,which was consistent with the Asset Management
Act,is intended to assist in the development of an overall real estate strategy for the City.The work
would include identifying and cataloging the number and type of properties owned or leased by the
City,evaluating the overall condition and lease terms of these properties,determine if there are
opportunities to reduce and renegotiate leases based on market demand,and the amount of revenue
that might be generated through the sale, lease or auction of surplus property.
On October 28,2014,the City received one proposal from CBRE,Inc.,in partnership with Cushman
&Wakefield/Pacific Commercial Realty Associates (PACCRA).CBRE has provided a similar
analysis and subsequent recommendations to other cities,including but not limited to,Sacramento,
Stockton, Freemont, Roseville, as well as the State of California and the City of Reno.
Based on the proposal CBRE/PACCRA will assist the City in developing and implementing a
Strategic Real Estate Plan that is intended to identify opportunities in which to reduce expenses
and/or maximize revenues as well as identify future space requirements for various departments.
The scope of work includes:
·Develop a comprehensive listing of all City owned or leased properties
·Evaluate underutilized and/or surplus properties and recommend best approach (e.g.,sale,
lease, auction)
·Analyze leases for City owned assets and determine operating costs,deferred maintenance,
etc., compared to current market demand and prices
·Provide sales values and/or lease revenue assessments for underutilized City owned assets
·Provide marketing recommendations for selected properties
·Represent the City during sales or lease transactions, renegotiations, etc.
·Identify future space demands for City departments
CBRE/PACCRA proposes a fixed fee of $60,000 to produce listing of properties and a Strategic Real
Estate Plan of which $30,000 will be refundable through commission rebates after commissions
exceed $100,000 in aggregate.Once this occurs,CBRE/PACCRA will refund 25%on every
commission earned until the $30,000 rebate is satisfied.
It should be noted that CBRE/PACCRA has also offered to provide a computerized asset inventory of
all City owned and leased properties at an additional cost.The cost of this additional work is
dependent upon the number of properties contained and the level of software functionality that the
City desires. In either case, the additional work could be funded using the $30,000 in rebates.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
N/A
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-658 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:
LOCAL PREFERENCE
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the initial $60,000 will be provided from the General Fund.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-520 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-A
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:THOMAS C. ESQUEDA, Director
Department of Public Utilities
THROUGH:STEPHEN A. HOGG, Assistant Director
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
BY:KEVIN L. NORGAARD, PE, Supervising Professional Engineer
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
SUBJECT
Actions pertaining to the Recycled Water Distribution System,Southwest Quadrant State Revolving
Fund loan documents (Council District 3)
1.RESOLUTION -To authorize the Director of Public Utilities to sign a financing application for a
financing agreement with the California State Water Resources Control Board
2.***RESOLUTION - To finance the cost of improvements
3.***RESOLUTION -To pledge revenues and funds to satisfy repayment obligations for the
financing agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Public Utilities to
sign a financing application for a financing agreement with the California State Water Resources
Control Board (CSWRCB),a resolution to finance the cost of improvements relating to the Recycled
Water Distribution System,Southwest Quadrant Projects,and a resolution to pledge revenues and
funds to satisfy repayment obligations for the financing agreement of the Recycled Water Distribution
System, Southwest Quadrant Projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 14,2014 the Governor of California signed into law three bills that are collectively
referred to as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act).The Act recognizes that
excessive groundwater extraction can cause overdraft,failed wells,deteriorated water quality,
environmental damage,and irreversible land subsidence -all of which require corrective action.The
Recycled Water Master Plan prepared by the Department of Public Utilities’Wastewater
Management Division (Division)identifies opportunities to assist with compliance of this law by
reducing groundwater pumping and replacing groundwater with recycled water for non-potable
purposes (i.e.outdoor irrigation,dust control,fountains,etc.).The Division’s long-term goal is to
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-520 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-A
purposes (i.e.outdoor irrigation,dust control,fountains,etc.).The Division’s long-term goal is to
produce and deliver 25,000 acre-feet of recycled water to the City’s service area to reduce
groundwater over drafting.The Southwest Quadrant Projects are the first phase of recycled water
distribution facilities to deliver recycled water to the community.
The Division is requesting the adoption of three resolutions required to apply for a low-interest (1
percent)State Revolving Fund (SRF)loan,as managed by the CSWRCB.The proceeds from the
low-interest loan will be used to finance the Southwest Quadrant Projects for the Division’s Recycled
Water Distribution System.The amount to be financed with the low-interest loan is approximately
$51 million dollars.Utilizing the SRF loan will allow the Division to optimize the management of
available cash reserves,reduce the need for future bond issuances for capital improvement projects,
and minimizing future user fee rate increases.
BACKGROUND
In July 2013,the City entered into a consultant services agreement with Blair Church &Flynn
Consulting Engineers to design the Southwest Quadrant portion of the Division’s Recycled Water
Distribution System.The Southwest Quadrant Project will deliver recycled water from the
Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility to southwest Fresno and downtown Fresno.
For bidding and construction purposes,the Southwest Quadrant Project was segregated into four
separate pipeline projects designated as SW1A,SW1B,SW1C and SW1D,as well as a fifth project
which is a recycled water booster pumping station.The Southwest Quadrant Project will consist of
22 miles of recycled water distribution main,ranging in size from 8”to 54”,and an estimated cost of
$51 million dollars.
On April 24,2014,Council approved three resolutions to allow for the use of SRF loans to finance the
design and construction of SW1A of the Southwest Quadrant Project.The first resolution was to
authorize the Director of Public Utilities to sign a financing agreement with the California State Water
Resources Control Board.The second was to finance the cost of improvements associated with
SW1A.The third resolution was to pledge revenues and funds to satisfy repayment obligations for
the financing agreement of the project.After consultation with the CSWRCB,Division staff has
determined that it is financially beneficial for the City and the City’s ratepayers to modify our SRF
Loan Application and request low-interest loan funding for all five (5)Southwest Quadrant Projects.
City Council approval of the three resolutions contained in this Agenda Item will replace the
resolutions previously approved by the City Council on April 24, 2014.
The Southwest Quadrant Projects were originally planned to be funded during FY2014 and FY2015
using available cash reserves in the Division’s Sewer Enterprise Fund.Utilizing low-interest (1
percent)SRF loans for the Southwest Quadrant Projects will allow the Division to optimize the
management of available cash reserves,reduce the need for future bond issuances for capital
improvement projects, and minimizing future user fee rate increases.
Given the financial scale of the Division’s CIP,staff recommends financing the Southwest Quadrant
Project using a low-interest SRF loan from the CSWRCB.Using a low-interest,unsecured,thirty-
year loan will enable the Division to preserve accumulated cash reserves,reduce the amount of new
debt financing required in 2018,reduce future debt issuance costs and debt service payments,
reduce future debt service coverage requirements,and minimize future user fee rate increases -all of
which will optimize the management of the Division’s cash reserves.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-520 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-A
The current interest rate for SRF loans is approximately 1.0 percent,which is lower than the 4.5
percent previously secured for revenue bond debt for DPU.The SRF loan will be used to reimburse
the Sewer Enterprise Fund for progress payments made during construction,and the City will not be
required to begin making debt service payments on the low-interest SRF loan until twelve months
after the completion of construction.In addition,while the CSWRCB will encumber the entire amount
of the low-interest loan (i.e.$51 million),interest only accrues to the City as funds are disbursed to
the City for construction progress payments.The Division’s financial plan is to use the low-interest
SRF loan to pay the majority of the construction cost payments during the twenty-four month
construction period,and then use the 12-months following construction to complete a business case-
evaluation to determine if it is financially beneficial to use a portion of the Division’s $102 million
accumulated reserves to prepay the loan before the 30-year term.The City may,without penalty,
prepay all or a portion of the loan before the 30-year term.If the business case evaluation
determines that it is financially beneficial to repay the loan over the 30-year term,the $51 million that
would have been used to prepay the low-interest SRF loan will be used to fund other needed projects
in the Division’s $376 million, five-year CIP, subject to City Council approval.
The CSWRCB requires the adoption of three resolutions prior to entering into a financing agreement.
The first is designating the DPU Director as the authority to apply for the SRF loan.The second is to
approve the financing of the project with the CSWRCB.And the third is to pledge funds to repay the
loan.
The funds pledged for the repayment will be from the Sewer Enterprise Fund and are intended to be
used for funding capital improvement projects.The annual debt service payment for this SRF loan
will be approximately $2.0 million dollars annually for thirty years.The additional debt service will not
jeopardize required debt coverage ratios.
The resolutions associated with this Agenda Item have been reviewed and “approved as to form”by
the City Attorney’s Office.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
By the definition provided in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 the
approval of these resolutions do not qualify as a “project”and is therefore exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act requirements.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Local preference was not involved because adopting resolutions do not include an award of a service
or construction contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
The actual fiscal impact of adopting these resolutions is zero.However,the projected fiscal impact of
the project once the construction contract is awarded is a debt service payment of $2.0 million dollars
annually for a period of 30 years.The funds for the repayment will be from the Sewer Enterprise
Fund and will have no impact on the General Fund.There will be no impact to the General fund
because all the debt service payments will be made with Sewer Enterprise Fund revenue.This loan
will help postpone the need for future rate payer increases.This project is located in Council District
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-520 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-A
will help postpone the need for future rate payer increases.This project is located in Council District
3 and portions of Fresno County.
Attachments:
·Resolution Authorizing Director DPU to Apply for SRF Loan
·Resolution Approving the Financing of the Project
·Resolution Pledging Funds to Repay Loan
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. ____ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC UTILITIES TO SIGN A FINANCING
APPLICATION FOR A FINANCING AGREEMENT WITH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD FOR THE RECYCLED WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno (the "City") desires to finance the cost of
constructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its Recycled Water
Distribution System, Southwest Quadrant, including pipelines and other infrastructure
(the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City intends to finance the construction of the Project or portions
of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by
and through the State Water Resources Control Board ("State Water Board").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows :
1. The Director of Public Utilities (the "Authorized Representative") or his
designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City,
a Financial Assistance Application for financing agreement from the State Water
Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of Recycled Water
Distribution System, Southwest Quadrant.
2. This Authorized Representative, or his designee, is designated to provide
the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance
Date Adopted :
Date Approved :
Effective Date: 12 /"
City Attorney Approval : ~
1 of 2
Resolution No .
application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water
Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto.
3. The Authorized Representative, or his designee, is designated to represent
the City in carrying out the City's responsibilities under the financing agreement, including
certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable
state and federal laws .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss .
CITY OF FRESNO )
I, YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on
the
____ day of _______ , 2014.
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
Mayor Approval: ______________ , 2014
Mayor Approval/No Return: , 2014
Mayor Veto: , 2014
Council Override Vote: , 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
By: ________ _
Brandon M . Collet Date
2 of2
YVONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
By: __________ _
Deputy
RESOLUTION NO . ____ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, TO FINANCE THE COST OF
IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO WATER AND
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR THE
RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno (the "City") desires to finance the cost of
constructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its Recycled Water
Distribution System, Southwest Quadrant, including certain treatment facilities, pipelines
and other infrastructure (the "Project");
WHEREAS, the City intends to finance the construction of the Project or portions
of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by
and through the State Water Resources Control Board ("State Water Board");
WHEREAS, the State Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds
from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for
federal income tax purposes (the "Obligations");
WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the
State Water Board of the Project Funds the City desires to incur certain capital
expenditures (the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project from available moneys of
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and
after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period
Date Adopted :
Date Approved:
Effective Date: 12/
City Attorney Approval: ~
1 of 3
Resolution No.
and it is necessary to reimburse the City for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the
Obligations .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to
reimburse Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by
the State Water Board of the Project Funds.
SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project
Fund is $53,395,048.46.
SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date
on which the City will expend moneys for the portion of the Project costs to be
reimbursed with Project funds .
SECTION 4. Each City expenditure will be of a type properly chargeable to a
capital account under general federal income tax principles .
SECTION 5. To the best of our knowledge, this City is not aware of the previous
adoption of official intents by the City that have been made as a matter of course for the
purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been
issued .
SECTION 6. This resolution is adopted as official intent of the City in order to
comply with Treasury Regulation §1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal
Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs.
SECTION 7. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this City so
finds, determines and represents.
2 of 3
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
CITY OF FRESNO )
I, YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on
the
____ day of _______ , 2014 .
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
Mayor Approval: ______________ , 2014
Mayor Approval/No Return: , 2014
Mayor Veto : , 2014
Council Override Vote: , 2014
YVONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
BY: ------------------Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
BY: -----------------Brandon M. Collet Date
Deputy
3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. ____ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, TO PLEDGE REVENUES AND
FUND(S) TO SATISFY REPAYMENT OBLIGATIONS FOR
THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD FOR THE RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM, SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno (the "City") desires to finance the cost of
constructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its Recycled Water
Distribution System, Southwest Quadrant, including certain treatment facilities , pipelines
and other infrastructure (the "Project");
WHEREAS, the City intends to finance the construction of the Project or portions
of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting
by and through the State Water Resources Control. Board ("State Water Board");
WHEREAS, the City shall designate and maintain funding sources for its
repayment obligation under the financial assistance agreement with the State Water
Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows : 1. The City hereby dedicates and pledges net Sewer Enterprise Fund
revenues, collected through rate payers and revenues derived from the ownership and
operation of the wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, and recycled water
distribution systems and the Sewer Enterprise Fund to payment of any and all Clean
Water State Revolving Fund Project No . 8061-110 and/or Water Recycling Funding
Program financing for Recycled Water Distribution System, Southwest Quadrant. The
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date: ~
City Attorney Approval : ..16...._
1 of 3
Resolution No.
City commits to collecting such revenues and maintaining such fund(s) throughout the
term of such financing and until the City has satisfied its repayment obligation
thereunder unless modification or change is approved in writing by the State Water
Board. So long as the financial assistance agreement(s) are outstanding, the City's
pledge hereunder shall constitute a lien in favor of the State Water Board on the
foregoing fund(s) and revenue(s) without any further action necessary . So long as the
financial assistance agreement(s) are outstanding, the City commits to maintaining the
fund(s) and revenue(s) at levels sufficient to meet its obligations under the financial
assistance agreement(s).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss .
CITY OF FRESNO )
I, YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the
____ day of _______ , 2014.
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN :
Mayor Approval: ______________ , 2014
Mayor Approval/No Return: , 2014
Mayor Veto: , 2014
Council Override Vote: , 2014
YVONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
BY: -------------------Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
BY: -----------------Brandon M. Collet Date
Deputy
3 of3
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-576 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-B
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Date:December 11, 2014
FROM:JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Development and Resource Management
THROUGH:DANIEL ZACK, Assistant Director
Development and Resource Management
By:JOSE R GONZALEZ, Energy Program Administrator
Sustainable Fresno Division, Development and Resource Management
SUBJECT
Actions pertaining to the energy efficiency programs under the Local Government Partnership
Program for 2015
1.Authorize the Director of the Development and Resource Management Department to extend
the master service agreement between the City of Fresno and Pacific Gas and Electric
Company until December 31, 2015 and receive $2,847,000 in funding from the California
Public Utilities Commission for energy efficiency programs
2.Authorize the Director of Development and Resource Management Department to amend the
current Consulting Services Contract with ConSol to December 31, 2015 and provide funding
for the extended year of $2,200,000 for the Fresno Home Energy Tune-Up program
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Director of the Development and Resource
Management Department to:1)Extend the current master service agreement (Attachments 1 &2)
between the City of Fresno and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”)until December 31,
2015 and receive $2,847,000 in funding from the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”)for
energy efficiency programs,and 2)To execute Amendment #1 to the current Consulting Services
Contract (Attachment 3) with ConSol of Stockton.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current Master Service Agreement (“MSA”)with PG&E,which provides funding from the CPUC
for the City of Fresno’s energy efficiency programs under the Local Government Partnership (“LGP”)
Program expires on December 31,2014.PG&E is proposing to extend the MSA contract until
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-576 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-B
Program expires on December 31,2014.PG&E is proposing to extend the MSA contract until
December 31,2015 (Attachments 4 &5)and to provide $2,847,000 in funding to the City for calendar
year 2015 to continue implementation of its energy efficiency programs (any unexpended monies
from the current MSA will no longer be available upon the December 31,2014 expiration date).This
agreement provides funding for the City’s administration of Energy Programs as well as for the City’s
professional services agreements to provide Home Energy and Business Energy Tune-Up audit
services.In accordance with the PG&E Master Service Agreement’s timeframe,the City’s Energy
Tune-Up audit services agreement with ConSol also expires December 31,2014.PG&E and DARM
staff are proposing Amendment #1 (Attachment 6),to extend the City’s agreement with ConSol
through December 31,2015 and to provide funding for those services for calendar year 2015 in the
amount of $2,200,000.2015 is the third year of a three-year funding and deliverables review period
in which PG&E and CPUC will evaluate energy programs for potential subsequent 10-year funding
(with some adjustments),and ConSol is in the best position to provide results in these program
areas.
BACKGROUND
Master Services Agreement (Funding from PG&E)
On January 14,2010,the City Council authorized the Director of the DARM to enter into a service
provider agreement with PG&E to administer the LGP program within the City of Fresno using
funding from the CPUC.This original MSA between the City of Fresno and PG&E,provided
$360,000 ($120,000 for each of three years)in funding to the City to provide administration of the
LGP program,marketing,and coordination with other energy efficiency programs through the end of
December 2012.
PG&E had been very impressed with the City of Fresno’s success in implementing energy efficiency
programs on a regional scale (Fresno,Madera,Tulare,Kings,and Kern Counties)utilizing funding
from the U.S.Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission.Therefore,PG&E
offered increased funding to the City to continue operation of the Home Energy Tune-up Program
that provides no-cost,in-home energy surveys for homeowners in the (then)Fresno and Madera
Counties.On June 28,2012,City Council approved PG&E’s increased funding to the City of
$575,000 via the MSA through December 31, 2012.
During the last quarter of calendar year 2012 PG&E worked with Sustainable Fresno Division staff to
develop a scope of work and budget to support the City’s energy efficiency programs on a regional
basis to be funded as part of their new energy efficiency portfolio for submission to the CPUC in the
2013-2014 funding cycle.The expanded services developed for 2013-2014 included continuation
and expansion of the Home Energy Tune-Up Program to PG&E service territories in Madera,Fresno,
Tulare,Kings,and Kern Counties,expanded commercial business energy assessment services,
expansion of Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”)financing availability,commercial property
energy benchmarking services,and increased education and outreach to real estate professionals
regarding building energy efficiency impacts on property valuation.The budget for these services
was $5,600,000 for calendar years 2013 and 2014.On November 1,2012,the City Council
approved the extension of the MSA agreement with PG&E for $5,600,000 through December 31,
2014.
On October 16,2014,the CPUC voted and approved the proposed decision Rulemaking (R)13-11-
005,providing instructions for utility companies to continue funding and implementation of energyCity of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-576 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-B
005,providing instructions for utility companies to continue funding and implementation of energy
efficiency programs into 2015.The CPUC desires to avoid stopping and starting programs as it
prepares to move into a 10-year rolling energy efficiency portfolio.2015 is to be considered the third
year of a three-year energy efficiency portfolio for funding provided and deliverables required
covering calendar years 2013,2014 and 2015.2015 will also be considered year zero of a 10-year
rolling energy efficiency portfolio from 2016 through 2025.Subsequent to 2015,the CPUC intends to
review portfolios for funding levels,efficiency,and deliverable results on a 10-year continuing rolling
basis (with some adjustments),which can allow for longer term funding provided the programs show
proper effectiveness/efficiencies.
Professional Services Agreement - Energy Efficiency Audit Services
In May 2011,the Sustainable Fresno Division of the Development and Resource Management
Department,developed specifications for in-home testing and reporting services and issued an RFP
for Home Energy Rating System (“HERS”)II Whole House Rater and Reporting Services for the
home energy tune-up program,then known as Fresno Regional Comprehensive Residential Retrofit
Program.Three proposals were submitted and evaluated by a committee made up of City staff and a
PG&E representative,and they determined that the ConSol proposal offered the best value for the
City of Fresno.Funding was provided for this agreement by the California Energy Commission and
the U.S.Department of Energy,Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant.Local preference is
not a factor due to the source of funding.In May 2011,City Council approved a $450,000
professional services agreement with ConSol of Stockton,California for Whole House rater and
Reporting Services (primarily equivalent to the current Home Energy Tune-Up Program services).
Council approved subsequent amendments to this agreement providing for additional like services in
the amounts of $350,000 in November 2011,$400,000 in May 2012,and $500,000 in July 2012,
respectively.
In October 2012,Sustainable Fresno developed specifications for the residential and commercial
energy audit testing and reporting services and issued an advertised,competitive Request for
Proposal (“RFP”)for the Residential and Commercial Energy Audit Testing and Reporting Services
for the Fresno Home Energy Tune-up Program.Eleven (11)proposals were submitted for review and
evaluation.An evaluation committee,made up of staff from the City of Fresno and a PG&E
representative,determined that the ConSol proposal continued to offer the best value for the City of
Fresno.On December 20,2012,the City Council approved a professional services agreement with
ConSol of Stockton,California for residential and commercial energy audit testing and reporting
services for the Fresno Home Energy Tune-up Program.The contract term was from January 1,
2013 through December 31, 2014 with a contract amount of $3,600,000.
October 16,2014 was the first moment that the CPUC provided approval indicating the funding would
continue to be provided to support the City’s energy efficiency programs.Given this short timeframe,
all resources were focused on the MSA contract amendment needs between the City and PG&E.
Because ConSol continues to refine and support the Audit and Reporting Services as determined by
the City,PG&E,homeowners,and businesses,PG&E and DARM staff recommend continuing with
ConSol throughout the 2015 Calendar year.Additionally,2015 is the third year of a three-year
funding and deliverables review period in which PG&E and CPUC will evaluate energy programs for
potential 10-year funding,and ConSol is in the best position to provide results in these program
areas.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-576 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-B
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
By the definition provided in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)Guidelines Section
15378, this item does not qualify as a “project” for the purposes of CEQA.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Local preference was not implemented because the amendment of an agreement does not include a
competitive bid.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with these agreements were included in the Department’s FY15 budget and will
be paid for with funding from Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the California Public Utilities
Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1.PG&E Contract Work Authorization Part 1 (2013-2014)
2.PG&E Contract Work Authorization Part 2 (2013-2014)
3.ConSol Contract (2013-2014)
4.PG&E Change order No 1 to CWA 2015
5.PG&E No 2 contract change order 2015
6.First Amendment ConSol Final
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) made and entered
into as of this 18th____ day of December, 2014, amends the Agreement heretofore
entered into between the CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and
CONSOL, a California corporation (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are
collectively referred to as Parties.
RECITALS
CITY and CONSULTANT entered into an Agreement, dated January 1, 2013, for
professional Residential and Commercial Energy Audit and Reporting services for
Home Energy Tune-Up Program (“Agreement”); and
CONSULTANT is engaged in the business of furnishing services as a Residential
and Commercial Energy Audit and Reporting Services Provider and hereby represents
that it desires to and is professionally and legally capable of performing the services
called for by this agreement; and
WHEREAS, PG&E supports the Home Energy Tune-Up Program through its
Local Government Partnership Program (LGP Program) and has provided funding
thereunder to fund the services under this agreement; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT acknowledges that this agreement is subject to the
requirements of Fresno Municipal Code Section 4-107 and Administrative order No. 6-
19; and
WHEREAS, this agreement will be administered for the City by its Development
and Resource Management Director (hereinafter referred to as “Administrator”) or
his/her designee.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, which recitals are
contractual in nature, the mutual premises herein contained, and for other good and
valuable consideration hereby acknowledge, the Parties agree that the aforesaid
Agreement be amended as follows:
1.CONSULTANT shall provide prior services types and additional detailed
reporting per Exhibit A, for an additional year commencing January 1, 2015 and
terminating December 31, 2015.
2.CONSULTANT’S sole compensation for satisfactory performance of all
calendar 2015 services required or rendered pursuant to this Amendment shall be a
total fee of $2,200,000.
3.In the event of any conflict between the body of this Amendment and any
Exhibit or Attachment hereto, the terms and conditions of the body of this Amendment
shall control and take precedence over the terms and conditions expressed within the
Exhibit or Attachment. Furthermore, any terms or conditions contained within any
2
Exhibit or Attachment hereto which purport to modify the allocation of risk between the
Parties, provided for within the body of this Amendment, shall be null and void.
4.Except as otherwise provided herein, the Agreement entered into by CITY
and CONSULTANT, dated January 1, 2013, remains in full force and effect.
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment at Fresno,
California, the day and year first above written.
CITY OF FRESNO,CONSOL
a municipal corporation a California corporation
By: By:
Name: Jennifer Clark Name:
Title: Director Development and Resource Title:
Management.(if corporation or LLC, Board
ATTEST:Chair, Pres. Or Vice Pres.)
YVONNE SPENCE, CMC By:
City Clerk
Name:
By: Title:
Deputy Date (if corporation or LLC, CFO,
Treasurer, Secretary or Assistant
Secretary)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:REVIEWED BY:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
By:
By:
Brandon M. Collet Date
Deputy
Addresses:
CITY:CONSULTANT:
City of Fresno CONSOL
Attention: Jose R Gonzalez Attention: Michael G. Hodgson, President
2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 220
Fresno, CA. 93721-3623 Stockton, Ca. 95207
Telephone No. 559-621-8090 Telephone No. 209-473-5008
FAX:FAX:
Attachment: N/A
4
Attachment “A”
REVISED SCOPE AND FUNDING FOR 2015
Consultant Service First Amendment to Agreement between City of Fresno (“City”) and CONSOL
(“Consultant”)
2015 Continued funding and implementation scope additions
Project Title
Item 1, CONSOL shall continue to perform in 2015 the Professional Residential and Commercial
Energy Audit and Reporting services, including adherence to all Exhibits (A, B, C, D, D1, D2, D3, D4
and D5) of the previous contract that was effective January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014.
Item 2, CONSOL will add the additional reporting details to the previous scope.
The consultant fee to provide additional scope and revised services is itemized as follows:
Item Task Description Original Fee Change in Fee Total Fee
1.Continued Professional Residential
and Commercial Energy Audit and
Reporting services for the Home
Energy Tune-Up Program
$2,200,000
2.Additional reporting detail;
Provide invoice granularity to
support labor charges of 30
minutes or more including labor
description.
Provide partial ASHRAE Level 2
cost reduction for reduced energy
conservation measures
conversion.
Provide monthly assessment
master home owner list to allow
for county distribution breakdown.
Provide WEB based and, bench
marking assessments to locations
as determined by the program
administrator.
Total Fee $2,200,000
5
The total fee identified above is only for 2015. There will be no carryover of any funds from the previous
2013-2014 program cycle.
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-636 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-C
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:THOMAS C. ESQUEDA, Director
Department of Public Utilities
THROUGH:STEPHEN A. HOGG, Assistant Director
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
BY:ROSA LAU-STAGGS, Chief of Wastewater Environmental Services
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
SUBJECT
Adopt the 2014 Revision of the City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) as required
by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems
RECOMMENDATION
Staff introduces and recommends adoption of the 2014 Sewer System Management Plan to prevent
and/or reduce sanitary sewer overflows.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State Water Resources Control Board adopted a statewide general Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (General WDR)to establish system-wide operation,
maintenance and management plans to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).Under the General
WDR, the City developed a SSMP which was approved by the City’s Council on April 7, 2009.
The General WDR requires update of the SSMP every five years with adoption of the revisions by the
Enrollee’s government body.The SSMP has been revised to incorporate the latest personnel
changes,maintenance schedules and programs and includes short and long term capital
improvement projects revised each fiscal year.
BACKGROUND
On May 2,2006,the State Water Resources Control Board (Board)issued Order No.2006-0003-
DWQ,General WDR.The purpose of the General WDR is to establish system-wide operation,
maintenance and management plans to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSO)which is a spill of
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-636 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-C
untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting in public exposure and a health hazard.
In November 2006,the City submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI)or application for permit coverage
under the General WDR.In July 2007,the City Council approved a proposed SSMP Development
Plan and Schedule which listed development and implementation deadlines for each of the eleven
above mentioned elements.The State requires that cities with population over 100,000 complete a
final SSMP by May 2, 2009.
On April 7,2009,the City Council approved the City of Fresno’s SSMP which provides a mechanism
to properly fund,manage,operate,and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system to reduce and
prevent SSOs.The City’s SSMP (1)establishes the legal authority to prevent illicit discharges into its
sanitary sewer system,(2)requires that sewers and connections be properly designed and
constructed,(3)ensures access for maintenance,inspection,or repairs for those portions of the
lateral owned or maintained by the City,(4)limits the discharge of fats,oils,and grease and other
debris that may cause blockages, and (5) enforces any violation of its sewer ordinances.
The SSMP has eleven mandatory elements with implementation deadlines according to the size of
the collection system:
1.Goal
2.Organization
3.Legal Authority
4.Operation and Maintenance Program
5.Design and Performance Provisions
6.Overflow Emergency Response Plan
7.Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program
8.System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan
9.Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications
10.Sewer System Management Plan Program Audits
11.Communication Program
The General WDR requires that all cities’SSMP be updated every five years and it is by
recommendation of the Board that it be approved by the City Council.City Attorney Office has
reviewed and approved to form.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The SSMP is exempt under Section 15308 (Class 8/Actions by Regulatory Agency for Protection of
the Environment) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Local preference was not considered because the SSMP does not include a bid or award of a
construction or services contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
All elements of the SSMP are programs,policies or ordinances currently in place and applicable to all
Council areas.Funding to implement the mandated SSMP is addressed in the Sewer Enterprise
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-636 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-C
Operating and Capital Improvement budgets and will have no impact to the General Fund.
Attachment:2014 Sewer System Management Plan
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
2014
City of Fresno
SEWER SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Wastewater
Management
Division
CCIITTYY OOFF FFRREESSNNOO
SSEEWWEERR SSYYSSTTEEMM MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN ((SSSSMMPP))
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………….……………………… 1
1. Goal…………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2. Organization…………………………………………………..……………… 5
3. Legal Authority………………………………………………..……………… 10
4. Operation and Maintenance Program………………………….………… 12
5. Design and Performance Provisions……………………….……………. 16
6. Overflow Emergency Response Plan…………………….……………… 18
7. Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program…………….…………… 23
8. Systems Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan………….……….. 29
9. Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications………………. 31
10. Sewer System Management Plan Program Audits……………………... 38
11. Communication Program………………………………………………..….. 41
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 1
City of Fresno
Sewer System Management Plan
Executive Summary
2014
The City of Fresno (City) owns and maintains the wastewater collection system that serves the City
and other participating agencies: County of Fresno, City of Clovis, Pinedale Public Utility District,
and Pinedale County Water District. The City’s wastewater collection system is comprised of
approximately 1,500 miles of pipe ranging from 4” to 84” in diameter, over 23,000 manholes and
15 sewer lift stations.
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) issued Order No. 2006-0003-
DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (WDR-
SSS). The WDR-SSS consists of a number of components and reporting requirements and is
applicable to any entity (e.g., the City of Fresno) that owns or operates a collection system greater
than one mile in length.
The purpose of the WDR-SSS is to establish system-wide operation, maintenance and
management plans to reduce sanitary sewer overflows. A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is a
release of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting in public exposure, regardless of
whether the wastewater reaches waters of the United States or not. It also refers to wastewater
backups into buildings and onto private property that are caused by blockages in the City’s portion
of the sanitary sewer system.
The WDR-SSS lists two prohibitions: (1) Any SSO that results in a discharge of wastewater to
waters of the United States and (2) Any SSO that creates a public nuisance. The WDR-SSS
continues with a number of provisions instructing the City what to do in the event of an SSO,
possible enforcement action against the City, and subsequent cleanup measures.
Under the WDR-SSS, the City is required to develop and implement a Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP) that must be available to the State or Regional Board upon request and must be
approved by the City’s governing body.
The SSMP provides a mechanism to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the
sanitary sewer system, with the ultimate goal being to reduce and prevent SSOs, as well as
mitigate any SSOs that do occur. The City’s SSMP must:
(1) Establish the legal authority to prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer
system;
(2) Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed;
(3) Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for those portions of the
lateral owned or maintained by the City;
(4) Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris that may cause
blockages; and
(5) Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 2
The SSMP has eleven mandatory elements with implementation deadlines according to the size of
the collection system. These are:
(1) Goal;
(2) Organization;
(3) Legal Authority;
(4) Operation and Maintenance Program;
(5) Design and Performance Provisions;
(6) Overflow Emergency Response Plan;
(7) Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program;
(8) System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan;
(9) Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications;
(10) SSMP Program Audits; and
(11) Communication Program.
In November 2006, the City submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) or application for permit coverage
under the Statewide General WDR-SSS. In July 2007, the City Council approved a proposed
SSMP Development Plan and Schedule which listed development and implementation deadlines
for each of the eleven mandatory elements of the City’s SSMP. The State requires that cities with
a population over 100,000 complete a final SSMP by May 2, 2009.
On April 7, 2009, the City Council approved and adopted the SSMP as required by the Statewide
General WDR-SSS. All of the mandatory elements of the SSMP were met with programs or
ordinances already in place: Fresno Municipal Code, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan,
FOG Control Program, Sanitary System Overflow Prevention and Response Plan, Performance
Measures and Public Information/Education opportunities. Since 2011, the City has performed
annual self-audits of the SSMP that resulted in minor revisions to the original document.
On July 30, 2013, the Board issued Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC to amend the Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MRP) of the Statewide General WDR-SSS. This Order went into effect on
September 9, 2013 revising spills categories and definitions. In the prior version, SSOs were
defined as Category 1 and Category 2. The revised MRP adds Category 3. This change was
done to improve data management and to help the State’s determination of high or low threats
(Category 1 and Category 3, respectively). In addition, the Order clarifies SSO notification,
reporting, monitoring, and record keeping requirements.
The Statewide General WDR-SSS requires that the SSMP be updated every 5 years and must
include any significant program changes. Re-certification by the City Council is required if
significant changes are made to the SSMP that requires Council approval for additional funds
needed to implement the program. Because the 2009 SSMP document already establishes
periodic updates of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and an ongoing Sewer Capital
Improvement Program is presented and approved by Council each year as part of the City’s
budget process, re-certification of the SSMP by the City Council is not needed at this time. (Refer
to the State Water Resources Control Board “Enrollee’s Guide to SSO Database”
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/docs/discharger_workbook.pdf )
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 3
However, upon recommendation of the Board, the 2014 SSMP will follow process for Council
approval on December 11, 2014.
For 2014, the City of Fresno’s SSMP is revised to update:
1. List of representatives responsible to implement the SSMP.
2. Revision of the Collection System Maintenance Operation and Maintenance Manual with
standard operating procedures including the SSO Response Plan. This O&M Manual
replaces the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Prevention and Response Plan (SSOPRP).
3. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, 2014 update.
4. Sewer Capital Improvement Program, 5-year plan.
5. Performance Measures.
Through continuous evaluation of the existing programs, future improvement plans will be
developed to meet the State’s requirements while ensuring adequate capacity to meet future
growth demands and proper allocation of resources for the operation, maintenance, and timely
repair of the City’s sanitary sewer system.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 4
City of Fresno – Department of Public Utilities
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
1. Goal
The City of Fresno owns and maintains the wastewater collection systems that serve the Fresno
Metropolitan Area. The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) ensures proper and adequate
conveyance of sewer to the Fresno-Clovis Regional W astewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and
the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF) through an effective Collection
System Operation and Maintenance program and consistent update of the Wastewater Collection
System Master Plan. In addition, the Department has the legal authority to enforce programs to
control/minimize sewer blockages; and an efficient Emergency Response Plan to address SSOs
The City, through the DPU, is dedicated to achieve the following goals:
Minimize preventable SSOs
Maintain an effective and timely SSO Response Plan
Proactively inspect and maintain all city-owned sewer collection infrastructure
Develop accurate database to determine and prioritize areas of major maintenance or
rehabilitation needs
Implement an effective FOG Control Program
Implement and effective Root Control Program
Implement an adequate Sewer Collection Rehabilitation Program
Provide adequate sewer capacity to accommodate future growth through periodic Master
Plan revisions
Develop a public outreach program addressing SSO prevention and the importance of
sewer collection infrastructure
Provide a safe work environment for all operators of the Collection System
“The Goal of the SSMP is to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate,
and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system. This will help reduce and prevent
SSOs, as well as mitigate any SSOs that do occur.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General
WDR for Wastewater Collection Agencies)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 5
2. ORGANIZATION
Since January 7, 1997, the City of Fresno has a Mayor-Council form of government (Section 1503,
Charter of the City of Fresno).
The Council is the governing body of the City and vested with all powers of legislation on municipal
affairs adequate to a complete system of local government consistent with the Constitution of the
State. The City has seven elected Councilmembers representing seven Districts. One of the
Councilmembers is elected President of the Council.
The executive power of the City is vested in the Office of the Mayor. The Mayor has veto power
for legislative and budgetary actions of the Council and it is responsible for providing leadership
and efficient administration of all affairs of the City through the City Manager’s office. The Mayor
also provides liaison between the City Manager’s Office and the Council.
The City Attorney provides legal assistance and guidance to ensure legal authorities through
existing ordinances and the Charter of the City.
The City Manager’ is the Chief Administrative Officer heading the administrative branch of the city
government. The City Manager oversees the operation of the various departments within the City’s
organization. The Departments of Public Utilities, Public Works, and Planning & Development
have important roles in the SSMP.
The Planning and Development Department oversees the issuance and review of building permits
including installation of grease removal devices or other types of separators. It also provides code
enforcement for applicable Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) violations.
The Department of Public Works (DPW) provides guidance ensuring projects are constructed in
accordance to current building codes and specifications. DPW ensures contract compliance and
provides inspection for construction and maintenance projects.
“The SSMP must identify:
(a) The name of the responsible authorized representative as described in Section J
of this Order
(b) The names and telephone numbers for management, administrative, and
maintenance positions responsible for implementing specific measures in the
SSMP program. The SSMP must identify lines of authority through an
organizational chart or similar document with a narrative explanation, and
(c) The chain of communications for reporting SSOs, from receipt of a complaint or
other information, including the person responsible for reporting SSOs to the
State and Regional Water Board and other agencies if applicable (such as
County Health Officer, County Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water
Board, and/or State Office of Emergency Services (OES))”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General
WDR for Wastewater Collection Agencies)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 6
The following organization chart lists only the City departments and the Division related to the
implementation of the SSMP:
City Attorney
Mayor
City Council
City Manager
Department of
Public
Utilities
Wastewater
Management
Division
(1) Goals
(2) Organization
(3) Legal Authority
(7) FOG Program
(11) Communication
Program
Administration and
Environmental
Services
City of Fresno
Sewer System Management Plan Implementation
Organization Chart
Planning and
Development
Department
Department of
Public Works
Collection Systems
Maintenance
(4) Operation and
Maintenance Program
(6) Overflow
Emergency Response
Program
(9) Monitoring,
Measurement and
Program Modification
(10) Sewer System
Monitoring and
Program Audit
Technical Services
(5) Design and
Performance
Provisions
(6) System Evaluation
and Capacity
Assurance Plan
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 7
The DPU provides vital service to the community such as water, sewer, and solid waste services.
Organizational changes to become more efficient resulted in Sewer Maintenance Division merging
into Wastewater Management Division (WMD). WMD operates and manages most aspects of the
City’s SSMP.
WMD is responsible for the collection and treatment of sewer conveyed through the collection
system and into the RWRF and the NFWRF. WMD’s Administration and Environmental Services
establish goals, organizational roles, and implementation responsibilities for the SSMP. WMD
implements the FOG Control Program through the Pretreatment Program and has the legal
authority to enforce its requirements.
WMD, through the Collection System Maintenance (CSM) workgroup is responsible to operate and
maintain the collection system to ensure adequate sewer conveyance to the community. CSM
manages the inspection, maintenance, and minor repairs of the sewer collection system and
related infrastructures. CSM is also responsible to respond to calls reporting SSOs and
subsequent notifications and plan of action to address the causes. Data gathered through
preventive and reactive maintenance and assessment of sewer lines provides tools for monitoring,
measurement and program modifications, as well as regular updates of established performance
measures. WMD Technical Services manages all sewer collection capital improvement projects
that include rehabilitation of existing or construction of new pipelines throughout the City, sewer
modeling and the update of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.
Following is a list of representatives responsible to implement the SSMP:
Name Title Phone Number
Thomas Esqueda Director DPU (559) 621-8610
Stephen Hogg Assistant Director, DPU, WMD (559) 621-5100
Kevin Norgaard Supervising Professional Engineer, DPU, WMD (559) 621-5297
Rosa Lau-Staggs Chief of Environmental Services, DPU, WMD (559) 621-5130
Arturo Alvarez Collection System Supervisor, DPU, WMD (559) 621-1270
Erin Davis Collection System Supervisor, DPU, WMD (559) 621-1260
Tom Adams Supervising Environmental Control Officer, DPU, WMD (559) 621-5140
Carla Watkins Management Analyst III, DPU, WMD (559) 621-5120
Perry Stofan Management Analyst II, DPU, WMD, (559) 621-1255
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 8
(a) Responsible Authorized Representative:
Arturo Alvarez, Collection Systems Maintenance Supervisor
(b) Implementation of Specific Measures of the SSMP:
SSMP Elements Responsibility Phone number
1. Goal
Rosa Lau-Staggs
(559) 621-5130
2. Organization
3. Legal Authority
4. Operation and Maintenance
Program
Arturo Alvarez
Erin Davis
(559) 621-1270
(559) 621-1260
5. Design and Performance Provisions
Kevin Norgaard (559) 621-5297
6. Overflow Emergency Response Plan Arturo Alvarez
Erin Davis
(559) 621-1270
(559) 621-1260
7. FOG Control Program
Rosa Lau-Staggs
Tom Adams
(559) 621-5130
(559) 621-5140
8. System Evaluation and Capacity
Assurance Plan
Kevin Norgaard
(559) 621-5297
9. Monitoring, Measuring and Program
Modifications
Arturo Alvarez
Erin Davis
(559) 621-1270
(559) 621-1260
10. SSMP Program Audits
Rosa Lau-Staggs
Arturo Alvarez
Erin Davis
(559) 621-5130
(559) 621-1270
(559) 621-1260
11. Communication Program
Rosa Lau-Staggs
(559) 621-5130
(c) Chain of Communication for Reporting SSOs
SSOs are referred by calling the City’s WMD Collections System Maintenance at (559) 621-1496
which is available 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. After hours, weekends or holidays (559)
621-2489 will reach the on-call operator. The on-call crew is expected to respond to the site within
1.0 hour after the call is received. Assessment, containment, and volume estimation are
performed as soon as possible. Maintenance crews work on clearing up stoppages, flushing,
vacuuming, and inspecting the line. The area is properly sanitized to eliminate health hazards.
Supervisors proceed with notification and reporting requirements as specified in the MRP of the
Statewide General WDR-SSS.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 9
SSO
CALL:
621-1496 (24-HOUR/365 DAYS ACCESS) OR
621-2489 (AFTER HOURS, WEEKENDS OR
HOLIDAYS)
FIRST RESPONDER
DUTY CREW (BUSINESS HOURS) OR
ON-CALL CREW (AFTER HOURS)
Assessment
Confinement
Work Orders Placement
SSO Volume Estimation
REPORTING REQUIREMENT
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE SUPERVISORS
Art Alvarez, CSM Supervisor 559.621.1270
Erin Davis, CSM Supervisor 559.621.1260
Category 1
SSO
Category 3
SSONo
CORRECTIVE/PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
RESPONSE CREW
Flushing, Rodding, Vaccuming, Clean up, Video
Inspection and Sanitation
Referral
Public
Education
Code
Enforcement
SSO EMERGENCY RESPONSE- NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING PROCEDURES
NOTIFICATION LIST
Office of Emergency Services Responder 800.852.7550
OES Control # 04-2631 916.845.8911
Fresno County Health Dpt. Specialist / 559.445.3357 or
After Hours Responder 559.488.3131
RWQCB Daniel Benas 559.445.5500
Fresno Metro Flood Control Patrick Bryan 559.456.3292
Fresno Irrigation District Jim Irwin 559.233.7161
CA Fish and Game Lt. John Baker 559.243.4005
Department of Public Utilities Stephen A. Hogg 559.621.5100
Wastewater Management Rosa Lau-Staggs 559.621.5100
Environmental Services Tom Adams 559.621.5100
City of Clovis Mike Leonardo 559.324.3600
San Joaquin Air Pollution Jaime Holt 559.960.8164
Krazan Associates Jeff Noel 559.348.2200
Category 2
SSO NoNo
Submit draft
report within 3
business days of
becoming aware
of the SSO
Certify report
within 15
calendar days of
the SSO end date.
Notification no later
than 2 hours after
becoming aware of
the SSO
Yes
Yes
Submit certified
report within 30
calendar days of
the end of month
in which SSO
occurred
Yes
ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Reporting through CIWQS Online SSO Database:
(http://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/)
SSO Technical Report to be submitted 45 calendar
days after end day of a Category 1 if 50,000 gallons
or more of untreated or partially treated wastewater
is spilled to surface waters.
“No Spill” certification, to be submitted within 30
calendar days of the end of the month when no
SSOs occurred.
Collection System Questionnaire to be updated and
certified every 12 months.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 10
3. LEGAL AUTHORITY
Chapter 6, Article 3 (Sewage and Water Disposal) of the FMC provides the necessary legal
authority to:
(a) Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer systems.
i. FMC, Section 6-327. Discharge Prohibitions.
(b) Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed.
i. FMC, Section 6-308. Sewer System Construction.
(c) Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for sewers maintained by the City.
i. FMC, Section 6-322. Rights for Inspection and Sampling.
(d) Limit the discharge of fats, oils and grease and materials that could cause sewer line
blockage.
i. FMC, Section 6-321.1 Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Program.
ii. FMC, Section 6-327. Discharge Prohibitions.
(e) Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances.
i. FMC, Section 6-323. Enforcement.
ii. FMC, Section 6.324. Emergency Suspensions.
iii. FMC, Section 6.325. Termination of Discharge.
On May 20, 2008, the City of Fresno adopted amendments to Chapter 6 Article 3 as Bill No. B-30,
Ordinance No. 2008-33, which became effective on June 22, 2008. The amendments clarify and
consolidate existing language into a new chapter specific to fats, oils, and grease control (FMC,
Section 6-321.1. Fats, Oils & Grease (FOG) Control Program). In summary, the changes include:
(a) Defining terms related to the FOG Control Program.
(b) Adding the FOG Control Program in accordance with the General WDR-SSS.
i. Best Management Practices specific to the FOG Control Program are listed.
ii. Pretreatment device requirements (either grease interceptors or grease
traps) for specific establishments.
iii. A waiver allowance for pretreatment devices under specific conditions to be
collected as cost recovery charges for maintenance or cleanup of an FOG
impacted sewer line.
“Each Enrollee must demonstrate, through sanitary sewer system use ordinance,
service agreements, or other legally binding procedures, that it possesses the necessary
legal authority to:
(a) Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system (examples may
include I/I, stormwater, chemical dumping, unauthorized debris and cut roots,
etc.);
(b) Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed;
(c) Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for portions of the
lateral owned or maintained by the Public Agency;
(d) Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris that may cause
blockages, and
(e) Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General
WDR for Sanitary Sewer Systems)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 11
References
Fresno Municipal Code; Chapter 6; Article 3 Sewage and Water Disposal. (Appendix B)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 12
4. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
(a) VIEWFresno (external) / iView (internal) is the GIS based mapping and data presentation tool
written and maintained by the City’s DPU, Planning and Engineering (P&E). It integrates
information from P&E (engineers’ drawings, as-builts, mapped in-ground assets), Hansen (work
orders, service requests), PipeTech (video inspections), GPS and other systems. Different
features are available in the internal and external versions, but the underlying data is the same.
VIEWFresno/iView is continuously updated as assets are added, rehabilitated, or abandoned and
to correct any discrepancies verified by field staff. Over 225 layers can be loaded onto the map
including Sewer Mains (gravity and force mains), Sewer Manholes, Lift Stations (drawings
showing valves and pumps)) and Flood Control Assets. CSM crews have field access with the
use of laptops. Also, updated plat maps (hard copy), with the pertinent sanitary sewer system
information, are provided by P&E to the CSM workgroup and are available for use in the case
“The SSMP must include those elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to
the Enrollee’s system:
(a) Maintain an up-to-date map of the sanitary sewer system, showing all gravity
line segments and manholes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and
applicable stormwater conveyance facilities;
(b) Describe routine prevention operation and maintenance activities by staff and
contractors, including a system for scheduling regular maintenance and
cleaning of the sanitary sewer system with more frequent cleaning and
maintenance targeted at known problem areas. The preventive Maintenance
(PM) program should have a system to document scheduled and conducted
activities, such as work orders;
(c) Develop a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system
deficiencies and implement short-term and long-term rehabilitation actions to
address each deficiency. The program should include regular visual and TV
inspections of manholes and sewer pipes and a system for ranking the condition
of sewer pipes and scheduling rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and replacement
should focus on sewer pipes that are at risk of collapse or prone to more
frequent blockages due to pipe defects. Finally, the rehabilitation and
replacement plan should include a capital improvement plan that addresses
proper management and protection of the infrastructure assets. The plan shall
include a time schedule for implementing the short- and long-term plans plus a
schedule for developing the funds needed for the capital improvement plan;
(d) Provide training on a regular basis for staff in sanitary sewer systems operations
and maintenance, and require contractors to be appropriately trained; and
(e) Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including identification of
critical replacement parts.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General
WDR for Sanitary Sewer Systems)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 13
(b) the internet is not available. Appendix C, Figure 4-1 shows examples of various map settings
available through the I-View portal.
(c) The WMD’s CSM workgroup is in the process of updating the CSM-O&M Manual that
describes the various programs related to the preventive and corrective maintenance of the
sanitary collection system and the assessment program for preventive or corrective measures
(Appendix C). The CSM-O&M Manual holds standard operating procedures (SOPs) for
equipment and instruments used for the maintenance of the collection system. It also contains
the SSO Response Plan (SSORP). This document replaces the 2009 SSOPRP with an
evolving document that is upgraded when processes are revised or new ones are implemented
and as needed to meet regulatory requirements.
The City’s sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 1,500 miles of sewer mainlines,
over 23,000 manholes and 15 lift stations. The service area is divided into 14 basins. Each
basin has a specific cleaning schedule according to historical and recent findings. Following
are the routine preventive maintenance practices conducted by staff and contractors:
Preventive Maintenance (Cleaning)
Currently, routine cleaning (hydro flushing) is scheduled once a year for 6”-15” pipe and
every two years for 16”-24” pipe. During this routine cleaning, manholes are also
inspected. Any needed repairs are turned over to the CSM construction crew. Mechanical
rodding is done on an as-needed basis with the assistance of portable video inspection
equipment. (Appendix C, Figure 4-2)
“Hot Spots”
More frequent maintenance is performed on critical sewers in problem areas known as Hot
Spots. The Hot Spot maintenance schedule is broken down into 30-, 60-, 90-, 180- and
365-day intervals (Appendix C, Figure 4-3). When an asset has been identified as a
recurring problem or potential for recurring problem, it is placed on the Hot Spots’
maintenance schedule. The FOG stoppage map is one of the tools used to track problem
areas (SSMP, Chapter 9. Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications. Figures
9-2)
Lift Stations
Routine lift station maintenance is scheduled every 90-days (Appendix C, Figure 4-4). Each
site is thoroughly inspected, pumps serviced, wet wells and valves cleaned and any needed
repairs are made. Each lift station is monitored through a Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system which provides remote access to view site status and transmits
alarms to CSM staff. Corrective maintenance is performed in response to alarms. Database
queries are used to monitor the number of alarms per month or year for performance
measures.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 14
CCTV Inspection
CCTV inspections are conducted daily with the goal of inspecting the City’s entire collection
system. Video inspections are also required on all new installations, new tie-ins and after
an SSO. The data collected from the inspections is entered into PipeTech, a database
which compiles information of the surveyed asset. Assets are rated in PipeTech according
to the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipe Assessment and
Certification Program (PACP).
Root Control
Excessive root intrusion is addressed using chemical foaming. Historically, the majority of
root control was performed by a contractor however; CSM is currently transitioning to in-
house treatments exclusively. Sewer mains found to have root intrusion will be added to
the root control list. Prior to treatment, the roots will be cut using a chain flail. The
schedule will follow the manufacturer’s recommendation of: initial treatment, 1 year
treatment, 2 year treatment, and ultimately remain on a 3 year treatment cycle.
FOG
The City has implemented a FOG Control Program through the Pretreatment Program.
The program is detailed in the SSMP, Chapter 7, FOG Control Program.
Work orders
All work performed is documented using Hansen, a Computerized Asset Management
System (Appendix C, Figure 4-5). Hansen Asset Management provides a comprehensive
work order system for managing all types of maintenance work including service requests,
scheduled preventive maintenance, and projects. Records are available dating back to
May of 2006, the time in which Hansen was implemented.
(d) The City has short-term and long-term sewer capital improvement and rehabilitation projects.
These projects include repair, rehabilitation and construction of existing and new infrastructure
to ensure the sustainability of the wastewater collection system. The City inspects sewer lines
using CCTV and gathers the data in PipeTech (Appendix C, Figure 4-6). Data is used to
assess and rank the condition of sewer lines and to schedule maintenance and repairs as
needed.
Short-term
Funding is allocated every year to address short-term rehabilitation projects that could
range from small spot repairs to larger line replacements. Spot repairs are done in-house
or through an authorized contractor.
Long-term
The City contracted an outside consulting firm to assist in developing the Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan). The plan supports the City’s projected
growth until the year 2025. One of the Plan’s specific objectives is to develop a capital
improvement program that includes hydraulic projects as well as rehabilitation projects to
address mainline and manhole corrosion. In 2013, the City approved an agreement with a
contractor to update the 2006 Master Plan. (SSMP, Chapter 8. System Evaluation and
Capacity Assurance Plan)
(e) Staff is required to attend training facilitated within the City and is encouraged to attend outside
training events and conferences. New employees shadow more experienced staff in order to
learn the proper operation and maintenance of equipment and facilities. Employees are also
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 15
cross trained (rotated) on all equipment to ensure proper coverage, without interruption, in all
aspects of the job.
Safety training is critical to provide staff with a safe working environment. The City follows
OSHA regulations providing safety training and safety tailgates on confined space, eye safety,
safe work habits, heat illness, defensive driving, back safety (lifting), first aid, blood-borne
pathogens, trailer safety and others.
Technical training is also provided to develop staff and to keep abreast of new technology,
industry updates, current and upcoming regulatory issues, policies and procedures and to
improve process and efficiency. Training has been provided on the National Association of
Sewer Services Company (NASSCO) Pipe Assessment Certification Program (PACP) and
Manhole Assessment and Certification Program (MACP), Aries tractor school (CCTV
equipment), SSOs, SSO-WDR compliance workshops, storm water pollution plan, competent
person training/trench safety, excavator awareness, trenchless road show, implementation of
FOG Control Program, pesticide use, various California Water Environment Association
(CWEA) trainings and workshops, etc. The City also encourages CSM grades I-V certification
through the CWEA. Study materials are provided along with reimbursement of the testing fees
after passing.
(f) The City has a summary of critical spare parts inventory and a list of the major equipment used
for collection system operation and maintenance. Service vehicles/equipment and parts are
managed by the City’s Fleet Maintenance Division. Materials needed for spot repairs (pipe and
couplings), manhole frame & covers, flusher hose, leader hose, tiger tails and PPE are
continuously stocked. Portable lift station silent pumps and generators along with traffic control
equipment are maintained and available for emergency.
References
WMD-CSM Operation and Maintenance Manual (Appendix C)
Collection System Mapping – I-View. Figure 4-1
CSM Basin Cleaning Schedule. Figure 4-2
“Hot Spots” Cleaning Schedule. Figure 4-3
Lift Station Maintenance Schedule. Figure 4-4
Work Order Report. Figure 4-5
Video Inspection Report for Spot Repair. Figure 4-6
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 16
5. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS
The City minimizes occurrences of SSOs due to hydraulic loading by ensuring current and future
sewer flows do not exceed the design capacity of the sewer lines at peak flow based on estimated
full build out of the area and according to the City’s General Plan. To avoid surcharge of the sewer
system that may result in an SSO, pipes will be sized to carry peak flows with the pipe flowing at
no more than 0.8 of the pipe diameter using the Manning’s Equation.
All sewers shall be designed to have a slope which will give a mean velocity at design of no less
than 2.0 feet per second based on the Manning's Equation using an "n" value of 0.013. Minimum
velocity, if approved by the DPU or designee shall be no less than 1.5 feet per second at a design
capacity. Slope requirements shall be followed to ensure self-cleansing and self-oxidizing
velocities in order to avoid significant generation of hazardous, odorous and corrosive sulfur
compounds.
The following peaking factors shall be utilized in the design of sewer mains:
Peak Factor Pipe Size
3.0 8”
2.5 10”
2.0 12” to 21”
1.8 24” to 36”
1.7 39” to 54”
1.6 60” to 84”
No gravity sewer main shall be less than 8 inches in diameter (implemented August 2002), and no
laterals shall be less than 4 inches.
(a) The City defines construction standards and specification criteria for the installation and
rehabilitation of sanitary sewer systems. The City’s technical library Standard
Specifications of the DPW provides information on installation of sanitary sewer pipe and
appurtenances describing:
Standard materials.
Trench and structure excavation and backfill.
Pipe installation.
“ (a) Design and construction standards and specifications for the installation
of new sanitary sewer systems, pump stations and other appurtenances;
and for the rehabilitation and repair of existing sanitary sewer systems;
and
(b) Procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation of
new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenance and for rehabilitation and
repair projects.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide
General WDR for Sanitary Sewer Systems)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 17
Foundation, bedding, backfilling and compaction of trenches.
Connection of service laterals.
Installation of sewer home branches.
Manhole construction and drop sewer connections.
Thimbles.
(b) Testing specifications and procedures for each of the above mentioned areas are stated in
the Standard Specifications. In addition, there is specific language for the following:
Deflection test for sewer lines.
Leakage test of sewer lines and service laterals.
Television inspection of interior of installed pipe.
In 2014, the DPW is the process of reviewing proposed revisions of Chapter 17-City of Fresno
Standard Drawings related to Sewer Pipe and Appurtenances.
References
City of Fresno, DPW , Standard Specifications Chapter 17-Sanitary Sewer Pipe and
Appurtenances. (Appendix D)
City of Fresno Standard Drawings. (Appendix D)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 18
6. OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
The City’s WMD, CSM workgroup developed a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan (CSM-
SSORP) as part of the revision of the CSM Operation and Maintenance Manual. The CSM-
SSORP is designed to assist and train staff in the proper procedures to address SSOs from the
time staff is made aware of the event and through assessment, clean-up, notification, follow up and
record keeping processes (Appendix E). The CSM-SSORP ensures steps are followed
consistently to eliminate or minimize public health hazards, property damage, water quality impacts
and the inconvenience of service interruptions.
(a) The CSM workgroup is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to respond to SSOs. The
WMD offices are open Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and all service calls are referred
directly to the CSM first responders or supervisors. Staff answering phone calls related to sewer
spills or sewer problems are trained on gathering the information needed and promptly conveys it
to the CSM first responders. After hours, the phones are transferred to an answering service
which relays all sewer related calls to stand-by staff via telephone. The answering service is
provided with a list of secondary contacts in case the primary respondent cannot be reached. The
stand-by staff is provided with a City vehicle and a City cell phone to ensure timely response.
“Each Enrollee shall develop and implement an overflow emergency response plan that
identifies measures to protect public health and the environment. At a minimum, this plan
must include the following:
(a) Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and regulatory
agencies are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner;
(b) A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows;
(c) Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory agencies and
other potentially affected entities (e.g. health agencies, Regional Water Boards,
water suppliers, etc.) of all SSOs that potentially affect public health or reach the
waters of the State in accordance with the MRP. All SSOs shall be reported in
accordance with this MRP, the California Water Code, other State Law, and other
applicable Water Board WDRs or NPDES permit requirements. The SSMP should
identify the officials who will receive immediate notification;
(d) Procedures to insure that appropriate staff and contractor personnel are aware of
and follow the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained;
(e) Procedures to address emergency operations, such as traffic and crowd control
and other necessary response activities; and
(f) A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent
the discharge of untreated and partially treated wastewater to waters of the United
States and to minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting
from the SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be
necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General WDR
for Sanitary Sewer Systems)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 19
Staff follows the MRP for the Statewide General WDR-SSS, Order NO. WQ 2013-0058 EXEC,
specifically Table 2- Notification, Reporting, Monitoring, Record Keeping Requirements and as
referenced in the CSM-SSORP.
(b) The CSM workgroup maintains a CSM-SSORP which addresses procedures to properly
respond to SSOs including but not limited to investigation, main line assessment, traffic control,
corrective action, volume estimation, clean-up, sampling of receiving waters, notification and
incident documentation. Staff uses an SSO Check List (Figure 6-1) to ensure notifications,
reporting and document filing is properly and timely completed.
(c) The CSM-SSORP Section (V)(B), SSO Notification Contact List, is followed to ensure prompt
notification to regulatory agencies. The CSM-SSORP directly references the Board’s MRP No.
2006-0003-DWQ (Revised Order No. WQ 2008-0002-Exec), the California Water Code, California
Health and Safety Code and requirements placed on us by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. In addition, the SSO Notification Contact List contains information of other non-regulatory
entities that could be impacted by a SSO event (Figure 6-2)
(d) Staff is made aware of the CSM-SSORP and is trained on the procedures on a routine basis.
The City’s Technical Library for Standard Specifications requires contractors to exercise every
reasonable precaution to protect channels, storm drains and bodies of water from pollution. The
City’s Construction Management Division requires contractors to develop their own SSO
Prevention and Response plan. In addition, all contractors shall comply with provisions of all
applicable laws, ordinances and regulations.
(e) The CSM-SSORP provides guidelines to address emergency operations. Back-up coverage,
in the form of personnel and/or equipment, is provided to ensure all possible situations are
adequately managed. Listed under emergency rentals are Rain for Rent (pumps & aluminum pipe)
and Alert-O-Lite (traffic control, trench plates, shoring & equipment rental). All staff have
completed the Traffic Control Technician Training Course taught by ATTSA. The City’s Police and
Fire Departments are also available to assist in traffic and crowd control situations that are beyond
the scope of the Division personnel.
(f) The CSM-SSORP provides guidelines to minimize sewage from reaching waters of the state.
First responders assess the area impacted by the SSO identifying receiving waters, watercourse
and storm drainpipe inlets. Containment of the SSO is done using sandbag barriers to stop
sewage from entering storm drainpipe inlets. If necessary, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District can be contacted for access to basins feeding into the San Joaquin River. Initial and
follow-up water quality sampling will be performed by a consultant (Krazan & Associates).
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 20
6-1. SSO Check List
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 21
Figure 6-2.SSO Notification List
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 22
References
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan (Appendix C)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 23
7. FOG CONTROL PROGRAM
(a) The City has launched several public information campaigns to educate the public on the
proper disposal of FOG. “The Drain is not a Trash Can” / “Scrape it Don’t Grind It” (2005),
“Trash the Grease” (2011) and “If It’s Not Toilet Paper, Don’t Flush It” (2013) were campaigns
developed to raise awareness of the impact of improper disposal of products down drains or toilets
that could build up in pipes and cause sewer backups. These campaigns also developed posters
for food services establishments (FSEs) listing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for proper
disposal of yellow grease, food waste or brown grease. BMPs are distributed during FSEs
inspections and are required to be posted at visible locations for employee awareness. In addition,
brochures, refrigerator magnets, door hangers and bill inserts with the campaign slogans and
BMPs are used to convey the message.
Each year, the City strategically places FOG outreach information for the general public through
radio, television and newspaper ads during Holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas, when
potential to sewer backups due to grease are at its highest. In addition, the City uses “Utility
Zone,” a monthly bill insert, to promote proper disposal of FOG.
Information (including a FOG Fact Sheet) is posted on the City’s website:
http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/PublicUtilities/Wastewater/Pretreatment/f
og.htm
“Each Enrollee shall evaluate its service area to determine whether a FOG control program
is needed. If an Enrollee determines that a FOG program is not needed, the Enrollee must
provide justification for why is not needed. If FOG is found to be a problem, the Enrollee
must prepare and implement a FOG source control program to reduce the amount of these
substances discharged to the sanitary sewer system. This plan shall include the following
as appropriate:
(a) An implementation plan and schedule for a public education outreach program
that promotes proper disposal of FOG;
(b) A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the sanitary sewer
system service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or
additional facilities needed to adequately dispose of FOG generated within a
sanitary sewer service area;
(c) The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to
prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG;
(d) Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or interceptors),
design standards for the removal of devices, maintenance requirements, BMP
requirements, record keeping and reporting requirements;
(e) Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and
whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the FOG ordinance;
(f) An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to FOG blockages and
establishment of a cleaning maintenance schedule for each section; and
(g) Development and implementation of source control measures for all sources of
FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for each section identified in (f)
above.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General
WDR for Wastewater Collection Agencies)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 24
(b) The CSM workgroup maintains the sanitary sewer system through a preventive
maintenance program. Grease and debris found during scheduled or unscheduled maintenance of
main sewer lines are vacuumed and disposed of at a designated site located at the RWRF.
FSEs dispose of their “yellow grease” through recycling companies. Interceptors or grease traps
with “brown grease” are required to be cleaned at least quarterly or more often if deemed
necessary after an FSE inspection. This is done by haulers certified by the State of California and
Fresno County Health Department. The County requires haulers to indicate disposal location(s)
and tracks their activities and manifests to ensure proper and legal disposal of the contents of the
interceptor.
Since 2012, the RWRF accepts waste from FSEs which goes into an Anaerobically Digestible
Material (ADM) Receiving Station for the purpose to generate additional methane gas for power
generation. RWRF permits FOG waste haulers disposing into the facility and ensures FSEs are
utilizing a hauler permitted by the State regardless of their final disposal place.
(c) The FMC carries the legal authority to enforce existing mandates to ensure proper
management and disposal of grease waste as well as the authority to inspect, permit and /or issue
penalties or administrative fines to business if found in violation of the code. The City has issued
notices of violation with administrative penalties and cost recovery charges to businesses found
not in compliance with the Code or illegally dumping debris in the sewer system (Figure 7-1).
(d) The FMC requires installation of pretreatment devices such as grease removal equipment
for all food service establishments. In addition, it lists specific BMPs to be followed by staff with
specific requirements such as signage, permits, maintenance records, inspection and reporting
requirements as specified in the Wastewater Discharge Permit
(e) The FMC gives the authority to inspect and permit food service establishments. The code
also gives authority to address violations with Administrative Penalties. The City ensures enough
staff is allocated to meet inspection and permitting goals for the fiscal year. Over 300 FSEs are
inspected and permitted annually.
The “Food Service Establishment Site Inspection Form” (Figure 7-2) helps assess the condition of
the establishment’s grease removal devices, frequency of cleaning, best management practices
and proper disposal of their waste. The “Food Service Establishment Wastewater Discharge
Permit” (Figure 7-3), is issued after the site inspection and provides a list of requirements for the
business to follow including the frequency in which the grease removal equipment should be
maintained.
(g) Data from sewer line inspections is entered into the “FOG Program Report,” a spreadsheet with
information of sewer mains blockages caused by grease. This report summarizes information
on failure analysis (cause), response time, responding staff, and maintenance required or
performed for inspected sewer infrastructure. Data from this spreadsheet is used to graph and
determine trends that will help identify cleaning frequency for critical and non-critical areas and
will prioritize the schedule for manhole inspection, mechanical rodding and brushing, video
inspection, chemical root control, grease control and sewer line spot repairs. The program
tracks areas of high maintenance defined as “Hot Spots.” Each quarter, the list is updated and
locations are given priority for maintenance and inspection. Results are tracked and trended to
evaluate status and/or improvement.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 25
(g) The City of Fresno’s Pretreatment Program includes a Chapter addressing Fats Oils and
Grease with requirements to inspect and permit all food service establishments. Inspecting and
permitting areas of concern is prioritized according to the areas of higher maintenance needs.
Sewer line blockages due to excessive grease accumulation are investigated to find the possible
location/business or residential area causing the problem. Follow up investigations will determine
if door hangers for residential outreach or a full inspection and permitting for a business is needed
to eliminate the cause of the grease build up and improve the condition of the line.
References:
Fresno Municipal Code; Chapter 6; Article 3 Water and Sewer Disposal; Sec 6-321.1 Fats, Oil and
Grease (FOG) Control Program. (Appendix B)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 26
Figure 7-1. Notice of Violation
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 27
Figure 7-2. Food Service Establishments - Site Inspection Form
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 28
Figure 7-3. Food Service Establishment - Wastewater Discharge Permit
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 29
8. SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN
The City owns and maintains the wastewater collection system comprised of approximately 1,500
miles of pipe ranging from 4” to 84” in diameter, over 23,000 manholes and 15 sanitary sewer lift
stations. The City prepared a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) to enable
the City to continue providing adequate sewer capacity for current and future customers.
According to the 2025 General Plan, the city’s population will increase from 482,000 in year 2000
to 790,000 in 2025.
The goal of the project is to develop a long-range planning document that will assist the City’s staff
with managing the collection system capital improvement program and update impact and
connection fees. Specific objectives of the project include:
Identifying and evaluating improvements to the existing and future collection system
necessary to serve proposed growth;
Developing a comprehensive capital improvement program that includes hydraulic projects
as well as rehabilitation projects to address corrosion; and
Reviewing impact and connection fees for adequacy to recover rehabilitation and growth
costs.
The City’s recognizes the need for a Master Plan to be used as a comprehensive planning tool to
help determine existing and future sewer capacity needs. The Master Plan is updated on a five-
year frequency, or sooner if significant changes to the planning assumption occur.
“The Enrollee shall prepare and implement a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will provide
hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for dry weather peak flow
conditions, as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather event. At a minimum, the
plan must include:
(a) Evaluation: Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the sanitary sewer
system that are experiencing or contributing to an SSO discharge caused by
hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation must provide estimates of peak flows
(including flows from SSOs that escapes from the system) associated with
conditions similar to those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of
key system components, hydraulic deficiencies (including major components of the
system with limiting capacity) and the major sources that contribute to the peak
flows associated with overflow events;
(b) Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist or are deficient, undertake the
evaluation identified in (a) above to establish appropriate design criteria; and
(c) Capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to establish a short- and
long-term CIP to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization,
alternatives analysis and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe size,
I/I reduction programs, increases and redundancy in pumping capacity, and
storage facilities. The CIP shall include an implementation schedule and shall
identify sources of funding.
(d) Schedule: The Enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion dates for all
portions of the capital improvement program developed in (a)-(c) above. This
schedule shall be reviewed and updated consistent with SSMP review and update
requirements as described in Section D. 14.”
(State Water Resource Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General WDR
for Wastewater Collection Agencies)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 30
Revision to the Master Plan was done in 2006 by Brown and Caldwell. The revision included:
Review of the City’s physical collection system, including local drainage basins, pipes, and
special diversion structures (Chapter 2);
Review of all current and future land use (Chapter 3);
Development of current and projected flow rates during dry and wet weather and evaluation
of how much extra flow from rainfall is present (Chapter 4);
Development of a state-of -the art fully dynamic model (Chapter 2);
Hydraulic analysis of the system under current and future conditions (Chapter 5);
Development of a Capital Improvement Program, prioritization and cost estimates for
projects to address existing and future needs including rehabilitation projects (Chapter 6);
Financial analysis of the impacts of the recommended projects;
Evaluation of CSM programs.
In July 2010, and as part of the 2006 Master Plan Revision, Blair Church and Flynn documented
for the City the conditions of 17.5 miles of reinforced concrete pipe, standard concrete pipe and
asbestos-cement pipe sewers from 12 inches up to (not including) 27 inches in diameter. This
evaluation was done using detailed information from CCTV inspections performed from 2005
through 2009. This report provided the basis for sewer remediation recommendations for
approximately 11 miles of sewer lines.
On July 2, 2013, the City Council approved an agreement with Carollo Engineers for the update of
the 2006 Master Plan with three major components:
1. Development of an accurate flow model.
2. Periodic condition assessment of the existing collection system.
3. Development of a prioritized schedule of future capital improvement projects to be
completed over the next 25 years.
The City developed an “all-pipe” model of the existing collection system within the H2OMAP Sewer
Hydraulic Modeling Software package developed by Innovyze. Part of the Master Plan is to review
the existing hydraulic model and refine it with additional information from field surveys, details of
critical diversion manholes, details of lift station infrastructures, development of diurnal patterns for
specific areas for industrial users and development of wet weather flow parameters specific to
each flow monitoring basin.
In January 2014, Carollo Engineers presented a draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Update, Technical Memorandum No.1 describing the update and calibration of the City’s collection
system hydraulic model.
Each year, Sewer Capital Projects costs with a five-year projection model are analyzed during
budget preparation and presented to Council for approval. FY2014 Collection Capital Projects
shows a summary and a detailed breakdown of sewer projects including main line and lift stations
emergency repairs, lift station scheduled rehabilitation projects, manhole and mainline
rehabilitation and other sewer collection improvement projects with an estimated 5-year budget
projection. Each project is managed by the Technical Services workgroup.
References:
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan – 2006 (Appendix F-Disk)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan – 2014 Revision (Appendix F-Disk)
CCTV Inspection and Evaluation for Mid-Sized Concrete Sewers – (WMD Library)
FY14 Budget for Sewer Capital Projects- (Appendix G)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 31
9. MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, AND PROGRAM
MODIFICATIONS
(a) The City of Fresno maintains information in various databases and spreadsheets that helps
establish areas of priority for adequate maintenance of the collection system.
Records are analyzed for trends that indicate potential failure of the system from
deterioration, blockages and other factors. Databases integrated with geographic
information systems, work order management programs and finance systems can greatly
enhance effective management of the collection system.
Following are documents/program used to collect data that help establish maintenance
priorities:
Hansen -Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS).
PipeTech Software.
i-View Mapping Program.
WMD –CSM Electronic Files:
o “Fog Program Report” Excel report documenting mainline blockages.
o “Mile per Work Day per Month” Excel report documenting cleaning performance.
WMD – Web Based Query Applications:
o Average Response Time.
o Lift Station Alarms.
o Parts and Materials Expenses per Quarter.
o Pipe Rating Assessment.
All preventive and corrective maintenance uses the sewer line ratings from the CMMS. Data
is stored in PipeTech as sewer lines are video inspected. I-View, a customized software
program, links all of the databases with a mapping system. In addition, data is maintained in
electronic files and is used to graph trends that will help identify problem areas, determine the
cause of the problem, schedule maintenance priorities and provide information for the
Division’s performance measures.
“The Enrollee shall:
(a) Maintain relevant information that can be used to establish and prioritize appropriate
SSMP activities;
(b) Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate, measure the effectiveness of
each element of the SSMP;
(c) Assess the success of the preventive maintenance program;
(d) Update program elements, as appropriate, based on monitoring or performance
evaluations; and
(e) Identify and illustrate SSO trends, including: frequency, location, and volume.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General WDR for
Wastewater Collection Agencies)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 32
(b) The City’s SSMP is a comprehensive and evolving document that is revised as evaluation of
the collection system is performed on a routine basis. Overall performance is evaluated and
reported to management during monthly and quarterly reviews of the Division’s Strategic
Planning through a Balanced Scorecard system.
Self-audits of the SSMP are performed on an annual basis and schedules for preventive or
corrective maintenance are adjusted according to the needs. Performance measures related
to the SSMP are reviewed and revised on a yearly basis during the self-audit.
(c) The City maintains the sewer collection system through scheduled, periodic inspection and
cleaning of the sewer lines and lift stations. Root control is done on an as-needed basis. A
pilot program for an in-house root control is in the implementation process. Video inspection
is performed on sewer lines to assess conditions previous to repair. Lift stations are on a
SCADA system that sends alarms to CSM operators when levels reach warning set points.
Data is maintained in electronic files for trending of maintenance and repair needs.
Preventive inspection of mainlines has resulted in early detection of collection system
failures. Sewer lines are repaired on a preventive rather than an emergency basis.
Due to regulatory prohibition of SSOs by the WDR-SSS, preventive maintenance of sewer
lines is high in priority with a focus on “Hot Spots” areas. Sewer lines up to 15” are
scheduled to be performed once a year and lines 16”- 24” are done every two years. “Hot
Spots” are scheduled on 30-. 60-, 90-, 180- and 365-day intervals. Training and use of new
technology is encouraged. The efficiency on day-to-day tasks have improved due to the use
of laptops that allows accessing databases through the I-View portal in the field.
Inspections of FSE were performed under the Pretreatment Program totaling over 1,300
FSEs inspected on a 4-year period. By the end of 2013 Wastewater Discharge Permits were
issued to all inspected FSEs requiring scheduled maintenance of grease traps and
interceptors as well as implementation of Best Management Practices.
One of the indicators used to assess the success of the current preventive maintenance
program can be summarized with the “FOG Program Report.” This report shows the trend of
sewer main blockages caused by FOG between a running period from 2004 through 2008
and from 2009 through 2013. The report summarizes information on failure analysis (cause),
response time, responding staff, and maintenance required or performed for inspected sewer
infrastructure.
The first period running from 2004 through 2008 showed approximately 412 sewer main
blockages within the City limits. The following period running from 2009 through 2013
showed improvement with only 160 blockages.
Lift Station preventive maintenance is scheduled on a 90-day basis. Recently, the SCADA
system was moved to WMD’s control. Updates of the programming improved the alarm
response system decreasing the number of false alarms within the last year (2013). Lift
station alarms reaching levels as high as 106 for the last quarter of 2012 decreased to 45 for
the last quarter of 2013.
Figures 9-1, 9-2 and 9-3 show sewer problem areas mapped according to plats and the
difference between the periods ending 2008 and 2013.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 33
Figure 9-1. Sewer Main Line Blockages due to FOG- Period 2004-2008
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
04 1 thru 4 0457 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 04
05 5 thru 8 0557 0558 0559 0560 0561 0562 05
06 9 thru 15 0657 0658 0659 0660 0661 0662 06
07 16 thru 25 0755 0756 0757 0758 0759 0760 0761 0762 07
08 FROM 2004-2008 0855 0856 0857 0858 1 0860 0861 0862 08
09 0954 0955 0956 1 0958 0959 0960 0961 0962 09
10 1054 1055 1 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 10
11 1143 2 1 1146 1147 1148 1149 1 1151 1152 1153 2 1 1156 1 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 11
12 1242 1243 1244 1 1 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 3 1257 1258 1 1260 1261 1262 12
13 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 2 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 13
14 1441 1442 1 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 14
15 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1 1 1554 1555 1556 1 1 0 1560 1561 1562 1563 15
16 1641 1642 6 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1 1657 1 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 16
17 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 5 1 1 1754 1 4 1757 2 2 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 17
18 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1 1849 1850 1851 3 1853 1854 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 1862 1863 1864 1865 2 1867 18
19 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1 1 1950 1951 1 1953 1954 1955 2 2 1958 2 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1 1 1967 1968 19
20 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 1 2048 2049 4 1 2 4 3 5 2 2 1 1 2 1 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 20
21 2142 2143 2144 2145 1 1 2148 2149 2150 2 1 1 8 5 1 2 2 2159 1 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 3 2168 2169 2170 21
22 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 4 2252 2253 16 4 4 4 2258 2259 1 2261 2 2 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 22
23 2342 2343 1 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 3 4 7 7 3 3 5 2259 2360 2361 2362 2 1 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 23
24 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 5 6 6 5 1 1 4 2 2 1 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 24
25 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 1 2 1 10 7 1 3 5 6 1 2562 2563 2564 2565 2 2567 2568 2569 25
26 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 1 2651 1 1 2 8 2656 2657 1 1 2660 7 2 2663 2664 1 2 2667 2668 2669 26
27 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 6 6 13 2756 9 1 4 2760 3 1 2763 2 2765 1 2767 2768 2769 27
28 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2750 2851 1 2853 4 2 2856 1 15 5 2860 1 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 28
29 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2 1 2955 2 2 2958 2959 1 1 2962 2963 2964 2965 1 1 2968 2969 29
30 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 1 3060 1 1 3063 3064 1 3066 1 3068 3069 30
31 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 7 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 31
32 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 32
33 3354 4 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 33
34 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 34
35 3558 3559 3560 3561 35
36 3658 3659 3660 3661 36
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
NUMBER OF
MAINLINE
STOPPAGES
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 34
Figure 9-2. Sewer Main Line Blockages due to FOG- Period 2009-2013
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
04 1 thru 4 0457 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 04
05 5 thru 8 0557 0558 0559 1 0561 0562 05
06 9 thru 15 0657 0658 0659 0660 0661 0662 06
07 16 thru 25 0755 0756 0757 1 0759 0760 0761 0762 07
08 FROM 2009 TO 2013 0855 0856 0857 0858 0859 0860 0861 0862 08
09 0954 0955 0956 0957 0958 0959 0960 0961 0962 09
10 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 10
11 1143 1144 1 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 11
12 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 12
13 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 13
14 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 14
15 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1 1 1 1560 1561 1562 1563 15
16 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1 1654 1 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 16
17 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1 1 1754 1755 3 1757 1758 1 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 17
18 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 3 2 1853 1854 1855 2 1 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 18
19 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1 2 1 1953 2 1955 5 1 1958 3 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 19
20 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 4 2051 2052 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 1 2068 2069 20
21 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 3 2 3 4 3 2156 1 2 1 2160 1 2162 2163 1 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 21
22 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 1 4 7 2255 2256 2257 2258 1 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 22
23 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 1 1 2 1 1 1 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 23
24 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 1 2452 4 3 4 2 2457 2458 2459 1 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 24
25 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 1 3 2556 2557 2 1 1 2561 2562 2563 1 2565 3 2567 2568 2569 2570 25
26 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2 2654 5 2656 2 1 2659 2660 1 2662 2663 1 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 26
27 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 1 1 1 2756 2757 1 1 2760 1 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 27
28 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 1 3 2855 2856 2857 2 2859 2860 1 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 28
29 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2 2 1 3 2957 2958 2959 1 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 29
30 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 30
31 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 31
32 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 32
33 3354 1 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 33
34 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 34
35 3558 3559 3560 3561 35
36 3658 3659 3660 3661 36
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
NUMBER OF
MAINLINE
STOPPAGES
Last update January 2014
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 35
Figure 9-3. FOG Trend by Sewer Area Plats
(d) SSMP self-audits are performed each year to ensure the program elements are upgraded
when needed. New equipment or systems are budgeted, purchased and implemented each
fiscal year. Monitoring of “Hot Spots” resulted in the purchase of SmartCover® manholes
which have helped monitor locations of known SSO history. SmartCover® manholes have,
on more than one occasion, prevented a potential SSO event from occurring.
Customer calls regarding roach infestation resulted in the implementation of preventive
maintenance of areas of known concern. Assessment of the work performed by contracted
root control resulted in the implementation of an in-house root control program, currently in
progress.
Database queries have been developed to access information that will help prioritize the
maintenance of sewer mains. These queries rate the priority placed for further line
assessment or repair for sewer main lines; assess lift station alarms and details that help
make maintenance or replacement decisions; and show operators’ response time for
customer calls, type of calls and follow up with a Request for Service or Work Order when
needed.
Staff has been trained on accessing information in the field through the use of laptops which
allow access to I-View, enabling operators to open and close work orders in the field, access
the main line mapping system, access historical data of the location being serviced and any
other information related to the job to be performed on site.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 36
(e) The City uses information from the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) to
determine trends and to compare its performance against the State and the Region
Municipal averages (Figure 9-4). At the end of year 2013, the City’s Spill Rate Index (#
spills/100mi/year) and Net Volume Spills Index (Net Volume in gallons /1,000 Capita/year)
were low in comparison to the State and Region averages:
Figure 9-4 CIWQS City of Fresno Spill Summary
Collection System Spill Summary - 2013
Spill Rate Indexes (# spills / 100 mi/yr)
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
City of Fresno 0.26 0.26 1.45
State Municipal Average 3.98 2.73 7.19
Region Municipal Average 3.85 4.01 7.52
Net Volume Spills Indexes (Net Vol in gallons / 1,000 Capita/yr)
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
City of Fresno 34.64 152.43 3.23
State Municipal Average 1,746.9 1,468.44 51.2
Region Municipal Average 11,636.38 500.6 61.6
The City has a performance goal of “zero SSO” aligning with the WDR-SSS discharge
prohibition for SSOs (Figure 9-5). The measure is revised on a monthly basis and reported
during City’s monthly Strategic Planning meetings.
Figure 9-5. Balanced Scorecard Goal – “Zero SSO per 100 Miles/Month”
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 37
The City keeps electronic and hardcopy files accessible to all operators with information on
each SSO occurrence, emergency response, documentation, investigation, follow up and
certification. Reports can also be summarized from CIWQS (Figure 9-6). The link to all SSO
electronic filing system in the Division’s network can be found at I:\Sewer\O&M
Supervision\SSO
Figure 9-6. Summary of Certified SSO events 2010-2013.
Event ID Cert Step Category Spill Volume Spill Date Location Physical Address
773754 Certified Category 3 560 12/3/2011 Manhole 1857-30 N. Angus Fresno CA 93726
773116 Certified Category 3 60 11/9/2011 VENT @ 139 E. BELMONT 139 BELMONT FRESNO CA 93728
771786 Certified Category 3 440 10/5/2011 MH 2656-34 TULARE FRESNO CA 93721
771544 Certified Category 2 1950 9/28/2011 LAMPHOLE 1756-09 PORTOLA FRESNO CA 93726
771485 Certified Category 3 600 9/7/2011 VENT @ 4320 E. TURNER AVE.4320 TURNER FRESNO CA 93702
771479 Certified Category 3 20 8/23/2011 VENT @ 4814 N. DIANA 4814 DIANA FRESNO CA 93726
771477 Certified Category 3 315 8/10/2011 MANHOLE 2056-08 DAKOTA FRESNO CA 93726
769308 Certified Category 3 15 6/12/2011 Manhole 2455-15 Fresno CA 93728
768837 Certified Category 3 150 7/1/2011 MANHOLE 2355-71 1414 VAN NESS FRESNO CA 93728
766456 Certified Category 3 800 1/10/2011 SN 24530002 WEBER FRESNO CA 93728
762511 Certified Category 3 190 1/14/2011 MH #2057-44 Garland Fresno CA 93726
760920 Certified Category 1 375 1/11/2011 MANHOLE # 2555-48 POPLAR/SAN PABLO ALLEY FRESNO CA 93701
760861 Certified Category 3 150 1/3/2011 MANHOLE # 2554-25 FRANKLIN FRESNO CA 93701
760818 Certified Category 1 70 1/11/2011 MANHOLE # 2854-43 KEARNEY FRESNO CA 93706
Event ID Cert Step Category Spill Volume Spill Date Location Physical Address
782592 Certified Category 3 786 5/30/2012 VENT AT 2330 S. LOTUS AVE.2330 LOTUS FRESNO CA 93706
778560 Certified Category 3 230 3/10/2012 MH 2153-44 HARVARD FRESNO CA 93705
777478 Certified Category 3 255 2/12/2012 Manhole 2152-22 CA
788957 Certified Category 1 1890 12/7/2012 Manhole Number 2254-02 CA
789527 Certified Category 3 350 11/18/2012 1427 N. Arthur Ave.1427 Arthur CA
781584 Certified Category 3 508 4/23/2012 3144 N. Spalding CA
782716 Certified Category 3 127 5/21/2012 MANHOLE NUMBER 2561-25 CA
789144 Certified Category 1 115 12/15/2012 Manhole 2153-35 CA
776219 Certified Category 2 1380 1/21/2012 Manhole number 2764-08 Fresno CA 93727
786950 Certified Category 1 2844 10/2/2012 Manhole Number 1956-50 CA
786277 Certified Category 1 297 9/16/2012 Manhole 2352-14 Fresno CA 93728
787168 Certified Category 1 104 10/8/2012 S. Second St. & E El Monte Way CA
Event ID Cert Step Category Spill Volume Spill Date Location Physical Address
802280 Certified Category 3 778 11/3/2013 MH 1852-23 CA
801153 Certified Category 2 38200 11/15/2013 4006 N. Hughes Ave CA
791988 Certified Category 1 8508 2/16/2013 MH 2956-46 REV. CHESTER RIGGINS FRESNO CA 93706
800411 Certified Category 3 45 9/12/2013 MH 758-22 CA
801260 Certified Category 3 87 12/2/2013 Divisadero between G Street & Thorne CA
801286 Certified Category 3 501 10/26/2013 MH 2253-88 CA
803361 Certified Category 3 97 12/9/2013 1414 N. Van Ness CA
794013 Certified Category 3 359 4/5/2013 MH 1956-40 2306 HAMPTON FRESNO CA 93726
791832 Certified Category 1 315 2/18/2013 MH 2353-70 HOME FRESNO CA 93728
791688 Certified Category 3 243 1/29/2013 MH 1951-58 1831 LANSING FRESNO CA 93705
800417 Certified Category 3 127 9/3/2013 MH 1461-01 CA
801155 Certified Category 2 4470 11/21/2013 5420 E. Tulare Street CA
801285 Certified Category 3 145 10/26/2013 1315 N. Del Mar CA
792853 Certified Category 3 803 2/1/2013 MH 2861-46 ORLEANS FRESNO CA 93702
803362 Certified Category 3 88 12/28/2013 2647 N. Weber CA
2011
2012
2013
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 38
10. SSMP PROGRAM AUDITS
Since 2011, WMD has performed annual self-audits of the SSMP tying it to the annual budget process
and approval related to capital improvement projects, operation and maintenance expenditures and
annual performance measures and Pretreatment Program inspections. Self-audits for 2011, 2012 and
2013 are on file at the WMD.
Performance measures for calendar years 2011 through 2013 were used to evaluate the efficiency
and competitiveness of the City’s CSM program. During 2013, performance measures for the City
reflected changes established by the revised MRP regarding the definition and categorization of
SSOs. These changes resulted in updates on the charting of performance measures, retraining of
staff and implementation of updated SSO emergency response and notification procedures.
Performance measures related to the effectiveness of the SSMP are:
1. SSO Category 1
2. SSO Category 2
3. SSO Category 1 (Effective 9/2013)
4. SSO Category 2 (Effective 9/2013)
5. SSO Category 2 (Effective 9/2013)
6. Customer reported - Sewer Mainline Blockages
7. Average Field Response Time
8. Average Cost of Sewer Mainline Cleaned / Foot
9. Sewer Mainline Cleaned / Miles
10. Sewer Mainline Video Inspected
11. Average Cost of Video Inspection
12. Lift Station Telemetry Alarms
Effectiveness of the SSMP
The following actions have taken place to help achieve the “Zero” SSO goal:
Established an aggressive Preventive Maintenance Plan, with the goal to maintain all
sewer lines at least once a year.
Increased maintenance schedule for “Hot Spots” or areas of historically high maintenance
due to grease or invasive root problems.
Ensured availability of a broader network of new technology, new applications and use of
appropriate tools to perform the day-to day tasks.
“As part of the SSMP, the Enrollee shall conduct periodic internal audits, appropriate to the
size of the system and the number of SSOs. At a minimum, these audits must occur every
two years and a report must be prepared and kept on file. This audit shall focus on
evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the Enrollee’s compliance with the SSMP
requirements identified in this subsection (D.13), including identification of any deficiencies
in the SSMP and steps to correct them.”
(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General
WDR for Wastewater Collection Agencies)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 39
Increased communication with the Division’s Environmental Control workgroup to address
FOG issues from commercial users, including inspection and permitting of FSEs. Over 300
FSE were inspected during 2013.
Trained Collection System Operators on the Statewide General WDR-SSS encouraging
California Water Environment Association (CWA) certification and continuous training when
available.
Informed the general public of the WDR-SSS, defining SSOs through messages on
posters, door hangers and bill inserts addressing best management practices to minimize
introduction into the collection system of grease and other blockage causing products.
Started a public information campaign to address impacts of non-dispersable, unflushables
items being disposed of down the toilet. The list of “unflushables” can be found in
handouts, newspapers and TV ads and in the City’s website.
Completed rehabilitation projects listed on the Division’s Capital Improvement Program.
This is a continuous process that is updated each year during budget season.
Responded and visually assessed all customer referrals related to potential sewer
blockages.
Installed SmartCover® manholes on various key areas effectively preventing SSOs from
occurring.
Increased the in-house spot repairs program, customer service and response program and
established goals for miles per work day cleaned and percentage of miles per month video
inspected.
Developed an in-house SSO volume estimation application/procedure that includes visuals
using pictures with manholes and flows mimicking the actual SSO and flow monitoring
devices to determine baseline of main line flow prior to the SSO.
Lift stations’ SCADA is now managed by the Division, resulting in a better handle of issues
and alarms as noticed on the performance measures graph.
Compliance
During 2013, WMD have not been able to achieve the WMD performance measure goal of “Zero”
SSOs, averaging 1.5 per month of Category 1 and 2 SSOs (pre-MRP revision) and Category 1, 2,
and 3 (post-MRP revision) combined.
The City of Fresno is in the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) who owns and
maintains a network of receiving storm water basins. Updated information provided to the City of
Fresno indicates that less than 50% of all FMFCD basins have the potential to discharge into
waters of the USA. However, before the revisions of the new MRP were in effect, WMD
considered an SSO any spill entering any FMFCD basin regardless of its potential to discharge to
surface water and regardless of sewage being fully recovered from the storm basin.
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 40
The following are actions to be taken to achieve the goal of “Zero” SSOs:
Determine a sustainable goal for a two-year maintenance schedule for specific sewer lines
with no history of blockages within the last 5 years.
Increase preventive maintenance of sewer lines that have shown history of blockages
within the last 5 years.
Continue determining root cause of blockages (grease, roots, structural, sewer line
capacity, education) and address those properly.
Encourage participation on certification programs through CWEA or any other educational
program to ensure standardization of operating procedures for preventive, corrective and
line assessment day-to-day tasks.
Continue public information campaigns to address SSO prevention by waste minimization
and public awareness of the State WDR for Sanitary Sewer Systems.
Implement internal annual audits and annual reports to ensure performance goals are
achieved or if modifications to the program are needed. Future audits will address
activities, efficiency and compliance for a calendar year for all areas including performance
measures.
Continue assessment of sewer lines through video inspection or preventive maintenance to
help build up future capital improvement projects.
Assessments of all lift stations to address aging infrastructure that may need rehabilitation
or major repairs.
Establish a manhole rehabilitation project to determine priorities of manholes to be
rehabilitated or repaired.
The effectiveness of the program can be summarized as follow:
Overall decrease of FOG caused blockages as described in the FOG Program Report. The
first running period of this report, from 2004 through 2008, showed approximately 412
sewer main blockages caused by FOG within the City limits. The running period from 2009
through 2013 showed vast improvement with 160 blockages for the following 5-year period,
a 61% reduction. (Chapter 9. Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications,
Figures 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4)
Overall decrease in lift station alarms going from 118 per one single quarter by the end of
2012 to 57 alarms the last quarter of 2013, a 52% reduction. This number continues to
decrease in 2014, with 40 alarms for the first quarter of 2014.
Overall increase of capital improvement projects or emergency repairs resulting from
preventive/routine assessment of main lines without an SSO event.
Operators’ engagement and contributions to improvement processes. Development of in-
house flow estimation charts and visual aids; development of specialized crews for in-
house spot repairs.
Operators’ ability to better interpret and understand requirements of the new MRP through
continuous training and tailgates. This leads to implementation of systems, applications or
programs that utilizes the various databases to provide relevant information to continue
process improvements to effectively implement the SSMP.
References
WMD – CSM Performance Measures (Appendix H)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 41
11. COMMUNICATION PROGRAM
The City has various venues for community outreach including bill inserts, surveys, handing out
informational brochures at community events, presentations to neighborhoods or other community
associations.
In 2005, the City started public outreach campaigns providing best management practices (BMPs)
for residential customers and food service establishments. “The Drain is Not a Trash Can” and
“Scrape it, Don’t Grind it” slogans to address FOG and control the introduction of organic material
and total suspended solids to the collection system and reclamation facilities were introduced to
the public through public service announcements (radio) and televised commercials and
interviews.
In 2007, staff met and/or provided information to all City Councilmembers regarding the Statewide
General Waste Discharge Requirements for Collection Systems. The meeting helped educate
Councilmembers on the goals and requirements of the general WDR and sought support and
approval for the SSMP’s proposed Development Plan and Schedule. It also provided a venue to
discuss upcoming amendments to the FMC to include the FOG Program. The SSMP
Development Plan and Schedule was approved July 2007.
Inspections of FSEs are in full force and permits have been issued since 2008. By 2013, over
1,300 FSEs have been inspected and issued a Wastewater Discharge Permit indicating
requirements for grease trap or interceptors cleaning frequency. Inspections provide FSEs with
information on the program and signage requirements for recommended BMPs for proper disposal
of FOG.
During 2013, the City initiated the “If it’s Not Toilet Paper Don’t Flush It” campaign. This is an
important campaign due to the impact of products labeled “flushables” that creates blockages in
private and public mainline sewers, or gets into sewer pumps creating potential SSO issues.
“The Enrollee shall communicate on a regular basis with the public on the
development, implementation, and performance of its SSMP. The communication
system shall provide the public the opportunity to provide input to the Enrollee as the
program is developed and implemented. The Enrollee shall also create a plan of
communication with systems that are tributary and/or satellite to the Enrollee’s sanitary
sewer system”
(State Water Resource Control Board Order No. 2006-0006-DWQ,Statewide General
WDR for Wastewater Collection Agencies)
City of Fresno Sewer System Management Plan - 2014 Page 42
The DPU uses monthly bill inserts to convey messages from each Division to the public. This
media is used educate the public about SSOs, the SSMP, and a yearly progress of the number of
SSO events per 100 miles of sewer in comparison with the State’s average. The City also uses
this media to inform the public of the emergency response number to call in the case of an SSO.
Information regarding the Statewide WDR-SSS is spread through newspaper media, utility bill
inserts, and the City’s webpage.
As the various elements of the SSMP are being implemented, continuous evaluation through
annual performance measures will provide the necessary feedback for adjustment needed to fulfill
the goals of the program. The City is looking into sharing the progress of the SSMP through an
annual report, listing the main performance measures, improvements needed, future development,
success stories and public feedback.
References
http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/PublicUtilities/Wastewater/Collection+Sys
tems/default.htm
http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/PublicUtilities/Wastewater/Education+and
+Outreach/Unflushables.htm
Utility Zone Bill Inserts (Appendix I)
LIST OF APPENDIXES
A. Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Sanitary Sewer Systems.
B. Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 6, Article 3 Sewage
and Water Disposal.
C. Collection System Maintenance - Operation and
Maintenance Manual.
D. City of Fresno, Department of Public Works, Standard
Specifications (Chapter 17) and Standard Drawings for
Sanitary Sewer Pipe and Appurtenances.
E. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan.
F. Collection System Master Plan 2014 Update
G. Fiscal Year Sewer Capital Improvement Projects.
H. Collection System Maintenance Performance
Measures.
I. Collection System Maintenance Public Outreach
Material.
J. 2009 Council Approval of SSMP.
APPENDIX A.
STATEWIDE GENERAL
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD ORDER No. 2006-0003
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER NO. 2006-0003-DWQ
STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS
The State Water Resources Control Board, hereinafter referred to as “State
Water Board”, finds that:
1. All federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public
entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in
length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California are required to comply
with the terms of this Order. Such entities are hereinafter referred to as
“Enrollees”.
2. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are overflows from sanitary sewer systems of
domestic wastewater, as well as industrial and commercial wastewater,
depending on the pattern of land uses in the area served by the sanitary sewer
system. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic
organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic compounds, oil
and grease and other pollutants. SSOs may cause a public nuisance,
particularly when raw untreated wastewater is discharged to areas with high
public exposure, such as streets or surface waters used for drinking, fishing, or
body contact recreation. SSOs may pollute surface or ground waters, threaten
public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and
aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters.
3. Sanitary sewer systems experience periodic failures resulting in discharges that
may affect waters of the state. There are many factors (including factors related
to geology, design, construction methods and materials, age of the system,
population growth, and system operation and maintenance), which affect the
likelihood of an SSO. A proactive approach that requires Enrollees to ensure a
system-wide operation, maintenance, and management plan is in place will
reduce the number and frequency of SSOs within the state. This approach will in
turn decrease the risk to human health and the environment caused by SSOs.
4. Major causes of SSOs include: grease blockages, root blockages, sewer line
flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump station mechanical
failures, power outages, excessive storm or ground water inflow/infiltration,
debris blockages, sanitary sewer system age and construction material failures,
lack of proper operation and maintenance, insufficient capacity and contractor-
caused damages. Many SSOs are preventable with adequate and appropriate
facilities, source control measures and operation and maintenance of the sanitary
sewer system.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 2 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLANS
5. To facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems, each
Enrollee must develop and implement a system-specific Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP). To be effective, SSMPs must include provisions to
provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of
sanitary sewer systems, while taking into consideration risk management and
cost benefit analysis. Additionally, an SSMP must contain a spill response plan
that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to an SSO in a
manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance
conditions.
6. Many local public agencies in California have already developed SSMPs and
implemented measures to reduce SSOs. These entities can build upon their
existing efforts to establish a comprehensive SSMP consistent with this Order.
Others, however, still require technical assistance and, in some cases, funding to
improve sanitary sewer system operation and maintenance in order to reduce
SSOs.
7. SSMP certification by technically qualified and experienced persons can provide
a useful and cost-effective means for ensuring that SSMPs are developed and
implemented appropriately.
8. It is the State Water Board’s intent to gather additional information on the causes
and sources of SSOs to augment existing information and to determine the full
extent of SSOs and consequent public health and/or environmental impacts
occurring in the State.
9. Both uniform SSO reporting and a centralized statewide electronic database are
needed to collect information to allow the State Water Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) to effectively analyze the extent
of SSOs statewide and their potential impacts on beneficial uses and public
health. The monitoring and reporting program required by this Order and the
attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003-DWQ, are necessary
to assure compliance with these waste discharge requirements (WDRs).
10. Information regarding SSOs must be provided to Regional Water Boards and
other regulatory agencies in a timely manner and be made available to the public
in a complete, concise, and timely fashion.
11. Some Regional Water Boards have issued WDRs or WDRs that serve as
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to sanitary
sewer system owners/operators within their jurisdictions. This Order establishes
minimum requirements to prevent SSOs. Although it is the State Water Board’s
intent that this Order be the primary regulatory mechanism for sanitary sewer
systems statewide, Regional Water Boards may issue more stringent or more
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 3 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
prescriptive WDRs for sanitary sewer systems. Upon issuance or reissuance of
a Regional Water Board’s WDRs for a system subject to this Order, the Regional
Water Board shall coordinate its requirements with stated requirements within
this Order, to identify requirements that are more stringent, to remove
requirements that are less stringent than this Order, and to provide consistency
in reporting.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
12. California Water Code section 13263 provides that the State Water Board may
prescribe general WDRs for a category of discharges if the State Water Board
finds or determines that:
xThe discharges are produced by the same or similar operations;
xThe discharges involve the same or similar types of waste;
xThe discharges require the same or similar treatment standards; and
xThe discharges are more appropriately regulated under general discharge
requirements than individual discharge requirements.
This Order establishes requirements for a class of operations, facilities, and
discharges that are similar throughout the state.
13. The issuance of general WDRs to the Enrollees will:
a) Reduce the administrative burden of issuing individual WDRs to each
Enrollee;
b) Provide for a unified statewide approach for the reporting and database
tracking of SSOs;
c) Establish consistent and uniform requirements for SSMP development
and implementation;
d) Provide statewide consistency in reporting; and
e) Facilitate consistent enforcement for violations.
14. The beneficial uses of surface waters that can be impaired by SSOs include, but
are not limited to, aquatic life, drinking water supply, body contact and non-
contact recreation, and aesthetics. The beneficial uses of ground water that can
be impaired include, but are not limited to, drinking water and agricultural supply.
Surface and ground waters throughout the state support these uses to varying
degrees.
15. The implementation of requirements set forth in this Order will ensure the
reasonable protection of past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of
water and the prevention of nuisance. The requirements implement the water
quality control plans (Basin Plans) for each region and take into account the
environmental characteristics of hydrographic units within the state. Additionally,
the State Water Board has considered water quality conditions that could
reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors that affect
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 4 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
water quality in the area, costs associated with compliance with these
requirements, the need for developing housing within California, and the need to
develop and use recycled water.
16. The Federal Clean Water Act largely prohibits any discharge of pollutants from a
point source to waters of the United States except as authorized under an
NPDES permit. In general, any point source discharge of sewage effluent to
waters of the United States must comply with technology-based, secondary
treatment standards, at a minimum, and any more stringent requirements
necessary to meet applicable water quality standards and other requirements.
Hence, the unpermitted discharge of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system to
waters of the United States is illegal under the Clean Water Act. In addition,
many Basin Plans adopted by the Regional Water Boards contain discharge
prohibitions that apply to the discharge of untreated or partially treated
wastewater. Finally, the California Water Code generally prohibits the discharge
of waste to land prior to the filing of any required report of waste discharge and
the subsequent issuance of either WDRs or a waiver of WDRs.
17. California Water Code section 13263 requires a water board to, after any
necessary hearing, prescribe requirements as to the nature of any proposed
discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing discharge. The
requirements shall, among other things, take into consideration the need to
prevent nuisance.
18. California Water Code section 13050, subdivision (m), defines nuisance as
anything which meets all of the following requirements:
a. Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
b. Affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any
considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or
damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
c. Occurs during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes.
19. This Order is consistent with State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 (Statement
of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California) in that
the Order imposes conditions to prevent impacts to water quality, does not allow
the degradation of water quality, will not unreasonably affect beneficial uses of
water, and will not result in water quality less than prescribed in State Water
Board or Regional Water Board plans and policies.
20. The action to adopt this General Order is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) because it is
an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the protection of the
environment and the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the
environment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15308). In addition, the action to adopt
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 5 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
this Order is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Cal.Code Regs., title 14, §15301 to
the extent that it applies to existing sanitary sewer collection systems that
constitute “existing facilities” as that term is used in Section 15301, and §15302,
to the extent that it results in the repair or replacement of existing systems
involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.
21. The Fact Sheet, which is incorporated by reference in the Order, contains
supplemental information that was also considered in establishing these
requirements.
22. The State Water Board has notified all affected public agencies and all known
interested persons of the intent to prescribe general WDRs that require Enrollees
to develop SSMPs and to report all SSOs.
23. The State Water Board conducted a public hearing on February 8, 2006, to
receive oral and written comments on the draft order. The State Water Board
received and considered, at its May 2, 2006, meeting, additional public
comments on substantial changes made to the proposed general WDRs
following the February 8, 2006, public hearing. The State Water Board has
considered all comments pertaining to the proposed general WDRs.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that pursuant to California Water Code section 13263, the
Enrollees, their agents, successors, and assigns, in order to meet the provisions
contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted
hereunder, shall comply with the following:
A. DEFINITIONS
1.Sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) - Any overflow, spill, release, discharge or
diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer
system. SSOs include:
(i) Overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater that
reach waters of the United States;
(ii) Overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater that do
not reach waters of the United States; and
(iii) Wastewater backups into buildings and on private property that are
caused by blockages or flow conditions within the publicly owned portion
of a sanitary sewer system.
2.Sanitary sewer system – Any system of pipes, pump stations, sewer lines, or
other conveyances, upstream of a wastewater treatment plant headworks used
to collect and convey wastewater to the publicly owned treatment facility.
Temporary storage and conveyance facilities (such as vaults, temporary piping,
construction trenches, wet wells, impoundments, tanks, etc.) are considered to
be part of the sanitary sewer system, and discharges into these temporary
storage facilities are not considered to be SSOs.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 6 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
For purposes of this Order, sanitary sewer systems include only those systems
owned by public agencies that are comprised of more than one mile of pipes or
sewer lines.
3.Enrollee - A federal or state agency, municipality, county, district, and other
public entity that owns or operates a sanitary sewer system, as defined in the
general WDRs, and that has submitted a complete and approved application for
coverage under this Order.
4.SSO Reporting System – Online spill reporting system that is hosted,
controlled, and maintained by the State Water Board. The web address for this
site is http://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov. This online database is maintained on a
secure site and is controlled by unique usernames and passwords.
5.Untreated or partially treated wastewater – Any volume of waste discharged
from the sanitary sewer system upstream of a wastewater treatment plant
headworks.
6.Satellite collection system – The portion, if any, of a sanitary sewer system
owned or operated by a different public agency than the agency that owns and
operates the wastewater treatment facility to which the sanitary sewer system is
tributary.
7.Nuisance - California Water Code section 13050, subdivision (m), defines
nuisance as anything which meets all of the following requirements:
a. Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
b. Affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any
considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or
damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
c. Occurs during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes.
B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
1. Deadlines for Application – All public agencies that currently own or operate
sanitary sewer systems within the State of California must apply for coverage
under the general WDRs within six (6) months of the date of adoption of the
general WDRs. Additionally, public agencies that acquire or assume
responsibility for operating sanitary sewer systems after the date of adoption of
this Order must apply for coverage under the general WDRs at least three (3)
months prior to operation of those facilities.
2. Applications under the general WDRs – In order to apply for coverage pursuant
to the general WDRs, a legally authorized representative for each agency must
submit a complete application package. Within sixty (60) days of adoption of the
general WDRs, State Water Board staff will send specific instructions on how to
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 7 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
apply for coverage under the general WDRs to all known public agencies that
own sanitary sewer systems. Agencies that do not receive notice may obtain
applications and instructions online on the Water Board’s website.
3. Coverage under the general WDRs – Permit coverage will be in effect once a
complete application package has been submitted and approved by the State
Water Board’s Division of Water Quality.
C. PROHIBITIONS
1. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater
to waters of the United States is prohibited.
2. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater
that creates a nuisance as defined in California Water Code Section 13050(m) is
prohibited.
D. PROVISIONS
1. The Enrollee must comply with all conditions of this Order. Any noncompliance
with this Order constitutes a violation of the California Water Code and is
grounds for enforcement action.
2. It is the intent of the State Water Board that sanitary sewer systems be regulated
in a manner consistent with the general WDRs. Nothing in the general WDRs
shall be:
(i) Interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Clean
Water Act, or supersede a more specific or more stringent state or
federal requirement in an existing permit, regulation, or
administrative/judicial order or Consent Decree;
(ii) Interpreted or applied to authorize an SSO that is illegal under either the
Clean Water Act, an applicable Basin Plan prohibition or water quality
standard, or the California Water Code;
(iii) Interpreted or applied to prohibit a Regional Water Board from issuing an
individual NPDES permit or WDR, superseding this general WDR, for a
sanitary sewer system, authorized under the Clean Water Act or
California Water Code; or
(iv) Interpreted or applied to supersede any more specific or more stringent
WDRs or enforcement order issued by a Regional Water Board.
3. The Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to eliminate SSOs. In the event that an
SSO does occur, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to contain and mitigate
the impacts of an SSO.
4. In the event of an SSO, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to prevent
untreated or partially treated wastewater from discharging from storm drains into
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 8 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
flood control channels or waters of the United States by blocking the storm
drainage system and by removing the wastewater from the storm drains.
5. All SSOs must be reported in accordance with Section G of the general WDRs.
6. In any enforcement action, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will consider
the appropriate factors under the duly adopted State Water Board Enforcement
Policy. And, consistent with the Enforcement Policy, the State and/or Regional
Water Boards must consider the Enrollee’s efforts to contain, control, and
mitigate SSOs when considering the California Water Code Section 13327
factors. In assessing these factors, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will
also consider whether:
(i) The Enrollee has complied with the requirements of this Order, including
requirements for reporting and developing and implementing a SSMP;
(ii) The Enrollee can identify the cause or likely cause of the discharge event;
(iii) There were no feasible alternatives to the discharge, such as temporary
storage or retention of untreated wastewater, reduction of inflow and
infiltration, use of adequate backup equipment, collecting and hauling of
untreated wastewater to a treatment facility, or an increase in the
capacity of the system as necessary to contain the design storm event
identified in the SSMP. It is inappropriate to consider the lack of feasible
alternatives, if the Enrollee does not implement a periodic or continuing
process to identify and correct problems.
(iv) The discharge was exceptional, unintentional, temporary, and caused by
factors beyond the reasonable control of the Enrollee;
(v) The discharge could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable
control described in a certified SSMP for:
xProper management, operation and maintenance;
xAdequate treatment facilities, sanitary sewer system facilities,
and/or components with an appropriate design capacity, to
reasonably prevent SSOs (e.g., adequately enlarging treatment or
collection facilities to accommodate growth, infiltration and inflow
(I/I), etc.);
xPreventive maintenance (including cleaning and fats, oils, and
grease (FOG) control);
xInstallation of adequate backup equipment; and
xInflow and infiltration prevention and control to the extent
practicable.
(vi) The sanitary sewer system design capacity is appropriate to reasonably
prevent SSOs.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 9 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
(vii) The Enrollee took all reasonable steps to stop and mitigate the impact of
the discharge as soon as possible.
7. When a sanitary sewer overflow occurs, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps
and necessary remedial actions to 1) control or limit the volume of untreated or
partially treated wastewater discharged, 2) terminate the discharge, and 3)
recover as much of the wastewater discharged as possible for proper disposal,
including any wash down water.
The Enrollee shall implement all remedial actions to the extent they may be
applicable to the discharge and not inconsistent with an emergency response
plan, including the following:
(i) Interception and rerouting of untreated or partially treated wastewater
flows around the wastewater line failure;
(ii) Vacuum truck recovery of sanitary sewer overflows and wash down
water;
(iii) Cleanup of debris at the overflow site;
(iv) System modifications to prevent another SSO at the same location;
(v) Adequate sampling to determine the nature and impact of the release;
and
(vi) Adequate public notification to protect the public from exposure to the
SSO.
8. The Enrollee shall properly, manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the
sanitary sewer system owned or operated by the Enrollee, and shall ensure that
the system operators (including employees, contractors, or other agents) are
adequately trained and possess adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities.
9. The Enrollee shall allocate adequate resources for the operation, maintenance,
and repair of its sanitary sewer system, by establishing a proper rate structure,
accounting mechanisms, and auditing procedures to ensure an adequate
measure of revenues and expenditures. These procedures must be in
compliance with applicable laws and regulations and comply with generally
acceptable accounting practices.
10. The Enrollee shall provide adequate capacity to convey base flows and peak
flows, including flows related to wet weather events. Capacity shall meet or
exceed the design criteria as defined in the Enrollee’s System Evaluation and
Capacity Assurance Plan for all parts of the sanitary sewer system owned or
operated by the Enrollee.
11. The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board
upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the
Enrollee’s office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved
by the Enrollee’s governing board at a public meeting.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 10 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
12. In accordance with the California Business and Professions Code sections 6735,
7835, and 7835.1, all engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments shall
be performed by or under the direction of registered professionals competent and
proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. Specific elements of the
SSMP that require professional evaluation and judgments shall be prepared by
or under the direction of appropriately qualified professionals, and shall bear the
professional(s)’ signature and stamp.
13. The mandatory elements of the SSMP are specified below. However, if the
Enrollee believes that any element of this section is not appropriate or applicable
to the Enrollee’s sanitary sewer system, the SSMP program does not need to
address that element. The Enrollee must justify why that element is not
applicable. The SSMP must be approved by the deadlines listed in the SSMP
Time Schedule below.
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
(i)Goal: The goal of the SSMP is to provide a plan and schedule to properly
manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system.
This will help reduce and prevent SSOs, as well as mitigate any SSOs
that do occur.
(ii)Organization: The SSMP must identify:
(a) The name of the responsible or authorized representative as
described in Section J of this Order.
(b) The names and telephone numbers for management,
administrative, and maintenance positions responsible for
implementing specific measures in the SSMP program. The
SSMP must identify lines of authority through an organization chart
or similar document with a narrative explanation; and
(c) The chain of communication for reporting SSOs, from receipt of a
complaint or other information, including the person responsible for
reporting SSOs to the State and Regional Water Board and other
agencies if applicable (such as County Health Officer, County
Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water Board, and/or State
Office of Emergency Services (OES)).
(iii)Legal Authority: Each Enrollee must demonstrate, through sanitary
sewer system use ordinances, service agreements, or other legally
binding procedures, that it possesses the necessary legal authority to:
(a) Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system
(examples may include I/I, stormwater, chemical dumping,
unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc.);
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 11 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
(b) Require that sewers and connections be properly designed
and constructed;
(c) Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for
portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the Public
Agency;
(d) Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris
that may cause blockages, and
(e) Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances.
(iv) Operation and Maintenance Program. The SSMP must include those
elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the
Enrollee’s system:
(a) Maintain an up-to-date map of the sanitary sewer system,
showing all gravity line segments and manholes, pumping
facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater
conveyance facilities;
(b) Describe routine preventive operation and maintenance activities
by staff and contractors, including a system for scheduling regular
maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system with more
frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known problem
areas. The Preventative Maintenance (PM) program should have
a system to document scheduled and conducted activities, such
as work orders;
(c) Develop a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and
prioritize system deficiencies and implement short-term and long-
term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. The
program should include regular visual and TV inspections of
manholes and sewer pipes, and a system for ranking the
condition of sewer pipes and scheduling rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation and replacement should focus on sewer pipes that
are at risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages due to
pipe defects. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan
should include a capital improvement plan that addresses proper
management and protection of the infrastructure assets. The plan
shall include a time schedule for implementing the short- and
long-term plans plus a schedule for developing the funds needed
for the capital improvement plan;
(d) Provide training on a regular basis for staff in sanitary sewer
system operations and maintenance, and require contractors to
be appropriately trained; and
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 12 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
(e) Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including
identification of critical replacement parts.
(v) Design and Performance Provisions:
(a) Design and construction standards and specifications for the
installation of new sanitary sewer systems, pump stations and other
appurtenances; and for the rehabilitation and repair of existing
sanitary sewer systems; and
(b) Procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation
of new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenances and for
rehabilitation and repair projects.
(vi)Overflow Emergency Response Plan - Each Enrollee shall develop and
implement an overflow emergency response plan that identifies
measures to protect public health and the environment. At a minimum,
this plan must include the following:
(a) Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and
regulatory agencies are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner;
(b) A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows;
(c) Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory
agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g. health
agencies, Regional Water Boards, water suppliers, etc.) of all SSOs
that potentially affect public health or reach the waters of the State
in accordance with the MRP. All SSOs shall be reported in
accordance with this MRP, the California Water Code, other State
Law, and other applicable Regional Water Board WDRs or NPDES
permit requirements. The SSMP should identify the officials who
will receive immediate notification;
(d) Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contractor
personnel are aware of and follow the Emergency Response Plan
and are appropriately trained;
(e) Procedures to address emergency operations, such as traffic and
crowd control and other necessary response activities; and
(f) A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain
and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated
wastewater to waters of the United States and to minimize or
correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from the
SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may
be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 13 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
(vii)FOG Control Program: Each Enrollee shall evaluate its service area to
determine whether a FOG control program is needed. If an Enrollee
determines that a FOG program is not needed, the Enrollee must provide
justification for why it is not needed. If FOG is found to be a problem, the
Enrollee must prepare and implement a FOG source control program to
reduce the amount of these substances discharged to the sanitary sewer
system. This plan shall include the following as appropriate:
(a) An implementation plan and schedule for a public education
outreach program that promotes proper disposal of FOG;
(b) A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the
sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of
acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to
adequately dispose of FOG generated within a sanitary sewer
system service area;
(c) The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and
identify measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by
FOG;
(d) Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or
interceptors), design standards for the removal devices,
maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record keeping
and reporting requirements;
(e) Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement
authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect
and enforce the FOG ordinance;
(f) An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to
FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning maintenance
schedule for each section; and
(g) Development and implementation of source control measures for
all sources of FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for
each section identified in (f) above.
(viii) System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan: The Enrollee shall
prepare and implement a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will
provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for
dry weather peak flow conditions, as well as the appropriate design
storm or wet weather event. At a minimum, the plan must include:
(a)Evaluation: Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the
sanitary sewer system that are experiencing or contributing to an
SSO discharge caused by hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation
must provide estimates of peak flows (including flows from SSOs
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 14 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
that escape from the system) associated with conditions similar to
those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of key
system components, hydraulic deficiencies (including components
of the system with limiting capacity) and the major sources that
contribute to the peak flows associated with overflow events;
(b)Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist or are
deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (a) above to
establish appropriate design criteria; and
(c)Capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to
establish a short- and long-term CIP to address identified
hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, alternatives
analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe
size, I/I reduction programs, increases and redundancy in
pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an
implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding.
(d)Schedule: The Enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion
dates for all portions of the capital improvement program
developed in (a)-(c) above. This schedule shall be reviewed and
updated consistent with the SSMP review and update
requirements as described in Section D. 14.
(ix) Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications: The Enrollee
shall:
(a) Maintain relevant information that can be used to
establish and prioritize appropriate SSMP activities;
(b) Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate,
measure the effectiveness of each element of the
SSMP;
(c) Assess the success of the preventative maintenance
program;
(d) Update program elements, as appropriate, based on
monitoring or performance evaluations; and
(e) Identify and illustrate SSO trends, including:
frequency, location, and volume.
(x) SSMP Program Audits - As part of the SSMP, the Enrollee shall
conduct periodic internal audits, appropriate to the size of the system
and the number of SSOs. At a minimum, these audits must occur every
two years and a report must be prepared and kept on file. This audit
shall focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 15 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
Enrollee’s compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in this
subsection (D.13), including identification of any deficiencies in the
SSMP and steps to correct them.
(xi) Communication Program – The Enrollee shall communicate on a
regular basis with the public on the development, implementation, and
performance of its SSMP. The communication system shall provide the
public the opportunity to provide input to the Enrollee as the program is
developed and implemented.
The Enrollee shall also create a plan of communication with systems that
are tributary and/or satellite to the Enrollee’s sanitary sewer system.
14. Both the SSMP and the Enrollee’s program to implement the SSMP must be
certified by the Enrollee to be in compliance with the requirements set forth
above and must be presented to the Enrollee’s governing board for approval at a
public meeting. The Enrollee shall certify that the SSMP, and subparts thereof,
are in compliance with the general WDRs within the time frames identified in the
time schedule provided in subsection D.15, below.
In order to complete this certification, the Enrollee’s authorized representative
must complete the certification portion in the Online SSO Database
Questionnaire by checking the appropriate milestone box, printing and signing
the automated form, and sending the form to:
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
Attn: SSO Program Manager
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812
The SSMP must be updated every five (5) years, and must include any
significant program changes. Re-certification by the governing board of the
Enrollee is required in accordance with D.14 when significant updates to the
SSMP are made. To complete the re-certification process, the Enrollee shall
enter the data in the Online SSO Database and mail the form to the State Water
Board, as described above.
15. The Enrollee shall comply with these requirements according to the following
schedule. This time schedule does not supersede existing requirements or time
schedules associated with other permits or regulatory requirements.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 16 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
Sewer System Management Plan Time Schedule
Task and
Associated Section
Completion Date
Population >
100,000
Population
between 100,000
and 10,000
Population
between 10,000
and 2,500
Population <
2,500
Application for Permit
Coverage
Section C
6 months after WDRs Adoption
Reporting Program
Section G 6 months after WDRs Adoption1
SSMP Development
Plan and Schedule
No specific Section
9 months after
WDRs Adoption2
12 months after
WDRs Adoption2
15 months after
WDRs
Adoption2
18 months after
WDRs
Adoption2
Goals and
Organization Structure
Section D 13 (i) & (ii)
12 months after WDRs Adoption2 18 months after WDRs Adoption2
Overflow Emergency
Response Program
Section D 13 (vi)
Legal Authority
Section D 13 (iii)
Operation and
Maintenance Program
Section D 13 (iv)
Grease Control
Program
Section D 13 (vii)
24 months after
WDRs Adoption2
30 months after
WDRs Adoption2
36 months after
WDRs
Adoption2
39 months after
WDRs
Adoption2
Design and
Performance
Section D 13 (v)
System Evaluation and
Capacity Assurance
Plan
Section D 13 (viii)
Final SSMP,
incorporating all of the
SSMP requirements
Section D 13
36 months after
WDRs Adoption
39 months after
WDRs Adoption
48 months after
WDRs Adoption
51 months after
WDRs Adoption
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 17 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
1. In the event that by July 1, 2006 the Executive Director is able to execute a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the California Water Environment
Association (CWEA) or discharger representatives outlining a strategy and time
schedule for CWEA or another entity to provide statewide training on the adopted
monitoring program, SSO database electronic reporting, and SSMP development,
consistent with this Order, then the schedule of Reporting Program Section G shall
be replaced with the following schedule:
Reporting Program
Section G
Regional Boards 4, 8,
and 9 8 months after WDRs Adoption
Regional Boards 1, 2,
and 3 12 months after WDRs Adoption
Regional Boards 5, 6,
and 7 16 months after WDRs Adoption
If this MOU is not executed by July 1, 2006, the reporting program time schedule will
remain six (6) months for all regions and agency size categories.
2. In the event that the Executive Director executes the MOA identified in note 1 by
July 1, 2006, then the deadline for this task shall be extended by six (6) months.
The time schedule identified in the MOA must be consistent with the extended time
schedule provided by this note. If the MOA is not executed by July 1, 2006, the six
(6) month time extension will not be granted.
E. WDRs and SSMP AVAILABILITY
1. A copy of the general WDRs and the certified SSMP shall be maintained at
appropriate locations (such as the Enrollee’s offices, facilities, and/or Internet
homepage) and shall be available to sanitary sewer system operating and
maintenance personnel at all times.
F. ENTRY AND INSPECTION
1. The Enrollee shall allow the State or Regional Water Boards or their authorized
representative, upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be
required by law, to:
a. Enter upon the Enrollee’s premises where a regulated facility or activity
is located or conducted, or where records are kept under the
conditions of this Order;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this Order;
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 18 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated
or required under this Order; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring
compliance with this Order or as otherwise authorized by the California
Water Code, any substances or parameters at any location.
G. GENERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. The Enrollee shall furnish to the State or Regional Water Board, within a
reasonable time, any information that the State or Regional Water Board may
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing,
or terminating this Order. The Enrollee shall also furnish to the Executive
Director of the State Water Board or Executive Officer of the applicable Regional
Water Board, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Order.
2. The Enrollee shall comply with the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. 2006-0003 and future revisions thereto, as specified by the Executive
Director. Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified in
Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003. Unless superseded by a
specific enforcement Order for a specific Enrollee, these reporting requirements
are intended to replace other mandatory routine written reports associated with
SSOs.
3. All Enrollees must obtain SSO Database accounts and receive a “Username”
and “Password” by registering through the California Integrated Water Quality
System (CIWQS). These accounts will allow controlled and secure entry into the
SSO Database. Additionally, within 30days of receiving an account and prior to
recording spills into the SSO Database, all Enrollees must complete the
“Collection System Questionnaire”, which collects pertinent information regarding
a Enrollee’s collection system. The “Collection System Questionnaire” must be
updated at least every 12 months.
4. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5411.5, any person who, without
regard to intent or negligence, causes or permits any untreated wastewater or
other waste to be discharged in or on any waters of the State, or discharged in or
deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged in or on any surface waters
of the State, as soon as that person has knowledge of the discharge, shall
immediately notify the local health officer of the discharge. Discharges of
untreated or partially treated wastewater to storm drains and drainage channels,
whether man-made or natural or concrete-lined, shall be reported as required
above.
Any SSO greater than 1,000 gallons discharged in or on any waters of the State,
or discharged in or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged in or on
any surface waters of the State shall also be reported to the Office of Emergency
Services pursuant to California Water Code section 13271.
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 19 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
H. CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP
1. This Order is not transferable to any person or party, except after notice to the
Executive Director. The Enrollee shall submit this notice in writing at least 30
days in advance of any proposed transfer. The notice must include a written
agreement between the existing and new Enrollee containing a specific date for
the transfer of this Order's responsibility and coverage between the existing
Enrollee and the new Enrollee. This agreement shall include an
acknowledgement that the existing Enrollee is liable for violations up to the
transfer date and that the new Enrollee is liable from the transfer date forward.
I. INCOMPLETE REPORTS
1. If an Enrollee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in any
report required under this Order, the Enrollee shall promptly submit such facts or
information by formally amending the report in the Online SSO Database.
J. REPORT DECLARATION
1. All applications, reports, or information shall be signed and certified as follows:
(i) All reports required by this Order and other information required by the
State or Regional Water Board shall be signed and certified by a person
designated, for a municipality, state, federal or other public agency, as
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official, or by a duly
authorized representative of that person, as described in paragraph (ii) of
this provision. (For purposes of electronic reporting, an electronic
signature and accompanying certification, which is in compliance with the
Online SSO database procedures, meet this certification requirement.)
(ii) An individual is a duly authorized representative only if:
(a) The authorization is made in writing by a person described in
paragraph (i) of this provision; and
(b) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or
activity.
K. CIVIL MONETARY REMEDIES FOR DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS
1. The California Water Code provides various enforcement options, including civil
monetary remedies, for violations of this Order.
2. The California Water Code also provides that any person failing or refusing to
furnish technical or monitoring program reports, as required under this Order, or
State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 20 of 20
Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06
falsifying any information provided in the technical or monitoring reports is
subject to civil monetary penalties.
L. SEVERABILITY
1. The provisions of this Order are severable, and if any provision of this Order, or
the application of any provision of this Order to any circumstance, is held invalid,
the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of
this Order, shall not be affected thereby.
2. This order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive
privileges. The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize the commission
of any act causing injury to persons or property, nor protect the Enrollee from
liability under federal, state or local laws, nor create a vested right for the
Enrollee to continue the waste discharge.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the State Water Board does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a full, true, and correct copy of general WDRs duly and regularly adopted at a
meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on May 2, 2006.
AYE: Tam M. Doduc
Gerald D. Secundy
NO: Arthur G. Baggett
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
__________________________
Song Her
Clerk to the Board
APPENDIX B.
FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 3
SEWAGE AND WATER DISPOSAL
Fresno, California, Code of Ordinances >> - MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF FRESNO >> CHAPTER
6 - MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND UTILITIES >> ARTICLE 3 SEWAGE AND WATER DISPOSAL >>
ARTICLE 3 SEWAGE AND WATER DISPOSAL
SEC. 6-301. GENERAL PROVISIONS; PURPOSE AND POLICY.
SEC. 6-302. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 6-303. SEWER CONNECTION REQUIRED.
SEC. 6-304. PERMIT REQUIRED AND PAYMENT OF SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES.
SEC. 6-305. PAYMENT OF SEWER CHARGES AND LOANS.
SEC. 6-306. REIMBURSEMENTS.
SEC. 6-307. HOUSE BRANCHES.
SEC. 6-308. SEWER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION.
SEC. 6-309. SEWER SERVICE CHARGES.
SEC. 6-310. SEWER FACILITY CHARGES.
SEC. 6-311. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT.
SEC. 6-312. FINANCIAL PROCEDURES.
SEC. 6-313. VACANCIES.
SEC. 6-314. CONDITIONS OF SEWER SERVICE.
SEC. 6-315. MONITORING FACILITIES.
SEC. 6-316. PRETREATMENT.
SEC. 6-317. ADDITIONAL PRETREATMENT MEASURES.
SEC. 6-318. HAULED WASTEWATER.
SEC. 6-319. PROBLEM DISCHARGES.
SEC. 6-320. EMERGENCY SLUG CONTROL AND RESPONSE PLAN.
SEC. 6-321. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
SEC. 6-321.1. FATS, OILS, & GREASE (FOG) CONTROL PROGRAM.
SEC. 6-322. RIGHTS OF INSPECTION AND SAMPLING.
SEC. 6-323. ENFORCEMENT.
SEC. 6-324. EMERGENCY SUSPENSIONS.
SEC. 6-325. TERMINATION OF DISCHARGE.
SEC. 6-326. PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE.
SEC. 6-327. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS.
SEC. 6-328. STATE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS.
SEC. 6-329. RIGHT OF REVISION.
SEC. 6-330. DILUTION.
SEC. 6-331. BYPASS.
SEC. 6-332. VIOLATIONS OF DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS.
SEC. 6-333. PENALTY ASSESSMENT.
SEC. 6-334. SEWER CONNECTIONS; PREMISES OUTSIDE CITY.
SEC. 6-335. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS.
SEC. 6-336. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS.
SEC. 6-337. SEWER SERVICE FUNDS.
SEC. 6-338. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
SEC. 6-339. SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
SEC. 6-340. PRIORITY OF BOND RESOLUTION.
SEC. 6-341. SEVERABILITY.
Page 1 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(a)(1)
SEC. 6-301. GENERAL PROVISIONS; PURPOSE AND POLICY.
This article sets forth uniform requirements for direct and indirect contributions into the City
of Fresno POTW, and enables the city to comply with all applicable State and federal laws
required by the Clean Water Act of 1977, the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 C.F.R.,
Part 403) and the Construction Grants Regulations (40 C.F.R., Part 35), as they are now
constituted, or as they may hereafter be amended or recodified. The objectives of this article
are:
To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW, which would interfere with the
operation of the system or contaminate the resulting sludge;
To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW, which would pass through the
system inadequately treated or be incompatible with the system;
To improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim wastewater and sludge from the
system; and
To provide for equitable distribution of the cost of the POTW.
This article provides for the regulation of direct and indirect contributors to the POTW
through the issuance of permits to certain non-domestic users and through enforcement of
general requirements for the other users, authorizes monitoring and enforcement activities,
requires user reporting, assumes that existing customer capacity will not be preempted, and
provides for the setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs resulting from the
program established herein.
This article shall apply to the City of Fresno and to persons outside the city who are, by
contract, permit or agreement with the city, users of the city's POTW.
(Am. Ord. 83-41, § 1, eff. 7-1-83; Am. Ord. 98-97, §§ 1, 2, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-302. DEFINITIONS.
Unless the particular provision or the context otherwise requires, the definitions and
provisions contained in this section shall govern the construction, meaning, and application of
words and phrases used in this article and, except to the extent that a particular word or phrase is
otherwise specifically defined in this section, the definitions and provisions contained in Article 3 of
Chapter 1 of this Code shall also govern the construction, meaning, and application of words and
phrases used in this article, unless the particular provision or the context otherwise requires. The
definition of each word or phrase shall constitute, to the extent applicable, the definition of each
word or phrase which is derived from it, or from which it is a derivative, as the case may be.
The following Abbreviations shall have the designated meanings:
CWA Clean Water Act as Amended (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.);l
C.F.R.Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
LLiter
mg Milligrams
mg/L Milligrams per liter
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq.)
U.S.C.United States Code
Page 2 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
1.
2.
(ii)
(iii)
1.
2.
3.
(iv)
(b)(1)
"Act" or "the Act" means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known
as the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.).
"Approval Authority" means the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Central Valley Region.
"Authorized Representative of Industrial User" means:
A responsible corporate officer, if the industrial user is a corporation. A
responsible corporate officer means:
a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president of the
corporation in charge of a principal business function or any other
person who performs similar policy-making or decision-making
functions for the corporation; or,
the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make
management decisions which govern the operation of the
regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of
making major capital investment recommendations, and initiate
and direct other comprehensive measures to assure long-term
environmental compliance with environmental laws and
regulations; can ensure that the necessary systems are
established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate
information for control mechanism requirements; and where
authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to
the manager in accordance with corporate procedures.
a general partner or proprietor, if the industrial user is a partnership or
sole proprietorship, respectively;
a duly authorized representative of the individual designated in
Subsection (a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(H), provided:
the authorization is made in writing by the individual designated in
Subsection (a)(4)(i). or (a)(4)(ii);
the authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of the facility from which
the indirect discharge originates, or having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the company; and
the written authorization is submitted to the Control Authority.
If an authorization under Subsection (a)(4)(iii) is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall
operation of the facility, or overall responsibility for environmental
matters for the company, a new authorization satisfying the
requirements of Subsection (a)(4)(iii) must be submitted to the Control
Authority prior to or together with any reports to be signed by an
authorized representative.
"Best Management Practices" or "BMPs" means schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management
practices to implement the general prohibitions, specific prohibitions, and local
limits listed in this Code. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating
procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge
or waste disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage.
Page 3 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
"Biochemical Oxygen Demand" or "BOD" means the quantity of oxygen utilized
in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under Standard Laboratory
Procedure in five days at twenty degrees Centigrade, expressed in milligrams
per liter (mg/L).
"Biosolids" or "sludge" means a primarily organic solid product produced by
wastewater treatment processes that can be beneficially recycled.
"Building" means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering
any use or occupancy as determined by the Director.
"Business" means all commercial uses, including but not limited to offices,
merchandising and industrial uses, and residential uses on premises where
there are four or more living units or where unrelated persons are housed in the
same structure, such as boarding or, fraternity houses, assisted care facilities,
motels or hotels, or as determined by the Director.
"Capital Component" refers to a component of the user charge used to recover
the cost to construct treatment facilities, pump, or lift stations, and trunk sewer
mains. In all cases, 100 percent of the capital component is due from each
connection served by the regional wastewater system regardless of primary
service provider. The City of Clovis is excepted.
"Categorical Pretreatment Standard" or "Categorical Standard" means any
regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by EPA in
accordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. §1317) which
apply to a specific category of users and which appear in 40 C.F.R. Chapter I,
Subchapter N, Parts 401-471.
"City" means the City of Fresno.
"City Effluent Limitations" means the technically-based limits, expressed either
as concentration or as mass, of those pollutants found in Section 6-327 of this
article.
"City Sewer System" means all facilities for collecting and transporting
domestic or industrial wastes of any nature, including all such facilities both
inside and outside the city limits which are owned, operated and controlled by
the city.
"Commercial User" means all retail stores, restaurants, office buildings,
laundries, and other private business and service establishments, including
churches and lodges. These users are distinguished from industrial users for
billing purposes only.
"Completion" means acceptance, in writing, by the Director for maintenance of
an addition to the city sewer system.
"Compliance Schedule" means a detailed time schedule of specific actions
which a user is required to take in order to prevent or correct a violation of any
prohibitions or limitations prescribed herein or any of the city's effluent
limitations or pretreatment standards promulgated in accordance herewith.
"Connected" means a physical joinder of any plumbing or drainage system or
fixture contained in any structure to the regional sewer system.
"Control Authority" means the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities and
Wastewater Management Division and its representatives or designees.
"Cooling Water" means the water discharged from any use such as air.
Page 4 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(d)(1)
(2)
(e)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(f)(1)
(2)
(g)(1)
(2)
"Customer" means a person who is, or who has agreed to be, responsible for
the payment of water or sewer service charges. "Customer" is also
synonymous with "account," against which charges are assessed and billed.
"Director," unless otherwise specified, means the Director of the Department of
Public Utilities and/or his/her authorized representative.
"Dwelling Unit" means the same as living unit.
"Enforcement Response Plan" or "ERP" means the mechanism for addressing
applicable local, State, or federal violations. The ERP includes a written
description of each type of enforcement, when to administer it, and how the
monitoring schedule is affected. In conjunction with the written description,
there may be an Enforcement Response Plan flow chart which maps out the
path through the various levels of enforcement.
"Environmental Protection Agency" or "EPA" means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Where appropriate, the term may also be
used as a designation for the administrator or other duly authorized official of
said agency.
"Existing Food Service Establishment" or "Existing FSE" shall mean any Food
Service Establishment that has been in continuous operation since before the
effective date of this ordinance under the same ownership.
"Extra Depth Sewer'" means an oversize sewer main which is constructed at a
depth greater than eight feet. Eight feet shall mean the average of depths,
measured at adjacent manholes, from the natural grade or street subgrade,
whichever is less, to the sewer flow line.
"FOG" shall mean fats, oils and grease.
"Food Service Establishment" or "FSE" means any facility defined in California
Uniform Retail Food Service Establishments Law (CURFFL) Section 113785,
and any commercial entity discharging into the city sewer system and is
consequently regulated by the Control Authority, either directly or indirectly
through a Joint Powers Agreement, operating in a permanently constructed
structure such as a room, building, or place, or portion thereof, maintained,
used, or operated for the purpose of storing, preparing, serving, or
manufacturing, packaging, or otherwise handling food for sale to other entities,
or for consumption by the public, its members or employees, and which has
any process or device that uses or produces FOG, or grease vapors, steam,
fumes, smoke or odors that are required to be removed by a mechanical
exhaust ventilation system, as required in CURFFL Section 114296. A limited
food preparation establishment is not considered a Food Service Establishment
when engaged only in reheating, hot holding or assembly of ready to eat food
products and as a result, there is no wastewater discharge containing a
significant amount of FOG. A limited food preparation establishment does not
include any operation that changes the form, flavor, or consistency of food.
"Grab Sample" means a sample which is taken from a waste stream on a one-
time basis, with no regard to the flow in the waste stream, and without
consideration of time.
"Grease Interceptor" means a multi-compartment device that is constructed in
different sizes and is generally required to be located, according to the
California Plumbing Code, underground between a Food Service
Establishment and the connection to the sewer system. This device primarily
Page 5 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(3)
(4)
(h)(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i)
(ii)
uses gravity to separate FOG from the wastewater as it moves from one
compartment to the next. This device must be cleaned, maintained, and have
the FOG removed and disposed of in a proper manner at regular intervals to be
effective.
"Grease Removal Device" means any grease interceptor, grease trap or other
mechanism, device, or process, which attaches to, or is applied to, wastewater
plumbing fixtures and lines, the purpose of which is to trap or collect or treat
FOG prior to it being discharged into the sewer system. Grease Removal
Device may also include any other proven method to reduce FOG subject to
the approval of the Director. A grease removal device is a form of pretreatment
and as such is subject to all regulations pertaining to the installation and
maintenance of pretreatment systems as recognized in this Article and in the
General Pretreatment Regulations (40 C.F.R. §403).
"Grease Trap" means a grease control device that is used to serve individual
fixtures and have limited effect and should only be used in those cases where
the use of a grease interceptor or other grease removal device is determined to
be impossible or impracticable.
"Holding Tank Waste" means any waste from holding tanks such as vessels,
chemical toilets, campers, trailers, septic tanks, and vacuum-pump tank trucks.
"Hot spots" means areas in sewer lines that have experienced Sanitary Sewer
Overflows or that must be cleaned or maintained frequently to avoid blockages
of the sewer system.
"House Branch Sewer Charge" means a fee charged against property for the
right to connect to a house branch sewer line, when the property has not
participated in the cost of constructing said house branch.
"Improvement" means that which is built or constructed, an edifice of any kind,
or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in
some definite manner. For the purpose of this article, this definition shall not
include "building" as defined above and temporary on-site storm basins, but
shall include the playing area of any non-enclosed sport facility or restricted
sport field.
"Indirect Discharge" or "Discharge" means the discharge or the introduction of
pollutants into a POTW from any nondomestic source regulated under Section
307(b), (c) or (d) of the Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1317(b), (c), or (d)).
"Industrial User" or "User" means a source of indirect discharge.
"Industrial Wastes" means the liquid wastes from industrial processes as
distinct from sanitary sewage.
"Interference" means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a
discharge or discharges from other sources:
Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or
sludge processes, use or disposal; or
Is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's Waste
Discharge Requirements (including an increase in the magnitude or
duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or
disposal in compliance with the following statutory provisions and
regulations or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent State or
local regulations): Section 405 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
§1345); the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), including Title II, more
Page 6 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(j)
(k)
(l)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(m)
(n)(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), and including State regulations contained in any State sludge
management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA; the
Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
Reserved.
Reserved.
"Lateral Sewer Charge" means a fee charged against property for the right to
connect to the public sewer line city sewer system where the property has not
participated in the cost of constructing said line sewer mains.
"Living Unit" means a room or suite of rooms which is occupied by one family
for living and sleeping purposes, including a single-family residence, mobile
home unit, apartment, town house, flat or condominium.
"Living Unit Equivalent" means the equivalence of five (5) living units to one net
acre of nonresidential development to compute the availability of the regional
sewer system to a premises for the purpose of required connection to the
regional sewer system.
"Lot" means any premises, piece or parcel of land or property as bounded,
defined or shown upon the latest map, plat or deed recorded in the office of the
Recorder of Fresno County, provided, however, that in the event any building
or improvements appurtenant to said building cover more area than a "lot," as
herein defined, the term "lot" shall be deemed to be and include all such pieces
or parcels of land upon which said buildings or improvements are wholly or
partly located.
Reserved.
"Net Area," for the purpose of calculating the Lateral Sewer Charge and the
Oversize Sewer Charge, shall be that area of a lot up to a maximum depth of
100 feet from adjacent dedicated right-of-way in which a regional sewer system
sewer main is either constructed or planned to be constructed. Net area shall
exclude areas dedicated or condemned for public street and alley purposes.
Where such main is not located in an existing dedicated right-of-way, or for lots
within cul-de-sacs unified or planned developments, or other unusual lot
configurations, the Director shall determine the net areas consistent with the
above.
"New Food Service Establishments" or "New FSE" shall mean any Food
Service Establishment that starts operations after the effective date of the FOG
Ordinance regardless whether in a newly constructed building, a remodeled
building or using an existing building or space.
"New Source" means any building, structure, facility or installation from which
there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which
commenced after the publication of proposed pretreatment standards under
Section 307(c) of the Act which will be applicable to such source if such
standards are thereafter promulgated, and in accordance with that section,
provided that:
The building, structure, facility, or installation is constructed at a site at
which no other source is located; or
Page 7 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(iii)
(o)(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(4)
(p)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The building, structure, facility, or installation totally replaces the process
or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an
existing source; or
The production or wastewater generating processes of the building,
structure, facility, or installation are substantially independent of an
existing source at the same site. In determining whether these are
substantially independent, factors such as the extent to which the new
facility is integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the
new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the
existing source, should be considered.
"Off-site Sewer" means a public sewer constructed or to be constructed outside
the extended boundaries of a subdivision or outside the extended edges of a
lot.
"Open Recreation and Sport Use" means, but is not limited to, golf courses,
baseball diamonds, soccer and football fields, non-enclosed sport stadia, and
any other restricted sports field. For the purpose of this article, the open
recreation and sport use facilities must:
Be accessible to the general public on a free or standard fee basis;
Comprise at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the net land area of the
development as determined by the Director;
Be situated on a separate parcel or parcels which do not include
facilities unrelated or incompatible with such use, as determined by the
Director; and,
Be substantially improved and maintained with turf or surface conditions
consistent with such use.
"Operations and Maintenance Component" or "O&M" refers to a component of
the user charge used to recover costs associated with the maintenance of the
POTW.
"Oversize Sewer Charge" means a fee for the right to connect to the city sewer
system, said fee to be used to pay the additional cost of constructing or
reconstructing city sewers larger than eight inches in diameter.
"Pass Through" is a discharge which exits the POTW in quantities or
concentrations, which alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges
from other sources, is a cause of violation of any requirement of the POTW's
waste discharge requirements (including an increase in the magnitude or
duration of a violation) or threatens, or is a potential threat, to pollute or
degrade groundwater.
"Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, company, corporation,
association, joint stock company, trust, estate, governmental entity or any other
legal entity or their legal representatives or agents. The masculine gender shall
include the feminine and the singular shall include the plural where indicated by
the context.
"pH" means the logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the concentration of
hydrogen ions expressed in gram equivalents per liter of solution.
"Pollutant" means any dredge soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewerage,
garbage, sewage sludge, biosolids, munitions, wood products and wastes,
chemicals, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat,
Page 8 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(q)
(r)(1)
wrecked or discharged equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial,
commercial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
"Pollution" means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical,
physical, biological and radiological integrity of water.
"Premises" means all contiguous property under one ownership, any part of
which is developed to be used for occupancy, business, public gathering or
meeting place purposes.
"Pretreatment" and "Treatment" means the reduction of the amount of
pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of
pollutant properties in wastewater to a less harmful state prior to or in lieu of
discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. The
reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical or biological
processes, or process changes by other means, except as prohibited by 40
C.F.R. §403.6(d). Appropriate pretreatment technology includes control
equipment, such as equalization tanks or facilities, for protection against surges
or slug loadings that might interfere with or otherwise be incompatible with the
POTW. However, where wastewater from a regulated process is mixed in an
equalization facility with unregulated wastewater or with wastewater from
another regulated process, the effluent from the equalization facility must meet
an adjusted pretreatment limit calculated in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §403.6
(e).
"Pretreatment Requirement" means any substantive or procedural requirement
related to pretreatment, other than a pretreatment standard, imposed on an
industrial user.
"Pretreatment Standards" or "Standards" means prohibited discharge
standards, categorical pretreatment standards, and local limits.
"Prohibited Discharge Standards" or "Prohibited Discharges" means absolute
prohibitions against the discharge of certain substances; these prohibitions
appear in 40 C.F.R. §403.5 and in Section 6-327 of this Article.
"Publicly Owned Treatment Works" or "POTW" means a treatment works as
defined by Section 212 of the Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1292 (2)(A)), which is owned
by the municipality (as defined by Section 502(4) of the Act). This definition
includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and
reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also
includes sewers, pipes and other conveyances (also referred to as the city
sewer system) only if they convey wastewater to a POTW treatment plant. The
term also means the municipality, as defined in Section 502(4) of the Act (33
U.S.C. §§ 1362(4)), which has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to and
the discharges from such a treatment works.
"POTW Treatment Plant" or "Treatment Plant" means that portion of the POTW
designed to provide treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of
municipal sewage and industrial waste.
Reserved.
"Regional Sewer System" means all facilities for collecting and transporting
domestic or industrial wastes of any nature, including all such facilities both
inside and outside the city limits regardless of whether they are owned,
operated or controlled by the city, but not including those facilities owned and
operated by the City of Clovis.
Page 9 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(2)
(s)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i)
1.
2.
3.
4.
(ii)
"Remodel" shall mean any construction or other activity to make over a
building, interior or exterior, in style or structure that costs fifty thousand dollars
($50,000) or more in total costs.
"Sanitary Sewer Overflow" or "SSO" means an overflow from the sanitary
sewer system of domestic wastewater, as well as industrial and commercial
wastewater.
"Sewer Connection Charges" means and includes the "oversize sewer charge,"
"lateral sewer charge," "house branch sewer charge," which may be applicable
to any lot, "wastewater facilities charge," which may be applicable to any
residential lot, and "trunk sewer charge," which is applicable to any residential
lot within a designated trunk sewer service area.
"Sewer Facility Charges" means a user charge that includes the "wastewater
facilities charge," which may be applicable to any business, and the "trunk
sewer charge," which may be applicable to any business within a designated
trunk sewer service area.
"Sewer Flow" means the average daily flow introduced into the regional sewer
system from a business during a billing period.
"Sewer Loading" means the amount of total suspended solids and biochemical
oxygen demand in a wastewater sample.
"Sewer Service Charges" means a user charge which is comprised of a capital
component, and an operational and maintenance component and, a
pretreatment surcharge as designated in the Master Fee Schedule.
"Shall" is mandatory, and "may" is permissive.
"Significant Industrial User"
Except as provided in Subdivision (s)(8)(iii) the term "Significant
Industrial User" means:
all industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards
under 40 C.F.R. §403.6;
any other industrial user that discharges an average of 25,000
gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW
(excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater);
any industrial user that contributes a process wastestream which
makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic
or organic capacity of the POTW;
any industrial user designated as such by the Control Authority on
the basis that the industrial user has reasonable potential of
adversely affecting the POTW operation or for violating any
pretreatment standard or requirement.
The Control Authority may determine that an industrial user subject to
categorical pretreatment standards under 40 C.F.R. §403.6 and 40
C.F.R. chapter I, subchapter N is a non-significant categorical industrial
user rather than a significant industrial user on a finding that the
industrial user never discharges more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of
total categorical wastewater (excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling and
boiler blowdown wastewater, unless specifically included in the
pretreatment standard) and the following conditions are met:
Page 10 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
1.
2.
3.
(iii)
(9)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
the industrial user, prior to Control Authority's finding, has
consistently complied with all applicable categorical pretreatment
standards and requirements;
the industrial user annually submits the certification statement
required in 40 C.F.R. §403.12(q) together with any additional
information necessary to support the certification statement; and
the industrial user never discharges any untreated concentrated
wastewater.
Upon finding that an industrial user meeting the criteria of Subparts (8)(i)
2-4 has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's
operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, the
Control Authority may at any time determine that such industrial user is
not a significant industrial user.
"Significant Noncompliance" means a compliance status in which an industrial
user has a violation which meets one or more of the following criteria:
Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those
in which sixty-six percent (66%) or more of all of the measurements
taken for the same pollutant parameter during a 6-month period exceed
(by any magnitude) a numeric pretreatment standard or requirement,
including instantaneous limits;
Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violations, defined here as those in
which thirty-three percent (33%) or more of all of the measurements
taken for the same pollutant parameter during a 6-month period equal or
exceed the product of the numeric pretreatment standard or requirement
including instantaneous limits multiplied by the applicable TRC
(TRC=1.4 for BOD, TSS, FOG, and 1.2 for all other pollutants except
pH;
Any other violation of a pretreatment standard or requirement (daily
maximum, long-term average, instantaneous limit, or narrative standard)
that the Control Authority determines has caused, alone or in
combination with other discharges, interference or pass through
(including endangering the health of POTW personnel or the general
public);
Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to
human health, welfare or to the environment or has resulted in the
POTW's exercise of its emergency authority under 40 C.F.R. §403.8(f)
(l )(vi)(b) or Section 6-324 of the this Code to halt or prevent such a
discharge;
Failure to meet, within ninety (90) days after the scheduled date, a
compliance schedule milestone contained in a local control mechanism
or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction,
or attaining final compliance;
Failure to provide, within forty-five (45) days after the due date, required
reports such as baseline monitoring reports, ninety (90) day compliance
reports, periodic self-monitoring reports, and reports on compliance with
compliance schedules.
Failure to accurately report non-compliance;
Page 11 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(t)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(u)(1)
(2)
Any other violation or group of violations, which may include a violation
of Best Management Practices, which the Control Authority determines
will adversely affect the operation or implementation of the local
pretreatment program.
"Slug" or "Slug Load" means any discharge of a non-routine, episodic nature,
including but not limited to an accidental spill or a non-customary batch
discharge.
"Standard Industrial Classification" or "SIC" means a classification pursuant to
the latest published edition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual
issued by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget.
"Standard Methods" or "Standard Laboratory Procedure" means the EPA
approved procedure outlined in the latest edition approved by the EPA of the
book, "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,"
published jointly by the American Public Health Association, the American
Water Works Association, and the Water Environment Federation.
"State" means the State of California.
"Storm Water" means any flow occurring during or following any form of natural
precipitation and resulting therefrom.
"Total Suspended Solids" or "TSS" means the total suspended matter that
floats on the surface of, or is suspended in, wastewater and which is removable
by laboratory filtering as prescribed by Standard Methods.
"Toxic Pollutant" means any pollutant or combination of pollutants listed as
toxic in regulations promulgated by the EPA under the provision of Section 307
(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. §1317(a)), or other acts.
"Trunk Sewer Charge" means a sewer flow-based capacity charge for the right
to connect to the city sewer system. The charge shall be used for the purpose
of constructing or recovering such cost for construction of new sewer pipelines
thirty inches in diameter or larger. Trunk Sewer Charges shall be collected from
all residential development pursuant to Subsection 6-304(a)(5), and for all
businesses pursuant to Section 6-310
"Trunk Sewer Main" means a public sewer main thirty inches in diameter or
larger constructed to collect and transport domestic or industrial wastes of any
nature to the POTW treatment plant or to another trunk sewer main
transporting such wastes to the treatment plant.
"Trunk Sewer Service Areas" means those areas established by resolution of
the Council served by a trunk sewer main and subject to trunk sewer charges.
"Twenty-five percent (25%) Rule" means a requirement for grease interceptors
to be maintained such that the combined FOG and solids accumulation does
not exceed twenty-five percent of the design hydraulic depth of the grease
interceptor.
"Unit" means a living unit as defined herein for residential uses, or living unit
equivalent for other than residential uses.
"Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards or city
effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of an
industrial user. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused
by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate
Page 12 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(v)
(w)(1)
(2)
(x)
(y)
(z)
(a)
(i)
(b)
(c)
(d)
treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
Reserved.
"Wastewater Discharge Permit" or "Control Mechanism" means the mechanism
by which new or increased contributions of pollutants, or changes in the nature
of pollutants, to the regional sewer system by industrial users, may be
controlled to ensure compliance with applicable pretreatment standards,
pretreatment requirements, or city effluent limitations.
"Wastewater Facilities Charge" means a sewer flow and sewer loading based
charge for the right to connect to the regional sewer system. The charge shall
be used for the purpose of recovering the cost of constructing or construction of
facilities at the POTW treatment plant.
Reserved.
Reserved.
Reserved.
(Orig. Ord. 4279; Am. Ord. 5777, 1960; Am. Ord. 6466, 1964; Am. Ord. 69-41, 1969; Am. Ord. 71-105, 1972; Am.
Ord. 72-170, 1972; Am. Ord. 73-64, § 1, eff. 5-20-73; Am. Ord. 75-69, §§ 2, 3, eff. 7-27-75; Am. Ord. 80-59, §§ 1—
4, eff. 5-9-80; Am. Ord. 80-164, §§ 1—3, eff. 12-5-80; Am. Ord. 82-22, § 1, eff. 3-19-82; Am. Ord. 83-41, § 2, eff. 7-1
-83; based on former Sec. 9-501; Am. Ord. 87-29, § 1, eff. 3-17-87; Am. Ord. 89-10, § 1, eff. 2-17-89; Added and
Am. Ord. 90-84, §§ 1—4, eff. 8-31-90; Am. Ord. 91-14, §§ 1—5, eff. 3-15-91; Am. Ord. 92-69, §§ 1—5, eff. 9-25-92;
Am. Ord. 94-10, §§ 1, 2, eff. 3-11-94; Ord. No. 96-62, §§ 1, 2, eff. 10-25-96; Am. Ord. 98-91, §§ 1, 2, 1-1-99; Am.
Ord. 98-97, §§ 2.5, 3, 1-9-99; Am. Ord. 2002-73, § 1, eff. 1-23-02; Am. Ord. 2003-75, § 1, eff. 10-5-03; Am. Ord.
2008-33, §§ 1, 11, eff. 6-22-08).
SEC. 6-303. SEWER CONNECTION REQUIRED.
Every building or structure in which plumbing fixtures are installed, and every premises
having piping thereon, which conveys sewage or other liquid wastes to an approved point of
disposal, shall be connected to the regional sewer system if it is available, except that:
In the R-A, AE-5, and AE-20 zone districts, on a lot at least two net acres in size, and
provided the lot, if not served by a community water system, contains one dwelling
unit or septic system per 2.0 acres, such connection may be deferred until the use of
the land changes either through district amendment or special permit.
The regional sewer system is available, for the purposes of this section, if a sewer main has
been constructed and is available for use in any public street, alley or right-of-way within 100
feet for the first unit plus 50 feet for each additional unit, to be measured along such public
street, alley or right-of-way from the nearest property line to the sewer main. For the purpose
of this section, the number of units computed shall include all units developed on contiguous
property held under one ownership.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, buildings or structures, connected to a septic
tank or cesspool at the time the regional sewer system becomes available, shall be
connected to the regional sewer system within three years after the regional sewer system
becomes available or, if the property has previously been subject to an earlier connection
date by reason of requirements of a jurisdiction other than the city, then said connection shall
be made on or before said earlier date, provided that if the Director determines the continued
use of the septic tank or cesspool will create an immediate health menace, the property shall
be connected within the time specified by the Director. Buildings or structures not connected
as required by this section are public nuisances.
Page 13 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(e)
(a)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
No person shall cause, suffer or permit the disposal of sewage, or other liquid wastes into
any drainage system on any lot which is not connected the regional sewer system when
such connection is required by this section except for one-or two-family dwellings that have
graywater connected to a graywater system in accordance with the requirements set forth in
the current edition of the California Plumbing Code as amended and adopted by the City of
Fresno.
Cemeteries will not be subject to the requirements of Section 6-303, except that any facilities
used for other than cemetery purposes and separate major maintenance facilities fronting a
public street shall be required to connect to the city sewer system subject to the availability of
sewers as provided in Section 9-502
(Orig. Ord. 4726; Am. Ord. 5415, 1958; Am. Ord. 5777, 1960; Am. Ord. 6466, 1964; Am. Ord. 6882, 1966; Am. Ord.
6889, 1966; Am. Ord. 82-100, § 1, eff. 10-15-82; Am. Ord. 85-22, § 1, eff. 3-22-85; Am. Ord. 98-97, §§ 4, 5, 1-9-99;
Am. Ord. 2010-10, § 1, eff. 5-16-10)
SEC. 6-304. PERMIT REQUIRED AND PAYMENT OF SEWER CONNECTION
CHARGES.
No person shall connect any lot to the city sewer system without a permit from the Director of
Development. No permit shall be issued by the Director of Development unless the following
sewer connection charges, when applicable, have been paid:
Lateral Sewer Charge.A Lateral Sewer Charge shall be required for each lot sought
to be connected to the city sewer system based on the net area of such lot, in the
amount per square foot as designated in the Master Fee Resolution.
Notwithstanding the above:
Property, which has not previously had city sewer service, shall pay a Lateral
Sewer Charge only to the extent that such Lateral Sewer Charge or the cost of
the main serving the premises has not heretofore been paid by the applicant or
his predecessor in interest.
Where the applicant is required to extend a sewer main across his property
frontage as a condition precedent to receiving service, no such charge shall be
collected for that portion of the frontage adjacent to the main which the
applicant is required to extend.
When only a portion of a lot is developed and the remaining portion is to
continue undeveloped or is to be used solely for the growing of agricultural
crops, the Director may require the payment of the Lateral Sewer Charge
applicable only to that portion of the lot developed or to be developed. When
the balance of the lot is developed, the Lateral Sewer Charge on that portion
shall be paid regardless of whether additional sewer service is required. The
Director shall fix the portion of the lot that is to be considered as developed.
Properties, on behalf of which no contribution has been made to the cost of the
sewer mains and which receive service from sewer main extensions made in
other than dedicated and surfaced streets, shall pay to the city the same
Lateral Sewer Charge as would be payable if the sewer main were located in a
dedicated street adjacent to the property to be served.
In the R-A, AE-5 and AE-20 zone districts on a developed lot at least two net
acres in size, when a portion not fewer than twelve thousand five hundred
square feet of such lot is to be improved with one additional single-family
residence or the existing residence is to be connected to the city sewer system,
the Director may require the payment of the Lateral Sewer Charge applicable
Page 14 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(vi)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
only to the portion of such lot to be improved or occupied by the existing
residence to be connected to the city sewer system. When the land use on the
balance of the lot changes either through district amendment or special permit,
the Lateral Sewer Charge shall be paid regardless of whether or not additional
sewer service is required. The Director shall fix the portion of such lot which is
to be considered as improved or occupied.
For separate maintenance facilities within cemeteries and on facilities used for
other than cemetery purposes, the Director shall fix the area of the lot for
Lateral Sewer Charges based on dimensions of the property actually used for
such purposes.
Oversize Sewer Charge.An Oversize Sewer Charge shall be required for each lot
sought to be connected to the regional sewer system based on the net area of such
lot, in the amount per square foot designated in the Master Fee Resolution. Parcels of
land proposed for subdivision shall be assessed based on the parcels' net area prior
to subdivision.
Property which has wholly or proportionately paid the cost of sewer mains, when such
fact has been or can be established to the satisfaction of the Director, need pay only
the Oversize Sewer Charge applicable to the portion of the property for which the
charge has not been paid. Notwithstanding the above:
When only a portion of a lot is developed, and the remaining portion is to
continue undeveloped or is to be used solely for the growing of agricultural
crops, or for public recreation uses not enclosed in a building, the Director may
require the payment of the Oversize Sewer Charge applicable only to that
portion of the lot developed or to be developed, provided that the parcel for
which such fees are charged shall have an area of not fewer than twelve
thousand five hundred square feet. When the balance of the lot is developed,
the Oversize Sewer Charge shall be paid regardless of whether or not
additional sewer service is required. The Director shall fix the portion of the lot
which is to be considered as developed.
In the R-A, AE-5 and AE-20 zone districts on a developed lot at least two net
acres in size, when a portion not fewer than twelve thousand five hundred
square feet of such lot is to be improved with one additional single-family
residence or the existing residence is to be connected to the regional sewer
system, the Director may require the payment of the Oversize Sewer Charge
applicable only to the portion of such lot to be improved or occupied by the
existing residence to be connected to the regional sewer system. When the
land use on the balance of the lot changes either through district amendment or
special permit, the Oversize Sewer Charge shall be paid regardless of whether
or not additional sewer service is required. The Director shall fix the portion of
such Lot which is to be considered as improved or occupied.
Oversize Sewer Charges shall be paid upon connection with the regional sewer
system, except that in the UGM area, a subdivider may receive oversize sewer
and extra depth sewer fee credits in the amount of reimbursements due at the
reimbursement rate in effect at the time of construction, in accordance with
subdivision (c) of Section 6-306, for property owned by such subdivider who
has previously constructed oversize sewers in the Oversize Sewer Service
Area which totally includes such property. This provision shall apply to all tract
maps approved after July 1, 1983.
Page 15 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
On separate maintenance facilities within cemeteries and on facilities used for
other than cemetery purposes, the Director shall fix the area for Oversize
Sewer Charges based on the dimensions of the property actually used for such
purposes.
House Branch Sewer Charge.
For each lot, which requires a new or revised house branch for which the
installation or revision of the house branch is arranged by the city, the applicant
shall pay to the city a House Branch Sewer Charge for the cost of the
installation or revision. The cost of installation or revision shall be equal to the
contract price paid by the city, plus such amounts as are designated in the
Master Fee Resolution for administration, engineering, and inspection.
Each lot or premises shall be served with a separate sewer house branch,
unless approved by the Director and a recorded covenant, approved by the
City Attorney's Office, is executed between the affected property owners.
Where a lot is sought to be connected to an existing house branch, for which
the cost has not previously been paid on behalf of the lot, the House Branch
Sewer Charge shall be the same as if the house branch were a new house
branch. If such connection is sought more than one year after the installation of
such branch, simple interest shall be added at the rate of seven per cent (7%)
per annum to the cost of installation as defined above, except that no interest
shall accrue beyond five years from the date of installation.
Trunk Sewer Charge.A Trunk Sewer Charge shall be required for all residential lots,
within an established Trunk Sewer Service Area, sought to be connected to the
regional sewer system in the amount designated in the Master Fee Resolution. The
purpose of this subdivision is to ensure the provision of an adequate trunk sewer
system to convey domestic and industrial wastes to the POTW treatment plant and to
provide a means for levying and collecting charges to be used solely for the purpose
of designing and constructing trunk sewer mains to serve designated Trunk Sewer
Service Areas.
The Council shall by resolution establish a Trunk Sewer Service Area, which is
an area served by a trunk sewer main. The resolution may establish benefit to
multiple Trunk Sewer Service Areas served from a common trunk sewer main,
in which event, funds collected in the individual Trunk Sewer Service Areas
may be used to finance the construction of the trunk sewer main. The service
areas may be amended by the Council from time to time to reflect unusual
sewer service capabilities or to reflect modifications in urban land use
boundaries. The Director may make minor modifications to the Trunk Sewer
Service Map, as sewer mains are extended at the fringes of the Trunk Sewer
Service Areas, to reflect actual sewer service capabilities. Minor modifications
are those changes to the Trunk Sewer Service Area boundary that when
aggregated do not add or subtract more than forty acres to or from the Trunk
Sewer Service Area. The Director shall maintain an official Trunk Sewer
Service Map designating all established Trunk Sewer Service Areas.
The Council shall designate in the Master Fee Resolution a schedule of
charges for each Trunk Sewer Service Area. The total amount of charges to be
generated shall be based on the cost of the trunk sewer main to serve Trunk
Service Area(s) or the cost to enhance the capacity of an existing trunk sewer
main in a Trunk Sewer Service Area. The cost of a trunk sewer main shall
include all of the direct and incidental costs of constructing the new trunk sewer
Page 16 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(5)
(i)
main or the capacity enhancement for an existing trunk sewer main including,
but not limited to, land acquisition, design and engineering, construction,
financing costs, inspection and contract administration.
A Trunk Sewer Charge shall be required for every lot within a Trunk Sewer
Service Area to be connected to the regional sewer system unless the Council,
by resolution, waives the payment in that Trunk Sewer Service Area for existing
developed lots without public sewer service. The total amount of charges to be
generated in each Trunk Sewer Service Area shall be based on a reasonable
allocation made by the Council considering the estimated or actual cost of
design and construction of the trunk sewer main facilities and may include the
cost to finance construction.
The Council may review and amend the Trunk Sewer Charges by amending
the Master Fee Resolution from time to time to reflect inflation or any change in
the factors affecting the cost of constructing such trunk sewer main facilities or
the estimated number of units to be served by the facilities.
All Trunk Sewer Charges collected from development within a Trunk Sewer
Service Area shall be deposited in the Trunk Sewer Service Area account for
that area. The Trunk Sewer Service Area account, including any accumulated
interest, shall be used solely for the purposes of designing and construction,
including costs of financing trunk sewer main facilities in that Trunk Sewer
Service Area, and for administration, inspection, and engineering costs of the
city directly related thereto, except that monies accumulated in that account
may be loaned to another Trunk Sewer Service Area as provided in this
subdivision. In the event trunk sewer main facilities are designed or constructed
by a developer, the Trunk Sewer Charges collected for such design and/or
construction, less costs incurred by the city, shall be paid to the developer
responsible for the design and/or construction, subject to Council approval.
The Council may authorize the use of funds accumulated in one Trunk Sewer
Service Area account for construction of or making bonded debt payments for
trunk sewer mains in another such area, provided the Council finds that the
existing sewer service level in the Trunk Sewer Service Area with excess funds
is adequate to provide service to all existing and approved development, and
that the funds remaining on hand after the loan in that service area account are
adequate to make the current bonded debt payments. The resolution
authorizing a loan of funds to another Trunk Sewer Service Area shall establish
the terms of the transaction and shall include provisions that the funds
borrowed from a Trunk Sewer Service Area, including interest at a rate
determined by the Controller to be the average annual rate received by the city
on its investments, shall be repaid from Trunk Sewer Charges collected from
subsequent development in the Trunk Sewer Service Area in which the trunk
sewer was constructed. Loans from other Trunk Sewer Service Areas including
interest shall be repaid in the order in which the Council approved such loans.
Wastewater Facilities Charge.A Wastewater Facilities Charge shall be required for
all residential sought to be connected to the regional sewer system in the amount
designated in the Master Fee Resolution. The purpose of this subdivision is to ensure
the provision of adequate POTW treatment plant and appurtenant facilities, and to
provide a means for levying and collecting charges to be used solely for the purpose
of designing and constructing a POTW treatment plant and appurtenant facilities.
Page 17 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
A Wastewater Facilities Charge in the amount designated in the Master Fee
Resolution shall be required for every lot sought to be connected to the
regional sewer system,
The Wastewater Facilities Charge shall be based on the cost of wastewater
treatment facilities to be constructed to provide additional treatment capacity
per unit for every lot sought to be connected to the regional sewer system for
which sewerage treatment is provided by the subject facilities. The cost of the
facilities providing expanded treatment capacity shall include all direct and
incidental costs for constructing wastewater treatment plant facilities, including
but not limited to, land acquisition, design, financing costs, inspection and
contract administration.
All Wastewater Facilities Charges and interest thereon shall be deposited in the
sewer service fund and shall be used solely for the purposes of design and
construction, including costs of financing, and for administration, inspection and
engineering costs of the city directly related to the enhancement of treatment
capacity at the POTW treatment plant and appurtenant facilities.
The Council may review and amend the Wastewater Facilities Charge by
amending the Master Fee Resolution from time to time to reflect inflation or any
change in the factors affecting the cost of constructing such wastewater
treatment facilities or the estimated number of units to be served by the
facilities. The Council shall eliminate the charge at such time as revenues are
no longer needed to enhance capacity at the POTW treatment plant or to pay
the debt service related to capacity enhancement.
When land is subdivided prior to the time the Final Map or Parcel Map is approved, the
owner shall pay or cause to be paid all applicable sewer connection charges, except that the
Wastewater Facilities Charge applicable to residential subdivisions shall be paid at the time
of the issuance of a building permit for any structure to be constructed on such property.
Payment of charges and issuance of permits pursuant to this section do not authorize the
permittee to perform or cause to be performed work specified in this article to be performed
by the city.
Whenever the Council, the Board of Supervisors of the county, or the Board of a special
district, whichever is applicable, has adopted a resolution of intention to construct regional
sewer system improvements, no permit for additions to or connection to the regional sewer
system to serve any lot included in the district subject to such resolution shall be issued until
the hearing of protest has been finally determined in favor of the protestants or the proposed
work has been consummated sufficiently to allow the lot to be served by such regional sewer
system improvements.
Payment of Lateral Sewer Charges pursuant to subdivision 6-304(a)(1), Oversize Sewer
Charges pursuant to subdivision 6-304(a)(2), and House Branch Sewer Charges pursuant to
subdivision 6-304(a)(4) may be deferred until issuance of a certificate of occupancy pursuant
to an agreement which conforms to the requirements of Section 12-4.604
Payment of Trunk Sewer Charges pursuant to subdivision 6-304(a)(5), and Wastewater
Facilities Charges pursuant to subdivision 6-304(a)(6) related to a business shall be deferred
until issuance of a certificate of occupancy and collected pursuant to the requirements of
Section 6-310
(Orig. Ord. 4726; Am. Ord. 5777, 1960; Am. Ord. 5834, 1960; Am. Ord. 6261, 1963; Am. Ord. 6466, 1964; Am. Ord.
6821, 1966; Am. Ord. 6882, 1966; Am. Ord. 67-48, 1967; Am. Ord. 67-49, 1967; Am. Ord. 69-41, 1969; Am. Ord. 72
-140, 1972; Added Ord. 72-170, 1072; Am. Ord. 73-84, § 2, eff. 5-20-73; Am. Ord. 74-18, § 1, eff. 3-10-74; Am. Ord.
75-11, § 1, eff. 4-1-75; Am. Ord. 75-69, § 4, eff. 7-27-75; Am. Ord. 75-96, § 1, eff. 10-19-75; Am. Ord. 80-59, § 5,
Page 18 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(d)
(e)
eff. 5-9-80; Am. Ord. 80-115, § 99, eff. 8-8-80; Am. Ord. 80-164, § 4, eff. 12-5-80; Am. Ord. 82-82, § 1, eff. 9-17-82;
Am. Ord. 82-100, § 2, eff. 10-15-82; Am. Ord. 83-122, § 1, eff. 9-30-83; Am. Ord. 85-9, § 1, eff. 2-15-85; Am. Ord.
85-22, § 2, eff. 3-22-85; Am. Ord. 90-84, § 6, eff. 8-31-90; Am. Ord. 90-123, § 1, eff. 12-7-90; Am. Ord. 91-32, § 1,
eff. 5-10-91; Am. Ord. 92-69, §§ 6, 7, eff. 9-25-92; Am. Ord. 95-38, § 1, eff. 6-9-95; Am. Ord. 96-62, § 1, eff. 10-25-
96; Am. Ord. 98-97, §§ 6, 7, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-305. PAYMENT OF SEWER CHARGES AND LOANS.
The amount of any sewer connection charges or sewer facility charges prescribed under the
provisions of this article shall be deemed a debt owing to the city which, until paid, shall be a
continuing obligation of the owner of such property for connection to the regional sewer
system. Any person who makes a connection to the regional sewer system without having
paid such charges in full or having accomplished the execution, acceptance and recording of
an agreement to pay therefor as herein provided, shall be liable in an action in the name of
the city in any court of competent jurisdiction for the amount of such charge. The conviction
or punishment of any person for connecting to the regional sewer system without obtaining a
permit shall not relieve such person from paying the charges due and unpaid at the time of
such conviction.
This section shall neither apply to the construction or payment for sewers which have been
provided for under procedures regulating the division of land or the connection of sewers to
property owned by a government or governmental agency, nor whenever the Council or
Board of Supervisors of the county, whichever is applicable, has adopted a resolution of
intention to construct improvements by special assessments within a district which includes
said lot.
Payment of sewer connection charges or sewer facility charges together with interest on the
unpaid balance, payable because of connection of existing single-family residences
anywhere in the City's service area, and commercial or industrial development in the
Enterprise Zone, may be deferred by an agreement between the property owner and the city,
to pay such charges together with interest on the unpaid balance, over a period of not more
than fifteen years, in accordance with the following provisions:
The agreement shall provide for substantially equal bimonthly installments amortized
over a period of not more than fifteen years, at a rate of interest as periodically
established by the Controller and adopted by the Council in the Master Fee
Resolution.
The sewer connection charges which may be deferred, and limitations, if any, on the
amounts that may be deferred, shall be as established in the Master Fee Resolution.
The agreement shall be of a form and content prescribed by the Controller and
approved by the City Attorney.
The agreement shall be signed by all persons having a record title interest in the real
property being served by the city sewer system, to which connection is requested, and
shall include the legal description of the property.
The agreement shall provide that the whole, or any part of the balance of charges due
at any time under the agreement may be accelerated and paid at any time, at the
option of the payer.
The agreement provided for in subdivision (c) above shall be in the form of a covenant
running with the land, and shall establish a lien against the property in favor of the city in the
amount of all deferred charges, and shall be recorded in the office of the Fresno County
Recorder.
Page 19 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(f)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1)
(2)
The agreement and lien shall be enforceable by the city in any manner available at law or in
equity, including but not limited to private foreclosure and sale of the property in the manner
provided by Section 2924 of the California Civil Code.
Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (e) of this section and in addition thereto, Council
may establish by resolution a program, policies and procedures loaning annually allocated
and available funds, not to exceed specified dollar caps, consistent with subsection (c)(1)
above, for the cost to abandon existing single family residential septic tanks and cesspools,
and install and connect a privately owned sewer line/house branch from the single family
residence to the City sewer.
(Orig. Ord. 4726; Am. Ord. 5777, 1960; Am. Ord. 5834, 1960; Am. Ord. 6261, 1963; Am. Ord. 6466, 1964; Am. Ord.
6821, 1966; Am. Ord. 6882, 1966; Added Ord. 67-48, 1967; Am. Ord. 67—49, 1967; Am. Ord. 72-140, 1972; Am.
Ord. 75-69, § 5, eff. 7-27-75; Am. Ord. 80-115, § 100, Eff. 8-8-80; Am. Ord. 82-22, § 2, eff. 3-19-82; Am. Ord. 90-61,
§ 1, eff. 7-27-90; Am. Ord. 91-51, § 1, eff. 6-14-91; Am. Ord. 98-87, §§ 8, 9, 1-9-99; Am. Ord. 2003-35, § 1, eff. 5-30
-03; Am. Ord. 2003-75, § 1, eff. 10-5-03; Am. Ord. 2011-14, § 1, eff. 6-11-11).
SEC. 6-306. REIMBURSEMENTS.
Oversize Sewer Mains (Non-UGM).Reimbursements for Oversize Sewer Charges paid
pursuant to subdivision 6-304(a)(2), as the result of development in areas other than an
UGM sewer service area, shall be made as follows:
When a city sewer main installed by a person is required by the Director to be
constructed to a size larger than eight inches in diameter, the city shall reimburse
such person in an amount designated in the Master Fee Resolution. The amount to be
reimbursed shall be credited against the Oversize Sewer Charge to be paid on behalf
of all property contributing to the cost thereof, in proportion to the amount of such
contribution. If the credit for any such property exceeds the Oversize Sewer Charge,
then a sum equal to the difference shall be paid from the sewer connection account
upon city acceptance of the main.
When a city oversize sewer main installed by a person is required by the Director to
be constructed at a depth greater than eight feet, the city shall reimburse such person
in an amount designated in the Master Fee Resolution. The amount to be reimbursed
shall be credited against the Oversize Sewer Charge to be paid on behalf of all
property contributing to the cost thereof in proportion to the amount of such
contribution. If the credit for any such property exceeds the Oversize Sewer Charge,
then a sum equal to the difference shall be paid from the sewer connection account
upon city acceptance of the main.
City Sewer Mains.
This subdivision shall be applicable to city sewer mains installed after July 1, 1975,
except when constructed by special assessments,
Any person installing a city sewer main shall, prior to construction of the city sewer
main, file with the Director a legal description of the properties on behalf of which
contributions have been made to the cost of the construction, and a statement of the
proportions of the cost borne by each property. Within ninety days following city
acceptance of the city sewer main, such person shall file with the Director a project
accounting, in a form as specified by the Director, stating the cost (excluding any city
reimbursement) of the construction of the main. In the event a project accounting has
not been filed with the Director within such period, then a reimbursement under
subdivision (b)(3), below, shall not be made in the event additional property is
connected to the sewer main constructed. If an ownership statement is not filed prior
Page 20 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(1)
(2)
to construction, only the property served by the city sewer main and owned by the
person who installed the city sewer main on the date of commencement of installation
will be deemed to have paid for the installation; provided, that if within seven years
after the date of commencement of installation such person acquires in fee property
served by the city sewer main which would otherwise be subject to payment of Lateral
Sewer Charges, such person shall also be deemed to have paid the Lateral Sewer
Charges for such property.
For the initial reimbursement period, or, if applicable, the extended reimbursement
period, as such terms are defined in Section 12-4.501.5-F of this Code, after city
acceptance of a city sewer main referred to in subdivision (b)(1) above, the person or
persons bearing the cost of such city sewer main construction may be reimbursed
pursuant to this subdivision (b). The Lateral Sewer Charges collected by the city
pursuant to this article for connection to such city sewer main shall be paid by the city
proportionately to the owner or owners of property on behalf of which contributions
were made to the cost of construction of such city sewer main. When a person is
entitled to an UGM fee reimbursement under this subsection, the city shall make
semiannual payments, in amounts determined by the Director, in the manner and for
the period prescribed by Section 12-4.504-C of this Code. However, neither shall
reimbursement exceed the sum of (1) one hundred percent of the cost of constructing
city sewer mains which do not front on any contributing property, and (2) fifty per cent
of the cost of constructing city sewer mains fronting on properties on behalf of which
such contributions were made; nor shall the total reimbursement exceed the total
amount of the Lateral Sewer Charges which would have been payable by property on
behalf of which no contribution was made to the cost of installation as of the date of
city acceptance of the city sewer main. Such reimbursements shall be paid from the
applicable sewer connection account.
If the total amount of the Lateral Sewer Charges (based on fees in effect on the date
of city acceptance of the city sewer main) which would be collectible from property on
behalf of which no contribution has been made to the cost of installation is less than
one thousand dollars, the Director may elect to proportionately reimburse from the
applicable sewer connection account, after completion of the city sewer main, to the
person or persons contributing to the cost of constructing the city sewer main, the
amount of said Lateral Sewer Charges which would be collectible from non-
contributing property. If the Director elects to reimburse in this manner, such person or
persons will be eligible neither for the exemption provided in subdivision (b)(2) above
nor for further reimbursement provided in subdivision (b)(3) above.
For purposes of reimbursements, where a property has more than one frontage, the
actual Lateral Sewer Charge paid shall be apportioned between the frontages on
which the calculation of charges was based in the ratio of the total length of each
frontage.
UGM Oversize Sewer Mains.Oversize Sewer Service Areas shall be established for all
land located within the Urban Growth Management Area, the boundaries of which areas shall
reflect that territory which the Director determines will receive primary service from existing
or projected oversized facilities or other trunk sewer mains identified by the Director.
The maximum reimbursement for oversize sewer cost, which may be paid from the
sewer connection account upon city acceptance of an oversize sewer main, shall be
an amount designated in the Master Fee Resolution.
All subsequent reimbursements, in amounts designated in the Master Fee Resolution,
shall be determined semiannually on or about each April first and October first
Page 21 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(3)
(4)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
following city acceptance of the city sewer main, and shall occur only to the extent
Oversize Sewer Charges are paid on behalf of non-contributing properties located
within the service area of the oversize sewer main for the duration of the appropriate
reimbursement period, as defined in Section 12-4.501-F of this Code. The order of
reimbursements shall be based on the dates of submittal of project accountings to the
Director. Reimbursements shall not be initiated for an oversize sewer main until
reimbursements are complete for oversize sewer mains covered by previously
submitted project accountings. Project accountings must be filed with the Director
within ninety days of city acceptance of the oversize sewer main. Reimbursements
shall not be made if project accountings are not so filed within such period.
In the event all construction which would be subject to payment of the Oversize Sewer
Charge which would be used for reimbursement purposes within an UGM service
area is effectively barred or prohibited by any governmental agency having superior
jurisdiction to the city, or by any legal action initiated by or on behalf of any such
agency, the applicable reimbursement period as defined in Section 12-4.501.5-F of
this Code, shall be extended on a day-to-day basis for the duration of any such
moratorium, but not exceeding the appropriate cumulative reimbursement period.
Reimbursements in excess of the maximum reimbursement amount may be paid only
after such amount has been repaid through the collection of Oversize Sewer Charges
within the service area of the subject oversize sewer main. A credit shall be given
against the Oversize Sewer Charge on those properties required to construct an
oversize sewer main whenever the estimated cost of construction exceeds the fee
obligation.
When reimbursements are made pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) of this Section 6-306, the
city shall retain an administrative charge pursuant to Section 12-4.504-C. Reimbursement of
the fees shall be made in the manner and for the period prescribed by Section 12-4.504-C of
this Code.
Trunk Sewer Mains Reimbursement Provisions.
Where a developer installs a trunk sewer main or portion thereof, he shall file with the
Director, within ninety days following city acceptance of the trunk sewer main, a
project accounting stating the cost of construction of the trunk sewer main. The project
accounting shall include a legal description of all properties on behalf of which
contributions have been made to such costs, and a statement of the proportion of the
costs borne by each property.
Following the receipt of the project accounting, the Director shall make semiannual
determinations on or about each April first and October first, in the manner prescribed
in Section 12-4.504-C of this Code, of the amounts to be reimbursed to the persons
who constructed the trunk sewer main as shown in the project accounting, subject to
the following:
Each determination shall calculate the Trunk Sewer Charges which have been
collected during the preceding six months for land developed within the Trunk
Sewer Service Area in which the trunk sewer main is located.
No reimbursements shall be made if the project accounting was not filed within
the time specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection.
In no event shall reimbursement payments be made which total in excess of
the cost of the trunk sewer main as shown on the project accounting.
The Trunk Sewer Charge on the property contributing to the cost of the trunk sewer
main shall be either increased or decreased by an amount equal to the difference
Page 22 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(4)
(5)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
between the actual cost of construction and the fee obligation established at the time
of the granting of the entitlement.
Reimbursement payments shall be made neither after the end of the appropriate
reimbursement period, as defined in Section 12-4.501-F of this Code, nor shall
reimbursement be made which would reduce the balance in the Trunk Sewer Service
Area account to an amount less than the bond debt payments due during the next
twelve months.
The priority of reimbursements shall be according to dates the project accounting
statements are accepted by the Director.
Reimbursements shall not be made until reimbursements are complete for the trunk
sewer main, which is covered by previously submitted project accounting statements.
(Added Ord. 75-69, § 6, eff. 7-27-75; Am. Ord. 76-8, § 1, eff. 2-22-76; Am. Ord. 80-115, § 101, eff. 8-8-80; Am. Ord.
80-164, § 7, eff. 12-5-80; Am. Ord. 83-163, § 1, eff. 1-20-84; Am. Ord. 89-85, §§ 1, 2, eff. 7-28-89; Added Ord. 90-
84, § 7, eff. 8-31-90; Am. Ord. 98-97, §§ 10, 11, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-307. HOUSE BRANCHES.
The charge for replacement of an existing house branch by one of a larger size shall be the
same as for a new house branch of the size requested, except that when sewer mains and
house branches are being replaced under a city sewer replacement program, the charge for
increasing the size of a house branch will be the difference in cost between the size
requested by the property owner and the size which would normally be installed by the city
under its replacement program.
Where it is necessary to relocate a house branch for the convenience of a property owner, or
where relocation is required because the construction by or on behalf of the property owner
will interfere with the operation or maintenance of the house branch, the charge for such
relocation shall be the cost for labor (including overhead), equipment and material.
The minimum size of the house branch installed for any property shall be as the Director may
designate.
When a property owner requests the abandonment of one or more house branches and the
installation of one or more new house branches, the cost of abandonment and the cost of the
new branches shall be paid for by the customer as specified in subdivision 6-304(a)(4).
Where a house branch sewer must be constructed under a major street which was surfaced
within the previous five years with permanent concrete or asphalt concrete surfacing, the
house branch shall be installed by jacking or boring under the surface.
(Added Ord. 75-69, § 7, eff. 7-22-75; Am. Ord. 98-97, §§ 12, 13, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-308. SEWER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION.
Any person desiring to make an addition to the city sewer system to serve property shall
make a request in writing to the Director for preliminary investigation into the feasibility of
such addition. If the addition as requested is found to be feasible by the Director, such
addition may be made to the city sewer system in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter. The Director shall cause the installation to be inspected, and shall allow the final
connection to such system only if it is found that such additions conform in all respects with
the standard specifications for sewer facilities of the city, with applicable health laws, and
with the lines and grades designated by the Director.
Page 23 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(h)
If a right-of-way is needed for an addition to the city sewer system, the person constructing
the addition shall obtain such right-of-way for the city, or pay the cost to the city of acquiring
such right-of-way.
If the Director determines that a pump station is necessary to serve the property of the
person installing the city sewer main, such person shall install a pump station meeting
specifications approved by the Director and shall pay the full cost of such installation.
When new, enlarged or additional sewer service is required to serve a property, city sewer
mains shall be installed across the full frontages of the property unless the Director
determines that city sewer mains are not required at that time across the full frontage to
serve other properties or because an undeveloped portion of the subject property does not
require sewer service. Where a property has more than one frontage on which city sewer
main installation would be required by this subsection, the Director may require payment of
Lateral Sewer Charges in lieu of city sewer main installation along such additional frontages.
Lateral Sewer Charges collected pursuant to this subsection shall be deemed as
reimbursable pursuant to subsection 6-306(b)(3).
Specifications and plans for the installation of additions to the city sewer system shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall be approved by the Director before a permit
for doing the work may be issued.
When a city sewer main has been installed in public streets or easements pursuant to the
regulations of the city and has been accepted by the Director, then the sewer main shall
become the property of the city and a part of the city sewer system. House branch sewers,
including their connection to city sewer mains, shall not be considered as city property or
become a part of the city sewer system, and their maintenance and repair shall not be
provided by the city.
In the designated area of the city that requires the installation of house sewer traps, they
shall be installed as follows:
Each house branch sewer shall have a trap as required under Chapter 11, Article 1 of
this Code. The trap shall be in the parkway or as near as possible to the property line.
A fresh air inlet, not fewer than four inches in diameter, shall be installed on the house
side of each such trap. Each such inlet shall be fitted with an approved cap, which will
prevent the depositing of any foreign matter to the inlet.
All fresh air inlets on public right of way shall be installed flush with adjacent ground.
Ground adjacent to all fresh air inlets shall be graded so that surface water will not
enter the inlet. The fresh air inlet shall be located between the curb and the sidewalk,
unless approved otherwise by the Director of Development.
Where there is no definite drainage pattern to the yard area, any fresh air inlet on
private property shall extend a minimum of six inches above the adjacent ground.
Where practical, the fresh air inlet shall terminate below the floor level of the building
being serviced. Where it is not practical to do so, an approved backwater valve shall
be installed. This device shall be installed as required under Chapter 11, Article I of
this Code, except when a backwater valve is installed in a building sewer, the main
house branch trap may be omitted and a combination wye and 1/8 bend or a two-way
clean-out fitting shall be installed on the building side of the backwater device. A full
size vent shall be installed into the fitting and shall extend to the surface of the ground
and terminate with a vent cap which meets the requirements.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6-323 in this article, the enforcement of this
subsection shall be the responsibility of the Director of Development.
Page 24 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(j)
(a)
The person constructing an addition to the city sewer system shall reimburse the city for its
cost of labor (including overhead), equipment and materials for the following:
Construction or revision of house branches where the Director determines that the site
conditions are such that there is a significant hazard to the public convenience, safety
and health or to private property in the area, and that such hazard may be mitigated if
the city makes arrangements for construction or revision.
All connections to pressure sewers after completion of such sewers.
Review and approval of specifications and plans submitted by the applicant for the
proposed additions to the city sewer system.
Preliminary investigation of the feasibility of additions to the city sewer system.
Any design, surveying, inspection or testing performed by the city in connection with
an addition to the city sewer system. Such reimbursements may be made at standard
rates to cover costs as may be designated by the Council from time to time in the
Master Fee Resolution.
Although it is the intent of this article that arrangements necessary to install city sewer mains
required to serve property shall be the responsibility of the person desiring such service, an
exception is necessary to facilitate minor additions to the city sewer system. The city may,
upon written request of the applicant, take all steps necessary to complete the total
installation subject to the following conditions:
Total of front footage for which Lateral Sewer Charges would be payable if city sewer
mains existed plus off-site sewer required is three hundred feet or less.
Applicant pays the Oversize Sewer Charge, the Lateral Sewer Charge, the
Wastewater Facilities Charge, and the Trunk Sewer Charge if applicable for the
property as though city sewer mains already existed on the property frontage.
Applicant reimburses the city in accordance with this article for the house branch and
preliminary investigation.
Applicant pays to the city the fee designated in the Master Fee Resolution for each
foot of city sewer main installed to cover the cost of design, surveying, inspection, and
testing.
Connections to city sewer mains in other than dedicated and surfaced streets or alleys shall
not be permitted where service can be rendered from dedicated and surfaced streets or
alleys by extension or otherwise.
(Orig. Ord. 4726; 5309, 1958; 5311, 1958; Am. Ord. 5777, 1960; Am. Ord. 6261, 1963; Am. Ord. 6667, 1965; Am.
Ord. 6882, 1966; Am. Ord. 69-41, 1969; Am. Ord. 72-136, 1972; Am. Ord. 75-11, §§ 2, 3, eff. 4-1-75; Am. Ord. 75-
69, § 8, eff. 7-27-75; Am. Ord. 75-96, § 2, 10-19-75; Am. Ord. 80-115, §§ 102, 103, eff. 8-8-80; Am. Ord. 98-97, §§
14, 15, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-309. SEWER SERVICE CHARGES.
City of Clovis and member agencies of the city's POTW shall adopt, by ordinance, regulation
or both, a sewer service charge system in accordance with Section 204(b)(1 )(A) of the Act (33
U.S.C. § 1284(b)(1)(A)), 40 C.F.R. §§ 35.929 through 35.939-3, Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act
(33 US.C. § 1317(b) and (c)) and 40 C.F.R. § 403.9.
Monthly Sewer Service Charge.The monthly sewer service charge comprised of a
capital component and an operations and maintenance component, for use of the
wastewater collection system and treatment facilities shall be designated in the
Master Fee Resolution. In case of fee sharing agreements such as those existing with
Page 25 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
the Pinedale County Water District and the Pinedale Public Utility District only the
operations and maintenance fee component shall be used.
Additional Requirements.Industrial users, as defined in Section 6-302, shall comply
with the following: (1) Industrial high strength users are industrial users that have an
effluent volume greater than 25,000 gallons per day or, for those industrial users with
no totalizing effluent meter, a potable water volume of greater than 27,500 gallons per
day, or who are otherwise determined by the Director. For industrial high strength
users, the Director shall determine the strength for billing purposes by utilizing one of
the following methods:
By taking the average of the analyses made by the city for a given billing
period. Where an industry operates on a seasonal basis, charges will be based
upon analyses made during the periods of operation. If a minimum number of
measurements cannot be taken in a billing period, all analyses taken during the
previous six months shall be averaged and that value will be used for billing
purposes.
When requested in writing, the Director may authorize an additional two tests
per billing period if the Director finds that the additional testing will give a more
representative average. All costs, including overhead associated with the
sampling and testing of the additional two samples, will be charged directly to
the industrial user.
Determination of Charges.The following provisions shall be applied when
appropriate in determining charges for sewer service and responsibility therefor:
Any person charged for sewer service may, upon request to the Director, have
his sewer service charges calculated pursuant to and subject to the conditions
set forth in Subdivision (2) hereof.
The quantities of wastewater produced shall be determined in one of the
following ways:
By use of an effluent wastewater meter which has flow-totalizing
capability, installed and maintained at the expense of the owner or
occupant of the premises and approved by the Director.
If no effluent wastewater meter is available, by the use of a potable
water meter which meters all sources of incoming potable water,
including private wells.
If (i) or (ii) are not applicable, then as determined by guidelines
established by the Director which shall be conclusive. Such
determinations of the Director shall be effective for not more than one
year. Where the volume of wastewater produced by any premises is
determined by the Director, instead of by installation of an effluent
wastewater meter, the owner or occupant of such premises shall pay to
the city the cost of making the original and each subsequent annual
estimate, subject to a minimum charge designated in the Master Fee
Resolution.
In lieu of the above, public and parochial schools may be charged for
sewer service on the basis of average daily attendance as designated in
the Master Fee Resolution, provided the premises so charged for sewer
service are used exclusively for school purposes with no residential uses
thereon. Such charges shall be calculated on an annual basis, based on
Page 26 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(d)
the previous years attendance divided by twelve to determine the
monthly rate.
Where two or more users are located on the same premises and each has a
separately metered water service, the sewer service charge shall be calculated
and billed in the same manner as if each user were located on a separate
premises.
Where several users are served on a single metered water service and the
sewer service charge for one or more of such users is based upon the volume
of potable water delivered to such user, then a single service charge shall be
made, based upon the total volume of water delivered through such meter,
which charge shall be the responsibility of the water service customer.
Where a single business occupies contiguous premises served by more than
one metered water service, and the sewer service charge for such use is based
upon the volume of potable water delivered to such user, then a separate
sewer service charge shall be made for the water used through each meter.
Where two or more commercial users are served with a single metered water
service and the sewer service charge for one or more of such users is based
upon the volume of potable water delivered to such user, then a single service
charge shall be made based upon the total volume of water delivered through
such meter. The sewer service charge shall be determined by the Director
based on the activity of the user and/or analyses of the effluent and shall be the
responsibility of the water service customer.
Where there are mixed commercial and residential uses on the same premises,
and the commercial use has separate sewer facilities to serve employees or
customers, the sewer service charge shall be specified in this subsection for
the residential use, plus the monthly sewer charge referred to in Subsection (a)
hereof and designated in the Master Fee Resolution, for the commercial use.
Where there are mixed commercial and residential uses on the same premises
and the commercial use does not have separate sewer facilities to serve
employees and customers, the sewer service charge shall be calculated based
upon the highest economic use.
Upon annexation to the city of property which has been connected to the sewer
without payment, either directly or indirectly, of the cost of constructing the
lateral sewer to which the property is connected, or without payment of the
lateral sewer charge, oversize sewer charge, and house branch sewer charge
required by this article, then the lateral sewer charge, oversize sewer charge,
and house branch sewer charge imposed by this article shall be due and
payable to the city.
Whenever any premises are not served with city water and not billed for sewer
service by a special district, and no responsible tenant or lessee agrees to and
does pay the sewer service charges, the controller shall bill the owner of the
premises who shall be responsible to pay said charges.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the western wineries on the separate winery
waste system, industries connected to city-owned pretreatment facilities at 650
West Church Avenue, and special districts providing sewer service and/or
billing service shall pay sewer service charges in accordance with agreements
approved by the Council.
Page 27 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(e)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(1)
Special Disposal Site, Contract Disposal, Charges.Whenever special disposal
sites are constructed therefor, the Director may allow the disposal therein of the
contents of trucks designed and used for the pumping out and removal of waste from
septic tanks and chemical toilets. The Director is authorized to enter into agreements
with septic waste disposal companies regulating such disposal, and providing for
charges to recover the cost of the sites and other city expenses including wastewater
treatment at the rates designated in the Master Fee Resolution.
Failure to Pay Sewer Service Charges.Failure to pay sewer service charges shall
be deemed a violation of this article and subject to the provisions of Section 6-323(d)
of this Code.
(Orig. Ord. 4389; Am. Ord. 5309, 1958; Am. Ord. 5917, 1961; Am. Ord. 6161, 1962; Am. Ord. 6173, 1962; Am. Ord.
6174, 1962; Am. Ord. 6385, 1963; Am. Ord. 6388, 1964; Am. Ord. 6465, 1964; Am. Ord. 6576, 1965; Am. Ord.
6650, 1965; Am. Ord. 6882, 1966; Am. Ord. 67-47, 1967; Am. Ord. 67-50, 1967; Am. Ord. 68-56, 1968; Am. Ord. 68
-96, 1968; Am. Ord. 69-41, 1969; Am. Ord. 71-44, 1971; Am. Ord. 71-105, 1972; Am. Ord. 72-140, 1972; Am. Ord.
73-103, § 1, eff. 7-5-73; Am. Ord. 74-57, § 1, eff. 7-1-74; Am. Ord. 76-33, § 1, eff. 5-9-76; Am. Ord. 80-115, § 104,
eff. 8-8-80; Am. Ord. 83-41, § 3, eff. 7-1-83; Am. Ord. 87-29, § 2, eff. 3-17-87; Am. Ord. 94-10, § 3, 3-11-94; Am.
Ord. 98-91, §§ 1, 2, 1-1-99; Am. Ord. 2002-73, § 2, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-310. SEWER FACILITY CHARGES.
Sewer Facility Charges, when applicable for a business as defined in Section 6-302, shall be
based upon the estimated actual use of the regional sewer system by the premises or the
user in an amount designated in the Master Fee Resolution. Sewer Facility Charges include
the following:
Wastewater Facilities Charge, which consists of a charge per gallon of sewer flow,
plus a charge per pound of BOD, plus a charge per pound of TSS. The Wastewater
Facilities Charge is determined using the following formula:
Flow Charge = {sewer flow(gal.)} × {MFR fee rate}
BOD Charge = {sewer flow(mgd)} × 8.345 × BOD(mg/L/day) × {MFR fee rate}
TSS Charge = {sewer flow(mgd)} × 8.345 × TSS(mg/L/day) × {MFR fee rate}
Trunk Sewer Charge, which consists of a charge per gallon of sewer flow only. The
Trunk Sewer Charge is determined using the following formula:
Flow Charge = {sewer flow(gal.)} × {MFR fee rate}
Determination of Charges.After connection, the customer shall allow the city to monitor
sewer flow and sewer loading of the business upon which Sewer Facility Charges shall be
determined. Sewer flow and sewer loading shall be determined pursuant to Section 6-309(b).
Following each two-month billing period, should the customer's computed sewer flow for the
period be greater than the total accumulated sewer flow purchased to date, the customer
shall be billed for one-eighteenth of the computed sewer flow minus the total accumulated
sewer flow purchased to date. For the purpose of this section, "total accumulated sewer flow
purchased" is the quantity of sewer flow purchased when all incremental and previously
purchased sewer flow charges are summed.
Applicability to Businesses.This section shall apply to any new development entitlement
as defined in Section 12-603(C) for a business, or any business where there is a change in
the use or the operation of a development for which a special permit is required.
Notwithstanding the above:
Page 28 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(2)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Property which has previously paid a Wastewater Facility Charge or Trunk Sewer
Charge, when such payment can be determined to the satisfaction of the Director,
shall only be responsible for payment of additional Sewer Facility Charges when the
business' regional sewer system usage exceeds the equivalent flow units previously
paid for or the billing period with the highest average daily flow over the prior twelve
months, whichever is the greater.
Where a development entitlement is for residential use, sewer connection charges
shall be collected pursuant to Section 9-503.1.
Violation.Failure to pay Sewer Facility Charges shall be deemed a violation of this article,
and subject to the provisions of subsection 9-510(d) of this Code.
(Add. Ord. 98-97, § 16, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-311. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT.
For the purpose of encouraging employment development, the owner or proprietor of a
business subject to payment of Wastewater Facility Charges pursuant to Section 6-310 may
apply for an employment development credit. Employment development credit shall be
subtracted from the total calculated Sewer Facilities Charges due each billing period up to
the total amount of said charges in that billing period. Employment development credit given
shall be based on the total number of equivalent full-time positions employed at such
business. For the purposes of determining the employment development credit, an
"equivalent full-time position" is defined as one or more persons to which wages were paid
over a calendar month totaling 170 hours. The total amount of employment development
credit received each billing period shall be determined as follows:
Employment development credit for a billing period = (Y) x (150 gal.) × (Z) ° 18
Where:
Y = (Total employee hours in a billing period ° 2) ° 170 hrs.
Z = Flow charge per gallon for the Wastewater Facility Charge as designated in the Master
Fee Resolution, "Total employee hours in a billing period" is defined as those paid
employee hours which occurred in the last full calendar month of the billing period
plus the previous full calendar month.
Certification of Employees.To qualify for the receipt of an employment development credit,
the owner or proprietor of a business must submit a certification form as provided by the city,
which provides the employer's name, employer ID number, business name, business
address, billing account number, the names of all persons who were paid wages during the
month, the total hours each person worked, the total wages paid to each person or other
relevant information as determined by the Director. Based on the information submitted, the
Director shall determine the total employment development credit the business may receive
as provided in the section above, which shall be conclusive. In order to receive an
employment development credit over the bimonthly billing period, the business must submit
the certification form which includes such employment information for the billing period in
which the credit is requested, and the form must be received by the city no later than (15)
fifteen days after the end of each billing period. Certifications received later than (15) fifteen
days after the end of each billing period will not receive an employment development credit
in that billing period for which the certification is late.
Duration of Employment Development Credit.The Council may elect to discontinue the
provisions of this section for new businesses or development at some future time, except
Page 29 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
that, any business which has been given an employment development credit under this
section shall continue to receive such credit, as long as the business' billing account remains
active and certifications are received in a timely manner as provided above. In the event the
billing account is closed, such credit will cease. Employment development credits may not be
transferred from one business location to another.
(Add. Ord. 98-97, § 17, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-312. FINANCIAL PROCEDURES.
All billing for and collection of sewer service charges shall be handled as provided in this
article and in Article 1 of Chapter 6 of this Code.
(Rep. and Added Ord. 70-3, 1970).
SEC. 6-313. VACANCIES.
While any premises connected to the city sewer system are vacant, the regular minimum
sewer service charge shall be payable for such premises by the owner thereof, whether or not
sewer service is used, if water is connected to or available for use on the premises, unless such
premises are physically disconnected from the city sewer system. Applications for determination by
the Director that the premises have been physically disconnected from the city sewer system shall
be made to the Director accompanied by the disconnection inspection fee designated in the Master
Fee Resolution. Premises so disconnected shall not be reconnected to the city sewer system by
any person except with permission of the Director. If approval for reconnection to the city sewer
system is desired, an application for reconnection shall be filed with the Director, accompanied by
the reconnection inspection fee designated in the Master Fee Resolution.
(Orig. Ord. 4279; Am. Ord. 6161, 1962; Am. Ord. 80-115, § 105, eff. 8-8-80; Am. Ord. 98-91, § 5, 1-1-99)
SEC. 6-314. CONDITIONS OF SEWER SERVICE.
All persons using the regional sewer system shall pay for such service and for the privilege
of connecting to the sewer system at the rates, at the time, and under the conditions set forth in this
article, and shall comply with all regulations set forth in this article relating to the use of such
regional sewer system and all applicable State and federal laws required by the Clean Water Act of
1977, the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 C. F.R., Part 403), and all other applicable parts of
the Code of Federal Regulations as they are now constituted, or as they may hereafter be amended
or recodified. (Orig. Ord. 4341; Am. Ord. 5777, 1960; Am. Ord. 98-91, § 6, 1-1-99; Am. Ord. 2002-
73, § 3, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-315. MONITORING FACILITIES.
(a)Required to Install.The Control Authority shall require the user to install sampling
and/or monitoring equipment, including manholes, as necessary. The user's sampling and
monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by
the user at the user's own expense. All devices used to determine wastewater flow and quality shall
be calibrated, at a frequency to be determined by the Control Authority, to ensure their accuracy.
The sampling and monitoring facilities shall be provided in accordance with the city's requirements
and all applicable construction standards and specifications. Construction shall be completed within
ninety (90) days following written notification by the Control Authority unless a time extension is
granted by the Control Authority.
Page 30 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(b)Location of Equipment.The sampling and monitoring equipment shall be situated on
the user's premises, but the Control Authority may, when such a location would be impractical or
cause undue hardship on the user, allow the facility to be constructed in the public right-of way and
located so that it will not be obstructed by landscaping or parked vehicles.
(c)Access to Equipment.If the monitoring facility is inside the user's fence, there shall be
accommodations to allow access for city personnel, such as a gate secured with a city lock. There
shall be ample room in or near such sampling manhole to allow accurate sampling and compositing
of samples for analysis.
(d)Effluent Meter and Composite Sampler.New industrial users or existing users
planning a remodel of existing process facilities and/or pretreatment system which contribute high
strength wastewater to the POTW shall install a nonresetable totalizing effluent meter and a flow
proportioned composite sampler which is controlled by a flow meter.
(e)Provisions for Existing Users.Existing industrial users shall be subject to the
provisions of Section 6-315(a), (b), (c), and (d) at the discretion of the Control Authority.
(f)Plan Review.Detailed plans showing the operation and proposed installation of all
monitoring and/or sampling equipment shall be submitted to the Control Authority for review and
shall be acceptable to the Control Authority before installation of the equipment. Any subsequent
changes to any sampling and/or monitoring equipment shall be reported to and be acceptable to
the Control Authority. (Added Ord. 2002-73, § 4, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-316. PRETREATMENT.
(a)Pretreatment Required.Users shall provide necessary wastewater treatment as
required to comply with this article and shall achieve compliance with all federal categorical
pretreatment standards and/or city effluent limitations within the time limitations specified by federal
pretreatment regulations or the Control Authority, whichever is more stringent.
(b)Pretreatment Equipment Maintenance.Any equipment required to pretreat wastewater
to a level acceptable to the Control Authority shall be provided, operated, and maintained at the
user's expense.
(c)Pretreatment Equipment Plan Review.Detailed plans showing the pretreatment
facilities and operating procedures shall be submitted to the Control Authority before construction of
the facility. The review of such plans and operating procedures will in no way relieve the user from
the responsibility of modifying the facility as necessary to produce an effluent acceptable to the city
under the provisions of this article. Any subsequent changes in the pretreatment facilities or
operating procedures shall be reported to and be acceptable to the Control Authority prior to the
user's initiation of the changes.
(d)Pretreatment Records.All records relating to compliance with pretreatment standards
shall be made available to the Control Authority upon request. (Added Ord. 2002-73, § 5, eff. 1-23-
02).
SEC. 6-317. ADDITIONAL PRETREATMENT MEASURES.
(a)Right to Restrict Flows.Whenever deemed necessary, the Control Authority may
require users to restrict their discharge during peak flow periods, designate that certain wastewater
Page 31 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
be discharged only into specific sewers, relocate and/or consolidate points of discharge, separate
sewage wastestreams from industrial wastestreams, and such other conditions as may be
necessary to protect the POTW and determine the user's compliance with the requirements of this
ordinance.
(b)Flow Equalization Required.The Control Authority may require any person discharging
into the POTW to install and maintain, on their property and at their expense, a suitable storage and
flow-control facility to ensure equalization of flow. A wastewater discharge permit may be issued
solely for flow equalization.
(c)Combustible Gas Detection Meter Required.Users with the potential to discharge
flammable substances may be required to install and maintain an approved combustible gas
detection meter. (Added Ord. 2002-73, § 6, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-318. HAULED WASTEWATER.
(a)Permit Required.Liquid waste haulers shall be required to obtain a wastewater
discharge permit.
(b)Accepted Discharge Location.Septic tank waste may be introduced into the POTW
only at locations designated by the Control Authority, and at such times as are established by the
Control Authority. Such waste shall not violate Section 6-327 of this ordinance or any other
requirements established by the city.
(c)Accepted Type of Waste.Liquid waste haulers shall transport domestic or residential
liquid waste originating in Fresno County only, unless specifically permitted by the Control Authority.
(d)Manifest Required.Liquid waste haulers shall provide a manifest for every load. The
manifest shall be of a form approved by the Control Authority and shall include, at a minimum:
(1) The name and address of the source of the domestic waste;
(2) The volume of waste generated; and
(3) The truck identification. (Added Ord. 2002-73, § 7, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-319. PROBLEM DISCHARGES.
(a)Protection Required.Each user shall provide protection from accidental discharges,
slug loads, or discharges that are otherwise determined to be non-routine or unusual in nature, that
may cause potential problems for the POTW.
(b)Protection Equipment Maintenance.Equipment to protect from the problem
discharges listed in subsection (a) above shall be provided and maintained at the user's expense.
(c)Protection Equipment Plan Review.Detailed plans showing facilities and operating
procedures to provide this protection shall be submitted to the Control Authority for review, and
shall be acceptable to the Control Authority before construction of the facility. All existing users shall
complete such a plan as required by the Control Authority. Review and approval of such plans and
operating procedures shall not relieve the industrial user from the responsibility of modifying the
facility as necessary to provide the protection necessary to meet the requirements of this article.
Page 32 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(d)Emergency Notification Procedure for Employees.Employers shall ensure that all
employees who may cause or suffer to occur a discharge as described in subsection (a) above are
advised of the emergency notification procedure. (Added Ord. 2002-73, § 8, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-320. EMERGENCY SLUG CONTROL AND RESPONSE PLAN.
(a)Biennial Evaluation.At least once every two (2) years, the Control Authority shall
evaluate whether each significant industrial user needs an Emergency Slug Control and Response
Plan. The Control Authority may require any user to develop, submit for approval, and implement
such a plan. Alternatively, the Control Authority may develop such a plan for any user.
(b)Information Required.An Emergency Slug Control and Response Plan shall address,
at a minimum, the following:
(1) Description of all discharge practices;
(2) Description of stored chemicals;
(3) Procedures for immediately notifying the Control Authority of slug discharges,
including any discharge that would violate a prohibition under 40 C.F.R. 403.5(b), with
procedures for follow-up written notification within five (5) days;
(4) If necessary, procedures to prevent adverse impact from accidental spills,
including inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials,
loading and unloading operations, control of plant site run-off, worker training, building of
containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic pollutants
(including solvents), and/or measures and equipment for emergency response. (Added Ord.
2002-73, § 9, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-321. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
(a)Public Access.All information and data concerning a user obtained from reports,
questionnaires, wastewater discharge permit applications, wastewater discharge permits,
monitoring programs, and inspections shall be available to the public without restriction unless the
user specifically requests otherwise, and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Control
Authority that the release of such information would divulge information, processes, or methods of
production entitled to protection as trade secrets under applicable state law. Any such request must
be asserted at the time of submission of the information or data.
(b)Access to Governmental Agencies.When requested by the person furnishing a report,
the portions of a report which might disclose trade secrets or secret processes shall not be made
available for inspection by the public but shall be made available immediately to governmental
agencies for uses related to the Pretreatment Program, and in enforcement proceedings involving
the person providing the report.
(c)Effluent Data Unrestricted.Wastewater constituents and characteristics and other
"effluent data" as defined by 40 C.F.R. 2.302 will not be recognized as confidential information and
will be available to the public without restriction.
(Added Ord. 2002-73, § 10, eff. 1-23-02).
Page 33 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(e)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
SEC. 6-321.1. FATS, OILS, & GREASE (FOG) CONTROL PROGRAM.
Title. This section shall be referred to as the "City of Fresno FOG Control Program
Ordinance" or "FOG Ordinance."
Purpose. The purpose of the FOG Ordinance is to reduce Sanitary Sewer Overflows and
blockages, and to protect public health and the environment by minimizing public exposure
to unsanitary conditions. By controlling the discharge of fats, oils and grease to the
wastewater collection system, excessive buildup in sewer lines can be lessened, thereby
increasing the system's operating efficiency and reducing the number of sewer line
blockages and overflows.
General FOG Discharge Prohibitions. No Food Service Establishment shall discharge or
cause to be discharged into the sewer system FOG that may accumulate and/or cause or
contribute to blockages in the sewer system or at the sewer lateral which connects the Food
Service Establishment to the sewer system.
Specific FOG Prohibitions. The following specific prohibitions shall apply to all Food Service
Establishments:
Discharge of any FOG-containing wastewater that is not connected to a grease
removal device is prohibited, unless a waiver has been granted in accordance with
Subsection (1).
Non-grease laden sources such as, but not limited to, hand-wash sinks, toilets,
urinals, and stormwater, shall not be connected to a grease removal device.
No dishwasher shall be connected to a grease trap.
Discharge of wastewater with temperatures in excess of 140° F (60° C) into any
grease trap is prohibited.
Garbage disposals (food grinders) shall be prohibited at all New Food Service
Establishments. Existing Food Service Establishments shall remove all garbage
disposals when they remodel or within one hundred eighty (180) days from receiving a
notice from the Director to remove its garbage disposal(s) based on the Director's
finding that the FSE at any time caused or contributed to an SSO.
Direct disposal of any waste cooking oil into any drain or cleanout that is connected to
the sewer system is prohibited.
Introduction of any additive into a grease removal device or directly into the sewer
system for the purpose of emulsifying FOG, biologically/chemically treating FOG for
grease remediation, or as a supplement to any grease removal device maintenance is
prohibited, unless specifically authorized in writing by the Director.
Discharge of any waste which has been removed from a grease removal device into
the sewer system is prohibited.
FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit Required. All Food Service Establishments shall obtain a
FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit. Nothing in the permit is intended to relieve the Food
Service Establishment of any local, state, or federal regulation. Any denial of a permit may
be appealed under Chapter 1, Article 4.
Permit Application Requirements. FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit Applications shall
include the following information:
Name, address, telephone number, description of the Food Service Establishment
and service activities.
Name of any and all principals/owners of the Food Service Establishment.
Page 34 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(g)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(h)
(i)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Name and address of property owner or lessor and the property manager where the
Food Service Establishment is located.
Floor, site and plumbing plans showing detailed sewer connections and grease
removal devices.
Specifications of all grease removal devices.
Operational statement of FSE.
Any other information as may be specified in the application form.
FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit Conditions.
FOG Wastewater Discharge Permits must contain the following:
A statement that indicates the wastewater discharge permit duration.
A statement that the wastewater discharge permit is nontransferable.
A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of permit and
FOG ordinance.
FOG Wastewater Discharge Permits may contain the following conditions or limits if
found necessary to meet the intent of this Ordinance by the Director:
Limits on discharge of FOG and other pollutants.
Requirements to install, operate, and maintain adequate pretreatment devices
including grease removal devices.
Requirements for proper operation and maintenance of all pretreatment
devices.
Grease removal device maintenance frequency and schedule.
Requirements for implementing, maintaining, and reporting on the status of
Best Management Practices.
Requirements for maintaining and submitting logs and records, including waste
hauling records and manifests and to have such records available for
inspection.
Requirements to self-monitor.
Additional requirements as may be determined to be reasonably appropriate by
the Director or as specified by other Regulatory Agencies to protect the
collection system.
Other terms and conditions, which may be reasonably applicable to ensure
compliance with the FOG Control Program.
FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit Modifications. FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit
modifications are subject to Section 6-335 (h) of this Article consistent with the terms,
requirements and policies in this section.
Best Management Practices. All Food Service Establishments shall implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in an effort to minimize the discharge of FOG to the sewer
system, including, but not limited to, the following, as applicable:
Installation of Drain Screens. Drain screens shall be installed on all drainage pipes in
food preparation areas.
Segregation and Collection of Waste Cooking Oil. All waste cooking oil shall be
collected and stored properly in recycling receptacles such as barrels or drums. Such
recycling receptacles shall be maintained properly to insure that they do not leak.
Licensed waste haulers or an approved recycling facility must be used to dispose of
waste cooking oil.
Page 35 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(5)
(6)
(j)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3)
Disposal of Food Waste. All food waste should be disposed of directly into the trash or
garbage and not into sinks and shall be disposed of in a manner that will ensure
against leakage in the trash container or anywhere else.
Employee Training. Employees of the Food Service Establishment shall be trained by
ownership/management periodically as specified in the FOG wastewater discharge
permit on the following subjects:
Dry-wiping pots, pans, dish ware and work areas before washing to remove
grease.
Properly disposing food waste and solids in plastic bags prior to disposal in
trash bins or containers to prevent leaking and odors.
The location and use of absorption products to clean under fryer baskets and
other locations where grease may be spilled or dripped.
Properly disposing grease or oils from cooking equipment into a proper grease
receptacle without spilling.
Training shall be documented along with employee signatures. Training records shall
be available for review at any time by authorized representatives of the city.
Maintenance of Mechanical Exhaust Ventilation Filters. Filters shall be cleaned as
frequently as necessary to be maintained in good operating condition. The wastewater
generated from cleaning exhaust filters shall be disposed of properly.
Kitchen Signage. Best management and waste minimization practices shall be posted
conspicuously in the food preparation and dishwashing areas at all times.
FOG Pretreatment Required for New and Existing Food Service Establishments. Food
Service Establishments are required to install, operate and maintain an approved type and
adequately sized grease interceptor necessary to maintain compliance with the objectives of
this section, subject only to the variance and waiver provisions and other exceptions of this
aection. The grease interceptor shall be adequate to separate and remove FOG contained in
wastewater discharges from Food Service Establishments prior to discharge to the sewer
system. Fixtures, equipment, and drain lines located in the food preparation and cleanup
areas of Food Service Establishments that are sources of FOG discharges shall be
connected to the grease interceptor.
New Food Service Establishments shall include and install grease interceptors prior to
commencing discharges of wastewater to the sewer system.
Existing Food Service Establishments shall install grease interceptors in any of the
following circumstances:
When the FSE changes ownership;
When any change in operation results in or has the potential to result in the
increase of the amount of FOG generated and/or discharged by FSE in an
amount that alone or collectively causes or creates a potential SSO to occur;
When it is determined by the Director that the FSE caused or contributed to
grease-related blockages in the sewer system, has sewer laterals connected to
hot spots, or has been determined to contribute significant FOG to the sewer
system, based on inspection and sampling;
During a remodel;
Any other time the Director reasonably determines that installation of a grease
interceptor is necessary to avoid an adverse impact to the sewer system.
Page 36 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(k)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(1)
Any Existing FSE that receives a notice from the Director to install a grease
interceptor must install the interceptor within 180 days unless otherwise required by
the Director.
Variance of Grease Interceptor Requirement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
section, an Existing FSE may obtain a variance, at the Director's discretion, from the grease
interceptor requirement to allow alternative pretreatment technology that is equally effective
in controlling the FOG discharge in lieu of a grease interceptor. One such type of alternative
pretreatment technology is a grease trap. Consideration of granting the variance will be
based on the following:
There is insufficient space for installation and/or maintenance of a grease interceptor.
There is inadequate slope for gravity flow between kitchen plumbing fixtures and the
grease interceptor and/or between the grease interceptor and the private collection
line or the public sewer.
The FSE can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the alternative
pretreatment technology is equivalent or better than a grease interceptor in controlling
FOG. In addition, the FSE must be able to demonstrate, after installation of the
proposed alternative pretreatment technology, its continued ability to effectively
control FOG discharge.
The variance may be rescinded if subsequent monitoring shows accumulation of FOG in the sewer
lateral or the collection system downstream of the Food Service Establishment's connection or if the
Food Service Establishment caused or contributed to a Sanitary Sewer Overflow. A grease
interceptor must be installed within 180 days of the rescission of a variance. Denial or revocation of
a variance may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4.
Waiver from Grease Removal Device Requirement. When granting a variance is not possible
because the installation of a grease interceptor is not feasible and no equivalent alternative
pretreatment can be implemented, an FSE may apply for and be granted a conditional
waiver with the imposition of line maintenance cost recovery charges as established in the
Master Fee Schedule. An FSE requesting a waiver must demonstrate that it has negligible
FOG discharge and insignificant impact to the sewer system. Although a waiver may be
granted, the Director may impose additional requirements including, but not limited to, the
requirement to provide space and plumbing segregation for future installation of a grease
interceptor. Denial or revocation of a waiver may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 1, Article
4.
Cost Recovery. All costs incurred for cleaning the sewer line to remove FOG buildup caused
or contributed to by an FSE shall be reimbursed to the city by the FSE. Factors for
determining responsible parties for cost recovery charges include the FSEs that are
discharging into the affected sewer line, the presence of grease removal devices or
alternative pretreatment in the FSE, proper maintenance of grease removal devices by the
FSE, implementation of BMPs, and any waivers or variances granted.
Drawing Submittal Requirements. At the time of obtaining a FOG Wastewater Discharge
Permit or upon request by the Director:
FSEs may be required to submit copies of design and as-built facility site plans,
mechanical and plumbing plans and details to show all sewer locations and
connections. The documents shall be in a form acceptable to the Director for review of
existing grease control devices, monitoring facilities, metering facilities and operating
procedures. The review of plans and procedures shall in no way relieve the FSE of
the responsibility to modify the facilities or procedures in the future, as necessary to
Page 37 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(2)
(3)
(o)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
(i)
(ii)
(p)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
produce an acceptable discharge and to meet the requirements of this FOG Control
Program.
FSEs may be required to submit a schematic drawing of the grease removal device or
alternative pretreatment, piping and instrumentation diagram, and wastewater
characterization report.
At the Director's discretion, all drawings and/or reports may be required to be
prepared by a California Registered Civil, Chemical, or Electrical Engineer.
Grease Interceptor Requirements. Any FSE that is required to provide FOG pretreatment
shall install operate and maintain an approved type and properly sized grease interceptor, or
other grease removal device authorized under an approved variance, necessary to maintain
compliance with the purpose of the FOG Control Program.
Approved grease interceptor sizing and installation shall conform to the latest
approved edition of the California Uniform Plumbing Code.
Grease interceptors shall be constructed in accordance with the design approved by
the Director and shall have a minimum of two compartments with fittings designed for
grease retention.
Grease interceptors shall be installed at a location where it shall be at all times easily
accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of accumulated grease.
Grease interceptors may not be installed in any part of the building where food
is handled.
If a location is not available on the property of the FSE, a street encroachment
permit may be requested to authorize installation of a grease interceptor in a
public access area such as the street or sidewalk area.
There will be no obstruction from landscaping or parked vehicles, with the
exception of parked vehicles in a public access area as granted through a
street encroachment permit.
Access manholes, with a minimum diameter of twenty-four (24) inches, shall be
provided over each grease interceptor chamber and sanitary tee. The manholes shall
also have readily removable covers to facilitate inspection, grease removal and
wastewater sampling activities.
The original design of the grease interceptor shall not be modified unless the
manufacturer recommends the modification in writing.
Any modification will be at the Food Service Establishment's expense.
The city is not liable for any non-compliance as a result of any modification.
Grease Interceptor Maintenance Requirements. Grease interceptors shall be maintained in
efficient operating condition by periodic complete removal of all contents of the devices
including wastewater, accumulated FOG, floating materials, sludge and solids.
No FOG that has accumulated in a grease interceptor shall be allowed to pass into
any sewer lateral, sewer system, storm drain, or public right of way during
maintenance activities.
Food Service Establishments that are located in an area that is considered to be a hot
spot will be required to submit data and information necessary to establish a
maintenance frequency for their grease interceptor.
The maintenance frequency for all Food Service Establishments with a grease
interceptor shall be determined in one of the following methods:
Grease interceptors shall be fully pumped out and cleaned at a frequency such
that the combined FOG and solids accumulation does not exceed the 25%
Page 38 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(q)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(r)
(1)
Rule. Regardless, the interval between cleaning shall not exceed six (6)
months.
The owner/operator of a Food Service Establishment may submit a request to
the Director asking for a change in the maintenance frequency at any time. The
Food Service Establishment has the burden of responsibility to prove that the
change reflects actual operating conditions based on the average FOG
accumulation over time, and meets the requirements of the 25% Rule. The
Food Service Establishment must also show that it is in full compliance with the
conditions of its FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit and this section. Upon
approval by the Director, the FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit will be
modified accordingly to reflect the change in maintenance frequency.
If the grease interceptor contains, at any time, FOG and solids accumulation
that exceeds the 25% Rule, the Food Service Establishment shall be required
to have the grease interceptor serviced immediately so that all FOG, sludge
and other materials are completely removed from the interceptor. If necessary,
the Food Service Establishment may be required to increase the maintenance
frequency of the grease interceptor from its current frequency.
Wastewater, accumulated FOG, floating materials, sludge, solids, and other materials
removed from the grease interceptor shall be disposed offsite properly by licensed
waste haulers in accordance with federal, state, and/or local regulations.
Grease Trap Requirements. Grease traps may be authorized by the Director through a
variance under Subsection (k) with the following conditions:
Grease traps shall be installed in waste lines leading from drains, sinks and other
fixtures or equipment where grease may be introduced into the sewer system in
quantities that can cause blockage.
Grease traps shall be properly sized and installed in accordance with the latest
approved edition of the California Uniform Plumbing Code.
The original design of the grease trap shall not be modified unless the manufacturer
recommends the modification in writing.
Any modification will be at the FSE's expense.
The city is not liable for any non-compliance as a result of any modification.
Grease traps shall be maintained in efficient operating conditions by removing
accumulated grease. The interval between cleaning will be established by the
Director, but shall not exceed two (2) weeks. Baffles shall be removed and cleaned
during the maintenance process, when applicable.
Grease traps shall be kept free of all food residues and any FOG waste removed
during the cleaning and scraping process.
Grease traps shall be inspected periodically to check for leaking seams and pipes and
for effective operation of the baffles and flow regulating devices.
Grease traps and their baffles shall be maintained free of all caked on FOG and
waste.
Dishwashers and food waste disposal units shall not be connected to or discharged
into any grease trap.
The temperature of any water entering a grease trap shall not exceed 140° F (60° C).
Monitoring Requirements.
Page 39 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The Director may require, through the FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit or at any
time, an FSE to construct and maintain in proper operating condition, at the FSE's
sole expense, flow monitoring, constituent monitoring, and/or sampling devices.
The location of monitoring or metering devices shall be subject to approval by the
Director.
At all times, FSEs shall provide immediate, clear, safe and uninterrupted access to
authorized representatives of the city to all monitoring and metering devices.
FSEs may be required by the Director to submit waste analysis plans, contingency
plans, and meet other necessary requirements to ensure proper operation and
maintenance of any grease removal device and compliance with this section, (s)
Record Keeping Requirements. FSEs shall keep all records, including manifests,
receipts and invoices of all cleaning and maintenance of grease removal devices. All
records shall be made available to authorized representatives of the city upon
request. In addition to the above mentioned documents, records include logbooks of
maintenance activity, BMPs and employee training, sampling data, spill reports, line
cleaning reports, and any other information deemed appropriate by the Director to
ensure compliance with the FOG Control Program and this section.
(Added Ord. 2008-33, § 12, eff. 6-22-08).
SEC. 6-322. RIGHTS OF INSPECTION AND SAMPLING.
Rights of Entry.The Control Authority shall have the right to enter premises of any user to
determine whether the user is complying with all requirements of this ordinance and any
wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder. Owners or occupants of premises
where wastewater is created or discharged shall allow the EPA, the State, the city or the
city's representative ready access at all reasonable times to all parts of the premises for the
purpose of inspection, sampling or record examination, or in performance of any of their
duties.
Rights to Monitor.The Control Authority shall have the right to set up on the user's property
such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling inspections, compliance monitoring
and/or metering operations. The Control Authority shall also have the right to conduct
unbeknown surveillance monitoring of the user's wastewater discharge offsite of the facility
premises, taking into consideration all potential contributors to the same wastestream, and
enforcing all applicable provisions of this article as necessary. Nothing provided herein is
intended to limit the rights of the city in any way in regards to its use and control of the city's
facilities.
Access to Facilities.Where a user has security measures in force which would require
proper identification and clearance before entry onto the premises, the user shall make
necessary arrangements with his security guards so that, upon presentation of suitable
identification, personnel from the Control Authority will be permitted to enter without delay for
purposes of performing their specific responsibilities.
Obstructions to Access.Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access
to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled or monitored shall be promptly removed by the
user at the written or verbal request of the Control Authority and shall not be replaced. The
costs of clearing such access shall be born by the user.
Access Delayed or Refused.Unreasonable delays in allowing the Control Authority access
to a user's premises or refusing access to the Control Authority to a user's premises shall be
a violation of this ordinance.
Page 40 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(d)
(e)
Administrative Inspection Warrant.If an owner, occupant or agent refuses permission to
enter, or inspect, the Control Authority may seek an Administrative Inspection Warrant
pursuant to the procedures provided in Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1822.50 through
1822.59 as amended, to perform the duties imposed upon the Control Authority pursuant to
this article.
(Orig. Ord. 4279; Am. Ord. 98-91, § 7, 1-1-99; Am. Ord. 2002-73, § 11, eff. 1-23-02; Am. Ord. 2008-33, § 3, eff. 6-22
-08).
SEC. 6-323. ENFORCEMENT.
Control Authority. The Control Authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of this
article. The Control Authority is responsible for preparing, adopting, administering and
enforcing the Enforcement Response Plan.
Violations. A person is in violation of this article whenever the person violates or causes a
violation of any of the terms of this article, any condition or provision of a permit issued
pursuant to this article, any rule adopted by the city to administer or enforce this article, and
any notice, order, demand issued by Control Authority pursuant to an Enforcement
Response Plan. Any violation of this article shall be a public nuisance.
Available Remedies for Violations. Notwithstanding any other remedies available in the code
or in state or federal law, the Control Authority may do any of the following to address a
violation of this article:
Take action pursuant to an Enforcement Response Plan.
Issue a notice of compliance.
Issue an administration citation to the user and/or the person or entity that caused the
violation.
Modify or revoke the user's permit.
Cease city utility service pursuant to a show cause hearing.
Request City Attorney's Office to pursue civil and/or criminal action pursuant to local,
state or federal law, including, but not limited to California Government Code Section
54740.
Enforcement Response Plan. The Control Authority, in his or her discretion, may take action
pursuant to an Enforcement Response Plan as appropriate to the situation. Any action taken
pursuant to an Enforcement Response Plan shall be pursuant to the provisions of the
Enforcement Response Plan, except that to the extent the Control Authority issues an
administrative citation or issues any order that requires the user to cease discharging all
waste to the City's sewer system, the user may appeal the citation or the order pursuant to
the procedures in Chapter 1, Article 4. Filing an appeal under Chapter 1, Article 4 does not
stay enforcement of the citation or order pursuant to Subsection 1-408(f). If a user has an
appeal right pursuant to this subsection, the Control Authority shall notice the user of
his/her/its appeal right at the time the administrative citation and/or order ceasing use is
issued.
Administrative Citation. The Control Authority may issue an administrative citation with a fine
of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per violation per day or as provided in the
Master Fee Schedule. The Master Fee Schedule may provide for a scheme of penalties for
types and/or reoccurrence of violations. Administrative citations shall be issued pursuant to
Section 1-308. In addition to any other means of collection, the penalty may be collected
through the user's city issued utility bill pursuant to Article 1 of Chapter 6 (including
discontinuance of service upon non-payment).
Page 41 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(f)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(h)
Modify or Revoke Permit. The Control Authority may modify or revoke a user's discharge
permit pursuant to Section 6-335
Show Cause Hearing. Terminating Utility Service. If a violation is not corrected by timely
compliance of an order, notice or demand pursuant to Enforcement Response Plan or
pursuant to Subsection (c)(2), above, the Control Authority may order any user to show
cause before the Director why the user's water and sewer services should not be terminated,
in accordance with the following:
Notice of Show Cause Hearing. A notice shall be served on the user, specifying the
time and place of a hearing to be held by the Director regarding the violation, and
directing the offending party to show cause before the Director why an order should
not be made directing the termination of water and/or sewer service. The notice of the
hearing shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, at
least ten days before the hearing. Service may be made on an authorized
representative of the user, or the occupant(s) and/or owner(s) of record of the
property.
Hearing. The Director, or his/her designee, shall conduct the hearing and take the
evidence of the user and city staff and shall provide the user a reasonable period of
time to present his/her/its position.
Director Action. After the hearing, the Director may do any of the following based upon
substantial evidence that the action is necessary to protect the public health, safety
and welfare and/or the city's sewer system:
An order to the user and city staff, directing that the water service be
discontinued and/or the sewer connection severed;
An order to the user and city staff, that following a specified time period, the
water service be discontinued and/or the sewer connection severed unless
adequate treatment facilities, devices or other related appurtenances shall
have been installed or existing treatment facilities, devices or other related
appurtenances are properly operated, and such further orders and directives as
are necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with this article.
Any other action within the authority of the Control Authority.
Subject to Appeal. Any order under subparts (3)(ii) or (3)(iii), above, is subject to
appeal pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 1. Users shall be notified of their appeal at the
time the Director issues the order.
Failure to Appear. The Director may direct staff to immediately disconnect the water
and/or sewer service if the user fails to appear for the hearing or otherwise respond to
the notice of the show cause hearing and if the Director finds it is necessary to protect
the public health, safety and welfare and/or the city's sewer system.
Process for Disconnection from Water or Sewer. The procedures for water service
disconnection shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6, Article 1, of this
Code, and severance of sewer connection shall be in accordance with guidelines
established by the Director.
Reinstate Utility Service. The Control Authority shall reinstate water service and
approve reconnection to the regional sewer system upon proof of the elimination of
the non-complying discharge. Reinstatement of water service shall be in accordance
with Chapter 6, Article 1, of this Code, and reconnection to the regional sewer system
shall be in accordance with guidelines established by the Director.
Fraud or False Statements. Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§1001, relating to fraud
and false statements, and the provisions of Section 309(c)(2) of the Act governing false
Page 42 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(i)
(j)
(k)
statements, representations or certification in reports required under the Act, any person who
knowingly makes any false statements, representation or certification in any application,
record, report, plan or other document filed or required to be maintained for this article or a
Wastewater Discharge Permit, or who falsifies, tampers with or knowingly renders inaccurate
any monitoring device or method required under this article, shall, upon conviction, be
punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by imprisonment for
not more than six (6) months, or by both.
Cost Reimbursement. All costs incurred by the city by any means, whether direct or indirect,
as a result of a user failing to comply with any provision of this article shall be reimbursed to
the city by that user. Costs shall be collected pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 1, except that
in addition to the means of collection provided in the Cost and Penalty Recovery Ordinance,
the city may also seek collection through the user's city issued utility bill pursuant to Article 1
of Chapter 6 (including discontinuance of service upon non-payment).
Remedies Nonexclusive. The remedies provided for in this section are not exclusive or
mutually exclusive. The Control Authority may take any, all, or any combination of the
remedies provided in this section, this code and/or State or Federal law against a
noncompliant user. While enforcement will generally be in accordance with the Enforcement
Response Plan, the Control Authority, in his or her discretion, is not limited by the
Enforcement Response Plan from taking other actions to enforce the provisions of this
article.
Member Agency Responsibility. Pursuant to agreements with the city, Clovis and other
member agencies of the city's POTW shall incorporate into their ordinances, regulations or
both, and shall perform, the same enforcement duties defined in this article, and shall
enforce the same prohibitions on discharge, reporting requirements, and wastewater
discharge permit requirements as are contained in this article.
(Orig. Ord. 4279; Am. Ord. 76-33, § 2, eff. 5-9-76; Am. Ord. 83-41, § 4, eff. 7-1-83; Am. Ord. 89-10, § 2, eff. 2-17-
89; Am. Ord. 92-5, §§ 1—10, 2-21-92; Am. Ord. 98-91, §§ 8—14, 1-1-99; Am. Ord. 2002-73, § 12, eff. 1-23-02; Am.
Ord. 2008-33, §§ 2, 13, eff. 6-22-08).
SEC. 6-324. EMERGENCY SUSPENSIONS.
The Control Authority may immediately suspend a user's discharge, after informal notice to
the user, whenever such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which
reasonably appears to present or cause an imminent or substantial endangerment to the health or
welfare of persons. The Control Authority may also immediately suspend a user's discharge, after
notice and opportunity to respond, that threatens to interfere with the operation of the POTW, or
which presents, or may present, an endangerment to the environment.
(a)Immediate Cessation upon Notification.Any user notified of a suspension of its
discharge shall immediately stop or eliminate its contribution to the sewer system. In the
event of a user's failure to immediately comply voluntarily with the suspension order, the
Control Authority may take such steps as deemed necessary, including immediate
severance of the sewer connection, to prevent or minimize damage to the POTW, its
receiving stream, or endangerment to any individuals. The Control Authority may allow the
user to recommence its discharge when the user has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Control Authority that the period of endangerment has passed, unless the termination
proceedings are initiated against the user.
(b)Statement of Cause and Preventative Measures.A user that is responsible, in
whole or in part, for any discharge presenting imminent endangerment shall submit a
Page 43 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
(b)
(1)
detailed written statement, describing the causes of the harmful contribution and the
measures taken to prevent any future occurrence, to the Control Authority prior to the date of
any show cause or termination hearing.
(c)Prior Hearing Not Required.Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as
requiring a hearing prior to any emergency suspension under this section. (Added Ord. 2002-
73, § 13, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-325. TERMINATION OF DISCHARGE.
In addition to the provisions in Section 6-335(k), any user who violates the following
conditions is subject to discharge termination:
(a) Violation of Wastewater Discharge Permit conditions;
(b) Failure to accurately report the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its
discharge;
(c) Failure to report significant changes in operations or wastewater volume,
constituents, and characteristics prior to discharge;
(d) Refusal of reasonable access to the user's premises for the purpose of inspection,
monitoring, or sampling;
(e) Failure to report an accidental or slug discharge as required in Section 6-336(k) of
this article; or
(f) Violation of any pretreatment standard or requirement, or any terms of the
Wastewater Discharge Permit, or this ordinance. (Added Ord. 2002-73, § 15, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-326. PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE.
The Control Authority shall publish at least annually, in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Fresno area, a list of all users which, at any time during the previous twelve months were in
significant noncompliance with applicable pretreatment requirements, as defined in 40 C.F.R. §
403.8(f)(2)(vii). The notification shall include the parameter violated, the enforcement actions taken
by the Control Authority, and the corrective actions taken by the user(s). (Added Ord. 2002-73, §
15, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-327. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS.
General Prohibitions.No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced, directly or
indirectly, to the POTW any pollutant or wastewater which will cause Pass Through or
Interference. These general prohibitions apply to all users of the POTW whether or not the
users are subject to categorical pretreatment standards or any other national, state or local
pretreatment standards or requirements.
Specific Prohibitions.No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW the
following pollutants, substances, or wastewater:
Any liquids, solids or gases which by reason of their nature or quantity are, or may be,
sufficient either alone or by interaction with other substances to cause fire or
explosion or be injurious in any other way to the POTW or to the operation of the
Page 44 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
POTW, including, but not limited to, wastestreams with a closed- cup flashpoint of less
than 140° F or 60° C.
Any wastewater with a pH less than 6 or greater than 12.4, or having any corrosive or
detrimental characteristic that may cause injury to wastewater treatment or
maintenance personnel, or may cause damage to structures, equipment or other
physical facilities of the regional sewer system.
Solid or viscous substances which may cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW
resulting in Interference.
Any pollutants, including oxygen-demanding pollutants (e.g., BOD) released in a
Discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference to
the POTW.
Any wastewater containing heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the
POTW resulting Interference, but in no case heat in such quantities that will cause the
temperature at the treatment plant to exceed 104°F (40°C) unless the Approval
Authority, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits.
Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in
amounts that will cause Interference or Pass Through.
Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the
POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems.
Any trucked or hauled pollutants except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
Any other industrial wastes, unless such wastes have first been passed through
screens having openings not exceeding one-half inch in dimension; provided,
however, that the Control Authority, by written permit, may authorize the discharge
into the regional sewer system of such wastes if they are first passed through screens
having larger openings, if the Control Authority is satisfied that such larger openings
will provide screening efficiency and effectiveness equal to or better than that
provided by the smaller openings.
Any wastewater containing toxic pollutants in sufficient quantity, either singly or by
interaction with other pollutants, to injure or interfere with any wastewater treatment
process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, create a toxic effect in the
receiving waters of the POTW, or exceed the limitation set forth in a categorical
pretreatment standard. A toxic pollutant shall include, but not be limited to, any
pollutant identified pursuant to Section 307(a) of the Act.
Any noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, or solids which either singly or by
interaction with other wastes are sufficient to create a public nuisance or hazard to life
or are sufficient to prevent entry into the sewers for maintenance and repair.
Any substance which may cause the POTW's effluent or any other product of the
POTW, such as residues, sludges or scums, to be unsuitable for reclamation and
reuse or to interfere with the reclamation process. In no case shall a substance
discharged to the POTW cause the POTW to be in noncompliance with sludge use or
disposal criteria, guidelines or regulations developed under Section 405 of the Act,
any criteria, guidelines or regulations affecting sludge use or disposal developed
pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Clean Air Act or the Toxic Substances
Control Act, or state criteria applicable to the sludge management method being used.
Any substance which will cause the POTW to violate the Waste Discharge
Requirements mandated by the state.
Any wastewater with objectionable color not removed in the treatment process.
Page 45 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(c)
(d)
Any wastewater containing radioactive material in sufficient quantity to interfere with
any treatment process or constitute a hazard to humans or animals.
Any wastewater containing substances that may precipitate, solidify or become
viscous at temperatures between 40°F (4.4°C) and 100°F (37.7°C)
Any recognizable portions of the human anatomy.
Any storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, or subsurface drainage
which is acceptable to be discharged to other facilities where such facilities are
available.
Any cooling water which is sufficiently clean to be discharged to some other suitable
facility, such as a storm drain, where such facilities are available.
Any pool water, spa water, or pond water which is acceptable to be discharged to
other facilities where such facilities are available.
Any malodorous substance such as hydrogen sulfide or any other substance which
will cause offensive odors in the sewer system or at the treatment plant.
Any substance which is not amenable to treatment by the processes employed at the
treatment plant.
Any substance which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW.
Any slug loading.
Any wastewater that comes into contact with any process utilizing tetrachloroethene.
Wastewater causing two successive readings on an explosion hazard meter at the
point of discharge into the POTW, or at any point in the POTW, of more than five per
cent (5%), or any single reading over ten per cent (10%) of the Lower Explosive Limit
of the meter.
Compliance by existing sources with the Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards shall
be within three (3) years of the date the standard is promulgated unless a shorter compliance
time is specified in the appropriate subpart of 40 C.F.R.,Chapter 1, Subchapter N. Upon the
promulgation of the Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards for a particular industrial
subcategory, the federal standard, if more stringent than limitations imposed under this
article for sources in that subcategory, shall immediately supersede the limitations imposed
under this article. The Director shall notify all affected users of the applicable reporting
requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 403.12.
Local Limits.The following pollutant limits are established to protect against pass through
and interference. No person shall discharge wastewater containing in excess of the
following:
Parameter Limit
Daily
Average
Unit
Arsenic 0.32 mg/L
Cadmium 0.12 mg/L
Chromium, Total 6.7 mg/L
Copper 2.5 mg/L
Cyanide, Total 0.77 mg/L
Lead 1.2 mg/L
Mercury 0.05 mg/L
Nickel 1.3 mg/L
Silver 1.1 mg/L
Zinc 2.1 mg/L
Phenolic Compounds 300 mg/L
Page 46 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(h)
Trichloroethene 0.12 mg/L
Tetrachloroethene 0.77 mg/L
BETX*20 mg/L
Oil and Grease 700 mg/L
*Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene as a single constituent or as a
cumulative total.
Application of Limits.The limits in Section 6-327(d) apply at the point where the
wastewater is discharged to the POTW (also called "end of pipe"). All concentrations for
metallic substances are for "total" metals unless indicated otherwise.
Equivalent Mass Limits.The Control Authority may impose mass limitations in addition to,
or in place of, the concentration-based limitations listed in Section 6-327(d).
Contributions Causing Pass Through or Interference.When the Control Authority
determines that a user is contributing to the POTW any of the specific prohibitions listed in
Section 6-327(b) in such amounts as to cause pass through or interference, the Control
Authority shall:
Advise the user(s) of the impact of the contribution on the POTW, and
Develop effluent limitation(s) for such user(s) to correct the interference with the
POTW.
Best Management Practices.The Control Authority may develop Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to implement the general prohibitions, specific prohibitions, and local limits
listed in this section.
(Orig. Ord. 3642 and 4279; Am. Ord. 6940, 1967; Am. Ord. 71-105, 1972; Am. Ord. 76-33, § 3, eff. 5-9-76; Am. Ord.
83-41, § 5, eff. 7-1-83; Am. Ord. 91-14, §§ 6, 7, eff. 3-15-91; Am. Ord. 92-5, §§ 11, 12, eff. 2-21-92; Am. Ord. 98-91,
§§ 15—17, 1-1-99; Am. Ord. 2002-73, § 16, eff. 1-23-02; Am. Ord. 2008-33, §§ 4, 14, eff. 6-22-08).
SEC. 6-328. STATE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS.
State requirements and limitations on discharge shall apply in any case where they are more
stringent than federal requirements and limitations or those in this article.
(Added Ord. 83-41, § 6, eff. 7-1-83; Ord. No. 91-14, §§ 8—11, eff. 3-15-91; Am. Ord. 98-91, §§ 18, 19, 1-1-99; Am.
Ord. 2002-73, § 17, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-329. RIGHT OF REVISION.
The city reserves the right to establish by ordinance or in wastewater discharge permits,
more stringent standards, limitations, or requirements on discharges to the POTW if deemed
necessary to comply with the objectives presented in Section 6-301.
(Added Ord. 2002-73, § 18, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-330. DILUTION.
No user shall increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a discharge,
as a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with a discharge
limitation unless expressly authorized by an applicable pretreatment standard or requirement. The
Control Authority may impose mass limitations on users who are using dilution to meet applicable
Page 47 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
pretreatment standards or requirements, or in other cases when the imposition of mass limitations
is appropriate.
(Added Ord. 2002-73, § 19, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-331. BYPASS.
(a)Definition.For the purposes of this section,
(1) "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of an
industrial user's treatment facility.
(2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial
and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the
absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
(3) "Monitoring and/or sampling equipment" shall not be considered part of a user's
treatment facility.
(b)Prohibition of Bypass.
(1) Bypass is prohibited, and the Control Authority may take enforcement action
against an industrial user for a bypass, unless:
(i) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage;
(ii) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during
normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate
back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and
(iii) The industrial user submitted notices as required under Subsection (d) of
this section.
(2) The Control Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its
adverse effects, if the Control Authority determines that it will meet the three conditions listed
in Subsection (b)(1) of this section.
(c)Bypass Not Violating Applicable Pretreatment Standards or Requirements.An
industrial user may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause pretreatment standards or
requirements to be violated, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient
operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provision of Subsections (b) and (d) of this
section.
(d)Notice.
Page 48 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(1) If an industrial user knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit
prior notice to the Control Authority at least ten (10) days before the date of the bypass, if
possible.
(2) An industrial user shall submit oral notice of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds
applicable pretreatment standards to the Control Authority within twenty-four (24) hours from
the time the industrial user becomes aware of the bypass. A written submission shall also be
provided within five (5) days of the time the industrial user becomes aware of the bypass.
The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration
of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and, if the bypass has not been corrected,
the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce,
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. The Control Authority may waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within twenty-four
(24) hours. (Added Ord. 2002-73, § 20, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-332. VIOLATIONS OF DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS.
Any user who intentionally or negligently violates all or part of Sections 6-327,6-330, or 6-
331 shall be in violation of this article and subject to the provisions of Section 6-323. (Added Ord.
2002-73, § 21, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-333. PENALTY ASSESSMENT.
If a user violates any of the provisions of Sections 6-327,6-330,or 6-331 the penalty
designated in the Master Fee Resolution shall be added to the user's sewer service charge. (Added
Ord. 2002-73, § 22, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-334. SEWER CONNECTIONS; PREMISES OUTSIDE CITY.
(a) Persons owning or operating premises outside the city limits of the city may be granted
permission to connect their property with the city sewer system.
(b) Permission to connect to the sewer system will be granted by the Director if all provisions
of this article are complied with.
(c) Every permit granted for service outside the city limits of the city shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That payment of the applicable sewer connection charge, established by this
article, shall be made before connection of the premises to the sewer.
(2) That all regulations of the city will be followed with respect to use of the city sewer
system.
(3) That drainage from roofs, courts or other areas shall not be allowed to pass into
the city sewer system. (Orig. Ord. 2819; Am. Ord. 75-69, § 9, eff. 7-27-75).
SEC. 6-335. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS.
(a)Wastewater Discharge Permit Required.At the discretion of the Control Authority, all
users proposing to connect to or contribute to the POTW shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge
Permit before connecting to or contributing to the POTW.
Page 49 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(1) All existing users connected to or contributing to the POTW on the effective date
of this section must obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit within ninety (90) days of such
date.
(2) Any user proposing a new connection to the POTW shall obtain a Wastewater
Discharge Permit prior to beginning discharge.
(3) Liquid Waste Haulers shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit prior to
transporting liquid waste to a discharge point designated by the Control Authority.
(b)Authorization to Discharge.The Wastewater Discharge Permit expressly authorizes a
user to discharge wastewater to the POTW and is issued for that purpose. If, for any reason, a
Wastewater Discharge Permit is revoked, suspended, or otherwise held invalid, authorization to
discharge is terminated.
(c)Wastewater Discharge Permit Enforceability.Wastewater Discharge Permits shall be
expressly subject to all provisions of this Code and all other applicable regulations, user charges
and fees established by the city. Any violation of the terms and conditions of a Wastewater
Discharge Permit shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. Obtaining a Wastewater Discharge
Permit does not relieve a permittee of its obligation to comply with all federal and state pretreatment
standards or with any other requirements of federal, state, and local law.
(d)Authority to Deny New or Increased Contributions.The Control Authority shall have
the authority to deny or condition new or increased contributions of pollutants or changes in the
nature of pollutants to the POTW by permitted and non-permitted users where such contributions
do not meet applicable pretreatment standards or requirements or where such contributions would
cause the POTW to violate its Waste Discharge Requirements.
(e)Wastewater Discharge Permit Application.All users may be required to file with the
Control Authority a Wastewater Discharge Permit application in a form prescribed by the Control
Authority prior to obtaining a Wastewater Discharge Permit.
(1) Users proposing a new connection to the regional sewer system shall submit a
completed Wastewater Discharge Permit application at least ninety (90) days prior to
connecting to or contributing to the POTW.
(2) Existing users shall apply for a permit reissuance a minimum of ninety (90) days
prior to the expiration of their existing Wastewater Discharge Permit.
(3) New or existing users failing to submit a completed discharge permit application
will be assessed a penalty charge as designated in the Master Fee Resolution.
(f)Wastewater Discharge Permit Application Contents.In support of the application, the
user shall submit, in units and terms appropriate for evaluation, the following information:
(1) Name, address, and location (if different from the address);
(2) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) number;
(3) Description of activities, facilities and plant processes on the premises including
all materials which are or could be discharged;
Page 50 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(4) Number and type of employees and hours of operation of plant and proposed or
actual hours of operation;
(5) Each product produced by type, amount, process or processes, and rate of
production;
(6) Average daily wastewater flow rates, including daily, monthly and seasonal
variations;
(7) Type and amount of raw materials processed (average and maximum per day);
(8) Site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans and details to show all
sewers, sewer connections, and appurtenances by their size, location and elevation;
(9) Time and duration of discharge;
(10) Wastewater constituents and characteristics including, but not limited to, those
mentioned in Section 6-327(d) of this article, as determined by a state-certified laboratory.
Sampling and analyses shall be performed in accordance with the techniques described in
Section 6-336(l) and Section 6-336(m);
(11) Where known, the nature and concentration of any pollutants in the discharge
which are limited by any city, state or federal pretreatment standards, and a statement
regarding whether or not the pretreatment standards are being met on a consistent basis and
if not, whether additional operation and maintenance and/or additional pretreatment is
required for the user to meet applicable pretreatment standards or city effluent limitations;
(12) If additional pretreatment and/or operation and maintenance will be required to
meet the pretreatment standards or city effluent limitations, the schedule and conditions of
scheduling shall be in accordance with those described in Section 6-336(g);
(13) Any other information as may be deemed by the Control Authority to be
necessary to evaluate the permit application. The Control Authority will evaluate the data
furnished by the user and may require additional information. After evaluation and
acceptance of the data furnished, the Control Authority shall issue a Wastewater Discharge
Permit, subject to the terms and conditions provided herein.
(g)Permit Conditions.Wastewater Discharge Permits shall include such conditions as are
deemed reasonably necessary by the Control Authority to prevent pass through or interference,
protect the quality of the treatment plant's effluent, protect worker health and safety, facilitate sludge
management and disposal, and protect against damage to the POTW.
(1) Wastewater Discharge Permits must contain:
(i) A statement that indicates wastewater discharge permit duration in
accordance with Section 6-335(i) of this Code;
(ii) A statement that the wastewater discharge permit is nontransferable in
accordance with Section 6-335(j) of this Code;
(iii) Effluent limits based on applicable pretreatment standards;
Page 51 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(iv) Self monitoring, sampling, reporting, notification, and record-keeping
requirements, when applicable. These requirements shall include an identification of
pollutants to be monitored, sampling location, sampling frequency, and sample type
based on federal, state, and local law; and
(v) A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of
pretreatment standards and requirements, and any applicable compliance schedule.
Such schedule may not extend the time for compliance beyond that required by
applicable federal, state, or local law.
(2) Wastewater Discharge Permits may contain, but need not be limited to, the
following conditions:
(i) The unit charge or schedule of user charges and fees for the wastewater to
be discharged to the regional sewer system;
(ii) Limits on the average and maximum wastewater constituents and
characteristics;
(iii) Limits on the average and minimum rate and time of discharge or
requirements for flow regulations and equalization;
(iv) Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection and sampling
facilities;
(v) Specifications for monitoring programs which may include sampling
locations, frequency of sampling, number, types, and standards for tests and reporting
schedule;
(vi) Compliance schedules;
(vii) Requirements for submission of technical reports (See Section 6-336);
(viii) Requirements for maintaining and retaining plant records relating to
wastewater discharge as specified by the Control Authority, and affording the Control
Authority access thereto;
(ix) Requirements for notifying the Control Authority prior to and obtaining
approval of any new introduction of wastewater constituents or any substantial change
in the volume or character of the wastewater constituents being introduced into the
regional sewer system;
(x) Requirements for notifying the Control Authority of slug discharges;
(xi) Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Control Authority to ensure
compliance with this article.
(3) Wastewater Discharge Permits for septage haulers may contain the following
additional conditions:
(i) Restrictions for allowing only the discharge of domestic or residential waste
from septic tanks or chemical toilets, or any other liquid waste approved by the
Control Authority;
Page 52 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(ii) The specific location for the discharge of the approved wastes;
(iii) Requirements to prepare a manifest before transporting the waste off site,
containing at a minimum:
(A) The transporter's name, address and Wastewater Discharge Permit
number;
(B) The generator's name, address, telephone number and business
type;
(C) The description and volume of the waste hauled;
(D) The name and location of the disposal site;
(E) The signature of the generator and the transporter;
(iv) Requirements to submit the manifest to the Control Authority prior to any
discharge at the disposal site;
(v) Requirements to pay all City of Fresno sewer utility bills in full; and
(vi) Any other general and/or special operating conditions.
(h)Permit Modifications.The Control Authority may modify a Wastewater Discharge
Permit for good cause, including, but not limited to, the following reasons:
(1) To incorporate any new or revised federal, state, or local pretreatment standards
or requirements;
(2) To address significant alterations or additions to the user's operation, processes,
or wastewater volume or character since the time of wastewater discharge permit issuance;
(3) A change in the POTW that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or
elimination of the authorized discharge;
(4) Information indicating that the permitted discharge poses a threat to the POTW or
city personnel;
(5) Violation of any terms or conditions of the Wastewater Discharge Permit;
(6) Misrepresentations or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater
discharge permit application or in any required reporting; or
(7) To correct typographical or other errors in the Wastewater Discharge Permit.
(i)Duration of Permit.Wastewater Discharge Permits shall be issued for a specified time
period, not to exceed five (5) years. A permit may be issued for a period less than five years at the
discretion of the Control Authority. Each Wastewater Discharge Permit will indicate a specific date
upon which it will expire.
(j)Transfer of Permit.Wastewater Discharge Permits are issued to a specific user for a
specific operation. A Wastewater Discharge Permit shall not be reassigned or transferred or sold to
Page 53 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
a new owner, new user, different premises, a new or changed operation, or remodel of an existing
facility which is retained by the current owner.
(k)Revocation of Permit.The Control Authority may revoke a Wastewater Discharge
Permit for good cause, including, but not limited to, the following reasons:
(1) Failure of a user to factually report the sewage constituents and characteristics of
his discharge;
(2) Failure of a user to report and get approval of significant changes in operations,
site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans or sewage constituents and
characteristics prior to the commencement of any change;
(3) Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater
discharge permit application;
(4) Falsifying self-monitoring reports;
(5) Tampering with monitoring equipment;
(6) Refusal of reasonable access to a user's premises and/or records;
(7) Failure to meet effluent limitation;
(8) Failure to pay fines or penalties;
(9) Failure to pay sewer charges;
(10) Failure to meet compliance schedules;
(11) Failure to complete a wastewater discharge permit application;
(12) Failure of a user to report an accidental or slug discharge as required in Section
6-336(k) of this article.
(13) Violation of any pretreatment standard or requirement, or any terms of the
Wastewater Discharge Permit, or this ordinance.
(l)Discharge Reports.Reporting requirements shall be in accordance with Section 6-336.
(Added Ord. 76-33, § 4, eff. 5-9-76; Am. Ord. 80-115,§ 106, eff. 8-8-80; Am. Ord. 83-41, § 7, eff. 7-
1-83; Am. Ord. 87-29, § 3, eff. 3-17-87; Am. Ord. 89-10; § 3, eff. 2-17-89; Am. Ord. 91-14, §§ 12—
15, eff. 3-15-91; Am. Ord. 98-91, §§ 20, 21, 1-1-99; Am. Ord. 2002-73, § 23, eff. 1-23-02).
SEC. 6-336. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS.
Baseline Monitoring Report. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the promulgation of
a categorical pretreatment standard under Section 307(b) or (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1317
(b) or (c)), or one hundred eighty (180) days after the effective date of 40 C.F.R., Part 403,
existing industrial users subject to such categorical pretreatment standards and currently
discharging into or scheduled to discharge into a POTW shall be required to submit to the
Control Authority a report which contains the information listed in Subdivisions (1) through (8)
of this subsection. At least ninety (90) days prior to commencement of discharge, new
sources, and sources that become industrial users subsequent to the promulgation of an
Page 54 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(b)
(c)
applicable categorical standard, shall be required to submit to the Control Authority a report
which contains the information listed in Subdivisions (1) through (5) of this subsection. New
sources shall also be required to include in this report information on the method of
pretreatment the source intends to use to meet applicable pretreatment standards. New
sources shall give estimates of the information requested in Subdivisions (4) and (5):
The name and address of the industrial user including the name of the operator(s) and
owner(s).
A list of any environmental control permits held by or for the facility.
The nature, average rate of production, and standard industrial classification of the
operation(s) carried out by such industrial user.
The measured average daily and maximum daily flow in gallons per day or, where
approved by the Control Authority due to cost or feasibility considerations, a verifiable
estimate of average daily and maximum daily flow to the POTW from each of the
following:
Regulated process streams; and
Other streams as necessary to allow use of the combined wastestream formula
of 40 C.F.R. §403.6.
A report signed and certified by a duly authorized representative of the industrial user
of the nature and concentration of pollutants in the discharge from each regulated
process, and identification of the applicable pretreatment standards. In cases where
the standard requires compliance with a Best Management Practice or pollution
prevention alternative, the user shall submit documentation as required by the Control
Authority or the applicable standards to determine compliance with the standard.
A statement, signed by an authorized representative of the industrial user, and
certified by a qualified professional, indicating whether pretreatment standards are
being met on a consistent basis and, if not, whether additional operation and
maintenance and/or additional pretreatment is required for the industrial user to meet
the pretreatment standards and requirements.
If additional pretreatment and/or operation and maintenance will be required to meet
the pretreatment standard, the shortest schedule by which the industrial user will
provide such additional pretreatment. The completion date in this schedule shall not
be later than the compliance date established for the applicable pretreatment
standards.
Where process effluent is mixed prior to treatment with wastewaters other than those
generated by the regulated process, an equivalent concentration limit will be derived
using the method outlined in 40 C.F.R. § 403.6.
Ninety-day Compliance Report. Within ninety (90) days following the date of final compliance
with applicable pretreatment standards or in the case of a new source following
commencement of the introduction of wastewater into the POTW, any industrial user subject
to pretreatment standards and requirements shall submit to the Control Authority a report
indicating the nature and concentration of all pollutants in the discharge from the regulated
process which are limited by such pretreatment standards or requirements. The report shall
state whether the applicable pretreatment standards or requirements are being met on a
consistent basis and, if not, what additional operation and maintenance and/or pretreatment
is necessary to bring the industrial user into compliance with the applicable pretreatment
standards or requirements. This statement shall be signed by an authorized representative of
the industrial user, and certified by a qualified professional.
Page 55 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Periodic Compliance Report. Any industrial user subject to categorical pretreatment
standards (except a non-significant categorical user), after the compliance date of such
pretreatment standard, or, in the case of a new source, after commencement of the
discharge into the POTW, shall submit to the Control Authority during the months of June
and December, unless required more frequently in the pretreatment standard or the city's
Wastewater Discharge Permit, a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants
in the effluent which are limited by such pretreatment standards. In addition, this report shall
include a record of measured or estimated average and maximum daily flows for the
reporting period for the discharge reported in Section 6-336(a)(4), except that the Control
Authority may require more detailed reporting of flows. In cases where the pretreatment
standard requires compliance with a Best Management Practice (or pollution prevention
alternative), the user shall submit documentation required by the Control Authority or the
pretreatment standard necessary to determine the compliance status of the user. At the
discretion of the Control Authority and in consideration of such factors as local high or low
flow rates, holidays, budget cycles, etc., the Control Authority may modify the months during
which the above reports are to be submitted.
The Control Authority may authorize the industrial user subject to a categorical
pretreatment standard to forego sampling of a pollutant regulated by a categorical
pretreatment standard if the industrial user has demonstrated through sampling and
other technical factors that the pollutant is neither present nor expected to be present
in the discharge, or is present only at background levels from intake water and without
any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the industrial user. This authorization
is subject to the following conditions:
The Control Authority may authorize a waiver where a pollutant is determined
to be present solely due to sanitary wastewater discharged from the facility
provided that the sanitary wastewater is not regulated by an applicable
categorical standard and otherwise includes no process wastewater.
The monitoring waiver is valid only for the duration of the effective period of the
permit or other equivalent individual control mechanism, but in no case longer
than five (5) years. The user must submit a new request for the waiver before
the waiver can be granted for each subsequent control mechanism.
In making a demonstration that a pollutant is not present, the industrial user
must provide data from at least one sampling of the facility's process
wastewater prior to any treatment present at the facility that is representative of
all wastewater from all processes. The request for a monitoring waiver must be
signed by an authorized representative and include the certification statement
in Section 6-336(n). Non-detectable sample results may only be used as a
demonstration that a pollutant is not present if the EPA approved method from
40 C.F.R. Part 136 with the lowest minimum detection level for that pollutant
was used in the analysis.
Any grant of the monitoring waiver by the Control Authority must be included as
a condition in the user's control mechanism. The reasons supporting the waiver
and any information submitted by the User in its request for the waiver must be
maintained by the Control Authority for 3 years after expiration of the waiver.
Upon approval of the monitoring waiver and revision of the user's control
mechanism by the Control Authority, the industrial user must certify on each
report with the statement below, that there has been no increase in the
pollutant in its wastestream due to activities of the Industrial User:
Page 56 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(vi)
(vii)
(2)
(i)
1.
2.
3.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(d)
"Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for
managing compliance with the pretreatment standard for 40 C.F.R.
[specify applicable National Pretreatment Standard part(s)], I certify that,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, there has been no increase in
the level of [list pollutant(s)] in the wastewaters due to the activities at
the facility since filing of the last periodic report under 40 C.F.R. §403.12
(e)(1)."
In the event that a waived pollutant is found to be present or is expected to be
present based on changes that occur in the user's operations, the user must
immediately: Comply with the monitoring requirements of this section or other
more frequent monitoring requirements imposed by the Control Authority, and
notify the Control Authority.
This provision does not supersede certification processes and requirements
established in categorical pretreatment standards, except as otherwise
specified in the categorical pretreatment standard.
The Control Authority may reduce the requirement in this section to a requirement to
report no less frequently than once a year, unless required more frequently in the
pretreatment standard or by the Approval Authority, where the industrial user meets
all of the following conditions:
The industrial user's total categorical wastewater flow does not exceed any of
the following:
0.01 percent of the design dry weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW,
or 5,000 gallons per day, whichever is smaller, as measured by a
continuous effluent flow monitoring device unless the industrial user
discharges in batches:
0.01 percent of the design dry weather organic treatment capacity of the
POTW; and
0.01 percent of the maximum allowable headworks loading for any
pollutant regulated by the applicable categorical pretreatment standard
for which approved local limits were developed by the Control Authority:
The industrial user has not been in significant noncompliance, as defined in 40
C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(2)(viii) and Section 6-302(s)(9) of this Code, for any time in
the past two years;
The industrial user does not have daily flow rates, production levels, or
pollutant levels that vary so significantly that decreasing the reporting
requirement for this industrial user would result in data that are not
representative of conditions occurring during the reporting period;
The industrial user must notify the Control Authority immediately of any
changes at its facility causing it to no longer meet conditions of paragraphs (c)
(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. Upon notification, the industrial user must
immediately begin complying with the minimum reporting in this section; and
The Control Authority must retain documentation to support the Control
Authority's determination that a specific industrial user qualifies for reduced
reporting requirements under paragraph (c)(2) of this section for a period of 3
years after the expiration of the term of the control mechanism.
Flow Monitoring Report. Significant industrial users that are not subject to categorical
pretreatment standards but are subject to city effluent limitations shall submit to the Control
Authority at least once every six months (on dates specified by the Control Authority) a
Page 57 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h)
(i)
description of the nature, concentration, and flow of the pollutants required to be reported by
the Control Authority. In cases where a local limit requires compliance with a Best
Management Practice or pollution prevention alternative, the user must submit
documentation required by the Control Authority to determine the compliance status of the
user. These reports shall be based on sampling and analysis performed in the period
covered by the report.
Self-monitoring Report. When required by the Control Authority, an industrial user shall
submit a report indicating the concentration of specific pollutants discharged in the effluent.
The determination of said pollutants by the Control Authority shall be based on what is
reasonably expected to be found at the site and the frequency of monitoring shall be based
on the compliance status of the industrial user.
Detected Violation and Repeat Sampling. If sampling performed by an industrial user
indicates a violation, the industrial user must notify the Control Authority within twenty-four
(24) hours of becoming aware of the violation. The industrial user shall also repeat the
sampling and analysis and submit the results of the repeat analysis to the Control Authority
within thirty (30) days after becoming aware of the violation. Where the Control Authority has
performed the sampling and analysis in lieu of the industrial user, the Control Authority must
perform the repeat sampling and analysis unless it notifies the user of the violation and
requires the user to perform the repeat analysis. Resampling is not required if the Control
Authority performs sampling at the industrial user's facility at least once a month, or if the
Control Authority performs sampling at the industrial user's facility between the time when
the initial sampling was conducted and the time when the industrial user or the Control
Authority receives the results of this sampling.
Compliance Schedule. The following conditions shall apply to the schedule required by
Section 6-323(b) and Section 6-336(a)(7) and elsewhere as a result of a violation of this
article:
The schedule shall contain increments of progress in the form of dates for the
commencement and completion of major events including the construction and
operation of additional pretreatment required for the industrial user to meet the
applicable pretreatment standards or city effluent limitations.
No increment referred to in Subdivision (g)(1) shall exceed nine (9) months.
Not later than fourteen (14) days following each date in the schedule and the final
date for compliance, the industrial user shall submit a progress report to the Control
Authority including, as a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of
progress to be met on such date and, if not, the date on which it expects to comply
with this increment of progress, the reason for delay, and the steps being taken by the
industrial user to return the construction to the schedule established. In no event shall
more than nine (9) months elapse between such progress reports to the Control
Authority.
Reporting Mass Limits. The Control Authority may impose mass limitations on industrial
users which are using dilution to meet applicable pretreatment standards or city effluent
limitations or requirements, or in other cases where the imposition of mass limitations is
appropriate. In such cases, the reports required in Section 6-336(c) and 6-336(d) shall
indicate the mass of pollutants regulated by pretreatment standards or city effluent limitations
in the effluent of the industrial user.
Notification of the Discharge of Hazardous Waste. Any industrial user discharging into the
POTW a substance which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40
C.F.R., Part 261 shall notify, in writing, the Control Authority, the EPA Regional Waste
Page 58 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(j)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(k)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(l)
(1)
(i)
Management Division Director, and state hazardous waste authorities. Such notification shall
follow the precepts found in 40 C.F.R. §403.12.
Reports of Changed Conditions. Each user must notify the Control Authority of any planned
significant changes to the user's operations or pretreatment system which might alter the
nature, quality, or volume of its wastewater at least thirty (30) days before the change.
The Control Authority may require the user to submit such information as may be
deemed necessary to evaluate the changed condition, including the submission of a
wastewater discharge permit application.
The Control Authority may issue a Wastewater Discharge Permit or modify an existing
Wastewater Discharge Permit in response to changed conditions or anticipated
changed conditions.
For purposes of this requirement, significant changes include, but are not limited to,
flow increases of twenty percent (20%) or greater, and the discharge of any previously
unreported pollutants.
Reports of Potential Problems. In the case of any discharge, including, but not limited to,
accidental discharges, slug loads, or discharges that are otherwise determined to be non-
routine or unusual in nature, that may cause potential problems for the POTW, the industrial
user shall immediately notify the Control Authority of the incident. Additionally, a written
report must be provided within five (5) days. This report shall include the following
information:
The date and time of the event.
A description of the cause of the event.
The duration of the event or, if still in progress, the expected time for the event to
cease.
The steps to be taken to prevent recurrence of the event.
Sampling and Analytical Requirements. All pollutant analyses, including sampling
techniques, to be submitted as part of any report required pursuant to this article shall be
performed in accordance with the procedures established by the EPA pursuant to Section
304(h) of the Act (33 U.S.C. §1314(h)) and contained in 40 C.F.R. Part 136, and
amendments thereto, or with any other test procedures approved by the EPA, unless
specifically required otherwise by the Control Authority. Where 40 C.F.R. Part 136 does not
include a sampling or analytical technique for the pollutant in question, or where the
Regional EPA Administrator determines that the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques
are inappropriate for the pollutant in question, sampling and analysis shall be performed by
using validated analytical methods or any other applicable sampling and analytical
procedures, including procedures suggested by the Control Authority or other parties,
approved by the Regional EPA Administrator.
Where feasible, samples shall be collected through flow proportional composite
sampling techniques. In the event flow proportional composite sampling is not
feasible, the Control Authority may authorize the use of time proportional sampling or
multiple grab samples collected over the course of a process day where the user
demonstrates that this will provide a representative sample of the effluent being
discharged. In addition, grab samples may be required to show compliance with
instantaneous discharge limits.
Grab samples must be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease,
sulfide, and volatile organic compounds. Using protocols (including appropriate
preservation) specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 136 and appropriate EPA guidance,
multiple grab samples collected over the course of a process day may be
Page 59 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(m)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(n)
composited prior to the analysis as follows: For cyanide, total phenols, and
sulfides the samples may be composited in the laboratory or in the field; for
volatile organics and oil & grease the samples may be composited in the
laboratory. Composite samples for other parameters unaffected by the
compositing procedures as documented in approved EPA methodologies may
be authorized by the Control Authority, as appropriate.
For sampling required in support of Baseline Monitoring Reports and 90-Day
Compliance Reports, a minimum of four (4) grab samples must be used for pH,
cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide and volatile organic compounds
for facilities for which historical sampling data do not exist; for facilities for
which historical sampling data are available, the Control Authority shall require
the number of grab samples necessary to assess and assure compliance by
industrial users with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements.
Reports shall contain results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and
concentration (or mass, where required by the Control Authority) of regulated
pollutants in the discharge from each regulated process. Both daily maximum and
average concentration (or mass, where required) shall be reported. Sampling shall be
representative of daily operations.
Samples for categorical standards shall be taken immediately downstream from
pretreatment facilities if such exist or immediately downstream from the regulated
process if no pretreatment exists.
If other wastewaters are mixed with the regulated wastewater prior to
pretreatment, the user shall measure the flows and concentrations necessary
to allow use of the combined wastestream formula of 40 C.F.R. §403.6(e) in
order to evaluate compliance with the pretreatment standard.
Where an alternate concentration or mass limit has been calculated in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. §403.6(e), this adjusted limit, along with supporting
data, shall be submitted to the Control Authority.
Samples for city effluent limitations shall be taken at a point representative of the
entire discharge of all the processes emanating from an industrial user.
Sample Information. Reports, signed and certified by a duly authorized representative of the
industrial user as set forth in 40 C.F.R. §403.6(a)(2)(ii) and 40 C.F.R. §403.12(l) shall certify
that such sampling and analysis are representative of normal work cycles and expected
pollutant discharges to the POTW and shall contain the following information:
The date, exact place, method, and the time of sampling and the names of the person
or persons taking the samples;
The dates analyses were performed;
Who performed the analyses;
The analytical techniques/methods used; and
The results of such analyses.
Authorized Signature. All wastewater discharge permit applications and user reports required
by this article as well as any other report that may be required by a Wastewater Discharge
Permit shall be signed and certified by an authorized representative of the industrial user and
contain the following certification statement:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under
my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of
Page 60 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(o)
(p)
(q)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(r)
the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations."
Fraud and False Statements. The reports required by this article as well as any other report
that may be required by a Wastewater Discharge Permit shall be subject to the provisions of
18 U.S.C.§ 1001, relating to fraud and false statements, and the provisions of Section 309
(c)(4) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(4)), governing false statements, representations or
certifications in reports required under the Act and to the provision set forth in 40 C.F.R. §
403.6(a)(2)(ii) and 40 C.F.R. § 403.12(l).
Record Keeping. Any industrial user subject to the reporting requirements established in this
article or wastewater discharge permití (including documentation associated with Best
Management Practices)] shall be required to retain for a minimum of three (3) years any
records of monitoring activities and results, and shall make such records available for
inspection and copying by the Control Authority. This period of retention shall be extended
during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the industrial user.
Upset. An upset shall constitute an affirmative action defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards or city effluent limitations if the
requirements of Subdivision (1) are met.
An industrial user who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other
relevant evidence that:
An upset occurred and that the industrial user can identify the specific cause(s)
of the upset.
The facility was, at the time, being operated in a prudent and workmanlike
manner and in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance
procedures.
The industrial user had submitted the following information to the Control
Authority within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the upset.
Additionally, a written report must be provided within five (5) days in
accordance with Section 6-336(k).
In any enforcement proceeding, the industrial user seeking to establish the
occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof.
In the usual exercise of prosecutional discretion, the city's enforcement personnel will
ordinarily review any claims that noncompliance was caused by an upset. No
determination made in the course of the review shall constitute final city action subject
to judicial review. Industrial users will have the opportunity for judicial determination
on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with
categorical pretreatment standards or city effluent limitations.
The industrial user shall control production and all discharges upon reduction, loss or
failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of
treatment is provided. This requirement applies to the situation, among others, where
the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost or fails.
Annual Certification by Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users. A facility determined to
be a non-significant categorical industrial user pursuant to 40C.F.R. § 403.3(v)(2) and
Section 6-302(s)(8) must annually submit the following certification statement, signed in
Page 61 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(e)
accordance with the signatory requirements in Section 6-336(n). This certification must
accompany an alternative report required by the Control Authority:
"Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for managing
compliance with the categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 C.F.R.
____________, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief that during the
period from ____________/____________/____________,
____________/____________/____________ to
____________/____________/____________,
____________/____________/____________ [months, days, year]:
The facility described as [facility name] met the definition of a non-significant
categorical Industrial User as described in 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(v)(2);
the facility compiled with all applicable Pretreatment Standards and
requirements during this reporting period; and
the facility never discharged more than one hundred (100) gallons of total
categorical wastewater on any given day during this reporting period. This
compliance certification is based upon the following information."
(Added Ord. 2002-73, § 24, eff. 1-23-02; Am. Ord. 2008-33, §§ 5—10, 15, eff. 6-22-08).
SEC. 6-337. SEWER SERVICE FUNDS.
A sewer service fund is hereby established. It shall consist of revenue from sewer service
charges, revenue from sewer connection charges, and sewer facility charges as herein
defined.
All revenue obtained from sewer service charges shall be deposited into said fund, shall be
accounted for separately, and shall be expended for the acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of wastewater facilities, including payment of
interest and principal on bonds issued for such purposes, and for the implementation of the
city's pretreatment program. Such funds shall not be expended for new sewers fewer than
ten inches in diameter.
All revenue obtained from sewer connection charges shall be deposited into said fund, shall
be accounted for separately and shall be expended for the acquisition, construction and
reconstruction of the POTW, including payment of interest and principal on bonds issued for
such purposes. Said fund may also provide a capital reserve for depreciation and
enlargement of the POTW.
All revenue obtained from sewer facility charges pursuant to section 6-310 shall be deposited
into said fund, shall be accounted for separately and shall be expended as provided below:
Wastewater Facilities Charges, shall be imposed, accounted for and expended
consistent with section 6-304(a)(5), provided however that Wastewater Facilities
Charges collected pursuant to section 6-310 shall only be used for costs which are
allocable to businesses.
Trunk Sewer Charges, shall be imposed, accounted for and expended consistent with
section 6-304(a)(4), provided however that Trunk Sewer Charges collected pursuant
to section 6-310 shall only be used for costs which are allocable to businesses.
The terms "Sewer Service Charges," "Sewer Connection Charges," and "Sewer Facility
Charges" as used herein shall apply only to those funds collected for the use of the POTW
and shall not be construed to affect revenues derived from the plumbing permit fees;
provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed to restrict or
prohibit the making of transfers from said sewer service fund for the purpose of making
Page 62 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
temporary loans to one or more of the various departments of the city; and provided further
that all such temporary loans shall be restored annually to the sewer service fund on or
before the last day of each fiscal year.
(Added Ord. 5727, 1960; Am. Ord. 5777, 1960; Am. Ord. 5834, 1960; Am. Ord. 5841, 1960; Am. Ord. 6161, 1962;
Am. Ord. 72-140, 1972; Am. Ord. 83-41, § 8, eff. 7-1-83; Am. Ord. 98-97, §§ 18, 19, 1-9-99)
SEC. 6-338. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
The Director may make such rules and regulations as are not inconsistent with the provisions
of this article as may be necessary or desirable to aid in the administration or enforcement of the
provisions of this article.
(Added Ord. 6173, 1962; Am. Ord. 98-91, § 22, 1-1-99).
SEC. 6-339. SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
When a County waterworks, water, sewer, or other special district constructs sewer facilities
within the district to city standards and commences receiving city sewer services as a unit, the lines
installed by the district may remain the property of the district, in which event the city only shall
service and maintain the lines, and the district may elect to bill the user in the name of the district
and collect the sewer charges and remit the same to the city, in which event the user shall be
charged the same as any other user outside of the city, in accordance with the rate schedule
prescribed in Section 6-309(b). Where such district does not connect to the city system as a unit, or
the district does not elect to bill and collect as aforesaid, the district shall dedicate and convey to
the city all sewer lines owned or constructed by it. Nothing contained herein shall affect the right of
the city to acquire any portion of any such system located in territory annexed to the city.
(Added Ord. 69-41, 1969).
SEC. 6-340. PRIORITY OF BOND RESOLUTION.
The following shall prevail over any other provisions of this article from September 1, 1974,
and continuing so long as there are outstanding and unpaid any City of Fresno 1974 Sewer
Revenue Bonds of Series A authorized by Council Resolution No. 74-265:
All sewer connection fees and sewer service charges, together with any interest
thereon, shall be deposited in the Revenue Fund.
All sewer connection fees and sewer service charges, and any interest earned
thereon, shall be disbursed only as provided in Section 5.04 of Resolution No. 74-265.
Any money transferred from the Surplus Revenue Fund for the benefit of any municipal
function other than the Project shall be repaid to the Revenue Fund together with an amount
which is not less than the amount of interest that would have been earned on such money in
the Surplus Revenue Fund.
In construing the provisions of this section, the following terms shall have the meaning
indicated:
"Project" means the Project defined in Section 1.01 of Resolution No. 74-265.
"Revenue Fund" means the Revenue Fund created by Section 5.03 of Resolution No.
74-265.
"Sewer Connection Fees" includes "sewer connection charges."
"Sewer Service Charges" includes "sewer service fees."
Page 63 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
"Surplus Revenue Fund" means the Surplus Revenue Fund created by Section 5.04
of Resolution No. 74-265.
(Added Ord. 74-96, § 1, eff. 11-4-74).
SEC. 6-341. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision, paragraph, word or section of this article is invalidated by any court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions, paragraphs, words, and sections shall not be
affected and shall continue in full force and effect.
(Added Ord. 83-41, § 9, eff. 7-1-83).
Page 64 of 64Municode
3/27/2014http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14478&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTM...
APPENDIX C.
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE MANUAL
City of Fresno
Wastewater
Management Division
CSM-Operation & Maintenance Manual
2014
Introduction
The Collection System Maintenance (CSM) workgroup is a part of the City’s Public Utilities
Department, Wastewater Management Division. CSM is responsible for the management,
operation, and maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer collection system which includes
inspecting, cleaning, repairing and monitoring the gravity sewer lines, force mains and lift
stations. The workgroup is broken down into the following four sections: Preventive
Maintenance, Corrective Maintenance, Assessment and Customer Service each working
together to carry out our mission which states, we deliver high-quality utility services
professionally, efficiently and in an environmentally responsible manner to ensure the health
and safety of our community. This manual is intended as a reference for successful daily
operation.
1. General Information
1.1. Collection System Overview…………………………………………………………………
1.2. Collection System Map………………………………………………………………………
1.3. Contact Information…………………………………………………………………………..
1.3.1. Business Hours……………………………………………………………………....
1.3.2. After Hours……………………………………………………………………………
2. Section 2 Staffing
2.1. Organization Chart…………………………………………………………………………..
2.2. Group Descriptions………………………………………………………………………….
2.3. Job Descriptions……………………………………………………………………………..
3. Section 3 Safety
3.1. Safety Training………………………………………………………………………………
3.1.1. Traffic Control………………………………………………………………………..
3.1.2. Confined Space..................................................................................................
3.1.3. Trench Safety………………………………………………………………………..
3.2. Safety Equipment…………………………………………………………………………...
3.2.1. Personal Protective Equipment…………………………………………………....
3.2.2. Traffic Control………………………………………………………………………..
3.2.3. Multi-Gas Monitor……………………………………………………………………
3.2.4. Confined Space……………………………………………………………………..
4. Section 4 Planning
4.1. Preventive Maintenance……………………………………………………………………
4.2. Assessment Maintenance.............................................................................................
4.3. Corrective Maintenance…………………………………………………………………….
Staffing
Safety
Planning
4.4. Customer Service…………………………………………………………………………..
5. Section 5 Operations
5.1. Preventive…………………………………………………………………………………..
5.1.1. Mainline Cleaning………………………………………………………………….
5.1.1.1. 6” to 15” Sewer Mains..........................................................................
5.1.1.2. 16” to 24” Sewer Mains…………………………………………………..
5.1.2. Lift Station Wetwell Cleaning…………………………………………………….
5.2. Assessment
5.2.1. Routine CCTV Inspections……………………………………………………….
5.2.1.1. 6” to 15” Sewer Mains……………………………………………………
5.2.1.2. Sewer Mains 16” and greater……………………………………………
5.2.2. New Construction CCTV Inspections……………………………………………
5.2.2.1. Subdivisions……………………………………………………………….
5.2.2.2. Lateral Tie-ins to existing mains…………………………………………
5.2.3. Follow ups………………………………………………………………………….
5.2.3.1. SSO/SMB………………………………………………………………….
5.2.3.2. Preventive Maintenance………………………………………………….
5.2.3.3. Reactive Maintenance……………………………………………………
5.3. Corrective…………………………………………………………………………………..
5.3.1. Mainline……………………………………………………………………………..
5.3.1.1. Spot Repairs………………………………………………………………
5.3.1.2. Pipe Patch…………………………………………………………………
5.3.1.3. Tap Cutting………………………………………………………………..
5.3.2. Manhole…………………………………………………………………………….
5.3.2.1. Raise to Grade……………………………………………………………
5.3.2.2. Replace Frame & Cover…………………………………………………
Operations
5.3.2.3. Channel Repair…………………………………………………………...
5.3.2.4. Drop Bowl………………………………………………………………….
5.3.3. Lift Station………………………………………………………………………….
5.3.4. Roots……………………………………………………………………………….
5.3.4.1. Chemical…………………………………………………………………..
5.3.4.2. Mechanical………………………………………………………………...
5.3.4.3. Hydro………………………………………………………………………
5.4. Responder…………………………………………………………………………………
5.4.1. Customer Calls……………………………………………………………………
5.4.1.1. Service Issue……………………………………………………………..
5.4.1.1.1. Private…………………………………………………………….
5.4.1.1.2. PLSD……………………………………………………………..
5.4.1.1.3. Category 3……………………………………………………….
5.4.1.1.4. Category 2……………………………………………………….
5.4.1.1.5. Category 1……………………………………………………….
5.4.1.2. Investigate………………………………………………………………..
5.4.1.2.1. Odor………………………………………………………………
5.4.1.2.2. Roach…………………………………………………………….
5.4.1.2.3. Locate…………………………………………………………….
5.4.1.2.3.1. Lateral……………………………………………………
5.4.1.2.3.2. Manhole………………………………………………….
5.4.1.2.4. Dye Test………………………………………………………….
5.4.1.2.5. Upshot……………………………………………………………
5.4.1.2.6. Outside agency………………………………………………….
5.4.2. Lift Station…………………………………………………………………………
5.4.2.1. SCADA……………………………………………………………………
5.4.2.1.1. Monitoring…………………………………………………………
5.4.2.1.2. Respond to Alarm………………………………………………..
5.4.2.2. Monthly PM………………………………………………………………..
5.4.2.3. Site Upkeep……………………………………………………………….
5.4.3. SmartCover………………………………………………………………………..
5.4.3.1. Monitoring…………………………………………………………………
5.4.3.2. Respond to Alarm………………………………………………………..
5.4.3.3. Maintenance………………………………………………………………
5.4.4. Warehousing………………………………………………………………………
5.4.4.1. Inventory Control…………………………………………………………
5.4.4.2. Multi-Gas Monitor Maintenance………………………………………...
5.4.5. Special Assignments
6. Section 6 Emergencies
6.1. Emergency Response Plans…………………………………………………………….
6.1.1. Sanitary Sewer Overflow…………………………………………………………
6.1.2. Lift Station………………………………………………………………………….
6.1.3. Mainline Failure……………………………………………………………………
Emergencies
Figure 4-2. Basin Cleaning Schedule
Due Start Complete Due Start Complete Due Start Complete Due Start Complete Due Start Complete
Chestnut Yearly Jan Jan Apr Jan Oct-2010 Feb Oct Nov Jul-2013 Nov Oct Oct
Herndon Yearly Feb Feb Jun Feb Jan Dec Jan Apr Jan-2014 Apr
North Yearly Mar Feb Mar Feb Jan Sep Jan Apr May Apr Jul Aug Jul
Jensen Yearly Mar Mar May Mar Mar May Mar Apr Aug-2013 Apr Jun Sep Jun
Orange Yearly Mar Mar Jul Mar Mar Aug Mar Apr Dec Apr May Feb-2014 May
N. Central Yearly Mar Mar Dec Mar Aug Nov Aug Aug Oct Aug Aug Aug
Fowler Yearly Apr May Jun May Aug Jan-2012 Aug Oct Dec Oct Aug Nov Aug
Marks Yearly Jun Jun Apr-2011 Jun Jan Sep Jan Feb Jul Feb Oct Oct
Fruit Yearly Jul Jul Dec Jul May Sep May May Nov May Dec-2012 Jul Jan Dec-2013
S. Central Yearly Aug Jul Jan-2011 Jul May Aug May May Aug May Jun Oct Jun Feb
Walnut Yearly Sept Jul Aug Jul Aug Mar-2012 Aug Aug Oct Aug Jul Aug Jul
Copper Yearly Oct Aug Aug Aug Aug Dec Aug Oct Nov Oct Sep Sep Sep
Cornelia Yearly Nov Aug Oct Aug Nov May-2012 Nov Oct Mar-2013 Oct Aug Aug
Grantland Yearly Dec Dec >>>Mar Jan Jan Feb Jan Jan Apr Jan Mar
Due Start Complete Due Start Complete Due Start Complete Due Start Complete Due Start Complete
Herndon 2 Years Dec >>>Jul Jul
North 2 Years Jan Aug Aug Aug
Jensen 2 Years Feb Sept Sept Sept
Orange 2 Years Jan Feb Aug Feb
N. Central 2 Years Jun Dec Jan-2011 Dec
Fowler 2 Years Aug Nov Nov Nov
Marks 2 Years Sept Dec Aug-2011 Dec
Fruit 2 Years Dec >>>May May May
S. Central 2 Years Mar Aug Jan-2011 Aug
Walnut 2 Years May Sept Oct Sept
Copper 2 Years Mar Aug Aug Aug
Cornelia 2 Years Jul Dec May-2011 Dec
Chestnut 2 Years Aug Aug
Grantland 2 Years Oct Mar
Interval
Basin
2 Year Trial
Interval
2014
6"-15" pipe
City of Fresno, Collection System Maintenance Basin Cleaning Schedule
16"-24" pipe
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Basin
2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 4-3. “Hot spots” Cleaning Schedule
Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
1499 W. Millbrae 07/11/13 07/02/13 08/02/13 07/21/13 08/09/13 08/12/13 09/12/13 09/12/13 10/11/13 10/10/13 11/08/13 11/04/13
1499 W. Millbrae cont.12/04/13 12/02/13 01/02/14 12/23/13 01/23/14 01/02/14 02/03/14 02/03/14 03/03/14
1499 W. Millbrae cont.
5652 E. Grant 07/26/13 07/22/13 08/09/13 08/02/13 08/12/13 08/12/13 08/21/13 08/21/13 09/04/13 09/04/13 10/04/13 09/11/13
5652 E. Grant cont.09/20/13 09/23/13 10/23/13 10/21/13 11/21/13 11/02/13 12/02/13 12/02/13 01/02/14 12/16/13 01/16/14 01/16/14
5652 E. Grant cont.02/17/14 01/29/14 02/11/14 02/11/14 02/24/14
5652 E. Grant cont.
5652 E. Grant cont.
Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
Backer & Kings Canyon 07/16/13 07/16/13 09/16/13 09/16/13 11/15/13 11/14/13 01/14/14 01/14/14 03/14/14
Crystal Line 09/03/13 09/03/13 11/04/13 11/04/13 01/06/14 11/04/13 01/03/14 01/06/14 03/06/14
Blackstone & Weldon 09/03/13 09/03/13 11/04/13 11/04/13 01/06/14 11/04/13 01/03/14 01/06/14 03/06/14
McDonald's Line 08/13/13 08/12/13 10/14/13 10/14/13 12/13/13 12/11/13 02/11/14 01/22/14 03/24/14
R Street Aly 07/15/13 07/16/13 09/16/13 09/16/13 11/15/13 11/14/13 01/14/14 01/14/14 03/14/14
Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
Donaghy Line 08/13/13 08/12/13 11/12/13 11/12/13 02/12/14 02/07/14 05/07/14
Fresno Street 08/06/13 08/12/13 11/12/13 12/06/13 03/06/14
Fruit & Dakota 08/14/13 08/20/13 11/20/13 11/15/13 02/14/14 02/14/14 05/14/14
Hamilton & Third 09/11/13 09/11/13 12/11/13 09/11/13 12/11/13 12/10/13 03/10/14
Richs Bakery 07/03/13 07/03/13 10/03/13 10/10/13 01/10/14 01/10/14 04/10/14
Chris' Meat Market 09/26/13 09/24/13 12/20/13 12/23/13 03/23/14
Voorman Line 09/26/13 09/24/13 12/24/13 12/24/13 03/24/14
Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
Bulldog Lane 11/06/13 11/04/13 05/05/14 11/04/13 05/05/14
Junction Structures 02/26/14 02/05/14
Mariposa Mall 10/04/13 10/03/13 04/03/14
Black&Mckenzie 07/09/14
180 Day Scheduled Maintenance
HOT SPOTS Cleaning Schedule
FY14 Scheduled Maintenance
30 Day Scheduled Maintenance
60 Day Scheduled Maintenance
90 Day Scheduled Maintenance
Figure 4-4. Lift Station Maintenance Schedule
Lift Station Maintenance Schedule FY13
North West L/S 90 days
340041 Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
LS - 12 8/31/2012 12/4/2012 12/5/2012 3/5/2013 3/6/2013 6/3/2013 6/3/2013 9/3/2013
LS - 14 8/30/2012 12/11/2012 12/12/2012 3/12/2013 3/13/2013 6/13/2013 5/29/2013 8/29/2013
LS - 16 8/30/2012 12/18/2012 12/18/2012 3/18/2013 4/16/2013 7/16/2013
North East L/S 90 Days
340044 Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
LS - 04 8/30/2012 12/5/2012 12/28/2012 3/28/2012 3/5/2013 6/5/2013 5/29/2013 8/29/2013
LS - 05 N/A 12/12/2012 12/10/2012 3/11/2013 3/15/2013 6/17/2013 6/17/2013 9/17/2013
LS - 06 N/A 12/19/2012 12/10/2012 3/11/2013 3/15/2013 6/17/2013 6/17/2013 9/17/2013
LS - 10 8/30/2012 12/26/2012 12/4/2012 3/4/2013 3/5/2013 6/5/2013 5/29/2013 8/29/2013
Central L/S 90 Days
340037 Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
LS - 03 8/31/2012 12/6/2012 12/5/2012 3/5/2013 3/4/2013 6/4/2013 6/5/2013 9/5/2013
LS - 13 8/31/2012 12/13/2012 12/12/2012 3/12/2013 3/12/2013 6/12/2013 6/12/2013 9/12/2013
LS - 15 8/31/2012 12/20/2012 12/18/2012 3/18/2012 3/18/20132 6/18/2013 6/18/2013 9/18/2013
South West L/S 90 Days
340042 Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual Due Actual
LS - 01 9/18/2012 9/20/2012 12/20/2012 12/18/2012 3/18/2013 3/18/2013 6/18/2013 6/18/2013 9/18/2013
LS - 02 9/25/2012 9/26/2012 12/26/2012 1/8/2013 4/8/2013 4/12/2013 7/12/2013 6/19/2013 9/19/2013
LS - 18 10/2/2012 10/3/2012 1/3/2013 1/3/2013 4/3/2013 3/12/2013 6/12/2013 5/31/2013 8/30/2013
LS - CH 10/9/2012 10/18/2012 1/18/2013 1/16/2013 4/16/2013 4/18/2013 7/18/2013
Figure 4-5. Work Order Report
Figure 4-6. Video Inspection Report for Spot Repair
APPENDIX D.
CITY OF FRESNO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
(CHAPTER 17) AND
STANDARD DRAWINGS
SANITARY SEWER
PIPE AND APPURTENANCES
SECTION 17 – SANITARY SEWER PIPE AND APPURTENANCES
17-1 General ………………………………………………………………………… 95
17-2 Materials ………………………………………………………………………. 95
17-2.1 Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) …………………………………………………….. 95
17-2.1.1 General ………………………………………………………………………… 95
17-2.1.2 Manufacturing Requirements ……………………………………………….. 95
17-2.1.3 Installation ……………………………………………………………………… 95
17-2.1.4 Testing ………………………………………………………………………….. 95
17-2.2 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe ……………………………………………….. 95
17-2.2.1 General ………………………………………………………………………… 95
17-2.2.2 Manufacturing Requirements ………………………………………………… 96
17-2.2.3 Jointing Systems ………………………………………………………………. 96
17-2-2.4 Test Requirements ……………………………………………………………. 98
17-2.3 PVC-Lined Reinforced Concrete Pipe ………………………………………. 99
17-2.3.1 General ………………………………………………………………………..… 99
17-2.3.2 Manufacturing Requirements …………………………………………………. 100
17-2.4 Ductile Iron Pipe ………………………………………………………………… 100
17-2.5 Prohibited Pipe Material ……………………………………………………….. 100
17-3 Trench and Structure Excavation, and Backfill ……………………………… 100
17-3.1 General ………………………………………………………………………….. 100
17-3.2 Trench and Structure Excavation ……………………………………………. 101
17-3.2.1 Trench Widths ………………………………………………………………….. 102
17-3.2.2 Trench Grade …………………………………………………………………… 102
17-3.2.3 Fine Grading ……………………………………………………………………. 103
17-3.2.4 Over-Excavation ………………………………………………………………… 103
17-3.2.5 Excavation for Manholes, Valves, Inlets, Catch Basins and Other
Accessories……………………………………………………………………… 103
17-3.2.6 Pavement and Concrete Cutting and Removal ……………………………. 103
17-3.2.7 Grading and Stockpiling ………………………………………………………. 104
17-3.2.8 Open Trench …………………………………………………………………… 104
17-4 Installation of Pipe …………………………………………………………….. 104
17-5 Foundation, Bedding, Backfilling and Compaction of Trenches ………… 106
17-5.1 Foundation and Bedding …………………………………………………….. 106
17-5.2 Pipe Embedment Zone ………………………………………………………. 106
17-5.3 Initial Backfill …………………………………………………………………… 107
17-5.4 Final Backfill ……………………………………………………………………. 108
17-6 Connection of Service Laterals (House Branches) …………………………. 109
17-7 Installation of Sewer House Branches ………………………………………. 109
17-8 Manhole Construction and Drop Sewer Connections ……………………… 110
17-8.1 General …………………………………………………………………………. 110
17-8.2 Design and Spacing ………………………………………………………....... 111
17-8.3 Materials ………………………………………………………………………… 111
17-8.4 Installation ………………………………………………………………………. 112
17-8.5 Removal …………………………………………………………………………. 112
17-8.6 Adjustments …………………………………………………………………….. 113
17-8.7 Drop Sewer Connections …………………………………………………….. 113
17-8.8 Payment ………………………………………………………………………… 113
17-9 Thimbles …………………………………………………………………………. 113
17-10 Deflection Test of PVC Sewer Lines …………………………………………. 113
17-11 Leakage Test of Sewer Lines and Service Laterals ………………………… 114
17-12 Television Inspection of Interior of Installed Pipe …………………………… 116
17-13 Measurement ……………………………………………………………………. 116
17-14 Payment …………………………………………………………………………. 116
January 2013 - 95 -
SECTION 17 – SANITARY SEWER PIPE AND APPURTENANCES
17-1 GENERAL
Sewer pipe, manholes, stub-outs, house branches, and service laterals shall be furnished in
accordance with the requirements established in these City Standard Specifications. Also
included is the testing and internal inspection of all Sewer lines.
No public Sewer may be smaller than eight inches (8") in diameter.
17-2 MATERIALS
Sewer pipe and fittings shall be vitrified clay, unplasticized polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or
PVC lined reinforced concrete pipe, as specified herein.
17-2.1 Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP)
17-2.1.1 General
Vitrified clay Sewer pipe for sanitary Sewers and house connection Sewers
shall conform to the following requirements.
17-2.1.2 Manufacturing Requirements
Vitrified clay pipe shall be mechanical compression joint pipe, Band Seal,
Wedge Lock, Speed Seal or approved equal. Vitrified clay pipe and fittings
shall be extra strength, first quality, sound and well burned throughout their
entire thickness and shall comply with the current revisions of
ASTM Designation C-700.
17-2.1.3 Installation
Pipe shall be installed in accordance with the current revisions of
ASTM Practice C-12.
17-2.1.4 Testing
Pipe shall be in accordance with the current revisions of ASTM Method C-301.
17-2.2 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe
17-2.2.1 General
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) sewer pipe for sanitary Sewers, and house
connection Sewers shall conform to the following requirements:
Pipe Size (inches) A.S.T.M. Min. Wall Thickness
4-15 D 3034 SDR35
18-30 F 679 “T-1" only
January 2013 - 96 -
17-2.2.2 Manufacturing Requirements
A. Identification Marks
All pipe, fittings, and couplings shall be clearly marked at intervals not to
exceed 5 feet as follows:
1. Normal pipe diameter
2. PVC cell classification
3. Company, plant, shift, ASTM, SDR, and date designation
For fittings and couplings, the SDR designation is not required.
B. Cell Classification
PVC pipe shall be made of PVC compound having a cell classification of
12454-B, 13364-A, or 13364-B conforming to ASTM D 1784. The fittings shall
be made of PVC compound having a cell classification of 12454-B, 12454-C, or
13343-C. Additives and fillers, including but not limited to stabilizers,
antioxidants, lubricants, colorants, etc., shall not exceed 10 parts by weight per
100 of PVC resin in the compound.
17-2.2.3 Jointing Systems
A. General
All pipe shall have a home mark on the spigot end to indicate proper
penetration when the joint is made. The socket and spigot configurations for
the fittings and couplings shall be compatible to those used for the pipe.
B. Elastomeric Gasket Joins
Pipe shall be manufactured with a socket configuration which will prevent
improper installation of the gasket and will ensure that the gasket remains in
place during the joining operation.
PVC pipe shall be joined with rubber gaskets. Rubber gaskets shall be
manufactured from a synthetic elastomer and shall comply in all respects with
the physical requirements specified in ASTM F 477. The compound shall
contain not less than 50% by volume of first-grade rubber. The remainder of
the compound shall consist of pulverized fillers free of rubber substitutes,
reclaimed rubber, and deleterious substances. The Contractor shall retest
within 60 Days prior to installation, any pipe gasket that is more than 180 Days
old from the date of manufacture to ensure compliance with the requirements
of the Specifications.
The Contractor shall not install any pipe gasket that is more than 2 years old
from the date manufacture.
January 2013 - 97 -
Gaskets shall be extruded or molded and cured in such a manner as to be
dense, homogenous and of smooth surface, free of pitting, blisters, porosity
and other imperfections. The tolerance for any diameter measured at any
cross section shall be ± 1/32 inch.
When required by the Engineer, the Contractor shall furnish test samples of
gaskets from each batch used in the Work. Gasket material shall meet the
following requirements:
No more than one splice will be permitted in a gasket. A splice shall be made
by applying a suitable cement to the ends and vulcanizing the splice in a full
mold. The splice shall show no separation when subjected to the following
tests:
1. Elongation Test
The part of the gasket which includes the splice shall withstand
100 percent elongation with no visible separation of the splice. While in
the stretched position, the gasket shall be rotated in the spliced area
minimum of 180° in each direction in order to inspect for separation.
2. Bend Test
The portion of the unstretched gasket containing the splice shall be
wrapped a minimum of 180° and maximum of 270° around a rod of a
diameter equal to the cross section diameter of the gasket.
Solvent cements are not allowed for joining pipe.
Property Value ASTM Test Method
Tensile strength, psi min. 1500 D 412
Elongation at break (% min.) 350 D 412
Shore durometer, Type A (Pipe
manufacturer shall select value
suitable for type of joint)
40 to 65' D 2240
Compression set (constant
deflection) max. % of original
deflection
16 D 395 Method B
Tensile strength after oven aging
(96 hours, 158oF) % of tensile
strength before aging
80 D 573
Increase in shore durometer
hardness after over aging.
Maximum increase over original
Shore durometer
10 D 2240
Physical requirements after
exposure to ozone concentration
(150 pphm. 70 hours, 104oF, 20%
strain)
No Cracks D 1149
January 2013 - 98 -
17-2.2.4 Test Requirements
A. General
Pipe, fittings, and couplings shall meet the requirements of the section titled
“Requirements” of ASTM D 3033, D 3034, F 679 (“T-1" wall only). During
production of the pipe, the manufacture shall perform the specified tests for
each pipe marking. A certification by the manufacture indicating compliance
with the specification requirements shall be delivered with the pipe. The
certification shall include the test result data. The PVC compound shall also
meet the chemical resistance requirements of 17-2.2.4 D.
B. Acceptance
The basis for acceptance will be the inspection of pipe, fittings, and couplings;
the tests specified in subsection 17-2.2.4A; and compliance with the
Specifications. When the pipe is delivered to the work site, the Engineer may
require additional testing to determine conformance with the requirements of
pipe flattening, impact resistance, pipe stiffness, and extrusion quality.
Installation time shall conform to subsection 17-2.2.4 E.
C. Selection of Pipe
When testing is required by the Engineer, one test pipe shall be selected at
random by the Engineer from each 1200 feet or fraction thereof of one test pipe
per lot. A lot shall be defined as pipe having the same identification marking.
The length of specimen for each selected pipe shall be a minimum of eight feet
(8').
D. Chemical Resistance and Physical Testing
The Engineer may at any time direct the manufacturer to obtain compound
samples and prepare test specimens in accordance with ASTM D 1987. These
specimens shall comply with the minimum property values shown below and
also with the applicable ASTM requirements.
Property
ASTM Test
Method
Value
(Initial and After 112-Days Exposure)
Cell Class Cell Class Cell Class
12454 13343 13364
Minimum
Yield Strength
(psi)
D 638 7,000 6,000 6,000
Impact
Strength (Ft.-
lbs/in.) Notch
Min.
D 256 Method A
(Size ½" x c" x
2-½")
0.65 1.5 1.5
Weight
Change % D 543
Unconditioned ±1.5 max ±1.5 max ±1.5 max
January 2013 - 99 -
Conditioned ±1.0 min ±1.0 min ±1.0 min
Tensile and impact exposure specimens shall be immersed in the following
solutions for a period of 112 Days. At 28-Day intervals, selected specimens
shall be removed, washed, surfaced dried, and tested.
Chemical Solution Concentration
Sulphuric Acid (H2SO4) 20%1
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) 5%
Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH) 5%1
Nitric Acid (HNO3) 1%1
Ferric Chloride (FeCl3) 1%
Sodium Hypochlorite 1%
Soap 0.1%
Detergent (Linear alkyl
benzyl sulfonate or LAS) 0.1%
Bacteriological BOD not less than 700 ppm
1 Volumetric percentages of concentrated reagents of C.P. grade. Weight change specimens
shall be 2 inches in diameter and may be molded discs or discs cut from the pipe wall. They
shall be conditioned in a mechanical convection oven for 7 Days at 110EF± 4E F, then cooled
in a desiccator for 3 hours at 73E± 4EF, weighed, and then immersed in the above solutions.
At 28-Day intervals selected specimens shall be removed, washed, surface dried and
weighed. These same specimens shall be reconditioned in a mechanical convection oven for
7 Days at 110E± 4EF, then cooled in a desiccator for 3 hours at 73EF± 4EF and weighed
again. If any specimen fails to meet these requirements at any time, the material will be
rejected.
E. Installation Time Limit
The Contractor shall retest within 60 Days prior to the installation of all pipe and
fittings that are more than 180 Days old from the date of manufacture to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the Specifications. The Contractor shall
not install any pipe that is more than 2 years old from the date of manufacture.
17-2.3 PVC – Lined Reinforced Concrete Pipe
17-2.3.1 General
These Specifications shall apply to reinforced concrete pipe manufactured with
a plastic lining for use in sanitary Sewers.
All reinforced concrete pipe used for sanitary Sewers shall be 3600 PVC T-lock
lined.
The size, type, and D-load of the concrete pipe to be furnished shall be as
shown on the Plans, or as specified under the item of Work for the project of
January 2013 - 100 -
which the pipe is a part and shall be for pipe installed by open-cut method of
construction.
17-2.3.2 Manufacturing Requirements
Reinforced concrete pipe shall be manufactured and tested in conformance
with the requirements of ASTM C-76, except as modified herein and to the
"D" load, class and size as shown on the Plans with the following addition:
The joints shall be O-ring rubber gasket type, the gasket will be enclosed on all
four surfaces in an annular space formed by shoulders on the bell end spigot or
in a groove on the spigot. The pipe shall be self-centering and the gasket or
gaskets shall not be required to support the weight of the pipe.
Portland cement shall comply with ASTM C-150, Type II, low alkali.
17-2.4 Ductile Iron Pipe
Sewer pipe of ductile iron shall comply with ASTM A746 (State Standard Specification
for Ductile Iron Gravity Sewer Pipe) and shall be used only in special locations shown
on the Plans or as specified in the Special Conditions.
17-2.5 Prohibited Pipe Material
The following pipe materials are not allowed for use in the construction of sanitary
Sewers:
1. Asbestos Cement Pipe
2. High Density Polyethylene
3. (HDPE) High Density Polyethylene Plastic Pipe
4. (PE) Polyethylene Solid Wall Pipe
5. Concrete Truss Pipe
6. Cement or Mortar Lined Ductile Iron Pipe
7. Concrete Pipe (unlined or nonreinforced)
17-3 TRENCH AND STRUCTURE EXCAVATION, AND BACKFILL
17-3.1 General
This Work shall consist of all excavation and backfill necessary for the construction of
pipelines, structures and other facilities, and the restoration of surfaces disturbed by
such Work, all as set forth in the Plans and Specifications and as directed by the
Engineer.
January 2013 - 101 -
Excavations for appurtenance structures, such as manholes, transition structures,
junction structures, vaults, etc., shall be deemed to be in the category of trench
excavation.
17-3.2 Trench and Structure Excavation
Excavations shall be made to the depths and widths required accommodating
construction of conduits and structures to specified dimensions and to the lines and
grades indicated on the Plans. Unless otherwise indicated on the Plans, excavations
for pipe construction may be open cut.
The Contractor shall be responsible for locating and protecting subsurface obstructions
in the field, and shall notify the Engineer immediately if conflicts occur. Reference is
made to Section 5, “UTILITIES,” of these City Standard Specifications relative to
existing Utilities, and the protection thereof. The location of subsurface obstructions
found in the field may necessitate a variance in the depth or alignment of proposed
facilities.
The Contractor shall perform all excavations in accordance with the Trench
Construction Safety Orders issued by the Division of Industrial Safety of the
Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California.
When a trench or structure Site is to be located in an existing oiled earth or pavement
area, the existing surfacing to be removed shall be cut by methods approved by the
Engineer along neat lines on each side of the trench or around the structure Site.
Existing surfacing, when removed, shall be kept separated from the material that is to
be returned to the excavation. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for rejection of the contained material for use as backfill.
Material excavated from the trench shall be placed so as to offer minimum obstructions
to traffic.
All existing gas pipes, water pipes, conduits, Sewers, drains, fire hydrants, and other
structures which are not, in the opinion of the Engineer, required to be changed in
location shall be carefully supported and protected from injury by the Contractor; and
in case of injury, they shall be restored by him/her, without additional compensation, to
as good a condition as that in which they were found.
The Contractor shall provide, without additional compensation, suitable temporary
channels for the water that may flow along or across the site of the Work when
necessary.
If all excavated material cannot be stored on the Roadway in such a manner as to
maintain access to property along side of the Work, the surplus material shall be
removed from the Work and stored until needed for backfill at which time it shall be
brought back. If the surplus material is to be stored on other than private property,
prior approval must be obtained from the Engineer for the site to be used. The cost of
removing and returning material shall be at the Contractor's expense.
January 2013 - 102 -
17-3.2.1 Trench Widths
Trenches shall conform to the dimensions in Table 17-3.1, unless otherwise
specified in the Special Provision, indicated on the Plans, and as may be
approved by the Engineer.
TABLE 17-3.1
TRENCH WIDTHS
Size of Pipe (I.D.) Maximum Width at Top of Pipe
Greater Than O.D. of Barrel
Minimum Width at Springline
Each Side of Pipe
Less than 18" 24" 6"
18" to 24" inclusive 30" 8"
27" to 39" inclusive 36" 9"
42" to 60" inclusive Pipe O.D. 12"
Over 60" requires design by the Project Civil Engineer
The width of the trench shall not be greater than the maximum indicated in
Table 17-3.1, at and below the level of the top of the pipe. The width of the
trench above that level may be as wide as necessary for sheeting and bracing,
and for proper installation of the Work.
If the maximum trench width as specified in Table 17-3.1 is exceeded at the top
of the pipe the Contractor shall provide, at no additional cost to the City, the
necessary additional load bearing capacity by means of bedding, having a
higher bedding factor than that specified, higher strength pipe, a concrete
cradle, cap or encasement, or by other means approved in writing by the
Engineer.
17-3.2.2 Trench Grade
Alignment and elevation stakes shall be furnished to the Contractor at set
intervals and agreed upon offsets. Where elevation stakes are furnished, the
Engineer will also furnish the Contractor with cut sheets.
For all pipe 12 inches or greater in diameter, the Contractor shall excavate for
and provide an initial granular bedding at least 4 inches thick or 1/12 the O.D.
of the pipe whichever is greater. This bedding material shall be placed at a
uniform density with minimum compaction and fine graded as specified below.
Bell or coupling holes shall be dug after the trench bottom has been graded.
Such holes shall be of sufficient width to provide ample room for caulking,
banding, or bolting. Holes shall be excavated only as necessary to permit
accurate work in the making of the joints and to ensure that the pipe will rest
upon the prepared bottom of the trench, and not be supported by any portion of
the joint.
January 2013 - 103 -
Depressions for joints, other than bell-and-spigot, shall be made in accordance
with the recommendations of the joint manufacturer for the particular joint used.
17-3.2.3 Fine Grading
Unless otherwise specified in the plans and/or special provisions, the bottom of
the trench shall be accurately graded to provide uniform bearing and support
for each section of the pipe at every point along its entire length, except for
portions of the pipe where it is necessary to excavate for bells and for proper
sealing of the pipe joints.
17-3.2.4 Over-Excavation
Except at locations where excavation of rock, hardpan, or other unsuitable
material from the bottom of the trench is required, care shall be taken not to
excavate below the depth indicated.
Unauthorized excavation below the specified grade line shall be refilled at the
Contractor’s expense with an approved granular material compacted to a
uniform density of not less than 95 percent of the maximum density as
determined by ASTM D-1557 and D-3017.
Whenever rock or hardpan material is encountered in the trench bottom, it shall
be over-excavated to a minimum depth of six inches below the O.D. of the
pipe. This over-excavation shall be filled with an approved granular material
placed with the minimum possible compaction.
17-3.2.5 Excavation for Manholes, Valves, Inlets, Catch Basins and Other
Accessories
Structures shall be over-excavation at least twelve inches (12") beyond
dimensions of structures as shown on the Plans. If the native material is such
that it will not stand without sloughing or if precast structures are used, the
Contractor shall over-excavate to place the structure and this over-excavation
shall be backfilled with the same material required for the adjoining pipe line
trench.
17-3.2.6 Pavement and Concrete Cutting and Removal
Where trenches lie within the portland cement concrete section of Streets,
alleys, driveways, or sidewalks, etc., such concrete shall be sawcut to neat,
vertical true lines in such a manner that the adjoining surface will not be
damaged. The minimum depth of cut shall be 1 ½ inches or 1/4 of the
thickness, whichever is greater.
No ripping or rooting will be permitted outside limits of cuts. Surfacing material
removed shall be hauled from the Site immediately, and will not be permitted in
the backfill.
January 2013 - 104 -
17-3.2.7 Grading and Stockpiling
All grading in the vicinity of trench excavation shall be controlled to prevent
surface water from flowing into the trenches. Any water accumulated in the
trenches shall be removed by pumping or by other approved methods.
During excavation, material suitable for backfilling shall be piled in an orderly
manner, a sufficient distance back from the edges of trenches, to avoid
overloading and to prevent slides or cave-ins. Material unsuitable for backfilling,
or excess material, shall be hauled from the Site and disposed of by the
Contractor.
The Contractor shall, prior to final acceptance of the Work, submit a letter to the
City stating the location of each disposal site for all excess or unsuitable
material and certify that he has obtained the property owner’s permission for the
disposal of all such materials.
17-3.2.8 Open Trench
Except where otherwise noted in the special provisions, or approved in writing
by the Engineer, trenches shall be excavated only as far in advance of pipe
laying as can be backfilled in the same Day. The maximum total length of open
trench shall be 185 meters (600'), except where approved in writing by the
Engineer.
Any excavated area shall be considered open trench until all aggregate subbase
material for pavement replacement has been placed and compacted. With the
approval of the Engineer, pipe laying may be carried on at more than one
separate location, the restrictions on open trench applying to each location.
Trenches across Streets shall be completely backfilled as soon as possible after
pipe laying.
Substantial steel plates with adequate trench bracing shall be used to bridge
across trenches at Street crossings where trench backfill and temporary patches
have not been completed during regular work hours. Safe and convenient
passage for pedestrians shall be provided. The Engineer may designate a
passage to be provided at any point she/he deems necessary. Access to
hospitals, fire stations and fire hydrants must be maintained at all times.
17-4 INSTALLATION OF PIPE
Proper facilities shall be provided for stringing and lowering sections of pipe into the trench.
The pipe shall be laid carefully to lines and grades given.
The grade line shown on the Plans indicates the flow line or invert of the pipe and all cuts,
unless otherwise indicated, refer to this line.
After the trench for pipe has been brought to the proper line and grade, the pipe shall be laid in
the following manner:
January 2013 - 105 -
Pipe laying shall begin at existing sewer locations and shall proceed upgrade with the
bell or groove end of the pipe placed upstream. E ach section of pipe shall be laid true
to line and grade and in such a manner as to form a watertight, concentric joint with the
adjoining pipe. Existing Sewer lines and flow therein shall remain operational at all
times. Any rerouting or blockage of Sewer flows during construction by the Contractor,
shall require approval by the Engineer.
Sewer pipe and fittings shall be laid and jointed in compliance with the manufacturer’s
recommendation and shall be carefully adjusted to grade by scraping of filling and
tamping the trench bottom. Each joint of pipe must be fully pressed into place so that
there will be no unevenness or settlement of one length of pipe with the other at the
joint.
Circular reinforced concrete pipe with elliptical reinforcement shall be placed with the
minor axis of the reinforcement in a vertical position.
The Contractor shall furnish and use, for grade and alignment control, a laser beam
system which complies with OSHA requirements. The laser system shall have good
visibility when used with suitable target material. The laser system must be of the
self-leveling type so that the laser beam is automatically compensated for minute grade
disturbances.
The laser system must also have an early warning system that instantly warns the pipe
layer when the laser is off grade. The laser system is to be provided by the Contractor
and shall have a minimum accuracy of ±0.01 foot per one hundred feet (100') on line;
and a minimum visible range of one thousand feet (1000'). When conditions are such
that this method is impractical, such as on short pipe runs, the Contractor shall have an
engineer on the ground to set grade of each joint of pipe by means of an engineer's
level.
The grade line shown on the Plans indicates the flow line or invert of the pipe and all
cuts, unless otherwise indicated, refer to this line.
Each joint of pipe must be fully pressed into place so that there will be no unevenness
or settlement of one length of pipe with the other at the joint.
The interior of the pipe shall be kept free from dirt, excess mortar and other foreign
material as the laying progresses. Pipe shall not be laid when the condition of the
trench or the weather is unsuitable, in the opinion of the Engineer, because of water or
mud which may interfere with proper jointing. All open ends of pipe and fittings shall be
adequately and securely closed whenever the Work is discontinued. Any pipe which
shows undue settlement or is damaged shall be taken up and replaced or re-laid at the
Contractor's expense.
All pipe shall be laid to true line and grade. Occasional variations as follows will be
permitted: Above grade, 5mm (1/4 inch); below grade, not to exceed 10mm (1/2 inch);
alignment not to exceed 50mm (2 inches) if gradual and regular over a distance of
6m (20 feet).
January 2013 - 106 -
17-5 FOUNDATION, BEDDING, BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION OF TRENCHES
17-5.1 Foundation and Bedding
The material upon which the conduit or structure is to be placed shall be accurately
finished to the grade or dimensions shown on the Plans or as directed by the
Engineer.
The bottom portion of the trench shall be brought to grade so that the conduit or
structure will be continuously in contact with the material on which it is being placed.
Trenches bottoming in hardpan shall be excavated a minimum of 150mm (6") below
the grade established for the bottom of the pipe and any couplings and then backfilled
to the pipe grade with select material, thoroughly compacted. No additional payment
will be made for such over-excavation and refill.
Whenever the bottom of the trench is soft, yielding or unsuitable as a foundation for
the pipe, such material shall be removed to a minimum of 300mm (12"), or to a depth
determined by the Engineer, below the bottom of the pipe or structure, and for a width
equal to at least ½ diameter on each side of the pipe, and the space backfilled with
sufficient clean granular material of the type directed by the Engineer to ensure a
proper foundation. No additional payment will be made for over-excavation or
placement of clean foundation material unless so indicated in the Specifications or
approved by the Engineer.
The maximum width of the trench at the top of the pipe shall not be greater than that
specified in Table 17-3.1, unless otherwise specified on the approved Plans or
Specifications for the Project.
Trenches shall be excavated to the depths required for the foundation of Sewer pipes
and their appurtenances shown on Plans and where conditions make it necessary to
such depths as may be directed by the Engineer. The bottom of the trench shall be
excavated or backfilled so that the barrel of the pipe shall have uniform bearing for its
entire length, except for the area necessary for bell holes. All adjustment of pipe to
line and grade must be made by scraping away or filling and tamping. The use of
blocks as support is forbidden. An additional depth and width shall be hand dug at
joint or bell locations of sufficient depth to relieve the bell of any load and to allow
ample space for making the joint.
Where the pipe is to be laid on sand having less than optimum moisture, as
determined by the Engineer, the Contractor shall apply sufficient water and compact
the sand prior to placing the pipe.
17-5.2 Pipe Embedment Zone
Pipe Embedment Zone shall be defined as that material supporting, surrounding, and
extending to 0.3m (12") above the top of the pipe. Material used for backfilling within
the Pipe Embedment Zone shall consist of the following select natural material or
processed product Class II or Class III material as defined herein and shall be
compacted to a minimum 90% as determined by ASTM D1557 (latest editions).
January 2013 - 107 -
Class II: (E’= 3000 psi)* Washed concrete sand conforming to Section 90-1.02C(4)c
of the State Standard Specifications.
Class III: (E’= 2000 psi)* Select natural sand and coarse silty sand conforming to the
following particle size gradation and sand equivalent:
* E’= modulus of subgrade reaction
17-5.3 Initial Backfill
Initial backfill shall be the material between the top of the bedding material and
0.3mm (12") above the top of the pipe.
Initial Backfill shall consist of placing and firmly compacting selected granular backfill
material under the haunches of the pipe and up to the spring-line of the pipe, and then
filling to a level 300mm (12") above the top of pipe.
Initial backfill shall be placed immediately after the pipe has been laid to line and grade
in the trench, inspected and passed by the Engineer. The material shall be carefully
placed so as not to disturb or damage the pipe or its placement, and shall be brought
up evenly on both sides. Initial backfill material shall be backfilled to one
foot (1') above the top of the pipe, in layers not to exceed eight inches (8") in depth
and tamped by hand or pneumatic tampers to a relative compaction of 90% as
determined by ASTM D1557.
The method of compacting and obtaining density requirements for all pipe trenches
shall be such that the backfill material shall be completely compacted around the lower
haunches of the pipe, such that line and grade of the pipe is not disturbed, and the
pipe is not damaged.
Where the City’s water system is utilized for construction water, the Contractor shall
obtain a water meter from the Water Division (fire hydrant meter are required for all
users). The Contractor shall obtain the permission of the Water Division Engineer as
to which hydrants are to be utilized. Jetting of trench backfill is allowed with
provisions, as stated below. Flooding of trenches from the top is not permitted.
Jetted Backfill - Jetting will be permitted when at minimum, the backfill and the
sidewall native soils in the lower one-third of the trench depth are self-draining and
possess a sand equivalent of not less than 20. Jetting shall be accomplished by the
use of a jet pipe to which a hose is attached, carrying a continuous supply of water
under pressure.
Sieve Size Percent Passing
19mm (3/4") 100
4.75mm (#4) > 50
(#200) 35 Maximum
Sand Equivalent 20 Minimum
January 2013 - 108 -
Backfill shall be jetted in accordance with the following requirements:
1) The jet pipe shall consist of a minimum 1 ½" diameter pipe to which a minimum
2" diameter hose is attached at the upper end. The jet shall be of sufficient
length to project to within 2 feet of the bottom of the lift being densified.
2) The Contractor shall jet to within 2 feet of the bottom of the lift and apply water
in a manner, quantity and at a rate sufficient to thoroughly saturate the
thickness of the lift being densified. The jet pipe shall not be moved until the
backfill has collapsed and the water has been forced to the surface.
3) The lift of backfill shall not exceed that which can be readily densified by jetting,
but in no case shall the undensified lift exceed 10 feet.
4) Suitable backfill material to be jetted shall have a sand equivalent of 20 or
greater.
5) Where the nature of the material excavated from the trench is generally
unsuitable for jetting, the Contractor may, at no cost to the City, import from an
approved source suitable material for jetting or densify the excavated material
by other methods as approved by the Engineer. The backfill shall be allowed
to thoroughly drain until the surface of the backfill is in a firm and unyielding
condition prior to commencement of any subsequent improvements. The
Engineer may require the Contractor, at the Contractor’s expense, to dig a
sump and provide a sump to remove any accumulated water.
6) The Contractor shall make its own determination that jetting will not result in
damage to adjacent structures or facilities. Any resulting damage shall be
repaired at the Contractor’s expense.
7) The Contractor shall have available a continuous supply of water at a minimum
pressure of 40 psig. If a water truck is used to supply water, it shall have a
pump capable of supplying water at 40 psig and shall have the capacity to jet
the trench without refill.
8) Once jetting has occurred, the fill shall be compacted with a “hydrahammer”
drop weight type of compactor. The backfill depth shall not exceed the
capacity of the compacting device in achieving 90% percent compaction in a
single lift or 10 feet, whichever is less, the compaction in the top 2' shall be
95%.
17-5.4 Final Backfill
Final Backfill shall be the material above the Initial Backfill and consist of sound
earthen material which is free of all rocks, hardpan, paving material, organic matter,
broken concrete, wood or other deleterious material. Unless otherwise specified, this
may be selected native material with no piece larger than 50mm (2").
Backfilling of trenches shall be accomplished and constructed per City Standard
Drawing No. S-10 with the type of replacement noted on the plans or in the
Specifications. Surface restoration shall be accomplished and constructed per City
Standard Drawing No. P-48.
Backfilling of trenches above the initial backfill as indicated in Section 17-5.3, above,
shall be as follows:
January 2013 - 109 -
Where mechanical compaction is used, the moisture content shall be such that
the specified compaction can be obtained and the backfill shall be placed in lifts
the height of which shall not exceed that which can be effectively compacted
depending on the type of material, type of equipment and methods used, and
under no circumstances shall exceed 4 feet.
All backfill shall have a relative compaction of 90% to within twenty-four inches (24") of
the surface and the top twenty-four inches (24") shall have a relative compaction of
95%. Test Method ASTM D 1557 shall be used to determine relative compaction,
using the dry random sampling method (dry weight basis).
No free water will be allowed in the top twenty-four inches (24") of backfill.
Backfill, around Utilities that are exposed during trench excavation, shall be placed in
accordance with the above bedding, backfill, and compaction methods.
17-6 CONNECTION OF SERVICE LATERALS (HOUSE BRANCHES)
Service laterals shall be furnished and installed by the Contractor at the locations shown on
the Plans. Installation shall conform to the requirements Subsection 17-2, “Materials,” of
these City Standard Specifications, and shall be installed in accordance with Standard
Drawing No. S-1, S-8 and S-9 of the City Standard Drawings.
The Contractor shall place as many "Y" or "T" branches of the size designated as directed.
The "Y" or "T" branches, unless otherwise specified, shall be inclined at any angle not greater
than 45% from the horizontal.
“T” branches are not allowed on Sewer mains six inches (6") to ten inches (10") in diameter.
Each "Y" branch, or the end of the Sewer which does not terminate in a manhole, shall be
closed at the bell with a cap made for that purpose.
17-7 INSTALLATION OF SEWER HOUSE BRANCHES
Sewer House Branches shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Drawing Nos. S-1,
S-8 and S-9 of the City Standard Drawings. No Sewer House Branch shall be connected to
Sewer main within five feet (5') from the outside of a manhole.
Sewer House Branches 100mm (4") and 150mm (6") in diameter may be connected to all
Sewer mains less than 460mm (18") in diameter at prefabricated wye or Tee fittings
conforming to City Standard Drawing S-8 and S-9. Sewer House Branches 100mm (4") and
150mm (6") in diameter may also be connected directly to existing Sewer mains
460mm (18") to 685mm (27") in diameter, providing that a machine core is utilized to connect
to the main Sewer. Direct connection to mains larger than 685mm (27") in diameter shall only
be approved in special cases where approved by the Engineer. Connection to these Sewer
mains by means other than a machine core will not be allowed. House Branch Sewers
200mm (8") in diameter or greater connecting to Sewer mains shall require the construction of
a manhole at the point of connection.
House branches shall be constructed at locations shown on the Plans or as may be directed
by the Engineer and shall extend from the outlet of the "Y" or “T” branch at the Sewer main to
January 2013 - 110 -
the right-of-way line of the Street or alley, where the house branch shall be promptly closed at
the bell end with a plug manufactured for that purpose.
The slope and general arrangements of the house branches shall be as shown on the Plans.
Plugs used to seal the ends of house branches shall be of a type approved by the
manufacturer of the pipe for use with his/her product.
Excavations for laying house branches shall be made in such a manner that at no time will the
Street be closed to traffic. Whenever house branches are to be installed in major Streets that
have been resurfaced within the last five (5) years, or in pavement that is in good condition
and free of cracking, they shall be installed by boring methods rather than open cuts trenches.
Where curb and gutter exists, or is to be constructed concurrently with Sewer facilities, the
location of each Sewer service shall be permanently indicated by inscribing the letter "S" two
inches (2") in height in the curb directly above the line when the service is perpendicular to the
Street centerline. Otherwise, the "S" mark for skewed or angling services shall be placed at a
right angle to the end of the service. When Sewer services are installed in an existing Street,
the curb mark shall be placed at the time the service is installed to assure proper location. In
cases where a concrete curb does not exist, the Contractor shall mark the location of the
terminus of the house branch by driving a one-half inch (1/2") iron pipe or rod in the end of the
trench before backfilling. The pipe or rod shall extend to within six inches (6") of ground
surface.
Trenches left open for immediate connections need not be marked if a trap is installed at the
curb. If a trap is not installed the marking of the house branch location will be used.
In new subdivisions when the Sewer services are installed before the curb is constructed, it
shall be the Contractor's responsibility to establish the exact location of each Sewer service
and to furnish this information to the Engineer.
17-8 MANHOLE CONSTRUCTION AND DROP SEWER CONNECTIONS
17-8.1 General
Manholes shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Drawings S-2 through S-5
of the City Standard Drawings and as specified herein or directed by the Engineer.
Manholes shall be complete structures in place and backfilled including the furnishing
and placing of all materials involved. Precast concrete pipe manholes shall consist of
a poured in place concrete base section, reinforced concrete pipe section(s), cast iron
frame and cover and a poured in place concrete collar with paving patch. Invert
channels shall be smooth and semicircular in shape conforming to the inside of the
adjacent pipe invert, or flow channels may be provided by use of the bottom half of the
specified main pipe. The floor and wall of the manhole outside the channels shall be
smooth and shall slope 1:12 towards the channels.
The top of the manhole base section shall be keyed to receive the tongue end of the
riser section. The key shall be formed in the freshly poured concrete by using a
template manufactured to the dimensions of the riser section. If the riser is
cast in-place monolithically with the base section by using a slip form or other means,
January 2013 - 111 -
the key may be omitted between the base and riser. If the base and riser sections are
not poured monolithically, but separately, a key shall be provided in the base section.
In either case, a key will be required in the top of the riser section to receive the tongue
end of the tapered cone.
The joints between the base and all precast elements of the manhole, including
adjustment rings and manhole frame, shall be filled with cement mortar, or approved
equal, prior to joining the elements.
The interior of the manhole shall be troweled smooth with a wooden trowel, removing
excess mortar extruded out of joints for the entire height of the manhole, from the
manhole frame to the floor. All excess mortar and any other debris shall be removed
from the manhole.
17-8.2 Design and Spacing
Sewer lines shall be laid straight between manholes, unless otherwise specified in the
Plans and/or Specifications. The installation of lamp holes or clean-outs on public
Sewer mains is forbidden.
Manholes are to be installed at the end of each line; at all changes in grade, size, or
alignment; at all intersections; and at distances not greater than 600 feet.
Service connections into manholes is discouraged, except in cul-de-sacs. Where
permitted, the invert of Service Connection shall not be installed above the top of the
Sewer main line.
A grade drop of 30mm (0.1') min. shall be provided through manholes, when grade
permits.
Manholes shall not be installed in sidewalks, flow channels of gutters, or in
depressions subject to storm waters or other infiltration.
Flat-top manholes are not permitted. Minimum depth of manhole above the manholes
base shall be 1.08 m (42").
17-8.3 Materials
Pre-cast concrete pipe manholes shall consist of a poured in-place concrete base
section, reinforced-concrete pipe section(s), a reinforced concrete taper section, grade
rings and cast-iron frame and cover. Precast sections shall be manufactured in
conformity to Class II, ASTM Designation: C-76-(Latest Revision) for their respective
diameters.
Elliptical single-line reinforcement will not be permitted. Single line circular
reinforcement will be permitted and the minimum steel area shall equal the minimum
steel area required for the inter-cage reinforcement.
Tapered sections shall conform to the requirements for pipe of the size equal to the
largest internal diameter of the tapered sections.
January 2013 - 112 -
Concrete for the base section shall be Class A. Precast manhole bases are not
allowed.
17-8.4 Installation
The inside of the manhole shall be formed to the flow line of the Sewer. The formed
flow channel depth shall extend above spring line up to 2/3 the diameter of the pipe.
The bench shall slope a minimum 1:12.
Changes in direction of flow shall be made with a smooth curve of as large a radius as
the size of the manhole will permit. Changes in size and grade of the channels shall
be made gradually and evenly.
A channel shall be formed and extend completely through a starting manhole.
Stub-outs shall be installed in manholes at the locations and sizes shown on the Plans.
All stub-outs shall be sealed with a plug of a type approved by the manufacturer of the
pipe.
All manholes shall be completed to finish grade with concrete collar and paving
patches (where indicated) as shown on the City Standard Drawings and as herein
specified. In undeveloped areas where no Street or alley surfacing is to be done in
conjunction with or immediately after Utility installation, the manhole cover shall be
finished off to a level 25mm (1") above ground elevation and shall be provided with
300mm (12") of grade rings. In existing Street areas where surfacing exists and no
new Street regrading is contemplated in conjunction with or immediately after Utility
installation, such as new subdivisions, manholes shall initially terminate with the top of
the cone 150mm (6") below subgrade and shall be brought to Street or alley surface
with grade adjustment rings and completed after Street paving is accomplished.
Unless specifically otherwise indicated in the Specifications, it will be the responsibility
of the Sewer Contractor to return and install the manhole covers to finish grade as
specified and shown on the City Standard Drawings.
The Contractor is aware that connections to existing Sewers will be “wet” and the
Contractor shall make whatever arrangements are necessary to complete the manhole
connections under the “wet” conditions.
Where necessary, manholes shall be equipped with an approved water-tight insert
placed under the manhole cover to prevent rainwater or other inflow.
No steps shall be installed in manholes unless otherwise noted on the Plans.
17-8.5 Removal
Manholes abandoned in place shall be broken out within 0.6m (2') of the finished
grade.
The manhole frame and cover will be delivered to the City Corporation Yard. The
Sewer mains entering the manholes shall be sealed with concrete and the manhole
backfilled with sandy soil and compacted to a relative compaction of 90% using
optimum moisture and tested in accordance with ASTM D1557.
January 2013 - 113 -
Manholes to be removed shall have the base removed with the barrel and taper. The
manhole frame and cover will be delivered to the City Corporation Yard. After the
complete manhole has been removed the excavation will be backfilled in accordance
with backfill requirements. Before backfilling, all Sewer pipes that have entered the
manhole will be sealed with concrete.
17-8.6 Adjustments
Where existing manholes need to be raised or lowered to meet a new Street grade,
they will be left in place and marked until the Street has been paved. After the paving
material has been compacted they will be dug out and the ring and cover removed and
lowered or raised to grade by use of concrete around the frame but left two (2) inches
below the-finished surface in asphalt concrete Streets and the top two inches filled with
A.C. and rolled. In concrete surfaced Streets the concrete will be brought to the
surface.
"Jiffy Rings" for raising manholes will be allowed.
17-8.7 Drop Sewer Connections
Drop Sewer connections at manholes shall be constructed in accordance with City
Standard Drawing S-11 and only at locations approved by the Engineer and shown on
the approved Plans.
17-8.8 Payment
If existing manholes are to be removed and replaced they shall be included in the bid
price of new manholes unless otherwise specified in the Specifications.
The bid price of adjusting manholes to the new Street grade shall include surface
restoration.
17-9 THIMBLES
Thimbles shall be installed in the manholes at the locations and of the size shown on the
Plans. All thimbles shall be sealed with a plug of a type approved by the manufacturer of the
pipe for use with his/her product.
17-10 DEFLECTION TEST OF PVC SEWER LINES
PVC Sewer pipe, which is designated as flexible in nature, shall be tested for excessive
deflection. This test shall be performed after backfilling and compaction but prior to the
placement of aggregate base or asphalt-concrete surfacing, and prior to television inspection
as specified in Subsection 17-12, “TELEVISION INSPECTION OF INTERIOR OF INSTALLED
PIPE,” of these Specifications.
The Contractor shall demonstrate that the maximum pipe deflection does not exceed
5 percent by pulling a properly sized rigid ball or a mandrel through the main line pipe. A
“rubber flush ball” does not meet this requirement for deflection testing.
January 2013 - 114 -
Failure of the deflection test shall be grounds for rejection of the section tested, until correction
of the reason for the failure and successful retesting of the section.
17-11 LEAKAGE TEST OF SEWER LINES AND SERVICE LATERALS
After completing the installation, backfill and compaction of a section of Sewer line with
service laterals, and after all other underground Utilities (including gas, electric, telephone,
cable television, water and Storm Drain) are in and compacted, but prior to the placement of
aggregate base or asphalt-concrete pavement, the Contractor shall, at his/her expense,
conduct a leakage test using low pressure air. The test shall be performed using the following
procedures and under the Supervision of the inspecting Engineer.
Each section of Sewer between two successive manholes shall be tested by plugging all pipe
outlets with suitable test plugs.
All pneumatic plugs shall be seal tested before being used in the actual test installation. One
length of pipe shall be laid on the ground and sealed at both ends with the pneumatic plugs to
be checked. Air shall be introduced into the plugs to 170 MPa (25 pounds per square inch)
gauge pressure. The sealed pipe shall be pressurized to 35 MPa (5 psig). The plugs shall
hold against this pressure without bracing and without movement of the plugs out of the pipe.
To commence the leakage test, air shall be slowly added until the internal pressure is raised
to 27 MPa (4.0 psig). The compressor used to add air to the pipe shall have a blow-off valve
set at 35 MPa (5 psig) to assure that at no time the internal pressure in the pipe exceeds
35 MPa (5 psig). The internal pressure of 27 MPa (4 psig) shall be maintained for at least two
minutes to allow the air temperature to stabilize after which the air supply shall be
disconnected and the pressure reduced to 24 MPa (3.5 psig). The time in minutes that is
required for the internal air pressure to drop from 24 MPa (3.5 psig) to the lower pressure
indicated in the appropriate table below shall be measured and the results compared with the
values tabulated below.
Gauges used to measure test pressures shall read from 0 MPa (0 psig) to
69 MPa (10 psig) maximum with 3.5 MPa (½ psig) increments. If required, the Contractor
shall supply necessary fittings to accept a City supplied gauge.
All gauging and testing shall be done outside the manholes and no one shall be allowed to
enter the manholes while the line is pressurized.
PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe
Minimum Acceptable Time Required for Pressure decrease from 24 MPa (3.5 psig) to
20 MPa (3.0 psig):
Pipe Diameter
mm (inches)
Test Time
(Minutes) (Seconds)
100 mm (4)
2
32
150 mm (6)
3
50
200 mm (8)
5
6
January 2013 - 115 -
250 mm (10) 6 22
300 mm (12)
7
39
380 mm (15)
9
30
Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe
Minimum Acceptable Time Required for Pressure decrease from 3.5 to 2.5 psig:
Pipe Diameter
(Inches)
Test Time
(Minutes) (Seconds)
Minimum Distance
Between Manholes
(Feet)
K Value
4
2
0
430
0.428
6
2
45
380
0.592
8
3
45
320
0.702
10
4
46
260
1.100
12
5
40
215
1.58
15
7
0
170
2.470
18
8
36
145
3.560
21
10
6
125
4.850
24
11
6
105
6.34
27
12
42
95
8.020
30
14
1
85
9.900
33
15
0
75
12.000
36
16
41
70
14.300
39
18
5
65
16.700
42
19
24
60
19.400
The above-tabulated values shall be used for the respective diameter pipes except where the
distance between successive manholes is less than the above-tabulated values, in which
case, the following formula will be used to determine the test time.
T = KL
T = test time in seconds
K = value from table
L = distance between successive manholes in feet
Failure of the leakage test will be grounds for rejection of the section tested, until discovery
and correction of the reason for the failure and successful retesting of the section.
January 2013 - 116 -
17-12 TELEVISION INSPECTION OF INTERIOR OF INSTALLED PIPE
The Contractor shall furnish closed circuit television inspection for an interior inspection of the
newly installed Sewer mains. The television check of the Sewer mains shall be made after
leakage and deflection tests have been performed and prior to placing of Street aggregate
base or asphalt paving. Any broken pipe, separation of joints, or any pipe exceeding the
permitted tolerances for line and grade shall be replaced or repaired.
Any pipe repaired or replaced as a result of television inspection shall be retested for leakage
and deflection. A tape cassette of the television inspection (standard VHS format) shall be
provided the City at no additional cost to the City. The Contractor shall be responsible for all
costs associated with furnishing the television inspection and making final repairs to the
Sewer mains and reinspection utilizing the closed circuit television equipment.
At the request of the Contractor, the City may at its option perform the closed circuit television
inspection or reinspection on the Contractor’s installation at a cost designated in the City’s
Master Fee Resolution for such Television Inspection work.
Requirements for Sewer Video Inspections:
1. The testing Company is to certify as to their ability to adequately perform the video
inspection.
2. The City Inspector will provide 24 hour notice of testing schedule and will be present to
monitor the test.
3. A flush truck will be required to be on-site to aid in the video inspection.
4. A video tape shall be submitted to the City as proof of inspection and be certified to
comply with Plan requirements or pointing out by station any defects found.
5. Lateral lines to be documented by stationing from center line of manhole and the
testing firm shall provide a map of the tested lines.
6. A chronological log of the test performed shall correlate between the Sewer Plans and
the tape produced.
17-13 MEASUREMENT
Measurement for Sewer main installation and service lateral installation shall be by the lineal
feet of pipe installed, and shall be actual horizontal length installed, measure through
wye fittings.
Measurement for wye or Tee fittings shall be per each wye or Tee fitting installed.
Measurement for manholes shall be per each manhole installed.
17-14 PAYMENT
The unit price bid per lineal foot for Sewer mains shall include full compensation for furnishing
all labor, materials, tools, equipment and incidentals and for doing all the Work involved
January 2013 - 117 -
therein as shown on the Plans, as set forth in the Specifications, and as directed by the
Engineer. This shall include, but not be limited to, furnishing and installing the pipe, trenching,
backfilling, compacting, testing and internal inspection.
The unit price bid per lineal foot for service laterals (house branches) shall include full
compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment and incidentals and for doing
all the Work involved therein as shown on the Plans, as set forth in the Specifications, and as
directed by the Engineer. This shall include, but not be limited to, furnishing and installing the
pipe, trenching, backfilling, compacting, testing.
The unit price bid per each for wye or tee fittings shall include full compensation for furnishing
all labor, materials, tools, equipment and incidentals and for doing all the Work involved
therein as shown on the Plans, as set forth in the Specifications, and as directed by the
Engineer, in excess of the cost of installing the main line pipe and service lateral. This shall
include, but not be limited to, furnishing and installing the wye or tee fitting and plug,
trenching, backfilling, compacting, testing and internal inspection.
When the contract does not include a pay item for wye fittings as above specified, and unless
otherwise provided in the Specifications, full compensation for wye or tee fittings shown on the
Plans shall be considered as included in the prices bid for other Sewer pipeline items of Work
and no separate payment will be made therefore.
The unit price bid per each for manholes shall include full compensation for furnishing all
labor, materials, tools, equipment and incidentals and for doing all the Work involved therein
as shown on the Plans, as set forth in the Specifications, and as directed by the Engineer.
This shall include, but not be limited to, furnishing and installing the manhole and stub-outs,
backfilling and compaction, returning and adjusting manhole lids and frames to final grade
following Street or alley construction or reconstruction, and connection to all pipes, wet or
otherwise.
No separate pay item will be included in the Proposal, nor direct payment made for trench or
structure excavation, backfilling, compaction, or placement of temporary pavement. The cost
of these features of the Work shall be included in the unit price bid per linear foot for furnishing
and laying pipe or installing structures.
SEWER STANDARD DRAWINGS
NO. TITLE OF DRAWING
S-1 House Branch & Utilities Locations in Street
S-2 Special Sewer Manhole for Large Diameter Main
S-3 48” Sewer Manhole with Precast Sections and Cast Iron Frame & Cover
S-4 60” Sewer Manhole with Precast Sections and Cast Iron Frame & Cover
S-5 Cast Iron Manhole Frame & Cover
S-6 Sloping Lamphole with C.I. Cleanout & Cover
S-7 Installation of Sewer Pipe in Jacked Steel Casing
S-8 House Branch Connections
S-9 Additional Limitations on House Branch Connections
S-10 Sewer Main Trench, Bedding, and Backfill Detail
S-11 Drop Sewer Main Connections (6” and 8” only)
APPENDIX E.
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW
RESPONSE PLAN
2014
City of Fresno
Wastewater
Management Division
CSM-Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Response Plan
2 | P a g e
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW RESPONSE PLAN
(CSM – SSORP)
INTRODUCTION
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) issued Order No. 2006-0003-
DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (WDR-
SSS). The purpose of the WDR-SSS is to establish system-wide operation, maintenance and
management plans to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSO).
Under the WDR-SSS, the City is required to develop and implement a Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP) that must be available to the State or Regional Board upon request and must be
approved by the City’s governing body. The SSMP include provisions to provide proper and
efficient management, operation, and maintenance of the sanitary sewer systems. Additionally,
the SSMP must contain a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan (SSORP) that provides
standard operating procedures for immediate response to an SSO in a manner that minimizes the
adverse public health and environmental impacts of the spill.
The City of Fresno’s CSM- SSORP lists procedures to manage the response and remediation of
SSOs effectively. It also provides guidelines for the monitoring and reporting program of the
amended Monitoring and Reporting Program implemented on September 9, 2013.
The CSM-SSORP provides operating procedures for staff to follow during a SSO event which
includes:
I. Notification
II. Call Back
III. Response
IV. Spill Category Determination
V. Outside Agency Notification
(Reporting, Monitoring and Record Keeping)
VI. Internal Record Keeping
Wastewater Management Division will schedule and document staff training and refresher sessions
on a regular basis to ensure the plan is followed, to raise awareness of the latest changes on the
Monitoring and Reporting Program of the WDR-SSS and to ensure staff is aware of their duties and
responsibilities.
3 | P a g e
The y of Fresno Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan ensures every report of a sewage spill is
immediately dispatched to the appropriate City of Fresno Collection System Maintenance Peonnel,
so that the overflow can be minimized with respect to its adverse impacts on customer service,
public health and water quality.
I. Notification
A. All responses to calls that deal with some type of overflow start with some basic
information gathered from the Division’s dispatcher or from the after-hours exchange.
1. Time the call was received.
2. First and last name.
3. Contact number.
4. Problem location.
5. Description of the problem.
B. All customer service calls are reported to the Collection System Maintenance Work
Group in the following manner:
1. During normal business hours, 8:00am to 4:30pm, the Collection System
Maintenance Dispatcher answers all calls at the (559)621-1496 number.
a) The Dispatcher then routes the call to Collection System
Maintenance (CSM) Personnel in the following order.
(1) Duty 1 – (559)994-1430 – 8am to 2:30pm
(a) O&M Primary Standby – (559)994-2854 – 2:30pm to
4:30pm
(2) Duty 2 – (559)994-2937 – 8am to 2:30 pm
(3) Supervisor – (559)994-2854 – Monday thru Thursday
(4) Supervisor – (559)994-2853 - Tuesday thru Friday
2. After-hours, 4:30pm to 8am, the (559)621-1496 number is automatically
transferred over to the after-hours exchange.
a) The exchange then routes the call to CSM Personnel in the
following order.
(1) O&M Primary Standby – (559)994-2856
(2) Supervisor – (559)994-2854
(3) Supervisor – (559)994-2853
(4) Chief of Environmental Services – (559)907-2729
4 | P a g e
3. These calls require the dispatcher to make live contact by phone as
opposed to email, instant message (IM) or voicemail. These calls are time
sensitive and an email, IM or voicemail may go unseen.
II. Call Back
A. Dispatchers are only asked to gather basic information because they do not have
the background to make decisions on calls that may have an impact on the collection
system. CSM Personnel is required to call back the reporting party prior to physically
responding to the call. This serves two purposes:
1. It lets the reporting party know that someone is actually going to
respond to the call and gives them a timeframe for arrival.
2. It allows CSM Personnel the opportunity to get the necessary information to
fill out the Customer Service Request Form and on how to respond to the call.
III. Response
A. Based on the information gathered on the customer call back, the following steps
should be taken:
1. Reference the Geographic Information System (GIS) through VIEW Fresno to
find the problem location for a field response.
2. Provide assistance and support when needed, based on the reporting
parties comments:
a) During normal business hours, access the Global Positioning System
(GPS) on VIEWFresno for the closest support vehicle to the problem
location.
b) After-hours, call support personnel in the following order.
(1) O&M Secondary Standby – (559)352-4508
(2) Lift Station Primary Standby – (559)994-2855
(3) Lift Station Secondary Standby – (559)994-2940
(4) Supervisor – (559)994-2854
(5) Supervisor – (559)994-2853
5 | P a g e
3. Utilizing VIEWFresno, load the following layers.
a) Sewer
(1) Sewer Mains
(2) Sewer Manholes
(3) Manhole Numbers
(4) Flow Direction
b) Flood Control
(1) FC Exist Inlet
(2) FC Exist Manholes
(3) FC Exist Pipes
(4) FC Basins
B. Upon arrival at the problem location (time should be noted):
1. Check VIEW Fresno for the nearest storm drain that could be affected.
2. Place sand bags on the storm drain inlet to prevent sewage from entering.
a) If sewage was already entering the inlet prior to placement of sand
bags, note the time when the sewage stopped entering the inlet.
(1) If sewage did enter the storm drain inlet, reference the
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Basin
Prioritization Spreadsheet to verify end receiving waters.
(a) If the sewage is deemed to have entered “W aters of
the US”, supervisors are to be notified immediately.
3. Locate the spill appearance point:
a) If the spill appearance point is a manhole then skip down to
Section C.
b) If the spill appearance point is a cleanout or is backing into a
structure, check both, the upstream and downstream manholes from the
spill appearance point.
(1) If either manhole is holding then skip down to Section C.
(2) If neither is holding then this is considered a Private Lateral
Sewage Discharge (PLSD). Skip down to Section V(1)
6 | P a g e
C. Notify for assistance
1. If assistance was not called prior to responding:
a) During normal business hours, access the GPS on VIEW Fresno for the
closest support vehicle to the problem location.
b) If after-hours, call support personnel in the following order:
(1) O&M Secondary Standby – (559)352-4508
(2) Lift Station Primary Standby – (559)994-2855
(3) Lift Station Secondary Standby – (559)994-2940
(4) Supervisor – (559)994-2854
(5) Supervisor – (559)994-2853
D. Pinpoint blockage location
1. From the spill appearance point, start checking manholes in a
downstream manner until one comes across that is down and flowing.
a) Document the condition of each manhole, using the camera in the
video function.
2. The blockage would be located upstream from this manhole.
a) Using the camera, in the video function, document whether flow is
present in the manhole channel.
3. This would be the location the Hydro Flusher should be positioned to
relieve the blockage.
a) If the blockage is not impacting a customer, delay in relieving the
blockage until all documentation has been completed.
E. Assessing the overflow
1. Check all manholes and private clean-outs upstream from the spill
appearance point.
a) Document the condition of each manhole and private clean-out,
using the camera in the video function.
(1) If the manhole or private clean-out is overflowing, utilize the
square ruler to determine the height of the spout for rate of flow.
7 | P a g e
2. If the Volume/Area Estimation Method is applicable, measure the total spill
area length, width and depth.
F. Establish perimeters and control zones
1. Use cones, barricades, vehicles or terrain for public safety and the
protection of the crews.
a) If extra equipment is needed that is not on site or available,
utilize one of the following vendors.
(1) Alert-O-Lite Inc. – 2379 South “G” Street, Fresno, CA
93721 – (559)486-4570 – After-hours call 1(800)233-3652.
(2) Alert-O-Lite Inc. – 2020 North Winery Avenue, Fresno, CA
93703 – (559)454-5861 – After-hours call 1(800)233-3652.
(3) Safety Network, Inc. – 2361 N. Larkin Avenue, Fresno, CA
93727 – (559)291-8000 . (Safety Network, Inc. is only available
on a next day service).
G. Blockage remediation
1. If the overflow is manageable, video inspect the main from the manhole
identified in Section III(D)(3) to determine the exact location of the blockage.
2. Upon arrival of the vacuum truck, position it at the storm drain inlet or spill
appearance point, depending on location and volume of flow.
3. Upon arrival of the hydro flusher, position it at the manhole identified in
Section III(D)(3) to relieve the blockage.
a) If the line was not video inspected prior to the blockage being
relieved, the operator should note the footage the blockage was first
encountered and the possible cause.
b) If the blockage cannot be relieved
(1) Refer to SOP004 for bypass procedures.
(2) Video inspect the sewer main to determine the location of the
failure.
(3) Determine the necessary course of action.
4. All lines affected by the blockage should be cleaned once the surcharge has
subsided.
10 | P a g e
BACK
H. Remediation of overflow
1. Sprinkle small amounts of granulated chlorine to areas affected by the
overflow and when applicable.
2. If sewage entered a storm drain, utilize VIEWFresno to identify the flow
direction. Recover, via vacuum, any of the spill or overflow that entered the
storm drain system.
3. Wash down and vacuum street, gutter and any areas affected by the
overflow.
4. Flush clean water into the affected storm drain inlet with a small mixture of
granulated chlorine to sanitize the storm drain using a City fire hydrant or Hydro
Flusher.
5. Using the camera record the entire site to document the clean-up.
I. Field investigation
1. Conduct interviews with the reporting party and any affected customers in
order to come up with an estimated spill start time.
a) If the reporting party or any of the customers affected are not
available, note the date and time the contact was attempted.
2. If during the interview process customers declare damages, a “Risk
Claim Form” should be provided.
a) This information should be documented on the Customer
Service Request Form.
IV. Spill Categor y Determination
A. Using the total discharge amount and the final destination, determine the
correct spill category:
1. Category 1
a) Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of any volume
resulting from an enrollee’s sanitary sewer system failure or flow
condition that:
(1) Reach surface water and/or reach a drainage channel
tributary to a surface water; or
(2) Reach a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and
are not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system
10 | P a g e
BACK
or not otherwise captured and disposed of properly. Any volume
of wastewater not recovered from the MS4 is considered to have
reached surface water unless the stormdrain system discharges
to a dedicated storm water or ground water infiltration basin (e.g.,
infiltration pit, percolation pond).
2. Category 2
a) Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of 1,000
gallons or greater resulting from an enrollee’s sanitary sewer system
failure or flow condition that do not reach surface water, a drainage
channel, or a MS4 unless the entire SSO discharged to the storm drain
system is fully recovered and disposed of properly.
3. Category 3
a) All other discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater
resulting from an enrollee’s sanitary sewer system failure or flow
condition.
4. PLSD
a) Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from
blockages or other problems within a privately owned sewer lateral
connected to the enrollee’s sanitary sewer system or from other private
sewer assets. PLSDs that the enrollee becomes aware of may be
voluntarily reported to the California Integrated Water Quality System
(CIWQS) Online SSO Database.
V. Outside Agenc y Notification, Reporting, Monitoring, and Record
Keeping Requirements
A. Reference the State of California Water Resources Control Board Order No. WQ
2013-0058-EXEC
B. Reference the Collection System Maintenance SSO Notification Contact List
VI. Internal Record Keeping
A. All information gathered from the overflow response needs to be documented on the
Customer Service Request Form.
B. A post overflow response meeting to be held, with either the Customer Service Lead
or supervisors, for all overflows that fall into a Category 1, 2 or 3.
10 | P a g e
BACK
1. Go over the overflow calculation/method.
2. Verify that the spill category is correct.
3. Perform a final review of the Customer Service Request Form.
C. Create a file folder for the spill event.
1. Maintain an electronic version of all documentation.
10 | P a g e
BACK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER NO. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR
STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS
10 | P a g e
BACK
11 | P a g e
BACK
12 | P a g e
BACK
13 | P a g e
BACK
http://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/
14 | P a g e
BACK
15 | P a g e
BACK
16 | P a g e
BACK
17 | P a g e
BACK
18 | P a g e
BACK
19 | P a g e
BACK
20 | P a g e
BACK
21 | P a g e
BACK
22 | P a g e
BACK
23 | P a g e
BACK
SSO NOTIFICATION
CONTACT LIST
24 | P a g e
BACK
s
25 | P a g e
BACK
26 | P a g e
BACK
CUSTOMER SERVICE REQUEST
27 | P a g e
BACK
28 | P a g e
BACK
29 | P a g e
BACK
30 | P a g e
BACK
31 | P a g e
BACK
BACK
30 | P a g e
BACK
31 | P a g e
32 | P a g e
BACK
33 | P a g e
BACK
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
FOR SEWER BYPASS
34 | P a g e
BACK
35 | P a g e
BACK
36 | P a g e
BACK
37 | P a g e
BACK
38 | P a g e
BACK
39 | P a g e
BACK
FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT
BASIN PRIORITIZATION
MUNICIPAL GENERAL PERMIT DRAINAGE AREA INSPECTION PRIORITIZATION - updated 11/26/13
FMFCD
Alphabetization
Drainage Area
Basin
First Receiving W ater
(accepts basin discharge)
Second Receiving
Water
Third Receiving
Water
Fourth
Receiving
W ater
Fifth Receiving
Water
Sixth
Receiving
Water
Construction
General
Permit
Inspection
Priority
Construction
General Permit
Inspection
FREQUENCY
Industrial
General
Permit
Inspection
Priority
Industrial
General
Permit
Inspection
FREQUENCY
1 A A Braly Canal Fanning Ditch Dry Creek Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
2 B/E B/E Basin BB Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
3 C C Big Dry Creek Extension Basin Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
4 D D Basin J E-2 Canal Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
5 F F Enterprise-Holland Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
6 G G Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
7 H H - on peak gravity relief Basin F Enterprise-Holland Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
8 I I Basin J E-2 Canal Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
9 J J - requires portable pump Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
10 K K E-2 Canal Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
11 L L Enterprise-Holland Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
12 M (CSUF) M (CSUF) Basin B/E Basin BB Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
13 N N Enterprise-Holland Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
14 O O - requires portable pump Basin L Enterprise-Holland Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
15 P P Basin CM Helm Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
16 Q Q Gould Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
17 R R Teague Ditch Helm Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
18 S S Gould Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
19 T T Basin BU - requires portable pump Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
20 U U T BU Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
21 V V Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
22 W W Basin X - requires portable pump Basin Z Basin A Braly Canal Fanning Ditch Dry Creek Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
23 X X - requires portable pump Basin Z Basin A Braly Canal Fanning Ditch Dry Creek Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
24 Y Y Basin A Braly Canal Fanning Ditch Dry Creek Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
25 Z Z Basin A Braly Canal Fanning Ditch Dry Creek Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
26 AA AA Basin DD2 Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
27 BB BB Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
28 CC CC Dry Creek Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
29 DD DD1 (is a peak pond for DD2) DD2 Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
30 DD DD2 Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
31 EE EE Basin XX Basin UU3 - portable pump Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
32 FF FF Basin OO - requires portable pump Fanning Ditch Dry Creek Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
33 GG GG II-2 II-1 TT-1 (Terminal) 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
34 HH HH Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
35 II II1 TT-1 (Terminal) 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
36 II II2 II-1 TT-1 (Terminal) 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
37 II II3 II-1 TT-1 (Terminal) 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
38 II II4 II-1 TT-1 (Terminal) 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
39 JJ JJ Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
40 KK KK - requires portable pump Fresno Colony Canal Fancher Creek Canal Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
41 LL LL Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
42 MM MM Basin AG Victoria Canal Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
43 MM MM2 (Pum p Station) Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
44 OO OO - requires portable pum p Fanning Ditch Dry Creek Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
45 PP PP Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
46 RR RR1 Dry Creek Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
47 RR RR2 Basin RR1 Dry Creek Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
48 RR RR3 - requires portable pump Dry Creek Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
49 SS SS - requires portable pum p Fresno Colony Canal Fancher Creek Canal Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
50 TT1 TT1 Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
51 TT2 TT2 Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
52 UU1 UU1 - requires portable pump Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 3 - Low Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
53 UU2 UU2 Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
54 UU3 UU3 - requires portable pum p Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
55 VV VV - Pum p Station Herndon Canal 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
56 WW WW - Pump Station Herndon Canal 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
57 XX XX Basin UU3 - requires portable pump Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
58 ZZ ZZ - requires portable pump Dry Creek Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
59 AB AB Basin AD E-4 Canal Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
60 AC AC Basin AE - requires portable pump E-4 Canal Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
61 AD AD E-4 Canal Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
62 AE AE - requires portable pump E-4 Canal Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
63 AF AF Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
64 AG AG Victoria Canal Houghton Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
65 AH1 AH1 AH2 AJ AK Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
66 AH2 AH2 AJ AK Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
67 AI AI Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
68 AJ AJ AK Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
69 AK AK Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
70 AL AL Victoria Canal Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
71 AM AM Redbank Creek Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
72 AN AN Tracy Ditch Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
73 AO AO Houghton Canal Jameson Slough San Joaquin River 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
74 AQ AQ Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
75 AS AS Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
76 AW1 AW1 Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
77 AW2 AW2 - requires portable pump North Central Canal Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
78 AX AX Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
79 AY AY Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
80 AZ AZ Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
81 BC BC - requires portable pump Maupin Ditch Helm Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
82 BD BD Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
83 BDCDB BDCDB Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
84 BE BE Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
85 BF BF Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
86 BG BG Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
87 BH BH Fancher Creek Canal Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
88 BJ BJ Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
89 BK BK Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
90 BL BL Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
91 BM BM - requires portable pum p Basin BH Fancher Creek Canal Central Canal Fresno Slough 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
92 BO BO Fancher Creek Canal Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
93 BQ BQ Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
94 BS BS Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
95 BT BT Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
BACK
FMFCD
Alphabetization
Drainage Area
Basin
FirstReceivingWater
(accepts basin discharge)
Second Receiving
Water
Third Receiving
Water
Fourth
Receiving
W ater
Fifth Receiving
Water
Sixth
Receiving
Water
Construction
General
Permit
Inspection
Priority
Construction
General Permit
Inspection
FREQUENCY
Industrial
General
Permit
Inspection
Priority
Industrial
General
Permit
Inspection
FREQUENCY
96 BU BU - requires portable pum p Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
97 BV BV Tarpey Ditch Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
98 BW BW - requires portable pump Basin BU - Portable Pump Mill Ditch Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
99 BX BX Basin BT Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
100 BY BY Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
101 BZ BZ San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
102 CD CD Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
103 CE CE Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
104 CF CF Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
105 CH CH Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
106 CI CI Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
107 CK CK Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
108 CL CL Helm Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
109 CM CM Helm Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
110 CN CN Enterprise-Holland Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
111 CO1 CO1 San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
112 CO2 CO2 Bullard Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
113 CQ CQ Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
114 CS CS - requires portable pum p W ashington Canal Fancher Creek Canal Central Canal Fresno Slough 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
115 CU CU Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
116 CV CV Basin AZ Central Canal Fresno Slough 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
117 CW CW DH2 San Joaquin River 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
118 CX CX Basin CY Basin CM Helm Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
119 CY CY Basin CM Helm Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
120 CZ CZ Basin CM Helm Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
121 DE DE Basin BZ Basin DK San Joaquin River 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
122 DF DF San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
123 DG DG San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
124 DH1 DH1 Basin DH2 San Joaquin River 1 - High Once Per Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
125 DH2 DH2 San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
126 DI DI San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
127 DJ DJ San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
128 DK DK San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
129 DL DL Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
130 DM DM Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
131 DN DN Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
132 DO DO - requires portable pump Gould Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
133 DP DP Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
134 EF EF Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
135 EG EG San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
136 EH EH Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
137 EI EI San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
138 EJ EJ Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
139 EK EK San Joaquin River 1 - High Monthly - Rainy
Season 1 - High Once During
Rainy Season
140 EL EL - requires portable pump Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
141 EM EM - requires portable pum p Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
142 EO EO Terminal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 4 - Low Complaint Only
143 1E 1E Gould Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
144 1G 1G Gould Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
145 2D 2D Gould Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
146 3A 3A Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
147 3D 3D Jefferson Canal Helm Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
148 3F 3F Dawson Canal Jefferson Canal Helm Canal Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
149 3G 3G DO Gould Canal Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
150 4B 4B Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
151 4C 4C Pup Creek Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
152 4D 4D Pup Creek Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
153 4E 4E Pup Creek Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
154 5B/5C 5B/5C Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
155 5F 5F Basin 4E Pup Creek Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
156 6D 6D Basin 5B/5C Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
157 7C 7C Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
158 7D 7D Clovis Ditch - requires portable pump Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
159 7H 7H Pup Creek Detention Basin Pup Creek Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 3 - Low Complaint / Referral
Only 3 - Medium 2B Once During Prmit
Term
160
Big Dry Creek
Extension Basin
Big Dry Creek Extension Basin
Big Dry Creek
Herndon Canal
2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season
2 - Medium 2A
Every 3 Years
161 Pup Creek Pup Creek Big Dry Creek Herndon Canal 2 - Medium Once Per Rainy
Season 2 - Medium 2A Every 3 Years
APPENDIX F.
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
WASTEWATER
COLLECTION SYSTEM
MASTER PLAN
2014 UPDATE
7 5 8 0 N O R T H I N G R A M A V E N UE • S U I T E 1 1 2 • F RE S NO , CA L I F O R N I A 9 3 7 1 1 • ( 5 5 9 ) 4 3 6 -66 1 6 • F A X ( 5 5 9 ) 4 3 6 -1191
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
UPDATE
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1
COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES AND HYDRAULIC
MODEL
January 2014
January 2014 - DRAFT i
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
NO. 1
COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES AND HYDRAULIC MODEL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES .................................................................... 1-1
2.1 Gravity Collection System ......................................................................... 1-1
2.2 Lift Stations ............................................................................................... 1-4
2.3 Special Structures/Field Reconnaissance.................................................. 1-4
3.0 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM ........................................................................ 1-9
3.1 Permanent Flow Monitoring Sites and Tributary Areas ............................ 1-12
3.2 Wastewater Flow Components ................................................................ 1-12
3.3 Flow Monitoring Data Summary .............................................................. 1-19
4.0 WASTEWATER FLOW BALANCE ..................................................................... 1-25
5.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE .......................................................................... 1-28
5.1 Existing Hydraulic Model ......................................................................... 1-30
5.2 Elements of the Hydraulic Model ............................................................. 1-30
5.3 General Model Review ............................................................................ 1-31
5.4 Model Wastewater Loads ........................................................................ 1-32
5.5 Model Scenarios ...................................................................................... 1-33
5.6 Miscellaneous Model Updates ................................................................. 1-33
6.0 MODEL CALIBRATION ...................................................................................... 1-34
6.1 Calibration Standards .............................................................................. 1-36
6.2 Macro Calibration .................................................................................... 1-37
6.3 Base Wastewater Flow Calibration .......................................................... 1-37
6.4 Wet Weather Flow Calibration ................................................................. 1-39
6.5 Model Calibration Summary .................................................................... 1-44
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Summary .............................................. 1-3
Table 2 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Material Summary ................................. 1-4
Table 3 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Installation Year Summary .................... 1-5
Table 4 Wastewater Lift Station Summary ................................................................ 1-7
Table 5 Special Structures...................................................................................... 1-11
Table 6 Flow Monitoring Locations ......................................................................... 1-14
January 2014 - DRAFT ii
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Table 7 Base Wastewater Flow Summary .............................................................. 1-23
Table 8 R-Value Summary ..................................................................................... 1-26
Table 9 Wastewater Flow Balance ......................................................................... 1-29
Table 10 BWF Calibration Summary ........................................................................ 1-40
Table 11 WWF Calibration Summary ....................................................................... 1-46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Existing Wastewater Collection System and Sewer Service Area ................ 1-2
Figure 2 Gravity Sewer Installation Year Summary .................................................... 1-6
Figure 3 Field Reconnaissance Locations ................................................................. 1-8
Figure 4 Dakota/Millbrook Diversion Curve .............................................................. 1-10
Figure 5 Permanent Flow Meter Locations .............................................................. 1-13
Figure 6 Flow Monitoring Locations Schematic ........................................................ 1-15
Figure 7 Typical Wastewater Flow Components ...................................................... 1-17
Figure 8 Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow .................................................... 1-18
Figure 9 Typical Effects of Infiltration and Inflow ..................................................... 1-20
Figure 10 Typical Weekday vs. Weekend Dry Weather Flow Variation (Meter FR06) 1-22
Figure 11 Example Wet Weather Flow Response (Meter FR06) ................................ 1-24
Figure 12 Revised Vacant Land with the Sewer Service Area ................................... 1-27
Figure 13 Example HGL Limitations for Overflow Pipelines in H2OMAP Sewer ......... 1-35
Figure 14 Example Diurnal Pattern (Meter FR06) ...................................................... 1-38
Figure 15 Example BWF Calibration (Meter FR06) .................................................... 1-41
Figure 16 Example RDII Unit Hydrograph .................................................................. 1-43
Figure 17 Example WWF Calibration (Meter FR06) ................................................... 1-45
Figure 18 RWRF WWF Calibration (April 2012) ......................................................... 1-47
Figure 19 RWRF WWF Calibration (March 2011) ...................................................... 1-48
Figure 20 WWF Calibration for Meter FR23 ............................................................... 1-49
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Technical Memorandum No. 1
COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES AND HYDRAULIC MODEL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum (TM) describes the update and calibration of the City of
Fresno’s (City’s) wastewater collection system hydraulic model. A description of the City’s
wastewater collection system, the existing hydraulic model, and an outline of the steps used
to update the model are provided. A detailed summary of the hydraulic model calibration
steps, standards, and results for both base wastewater flow (BWF) and wet weather flow
(WWF) conditions is also provided.
2.0 COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES
The City’s collection system consists of gravity sewers, lift stations, associated force mains,
and several special structures/flow diversions that collect and convey wastewater to the
Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF), which is located on
Jenson Avenue just west of Cornelia Avenue. In addition, the City operates the North
Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facilities (NFWRF) satellite plant, which serves the
Copper River Ranch development, and provides recycled water via irrigation to the Copper
River Country Club golf course.
Figure 1 presents the City’s collection system, and the current wastewater service area.
The collection system conveys wastewater primarily by gravity flow, generally from the
northeast to the southwest, and ultimately to the RWRF. In addition to customers within City
limits, the RWRF also serves a majority of flow generated within the City of Clovis, as well
as unincorporated County islands within the City. The City of Clovis has four connections to
the City collection system. The maximum discharge at each connection is defined by the
Fresno-Clovis Regional Sewerage System Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), dated March 3,
1977.
2.1 Gravity Collection System
The City’s wastewater collection system has roughly 23,000 manholes, 15 lift stations, 1.7
miles of force mains, and 1,500 miles of gravity sewer pipes (excluding abandoned/out of
service and private facilities) up to 84-inches in diameter. Table 1 presents a summary by
diameter of the known sewers in the collection system. This table excludes abandoned and
private sewers, as well as sewers associated with the City of Clovis collection system.
[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú[Ú!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(Ak?c?ÎAwNorth AveJensen AveCalifornia AveWhitesbridge Ave/CA 180Belmont AveMcKinley AveShields AveAshlan AveShaw AveBullard AveHerndon AveNees AveShepherd AveCooper AveGrantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
West Ave
Palm Ave
Blackstone Ave
First St
Cedar Ave
Chestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance AveMcCall AveDewolf AveHighland Ave
Behymer AveRWRFLS20LS01LS02LS18LS13LS03LS15LS12LS14LS16LS04LS10LS06LS05NFWRF2561-212058-062253-151961-011346-252957-222652-033057-073056-033153-012952-492858-10184''39''8''45''27''57''12''72''33''15''24''10''21''18''54''60''6''66''36''30''48''42''16''51''6''6''6''45''12''8''18''6''12''8''8''6''8''72''10''8''15''15''12''8''24''66''6''8''10''10''8''12''8''10''8''10''8''10''66''60''8''66''60''8''39''72''24''8''18''12''66''18''8''8''66''66''10''12''8''8''24''8''66''8''72''8''10''8''48''6''6''8''8''8''6''8''8''8''45''66''8''8''51''8''8''8''51''8''6''8 ''8''12''18''8''8''12''24''1 0''8''6''6''8''6''8''8''8''8''10''8''6''8''8''8''8''60''60''8''8''8''27''8''8''60''15''72''45''6''8''8''8''15''72''8''51''10''8''8''8''24''8''6''12''8''8''10''8''12''15''72''8''8''66''15''15''6''8''8''8''6''8''6''12''8''8''8''8''6''8''72''8''21''6''6''8''8''8''12''8''8''12''8''66''6''10''8''8''7 2 ''8''6''15''42''6''8''6''8''8''8''8''51''8''LegendExisting WastewaterCollection System[ÚLift Stations!(Special StructuresPipelines8" and Smaller10" - 18"20" - 36"Greater than 36"StreetsExisting Sewer Service AreaCity LimitsO010,00020,000FeetFigure 1Existing Wastewater Collection Systemand Sewer Service AreaWastewater Collection SystemMaster Plan UpdateCity of Fresno
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
As shown in Table 1, approximately 72-percent of the system is 8-inches in diameter and
smaller, with the majority (46.6-percent) being 8-inches in diameter.
Table 1 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Diameter
(inches)
Length(1),(2)
(miles)
Percent of
System
(by length)
Diameter
(inches)
Length(1),(2)
(miles)
Percent of
System
(by length)
4 0.02 0.0% 33 5.1 0.3%
6 386.7 25.7% 36 9.4 0.6%
8 702.1 46.6% 39 8.2 0.5%
10 104.2 6.9% 40 0.7 0.0%
12 71.1 4.7% 42 7.3 0.5%
14 2.3 0.2% 45 13.7 0.9%
15 41.9 2.8% 46 0.0 0.0%
16 2.8 0.2% 48 10.2 0.7%
18 39.5 2.6% 51 3.5 0.2%
20 2.6 0.2% 54 2.9 0.2%
21 16.0 1.1% 57 1.1 0.1%
22 1.1 0.1% 60 9.1 0.6%
24 21.0 1.4% 66 11.2 0.7%
27 11.0 0.7% 72 6.6 0.4%
30 13.5 0.9% 84 1.4 0.1%
Total (miles) 1,506 100
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Fresno GIS database
(2) Totals exclude abandoned and private facilities
Table 2 summarizes the gravity collection system by pipe material. As shown in Table 2,
the majority of the collection system (56-percent) consists of vitrified clay pipe (VCP), and
roughly one-third of the collection system (30.8-percent) consists of polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipe.
Table 3 summarizes the gravity collection system by installation year, and Figure 2 shows
the information presented in Table 3 in graphical form. As shown on Table 3, approximately
16-percent of the collection system was originally installed before 1950. Roughly 48-percent
of the system was installed between 1950 and 1980 (26-percent of the system was installed
in the 1970’s), and the remaining 36-percent of the system was installed since 1980.
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Table 2 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Material Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Material Abbreviation
Length(1)
(miles)
Percent of
System
(by length)
Asbestos Cement Pipe ACP 6.2 0.4%
Armco Plastic Truss APT 5.7 0.4%
Closed Profile PVC CCP 1.1 0.1%
Cast Iron Pipe CIP 6.3 0.4%
Ductile Iron Pipe DIP 4.6 0.3%
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic FRP 0.01 0.0%
Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe PVC 464.5 30.8%
Reinforced Concrete Lined Pipe RCL 20.2 1.3%
Reinforced Concrete Pipe RCP 95.0 6.3%
Standard Concrete Pipe SCP 56.0 3.7%
Truss Pipe TRS 0.2 0.0%
Vitrified Clay Pipe VCP 846.2 56.2%
Total -- 1,506.2 100.0%
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Fresno GIS database. Totals exclude abandoned and private facilities
2.2 Lift Stations
The City operates and maintains 15 active wastewater lift stations throughout the City
(excluding private and abandoned lift stations). Figure 1 shows the location of each lift
station. Table 4 summarizes the available design data for each of the City’s active lift
stations. This table lists the lift station location, pump capacity, and firm capacity of the lift
station. Lift station firma capacity is defined as the capacity of the lift station with the largest
pump out of service.
2.3 Special Structures/Field Reconnaissance
The City’s collection system includes several important flow diversions, which split average
and peak wastewater flows between sewer basins. The City’s previous Collection System
Master Plan provided a description of many of the flow diversions. In most cases, these
descriptions were deemed sufficient for the purposes of this Master Plan. Supplemental
field reconnaissance was also performed by Blair, Church, and Flynn (BC&F) and City staff
at seven sites selected by Carollo (Figure 3). The sites selected for field reconnaissance
were determined to be complex or otherwise important enough to warrant further
investigation. As part of the field reconnaissance, BC&F provided rim elevations, invert
elevations, rough estimates for flow splits between outlet pipes, general observations, and
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
photographs for each site (with the exception of the Dakota and Millbrook Structure, which
was visually inspected by Carollo/City Staff only).
Table 3 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Installation Year Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Years
Length(1)
(miles)
Percent of System
(by length)
Unknown 0.1 0.0%
Pre 1900 8.8 0.6%
1900-1910 7.4 0.5%
1911-1920 55.9 3.7%
1921-1930 29.0 1.9%
1931-1940 25.8 1.7%
1941-1950 106.5 7.1%
1951-1960 163.1 10.8%
1961-1970 179.6 11.9%
1971-1980 385.7 25.6%
1981-1990 153.0 10.2%
1991-2000 196.7 13.1%
2001-2010 185.2 12.3%
2011-2013 9.4 0.6%
Total 1,506.2 100.0%
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Fresno GIS database. Totals exclude abandoned and private facilities
Figure 2
Gravity Sewer Installation Year Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%Percent of SystemDecade Installed
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-7
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Table 4 Wastewater Lift Station Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Name Location
No. of
Pumps
Capacity(3)
(per pump) Firm
Capacity(2)
(mgd) (gpm) (mgd)
LS01 Jensen Avenue and Walnut
Avenue
2 750 1.080 1.080
LS02 Marks Avenue and Kearney
Boulevard
2 450 0.648 0.648
LS03 Wilson Avenue north of Shields
Avenue
2 250 0.360 0.360
LS04 Riverview Drive and Del Mar
Avenue
2 186 0.272 0.272
LS05 Fort Washington Road and
Champlain Drive
2 515 0.742 0.742
LS06 Champlain Drive and Perrin
Avenue
2 1545 2.220 2.220
LS10 Stratford Drive and Woodlawn
Drive
2 260 0.374 0.374
LS12 Bullard Avenue and Carnegie
Avenue
2 200 0.288 0.288
LS13 Jackson Avenue and University
Avenue
2 190 0.272 0.272
LS14 Alluvial Avenue and Carnegie
Avenue
2 400 0.576 0.576
LS15 Hayston Avenue and Fountain
Way
2 400 0.576 0.576
LS16 Sante Fe Avenue and Bluff
Avenue
2 175 0.252 0.252
LS18 Hughes Avenue and Nielson
Avenue
2 670 0.959 0.959
LS20 Cherry Avenue south of North
Avenue
2 670 0.959 0.959
NFWRF North Fresno WRF
2 440 0.639 0.639
Notes:
(1) Source: Data provided by City Staff.
(2) Firm capacity is defined as the pump station capacity with the largest pump out of service.
(3) Each pump has the same capacity.
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(Ak?c?ÎAwNorth AveJensen AveCalifornia AveWhitesbridge Ave/CA 180Belmont AveMcKinley AveShields AveAshlan AveShaw AveBullard AveHerndon AveNees AveShepherd AveCooper AveGrantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
West Ave
Palm Ave
Blackstone Ave
First St
Cedar Ave
Chestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance AveMcCall AveDewolf AveHighland Ave
Behymer AveRWRF2058-063056-032253-152561-211346-252652-033057-07Legend!(Field ReconnaissancePipelines8" and Smaller10" and LargerStreetsExisting Sewer Service AreaCity LimitsO010,00020,000FeetFigure 3Field Reconnaissance LocationsWastewater Collection SystemMaster Plan UpdateCity of Fresno
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-9
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Table 5 provides a summary of the major diversions within the collection system, and
identifies which of the structures were investigated as part of this Master Plan Update.
Appendix A provides detailed survey data, sketches, and photographs from the site
reconnaissance performed by BC&F.
During the base wastewater flow calibration process (see Section 1.5), it was discovered
that there was a flow discrepancy in the model for Flow Meters FM16 and FM21. Further
investigation revealed that the most likely source of the flow discrepancy was the junction
structure located at the intersection of Dakota Avenue and Millbrook Avenue. For this
reason, Carollo and City staff performed a site visit at one additional manhole to
supplement the field reconnaissance activities performed by BC&F, as described below:
MH 2058-06, Dakota and Millbrook: The previous Collection System Master Plan
indicated that flows into this structure are split roughly 50/50 between a 21-inch
diameter sewer that flows south down Millbrook Avenue into Basin 16 and a 21-inch
sewer that flows west down Dakota Avenue into Basin 21. However, Carollo
determined that during base flow conditions, the majority of flow in this structure
should most likely be routed to the 21-inch pipeline flowing south on Millbrook Avenue
to Meter FM16. In order to confirm this, Carollo arranged with City staff to perform an
additional site investigation of this structure. At the site investigation, it was
discovered that a concrete wall has been installed on the 21-inch pipeline flowing to
the west, approximately to the halfway depth of the pipe. Therefore, at this structure,
low flows are conveyed south. Once flows reach a flow depth to pipe diameter ratio
(d/D) of roughly 0.5, flows are split between both pipelines. At the time of the site visit
(about 9:30 AM), it was estimated that approximately 10 to 20-percent of the flow into
the structure was observed to be diverted west into Basin 21. The majority of the
remaining flow continued south to Meter FM16, which was consistent with the flow
monitoring data.
A custom flow inflow/outflow diversion curve of this structure was developed using
H2OMAP SWMM and input into H2OMAP Sewer. Because H2OMAP SWMM features
a more accurate routing engine than H2OMAP Sewer, it was determined that a curve
generated from H2OMAP SWMM would be the most appropriate method of simulating
this structure. Figure 4 shows the custom diversion curve that was developed for this
structure. Furthermore, the pipelines downstream of this structure are known capacity
issues, and therefore it is critical to simulate the flow splits at this location as
accurately as possible.
3.0 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM
The City has an ongoing contract with ADS Environmental Services (ADS) to perform
quality control on the City’s permanent flow meters quarterly. The purpose of the City’s
permanent flow monitoring program is monitor flows at specific locations in the collection
system over an extended period of time.
Figure 4
Dakota/Millbrook Diversion Curve
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Wall to half depth of
pipe to west
Low flows conveyed in
21” pipe to the south High flows split
between both pipes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 Flow Diverted to 21"-West (mgd) Total Inflow Into Diversion Structure (mgd)
Table 5 Special StructuresWastewater Collection System Master PlanCity of FresnoReconn.Manhole ID LocationModel ID Structure TypeFlow DescriptionPerformed2858-101 California Ave. and East Ave.37421 This structure consists of a 60-inch standard manhole design with frame and cover, and channelized base. Under average day conditions, all flow diverts east to the 30-inch pipe with an upstream invert elevation of 275.7 feet However, once the hydraulic grade line reaches 276.5 feet flow will split south to the 21-inch pipe. 2952-49 Church Ave. and Fruit Ave.39583 This structure is a cast-in-place, reinforced concrete structure with a channelized bottom, and the manhole risers are made of brick with cast iron covers. Flow enters the structure from the east via two new 30-inch pipes. Currently, flow also enters from a 48-inch pipe from the south. Flow exits the structure through an existing 48-inch pipe to the west. The structure had options for installing 2”x12”x4’-4” redwood board gates on the 48- inch pipe exiting the structure; however, due to a blow-out in 2002 flow is no longer prohibited from exiting the structure and continuing westerly in Church Avenue. The structure was repaired in 2003, but the gate was not reinstated. A new gate will need to be constructed such that the flow can be diverted to the south in the 48-inch Fruit Avenue pipeline to North Avenue as originally conceived. 3153-01 Jenson Ave. and Fruit Ave.40580 This structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The structure has one 24”x 60” access manhole. Currently, wastewater entering the structure from the north and east flows south in Fruit Avenue. The north and east are 48-inch pipelines and south is a 51-inch pipeline. There are channels provided to install a gate in this junction structure to block flow from going south to North Avenue, thus forcing flows north to West Church Avenue; however, gates are not currently installed. Therefore, no gates were modeled. 3153-09 Jenson Ave. and Fruit Ave.The structure has a standard manhole design with frame and cover for access. Flow enters the structure from the easterly 48-inch pipeline and currently is diverted south to a 51-inch pipeline in South Fruit Avenue. Having since been plugged andabandoned, this structure was originally constructed with a 48-inch pipeline and radius bend to the north directing flow from West Jensen Avenue north in South Fruit Avenue to West Church Avenue. A 48-inch pipeline was also constructed with a radius bend to the south that allows flow from East Jensen Avenue to travel south in South Fruit Avenue when the gate described above for the structure at manhole 3153-01 is not in place. As mentioned above, this gate is currently not installed and flow is directed south in South Fruit Avenue to West North Avenue. 3506-03 Jenson Ave. and Cherry Ave.39753 This structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-inplace concrete. The structure has two 24”x 50” access manholes. Flow entering the structure from the north and east is split to the south and west, respectively. The north and south pipelines are 48-inch pipes and the pipelines in theeast and west directions are both 36-inch pipes. An existing manhole is located just outside the junction on the east and the 48-inch pipe passes through this manholebefore entering the junction structure. There are notches provided to install gates in this junction structure for the east 48-inch pipe and the south 36-inch pipe; however, gates are not installed. Under average day conditions, approximately two-thirds of the wastewater flows west and the remaining one-third flows south. X3057-07 Highway 99 and South of Church Ave.39851 This structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The structure has two 24”x 50” access manholes. Flow enters the junction structure through a 6’x 3’ single box sewer from the east. Currently, flow exits the structure to northwest and west by a 34” x 54” elliptical sewer and a 36-inch pipe, respectively. Under average day conditions, flow splits approximately in half between the two exiting pipes. There are notches provided to install gates in this junction structure for the northwest elliptical pipe and the west 36-inch pipe. However, gates are not currently in place.X2652-03 Whitesbridge Rd. at Fruit Ave.33197 This structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. Flow enters the structure through a 42-inch pipe from the north and is split approximately in half between to the south and southwest into a 42-inch pipe and a 33-inch pipe respectively. X2957-22 Taylor Ave. and Church Ave.39841 The structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. Flow enters the structure from the east via existing 27-inch and 30-inch pipes. Currently, flow exits the structure to the west through a 34” x 53” elliptical sewer pipe. The elliptical sewer pipe curves at a radius of 30 feet to the south into an existing manhole where a 6-inch pipe from the northwest connects. Flow is not split at this structure; the elliptical pipe and radius of this pipe are a unique feature of this collection system and is considered a special structure.1346-25 Herndon Ave. and Milburn Ave.7780 The structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The interior concrete surfaces, except the floor of the structure, are lined with PVC. Flow enters the junction structure from the north via an existing 45-inch pipe. The flow can be split to the southwest and south to 45-inch pipes. Flow is controlled using two 45” x 45” fabricated, stainless steel slide gates. A 24-inch PVC air jumper connects the junction structure with a manhole located to the west of the structure. Currently, the south slide gate is closed forcing all flow to the southwest into the Grantland Trunk.X1961-01 Ashlan Ave. and Sierra Vista Ave.18338 UnknownCurrently, flow enters the structure from the north via a 12-inch pipe and splits approximately in half to the west and south into a 12-inch and a 15-inch pipe, respectively. 2253-15 McKinley Ave. and Harrison Ave.25677 This structure consists of a standard manhole design with frame and cover, and channelized base. Under average day conditions, all the flow diverts west to the 21-inch pipe with an upstream invert elevation of 282.8 feet However, once the hydraulic grade line reaches 283.7 feet (0.8 ft depth) flow will split south to the 12-inch pipe. X2058-06 Dakota Ave. and Milbrook Ave.19985 This structure is a cast-in-place, reinforced concrete structure with a a 42" diameter manhole cover.Flow enters the structure from the north and east via a 24-inch and 18-inch pipe, respectively. Currently, flow is split approximately in half to the south and west through two 21-inch pipes.X2561-21 Chestnut Ave. and Washington Ave.32321 The structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. Flow enters the structure from the north via a 42-inch pipe and can exit south and west into a 42-inch and 21-inch pipe, respectively. The majority of flow exits south inthe 42-inch. Roughly a thrid of the flow is estimated to be conveyed in the 21-inch sewer.X
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-12
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
In general, the permanent flow monitors were located to capture flows from various sewer
basins within the collection system, and to capture flows from the City of Clovis and a
portion of the flow discharged from California State University Fresno (Fresno State). This
section defines the typical components of wastewater in a collection system, and
summarizes and discusses the flow monitoring data used as part of this study.
3.1 Permanent Flow Monitoring Sites and Tributary Areas
A total of 21 open channel flow meters are currently installed in the City’s wastewater
collection system at strategic locations. The meter sites were selected by the City to isolate
flows in specific areas and subareas in the collection system, and to capture flows from the
City of Clovis and Fresno State. The 21 flow monitoring locations, as well as the area
tributary to each site, are shown on Figure 5. Table 6 lists the flow monitoring locations and
the diameters for the sewers where the meters were installed. Figure 6 provides a
schematic illustration of the flow monitoring locations.
3.2 Wastewater Flow Components
As a way to help the reader understand the wastewater flow components, this section
describes and provides definitions of commonly used terminology in the wastewater
collection system analysis and evaluations conducted as part of this project. In general,
wastewater consists of BWF and wet weather flow (WWF). BWF is flow generated by
routine water usage in the residential, commercial, business and industrial sectors of the
collection system.
The other component of BWF is the contribution of dry weather groundwater infiltration
(GWI) into the collection system. Dry weather GWI will enter the sewer system when the
relative depth of the groundwater table is higher than the depth of the pipeline and when
the susceptibility of the sanitary sewer pipe allows infiltration through defects such as
cracks, misaligned joints, and broken pipelines. In the City specifically, the depth to the
groundwater table is quite deep, and therefore the is little to no influence associated with
dry weather GWI into the collection system.
WWF includes storm water inflow, trench infiltration, and wet weather GWI. The storm
water inflow and trench infiltration comprise the WWF component termed I/I. The response
in the sewer system to rainfall is seen immediately (as with inflow) or within hours after the
storm (as with infiltration). The third element of WWF is GWI, which is not specific to a
single rainfall event, but rather to the effects on the sewer system over the entire wet
weather season. The depth of the groundwater table rising above the pipe invert elevation
causes GWI.
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(Ak?c?ÎAwNorth AveJensen AveCalifornia AveWhitesbridge Ave/CA 180Belmont AveMcKinley AveShields AveAshlan AveShaw AveBullard AveHerndon AveNees AveShepherd AveCooper AveGrantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
West Ave
Palm Ave
Blackstone Ave
First St
Cedar Ave
Chestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance AveMcCall AveDewolf AveHighland Ave
Behymer AveRWRFFR02FR06FR23FR09FR08FR15FR21FR13FR01FR22FR20FR19FR24FR16FR11FR14FR25FR12FR26FR10FR27FR02FR13FR22FR01FR15FR09FR21FR06FR16FR08FR24FR11FR19FR11FR23FR20FR14LegendFlow Monitoring Locations!(Fresno Meter!(Clovis Meter!(CSUF MeterPipelines8" and Smaller10" and LargerStreetsExisting Sewer Service AreaFlow Meter BasinsFR01FR02FR06FR08FR09FR11FR13FR14FR15FR16FR19FR20FR21FR22FR23FR24O010,00020,000FeetFigure 5Permanent Flow Meter LocationsWastewater Collection SystemMaster Plan UpdateCity of Fresno
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-14
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Table 6 Flow Monitoring Locations
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Meter
Site
Manhole
ID
Pipe
Diameter
(in.) Location Notes
FR01 2345-01 45 Polk Ave. & Olive Ave.
FR02 1346-24 45 Herndon Ave. & Blythe Ave.
FR06 1953-02 36 Ashlan Ave. & Fruit Ave.
FR08 3261-05 48 Chestnut Ave. & Annadale Ave.
FR09 2561-09 39 Chestnut Ave. & Madison Ave.
FR10 1967-46 36 Fowler Ave. near Sussex Way Clovis
FR11 3361-01 66 North Ave. & Maple Ave.
FR12 1362-02 33 Herndon Ave. & Willow Ave. Clovis
FR13 3253-06 51 Fruit Ave. & North Ave.
FR14 3256-11 36 Cherry Ave. & Edgar Ave.
FR15 2853-86 48 California Ave. & Fruit Ave.
FR16 2357-34 30 First St. & Floradora Ave.
FR19 2946-02 66 Church Ave. & Cornelia Ave.
FR20 3249-01 66 North Ave. & Prospect Ave.
FR21 2552-36 42 Fruit Ave. & Nielsen Ave.
FR22 2550-07 45 Marks Ave. & Nielsen Ave.
FR23 2562-21 27 Washington Ave. & Garden Ave.
FR24 3042-07 72 Jensen Ave. & Grantland Ave.
FR25 1760-56 15 Shaw Ave. & Maple Ave. Fresno State, Maple
FR26 1362-45 12 Sierra Ave. & Willow Ave. Clovis
FR27 1963-09 27 Peach Ave. & Pontiac Way Clovis
RWRF
FR13 FR14
FR24 FR19
FR01
FR12
FR27 FR10
FR20 FR11
FR08
FR09
FR23
FR06
FR22
FR15
FR16
FR02
FR21
FR26
FR25
Figure 6
Flow Monitoring Locations Schematic
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
LEGEND
FR02
FR26
FR25
CITY METER
CLOVIS METER
CSUF METER
DIVERSION/
OVERFLOW
DIVERSION W/
CLOSED GATE
POTENTIAL
OVERFLOW
FLOW DIRECTION
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-16
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Sewer pipes within close proximity to a body of water can be greatly influenced by
groundwater effects. As the groundwater table fluctuates over the wet weather season, this
fluctuation is seen as a mounding effect in flow monitoring data. As previously mentioned,
the depth to groundwater in Fresno is very deep, and so the effect of wet weather GWI is
negligible. In fact, wastewater flows, on average, are lowest during the wet weather months
in the City. Figure 7 illustrates the various flow components of wastewater in general, which
are described in detail in the following sections.
3.2.1 Base Wastewater Flow
The BWF is the flow generated by the City’s customers. The flow has a diurnal pattern that
varies depending on the type of use. Commercial and industrial patterns, though they vary
depending on the type of use, typically have more consistent higher flows during business
hours and lower flows at night. Furthermore, the diurnal flow pattern experienced during a
weekend may vary from the diurnal flow experienced during a weekday.
3.2.2 Average Annual Flow
The average annual flow (AAF) is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis throughout
the year, including both periods of dry and wet weather conditions.
3.2.3 Average Dry Weather Flow
The Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis
during the dry weather season. The ADWF includes the BWF generated by the City’s
residential, commercial, and industrial users, plus the dry weather GWI component. For the
City, the ADWF and the BWF are synonymous, because there is dry weather GWI is not a
contributor to the City’s collection system. Therefore, throughout the remainder of this TM,
the term BWF will be used in place of the term ADWF.
3.2.4 Infiltration and Inflow
All wastewater collection systems have some I/I, although the characteristics and severity
vary by region and individual collection system. Some of the most common sources of I/I
are shown on Figure 8. Infiltration is defined as storm water flows that enter the sewer
system by percolating through the soil and then through defects in pipelines, manholes, and
joints. Examples of infiltration entry points are cracks in pipelines, misaligned joints, and
root penetration. Inflow is defined as storm water that enters the sewer system via a storm
drain cross connections, leaky manhole covers, or cleanouts. Examples of inflow entry
points are roof drain and downspout connections, leaky manhole covers, and illegal storm
drain connections.
Pl205f1-6825.cdr
Figure 3.3
WASTEWATER
FLOW COMPONENTS
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CITY OF MODESTO
Base Wastewater Flow
Dry Weather FlowDry Weather Flow
InfiltrationInfiltration
InflowInflow
Dry Weather
Ground Water Infiltration
Storm Water Inflow
Trench Infiltration
Ground Water Infiltration
Rainfall
Dependent
Inflow and
Infiltration
Total
Flow
Time (Days)
1234567
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Month
Rain
Rainfall Dependent Infiltration and Inflow (RDI/I) ( )
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)
Groundwater Infiltration (seasonal mounding)FlowRainSeasonal
Weekly
FlowRain
Inflow
Sanitary Dry Weather Flow
Infiltration
Groundwater Infiltration
Inflow
SWI
+
+
=
=
Infiltration
TI RDI/I
Rainfall Dependent
Infiltration & Inflow (RDI/I)
=RainPl205f1-6825.cdr 3-18
Figure 3.8
TYPICAL WASTEWATER
FLOW COMPONENTS
DISTRICT-WIDE MASTER PLAN
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT
Note: This figure is not based on flow data specific to the City
or this Master Plan
Figure 7
Typical Wastewater Flow Components
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
LeakyBuildingLateralFoundationDrainConnectedto BuildingLateralExfiltrationfromStorm DrainSanitary SewerLEGENDCracked orBroken PipeRed Lettering is InfiltrationDeteriorated orMisaligned JointFaulty LateralConnection toSanitary SewerIllicit CatchBasin ConnectionManholeCover withHolesBlue Lettering is InflowStorm DrainDeterioratedManholeFaultyManholeFrame/ChimneySealRoot PenetrationRoofVentDownspoutArea DrainService LineCleanout(uncapped)DrivewayDrainStairwellDrainFoundationDrainFloor DrainPl205f2-6825.cdrFigure 3.4CITY OF MODESTOTYPICAL SOURCES OFINFILTRATION AND INFLOWWASTEWATER COLLECTIONSYSTEM MASTER PLAN3-21Figure 3.9TYPICAL SOURCES OFINFILTRATION AND INFLOWDISTRICT-WIDE MASTER PLANWEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICTFigure 8Tpyical Sources of Infiltration and InflowWastewater Collection System Master Plan UpdateCity of Fresno
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-19
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
The adverse effects of I/I entering the sewer system is that it increases both the flow
volume and peak flows, as illustrated on Figure 9. If too much I/I enters the sewer system
such that the sewer system is operating at or above its capacity, sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs) could occur. The City’s wastewater collection system exhibits relatively low I/I
contribution as a whole, although there are certain areas with relatively high rates of I/I.
3.2.5 Peak Dry Weather Flow
Peak dry weather flow (PDWF) is the highest observed hourly flow in the collection system
during the dry weather season. In the case of the City, industrial flows increase significantly
during the late summer months. The highest monthly flow rates at the RWRF are typically
experienced in the months of August, September, and October. PDWF is used to evaluate
the capacity of the collection system.
3.2.6 Peak Wet Weather Flow (Design Flow)
Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) is the highest observed flow that occurs following a design
storm event. Wet weather I/I cause flows in the collection system to increase. PWWF is
typically used for designing sewers and lift stations. Therefore, the PWWF and the “Design
Flow” are synonymous and will be used interchangeably. As with PDWF, PWWF is also
used to evaluate the capacity of the collection system.
3.3 Flow Monitoring Data Summary
This section summarizes the data obtained and analyzed from the City’s permanent flow
monitoring program, including BWF data and wet weather flow data. Data collected from
Meter FR06 is presented throughout this and other chapters as an example of the type of
data collected from the flow monitoring program. Refer to Appendix B and C for additional
data summaries and other information associated with the remaining meter sites.
3.3.1 Base Wastewater Flow Data
The City’s permanent flow meters collect depth and velocity data at 5-minute intervals.
Characteristic dry weather 24 hour diurnal flow patterns for each site were developed for
each meter based on data available during base flow periods (i.e., in the winter when there
is no rainfall). This hourly flow data was then used to calibrate the hydraulic model for the
observed dry weather flows during the flow monitoring period. For Fresno, it was
determined, based on a review of the available flow monitoring data and the monthly flows
at the RWRF, that the month of January 2013 was the most appropriate time period to
select for the determination of BWF at each flow meter. At a few sites, flow monitoring data
were not available in January 2013. In these cases, January 2012 was used.
Trench
Infiltration
Groundwater Infiltration
Inflow
Dry Weather Flow
Sewer Lateral
Flow
213 5
days
04
Due to
Infiltration
and Inflow
Average Dry Weather FlowAverage Dry Weather Flow
pL205F3-6825.cdr
Figure 3.5
CITY OF MODESTO
EFFECTS OF INFILTRATION
AND INFLOW
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
3-22
Figure 3.10
TYPICAL EFFECTS OF
INFILTRATION AND INFLOW
DISTRICT-WIDE MASTER PLAN
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT
Figure 9
Typical Effects of Infiltration and Inflow
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-21
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Hourly patterns for weekday and weekend flows vary and are separated to better
understand dry weather flow. Carollo used the data from days in January 2013 that were
least affected by rainfall to estimate the weekday and weekend dry weather flows. In
addition, Carollo prepared estimates for the average weekday and weekend levels and
velocities at each site, which are used in BWF calibration. Figure 10 illustrates a typical
variation of weekday and weekend flow in the City, which is based on the data collection
from Meter FR06. Similar graphics associated with the remaining sites are included in
Appendix B. Table 7 summarizes the BWF at each meter.
3.3.2 Industrial Flow Data
The City has several large significant industrial users (SIUs). Some users have dedicated
flow meters, and flow records were available on a monthly basis. For other SIUs, the City
provided average flow estimates. A summary of the average flows associated with each
SIU is provided in Appendix D.
3.3.3 Rainfall Data
Available rainfall data for the Fresno area were reviewed to identify significant rainfall
events that have occurred in recent years. Based on a review of this data, as well as the
available flow monitoring data, it was determined that the most significant rainfall events
that have occurred in recent years occurred from March 20-21, 2011, and April 11-13,
2012.
3.3.4 Wet Weather Flow Data
The flow monitoring data was also evaluated to determine how the collection system
responds to wet weather events. As mentioned above, the most significant rainfall events in
recent years occurred in March 2011 and April 2012. There was limited flow monitoring
data available for March 2011, but most of the City’s flow meters had valid data for the April
2012. For this reason, the April 2012 storm was used for model calibration, and the March
2011 storm was used to validate the I/I parameters developed as part of the April 2012
WWF calibration.
Figure 11 shows an example of the wet weather response at Meter FR06 during the April
2012 storm. Figure 11 illustrates the volume of I/I that entered the system from the
collection system upstream of Site FR06. The light blue area is the base sanitary flow while
the gray area is the measured flow from the flow monitoring period. As shown in the figure,
discernible amounts of I/I do enter the system during wet weather events.
Figure 10
Example Weekday vs. Weekend
Flow Variation (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0 Flow (mgd) Time
Weekday BWF
Weekend BWF
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-23
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Table 7 Base Wastewater Flow Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Meter
Site
Weekday BWF
(mgd
Weekend BWF
(mgd)
Overall BWF
(mgd)
Weekend/
Weekday Ratio
FR01 3.70 3.70 3.76 1.05
FR02 8.05 7.73 8.07 1.01
FR06 4.13 4.13 4.12 0.99
FR08 7.66 7.67 7.51 0.93
FR09 5.03 4.86 4.92 0.93
FR10 1.49 1.46 1.49 1.00
FR11 3.58 3.61 3.55 0.97
FR12 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.01
FR13 8.53 8.33 8.36 0.93
FR14 4.06 4.02 4.05 0.99
FR15 6.19 6.07 6.12 0.96
FR16 3.72 3.70 3.72 1.00
FR19 23.15 23.07 22.51 0.90
FR20 29.85 26.96 28.94 0.89
FR21 4.40 4.45 4.42 1.01
FR22 7.46 7.47 7.51 1.02
FR23 1.25 1.26 1.11 0.61
FR24 8.12 8.99 8.15 1.01
FR25 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.96
FR26 0.19 0.19 0.19 1.03
FR27 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.02
Figure 11
Example WWF Response (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6 0
2
4
6
8
10 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Measured Flow BWF Rainfall
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-25
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
The metric typically used to quantify the severity of the system’s I/I is the R-value. The R-
value is defined as the percentage of rainfall volume that makes it into the collection system
as I/I. Table 8 summarizes the calibrated R-values for each flow monitoring basin. As
shown in Table 8, the R-Values vary from 0.2-percent in basin FR02 to 1.45-percent in
Basin 20. In general, an R-Value of 5 percent or more is usually considered indicative of a
significant I/I response. It should be noted that Basin 23 exhibited an R-Value in excess of
5-percent. Based on a review of available data, it appears that the majority of I/I
contributions in this basin are associated with the Gallo property (see Section 1.5.4 for
more information).
The R-Value for each basin is determined by isolating I/I associated with individual flow
monitoring basins (i.e., excluding flow rates from upstream flow monitors) and calculating
the ratio of the volume of water that enters the system as I/I versus the volume of rainfall
that fell over the flow monitoring basin tributary area.
4.0 WASTEWATER FLOW BALANCE
Unit flow factors provide a means to estimate flow per acre for each land use category.
Wastewater unit flow factors are expressed in gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac), applied to
land use acreage for calculating average day flow generated from a particular land use. A
unit flow factor was developed for each of the City’s existing land use classifications. The
resulting flow was entered in the sewer system hydraulic model. Flow factors for residential
areas typically range between 250 to 4,000 gpd/ac, and commercial, industrial, and public
facility areas may range from 600 to 3,000 gpd/ac (or higher). Open space land uses were
assumed to generate negligible amounts of sewage flow. The factors were developed using
the following procedure:
Average flows for each flow metering tributary area were derived from the flow
monitoring data (see Section 1.2).
Flows associated with each of the City’s existing significant industrial users (SIUs)
were identified based on meter data provided by the City. A summary of the average
flows associated with each SIU is provided in Appendix C. Each SIU was assigned to
the appropriate flow metering tributary area and its average flows were subtracted
from the average flows measured during the flow monitoring period. Flows associated
with the SIUs were input into the model as “point loads”.
Using GIS, the acres for each existing land use type contained in each flow
monitoring tributary area were calculated, excluding the SIU areas and vacant areas.
According to City staff, the City’s vacant land shapefile was out of date. For this
reason, Carollo examined and revised the City’s vacant land use database by
comparing the vacant land shapefile against a recent aerial photograph and field
reconnaissance. Figure 12 shows the revised vacant land use areas within the
currently connected parcels in the City.
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-26
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Table 8 R-Value Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Meter Basin R-Value (%)
FR01 0.40
FR02 0.20
FR06 0.41
FR08 1.30
FR09 1.20
FR10 Note 1
FR11 1.00
FR12 Note 1
FR13 1.30
FR14 1.30
FR15 1.20
FR16 0.88
FR19 0.25
FR20 1.45
FR21 0.80
FR22 0.65
FR23(1) 0.75
Gallo Property, Basin 23 75%
FR24 0.80
FR25 0.75
FR26 Note 1
FR27 Note 1
Notes:
1. Tributary areas associated with the City of Clovis are not known. Therefore, R-values
are not presented in this document.
2. R-value presented excludes the Gallo Property, which is estimated to have an R-value
of roughly 75%.
Ak?c?ÎAwNorth AveJensen AveCalifornia AveWhitesbridge Ave/CA 180Belmont AveMcKinley AveShields AveAshlan AveShaw AveBullard AveHerndon AveNees AveShepherd AveCooper AveGrantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
West Ave
Palm Ave
Blackstone Ave
First St
Cedar Ave
Chestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance AveMcCall AveDewolf AveHighland Ave
Behymer AveRWRFLegendStreetsVacant Land WithinCurrently Served AreaExisting Sewer Service AreaCity LimitsO010,00020,000FeetFigure 12Revised Vacant Land with theSewer Service AreaWastewater Collection SystemMaster Plan UpdateCity of Fresno
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-28
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Preliminary flow factors for each land use type are estimated based on the
approximate number of dwelling units per acre, the assumed per capita wastewater
generation rates, and the typical number of people per dwelling unit for each land use
type.
The flow factors for each flow metering tributary were then adjusted up or down
(balanced) so that the calculated average flows from each tributary match what was
measured from the flow monitoring data.
Once the flow factors for each of the flowmeter tributary areas were balanced, the
weighted average of the coefficients for each existing land use type was calculated
based on the acreage contribution from each metering tributary area.
The calibrated wastewater flow factors developed for existing land uses are summarized in
Table 9. A wastewater flow balance was performed to test the accuracy of the flow factor
estimates. As with most cities throughout California, residential land use makes up the
majority of developed land and wastewater flow. For Fresno, residential customers within
the City proper (excluding Clovis) make up approximately 63 percent of the current flow
(40.2 mgd). Additionally, Fresno’s industrial sector also makes up a significant portion of the
City’s current flow. Industrial customers account for 17 percent of the current BWF (11.3
mgd) and a greater percentage in the summer months when industrial flows increase. The
City of Clovis flows currently account for 8 percent of the existing flow (5.1 mgd), although
the City of Clovis is entitled to discharge up to roughly 8.9 mgd. Commercial customers
account for roughly 6 percent of the current flow (3.8 mgd), and other land uses, such as
public land use areas, account for the remaining 5 percent of current flow (3.4 mgd).
5.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE
A sewer collection system model is a simplified representation of the real sewer system.
Sewer system models can assess the conveyance capacity for a collection system. In
addition, sewer system models can perform “what if” scenarios to assess the impacts of
future developments and land use changes. The City’s collection system hydraulic model
was constructed by City staff using a multi-step process utilizing data from a variety of
sources.
As part of this Master Plan project, Carollo reviewed the existing hydraulic model, and
updated/expanded upon certain aspects of the model. This section summarizes the
hydraulic model review and update process.
Table 9 Wastewater Flow Balance
Table 9 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
Table 9 City of Fresno
Wastewater Flow Factor Land Use Area Base Wastewater Flow
Land Use Classification (gpd/ac)(acre)(gpd)
Residential
Rural Density 250 1,216 0.30
Low Density (1-3 DU/acre)600 1,138 0.68
Medium Low Density (3.5 -6 DU/acre)900 10,361 9.33
Medium Density (5-12 DU/acre)1,700 11,143 18.94
Medium High Density (12-16 DU/acre)2,800 2,039 5.71
High Density (30-45 DU/acre)4,000 1,316 5.26
Subtotal 27,212 40.2
Commercial
Community 800 604 0.48
General Heavy 950 1,054 1.00
Neighborhood 1,660 569 1.06
Neighborhood Limited 1,410 3 0.94
Office 1,000 1,057 0.00
Professional Services Office 800 100 0.08
Regional 800 218 0.17
Recreational 600 119 0.07
Storage Limited 0 44 0.00
Subtotal 3,768 3.8
Public Facilities
Airport 300 1,065 0.32
College 0 151 0.00
High school 700 475 0.33
Elementary School and High School 700 141 0.10
Middle School 700 233 0.16
Elementary School and Middle School 700 188 0.13
Elementary School 700 735 0.51
Special School 700 42 0.03
Cemetery 0 165 0.00
Church 500 545 0.27
Community Activity Center 850 8 0.01
Neighborhood Center 1,000 5 0.00
Convention Center 850 17 0.01
Fairgounds 500 90 0.04
Fire Station 850 14 0.01
Government Offices 1,000 141 0.14
County Court House Central Area 1,500 14 0.02
Hospital 4,000 137 0.55
Medical Center 3,000 10 0.03
Convalescent Hospital 3,000 64 0.19
Military 850 60 0.05
Mobile Home Park 500 388 0.19
Municipal Service Center 1,300 37 0.05
Post Office 1,200 23 0.03
Public Facility 1,200 21 0.03
Public/Quasi-Public Facility 850 43 0.04
Pump Station 0 44 0.00
Subtotal 4,854 3.3
Open Space
Open Space 0 60 0.00
Recreational Use/Clear Zone 0 16 0.00
Ag 0 233 0.00
Canal 0 38 0.00
Community Park 0 28 0.00
Golf Course 150 597 0.09
Lake or Pond 0 54 0.00
Multi-Use 0 101 0.00
Neighborhood Park 0 212 0.00
Recreational Park 0 59 0.00
Recreational Use 0 12 0.00
Regional Park 0 154 0.00
Parking 0 78 0.00
Pg&e Substation 500 117 0.06
Ponding Basin 0 407 0.00
Ponding Basin/Park 0 108 0.00
Subtotal 2,281 0.1
Other
Roads/ Canals/ Highways 16,545 0.00
Vacant 0 2,303 0.00
Subtotal 18,848 0.0
Industrial/Clovis
Light Industrial 620 2,979 1.85
Heavy Industrial 1,160 1,291 1.50
Meetered Industrial Users --7.95
City of Clovis --5.12
Subtotal 4,270 16.4
Total
Total --61,234 63.9
Current Sewer Service Area and Existing Land Use
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-30
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
5.1 Existing Hydraulic Model
The City’s existing hydraulic model was built in-house using the City’s current GIS
database. The hydraulic model was built using the H2OMAP Sewer hydraulic modeling
software package, developed by Innovyze (formerly MWH Soft). H2OMAP Sewer tracks the
movement of wastewater flowing through the network over an extended period of time
under varying wastewater loading and operating conditions. The extended period simulation
(EPS) model implemented in H2OMAP Sewer is a quasi-dynamic model and is predicated
on solving a simplified form of the full 1D Saint-Venant equations neglecting local
acceleration. It provides seamless database and GIS interfacing and outputs features for
presentations and reports.
The City’s existing H2OMAP Sewer model is an “all-pipe” model. In other words, the model
includes all of the City’s active wastewater collection system sewer mains, trunks,
interceptors, and lift stations. Not included in the City’s wastewater collection system
hydraulic model are the City of Clovis collection system facilities, as well as other private
collection system facilities (usually within County islands or other large facilities, such as the
Fresno State campus).
The existing hydraulic model does include base wastewater loads (flows). However, these
loads were reallocated and revised as part of the model update process.
5.2 Elements of the Hydraulic Model
The following provides a brief overview of the major elements of the City’s hydraulic model
and the required input parameters associated with each:
Loading Manholes: Sewer manholes, cleanouts, as well as other locations where
pipe sizes change or where pipelines intersect are represented by loading manholes
in the hydraulic model. Required inputs for loading manholes include diameter, rim
elevation, and wastewater loads (dry and wet weather). Loading manholes are also
used to represent locations where flows are split or diverted between two or more
downstream links.
Chamber Manholes: Chamber manholes connects pumps and force mains in the
hydraulic model. The only required input parameter for a chamber manhole is
elevation.
Gravity Mains: Gravity sewers are represented as gravity mains in the hydraulic
model. Input parameters for pipes include length, friction factor (i.e.., Manning’s n for
gravity mains, Hazen Williams C for force mains), invert elevations, diameter, and a
flow split type and percentage/curve (if the pipeline is directly downstream of an
overflow/flow diversion).
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-31
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Force Mains: Force mains represent pressure sewers in the model. Required input
parameters are diameter, invert elevations, length, and friction factor (i.e., Hazen
Williams C).
Wet Wells: Required input parameters for wet wells include invert elevation, wet well
depth, cross section type (e.g., circular or variable area) and wet well cross section
(e.g., diameter).
Pumps: Pumps are included in the hydraulic model as links. Input parameters for
pumps include type (fixed capacity, design point, or exponential 3 point curve), pump
capacity/head information, and operational controls (on/off set points).
Outlets: Outlets represent areas where flow leaves the system. For sewer system
modeling, an outfall typically represents the connection to the influent pump station at
a wastewater treatment plant.
Curves: Curves represent a number of items in the hydraulic model, including rainfall
hyetographs, flow split curves, and other miscellaneous items.
Inflows: The following are the two types of wastewater flow sources that can be
injected into individual model junctions:
– Loads. Loads simulate base sanitary wastewater flows and represent the
average flow. The base flows are multiplied by a pattern that varies the flow
temporally. The base flow diurnal patterns are adjusted during the dry weather
calibration process.
– Stormwater Flows. Rainfall Derived Infiltration and Inflows (RDII) are applied in
the model by assigning a unit hydrograph and a corresponding tributary area to
a given loading manhole. The unit hydrographs consists of several parameters
that are used to adjust the volume of RDII that enters the system at a given
location. These parameters are adjusted during the wet weather calibration
process.
5.3 General Model Review
In the early stages of the Master Plan Update project, Carollo worked closely with City Staff
to gain an understanding of how the model was created. The model was then reviewed
against industry standards, to identify discrepancies, and to determine which aspects of the
model could be improved upon.
The model review process consisted of several steps, as described below:
Step 1: The first step involved in the model review process was to verify that the
model data (i.e., inverts, diameters, etc.) were input correctly and that the flow
direction, size, and layout of the modeled pipelines were logical. Additionally, the
modeled lift stations were also checked to verify that they operated correctly.
Step 2: Review which model nodes were associated with each SIU to verify that the
flows associated each SIU are injected at the appropriate location in the model. For
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-32
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
certain larger SIUs (e.g., Foster Farms, Beef Packers, Gallo), the industrial customer
was contacted directly, as necessary, to verify their discharge point into the collection
system and to obtain supplemental data.
Step 3: Review pipeline connectivity to determine, in a general sense, how flows are
routed through collection system basins, and to identify the locations of potential
overflows.
Step 4: Review the model/GIS facilities database to determine which portions of the
existing City limits are currently served and which are not currently connected to the
wastewater collection system.
Step 5: Review the City’s existing “master group polygons” (MPGs), which are used
by the hydraulic model to allocate flows from specific parcels within the system to
specific model nodes.
Step 6: Review existing baseline wastewater flows in the existing hydraulic model to
determine the need to develop new wastewater flow factors and reallocate the model.
Step 7: Review other miscellaneous model parameters.
In general, the City’s hydraulic model was constructed well and there were very few
discrepancies with the physical configuration and invert elevations of the collection system
facilities. However, there were some enhancements that were performed to the hydraulic
model, which are summarized in the following sections.
5.4 Model Wastewater Loads
Determining the quantity of base wastewater flows generated by a municipality and how
they are distributed throughout the collection system is a critical component of the hydraulic
modeling process. Based on a review of the City’s historical flow monitoring data (see
Section 1.2) over the last few years, it was determined that the City’s existing hydraulic
model tended to overestimate wastewater flows into the collection system, in some cases
by a significant amount. For this reason, it was determined that the model should be
reallocated using revised wastewater flow factors.
Various techniques can be used to assign wastewater flows to individual model junctions,
depending on the type of data that is available. Adequate estimates of the volume of
wastewater are important in maintaining and sizing sewer system facilities, both for present
and future conditions. Baseline wastewater loads were allocated (assigned to specific
nodes) in the hydraulic model based on land use data provided by the City and revised
wastewater flow factors developed for each land use type (these are described in detail in
Section 1.3). The flow coefficients and land use data provides a means to transform a
specific land use category into a BWF, as described below:
Step 1: The City’s service area was broken up into individual loading polygons. The
City’s MGPs were used as the City’s loading polygons. Each loading polygon
represents the geographic area that contributes flows into a single model node (i.e.,
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-33
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
trunk system manhole). In an all pipe model, a loading polygon could be as small as a
few parcels, or could encompass a particular subdivision or grouping of lots.
In the case of the City, the MGPs were developed to allocate BWFs to “large
diameter” pipes only (i.e., 10” and larger), and updating the MGPs to reassign
individual loading polygons to small diameter pipes was beyond the scope of this
Master Plan. For this reason, although the City’s model is an “all pipe” model, there
are only loads allocated to large diameter pipes. The City has indicated that it plans to
revise the MGPs in house, at which point the model should be updated and
reallocated, either in-house, or with the assistance or guidance of an outside
consultant.
Step 2: The loads were calculated for each loading polygon using the hydraulic
model’s “load allocator” tool by multiplying the appropriate flow coefficient by the land
use acreage.
Step 3: Once the load allocator tool assign BWFs into the hydraulic model, the total
flows were review by type (i.e., residential vs non-residential) to confirm that the load
allocator functioned correctly.
Step 4: The allocated loads were adjusted as necessary during the BWF calibration
process (see Section 1.5) to closely match the actual BWFs recorded from the City’s
permanent flow monitoring data.
5.5 Model Scenarios
The City’s existing hydraulic model contained only one scenario (the “BASE” scenario). As
part of any master planning project, multiple scenarios are used to simulate different flow
conditions, for both current flow conditions and future flow conditions. As part of the model
update process, additional model scenarios were added. There are three model calibration
scenarios, which usually are not modified by the end user after model calibration is
complete. In addition, there are two “evaluation” scenarios for both existing and build out
flow conditions. These are the peak dry weather flow (PDWF) condition, and the peak wet
weather flow (PWWF) condition. These scenarios are used to identify system deficiencies
and to develop capacity improvement projects, and can be used by the City in the future to
run several “what if” scenarios, such as the impact of new developments or land use
changes.
5.6 Miscellaneous Model Updates
Several other additions/modifications were made to the hydraulic model as part of the
model update process, including:
Information fields were created in the model to identify which flow monitor a group of
collection system facilities are associated with (e.g., FR01, FR02, etc.), and database
queries/query sets were created for each flow monitoring basin.
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-34
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Custom diurnal patterns for each flow monitoring basin were created based on the
flow data collected from the City’s permanent flow monitoring data. The custom
diurnal patterns include both weekday and weekend flow conditions.
Diurnal patterns for the City’s SIUs were updated based on available data to include
both weekday and weekend flow conditions.
Diurnal patterns for certain other large facilities (e.g., hospitals) were developed and
applied based on typical hourly use patterns.
Due to the limitations of the H2OMAP Sewer hydraulic modeling package, the
hydraulic grade line (HGL) calculations for flow diversions where an overflow pipe is
significantly higher than the rim of the main downstream pipeline are inaccurate. An
example of this condition is shown on Figure 13. Therefore, where an overflow
pipeline was significantly higher than the rim of the main pipeline, and it was apparent
that no flow would be diverted to the overflow pipeline, the overflow pipeline was
deactivated in the model, similar to how loops have been deactivated in the existing
hydraulic model. No pipelines were deactivated in the model that were deemed to be
significant hydraulically. Should the City wish to include the inactivated pipelines, as
well as the loops that had been previously deactivated, the City should consider
converting to the H2OMAP SWMM or InfoSWMM hydraulic modeling software
platform.
6.0 MODEL CALIBRATION
Hydraulic models are built off the best available information regarding the physical
attributes and operational conditions of the collection system, most of which are known to a
reasonable level of confidence. Even so, there are a number of parameters that are not
directly known and cannot be directly measured. For this reason, these parameters must be
assumed initially based on typical values and engineering judgment. Every collection
system is unique. For this reason, industry standard of care dictates that a model be
validated to ensure that the assumptions built into the model are accurate. This validation
process is commonly referred to as calibration.
The calibration process must be undertaken in any modeling effort. Having an appropriately
calibrated model is necessary to provide confidence to all project team members and
stakeholders that the results produced by the model are as accurate as possible and
defensible.
A model cannot be considered calibrated unless it accurately represents flow conditions
that have actually occurred, preferably in the very recent past. This dictates that the model
include an “existing” model scenario, which represents the configuration and flow conditions
that are currently experienced. Only after the model has been shown to accurately simulate
these flow conditions can it be used to simulate hypothetical conditions, such as a design
storm event or a build out flow condition.
Figure 13
Example HGL Limitations for Overflow Pipelines in
H2OMAP Sewer
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
Overflow pipe skews
“adjusted flow depth”
Incorrect HGL Reported
due to Overflow
"Unadjusted" d/D is
reasonable
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-36
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
The intended purpose of the model will dictate how the model is constructed and should be
calibrated. For Fresno, flow conditions observed in the flow monitoring data and at the
RWRF have demonstrated that it is necessary to calibrate to both dry weather and wet
weather flow conditions. Model calibration of the City of Fresno (City) collection system
hydraulic model consisted of three main parts, a macro calibration, a base flow calibration,
and wet weather flow calibration.
6.1 Calibration Standards
The hydraulic model was calibrated in accordance with international modeling standards.
The Wastewater Planning Users Group (WaPUG), a section of the Chartered Institution of
Water and Environmental Management, has established generally agreed upon principles
for model verification. The base flow and wet weather calibration focused on meeting the
recommendations on model verification contained in the “Code of Practice for the Hydraulic
Modeling of Sewer Systems,” published by the WaPUG (WaPUG 2002), as summarized
below:
Base Wastewater Flow Calibration Standards: Base flow calibration should be
carried out for two base flow days and the modeled flows and depths should be
compared to the field measured flows and depths. Both the modeled and field
measured flow hydrographs should closely follow each other in both shape and
magnitude.
In addition to the shape, the flow hydrographs should also meet the following criteria
as a general guide:
– The timing of flow peaks and troughs should be within one hour.
– The peak flow rate should be within the range of ±10 percent
– The volume of flow (or the average rate of flow) should be within the range of
±10 percent. If applicable, care should be taken to exclude periods of missing
or inaccurate data.
Wet Weather Calibration Standards: The model simulated flows and depths should
be compared to the field measured flows and depths. The flow hydrographs should
closely follow each other in both shape and magnitude, until the flow has substantially
returned to dry weather flow rates.
In addition to the shape, the flow hydrographs should also meet the following criteria
as a general guide:
– The timing of the peaks and troughs should be similar with regard to the
duration of the events.
– The peak flow rates at significant peaks should be in the range of +25 percent
to 15 percent and should be generally similar throughout.
– The volume of flow (or the average flow rate) should be within the range of
+20 percent to -10 percent.
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-37
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
6.2 Macro Calibration
The initial calibration process consisted of a macro calibration. Initially, Carollo ran the
model under existing BWF conditions and necessary adjustments were made to produce
reasonable system flows. Such adjustments include modifications of pipeline connectivity,
inverts, facility characteristics, and lift station characteristics.
6.3 Base Wastewater Flow Calibration
The BWF calibration process consists of several elements, as outlined below:
Divide the system into areas tributary to each flow meter. The first step in the
calibration process was to divide the City into flow meter tributary areas. 21 tributary
areas were created, one for each flow meter from the temporary flow monitoring
program. A map showing the locations of each flow monitoring site and their
associated tributary area are provided in Section 1.2 along with a schematic of the
flow meters.
Define flow volumes within each area. The next step was to define the flow
volumes within each area, which was accomplished in the flow allocation step.
Create diurnal patterns to match the temporal distribution of flow. A diurnal
curve is a pattern of hourly multipliers that are applied to the base flow to simulate the
variation in flow that occurs throughout the day. In order to match the flows
throughout the week, a seven day diurnal pattern was established for each flow
meter. The diurnal patterns were initially developed based on the flow monitoring data
and adjusted as part of the calibration process until the model simulated flows closely
matched the field measured flows. Figure 14 shows the calibrated weekday and
weekend diurnal patterns for the area tributary to Site FR06. Similar diurnal curves
were developed for each of the meters and its tributary area. These additional curves
are available in Appendix B.
Adjust model variables to match field measured velocity and flow depths. Once
the model simulated flows acceptably matched the field measured flows, the model
simulated velocity and flow depth were compared to the field measured velocity and
flow depth. Adjustments were made to various model parameters until the modeled
and measured velocity and depth closely matched one another. The primary varied
parameters for this process are pipeline roughness (Manning’s n) and sediment build
up in the pipe, although other parameters can also be adjusted as calibration results
are generated.
Manning’s roughness coefficients, or n values, have industry accepted ranges based
on a number of variables. Roughness coefficients increase over time depending on
the construction methods, installation quality, system maintenance, and other
environmental factors. There can be certain factors within the City’s collection system
that can result in roughness coefficients which differ from the typical range. For
example, pipeline bellies, joint misalignment, cracks, and debris (e.g., root intrusion,
etc.) lead to increased turbulence in a pipe, as well as the apparent Manning’s n
factor.
Figure 14
Example Diurnal Patterns (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday
Weekend
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-39
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
If the model is unable to reasonably match the field measured flow depth and velocity
without leaving the acceptable range of Manning’s roughness coefficients, further
investigation is conducted to help determine the cause of the discrepancy. Some
issues that could cause such a discrepancy can include errors in the slope or
diameter of a pipeline, downstream blockages, pipeline sags, and, in some cases,
influences from downstream lift station operations.
Table 10 provides a summary of the dry weather flow calibration using the average and
daily peak flow results for both weekday and weekend conditions. As shown in Table 10,
with the exception of Meter FR24 (which was only very slightly above 10-percent), the
model simulated average and peak flows for both weekday and weekend BWF were all
within 10-percent. The flow monitoring data associated with meter FR24 was limited and
somewhat questionable, so a percent error of only slightly greater than 10-percent was
deemed acceptable for this meter.
Appendix B contains a detailed dry weather flow calibration summary sheet for each of the
21 meter sites. Each calibration sheet provides plots that compare the model simulated and
field measured flow, velocity, and level data for both weekday and weekend conditions. An
example of the dry weather calibration for Site FR06 is shown on Figure 15. As shown on
Figure 15 and in Appendix B, there is excellent overall correlation of the field measured
data to the model output results.
6.4 Wet Weather Flow Calibration
The WWF calibration enables the hydraulic model to accurately simulate I/I entering the
collection system during a large storm. As outlined below, the WWF calibration process
consists of several elements:
Identify calibration rainfall events. The WWF calibration process consists of
running model simulations of historic rainfall events based on data from the City’s
permanent flow monitoring program. The goal of any wet weather flow monitoring
program is to capture and characterize a system’s response to a significant rainfall
event, preferably during wet antecedent moisture conditions. In the case of the City,
although there is permanent flow monitoring data available, there were significant
data gaps in recent years, and so selection of a calibration rainfall event was limited
to periods of time in which sufficient data were available.
The selection of a particular calibration storm or group of storms is based on a review
of the flow and rainfall data. In the case of the City, the most significant event in
recent years with sufficient data availability to perform an adequate WWF calibration
occurred in April 2012, and therefore this storm was used as the basis for WWF
calibration. As a validation of the April 2012 WWF calibration, the model was
validated to a series of rainfall events that occurred in March 2011 for sites where
data was available, and to the hourly influent flow data at the RWRF.
Table 10 BWF Calibration SummaryWastewater Collection System Master Plan UpdateCity of FresnoPipe Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg.Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg.Meter Diameter Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity LevelNumber (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (%) (%) (%) (%) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (%) (%) (%) (%)(mgd) (mgd) (%)FR01 45 3.701 5.507 3.36 9.3 3.704 5.212 3.06 10.0 0.1% -5.4% -8.9% 7.1% 3.904 5.939 3.39 9.5 3.927 5.766 3.09 10.2 0.6% -2.9% -8.7% 7.3%3.759 3.768 0.2%FR02 45 8.049 10.996 3.52 15.9 7.726 10.331 3.5915.1 -4.0% -6.0% 2.0% -4.5% 8.135 12.465 3.51 15.9 7.777 11.659 3.57 15.1 -4.4% -6.5% 1.7% -4.9%8.074 7.741 -4.1%FR06 36 4.132 5.207 2.59 14.2 4.131 5.050 2.57 13.6 0.0% -3.0% -0.7% -4.0% 4.089 5.758 2.54 14.2 4.118 5.630 2.56 13.5 0.7% -2.2% 1.1% -4.7%4.120 4.128 0.2%FR08 48 7.661 9.894 4.59 12.3 7.672 10.070 4.24 13.0 0.2% 1.8% -7.7% 5.9% 7.131 9.883 4.52 11.7 7.336 10.727 4.16 12.6 2.9% 8.5% -7.8% 8.1%7.509 7.576 0.9%FR09 39 5.025 6.285 3.41 12.8 4.860 6.020 3.23 12.4 -3.3% -4.2% -5.4% -2.8% 4.673 6.466 3.31 12.3 4.556 6.325 3.16 12.0 -2.5% -2.2% -4.5% -2.8%4.925 4.773 -3.1%FR10 0 1.491 2.750 1.16 10.4 1.464 2.697 1.19 10.3 -1.8% -1.9% 2.3% -1.4% 1.496 3.201 1.11 10.0 1.469 3.1031.15 10.0 -1.8% -3.1% 3.4% -0.7%1.492 1.465 -1.8%FR11 66 3.582 5.199 2.23 10.3 3.609 4.851 2.16 10.8 0.8% -6.7% -3.3% 4.3% 3.483 5.471 2.24 10.0 3.665 5.539 2.16 10.7 5.2% 1.2% -3.7% 7.0%3.554 3.625 2.0%FR12 33 1.578 2.513 1.89 8.6 1.579 2.502 1.93 8.5 0.0% -0.4% 1.9% -1.6% 1.590 2.673 1.84 8.7 1.592 2.671 1.91 8.4 0.1% -0.1% 3.9% -2.9%1.582 1.582 0.0%FR13 51 8.526 10.118 3.29 15.8 8.329 9.611 3.31 16.2 -2.3% -5.0% 0.6% 2.3% 7.951 10.072 3.24 15.2 7.902 9.556 3.26 15.7 -0.6% -5.1% 0.6% 3.6%8.362 8.207 -1.9%FR14 36 4.058 4.998 2.40 14.4 4.022 4.819 2.25 14.8 -0.9% -3.6% -6.1% 2.9% 4.017 5.367 2.39 14.3 3.762 4.806 2.21 14.2 -6.3% -10.4% -7.8% -0.1%4.046 3.948 -2.4%FR15 48 6.194 7.184 2.19 18.2 6.071 6.949 2.25 17.5 -2.0% -3.3% 2.7% -3.5% 5.939 7.337 2.17 17.7 5.850 7.075 2.22 17.2 -1.5% -3.6% 2.5% -3.1%6.121 6.008 -1.9%FR16 30 3.724 4.692 3.34 11.5 3.702 4.463 3.26 11.5 -0.6% -4.9% -2.5% 0.3% 3.708 5.104 3.32 11.5 3.667 4.664 3.24 11.4 -1.1% -8.6% -2.3% -0.5%3.720 3.692 -0.7%FR19 66 23.147 27.598 4.52 24.1 23.071 27.048 4.89 22.7 -0.3% -2.0% 8.2% -5.8% 20.907 26.800 4.35 22.8 22.057 28.163 4.81 22.1 5.5% 5.1% 10.6% -3.2%22.507 22.781 1.2%FR20 66 29.854 34.806 4.60 28.6 26.961 31.643 4.71 26.2 -9.7% -9.1% 2.3% -8.3% 26.650 34.503 4.48 26.6 25.500 31.954 4.62 25.4 -4.3% -7.4% 3.1% -4.6%28.939 26.544 -8.3%FR21 42 4.403 5.596 2.11 15.3 4.451 5.716 2.11 15.4 1.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.9% 4.454 6.167 2.10 15.4 4.541 6.199 2.11 15.6 1.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7%4.418 4.477 1.3%FR22 45 7.461 9.611 2.90 17.5 7.471 9.230 2.88 17.5 0.1% -4.0% -0.8% 0.0% 7.615 10.754 2.90 17.6 7.650 10.427 2.88 17.6 0.5% -3.0% -0.5% 0.1%7.505 7.522 0.2%FR23 27 1.251 1.638 2.08 7.5 1.262 1.521 2.20 7.4 0.9% -7.2% 5.5% -1.5% 0.762 1.032 1.94 5.5 0.827 1.469 1.93 5.9 8.5% 42.4% -0.6% 7.6%1.111 1.138 2.4%FR24 72 8.120 10.599 2.60 16.1 8.987 11.826 2.6317.3 10.7% 11.6% 0.9% 7.5% 8.216 11.913 2.61 16.1 9.103 13.093 2.63 17.3 10.8% 9.9% 0.8% 7.5%8.147 9.021 10.7%FR25 15 0.082 0.121 1.11 2.1 0.082 0.121 1.12 2.1 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.079 0.134 1.12 2.0 0.079 0.134 1.10 2.1 0.2% -0.1% -2.0% 3.0%0.081 0.081 0.1%FR26 0 0.190 0.311 0.92 4.9 0.192 0.308 0.91 5.1 1.4% -1.0% -1.1% 2.6% 0.195 0.321 0.93 5.0 0.198 0.322 0.91 5.1 1.3% 0.4% -1.9% 3.3%0.191 0.194 1.3%FR27 27 1.900 2.558 1.82 12.1 1.900 2.546 1.86 11.1 0.0% -0.5% 2.6% -8.4% 1.935 2.786 1.86 12.1 1.935 2.783 1.86 11.2 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% -7.4%1.910 1.910 0.0%Notes:1. Source: City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data2. Average flow, level, and velocity are calculated from weekday/weekend dry weather flow monitoring data. Maximum flow values are hourly peaks corresponding to either weekend or weekday confitions, as appropriate.3. Percent Difference = (Modeled - Measured)/Measured*100.4. Base Wastewater Flow = (5*Weekday Base Wastewater Flow + 2*Weekend Base Wastewater Flow)/7Modeled BWFPercent DifferenceWeekday Base Wastewater FlowWeekend Base Wastewater FlowBase Wastewater Flow(4)Measured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)Measured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)Measured BWF
Figure 15
Example BWF Calibration (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48Flow (mgd)Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48Velocity (ft/s)Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48Level (in)Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-42
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
In order to run a model simulation for the both of these rainfall events, the hourly
rainfall data were input into the model for these events. Each flow monitoring tributary
area, or basin, was assigned a specific rainfall hyetograph, which was calculated for
each basin based on available historic rainfall data.
Define RDII tributary areas. For the WWF calibration, RDII flows are superimposed
on top of the BWF. RDII inflows consist of both a unit hydrograph and the total area
that is tributary to the model node. The RDII tributary areas were calculated in GIS
using the City’s loading polygons (MGPs), excluding any large vacant, open space, or
other areas in the system which are not expected to contribute to I/I into the collection
system. The tributary area provides a means to transform hourly rainfall depth from
the rainfall hyetographs into a rainfall volume. The rainfall volume is transformed into
actual RDII flows using the unit hydrograph, as described in the next step.
Create I/I parameter database and modify to match field measured flows. The
main step in the WWF calibration process involves creating custom unit hydrographs
for each flow monitoring tributary area using the “RTK Method,” which is widely used
in collection system master planning. Using the RTK Method, the RDII unit
hydrograph is the summation of three separate triangular hydrographs (short term,
medium term, and long term), which are each defined by three parameters: R, T, and
K. R represents the fraction of rainfall over the sewer shed that enters the collection
system; T represents the time to peak of the hydrograph; and K represents the ratio
of time to recession to the time to peak. Therefore, there are a total of nine separate
variables associated with each unit hydrograph. Figure 16 shows the shape of an
example unit hydrograph.
The hydrographs utilize the R-Values (percent of rainfall that enters the collection
system) calculated for each basin to simulate I/I. The nine variables in each unit
hydrograph were initially set based on engineering judgment and then adjusted until
the model simulated flows (both peak flows and average flows) matched closely with
the field measured flows.
As with the dry weather calibration, the wet weather calibration process compared the
meter data with the model output. Comparisons were made for average and peak
flows as well as the temporal distribution of flow until flows returned to their baseline
levels. According to the WaPUG, a hydraulic model is generally considered to be
satisfactorily calibrated to WWF conditions if the modeled peak flows are within
+25 percent to -15 percent of the field measured data, and if the average modeled
flows are within +20 percent to -10 percent of the field measured data.
Refine model variables to match field measured velocity and flow depths. After
the model was considered to be satisfactorily calibrated for wet weather flows, the
model simulated velocities and flow depths were checked against the field measured
velocities and flow depths during the calibration storms. Refinements were made to
the various model parameters so that the modeled and measured velocity and depth
closely matched one another. If any adjustments were made to Manning’s n-values or
other parameters, the BWF calibration was rechecked as well to make sure that the
flow depth and velocities still matched well under BWF conditions.
T1 T1K1
T2 T2K2
T 3K3T3
R1I R2I
R3I
Total RDII Hydrograph
Short Term Hydrograph
Medium Term Hydrograph
Long Term Hydrograph
Figure 16
Example RDII Unit Hydrograph
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
January 17, 2014 - DRAFT 1-44
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/TM01
Appendix B contains a detailed wet weather flow calibration summary sheet for each of the
21 meter sites. Each calibration sheet provides plots that compare the model simulated and
field measured flow, velocity, and level data for the calibration storms. An example of the
wet weather calibration for Site FR06 is shown on Figure 17. Table 11 provides a summary
of the wet weather flow calibration using the average and peak flow results. Additionally,
Figure 18 and Figure 19 show a comparison of the modeled and measured flows at the
RWRF influent pump station for the April 2012 and March 2011 storms, respectively.
It should be noted that there is a considerable amount of I/I contributed into the collection
system in Basin 23 (see Figure 20). This basin is relatively small and receives a significant
amount of flow from Gallo, an SIU.
For this reason, flow data from Gallo was obtained for the April 2012 storm event. Based on
a review of this data, it was confirmed that the majority of the observed I/I flow from Basin
23 appears to be associated with the Gallo property (see Appendix C). Furthermore, the
amount of flow observed in Basin 23 during the April 2012 storm event would suggest that
under PWWF conditions, there will be significant capacity deficiencies cause immediately
downstream of Gallo. For this reason, it is recommended that the City investigate the cause
of the excessive rates of I/I associated with the Gallo property, and work with Gallo to
identify possible solutions to address the issue.
As shown on Table 11, the model simulated average and peak flows at all meter sites were
within the acceptable tolerances for at least two of the three calibration storms, and
therefore the model was considered calibrated and ready to use for capacity analysis
purposes.
6.5 Model Calibration Summary
As documented in this section, there is excellent agreement between the field measured
and hydraulic model simulated flows, depths, and velocities under both BWF and WWF
conditions, and meets the generally accepted standards used to determine the adequacy of
model calibration, according to the WaPUG. For this reason, the model is considered
calibrated.
Figure 17
Example WWF Calibration (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.20
2
4
6
8
10
Rainfall (in/hr)Flow (mgd)Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.20
1
2
3
4
5
6
Rainfall (in/hr)Velocity (ft/s)Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.20
5
10
15
20
25
30
Rainfall (in/hr)Level (in)Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
Table 11 WWF Calibration Sumnmary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.
Meter Diameter Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level
Number (in)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(%)(%)(%)(%)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(%)(%)(%)(%)
FR01 45 3.60 5.50 3.40 9.07 4.08 5.81 3.14 10.46 13.2%5.5%-7.6%15.4%4.14 6.64 3.52 9.69 4.28 6.44 3.19 10.72 3.4%-3.0%-9.6%10.7%
FR02 45 8.86 12.72 3.58 16.78 8.64 13.32 3.67 15.98 -2.5%4.8%2.6%-4.7%8.02 13.11 3.22 16.67 8.51 13.68 3.67 15.89 6.1%4.4%13.8%-4.7%
FR06 36 4.24 7.99 2.52 14.58 4.57 7.80 2.63 14.33 7.8%-2.3%4.5%-1.7%------------------------
FR08 48 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 9.47 15.58 4.46 14.35 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 ------------------------
FR09 39 --------5.73 9.77 3.36 13.48 n/a n/a n/a n/a ------------------------
FR10 0 1.33 2.98 1.19 8.22 1.68 3.26 1.23 10.99 26.1%9.1%2.9%33.7%------------------------
FR11 66 --------4.16 6.22 2.24 11.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a ------------------------
FR12 33 1.79 4.58 1.89 9.28 2.07 4.65 2.06 9.64 15.6%1.5%8.7%3.8%2.11 3.82 1.95 10.32 2.09 3.85 2.08 9.75 -0.9%0.6%6.6%-5.5%
FR13 51 --------9.28 14.37 3.40 17.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10.26 14.43 3.54 17.09 9.62 12.90 3.44 17.40 -6.3%-10.6%-2.7%1.8%
FR14 36 4.36 6.79 2.11 16.88 4.64 7.90 2.32 15.98 6.4%16.3%9.7%-5.3%------------------------
FR15 48 6.33 8.27 2.14 18.79 6.57 9.51 2.29 18.25 3.7%14.9%6.8%-2.9%7.57 11.22 2.36 19.89 7.03 9.87 2.33 18.94 -7.2%-12.0%-1.4%-4.8%
FR16 30 4.13 6.43 3.29 12.56 4.17 7.46 3.35 12.23 0.8%16.0%1.9%-2.7%3.91 6.18 3.18 12.24 4.24 5.87 3.37 12.37 8.3%-4.9%6.0%1.1%
FR19 66 22.98 34.12 5.46 20.79 25.38 37.23 4.99 23.80 10.4%9.1%-8.6%14.5%------------------------
FR20 66 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 31.07 47.74 4.86 28.24 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 ------------------------
FR21 42 5.49 9.33 2.13 17.91 5.24 9.03 2.18 16.76 -4.5%-3.3%2.5%-6.4%------------------------
FR22 45 8.46 12.88 3.02 18.56 8.55 13.45 2.96 18.74 1.1%4.5%-1.7%0.9%------------------------
FR23 27 1.46 5.03 2.01 8.22 1.73 4.52 2.29 8.37 18.6%-10.0%14.0%1.8%------------------------
FR24 72 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 10.32 15.57 2.72 18.42 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 ------------------------
FR25 15 0.12 0.32 1.26 2.48 0.11 0.33 1.22 2.48 -3.4%3.5%-3.1%-0.1%------------------------
FR26 0 0.22 0.67 0.93 5.28 0.25 0.66 0.95 5.91 14.8%-1.5%2.0%11.9%------------------------
FR27 27 ------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Source: City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data
2. Average flow, level, and velocity are calculated from weekday/weekend dry weather flow monitoring data.
3. Base Wastewater Flow = (5*Weekday Base Wastewater Flow + 2*Weekend Base Wastewater Flow)/7
4. "--" indicates that data were not available. "Note 4" indicates that data were available, but with data gaps.
April 13-14, 2012 Storm Event March 20-21, 2011 Storm Event
Measured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)Measured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)
Figure 18
RWRF WWF Calibration (April 2012)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.60
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rainfall (in/hr)Flow (mgd)Rainfall Influent Meter Flow Modeled Flow BWF
Figure 19
RWRF WWF Calibration (March 2011)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.00
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Rainfall (in/hr)Flow (mgd)Rainfall Influent Flow Meter Modeled Flow ADWF
Figure 20
WWF Calibration for Meter 23
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.20
1
2
3
4
5
6
Rainfall (in/hr)Flow (mgd)Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
Technical Memorandum No. 1
APPENDIX A – SITE RECONNAISSANCE RESULTS
MH 1346-25 Herndon and Milburn
MH 1346-25 Herndon and Milburn
MH 1346-25 Herndon and Milburn
MH 1346-25 Herndon and Milburn
MH 1346-25 Herndon and Milburn
MH 1346-25 Herndon and Milburn
MH 2253-15 McKinley and Harrison
MH 2253-15 McKinley and Harrison
MH 2561-21 Chestnut and Washington
MH 2561-21 Chestnut and Washington
MH 2562-59 Chestnut and Washington
MH 2562-59 Chestnut and Washington
MH 2652-03 Whitesbridge and Fruit
MH 3056-03 Jensen and Cherry
MH 3056-03 Jensen and Cherry
MH 3056-03 Jensen and Cherry
MH 3056-03 Jensen and Cherry
MH 3057-07 Cherry Near Church
MH 3057-07 Cherry Near Church
MH 3057-07 Cherry Near Church
MH 3057-07 Cherry Near Church
MH 3057-07 Cherry Near Church
Technical Memorandum No. 1
APPENDIX B – BWF CALIBRATION RESULTS
Table 1 Base Wastewater Flow Calibration Results
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.
Meter Diameter Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level
Number (in)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(%)(%)(%)(%)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(%)(%)(%)(%)(mgd)(mgd)(%)
FR01 45 3.701 5.507 3.36 9.3 3.704 5.212 3.06 10.0 0.1%-5.4%-8.9%7.1%3.904 5.939 3.39 9.5 3.927 5.766 3.09 10.2 0.6%-2.9%-8.7%7.3%3.759 3.768 0.2%
FR02 45 8.049 10.996 3.52 15.9 7.726 10.331 3.59 15.1 -4.0%-6.0%2.0%-4.5%8.135 12.465 3.51 15.9 7.777 11.659 3.57 15.1 -4.4%-6.5%1.7%-4.9%8.074 7.741 -4.1%
FR06 36 4.132 5.207 2.59 14.2 4.131 5.050 2.57 13.6 0.0%-3.0%-0.7%-4.0%4.089 5.758 2.54 14.2 4.118 5.630 2.56 13.5 0.7%-2.2%1.1%-4.7%4.120 4.128 0.2%
FR08 48 7.661 9.894 4.59 12.3 7.672 10.070 4.24 13.0 0.2%1.8%-7.7%5.9%7.131 9.883 4.52 11.7 7.336 10.727 4.16 12.6 2.9%8.5%-7.8%8.1%7.509 7.576 0.9%
FR09 39 5.025 6.285 3.41 12.8 4.860 6.020 3.23 12.4 -3.3%-4.2%-5.4%-2.8%4.673 6.466 3.31 12.3 4.556 6.325 3.16 12.0 -2.5%-2.2%-4.5%-2.8%4.925 4.773 -3.1%
FR10 0 1.491 2.750 1.16 10.4 1.464 2.697 1.19 10.3 -1.8%-1.9%2.3%-1.4%1.496 3.201 1.11 10.0 1.469 3.103 1.15 10.0 -1.8%-3.1%3.4%-0.7%1.492 1.465 -1.8%
FR11 66 3.582 5.199 2.23 10.3 3.609 4.851 2.16 10.8 0.8%-6.7%-3.3%4.3%3.483 5.471 2.24 10.0 3.665 5.539 2.16 10.7 5.2%1.2%-3.7%7.0%3.554 3.625 2.0%
FR12 33 1.578 2.513 1.89 8.6 1.579 2.502 1.93 8.5 0.0%-0.4%1.9%-1.6%1.590 2.673 1.84 8.7 1.592 2.671 1.91 8.4 0.1%-0.1%3.9%-2.9%1.582 1.582 0.0%
FR13 51 8.526 10.118 3.29 15.8 8.329 9.611 3.31 16.2 -2.3%-5.0%0.6%2.3%7.951 10.072 3.24 15.2 7.902 9.556 3.26 15.7 -0.6%-5.1%0.6%3.6%8.362 8.207 -1.9%
FR14 36 4.058 4.998 2.40 14.4 4.022 4.819 2.25 14.8 -0.9%-3.6%-6.1%2.9%4.017 5.367 2.39 14.3 3.762 4.806 2.21 14.2 -6.3%-10.4%-7.8%-0.1%4.046 3.948 -2.4%
FR15 48 6.194 7.184 2.19 18.2 6.071 6.949 2.25 17.5 -2.0%-3.3%2.7%-3.5%5.939 7.337 2.17 17.7 5.850 7.075 2.22 17.2 -1.5%-3.6%2.5%-3.1%6.121 6.008 -1.9%
FR16 30 3.724 4.692 3.34 11.5 3.702 4.463 3.26 11.5 -0.6%-4.9%-2.5%0.3%3.708 5.104 3.32 11.5 3.667 4.664 3.24 11.4 -1.1%-8.6%-2.3%-0.5%3.720 3.692 -0.7%
FR19 66 23.147 27.598 4.52 24.1 23.071 27.048 4.89 22.7 -0.3%-2.0%8.2%-5.8%20.907 26.800 4.35 22.8 22.057 28.163 4.81 22.1 5.5%5.1%10.6%-3.2%22.507 22.781 1.2%
FR20 66 29.854 34.806 4.60 28.6 26.961 31.643 4.71 26.2 -9.7%-9.1%2.3%-8.3%26.650 34.503 4.48 26.6 25.500 31.954 4.62 25.4 -4.3%-7.4%3.1%-4.6%28.939 26.544 -8.3%
FR21 42 4.403 5.596 2.11 15.3 4.451 5.716 2.11 15.4 1.1%2.1%0.0%0.9%4.454 6.167 2.10 15.4 4.541 6.199 2.11 15.6 1.9%0.5%0.7%0.7%4.418 4.477 1.3%
FR22 45 7.461 9.611 2.90 17.5 7.471 9.230 2.88 17.5 0.1%-4.0%-0.8%0.0%7.615 10.754 2.90 17.6 7.650 10.427 2.88 17.6 0.5%-3.0%-0.5%0.1%7.505 7.522 0.2%
FR23 27 1.251 1.638 2.08 7.5 1.262 1.521 2.20 7.4 0.9%-7.2%5.5%-1.5%0.762 1.032 1.94 5.5 0.827 1.469 1.93 5.9 8.5%42.4%-0.6%7.6%1.111 1.138 2.4%
FR24 72 8.120 10.599 2.60 16.1 8.987 11.826 2.63 17.3 10.7%11.6%0.9%7.5%8.216 11.913 2.61 16.1 9.103 13.093 2.63 17.3 10.8%9.9%0.8%7.5%8.147 9.021 10.7%
FR25 15 0.082 0.121 1.11 2.1 0.082 0.121 1.12 2.1 0.1%0.1%1.1%1.0%0.079 0.134 1.12 2.0 0.079 0.134 1.10 2.1 0.2%-0.1%-2.0%3.0%0.081 0.081 0.1%
FR26 0 0.190 0.311 0.92 4.9 0.192 0.308 0.91 5.1 1.4%-1.0%-1.1%2.6%0.195 0.321 0.93 5.0 0.198 0.322 0.91 5.1 1.3%0.4%-1.9%3.3%0.191 0.194 1.3%
FR27 27 1.900 2.558 1.82 12.1 1.900 2.546 1.86 11.1 0.0%-0.5%2.6%-8.4%1.935 2.786 1.86 12.1 1.935 2.783 1.86 11.2 0.0%-0.1%0.1%-7.4%1.910 1.910 0.0%
Notes:
1. Source: City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data
2. Average flow, level, and velocity are calculated from weekday/weekend dry weather flow monitoring data. Maximum flow values are hourly peaks corresponding to either weekend or weekday confitions, as appropriate.
3. Percent Difference = (Modeled - Measured)/Measured*100.
4. Base Wastewater Flow = (5*Weekday Base Wastewater Flow + 2*Weekend Base Wastewater Flow)/7
Modeled
BWF
Percent
Difference
Weekday Base Wastewater Flow Weekend Base Wastewater Flow Base Wastewater Flow(4)
Measured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)Measured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)
Measured
BWF
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 3.908 9.7 3.46 4.134 10.7 3.19 0.61
1 2.958 8.5 3.17 3.350 9.6 3.00 0.49
2 2.282 7.5 2.92 2.629 8.5 2.80 0.42
3 1.863 6.9 2.71 2.096 7.6 2.62 0.41
4 1.581 6.4 2.55 1.783 7.0 2.49 0.50
5 1.549 6.3 2.56 1.724 6.9 2.47 0.78
6 1.892 6.9 2.74 2.027 7.5 2.59 1.12
7 2.945 8.4 3.18 2.710 8.7 2.82 1.20
8 4.222 10.0 3.58 3.543 9.9 3.05 1.13
9 4.522 10.3 3.68 4.134 10.7 3.19 1.08
10 4.230 10.0 3.59 4.280 10.9 3.23 1.08
11 4.075 9.9 3.53 4.177 10.7 3.20 1.06
12 4.047 9.9 3.50 4.069 10.6 3.18 1.03
13 3.981 9.8 3.48 3.995 10.5 3.16 1.00
14 3.890 9.7 3.47 3.916 10.4 3.14 1.00
15 3.773 9.6 3.42 3.841 10.3 3.13 1.03
16 3.747 9.5 3.43 3.815 10.2 3.12 1.11
17 3.860 9.6 3.45 3.900 10.4 3.14 1.23
18 4.161 9.9 3.57 4.132 10.7 3.19 1.37
19 4.616 10.4 3.69 4.502 11.1 3.27 1.47
20 5.158 11.1 3.78 4.918 11.6 3.36 1.42
21 5.507 11.6 3.81 5.212 12.0 3.41 1.26
22 5.351 11.4 3.77 5.202 12.0 3.41 1.04
23 4.718 10.6 3.68 4.815 11.5 3.34 0.79
24 3.672 9.4 3.40 4.141 10.7 3.19 0.66
25 3.063 8.6 3.23 3.393 9.7 3.01 0.54
26 2.480 7.8 3.01 2.722 8.7 2.83 0.45
27 2.014 7.1 2.81 2.227 7.9 2.66 0.40
28 1.684 6.5 2.64 1.869 7.2 2.53 0.40
29 1.524 6.3 2.54 1.651 6.8 2.44 0.45
30 1.502 6.2 2.52 1.605 6.7 2.42 0.60
31 1.700 6.6 2.65 1.786 7.1 2.50 0.91
32 2.267 7.5 2.92 2.281 7.9 2.68 1.22
33 3.409 9.0 3.34 3.102 9.3 2.94 1.47
34 4.582 10.4 3.68 4.109 10.6 3.19 1.58
35 5.522 11.6 3.82 5.013 11.8 3.38 1.57
36 5.939 12.1 3.85 5.589 12.4 3.48 1.48
37 5.889 12.1 3.82 5.766 12.6 3.51 1.39
38 5.568 11.7 3.79 5.634 12.5 3.49 1.29
39 5.235 11.2 3.78 5.347 12.1 3.44 1.25
40 4.858 10.8 3.72 5.053 11.8 3.38 1.26
41 4.709 10.6 3.69 4.842 11.6 3.34 1.27
42 4.721 10.6 3.70 4.763 11.5 3.33 1.31
43 4.788 10.7 3.72 4.787 11.5 3.33 1.30
44 4.911 10.8 3.73 4.834 11.5 3.34 1.24
45 4.887 10.8 3.73 4.813 11.5 3.34 1.10
46 4.654 10.5 3.68 4.632 11.3 3.30 0.98
47 4.126 9.9 3.54 4.281 10.9 3.23 0.82
Weekday 3.701 9.3 3.36 3.704 10.0 3.06 0.98
Weekend 3.904 9.5 3.39 3.927 10.2 3.09 1.04
BWF(1)3.759 9.4 3.37 3.768 10.1 3.07 1.00
Weekday 0.1%7.1%-8.9%
Weekend 0.6%7.3%-8.7%
Note:
1. BWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DiurnalMeasured Data Modeled Data
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR01 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
WeekdayWeekendAverage
% Error
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 9.994 18.0 3.78 9.489 17.0 3.83 0.34
1 8.962 16.8 3.72 8.573 16.1 3.73 0.33
2 7.253 15.3 3.44 7.353 14.9 3.57 0.32
3 5.672 13.5 3.20 5.977 13.4 3.37 0.36
4 4.670 12.3 3.01 4.657 11.8 3.14 0.48
5 3.865 11.2 2.87 3.800 10.6 2.96 0.92
6 3.425 10.6 2.75 3.642 10.4 2.92 1.79
7 3.639 10.8 2.82 4.231 11.2 3.05 1.89
8 4.097 11.5 2.90 5.191 12.4 3.24 1.46
9 5.629 13.4 3.21 6.512 14.0 3.45 1.13
10 8.545 16.3 3.67 8.123 15.7 3.67 1.04
11 10.685 18.6 3.86 9.487 17.0 3.83 1.05
12 10.996 19.1 3.86 10.331 17.8 3.92 1.02
13 10.170 18.2 3.79 10.241 17.8 3.91 0.99
14 9.894 17.9 3.76 9.272 16.8 3.81 0.98
15 9.652 17.6 3.75 8.434 16.0 3.71 1.03
16 9.166 17.1 3.70 8.145 15.7 3.67 1.12
17 8.763 16.8 3.65 8.085 15.6 3.67 1.33
18 8.547 16.5 3.65 8.095 15.6 3.67 1.50
19 8.718 16.6 3.70 8.325 15.9 3.70 1.55
20 9.305 17.1 3.77 8.692 16.3 3.74 1.31
21 9.930 17.7 3.84 9.233 16.8 3.80 1.01
22 10.856 18.8 3.87 9.706 17.2 3.85 0.73
23 10.753 18.8 3.84 9.837 17.4 3.87 0.52
24 8.855 16.6 3.73 9.500 17.1 3.83 0.46
25 8.345 16.0 3.71 8.637 16.2 3.73 0.34
26 7.183 15.1 3.47 7.428 15.0 3.58 0.33
27 5.834 13.7 3.22 6.103 13.5 3.39 0.33
28 5.075 12.6 3.15 4.809 12.0 3.17 0.34
29 4.089 11.5 2.90 3.792 10.6 2.96 0.44
30 3.607 10.8 2.81 3.345 10.0 2.85 0.69
31 3.324 10.4 2.75 3.227 9.8 2.82 1.17
32 3.361 10.5 2.74 3.606 10.3 2.91 1.86
33 3.834 11.1 2.89 4.497 11.6 3.10 1.91
34 5.008 12.6 3.13 5.741 13.1 3.33 1.71
35 7.467 15.2 3.54 7.388 14.9 3.58 1.46
36 10.763 18.6 3.92 9.242 16.8 3.80 1.31
37 12.197 20.3 3.95 10.846 18.3 3.97 1.20
38 12.465 20.6 3.93 11.659 19.1 4.05 1.12
39 12.224 20.5 3.90 11.510 18.9 4.04 1.12
40 11.518 19.8 3.85 10.919 18.4 3.98 1.16
41 10.722 18.8 3.82 10.270 17.8 3.91 1.20
42 10.133 18.2 3.79 9.781 17.3 3.86 1.21
43 9.934 17.9 3.80 9.357 16.9 3.82 1.12
44 9.956 17.9 3.81 9.075 16.6 3.78 0.99
45 9.989 17.8 3.83 8.860 16.4 3.76 0.88
46 9.960 17.9 3.80 8.680 16.2 3.74 0.68
47 9.393 17.1 3.80 8.372 15.9 3.70 0.51
Weekday 8.049 15.9 3.52 7.726 15.1 3.59 1.01
Weekend 8.135 15.9 3.51 7.777 15.1 3.57 0.98
ADWF(1)8.074 15.9 3.51 7.741 15.1 3.58 1.00
Weekday -4.0%-4.5%2.0%
Weekend -4.4%-4.9%1.7%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR02 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 4.250 14.4 2.66 4.429 14.2 2.64 0.71
1 3.507 13.4 2.42 3.873 13.2 2.55 0.60
2 3.020 12.4 2.31 3.300 12.1 2.44 0.55
3 2.551 11.6 2.14 2.807 11.1 2.33 0.51
4 2.294 11.1 2.06 2.458 10.4 2.24 0.51
5 2.105 10.7 1.99 2.264 10.0 2.19 0.67
6 2.097 10.8 1.95 2.312 10.1 2.20 0.99
7 2.672 11.8 2.19 2.705 10.9 2.31 1.21
8 3.894 13.8 2.59 3.399 12.3 2.46 1.27
9 4.787 15.2 2.79 4.167 13.8 2.60 1.22
10 5.159 15.7 2.89 4.774 14.8 2.70 1.18
11 5.038 15.6 2.85 5.012 15.2 2.73 1.20
12 4.849 15.5 2.75 4.971 15.1 2.73 1.15
13 4.946 15.5 2.81 4.896 15.0 2.71 1.11
14 4.781 15.4 2.75 4.813 14.9 2.70 1.06
15 4.673 15.1 2.75 4.736 14.7 2.69 1.06
16 4.490 14.9 2.69 4.618 14.5 2.67 1.11
17 4.454 14.9 2.67 4.546 14.4 2.66 1.16
18 4.601 14.9 2.75 4.578 14.5 2.67 1.18
19 4.799 15.1 2.82 4.699 14.7 2.69 1.27
20 4.890 15.5 2.77 4.874 15.0 2.71 1.26
21 5.207 15.8 2.89 5.024 15.2 2.73 1.19
22 5.197 15.7 2.91 5.050 15.3 2.74 1.02
23 4.906 15.3 2.83 4.849 14.9 2.71 0.82
24 3.842 14.0 2.50 4.428 14.2 2.64 0.70
25 3.508 13.3 2.44 3.867 13.2 2.55 0.61
26 2.983 12.6 2.24 3.292 12.1 2.44 0.55
27 2.576 11.9 2.10 2.804 11.1 2.33 0.49
28 2.316 11.2 2.04 2.463 10.4 2.24 0.49
29 2.083 10.9 1.92 2.235 9.9 2.18 0.51
30 2.044 10.7 1.93 2.138 9.7 2.16 0.64
31 2.095 10.9 1.93 2.216 9.9 2.18 0.85
32 2.562 11.7 2.12 2.552 10.6 2.27 1.13
33 3.380 13.2 2.39 3.171 11.9 2.41 1.37
34 4.454 14.9 2.66 3.991 13.4 2.57 1.44
35 5.432 16.1 2.94 4.806 14.9 2.70 1.42
36 5.758 16.6 3.00 5.386 15.8 2.78 1.35
37 5.745 16.7 2.96 5.630 16.2 2.82 1.31
38 5.496 16.5 2.89 5.588 16.2 2.81 1.24
39 5.374 16.2 2.88 5.414 15.9 2.79 1.20
40 5.077 15.9 2.80 5.207 15.5 2.76 1.17
41 4.921 15.7 2.75 5.032 15.2 2.73 1.20
42 4.791 15.6 2.70 4.914 15.0 2.72 1.21
43 4.911 15.6 2.77 4.889 15.0 2.71 1.18
44 4.965 15.5 2.82 4.894 15.0 2.71 1.13
45 4.876 15.5 2.76 4.840 14.9 2.71 1.02
46 4.664 15.3 2.71 4.680 14.6 2.68 0.91
47 4.274 14.6 2.62 4.390 14.1 2.64 0.82
Weekday 4.132 14.2 2.59 4.131 13.6 2.57 1.00
Weekend 4.089 14.2 2.54 4.118 13.5 2.56 1.00
ADWF(1)4.120 14.2 2.58 4.128 13.6 2.57 1.00
Weekday 0.0%-4.0%-0.7%
Weekend 0.7%-4.7%1.1%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR06 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 7.854 12.5 4.68 8.322 13.7 4.37 0.23
1 6.447 11.6 4.25 6.911 12.4 4.15 0.15
2 5.604 10.9 4.03 5.519 11.1 3.88 0.27
3 5.106 10.5 3.91 4.546 10.1 3.67 0.37
4 4.567 9.8 3.78 4.130 9.6 3.57 0.48
5 4.376 9.7 3.70 4.085 9.6 3.56 0.63
6 4.494 9.8 3.73 4.347 9.9 3.62 0.97
7 5.296 10.6 3.97 5.108 10.7 3.80 1.25
8 6.277 11.5 4.22 6.265 11.8 4.03 1.50
9 7.532 12.2 4.62 7.620 13.1 4.26 1.56
10 8.531 12.9 4.85 8.817 14.1 4.44 1.39
11 9.041 13.2 4.95 9.485 14.6 4.54 1.19
12 9.030 13.3 4.94 9.414 14.6 4.53 1.13
13 8.864 13.2 4.89 9.000 14.2 4.47 1.04
14 8.720 13.1 4.87 8.736 14.0 4.43 0.94
15 8.540 13.0 4.81 8.484 13.8 4.40 0.94
16 8.510 13.0 4.81 8.344 13.7 4.38 1.01
17 8.624 13.1 4.81 8.381 13.7 4.38 1.16
18 8.875 13.2 4.89 8.608 13.9 4.42 1.27
19 9.101 13.3 4.94 8.967 14.2 4.47 1.44
20 9.598 13.5 5.11 9.497 14.6 4.54 1.54
21 9.894 13.7 5.20 9.934 15.0 4.60 1.41
22 9.801 13.6 5.18 10.070 15.1 4.62 1.11
23 9.168 13.3 4.98 9.543 14.7 4.55 0.55
24 6.597 11.7 4.32 8.322 13.7 4.37 0.23
25 6.011 11.2 4.17 6.917 12.4 4.15 0.20
26 5.697 10.7 4.19 5.596 11.2 3.90 0.32
27 5.109 10.3 3.97 4.556 10.1 3.67 0.43
28 4.411 9.5 3.83 3.965 9.4 3.53 0.33
29 3.651 8.3 3.74 3.556 8.9 3.42 0.47
30 3.663 8.3 3.76 3.469 8.8 3.39 0.64
31 3.881 8.5 3.85 3.749 9.2 3.47 1.02
32 4.620 9.7 3.91 4.440 10.0 3.65 1.36
33 5.502 10.7 4.10 5.518 11.1 3.88 1.60
34 6.573 11.6 4.35 6.894 12.4 4.14 1.97
35 8.307 12.7 4.83 8.620 13.9 4.42 2.07
36 9.560 13.5 5.13 10.111 15.1 4.62 1.85
37 9.883 13.6 5.23 10.727 15.6 4.70 1.61
38 9.850 13.6 5.20 10.629 15.5 4.69 1.38
39 9.572 13.5 5.09 10.165 15.1 4.63 1.20
40 9.119 13.3 4.96 9.482 14.6 4.54 1.12
41 8.746 13.0 4.89 8.898 14.1 4.46 1.12
42 8.605 13.0 4.85 8.588 13.9 4.41 1.14
43 8.558 13.0 4.83 8.500 13.8 4.40 1.25
44 8.662 13.0 4.88 8.536 13.8 4.40 1.23
45 8.555 12.9 4.84 8.555 13.8 4.41 1.19
46 8.343 12.8 4.79 8.393 13.7 4.38 0.94
47 7.678 12.4 4.63 7.884 13.3 4.31 0.52
Weekday 7.661 12.3 4.59 7.672 13.0 4.24 0.98
Weekend 7.131 11.7 4.52 7.336 12.6 4.16 1.05
ADWF(1)7.509 12.1 4.57 7.576 12.9 4.22 1.00
Weekday 0.2%5.9%-7.7%
Weekend 2.9%8.1%-7.8%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR08 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 4.899 12.9 3.38 5.098 12.9 3.31 0.66
1 3.962 11.5 3.19 4.255 11.7 3.14 0.52
2 3.182 10.3 2.97 3.371 10.4 2.94 0.46
3 2.679 9.5 2.80 2.757 9.4 2.78 0.48
4 2.559 9.2 2.80 2.485 8.9 2.69 0.49
5 2.465 9.1 2.76 2.374 8.7 2.66 0.56
6 2.647 9.4 2.83 2.518 9.0 2.70 0.77
7 3.335 10.5 3.04 3.028 9.8 2.85 1.12
8 4.599 12.4 3.33 3.930 11.2 3.07 1.33
9 5.742 13.9 3.57 5.068 12.8 3.30 1.32
10 6.168 14.2 3.71 5.834 13.8 3.43 1.26
11 6.082 14.1 3.70 5.944 13.9 3.45 1.25
12 6.121 14.2 3.70 5.981 14.0 3.46 1.26
13 6.220 14.3 3.71 6.020 14.0 3.46 1.30
14 6.285 14.4 3.71 6.008 14.0 3.46 1.22
15 6.035 14.2 3.65 5.896 13.9 3.44 1.15
16 5.792 14.0 3.55 5.720 13.7 3.42 1.12
17 5.599 13.8 3.50 5.528 13.4 3.38 1.22
18 5.832 14.0 3.57 5.559 13.5 3.39 1.29
19 6.055 14.2 3.64 5.697 13.6 3.41 1.25
20 6.057 14.0 3.71 5.876 13.9 3.44 1.26
21 6.191 14.2 3.72 5.987 14.0 3.46 1.22
22 6.087 14.1 3.72 5.937 13.9 3.45 1.20
23 6.010 14.0 3.68 5.759 13.7 3.42 0.88
24 4.375 12.1 3.29 5.094 12.9 3.31 0.65
25 3.933 11.5 3.15 4.245 11.7 3.14 0.53
26 3.230 10.4 2.99 3.398 10.4 2.95 0.46
27 2.742 9.7 2.81 2.812 9.5 2.79 0.47
28 2.524 9.3 2.74 2.473 8.9 2.69 0.47
29 2.383 9.0 2.73 2.291 8.6 2.63 0.43
30 2.162 8.6 2.64 2.150 8.3 2.58 0.52
31 2.344 8.9 2.71 2.198 8.4 2.60 0.64
32 2.711 9.6 2.83 2.481 8.9 2.69 0.89
33 3.606 11.1 3.04 3.167 10.1 2.89 1.17
34 4.767 12.7 3.33 4.164 11.6 3.12 1.36
35 5.870 14.0 3.59 5.254 13.1 3.34 1.37
36 6.349 14.5 3.73 5.983 14.0 3.46 1.30
37 6.466 14.7 3.71 6.325 14.4 3.51 1.24
38 6.377 14.6 3.71 6.281 14.4 3.50 1.19
39 6.246 14.3 3.72 6.139 14.2 3.48 1.17
40 6.099 14.2 3.68 5.969 14.0 3.46 1.19
41 6.012 14.1 3.64 5.812 13.8 3.43 1.20
42 5.925 14.1 3.61 5.724 13.7 3.42 1.22
43 5.947 14.0 3.65 5.721 13.7 3.42 1.23
44 5.950 14.1 3.62 5.702 13.6 3.41 1.11
45 5.639 13.8 3.54 5.590 13.5 3.39 1.06
46 5.463 13.5 3.54 5.387 13.2 3.36 0.95
47 5.044 13.0 3.44 4.982 12.7 3.29 0.69
Weekday 5.025 12.8 3.41 4.860 12.4 3.23 1.02
Weekend 4.673 12.3 3.31 4.556 12.0 3.16 0.94
ADWF(1)4.925 12.6 3.38 4.773 12.3 3.21 1.00
Weekday -3.3%-2.8%-5.4%
Weekend -2.5%-2.8%-4.5%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR09 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 1.456 11.1 1.20 1.415 10.7 1.25 0.98
1 0.678 8.8 0.77 0.663 7.3 1.00 0.45
2 0.326 6.9 0.53 0.321 5.1 0.81 0.22
3 0.206 5.9 0.41 0.205 4.1 0.71 0.14
4 0.105 4.8 0.26 0.108 3.0 0.58 0.07
5 0.084 4.2 0.19 0.095 2.9 0.56 0.06
6 0.193 5.3 0.33 0.228 4.3 0.73 0.13
7 0.972 9.6 0.96 0.997 8.9 1.13 0.65
8 2.038 12.2 1.50 2.010 12.8 1.38 1.37
9 2.317 12.7 1.61 2.264 13.7 1.43 1.55
10 2.425 12.8 1.66 2.364 14.0 1.44 1.63
11 2.298 12.7 1.60 2.238 13.6 1.42 1.54
12 2.058 12.3 1.50 2.004 12.8 1.38 1.38
13 1.696 11.6 1.33 1.656 11.6 1.31 1.14
14 1.444 11.1 1.21 1.415 10.7 1.25 0.97
15 1.337 10.8 1.15 1.313 10.3 1.22 0.90
16 1.194 10.5 1.07 1.178 9.7 1.19 0.80
17 1.210 10.6 1.08 1.197 9.8 1.19 0.81
18 1.526 11.3 1.25 1.503 11.0 1.27 1.02
19 1.937 12.1 1.44 1.908 12.5 1.36 1.30
20 2.481 13.0 1.67 2.442 14.2 1.45 1.66
21 2.750 13.4 1.77 2.697 15.0 1.49 1.84
22 2.728 13.4 1.75 2.655 14.9 1.49 1.83
23 2.317 12.8 1.59 2.248 13.6 1.42 1.55
24 1.100 10.4 1.00 1.072 9.3 1.15 0.74
25 0.578 8.5 0.68 0.568 6.7 0.96 0.39
26 0.341 7.3 0.51 0.335 5.2 0.82 0.23
27 0.250 6.5 0.44 0.247 4.5 0.75 0.17
28 0.129 5.4 0.28 0.131 3.3 0.62 0.09
29 0.139 5.5 0.27 0.148 3.5 0.64 0.09
30 0.058 4.2 0.14 0.098 2.9 0.57 0.04
31 0.039 3.9 0.11 0.101 2.9 0.57 0.03
32 0.055 4.2 0.19 0.105 3.0 0.58 0.04
33 0.596 7.5 0.67 0.611 7.0 0.98 0.40
34 1.960 12.0 1.45 1.918 12.5 1.36 1.31
35 2.904 13.6 1.83 2.820 15.4 1.51 1.95
36 3.201 14.1 1.93 3.103 16.2 1.55 2.15
37 3.070 13.9 1.89 2.977 15.9 1.53 2.06
38 2.737 13.4 1.77 2.658 14.9 1.49 1.83
39 2.437 12.9 1.65 2.370 14.0 1.44 1.63
40 2.129 12.4 1.52 2.077 13.0 1.39 1.43
41 2.033 12.2 1.48 1.988 12.7 1.38 1.36
42 2.045 12.3 1.49 2.004 12.8 1.38 1.37
43 2.152 12.4 1.53 2.114 13.2 1.40 1.44
44 2.233 12.6 1.56 2.204 13.5 1.41 1.50
45 2.202 12.5 1.55 2.171 13.3 1.41 1.48
46 2.042 12.2 1.47 1.997 12.8 1.38 1.37
47 1.462 11.2 1.20 1.427 10.7 1.25 0.98
Weekday 1.491 10.4 1.16 1.464 10.3 1.19 1.00
Weekend 1.496 10.0 1.11 1.469 10.0 1.15 1.00
ADWF(1)1.492 10.3 1.15 1.465 10.2 1.17 1.00
Weekday -1.8%-1.4%2.3%
Weekend -1.8%-0.7%3.4%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR10 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 4.997 13.3 2.21 4.790 12.5 2.37 0.33
1 5.199 13.2 2.30 4.851 12.6 2.38 0.21
2 4.738 12.7 2.23 4.700 12.4 2.36 0.28
3 4.157 11.7 2.20 4.249 11.8 2.29 0.47
4 3.330 10.1 2.17 3.607 10.9 2.18 0.61
5 2.583 8.5 2.15 2.839 9.7 2.03 0.84
6 1.889 7.1 2.08 2.047 8.3 1.84 1.04
7 1.605 6.1 2.17 1.650 7.5 1.73 1.20
8 1.612 6.1 2.23 1.725 7.6 1.75 1.75
9 1.932 6.8 2.27 1.989 8.1 1.83 1.60
10 2.244 7.6 2.23 2.394 8.9 1.93 1.12
11 2.578 8.2 2.27 2.841 9.7 2.03 0.98
12 3.920 10.8 2.34 3.292 10.4 2.13 0.87
13 4.496 11.9 2.33 4.106 11.6 2.27 0.81
14 4.410 12.0 2.24 4.683 12.3 2.36 0.79
15 4.374 11.9 2.27 4.516 12.1 2.33 0.88
16 4.195 11.6 2.25 4.275 11.8 2.30 1.08
17 3.937 11.2 2.23 4.028 11.5 2.26 1.31
18 3.625 10.5 2.26 3.802 11.1 2.22 1.50
19 3.477 10.3 2.22 3.664 10.9 2.19 1.86
20 3.634 10.6 2.23 3.744 11.1 2.21 1.72
21 3.926 11.0 2.26 4.023 11.5 2.26 1.60
22 4.181 11.7 2.23 4.271 11.8 2.30 1.10
23 4.929 12.8 2.28 4.536 12.2 2.34 0.70
24 4.149 11.6 2.23 4.790 12.5 2.37 0.09
25 4.037 11.4 2.21 4.846 12.6 2.38 0.16
26 3.904 10.9 2.28 4.623 12.3 2.35 0.46
27 3.362 10.0 2.25 4.129 11.6 2.27 0.49
28 2.897 9.1 2.21 3.556 10.8 2.17 0.42
29 2.396 8.1 2.15 2.691 9.4 2.00 0.50
30 1.944 7.0 2.17 1.703 7.6 1.75 0.68
31 1.576 6.1 2.14 1.453 7.0 1.66 1.06
32 1.275 5.2 2.18 1.457 7.0 1.67 1.21
33 1.341 5.3 2.22 1.596 7.3 1.71 1.37
34 1.611 5.9 2.30 1.846 7.9 1.79 2.04
35 2.327 7.7 2.25 2.228 8.6 1.89 2.28
36 2.581 8.2 2.27 2.773 9.6 2.02 1.65
37 2.907 9.0 2.25 3.383 10.5 2.14 1.19
38 4.270 11.4 2.33 3.810 11.2 2.22 0.73
39 5.432 13.4 2.37 4.557 12.2 2.34 0.72
40 5.471 13.9 2.26 5.428 13.3 2.46 0.94
41 5.366 13.6 2.28 5.539 13.4 2.48 0.98
42 4.673 13.0 2.14 5.207 13.0 2.43 1.24
43 4.472 12.4 2.18 4.803 12.5 2.38 1.04
44 4.558 12.1 2.30 4.534 12.1 2.34 1.26
45 4.345 12.0 2.21 4.403 12.0 2.32 0.97
46 4.574 12.1 2.29 4.317 11.9 2.30 0.65
47 4.129 11.6 2.22 4.297 11.8 2.30 0.26
Weekday 3.582 10.3 2.23 3.609 10.8 2.16 1.03
Weekend 3.483 10.0 2.24 3.665 10.7 2.16 0.93
ADWF(1)3.554 10.2 2.24 3.625 10.8 2.16 1.00
Weekday 0.8%4.3%-3.3%
Weekend 5.2%7.0%-3.7%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR11 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 1.415 8.2 1.89 1.450 8.3 1.92 0.89
1 1.051 6.9 1.80 1.076 7.1 1.76 0.66
2 0.791 6.0 1.67 0.808 6.2 1.62 0.50
3 0.635 5.4 1.57 0.646 5.6 1.52 0.40
4 0.530 5.0 1.47 0.537 5.1 1.43 0.33
5 0.466 4.7 1.40 0.469 4.8 1.38 0.29
6 0.559 5.1 1.48 0.554 5.1 1.45 0.35
7 1.229 7.5 1.84 1.185 7.5 1.81 0.78
8 2.260 10.8 2.08 2.192 10.2 2.16 1.43
9 2.356 11.1 2.09 2.351 10.6 2.20 1.49
10 1.975 9.9 2.03 2.001 9.8 2.11 1.25
11 1.819 9.5 2.00 1.830 9.3 2.05 1.15
12 1.807 9.4 2.01 1.809 9.3 2.05 1.14
13 1.667 9.0 1.98 1.677 8.9 2.00 1.05
14 1.606 8.8 1.97 1.611 8.7 1.98 1.02
15 1.481 8.4 1.92 1.489 8.4 1.93 0.94
16 1.512 8.5 1.94 1.510 8.5 1.94 0.96
17 1.658 9.0 1.97 1.648 8.8 1.99 1.05
18 1.786 9.4 1.98 1.778 9.2 2.04 1.13
19 2.098 10.3 2.04 2.077 10.0 2.13 1.33
20 2.338 11.1 2.06 2.324 10.6 2.20 1.48
21 2.513 11.6 2.10 2.502 11.0 2.24 1.59
22 2.395 11.2 2.09 2.403 10.7 2.22 1.51
23 1.928 9.9 1.99 1.960 9.7 2.09 1.22
24 1.315 7.9 1.86 1.356 8.0 1.88 0.83
25 1.042 7.0 1.75 1.061 7.1 1.75 0.66
26 0.800 6.1 1.62 0.817 6.2 1.62 0.51
27 0.646 5.5 1.53 0.657 5.6 1.52 0.41
28 0.529 5.0 1.44 0.536 5.1 1.43 0.33
29 0.438 4.6 1.35 0.444 4.6 1.36 0.28
30 0.427 4.6 1.32 0.428 4.5 1.34 0.27
31 0.507 5.0 1.40 0.502 4.9 1.41 0.32
32 0.992 6.8 1.73 0.960 6.7 1.70 0.63
33 1.683 9.0 1.97 1.637 8.8 1.99 1.06
34 2.289 11.0 2.03 2.249 10.4 2.18 1.45
35 2.630 12.1 2.07 2.608 11.2 2.27 1.66
36 2.673 12.2 2.08 2.671 11.4 2.28 1.69
37 2.636 11.9 2.11 2.640 11.3 2.28 1.67
38 2.380 11.3 2.06 2.398 10.7 2.22 1.50
39 2.152 10.5 2.05 2.167 10.2 2.15 1.36
40 1.923 10.0 1.97 1.939 9.6 2.09 1.22
41 1.830 9.7 1.96 1.837 9.3 2.05 1.16
42 1.880 9.8 1.97 1.878 9.5 2.07 1.19
43 1.987 10.0 2.02 1.980 9.7 2.10 1.26
44 1.984 10.1 2.00 1.984 9.7 2.10 1.25
45 1.985 10.0 2.01 1.985 9.7 2.10 1.25
46 1.848 9.6 1.98 1.858 9.4 2.06 1.17
47 1.587 8.8 1.94 1.604 8.7 1.98 1.00
Weekday 1.578 8.6 1.89 1.579 8.5 1.93 1.00
Weekend 1.590 8.7 1.84 1.592 8.4 1.91 1.01
ADWF(1)1.582 8.6 1.88 1.582 8.5 1.92 1.00
Weekday 0.0%-1.6%1.9%
Weekend 0.1%-2.9%3.9%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR12 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 9.655 16.8 3.46 9.313 17.2 3.43 0.79
1 9.037 16.4 3.36 8.931 16.8 3.39 0.70
2 8.211 15.6 3.28 8.392 16.3 3.33 0.66
3 7.339 14.8 3.12 7.765 15.6 3.26 0.65
4 6.626 14.2 2.98 7.159 15.0 3.18 0.69
5 6.203 13.7 2.94 6.644 14.4 3.12 0.78
6 5.934 13.4 2.91 6.297 14.0 3.07 0.89
7 5.898 13.3 2.91 6.071 13.8 3.04 1.03
8 6.191 13.6 2.98 6.101 13.8 3.04 1.10
9 6.758 14.2 3.04 6.411 14.2 3.09 1.18
10 7.684 15.1 3.20 6.976 14.8 3.16 1.19
11 8.423 15.7 3.31 7.727 15.6 3.25 1.18
12 9.214 16.5 3.40 8.480 16.4 3.34 1.14
13 9.555 16.7 3.46 9.020 16.9 3.40 1.15
14 9.691 16.9 3.46 9.367 17.2 3.43 1.11
15 9.656 16.9 3.44 9.454 17.3 3.44 1.10
16 9.704 17.0 3.43 9.392 17.3 3.44 1.13
17 9.524 16.7 3.43 9.339 17.2 3.43 1.22
18 9.572 16.8 3.43 9.405 17.3 3.44 1.24
19 9.671 16.8 3.46 9.456 17.3 3.44 1.26
20 9.977 17.0 3.51 9.479 17.4 3.45 1.23
21 10.028 17.1 3.53 9.572 17.4 3.45 1.18
22 10.118 17.1 3.54 9.611 17.5 3.46 1.06
23 9.964 17.0 3.51 9.537 17.4 3.45 0.92
24 8.636 15.8 3.35 9.309 17.2 3.43 0.69
25 7.971 15.4 3.23 8.901 16.8 3.39 0.64
26 7.494 15.0 3.15 8.313 16.2 3.32 0.60
27 6.880 14.4 3.04 7.596 15.5 3.24 0.60
28 6.369 13.9 2.97 6.921 14.7 3.15 0.64
29 5.830 13.3 2.89 6.319 14.1 3.07 0.64
30 5.540 13.0 2.84 5.882 13.6 3.01 0.70
31 5.452 12.8 2.85 5.576 13.2 2.96 0.84
32 5.281 12.8 2.77 5.468 13.1 2.95 1.01
33 5.478 12.8 2.87 5.538 13.2 2.96 1.12
34 6.219 13.4 3.06 5.915 13.6 3.01 1.27
35 7.302 14.4 3.24 6.617 14.4 3.11 1.24
36 8.251 15.4 3.35 7.475 15.3 3.22 1.22
37 9.359 16.4 3.46 8.291 16.2 3.32 1.22
38 9.667 16.8 3.48 9.004 16.9 3.40 1.13
39 9.874 16.8 3.54 9.409 17.3 3.44 1.13
40 10.072 16.7 3.63 9.556 17.4 3.45 1.07
41 9.687 16.7 3.51 9.521 17.4 3.45 1.10
42 9.691 16.7 3.51 9.404 17.3 3.44 1.06
43 9.295 16.6 3.40 9.216 17.1 3.42 1.04
44 9.345 16.3 3.48 9.052 16.9 3.40 1.09
45 9.083 16.4 3.37 8.919 16.8 3.39 0.96
46 8.943 16.4 3.33 8.787 16.7 3.37 0.83
47 9.107 16.2 3.44 8.652 16.5 3.36 0.77
Weekday 8.526 15.8 3.29 8.329 16.2 3.31 1.02
Weekend 7.951 15.2 3.24 7.902 15.7 3.26 0.94
ADWF(1)8.362 15.6 3.28 8.207 16.0 3.30 1.00
Weekday -2.3%2.3%0.6%
Weekend -0.6%3.6%0.6%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR13 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 4.599 15.8 2.45 4.376 15.6 2.31 0.72
1 4.281 14.9 2.45 4.029 14.9 2.26 0.61
2 3.620 13.6 2.35 3.635 14.1 2.20 0.57
3 3.074 12.3 2.28 3.261 13.3 2.14 0.55
4 2.639 11.3 2.18 2.943 12.6 2.08 0.57
5 2.429 10.8 2.14 2.738 12.1 2.04 0.66
6 2.282 10.5 2.10 2.620 11.8 2.01 0.83
7 2.290 10.5 2.11 2.646 11.9 2.02 0.97
8 2.566 11.1 2.17 2.844 12.3 2.06 1.09
9 3.159 12.4 2.29 3.197 13.1 2.12 1.21
10 3.743 13.8 2.36 3.658 14.1 2.20 1.22
11 4.316 15.1 2.43 4.122 15.1 2.28 1.19
12 4.793 15.9 2.51 4.468 15.8 2.33 1.20
13 4.921 16.3 2.50 4.686 16.2 2.35 1.17
14 4.906 16.2 2.52 4.741 16.3 2.36 1.13
15 4.943 16.2 2.54 4.694 16.2 2.36 1.10
16 4.884 16.2 2.51 4.669 16.2 2.35 1.18
17 4.812 15.9 2.53 4.707 16.2 2.36 1.24
18 4.717 15.9 2.49 4.732 16.3 2.36 1.21
19 4.868 16.1 2.53 4.744 16.3 2.36 1.23
20 4.998 16.3 2.54 4.790 16.4 2.37 1.15
21 4.905 16.2 2.51 4.819 16.4 2.37 1.14
22 4.953 16.2 2.54 4.780 16.4 2.37 1.05
23 4.701 15.8 2.49 4.626 16.1 2.35 0.86
24 4.359 15.1 2.45 4.348 15.5 2.31 0.59
25 3.889 14.1 2.39 3.967 14.7 2.25 0.52
26 3.235 12.8 2.26 3.529 13.8 2.18 0.52
27 2.716 11.6 2.19 3.114 12.9 2.11 0.50
28 2.347 10.6 2.14 2.754 12.1 2.04 0.55
29 2.218 10.2 2.13 2.524 11.6 1.99 0.69
30 2.056 9.8 2.09 2.386 11.2 1.96 0.91
31 2.103 9.8 2.11 2.350 11.2 1.95 1.12
32 2.470 10.8 2.19 2.393 11.3 1.96 1.23
33 3.119 12.3 2.31 2.607 11.8 2.01 1.31
34 3.815 13.8 2.42 2.997 12.7 2.09 1.30
35 4.351 15.0 2.47 3.503 13.8 2.18 1.24
36 4.795 15.9 2.53 3.995 14.8 2.26 1.18
37 4.977 16.3 2.54 4.433 15.7 2.32 1.14
38 4.983 16.3 2.53 4.701 16.2 2.36 1.13
39 4.915 16.3 2.50 4.806 16.4 2.37 1.17
40 4.845 16.1 2.50 4.798 16.4 2.37 1.17
41 4.794 15.9 2.52 4.743 16.3 2.36 1.28
42 4.847 16.1 2.51 4.648 16.1 2.35 1.34
43 4.808 16.2 2.46 4.566 15.9 2.34 1.42
44 5.034 16.5 2.52 4.471 15.8 2.33 1.36
45 5.175 16.9 2.52 4.343 15.5 2.31 1.05
46 5.367 17.1 2.57 4.237 15.3 2.29 0.91
47 5.186 16.9 2.53 4.073 15.0 2.27 0.72
Weekday 4.058 14.4 2.40 4.022 14.8 2.25 0.99
Weekend 4.017 14.3 2.39 3.762 14.2 2.21 1.01
ADWF(1)4.046 14.4 2.39 3.948 14.6 2.24 1.00
Weekday -0.9%2.9%-6.1%
Weekend -6.3%-0.1%-7.8%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR14 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 6.069 18.7 2.07 6.112 17.6 2.26 0.84
1 5.461 17.6 2.02 5.580 16.8 2.20 0.75
2 5.022 16.6 2.01 5.077 16.0 2.14 0.68
3 4.608 15.5 2.02 4.679 15.3 2.10 0.67
4 4.286 14.8 2.01 4.407 14.8 2.06 0.69
5 4.275 14.5 2.07 4.304 14.7 2.05 0.71
6 4.484 14.5 2.17 4.409 14.9 2.06 0.86
7 4.660 14.9 2.17 4.716 15.4 2.10 1.05
8 5.485 16.3 2.25 5.228 16.2 2.16 1.04
9 6.460 18.3 2.28 5.847 17.2 2.23 1.09
10 6.555 18.7 2.24 6.392 18.1 2.29 1.13
11 6.882 19.3 2.26 6.701 18.5 2.32 1.13
12 7.020 19.5 2.27 6.752 18.6 2.32 1.12
13 7.087 19.6 2.28 6.902 18.8 2.33 1.12
14 7.048 19.6 2.26 6.949 18.9 2.34 1.15
15 7.059 19.6 2.27 6.937 18.9 2.34 1.13
16 7.070 19.4 2.29 6.871 18.8 2.33 1.18
17 6.968 19.4 2.27 6.904 18.8 2.33 1.17
18 7.184 19.5 2.32 6.937 18.9 2.34 1.20
19 7.051 19.6 2.26 6.935 18.9 2.34 1.20
20 7.141 20.0 2.23 6.928 18.9 2.34 1.24
21 7.004 20.1 2.17 6.853 18.8 2.33 1.17
22 7.070 20.2 2.18 6.744 18.6 2.32 1.04
23 6.707 19.7 2.13 6.538 18.3 2.30 0.92
24 5.742 17.8 2.10 6.108 17.6 2.26 0.82
25 5.344 16.9 2.09 5.568 16.8 2.20 0.75
26 4.951 16.1 2.07 5.063 16.0 2.14 0.69
27 4.621 15.4 2.06 4.668 15.3 2.09 0.62
28 4.365 14.8 2.06 4.390 14.8 2.06 0.61
29 4.111 14.2 2.04 4.205 14.5 2.03 0.61
30 4.117 14.1 2.08 4.139 14.4 2.03 0.70
31 4.184 14.2 2.09 4.255 14.6 2.04 0.82
32 4.735 15.0 2.18 4.599 15.2 2.09 0.98
33 5.358 15.9 2.28 5.122 16.1 2.15 1.07
34 6.201 17.3 2.34 5.788 17.1 2.22 1.19
35 6.685 18.7 2.29 6.393 18.1 2.29 1.20
36 7.129 19.6 2.28 6.695 18.5 2.31 1.23
37 7.214 20.2 2.22 6.973 18.9 2.34 1.19
38 7.337 20.3 2.25 7.075 19.1 2.35 1.15
39 7.168 20.2 2.21 7.027 19.0 2.35 1.09
40 6.916 19.9 2.18 6.822 18.7 2.33 1.11
41 6.651 19.6 2.13 6.698 18.5 2.32 1.14
42 6.734 19.6 2.16 6.634 18.4 2.31 1.14
43 6.844 19.5 2.21 6.625 18.4 2.31 1.14
44 6.785 19.5 2.20 6.622 18.4 2.31 1.11
45 6.694 19.2 2.20 6.507 18.3 2.30 1.06
46 6.468 18.9 2.17 6.327 18.0 2.28 0.97
47 6.194 18.4 2.16 6.091 17.6 2.26 0.90
Weekday 6.194 18.2 2.19 6.071 17.5 2.25 1.01
Weekend 5.939 17.7 2.17 5.850 17.2 2.22 0.97
ADWF(1)6.121 18.0 2.18 6.008 17.4 2.24 1.00
Weekday -2.0%-3.5%2.7%
Weekend -1.5%-3.1%2.5%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR15 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 3.122 10.0 3.37 3.284 10.8 3.18 0.82
1 2.601 8.8 3.33 2.853 10.1 3.06 0.68
2 2.193 7.7 3.43 2.410 9.2 2.91 0.57
3 1.781 6.4 3.60 2.076 8.5 2.79 0.46
4 1.660 6.0 3.67 1.960 8.3 2.75 0.44
5 1.853 6.5 3.68 2.181 8.7 2.83 0.50
6 2.577 8.3 3.59 2.673 9.7 3.00 0.71
7 3.304 10.2 3.48 3.288 10.8 3.18 0.91
8 3.897 11.7 3.38 3.797 11.7 3.31 1.08
9 4.225 12.6 3.32 4.153 12.3 3.39 1.17
10 4.420 13.1 3.30 4.379 12.7 3.43 1.20
11 4.677 13.8 3.27 4.452 12.8 3.45 1.26
12 4.688 13.9 3.24 4.463 12.8 3.45 1.27
13 4.692 14.0 3.23 4.430 12.8 3.45 1.26
14 4.555 13.7 3.23 4.376 12.7 3.43 1.22
15 4.466 13.4 3.25 4.326 12.6 3.42 1.19
16 4.301 13.0 3.24 4.339 12.6 3.43 1.15
17 4.445 13.4 3.24 4.374 12.7 3.43 1.19
18 4.595 13.7 3.23 4.396 12.7 3.44 1.24
19 4.551 13.8 3.19 4.391 12.7 3.44 1.23
20 4.560 13.6 3.25 4.339 12.6 3.43 1.23
21 4.419 13.3 3.25 4.220 12.4 3.40 1.18
22 4.191 12.8 3.24 3.980 12.0 3.35 1.12
23 3.607 11.5 3.22 3.707 11.6 3.28 0.95
24 3.131 10.2 3.28 3.294 10.9 3.18 0.82
25 2.682 9.1 3.29 2.900 10.2 3.07 0.70
26 2.325 8.0 3.39 2.486 9.4 2.94 0.60
27 1.923 6.8 3.54 2.146 8.7 2.82 0.50
28 1.674 6.1 3.63 1.926 8.2 2.73 0.44
29 1.682 6.0 3.68 1.922 8.2 2.73 0.45
30 1.898 6.6 3.67 2.183 8.8 2.83 0.51
31 2.482 8.2 3.54 2.702 9.8 3.01 0.68
32 3.354 10.5 3.39 3.372 11.0 3.20 0.93
33 4.148 12.5 3.29 4.059 12.2 3.37 1.15
34 4.731 14.0 3.24 4.497 12.9 3.46 1.31
35 4.968 14.7 3.21 4.634 13.1 3.49 1.37
36 5.104 15.1 3.19 4.664 13.1 3.49 1.40
37 4.997 14.9 3.18 4.646 13.1 3.49 1.36
38 4.836 14.4 3.20 4.564 13.0 3.47 1.30
39 4.668 14.0 3.20 4.471 12.8 3.45 1.25
40 4.542 13.7 3.21 4.414 12.7 3.44 1.22
41 4.517 13.7 3.20 4.411 12.7 3.44 1.21
42 4.586 13.7 3.24 4.391 12.7 3.44 1.23
43 4.572 13.7 3.23 4.349 12.6 3.43 1.23
44 4.422 13.3 3.23 4.247 12.5 3.41 1.18
45 4.198 12.9 3.22 4.104 12.2 3.38 1.12
46 3.978 12.3 3.26 3.924 11.9 3.34 1.05
47 3.572 11.4 3.23 3.697 11.6 3.28 0.94
Weekday 3.724 11.5 3.34 3.702 11.5 3.26 1.00
Weekend 3.708 11.5 3.32 3.667 11.4 3.24 1.00
ADWF(1)3.720 11.5 3.34 3.692 11.5 3.26 1.00
Weekday -0.6%0.3%-2.5%
Weekend -1.1%-0.5%-2.3%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR16 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 26.554 25.6 4.83 26.229 24.4 5.08 1.18
1 25.140 25.0 4.72 24.946 23.8 5.01 1.12
2 22.494 24.0 4.46 23.137 22.8 4.91 1.00
3 19.773 22.6 4.25 20.978 21.7 4.78 0.88
4 18.374 21.9 4.14 18.777 20.5 4.63 0.82
5 17.191 21.4 3.97 16.837 19.3 4.49 0.76
6 15.704 20.6 3.83 15.652 18.6 4.40 0.70
7 15.738 20.6 3.84 15.371 18.5 4.38 0.70
8 15.882 20.7 3.85 15.968 18.8 4.42 0.71
9 18.189 21.9 4.09 17.474 19.7 4.54 0.81
10 21.393 23.5 4.36 19.565 20.9 4.69 0.95
11 24.081 24.7 4.59 21.992 22.2 4.84 1.07
12 25.653 25.3 4.73 24.218 23.4 4.97 1.14
13 25.849 25.4 4.75 25.671 24.1 5.05 1.15
14 26.413 25.5 4.82 26.561 24.6 5.10 1.17
15 26.271 25.5 4.79 26.894 24.7 5.12 1.17
16 26.219 25.5 4.78 26.834 24.7 5.12 1.16
17 25.742 25.5 4.70 26.462 24.5 5.10 1.14
18 25.563 25.2 4.75 26.205 24.4 5.08 1.14
19 25.434 25.1 4.75 26.348 24.5 5.09 1.13
20 26.261 25.5 4.80 26.757 24.7 5.11 1.17
21 27.339 26.0 4.87 26.915 24.7 5.12 1.21
22 26.677 25.8 4.79 27.048 24.8 5.13 1.19
23 27.598 26.0 4.92 26.869 24.7 5.12 1.23
24 23.356 24.2 4.57 26.229 24.4 5.08 1.04
25 22.179 23.8 4.45 24.606 23.6 4.99 0.99
26 19.829 22.7 4.23 22.338 22.4 4.86 0.88
27 17.797 21.5 4.09 20.068 21.2 4.72 0.79
28 17.435 21.5 4.02 17.807 19.9 4.56 0.77
29 14.872 20.0 3.77 15.855 18.7 4.41 0.66
30 13.771 19.1 3.73 14.370 17.8 4.29 0.61
31 12.152 18.0 3.57 13.455 17.2 4.21 0.54
32 11.944 17.6 3.63 13.305 17.1 4.20 0.53
33 12.324 18.0 3.63 14.069 17.6 4.27 0.55
34 15.301 20.0 3.89 15.716 18.7 4.40 0.68
35 18.845 22.2 4.14 18.247 20.2 4.59 0.84
36 22.468 23.7 4.53 21.273 21.8 4.80 1.00
37 24.664 24.8 4.67 24.077 23.3 4.97 1.10
38 26.800 25.6 4.88 26.202 24.4 5.08 1.19
39 26.613 25.6 4.84 27.629 25.1 5.16 1.18
40 26.558 25.6 4.82 28.163 25.4 5.18 1.18
41 25.614 25.1 4.77 28.015 25.3 5.18 1.14
42 25.359 25.0 4.76 27.377 25.0 5.14 1.13
43 25.528 25.2 4.75 26.854 24.7 5.12 1.13
44 24.999 24.9 4.71 26.438 24.5 5.09 1.11
45 24.482 24.9 4.62 26.224 24.4 5.08 1.09
46 24.425 24.8 4.62 25.873 24.2 5.06 1.09
47 24.459 24.6 4.70 25.173 23.9 5.03 1.09
Weekday 23.147 24.1 4.52 23.071 22.7 4.89 1.03
Weekend 20.907 22.8 4.35 22.057 22.1 4.81 0.93
ADWF(1)22.507 23.8 4.47 22.781 22.5 4.86 1.00
Weekday -0.3%-5.8%8.2%
Weekend 5.5%-3.2%10.6%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR19 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 34.806 31.5 4.77 31.625 28.7 4.93 1.19
1 34.508 31.5 4.74 31.643 28.7 4.94 1.18
2 34.059 31.3 4.70 30.832 28.3 4.90 1.14
3 33.114 30.5 4.73 29.012 27.4 4.82 1.05
4 30.411 28.8 4.67 26.722 26.2 4.72 0.93
5 26.794 26.7 4.55 24.224 24.8 4.59 0.82
6 23.721 25.0 4.40 21.763 23.4 4.46 0.73
7 21.021 23.7 4.19 19.963 22.4 4.35 0.69
8 19.923 22.8 4.17 18.658 21.6 4.27 0.67
9 19.350 22.7 4.10 18.205 21.3 4.24 0.72
10 20.724 23.2 4.26 19.138 21.9 4.30 0.80
11 23.265 24.7 4.38 21.390 23.2 4.44 0.95
12 27.552 26.9 4.63 24.274 24.8 4.60 1.06
13 30.797 29.0 4.71 27.249 26.4 4.74 1.12
14 32.418 29.8 4.77 29.310 27.5 4.84 1.16
15 33.584 30.8 4.73 30.287 28.0 4.88 1.17
16 33.924 31.1 4.74 30.816 28.3 4.90 1.18
17 34.184 31.1 4.77 30.803 28.3 4.90 1.18
18 34.222 31.2 4.74 30.151 27.9 4.87 1.14
19 33.023 30.6 4.70 29.859 27.8 4.86 1.15
20 33.372 30.7 4.72 29.765 27.8 4.86 1.17
21 33.764 30.6 4.81 29.963 27.9 4.86 1.16
22 33.580 30.9 4.72 30.402 28.1 4.88 1.19
23 34.393 31.1 4.78 31.015 28.4 4.91 1.20
24 31.997 29.5 4.78 31.625 28.7 4.93 1.11
25 31.994 29.3 4.82 31.603 28.7 4.93 1.03
26 29.908 28.3 4.70 30.071 27.9 4.87 0.98
27 28.352 27.4 4.65 28.073 26.9 4.78 0.88
28 25.504 26.2 4.45 25.440 25.5 4.65 0.81
29 23.368 24.9 4.35 22.630 23.9 4.51 0.73
30 21.197 23.7 4.22 20.016 22.4 4.36 0.65
31 18.890 22.3 4.09 18.098 21.3 4.24 0.58
32 16.918 21.1 3.95 16.189 20.1 4.11 0.54
33 15.644 20.3 3.86 14.991 19.3 4.02 0.53
34 15.409 20.1 3.85 15.231 19.4 4.04 0.55
35 15.909 20.2 3.94 16.616 20.3 4.14 0.64
36 18.412 21.7 4.13 19.062 21.8 4.30 0.78
37 22.476 24.2 4.36 22.141 23.6 4.48 0.99
38 28.577 27.1 4.76 25.657 25.6 4.67 1.08
39 31.231 28.9 4.79 29.048 27.4 4.82 1.10
40 31.945 29.6 4.75 30.978 28.4 4.91 1.14
41 33.095 30.5 4.74 31.547 28.7 4.93 1.19
42 34.503 31.3 4.77 31.954 28.9 4.95 1.16
43 33.711 30.9 4.73 31.826 28.8 4.94 1.16
44 33.451 30.6 4.75 30.956 28.4 4.91 1.13
45 32.656 30.2 4.72 30.112 27.9 4.87 1.13
46 32.661 29.9 4.76 29.330 27.5 4.84 1.10
47 31.803 29.7 4.69 28.816 27.3 4.81 1.11
Weekday 29.854 28.6 4.60 26.961 26.2 4.71 1.03
Weekend 26.650 26.6 4.48 25.500 25.4 4.62 0.92
ADWF(1)28.939 28.0 4.57 26.544 26.0 4.69 1.00
Weekday -9.7%-8.3%2.3%
Weekend -4.3%-4.6%3.1%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR20 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 4.083 14.7 2.10 4.012 14.7 2.07 0.53
1 3.514 13.5 2.02 3.392 13.5 1.97 0.48
2 2.936 12.4 1.90 2.794 12.2 1.87 0.46
3 2.545 11.6 1.80 2.387 11.2 1.79 0.53
4 2.330 11.1 1.76 2.196 10.8 1.74 0.76
5 2.229 11.0 1.71 2.312 11.1 1.77 0.88
6 2.463 11.5 1.78 2.743 12.1 1.86 1.04
7 3.317 12.8 2.02 3.266 13.2 1.95 1.15
8 3.815 13.8 2.13 3.895 14.5 2.05 1.22
9 4.455 15.2 2.20 4.458 15.6 2.13 1.30
10 4.926 16.1 2.23 4.893 16.4 2.18 1.29
11 5.194 16.9 2.22 5.257 17.0 2.23 1.27
12 5.539 17.5 2.26 5.456 17.4 2.25 1.24
13 5.596 17.8 2.23 5.672 17.7 2.27 1.20
14 5.526 17.5 2.24 5.716 17.8 2.28 1.19
15 5.402 17.3 2.22 5.665 17.7 2.27 1.25
16 5.294 17.1 2.22 5.632 17.7 2.27 1.25
17 5.272 17.1 2.22 5.649 17.7 2.27 1.24
18 5.500 17.5 2.25 5.631 17.7 2.27 1.18
19 5.484 17.5 2.24 5.573 17.6 2.26 1.12
20 5.448 17.4 2.24 5.452 17.4 2.25 1.00
21 5.246 17.0 2.21 5.284 17.1 2.23 0.89
22 5.012 16.6 2.20 4.957 16.5 2.19 0.76
23 4.544 15.6 2.15 4.537 15.7 2.14 0.62
24 3.984 14.6 2.07 4.014 14.7 2.07 0.57
25 3.557 13.5 2.05 3.411 13.5 1.98 0.49
26 3.066 12.5 1.96 2.860 12.3 1.88 0.47
27 2.700 11.8 1.88 2.443 11.4 1.80 0.48
28 2.374 11.3 1.77 2.224 10.8 1.75 0.64
29 2.256 10.9 1.71 2.208 10.8 1.75 0.77
30 2.250 11.1 1.71 2.466 11.4 1.80 0.96
31 2.816 12.1 1.86 2.902 12.4 1.89 1.16
32 3.319 13.0 2.01 3.554 13.8 2.00 1.34
33 4.105 14.4 2.18 4.303 15.3 2.11 1.42
34 4.919 16.1 2.25 5.022 16.6 2.20 1.46
35 5.624 17.6 2.27 5.589 17.6 2.26 1.39
36 6.011 18.5 2.28 5.953 18.2 2.30 1.31
37 6.167 18.9 2.27 6.112 18.5 2.32 1.27
38 5.940 18.7 2.23 6.199 18.6 2.33 1.30
39 5.675 18.2 2.19 6.123 18.5 2.32 1.24
40 5.534 18.0 2.21 6.033 18.4 2.31 1.24
41 5.641 17.8 2.26 5.883 18.1 2.29 1.24
42 5.414 17.8 2.16 5.794 18.0 2.28 1.17
43 5.431 17.6 2.19 5.677 17.7 2.27 1.11
44 5.442 17.4 2.24 5.484 17.4 2.25 1.02
45 5.169 17.0 2.20 5.269 17.0 2.23 0.87
46 4.952 16.4 2.20 4.971 16.5 2.19 0.77
47 4.563 15.6 2.19 4.483 15.6 2.13 0.65
Weekday 4.403 15.3 2.11 4.451 15.4 2.11 0.99
Weekend 4.454 15.4 2.10 4.541 15.6 2.11 1.01
ADWF(1)4.418 15.3 2.10 4.477 15.5 2.11 1.00
Weekday 1.1%0.9%0.0%
Weekend 1.9%0.7%0.7%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR21 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 7.998 18.3 2.98 7.734 17.9 2.92 0.24
1 6.717 16.8 2.79 6.812 16.7 2.83 0.26
2 5.552 15.4 2.60 5.903 15.5 2.72 0.31
3 4.752 14.2 2.50 5.115 14.4 2.61 0.42
4 4.235 13.2 2.46 4.540 13.5 2.52 0.69
5 3.902 12.7 2.40 4.293 13.1 2.48 1.07
6 3.939 12.7 2.41 4.503 13.4 2.52 1.37
7 4.632 13.7 2.55 5.112 14.4 2.61 1.60
8 5.863 15.4 2.76 5.987 15.6 2.73 1.47
9 7.159 17.1 2.91 6.941 16.9 2.84 1.26
10 8.638 19.0 3.07 7.851 18.0 2.94 1.15
11 9.026 19.6 3.07 8.489 18.8 3.00 1.13
12 8.983 19.4 3.10 8.895 19.3 3.04 1.12
13 8.886 19.2 3.11 9.010 19.5 3.05 1.06
14 8.770 19.1 3.08 8.826 19.2 3.03 1.03
15 8.671 19.0 3.07 8.621 19.0 3.01 1.17
16 8.391 18.8 3.01 8.525 18.9 3.00 1.28
17 8.209 18.5 3.00 8.558 18.9 3.00 1.41
18 8.568 18.8 3.08 8.728 19.1 3.02 1.46
19 8.825 19.1 3.10 8.932 19.4 3.04 1.39
20 9.330 19.8 3.13 9.175 19.7 3.06 1.16
21 9.611 20.1 3.16 9.230 19.7 3.07 0.86
22 9.521 19.9 3.17 9.024 19.5 3.05 0.53
23 8.892 19.3 3.08 8.491 18.8 3.00 0.30
24 7.268 17.5 2.87 7.740 17.9 2.92 0.35
25 6.599 16.6 2.81 6.877 16.8 2.83 0.31
26 5.723 15.5 2.66 6.017 15.6 2.73 0.30
27 5.125 14.5 2.62 5.258 14.6 2.63 0.36
28 4.388 13.5 2.46 4.593 13.6 2.53 0.46
29 3.886 12.8 2.35 4.154 12.9 2.46 0.64
30 3.755 12.6 2.34 4.038 12.7 2.44 1.00
31 3.876 12.6 2.40 4.299 13.1 2.48 1.42
32 4.333 13.3 2.49 4.939 14.1 2.58 1.83
33 5.546 15.0 2.69 5.984 15.6 2.73 1.88
34 7.207 17.1 2.93 7.240 17.3 2.87 1.80
35 9.146 19.5 3.13 8.509 18.9 3.00 1.54
36 10.149 20.8 3.19 9.490 20.0 3.09 1.46
37 10.754 21.5 3.25 10.178 20.9 3.14 1.27
38 10.529 21.4 3.20 10.427 21.1 3.16 1.22
39 10.540 21.1 3.25 10.379 21.1 3.16 1.24
40 9.876 20.5 3.17 10.070 20.7 3.14 1.27
41 9.545 20.2 3.13 9.767 20.4 3.11 1.32
42 9.413 19.8 3.16 9.545 20.1 3.09 1.32
43 9.313 19.8 3.13 9.406 19.9 3.08 1.24
44 9.381 19.8 3.14 9.291 19.8 3.07 0.93
45 9.319 19.7 3.15 9.022 19.5 3.05 0.64
46 9.074 19.4 3.13 8.544 18.9 3.00 0.49
47 8.010 18.4 2.96 7.821 18.0 2.93 0.35
Weekday 7.461 17.5 2.90 7.471 17.5 2.88 0.99
Weekend 7.615 17.6 2.90 7.650 17.6 2.88 1.03
ADWF(1)7.505 17.5 2.90 7.522 17.5 2.88 1.00
Weekday 0.1%0.0%-0.8%
Weekend 0.5%0.1%-0.5%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR22 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 1.148 7.1 2.03 1.465 8.0 2.30 0.49
1 0.996 6.5 1.96 1.171 7.1 2.15 0.58
2 0.893 6.2 1.92 1.056 6.8 2.09 0.65
3 0.858 6.1 1.94 1.026 6.7 2.07 0.72
4 0.864 6.1 1.95 0.999 6.6 2.06 0.97
5 0.880 6.2 1.93 1.024 6.7 2.07 1.27
6 1.028 6.7 2.05 1.142 7.0 2.14 1.48
7 1.199 7.3 2.11 1.206 7.2 2.17 1.47
8 1.396 8.1 2.14 1.242 7.4 2.19 1.34
9 1.327 7.8 2.14 1.227 7.3 2.18 1.14
10 1.189 7.3 2.06 1.264 7.4 2.20 1.09
11 1.167 7.2 2.04 1.172 7.1 2.15 1.08
12 1.192 7.3 2.06 1.113 7.0 2.12 1.04
13 1.262 7.6 2.08 1.147 7.1 2.14 1.01
14 1.306 7.6 2.12 1.174 7.2 2.16 1.03
15 1.357 8.0 2.12 1.253 7.4 2.20 1.08
16 1.426 8.1 2.18 1.338 7.6 2.24 1.10
17 1.454 8.2 2.19 1.419 7.9 2.28 1.20
18 1.474 8.4 2.16 1.483 8.1 2.30 1.02
19 1.553 8.6 2.20 1.474 8.0 2.30 1.13
20 1.529 8.6 2.15 1.449 8.0 2.29 1.03
21 1.638 9.0 2.18 1.521 8.2 2.32 0.79
22 1.602 8.8 2.18 1.448 8.0 2.29 0.79
23 1.288 7.7 2.08 1.478 8.0 2.30 0.65
24 0.866 6.0 1.95 1.469 8.0 2.30 0.57
25 0.907 6.1 1.98 1.175 7.2 2.16 0.72
26 0.564 4.8 1.80 0.758 5.7 1.90 0.56
27 0.445 4.2 1.69 0.647 5.3 1.81 0.55
28 0.520 4.5 1.81 0.544 4.9 1.72 0.61
29 0.458 4.2 1.74 0.523 4.8 1.70 0.59
30 0.401 4.0 1.65 0.518 4.8 1.70 0.57
31 0.448 4.2 1.69 0.487 4.6 1.67 0.91
32 0.541 4.6 1.82 0.567 5.0 1.74 1.33
33 0.683 5.2 1.93 0.774 5.8 1.91 1.50
34 0.844 5.9 2.00 0.930 6.4 2.02 1.36
35 0.996 6.5 2.06 0.950 6.4 2.03 1.26
36 1.011 6.5 2.09 0.910 6.3 2.00 1.46
37 0.953 6.4 2.04 0.956 6.4 2.03 1.40
38 0.984 6.4 2.08 1.017 6.6 2.07 1.30
39 0.873 6.0 2.03 0.967 6.5 2.04 1.24
40 1.032 6.6 2.11 0.943 6.4 2.02 1.36
41 0.903 6.1 2.05 0.957 6.4 2.03 1.08
42 0.812 5.8 2.01 0.939 6.4 2.02 1.08
43 0.829 5.8 2.03 0.835 6.0 1.95 0.87
44 0.765 5.6 1.99 0.776 5.8 1.91 1.04
45 0.744 5.5 1.99 0.745 5.7 1.89 1.02
46 0.764 5.3 2.12 0.764 5.8 1.90 0.88
47 0.949 6.3 2.00 0.698 5.5 1.85 0.40
Weekday 1.251 7.5 2.08 1.262 7.4 2.20 1.01
Weekend 0.762 5.5 1.94 0.827 5.9 1.93 0.99
ADWF(1)1.111 6.9 2.04 1.138 7.0 2.12 1.00
Weekday 0.9%-1.5%5.5%
Weekend 8.5%7.6%-0.6%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR23 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 9.962 18.3 2.79 9.529 17.9 2.69 0.54
1 10.176 18.5 2.79 9.673 18.0 2.70 0.55
2 10.381 18.5 2.85 10.041 18.4 2.73 0.61
3 10.599 17.8 2.77 10.424 18.7 2.76 0.68
4 9.775 16.8 2.64 10.537 18.8 2.77 0.98
5 8.583 15.5 2.52 10.273 18.6 2.75 1.19
6 7.285 14.2 2.39 9.469 17.8 2.68 1.28
7 6.080 13.1 2.27 8.397 16.8 2.59 1.20
8 5.139 12.2 2.20 7.237 15.6 2.48 1.18
9 4.504 11.8 2.24 6.154 14.4 2.37 1.15
10 4.360 12.1 2.23 5.399 13.5 2.28 1.12
11 4.511 12.4 2.35 5.181 13.2 2.25 1.11
12 4.945 13.2 2.43 5.619 13.8 2.31 1.10
13 5.571 15.7 2.68 6.512 14.8 2.41 1.12
14 7.958 17.8 2.76 7.740 16.1 2.53 1.22
15 9.709 18.3 2.85 9.306 17.7 2.67 1.25
16 10.407 18.0 2.73 10.700 19.0 2.78 1.27
17 9.803 17.7 2.73 11.660 19.8 2.85 1.30
18 9.576 17.5 2.72 11.826 20.0 2.86 1.20
19 9.356 17.3 2.69 10.982 19.2 2.80 1.05
20 9.093 17.1 2.70 10.107 18.4 2.74 0.89
21 9.006 17.1 2.70 9.769 18.1 2.71 0.75
22 8.995 17.3 2.70 9.661 18.0 2.70 0.63
23 9.098 17.9 2.81 9.501 17.9 2.69 0.55
24 9.394 17.7 2.77 9.529 17.9 2.69 0.51
25 9.700 17.7 2.78 9.673 18.0 2.70 0.48
26 9.699 17.4 2.72 10.041 18.4 2.73 0.49
27 9.309 16.9 2.69 10.419 18.7 2.76 0.57
28 8.780 16.2 2.59 10.516 18.8 2.77 0.69
29 7.983 15.3 2.55 10.220 18.5 2.74 0.96
30 7.232 14.3 2.44 9.412 17.8 2.68 1.24
31 6.290 13.3 2.35 8.308 16.7 2.58 1.37
32 5.458 12.4 2.26 7.121 15.5 2.47 1.45
33 4.729 11.6 2.18 6.038 14.3 2.35 1.46
34 4.171 11.1 2.17 5.245 13.3 2.26 1.44
35 3.896 11.3 2.20 5.007 13.0 2.23 1.36
36 4.021 12.1 2.29 4.980 13.0 2.22 1.29
37 4.637 13.3 2.42 5.348 13.4 2.27 1.25
38 5.618 15.4 2.71 6.163 14.4 2.37 1.15
39 7.805 17.9 2.84 7.314 15.7 2.49 1.19
40 10.093 19.1 2.87 8.820 17.2 2.63 1.19
41 11.185 19.8 2.88 10.574 18.9 2.77 1.14
42 11.784 20.1 2.86 12.187 20.3 2.89 1.08
43 11.913 19.9 2.85 13.093 21.0 2.95 0.98
44 11.711 19.3 2.81 13.069 21.0 2.94 0.89
45 11.090 18.6 2.81 12.490 20.5 2.91 0.77
46 10.506 18.2 2.81 11.755 19.9 2.86 0.67
47 10.177 17.6 2.70 11.158 19.4 2.81 0.58
Weekday 8.120 16.1 2.60 8.987 17.3 2.63 1.00
Weekend 8.216 16.1 2.61 9.103 17.3 2.63 1.01
ADWF(1)8.147 16.1 2.61 9.021 17.3 2.63 1.00
Weekday 10.7%7.5%0.9%
Weekend 10.8%7.5%0.8%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR24 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 0.070 2.0 1.08 0.070 2.0 1.09 0.86
1 0.050 1.7 0.97 0.050 1.7 0.99 0.62
2 0.037 1.6 0.85 0.037 1.5 0.90 0.46
3 0.031 1.4 0.80 0.031 1.4 0.86 0.39
4 0.029 1.4 0.75 0.029 1.3 0.83 0.35
5 0.026 1.4 0.67 0.026 1.3 0.81 0.32
6 0.032 1.5 0.74 0.032 1.4 0.86 0.39
7 0.083 2.1 1.15 0.083 2.2 1.15 1.02
8 0.083 2.1 1.16 0.083 2.2 1.15 1.03
9 0.082 2.1 1.17 0.083 2.2 1.15 1.02
10 0.102 2.3 1.25 0.102 2.4 1.22 1.25
11 0.111 2.5 1.28 0.111 2.5 1.25 1.37
12 0.121 2.6 1.32 0.121 2.7 1.28 1.49
13 0.109 2.5 1.24 0.109 2.5 1.25 1.35
14 0.101 2.4 1.22 0.101 2.4 1.22 1.25
15 0.099 2.4 1.20 0.099 2.4 1.21 1.22
16 0.096 2.3 1.23 0.096 2.4 1.20 1.18
17 0.102 2.4 1.24 0.102 2.4 1.22 1.26
18 0.108 2.5 1.25 0.108 2.5 1.24 1.33
19 0.101 2.4 1.22 0.101 2.4 1.22 1.25
20 0.107 2.4 1.25 0.107 2.5 1.24 1.33
21 0.097 2.4 1.20 0.097 2.4 1.20 1.20
22 0.098 2.4 1.22 0.099 2.4 1.21 1.22
23 0.088 2.3 1.15 0.088 2.3 1.17 1.09
24 0.073 2.0 1.13 0.073 2.1 1.10 0.90
25 0.060 1.8 1.06 0.060 1.9 1.04 0.74
26 0.053 1.7 1.01 0.053 1.8 1.00 0.65
27 0.041 1.5 0.92 0.041 1.6 0.93 0.51
28 0.035 1.4 0.85 0.035 1.5 0.88 0.43
29 0.025 1.2 0.78 0.025 1.2 0.80 0.30
30 0.030 1.3 0.79 0.030 1.4 0.85 0.38
31 0.023 1.2 0.72 0.023 1.2 0.78 0.29
32 0.043 1.5 0.93 0.043 1.6 0.94 0.53
33 0.053 1.8 1.00 0.053 1.8 1.01 0.66
34 0.078 2.1 1.17 0.078 2.1 1.13 0.96
35 0.096 2.3 1.25 0.096 2.4 1.20 1.19
36 0.106 2.4 1.27 0.106 2.5 1.23 1.31
37 0.106 2.4 1.28 0.106 2.5 1.23 1.30
38 0.103 2.4 1.26 0.103 2.4 1.23 1.28
39 0.093 2.3 1.22 0.093 2.3 1.19 1.15
40 0.113 2.5 1.33 0.113 2.6 1.26 1.40
41 0.106 2.4 1.29 0.107 2.5 1.24 1.32
42 0.109 2.4 1.28 0.110 2.5 1.25 1.35
43 0.134 2.7 1.38 0.134 2.8 1.32 1.66
44 0.129 2.6 1.37 0.130 2.7 1.31 1.60
45 0.112 2.5 1.31 0.112 2.6 1.26 1.39
46 0.096 2.3 1.26 0.096 2.4 1.20 1.19
47 0.071 2.0 1.13 0.071 2.0 1.09 0.87
Weekday 0.082 2.1 1.11 0.082 2.1 1.12 1.01
Weekend 0.079 2.0 1.12 0.079 2.1 1.10 0.97
ADWF(1)0.081 2.1 1.11 0.081 2.1 1.12 1.00
Weekday 0.1%1.0%1.1%
Weekend 0.2%3.0%-2.0%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR25 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 0.095 3.9 0.66 0.098 3.6 0.77 0.49
1 0.077 3.6 0.59 0.078 3.2 0.72 0.40
2 0.066 3.4 0.54 0.067 3.0 0.69 0.34
3 0.064 3.4 0.53 0.064 2.9 0.68 0.33
4 0.079 3.7 0.60 0.079 3.2 0.72 0.42
5 0.184 4.9 0.93 0.180 4.9 0.91 0.96
6 0.311 6.1 1.20 0.308 6.8 1.04 1.63
7 0.271 5.8 1.12 0.279 6.4 1.02 1.42
8 0.230 5.4 1.03 0.236 5.8 0.98 1.20
9 0.223 5.4 1.02 0.226 5.6 0.97 1.17
10 0.216 5.3 1.00 0.219 5.5 0.96 1.13
11 0.216 5.3 0.99 0.218 5.5 0.96 1.13
12 0.190 5.1 0.93 0.194 5.2 0.93 0.99
13 0.179 4.9 0.91 0.182 5.0 0.91 0.94
14 0.174 4.9 0.90 0.176 4.9 0.90 0.91
15 0.203 5.2 0.97 0.203 5.3 0.94 1.06
16 0.227 5.4 1.03 0.229 5.7 0.97 1.19
17 0.253 5.6 1.08 0.254 6.0 1.00 1.32
18 0.255 5.6 1.09 0.258 6.1 1.00 1.33
19 0.256 5.6 1.09 0.259 6.1 1.00 1.34
20 0.255 5.6 1.10 0.260 6.1 1.00 1.34
21 0.232 5.4 1.05 0.238 5.8 0.98 1.21
22 0.170 4.8 0.89 0.176 4.9 0.90 0.89
23 0.125 4.3 0.77 0.129 4.1 0.83 0.65
24 0.098 4.0 0.67 0.101 3.6 0.78 0.51
25 0.084 3.7 0.62 0.086 3.3 0.74 0.44
26 0.070 3.5 0.56 0.072 3.1 0.70 0.37
27 0.066 3.5 0.54 0.067 3.0 0.69 0.34
28 0.065 3.4 0.54 0.066 2.9 0.69 0.34
29 0.082 3.7 0.61 0.082 3.3 0.73 0.43
30 0.127 4.3 0.77 0.128 4.1 0.83 0.66
31 0.205 5.1 0.98 0.206 5.3 0.94 1.07
32 0.291 5.9 1.16 0.291 6.5 1.03 1.52
33 0.321 6.2 1.21 0.322 7.0 1.05 1.68
34 0.314 6.1 1.20 0.317 6.9 1.05 1.64
35 0.292 6.0 1.16 0.295 6.6 1.03 1.52
36 0.277 5.8 1.13 0.279 6.4 1.02 1.45
37 0.254 5.6 1.09 0.257 6.1 1.00 1.33
38 0.235 5.5 1.04 0.238 5.8 0.98 1.23
39 0.246 5.5 1.08 0.248 5.9 0.99 1.29
40 0.238 5.5 1.05 0.241 5.8 0.98 1.24
41 0.253 5.6 1.08 0.255 6.0 1.00 1.32
42 0.245 5.5 1.07 0.248 6.0 0.99 1.28
43 0.233 5.4 1.04 0.237 5.8 0.98 1.22
44 0.212 5.2 1.00 0.218 5.5 0.96 1.11
45 0.192 5.0 0.95 0.198 5.2 0.93 1.00
46 0.163 4.7 0.88 0.167 4.8 0.89 0.85
47 0.131 4.3 0.79 0.134 4.2 0.84 0.69
Weekday 0.190 4.9 0.92 0.192 5.1 0.91 0.99
Weekend 0.195 5.0 0.93 0.198 5.1 0.91 1.02
ADWF(1)0.191 4.9 0.92 0.194 5.1 0.91 1.00
Weekday 1.4%2.6%-1.1%
Weekend 1.3%3.3%-1.9%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR26 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Flow Level Velocity Flow Level Velocity Calibrated
Hour (mgd)(in)(ft/s)(mgd)(in)(ft/s)Diurnal
0 1.653 11.0 1.79 1.715 10.6 1.83 0.87
1 1.319 9.2 1.81 1.373 9.4 1.73 0.69
2 1.146 8.2 1.84 1.174 8.7 1.65 0.60
3 1.017 7.5 1.85 1.037 8.1 1.59 0.53
4 0.914 6.9 1.86 0.929 7.7 1.55 0.48
5 0.891 6.8 1.87 0.894 7.5 1.53 0.47
6 1.096 7.9 1.87 1.063 8.2 1.61 0.57
7 1.675 11.0 1.82 1.582 10.1 1.79 0.88
8 2.119 13.3 1.81 2.049 11.7 1.92 1.11
9 2.128 13.3 1.81 2.127 11.9 1.94 1.11
10 2.142 13.4 1.81 2.139 12.0 1.95 1.12
11 2.207 13.7 1.81 2.196 12.1 1.96 1.16
12 2.234 13.9 1.81 2.230 12.3 1.97 1.17
13 2.249 14.0 1.80 2.248 12.3 1.97 1.18
14 2.202 13.7 1.80 2.210 12.2 1.96 1.15
15 2.108 13.3 1.79 2.124 11.9 1.94 1.10
16 2.079 13.2 1.79 2.085 11.8 1.93 1.09
17 2.138 13.5 1.79 2.128 11.9 1.94 1.12
18 2.319 14.2 1.82 2.290 12.4 1.98 1.21
19 2.490 14.9 1.84 2.462 13.0 2.02 1.30
20 2.558 15.3 1.84 2.546 13.2 2.03 1.34
21 2.527 15.2 1.83 2.532 13.2 2.03 1.32
22 2.354 14.6 1.79 2.383 12.7 2.00 1.23
23 2.036 13.1 1.77 2.087 11.8 1.93 1.07
24 1.676 11.0 1.83 1.734 10.7 1.84 0.88
25 1.379 9.4 1.85 1.427 9.6 1.74 0.72
26 1.150 8.2 1.86 1.186 8.7 1.66 0.60
27 1.020 7.4 1.89 1.041 8.1 1.60 0.53
28 0.889 6.7 1.91 0.909 7.6 1.54 0.47
29 0.815 6.2 1.93 0.827 7.2 1.50 0.43
30 0.834 6.3 1.93 0.832 7.2 1.50 0.44
31 1.014 7.4 1.90 0.985 7.9 1.57 0.53
32 1.397 9.5 1.86 1.335 9.3 1.71 0.73
33 1.938 12.3 1.82 1.850 11.0 1.87 1.01
34 2.389 14.4 1.84 2.317 12.5 1.99 1.25
35 2.719 15.8 1.88 2.667 13.6 2.06 1.42
36 2.786 16.2 1.87 2.776 13.9 2.08 1.46
37 2.784 16.2 1.88 2.783 13.9 2.08 1.46
38 2.690 15.7 1.87 2.704 13.7 2.07 1.41
39 2.541 15.1 1.86 2.564 13.3 2.04 1.33
40 2.438 14.6 1.85 2.454 12.9 2.02 1.28
41 2.394 14.5 1.84 2.400 12.8 2.00 1.25
42 2.389 14.4 1.84 2.390 12.8 2.00 1.25
43 2.430 14.6 1.84 2.423 12.9 2.01 1.27
44 2.399 14.4 1.85 2.404 12.8 2.01 1.26
45 2.301 14.1 1.82 2.317 12.5 1.99 1.20
46 2.158 13.4 1.82 2.181 12.1 1.96 1.13
47 1.903 12.1 1.83 1.943 11.3 1.90 1.00
Weekday 1.900 12.1 1.82 1.900 11.1 1.86 0.99
Weekend 1.935 12.1 1.86 1.935 11.2 1.86 1.01
ADWF(1)1.910 12.1 1.83 1.910 11.1 1.86 1.00
Weekday 0.0%-8.4%2.6%
Weekend 0.0%-7.4%0.1%
Note:
1. ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR27 BASE WASTEWATER FLOW CALIBRATION
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WeekdayWeekendAverage
Measured Data Modeled Data Diurnal
% Error
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd) Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s) Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity Series3
Weekday Weekend
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in) Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
Technical Memorandum No. 1
APPENDIX C – WWF CALIBRATION RESULTS
Table 2 Wet Weather Calibration Summary - April 2012 Storm Event
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.Avg.Peak Avg.Avg.
Meter Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level
Number (mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(mgd)(mgd)(ft/s)(in)(%)(%)(%)(%)
FR01 3.603 5.501 3.40 9.1 4.080 5.806 3.14 10.5 13.2%5.5%-7.6%15.4%
FR02 8.864 12.715 3.58 16.8 8.642 13.321 3.67 16.0 -2.5%4.8%2.6%-4.7%
FR06 4.241 7.986 2.52 14.6 4.572 7.804 2.63 14.3 7.8%-2.3%4.5%-1.7%
FR08 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 9.466 15.576 4.46 14.4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4
FR10 1.332 2.985 1.19 8.2 1.680 3.255 1.23 11.0 26.1%9.1%2.9%33.7%
FR12 1.790 4.581 1.89 9.3 2.070 4.647 2.06 9.6 15.6%1.5%8.7%3.8%
FR14 4.363 6.793 2.11 16.9 4.641 7.900 2.32 16.0 6.4%16.3%9.7%-5.3%
FR15 6.330 8.273 2.14 18.8 6.565 9.505 2.29 18.2 3.7%14.9%6.8%-2.9%
FR16 4.135 6.434 3.29 12.6 4.168 7.464 3.35 12.2 0.8%16.0%1.9%-2.7%
FR19 22.983 34.118 5.46 20.8 25.384 37.234 4.99 23.8 10.4%9.1%-8.6%14.5%
FR20 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 31.073 47.739 4.86 28.2 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4
FR21 5.485 9.333 2.13 17.9 5.241 9.025 2.18 16.8 -4.5%-3.3%2.5%-6.4%
FR22 8.456 12.878 3.02 18.6 8.547 13.454 2.96 18.7 1.1%4.5%-1.7%0.9%
FR23 1.455 5.026 2.01 8.2 1.726 4.522 2.29 8.4 18.6%-10.0%14.0%1.8%
FR24 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 10.316 15.570 2.72 18.4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4
FR25 0.117 0.318 1.26 2.5 0.113 0.329 1.22 2.5 -3.4%3.5%-3.1%-0.1%
FR26 0.216 0.669 0.93 5.3 0.248 0.659 0.95 5.9 14.8%-1.5%2.0%11.9%
Notes:
1. Source: City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data
2. Average flows are calculated from flow monitoring data. Maximum flow values are hourly peaks.
3. Percent Difference = (Modeled - Measured)/Measured*100.
4. Meters FR08, FR20, and FR24 have data gaps or questionable data quality, and therefore percent error comparisons are not
4. appropriate for these meters.
April 13-14, 2012 Storm Event
Measured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)
RWRF WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6 0
20
40
60
80
100
120 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Rainfall Influent Meter Flow Modeled Flow BWF
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR01 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR02 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR06 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
2
4
6
8
10 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR08 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
3
6
9
12
15
18 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR10 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
4
8
12
16
20 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR12 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR14 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
2
4
6
8
10 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR15 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
2
4
6
8
10 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR16 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
2
4
6
8
10 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR19 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR20 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR21 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
2
4
6
8
10
12 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR22 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR23 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR24 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR25 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3
4
5 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR26 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (4/10/2012-4/15/2012)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
1
2
3 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 0
5
10
15 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
Table 1 Wet Weather Calibration Summary - March 2011 Storm EventWastewater Collection System Master Plan UpdateCity of FresnoAvg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg.Meter Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity LevelNumber (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (%) (%) (%) (%)FR01 4.142 6.641 3.52 9.7 4.282 6.444 3.19 10.7 3.4% -3.0% -9.6% 10.7%FR02 8.019 13.113 3.22 16.7 8.512 13.684 3.67 15.9 6.1% 4.4% 13.8% -4.7%FR12 2.106 3.823 1.95 10.3 2.088 3.845 2.08 9.7 -0.9% 0.6% 6.6% -5.5%FR13 10.263 14.428 3.54 17.1 9.615 12.896 3.44 17.4 -6.3% -10.6% -2.7% 1.8%FR15 7.574 11.218 2.36 19.9 7.030 9.866 2.33 18.9 -7.2% -12.0% -1.4% -4.8%FR16 3.910 6.178 3.18 12.2 4.236 5.873 3.37 12.4 8.3% -4.9% 6.0% 1.1%Notes:1. Source: City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data2. Average flows are calculated from flow monitoring data. Maximum flow values are hourly peaks.3. Percent Difference = (Modeled - Measured)/Measured*100.March 20-21, 2011 Storm EventMeasured Data(1)Modeled Data(2)Percent Error(3)
RWRF WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (3/15/2011-3/21/2011)CITY OF FRESNOWASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE0.00.20.40.66080100120140Rainfall (in/hr)Flow (mgd)0.81.002040RainfallInfluent Flow MeterModeled FlowADWF
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR01 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (3/15/2011-3/21/2011)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
2
4
6
8
10 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow ADWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
1
2
3
4
5 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
4
8
12
16
20 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR02 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (3/15/2011-3/21/2011)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow ADWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
1
2
3
4
5 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR12 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (3/15/2011-3/21/2011)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
2
4
6 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow ADWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
1
2
3 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR13 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (3/15/2011-3/21/2011)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
4
8
12
16
20 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow ADWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR15 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (3/15/2011-3/21/2011)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
4
8
12
16
20 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow ADWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
1
2
3
4 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
FLOW MONITORING SITE FR16 WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION (3/15/2011-3/21/2011)
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
2
4
6
8 Rainfall (in/hr) Flow (mgd) Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow ADWF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6 Rainfall (in/hr) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Rainfall (in/hr) Level (in) Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
Technical Memorandum No. 1
APPENDIX D – SIU FLOW DATA
Available Monthly SIU Discharge Data
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Actual Monthly Flow, where Available (gpd)
Model Flow Model Flow
BWF PDWF 2011 2012 2013
Name Address (mgd)(mgd)Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13
Ameripride 1050 W Whitesbridge 0.086 0.114 81,731 82,704 91,630 110,430 87,591 81,183 95,420 88,488 68,816 77,617 94,423 113,123 107,887 65,026 65,699 67,445 29,471 72,556 91,854 75,199 86,494 100,830 113,846 110,679 85,596 68,442 52,659 67,021 51,562 43,608
Angelica 422 S Fruit 0.091 0.116 116,139 72,506 54,928 61,286 57,172 66,348 79,413 81,906 69,365 80,211 67,869 75,598 88,364 67,096 61,112 62,907 64,627 68,841 94,348 77,144 104,944 84,424 116,065 73,379 91,106 73,354 66,447 98,911 73,279 74,975
Aramark 3333 N Sabre Dr 0.110 0.160 117,985 113,945 112,225 131,897 111,776 122,497 159,922 155,035 130,825 125,839 145,935 150,223 154,487 135,488 131,847 129,828 121,001 123,096 145,561 112,001 155,808 121,425 147,855 116,663 110,230 114,220 119,680 142,319 116,887 111,976
Beef Packers 3115 S Fig 0.659 1.009 1,009,476 777,033 753,161 803,925 682,475 873,066 802,031 896,303 699,006 768,096 740,196 853,543 865,137 673,175 708,431 691,302 731,369 888,026 663,700 815,270 765,603 714,440 881,842 683,772 658,589 638,867 868,603 630,838 678,660 851,773
Breckenridge, Durbin 1828 E Hedges Ave 0.020 0.020
Cal Dairies 15"755 F St 0.787 1.216 896,653 700,745 757,494 890,644 742,515 895,206 815,320 906,052 671,056 733,589 736,531 960,208 1,101,629 882,640 914,355 910,939 1,182,613 1,215,650 1,006,160 918,444 647,967 573,317 780,114 654,575 787,469 823,997 1,087,692 865,212 901,490 1,382,030 946,370
Cellulo 81 M St 0.076 0.152 95,306 67,198 98,676 72,648 144,721 100,058 54,029 82,430 130,250 73,229 59,937 88,439 72,076 87,993 107,297 115,712 85,716 100,801 117,922 95,882 93,536 125,938 152,255 92,702 75,827 106,222 115,317 106,359 116,278
Clovis Connection Ashlan and Peach 1.910 1.910
Clovis Connection Fowler and Sussex 1.434 1.434
Clovis Connection Herndon and Willow 1.582 1.582
Clovis Connection Sierra and Willow 0.191 0.191
Community Hospital 202 N Valeria St 0.226 0.226
ConAgra 5626 E Shields 0.017 0.017
Costco Wholesale 4500 W Shaw Ave 0.011 0.011
Costco Wholesale #657 7100 N Abby St 0.014 0.014
CSUF Cedar 5241 N Maple Ave 0.150 0.150
CSUF Maple 5241 N Maple Ave 0.081 0.140
Darling 995 W Belgravia 0.068 0.086 86,269 79,193 77,119 76,570 61,012 75,448 64,677 75,623 57,970 67,170 67,220 80,211 85,172 66,447 65,026 69,888 63,381 79,288 60,638 68,143 62,209 62,882 77,792 67,569 67,968 62,682 91,081 73,678 69,439 84,000
E&J Gallo Winery (A)5610 E Olive 0.145 0.328 205,326 133,610 327,799 147,830 62,059 195,477 129,903 106,191 60,463 98,886 6,308 42,112 159,773 73,030 166,405 151,719 199,093 233,925 122,173 128,531 76,121 169,472 192,660 96,517 144,813 104,047 55,950 100,905 31,989 78,540
E&J Gallo Winery (FATS)5610 E Olive 0.154 1.348 375,097 749,478 384,622 848,407 446,855 641,086 515,048 645,491 1,002,470 1,334,233 1,347,672 820,357 318,872 570,874 398,534 341,562 909,468 461,666 440,896 720,698 955,221 1,152,344 1,102,178 671,978 154,836 409,256 846,088 330,067 499,465 494,403
Foster Farms (Front)900 W Belgravia 0.022 0.056 40,916 40,467 38,796 38,746 38,173 32,264 48,022 38,572 34,009 33,111 35,630 46,376 25,781 21,966 24,360 32,812 29,471 41,040 50,590 38,622 56,399 36,727 56,349 48,520 22,191 21,019 21,094 30,294 32,388 22,490
Foster Farms (Pretreat)900 W Belgravia 1.326 1.861 1,343,857 1,249,035 1,332,562 1,422,497 1,251,254 1,331,839 1,860,825 1,632,759 1,404,395 1,322,167 1,236,045 1,599,623 1,641,810 1,357,819 1,315,931 1,458,575 1,399,234 1,392,776 1,832,650 1,411,102 1,731,869 1,341,812 1,686,466 1,278,606 1,326,304 1,398,660 1,318,175 1,661,258 1,323,860 1,318,300
Foster Farms Poultry 2960 S Cherry 1.492 1.951 1,712,995 969,558 1,293,167 1,290,325 1,246,791 1,364,078 1,691,677 1,735,036 1,550,429 1,299,675 1,525,970 1,741,469 1,749,173 1,568,132 1,618,921 1,639,092 1,446,831 1,327,401 1,726,758 1,368,242 1,682,776 1,511,110 1,951,058 1,433,866 1,492,410 1,386,094 1,263,372 1,637,322 1,328,697 1,251,703
Fresno Bee 1626 E St 0.044 0.052 16,281 11,100 29,347 17,503 24,360 8,303 7,954 9,624 7,879 11,270 16,905 39,220 52,235 24,185 17,902 19,099 16,556 12,492 7,879 9,574 8,901 10,472 22,490 33,311 44,057 32,713 60,937 24,809 28,823 11,494
Fruit Fillings 2531 E Edgar 0.016 0.023 15,209 14,486 14,885 18,501 13,364 13,838 18,949 20,071 17,054 16,207 19,623 19,573 18,426 16,207 16,032 15,234 16,356 15,583 13,663 15,359 21,218 14,312 23,288 16,456 16,207 17,628 15,808 20,021 15,509 19,822
Kaiser Permanente Inc 7300 N Fresno St 0.066 0.066
Kraft-Capri Sun 2494 S Orange 0.079 0.137 126,836 104,577 111,427 118,533 112,724 136,660 126,985 136,136 104,321 120,902 117,361 103,423 111,552 91,032 126,337 90,259 97,988 121,326 89,087 133,717 99,010 93,600 105,368 52,161 78,615 93,375 143,766 95,769 109,632 131,473 86,195 108,011
Kraft-Cornnuts 4343 E Florence 0.186 0.312 124,318 100,793 187,125 209,664 137,881 166,430 199,517 163,488 197,372 124,118 120,403 148,578 193,632 166,505 219,239 186,651 232,254 236,941 312,415 195,303 226,644 129,254 170,818 182,886 185,654 143,766 175,506 155,409 122,223 146,508 214,526
La Tapatia 104 E Belmont 0.017 0.027 14,935 11,619 20,246 17,503 16,057 19,672 18,650 24,135 18,326 19,523 19,947 21,094 15,035 13,663 11,395 18,999 20,296 27,452 20,171 26,778 25,831 25,407 24,285 17,578 18,875 18,226 30,942
La Tapatia B 94 E Belmont 0.034 0.050 15,907 12,417 9,151 7,281 2,743 28,349 27,925 43,833 30,942 26,112 16,655 49,817 44,481 42,087 30,818 26,055 29,770 35,206 45,952 34,009 28,798 30,618 30,992 41,190 34,458 31,067 21,193 23,163
LiDestri 568 S Temperance 0.205 0.326 236,617 240,688 227,217 178,523 219,737 249,707 217,319 303,663 195,926 183,484 282,345 277,807 205,176 201,935 216,571 168,649 247,239 326,452 202,533 323,510 267,634 257,836 283,642 224,500
Louie, Jay 471 S Teilman Ave 0.016 0.016
Lyons PLT 1 1634 S Second St 0.109 0.204 89,361 126,136 217,618 282,569 347,122 391,927 358,292 556,063 276,411 191,064 187,923 223,178 177,027 211,659 229,486 270,901 378,588 436,583 392,501 610,767 317,775 194,330 255,791 188,147 114,120
Lyons PLT 1 1635 S Second St 0.109 0.204
Lyons PLT 1 1636 S Second St 0.109 0.204
Mission Linen 2555 S Orange 0.020 0.055 20,296 21,717 22,664 26,729 33,386 45,927 49,418 47,573 55,452 42,960 41,115 41,140 44,606 30,319 21,742 16,855 18,127 35,630 52,061 36,901 44,182 35,879 35,954 35,680 20,445 13,913 10,946 6,183 34,533 28,025 36,577 29,247
New World Pasta 2704 S Maple 0.015 0.027 20,021 9,700 22,567 16,381 26,679 2,194 27,452 4,114 6,009 5,061 3,715 3,316 3,590 4,712 7,081 7,729 5,560 8,427 16,456 13,838 25,058 17,005 21,667 18,575 15,409 11,370 11,395 21,044 22,964 18,775 20,545 13,813
Pacific Choice 4667 E Date 0.096 0.230 112,375 54,978 166,555 154,936 119,630 167,826 229,611 202,957 203,431 187,000 193,782 147,705 121,849 64,054 91,555 75,199 105,717 119,481 166,181 111,477 211,160 177,575 158,003 108,734 95,644 57,421 91,206 97,065
PepsiCo 1150 E North 0.126 0.277 123,993 131,847 163,014 173,312 208,343 196,674 250,231 201,536 181,789 152,991 149,824 180,717 157,404 138,679 144,937 150,797 162,815 204,852 277,458 226,370 203,082 171,417 171,716 115,741 126,487 139,053 181,839
Producers Dairy 144 E Belmont 0.244 0.256 220,560 220,111 227,442 240,208 212,158 199,118 227,716 199,093 245,893 207,321 209,739 245,219 244,870 198,569 202,932 177,974 253,348 210,562 255,666
Producers Dairy 144 E Belmont 0.220 0.220
Prudential 1260 E North 0.017 0.028 27,676 24,709 24,509 17,204 13,564 23,188 15,658 17,304 13,439 13,963 14,860 16,730 17,603 15,683 12,591 13,763 15,085 14,212 16,207 12,342 17,329 21,368 25,083
Rich Products 320 O St 0.022 0.039 32,048 38,746 22,864 18,476 15,858 37,575 30,020 35,879 28,428 22,964 8,502 4,438 21,542 15,159 13,813 13,713 27,402 26,554 25,307 27,402 22,615 19,398
San Joaquin Fig 3564 N Hazel 0.012 0.012
SJV Concentrate 5631 E Olive 0.013 0.013
St Agnes Hospital 1303 E Herndon Ave 0.274 0.274
VA Medical Ctr 134 2615 E Clinton Ave 0.090 0.090
Valley Fig 2028 S Third 0.045 0.201 91,406 45,867 53,158 59,865 49,567 56,200 76,795 127,359 86,544 71,235 62,358 127,260 105,742 200,564 46,925 71,459 95,195 99,334 70,312 60,339 46,376 74,975 114,643 55,826 44,855 58,494
Wawona Fresno 2202 S Cedar 0.076 0.280 0 0 0 0 0 103,000 103,000 228,414 234,473 183,310 75,149 51,138 57,421 280,126 188,720
Westlake 0.000 0.000
Yosemite 3330 E Church 0.019 0.049 19,523 27,393 35,380 44,157 27,851 22,989 25,806 31,217 18,351 22,141 28,948 27,402 34,433 26,030 30,344 26,579 38,123 48,795 46,251 46,900 30,244 28,623 38,572 20,620 18,974 21,019 34,583 28,723 30,967 30,194 31,815
Zacky Packing 2950 E California 0.113 0.210 125,067 102,326 103,573 116,788 107,911 138,330 123,021 138,131 120,927 127,933 117,635 115,042 135,263 182,736 113,621 114,344 131,922 205,201 149,176 209,590 158,925 157,304 184,931 139,178 112,998 67,968 155,360
Zacky Turkey 2222 S East 0.396 0.816 355,200 287,933 290,099 441,071 444,312 527,365 475,504 517,092 362,306 448,725 623,832 423,343 375,197 411,101 566,336 455,707 601,168 659,088 574,863 689,531 629,492 684,595 815,844 440,871 396,265 396,639 555,639 378,338
Assumed Model Flows
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan
2006
in association with
Blair, Church and Flynn
Consulting Engineers
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan
2006
in association with
Blair, Church and Flynn
Consulting Engineers
i
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... ES-1
Hydraulic Assessment....................................................................................................................... ES-1
Comprehensive Capital Improvements Program....................................................................... ES-2
Other Recommendations................................................................................................................. ES-3
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1
Project Setting..................................................................................................................................... 1-3
Collection System............................................................................................................................... 1-4
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal............................................................................................. 1-7
Water Supply....................................................................................................................................... 1-8
Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................................... 1-9
CHAPTER 2. HYDRAULIC MODEL.................................................................................................... 2-1
Current Model Network .................................................................................................................. 2-1
Pipes.................................................................................................................................. 2-1
Manholes.......................................................................................................................... 2-4
Lift Stations...................................................................................................................... 2-5
Special Structures .............................................................................................................................. 2-5
Tributary Basins and Input Nodes................................................................................................. 2-9
CHAPTER 3. LAND USE........................................................................................................................... 3-1
Current Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
Future Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 3-4
North Growth Area....................................................................................................... 3-7
Southeast Growth Area................................................................................................. 3-7
CHAPTER 4. FLOW PROJECTIONS.................................................................................................... 4-1
Current Dry Weather Flow Projections ....................................................................................... 4-1
Residential Equivalent Dwelling Units...................................................................... 4-2
Large Dischargers........................................................................................................... 4-3
City of Clovis................................................................................................................... 4-4
Groundwater Infiltration.............................................................................................. 4-6
Current Dry Weather Flow Calibration........................................................................................ 4-6
Flow Data......................................................................................................................... 4-6
Average Dry Weather Flow Calibration.................................................................... 4-7
Diurnal Hydrographs..................................................................................................... 4-10
Future Dry Weather Flow Projections.......................................................................................... 4-11
Current Wet Weather Flow Projections........................................................................................ 4-13
Wet Weather Data.......................................................................................................... 4-14
Wet Weather Calibration.............................................................................................. 4-14
Design Wet Weather Flow........................................................................................... 4-15
Future Wet Weather Flows.............................................................................................................. 4-18
ii
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
CHAPTER 5. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 5-1
Assessment Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
Assessment of Current Collection System................................................................................... 5-2
Assessment of Future Collection System..................................................................................... 5-2
2002 SOI.......................................................................................................................... 5-2
2002 SOI Recommended Improvements................................................................. 5-6
North Growth Area....................................................................................................... 5-14
Impact of North Growth Area.................................................................................... 5-14
Southeast Growth Area (Un-adopted)....................................................................... 5-14
Impact of SEGA............................................................................................................ 5-15
CHAPTER 6. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM................................................................. 6-1
New Construction Projects ............................................................................................................ 6-1
Infill Projects................................................................................................................... 6-1
Growth Infill Projects.................................................................................................... 6-1
Capacity Projects............................................................................................................. 6-2
Development Driven Projects..................................................................................... 6-3
Trunk Sewer Projects..................................................................................................... 6-3
Rehabilitation Projects ..................................................................................................................... 6-4
Large Diameter Rehabilitation Projects..................................................................... 6-4
Primary and Secondary Rehabilitation Projects....................................................... 6-4
Identification of Capital Improvement Projects ......................................................................... 6-5
Unit Costs for Capital Improvement Project Cost Estimates.................................................. 6-5
Capital Improvement Project Cost Estimates............................................................................. 6-8
Manhole Spacing ............................................................................................................ 6-8
Manhole Type and Lining............................................................................................. 6-8
House Branch Sewers.................................................................................................... 6-8
Permanent Trench Resurfacing................................................................................... 6-9
State Right-of-Way Crossings...................................................................................... 6-9
Wastewater Lift Station................................................................................................. 6-9
Capital Improvement Project Prioritization and Scheduling.................................................... 6-9
Capital Improvement Project Descriptions................................................................................. 6-11
Basic Project Descriptions............................................................................................ 6-11
Detailed Project Descriptions...................................................................................... 6-11
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
APPENDIX B LAND USE DESIGNATION
APPENDIX C DRY WEATHER FLOW PROFILES
APPENDIX D LAND USE SUMMARY
APPENDIX E WET WEATHER CALIBRATIONS
APPENDIX F BASIC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX G CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MAP
APPENDIX H DETAIL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
iii
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
ES-1 CIP Summary, Million Dollars......................................................................................... ES-2
1-1 Summary of City’s Gravity Pipelines by Diameter ....................................................... 1-6
1-2 Summary of City’s Gravity Pipelines by Age................................................................. 1-7
1-3 Summary of City’s Gravity Pipelines by Material......................................................... 1-7
1-4 Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................... 1-10
2-1 Model Network Pipe Summary........................................................................................ 2-2
2-2 Modeled Network Lift Station Summary....................................................................... 2-5
3-1 Current Land Use Summary............................................................................................. 3-3
3-2 Multi-family Residential Densities................................................................................... 3-3
3-3 Future Land Use Summary............................................................................................... 3-4
3-4 Future RSF Development Densities............................................................................... 3-6
4-1 Large Dischargers................................................................................................................ 4-3
4-1 Large Dischargers (continued)..................................................................................... 4-4
4-2 Summary of Clovis Flow Monitoring Data................................................................... 4-6
4-3 Flow Monitoring Network Data for July 2003............................................................. 4-7
4-4 Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors................................................................................... 4-9
4-5 Model Average Dry Weather Flow Calibration Summary......................................... 4-10
4-6 Model Peak Dry Weather Flow Calibration Summary................................................ 4-11
4-7 Future Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors...................................................................... 4-12
4-8 Future Wastewater Flows for Clovis............................................................................... 4-13
5-1 Hydraulic Evaluation Criteria........................................................................................... 5-1
5-2 2002 SOI Relief Sewer Recommendations.................................................................... 5-7
5-3 Network Lift Stations Assessments................................................................................. 5-12
5-4 Southeast Growth Area Relief Sewer Recommendations.......................................... 5-18
6-1 Sewer Facility Unit Costs................................................................................................... 6-6
6-1 Sewer Facility Unit Costs (continued)........................................................................ 6-7
6-1 Sewer Facility Unit Costs (continued)........................................................................ 6-8
iv
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1-1 Study Area............................................................................................................................. 1-2
1-2 Current Sewer System........................................................................................................ 1-5
2-1 Current Model Sewer Network........................................................................................ 2-3
2-2 Current Special Structures................................................................................................. 2-6
2-3 Cleaning Basins and Sub-Basins....................................................................................... 2-10
2-4 Current Model Network Input Nodes........................................................................... 2-11
3-1 Land Use of Currently Connected Parcels..................................................................... 3-2
3-2 2025 Land Use..................................................................................................................... 3-5
4-1 Flow Monitoring Network................................................................................................ 4-5
4-2 Peak Annual Statistics for Flow Immediately Upstream of the
Treatment Plant (Period of Record = 1948 to 2002).................................................. 4-17
4-3 Storm Water Tie-in Locations.......................................................................................... 4-19
5-1 Current and Future Modeled Sewers.............................................................................. 5-3
5-2 Existing Dry Weather Surcharging with No Improvements..................................... 5-4
5-3 Existing Wet Weather Surcharging with No Improvements..................................... 5-5
5-4 Future Dry Weather Surcharging with No Improvements........................................ 5-8
5-5 Future Wet Weather Surcharging with No Improvements........................................ 5-9
5-6 Recommended Relief Sewers............................................................................................ 5-10
5-7 South Industrial Area Future Sewer Layout.................................................................. 5-13
5-8 Southeast Area Future Sewer Layout.............................................................................. 5-17
5-9 Future Dry Weather Surcharging with Improvements............................................... 5-20
5-10 Future wet Weather Surcharging with Improvements................................................ 5-21
ES-1
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fresno owns and maintains the wastewater collection system that serves the City and the
other participating agencies: County of Fresno, City of Clovis (Clovis), Pinedale Public Utility District,
and Pinedale County Water District. The City’s wastewater collection system (i.e. sanitary sewers) is
comprised of approximately 1,400 miles of pipe ranging from 4” to 84” in diameter, and is worth over
one billion dollars in today’s replacement costs.
With the adoption of the 2025 General Plan, the City recognized the need for a comprehensive
planning tool that can be used to assist in determining the least expensive methods of providing
sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate existing and future users. This Master Plan fills that need and
includes:
• Review of the City’s physical collection system, including local drainage basins, pipes, and
special diversion structures (Chapter 2);
• Review of all current and future land use (Chapter 3);
• Development of current and projected flow rates during dry and wet weather, and an
evaluation of how much extra flow from rainfall is present (Chapter 4);
• Development of a state-of-the-art fully dynamic model (Chapter 2);
• Hydraulic analysis of the system under current and future conditions (Chapter 5);
• Development of Capital Improvement Program, prioritization, and cost estimates for
projects to address both existing and future needs including the City’s existing rehabilitation
projects (Chapter 6); and
• A Financial Analysis of the impacts of the recommended projects (Information provided
separately).
• Evaluation of collection system maintenance programs (Information provided separately).
Hydraulic Assessment
As a planning tool, a fully dynamic sewer model was built within MOUSE to evaluate pipes greater than
12 inches in diameter. MOUSE is a professional sewer modeling software package developed by DHI
Software. MOUSE processes multiple complex calculations and outputs computational information for
all modeled pipes and manholes for the time duration of the model simulation. Data from the City’s
extensive permanent flow monitoring network was used to calibrate the model under dry and wet
weather flow conditions.
ES-2
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To ensure adequate pipe sizing, the future modeled flows were based on full build-out of the 2025
General Plan with the North Growth Area, Southeast Growth Area, and growth in Clovis. A 10-year
flow reoccurrence frequency was selected for the wet weather design condition.
Below is a partial list of conclusions from the hydraulic analyses:
• An average single-family dwelling unit (EDU) generates 290 gallons per day.
• There is no appreciable groundwater infiltration (GWI) into the collection system.
• Collection system is fairly “tight” (i.e. low contributions from rainfall dependant infiltration
or inflow of 500 gallons per acre per day) except for the older downtown area of Fresno,
which has significantly higher RDI/I rates (10,000 gallons per acre per day).
• 109,000 linear feet of relief and replacement sewers are needed for full build-out.
Once calibrated, the model was used to analyze the network for deficiencies for both existing and future
conditions. The outcome of the analysis is the basis of the Capacity projects further described in
Chapter 6.
Comprehensive Capital Improvements Program
A comprehensive Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that encompasses new hydraulic capacity,
existing rehabilitation projects, expansion of the collection system to serve new development, and
connection of parcels currently using septic tanks was developed. The CIP includes estimated costs,
prioritization, and scheduling of each project.
Over 133 projects totaling $288 million in 2004 dollars will be needed to accommodate buildout of the
City’s 2025 General Plan and to rehabilitate known structural problems in the collection system. The
costs of the identified projects are allocated to either growth or existing users; some projects benefit
both and their costs are allocated based on benefit. After allocation to either existing or growth, the
costs were further allocated between the City and Clovis. The identified projects are shown in
Appendix G, and are summarized in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1. CIP Summary, Million Dollars
Fresno Clovis Existing Growth Subtotal Existing Growth Subtotal
Grand
Total
Total 60.7 223.6 284.3 1.3 2.4 3.7 288.0
See Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of the various components.
ES-3
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Other Recommendations
Other recommendations include:
• Continue the flow monitoring program. (Chapter 4)
• Adopt the Equivalent Dwelling Unit factors listed in Table 4-4 for projecting flow for
future developments. (Chapter 4)
• Adopt a design standard of 500 gallons per acre per day for RDI/I allowance in new
developments. (Chapter 4)
• Continue investigation and elimination of RDI/I sources in the downtown. (Chapter 4)
• Update this Collection System Master Plan on an approximately five-year frequency, or
sooner if significant changes to the planning assumptions occur.
1-1
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) is the Regional Sewer Agency for the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area
(FCMA). The City owns and maintains the wastewater collection system that serves the City and the
other participating agencies: County of Fresno, City of Clovis (Clovis), Pinedale Public Utility District,
and Pinedale County Water District. The City also owns and operates the Fresno/Clovis Regional
Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF). (EIR, V-F1)
The City is anticipating considerable growth. According to the 2025 General Plan, the City’s population
will increase from about 482,000 in 2000 to 790,000 in 2025. The growth will occur through population
densification as well as new developments. In order to support the projected increase in population, the
2025 General Plan identified two growth areas that would expand the City’s sphere of influence. The
study area for this Master Plan includes the City’s sphere of influence as of 2002 and these two growth
areas. The study area is shown on Figure 1-1.
The City recognizes that the collection system must be expanded to handle the resulting increase flow
in the City’s current collection system and to provide service to new developments. The City also has an
on-going program to address the age and existing challenges in the collection system. The most notable
existing challenge is corrosion of concrete sewers.
The City retained Brown and Caldwell to prepare a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to
enable the City to continue providing adequate sewer capacity and maintaining a high level of service to
its current and future customers. The goal of the project is to develop a long-range planning document
that will assist the City’s staff with managing the collection system capital improvement program and
updating impact and connection fees. Specific objectives of the project include:
1. Identifying and evaluating improvements to the existing and future collection system
necessary to serve proposed growth;
2. Developing a comprehensive capital improvement program for the collection system that
includes hydraulic projects as well as rehabilitation projects to address corrosion; and
3. Reviewing impact and connection fees for adequacy to recover rehabilitation and growth
costs.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-3
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
The Master Plan project included the following tasks:
• developing a hydraulic model of the collection system and performing a hydraulic
assessment for current and future conditions;
• identifying hydraulic deficiencies in the current collection system and new pipelines to serve
new developments;
• developing a capital improvement program that includes collection system projects
identified during the hydraulic analysis and other projects already identified by the City;
• conducting a CMOM readiness review;
• conducting a financial assessment of the City’s Sewer Capital Improvement Program on the
basis of current and future project needs versus connection fee revenue; and
• updating Sewer Connection Fees.
Information on the CMOM readiness review and Sewer Connection Fees was provided to the City
separately and is not included in this Master Plan report.
Project Setting
The City is located about in the center of San Joaquin Valley on the south side of the San Joaquin River.
The City is the commercial, cultural, and civic hub for Fresno County and much of the valley. Fresno is
the largest City within a 200 mile radius, and Clovis, which is located on the east side of the City, is the
only other larger city in the general vicinity.
While the City has a diverse economy, Fresno County is the nation’s top-ranked agriculture-producing
county. Currently, agricultural land within the metropolitan area is interspersed on larger parcels along
the fringe of the urbanized area and in between parcels. In the future, agricultural uses within the City
will be displaced by residents and commercial activities.
The City is located near the western fringe of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The terrain is flat
except for bluffs near the San Joaquin River. Soils are primarily well drained alluvial with some
expansive clay. There are no active faults within the City although the Clovis Fault is located in Clovis.
However, no evidence of historic ground movement has been found associated with the Clovis Fault.
Overall, the area is considered to have a low seismic risk. (EIR, V-L1, 2)
The area is characterized as arid with annual precipitation typically ranging from 10 to12 inches per year.
Most precipitation occurs between October and April. (EIR, V-D1) Winters are mild.
Despite the arid climate, a large useable aquifer does exist under the study area. The water table is
located between 159 to 900 feet below the ground surface for much of the area, and generally becomes
shallower towards the north and east. Recently, the southeast area has been identified as having nitrate
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-4
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
contamination. This contamination requires well-head treatment of the groundwater, which is very
expensive. (EIR, V-D2)
Collection System
The wastewater collection system conveys wastewater primarily by gravity to the RWRF located
southwest of the City limits. Generally, wastewater flows from the northeast to the southwest. The City
also conveys wastewater from Clovis and two unincorporated areas, Pinedale Public Utility District and
the Pinedale County Water District. Clovis has purchased capacity in specific pipelines. The existing
collection system and Clovis connections are shown on Figure 1-2.
The City has over 20,000 manholes, 13 permanent and 4 temporary lift stations, nearly 13 miles of force
mains, and almost 1,400 miles of gravity sewer pipes. A summary of the City’s gravity pipelines by
diameter, age, and material is presented in Table 1-1, Table 1-2, and Table 1-3, respectively. The City’s
Geographical Information system (GIS) was used as the source for these tables.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-6
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 1-1. Summary of City’s Gravity Pipelines by Diameter
Diameter, inches Length, ft Length, miles % of Total
4 553 0.1 0.0
6 2,071,435 392.3 28.4
8 3,139,080 594.5 43.0
10 517,972 98.1 7.1
12 330,880 62.7 4.5
14 12,802 2.4 0.2
15 215,361 40.8 2.9
16 14,588 2.8 0.2
18 194,484 36.8 2.7
20 13,653 2.6 0.2
21 85,401 16.2 1.2
22 5,746 1.1 0.1
24 98,895 18.7 1.4
27 58,061 11.0 0.8
30 73,183 13.9 1.0
33 32,547 6.2 0.4
36 38,627 7.3 0.5
39 44,658 8.5 0.6
40 3,733 0.7 0.1
42 36,477 6.9 0.5
45 72,475 13.7 1.0
46 63 0.0 0.0
48 52,031 9.9 0.7
51 18,508 3.5 0.3
54 15,672 3.0 0.2
57 5,614 1.1 0.1
60 60,193 11.4 0.8
66 58,885 11.2 0.8
72 31,636 6.0 0.4
84 2,620 0.5 0.0
Total 7,305,836 1,383.7 100.0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-7
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 1-2. Summary of City’s Gravity Pipelines by Age
Years Length, ft Length, miles % of Total
Pre 1900 55,108 10.4 0.8
1900-1910 42,383 8.0 0.6
1911-1920 298,981 56.6 4.1
1921-1930 159,246 30.2 2.2
1931-1940 134,572 25.5 1.8
1941-1950 566,879 107.4 7.8
1951-1960 873,995 165.5 12.0
1961-1970 975,226 184.7 13.3
1971-1980 2,046,711 387.6 28.0
1981-1990 827,616 156.7 11.3
1991-2000 1,056,669 200.1 14.5
2001-2003 268,449 50.8 3.7
Total 7,305,836 1,383.7 100.0
Table 1-3. Summary of City’s Gravity Pipelines by Material
Material Name Abbreviation Length, ft Length, miles % of Total
Asbestos Cement Pipe ACP 33,128 6.3 0.5
Armco Plastic Truss APT 30,592 5.8 0.4
Cast Iron Pipe CIP 33,201 6.3 0.5
Ductile Iron Pipe DIP 24,111 4.6 0.3
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic FRP 30 0.0 0.0
Polyvinyl Chloride PVC 1,722,679 326.3 23.6
Reinforced Concrete Lined Pipe RCL 86,613 16.4 1.2
Reinforced Concrete Pipe RCP 505,711 95.8 6.9
Standard Concrete Pipe SCP 312,509 59.2 4.3
Truss Pipe TRS 1,184 0.2 0.0
Vitrified Clay Pipe VCP 4,556,078 862.9 62.4
Total - 7,305,836 1,383.7 100.0
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
As a condition of a Federal Clean Water Grant the City was designated the Regional Sewer Agency for
the FCMA in 1966. (EIR, V-F1) While the City and Clovis each independently operate and maintain
their own collection system, the City operates the RWRF under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with
Clovis and the County of Fresno. Through the JPA, Clovis has capacity ownership and rights to
purchase additional capacity in the RWRF.
The RWRF is located on about 2000 acres to the southwest of the City. The first wastewater treatment
facilities were constructed at this site in 1947, although the site has been used for wastewater disposal
since 1907. The original plant provided primary treatment and had a capacity of about 20 million
gallons per day (mgd). After several expansions and upgrades, the RWRF currently provides secondary
treatment and has a rated capacity of 80 mgd. Effluent disposal is primarily through infiltration beds
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-8
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
located at the RWRF and agricultural irrigation. The RWRF operates under a Waste Discharge
Requirements order from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Carollo Master
Plan Report Technical Memorandum No. 1)
City policy is to keep the RWRF as the principle wastewater treatment facility. The policy also allows
small subregional (i.e. “satellite”) facilities. Satellite facilities will be constructed when the life-cycle cost
of constructing, operating and maintaining such facilities is less than the life-cycle cost of constructing,
operating and maintaining additional conveyance capacity to and treatment facilities at the RWRF or
when ecologically beneficial for water reclamation/reuse. (EIR, V-F1)
In 2001, the City completed a study of subregional satellite wastewater treatment plants. The study
concluded that a satellite plant would be needed to provide 8 mgd wastewater treatment for the North
Growth Area. (Satellite, p. 2) The 2025 General Plan requires this area and particularly the Copper River
Ranch development to provide a satellite treatment facility along with an effluent disposal system before
the area is fully developed. (General Plan) Solids from the satellite plant would be discharged to the
City’s collection system for conveyance to the RWRF for treatment and disposal.
The satellite plant study also evaluated locating a satellite treatment plant in the southeast quadrant of
the City and recommended considering a 24 mgd plant. This plant would serve both the City and
Clovis. (Satellite, p. 6) Since the completion of the Satellite report, Clovis has decided to pursue
construction of its own phased 8.4 mgd wastewater treatment plant. This plant would treat wastewater
from Clovis in excess of the capacity owned by Clovis at the RWRF. The City has decided to continue
to consider constructing a southeast satellite treatment plant that would serve portions of the Southeast
Growth Area and some future flow from Clovis. The capacity of this wastewater treatment plant would
be less than 24 mgd.
A major hurdle for implementing any satellite wastewater treatment plant program is effluent disposal.
For the purposes of this Master Plan, it is assumed that effluent disposal issues can be adequately
addressed and that satellite facilities will be constructed to serve the North Growth Area and Clovis.
The construction of a satellite facility in the southeast will be considered as an alternative to expanding
treatment capacity at the RWRF to treat the wastewater from part of the Southeast Growth Area and
Clovis at the RWRF.
Water Supply
The City provides potable water to customers throughout the study area. The City obtains most water
from a series of wells that are dispersed throughout the potable water distribution system. A large
aquifer underlies the City. The City is also developing surface water sources to augment groundwater
because of overdrafts from the aquifer. The first surface water treatment plant will come on-line in the
summer of 2004. The City is currently entitled to 95,000 acre-feet of water from the Fresno Irrigation
District’s allotment from Kings River in a typical year and is entitled to 60,000 acre-feet of water under
contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation from the Central Valley Project. (EIR, V-D2)
Per capita water use was 338 gallons per day per person in 2001. This was the highest per capita water
use among the 10 largest cities in California. This rate of water consumption may decrease with the
installation of water meters and the City’s water conservation program. (EIR, V-D5)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-9
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Groundwater contamination has caused over 30 wells to be closed and well-head treatment facilities to
be added to other wells. Nitrates are an important cause of groundwater contamination and come
primarily from on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic tanks and leach fields) and fertilizer. Water
contaminated with nitrate is difficult to treat. (EIR, V-D2) The City has administered a Mandatory
Sewering Ordinance since 1968. The ordinance requires on-site disposal systems to be abandoned in
favor of connecting to the regional sewer system when it becomes available. (EIR, V-D7)
Acronyms and Abbreviations
To conserve space and improve readability, acronyms and abbreviations have been used in this report.
Each acronym and abbreviation has been identified in the text the first time it is used. Subsequent usage
of the term is then identified by its acronym or abbreviation. A summary of the acronyms and
abbreviations used in this report is presented in Table 1-4.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-10
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 1-4. Acronyms And Abbreviations
Acronym or
Abbreviation
Description
ACP Asbestos-Cement Pipe
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
cfs cubic feet per second
CH Commercial Heavy
CIPP Cured-in-place pipe
City City of Fresno
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Units
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ET Evaporation/Transpiration
FCMA Fresno Clovis Metropolitan Area
FR flow monitor
FRC Fast Response Component
ft feet
FY Fiscal Year
General Plan 2025 Fresno General Plan
GIS Geographical Information System
gpad gallons per acre per day
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
GWI Groundwater Infiltration
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line
IL Industrial Low
in inches
LS lift station
mgd million gallons per day
NGA North Growth Area
NRCP Non-Reinforced Concrete Pipe
PVC poly vinyl chloride
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RDI/I Rainfall Dependent Infiltration & Inflow
RH Residential High
RMH Residential Medium High
RSF Residential single-family
RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
SEGA Southeast Growth Area
SOI sphere of influence
SRC Slow Response Component
USGS US Geological Survey
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
2-1
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
CHAPTER 2
HYDRAULIC MODEL
This chapter describes the development of the hydraulic model network for the current sanitary
sewer collection system and the selection of flow input nodes to the model. The primary source of
information for developing the model network was the City’s GIS. Additional information was
obtained from scanned images of City record drawings representing construction of the collection
system.
The hydraulic modeling program used for this project is MOUSE, a product of DHI Software.
MOUSE is a fully dynamic hydraulic model program that is widely used to emulate sanitary sewer
and storm drain systems. A dynamic model is advantageous over a static model because it takes into
account the various flow patterns of dischargers. Therefore, a more accurate analysis can be
conducted that accounts for the variations of flow over time. MOUSE was developed with the
capability to link to GIS databases. This linkage simplifies creating the pipe network within the
model and in viewing model results for evaluation. MOUSE routes wastewater hydrographs through
the pipe network and calculates the elevation of the hydraulic grade line (HGL). Computational
information is available for all modeled pipes and manholes for the time duration of the model
simulation. This information can be easily compared to flow monitoring data for calibration or
analyzed for hydraulic deficiencies.
Current Model Network
The current model network includes pipes, manholes, lift stations, and special structures.
Pipes. The model network evaluation includes sewers that are 12 inches in diameter and larger.
However, to complete connectivity of the sewer model, approximately 5,000 feet of 8 and 10-inch
diameter pipe are included in the network. The current modeled sewer network is shown on Figure
2-1. The GIS indicated the status of several reaches as “proposed”. Discussions with City staff
indicated that these reaches are actually in-service or currently being installed and therefore are
included in the network.
The modeled network of sewer pipe lengths and diameters are summarized in Table 2-1. Overall,
approximately 296 miles of sanitary sewer pipelines are included in the model. This constitutes about
21 percent of the total length of pipe in the City’s collection system. Typically, sewers that are 12
inches in diameter and larger are most likely to have capacity problems. These sewers are referred to
as over-sized to collect and convey flow from current and future developments to the RWRF. The
actual flow from these developments may vary significantly from the flows used to initially size the
pipe.
2.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
2-2
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 2-1. Model Network Pipe Summary
Pipe diameter
(inches)
Table 1-1
Length (ft)
Modeled
Length (ft)a
8 3,139,080 4,874
10 517,972 678
12 330,880 330,690
14 12,802 12,802
15 215,361 213,943
16 14,588 14,588
18 194,484 192,738
20 13,653 13,653
21 85,401 84,737
22 5,746 5,746
24 98,895 98,866
27 58,061 58,061
30 73,183 73,183
33 32,547 32,547
36 38,627 38,627
39 44,658 44,658
40 3,733 3,733
42 36,477 36,477
45 72,475 72,475
46 63 63
48 52,031 52,031
51 18,508 18,508
54 15,672 15,096
57 5,614 5,614
60 60,193 45,075
66 58,885 58,821
72 31,636 31,636
84 2,620 2,620
Total Pipe Length (ft) 5,233,845 1,562,540
a Information regarding the pipe lengths was taken from the City’s GIS.
2.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
2-4
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
The City has an on-going program to rehabilitate reinforced concrete pipelines that are deteriorated.
The City’s rehabilitation effort is being performed primarily using a cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) method.
CIPP method consists of a polyester fabric and resin liner that is installed against the interior surface of
the deteriorated pipe wall. As concrete pipelines deteriorate, the internal diameter of the pipe increases
because of erosion and the loss of concrete from the pipe wall. Depending on the extent of pipe
erosion and the thickness of the replacement liner, actual pipe capacity may either increase or decrease
slightly from its original design capacity. Because the extent of pipe erosion versus liner thickness is
difficult to determine, it was estimated that the thickness of the CIPP liner will approximately
compensate for the loss of concrete and therefore the original nominal diameters of rehabilitated pipe
will be used in the model network.
Sanitary sewer facility information contained in the City’s GIS was reviewed for completeness.
Overall, the data was complete with invert and rim elevations, pipe diameters, and lengths for all
reaches. The pipe GIS database was reviewed to identify unusual characteristics that may indicate
data problems or may need additional evaluation during hydraulic modeling. The review evaluated
pipe lengths, pipe diameter restrictions, and adverse slopes.
Ninety pipe reaches (a “reach” being the pipe between two manholes) have lengths less than 20 feet
with the shortest pipe just under 4 feet. About 285 pipe reaches are greater than 800 feet in length
with the longest reach at 2,649 feet. Short pipe reaches often occur where pipelines join together and
4 feet is a reasonable length. Larger diameter pipe reaches often have long distances between
manholes. The lengths included in the GIS are not anticipated to cause difficulties during hydraulic
modeling.
Pipe diameter restrictions can occur when a larger diameter pipe discharges to a small diameter pipe.
The network contains 22 instances of diameter restrictions. Most are only one pipe diameter size.
Eight restrictions have decreases in pipe diameter of six or more inches. MOUSE determines the
impact on the hydraulic grade line caused by the restrictions and indicates if the decrease will result
in surcharging.
The model network contains about 40 reaches with adverse slopes, meaning that the pipe invert is
flat or goes “uphill” in the direction of flow. This condition is generally not desirable, but is
sometimes unavoidable due to revised operations from the original design. For example, the pipe on
Fruit Avenue from Jensen Avenue to Church Avenue was constructed to convey flow to the north.
However, over time a diversion structure was built at Church Avenue and Fruit Avenue to route
flow to the south into the North Avenue sewer. Although adverse slopes seem undesirable, they can
exist without causing negative consequences. In this example, the pipe has sufficient capacity to
overcome the adverse slope and flow “uphill” without reaching full pipe. All of the other adverse
slope reaches have small or flat slopes and are not anticipated to cause surcharging. MOUSE
calculates the hydraulic grade line for these reaches and determines the amount of surcharging, if
any, that occurs under current and future conditions. The results from the hydraulic analysis were
evaluated to determine if excessive surcharging occurs and requires mitigation.
Manholes. The manhole data was reviewed to identify any manholes with ground surface and
invert elevations outside of the anticipated elevation range of 245 to 390 feet above sea level and
invert elevations greater than 40 feet below the ground surface elevation. All manholes were found
to fall within the anticipated elevation range and maximum depth.
2.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
2-5
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
The GIS also contained information for T-nodes, which are located at changes in pipe slope
between manholes. The T-node file did not contain rim elevations; therefore, elevations were
extracted from a digital elevation model obtained from US Geological Survey (USGS).
Lift Stations. The City’s sanitary sewer collection system operates with 17 lift stations. Four of
these lift stations are temporary. Four of the lift stations were included in the model based on their
location in the collection system. These lift stations are required to maintain connectivity in the
modeled system and are listed in Table 2-2 and shown on Figure 2-1. Available information for
these lift stations was obtained from the GIS database supplied by the City staff.
MOUSE can closely model the operation of lift stations using specific information on the hydraulic
capacities and operations of each lift station including pump curves, force main head loss curves,
and pump start/stop levels in the wet wells. Since this information was not readily available and the
hydraulics of the City’s current lift station facilities was not a significant concern in this Master Plan,
a simplified approach was used to compare the projected peak flows to the reported lift station
capacities.
Table 2-2. Modeled Network Lift Station Summary
Name Location Capacity
(gpm)
Capacity
(mgd)
Pump
(hp)
Status
LS02 S Marks Ave/W Kearney Blvd. 650 0.94 10 Active
LS05 N Fort Washington Rd/E Champlain Dr 515 0.74 20 Active
LS06 E Champlain Dr/E Perrin Ave 1,545 2.22 60 Active
LS14 Maple Ave/E Fountain Way 400 0.58 20 Active
Special Structures
The City’s sewer collection system contains several special structures that divert flow from one
drainage area to another. Information about these special structures was obtained from the City’s
record drawings and GIS. The special structures were reviewed to determine the flow split
characteristics. Weirs, gates, or channelization of the structure bottom can alter flow direction. This
information is used in the hydraulic model to ensure correct simulation of the collection system.
These structures are shown on Figure 2-2 and are described below.
2.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
2-7
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
East California and South East Structure (Manhole 2858-101). Manhole 2858-101 is located at
the intersection of East California and South East Avenues and consists of a 60-inch standard
manhole design with frame and cover, and channelized base. Under average day conditions, all flow
diverts east to the 30-inch pipe with an upstream invert elevation of 275.7 feet However, once the
hydraulic grade line reaches 276.5 feet flow will split south to the 21-inch pipe. The planned
operation for this structure is not anticipated to change for the purpose of this Master Plan.
West Church and South Fruit Structure (Manhole 2952-37). Manhole 2952-37 is located at the
intersection of West Church and South Fruit Avenues. This structure is a cast-in-place, reinforced
concrete structure with a channelized bottom, and the manhole risers are made of brick with cast
iron covers. Flow enters the structure from the east via two new 30-inch pipes. Currently, flow also
enters from a 48-inch pipe from the south. Flow exits the structure through an existing 48-inch pipe
to the west. The structure had options for installing 2”x12”x4’-4” redwood board gates on the 48-
inch pipe exiting the structure; however, due to a blow-out in 2002 flow is no longer prohibited
from exiting the structure and continuing westerly in Church Avenue. The structure was repaired in
2003, but the gate was not reinstated. A new gate will need to be constructed such that the flow can
be diverted to the south in the 48-inch Fruit Avenue pipeline to North Avenue as originally
conceived and was modeled as such in this Master Plan. In the event the gate is not reinstated,
additional flow will continue westerly on Church Avenue. This may cause capacity issues not
addressed in this Master Plan and should be studied for the impact on the Church Avenue sewers.
East Jensen and South Fruit Structure (Manhole 3153-01). Manhole 3153-01 is located in South
Fruit Avenue on the south side of East Jensen Avenue. This structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The structure has one 24”x 60” access manhole. Currently,
wastewater entering the structure from the north and east flows south in Fruit Avenue. The north
and east are 48-inch pipelines and south is a 51-inch pipeline. There are channels provided to install
a gate in this junction structure to block flow from going south to North Avenue, thus forcing flows
north to West Church Avenue; however, gates are not currently installed. Therefore, no gates were
modeled. The planned operation for this structure is not anticipated to change for the purpose of
this Master Plan.
East Jensen and South Fruit Structure (Manhole 3153-09). Manhole 3153-09 is located in East
Jensen Avenue on the east side of South Fruit Avenue. The structure has a standard manhole design
with frame and cover for access. Flow enters the structure from the easterly 48-inch pipeline and
currently is diverted south to a 51-inch pipeline in South Fruit Avenue. Having since been plugged
and abandoned, this structure was originally constructed with a 48-inch pipeline and radius bend to
the north directing flow from West Jensen Avenue north in South Fruit Avenue to West Church
Avenue. A 48-inch pipeline was also constructed with a radius bend to the south that allows flow
from East Jensen Avenue to travel south in South Fruit Avenue when the gate described above for
the structure at manhole 3153-01 is not in place. As mentioned above, this gate is currently not
installed and flow is directed south in South Fruit Avenue to West North Avenue. The planned
operation for this structure is not anticipated to change for the purpose of this Master Plan.
East Jensen and South Cherry Structure (Manhole 3056-03). Manhole 3056-03 is located at
East Jensen and South Cherry Avenues. This structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-
place concrete. The structure has two 24”x 50” access manholes. Currently, flow entering the
structure from the north and east is split to the south and west, respectively. The north and south
pipelines are 48-inch pipes and the pipelines in the east and west directions are both 36-inch pipes.
An existing manhole is located just outside the junction on the east and the 48-inch pipe passes
2.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
2-8
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
through this manhole before entering the junction structure. There are notches provided to install
gates in this junction structure for the east 48-inch pipe and the south 36-inch pipe; however, gates
are not installed. Under average day conditions, approximately two-thirds of the wastewater flows
west and the remaining one-third flows south. The planned operation for this structure is not
anticipated to change for the purpose of this Master Plan.
W/S Freeway 99 at East Burns Alignment Structure (Manhole 3057-07). Manhole 3057-07 is
located along the west side of Freeway 99 at East Burns Alignment (south of Church Avenue). This
structure was constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The structure has two 24”x 50”
access manholes. Flow enters the junction structure through a 6’x 3’ single box sewer from the east.
Currently, flow exits the structure to northwest and west by a 34” x 54” elliptical sewer and a
36-inch pipe, respectively. Under average day conditions, flow splits approximately in half between
the two exiting pipes. There are notches provided to install gates in this junction structure for the
northwest elliptical pipe and the west 36-inch pipe. However, gates are not currently in place and
the planned operation for this structure is not anticipated to change for the purpose of this Master
Plan.
West Whitesbridge at South Fruit Structure (Manhole 2652-03). Manhole 2652-03 is located at
the intersection of West Whitesbridge Road and South Fruit Avenues. This structure was
constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. Currently, flow enters the structure through a
42-inch pipe from the north and is split approximately in half between to the south and southwest
into a 42-inch pipe and a 33-inch pipe respectively. The planned operation for this structure is not
anticipated to change for the purpose of this Master Plan.
South Taylor at East Church Avenue Structure (Manhole 2957-22). Manhole 2957-22 is
located at the intersection of South Taylor and East Church Avenues. The structure was constructed
with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. Flow enters the structure from the east via existing 27-inch
and 30-inch pipes. Currently, flow exits the structure to the west through a 34” x 53” elliptical sewer
pipe. The elliptical sewer pipe curves at a radius of 30 feet to the south into an existing manhole
where a 6-inch pipe from the northwest connects. Flow is not split at this structure; the elliptical
pipe and radius of this pipe are a unique feature of this collection system and is considered a special
structure.
North Milburn Avenue at West Herndon Structure (Manhole 1346-25). Manhole 1346-25 is
located at the intersection of North Milburn and West Herndon Avenues. The structure was
constructed with reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The interior concrete surfaces, except the floor
of the structure, are lined with PVC. Flow enters the junction structure from the north via an
existing 45-inch pipe. The flow can be split to the southwest and south to 45-inch pipes. Flow is
controlled using two 45” x 45” fabricated, stainless steel slide gates. A 24-inch PVC air jumper
connects the junction structure with a manhole located to the west of the structure. Currently, the
south slide gate is closed forcing all flow to the southwest. The planned operation for this structure
is not anticipated to change for the purpose of this Master Plan.
East Ashlan and North Sierra Vista Avenue Structure (Manhole 1961-01). Manhole 1961-01 is
located at East Ashlan and North Sierra Vista Avenues. Currently, flow enters the structure from the
north via a 12-inch pipe and splits approximately in half to the west and south into a 12-inch and a
15-inch pipe, respectively. The planned operation for this structure is not anticipated to change for
the purpose of this Master Plan.
2.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
2-9
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
East McKinley and Harrison Avenue Structure (Manhole 2253-15). Manhole 2253-15 is
located at the intersection of East McKinley and Harrison Avenues. Under average day conditions,
all the flow diverts west to the 21-inch pipe with an upstream invert elevation of 282.8 feet
However, once the hydraulic grade line reaches 283.7 feet (0.8 ft depth) flow will split south to the
12-inch pipe. The planned operation for this structure is not anticipated to change for the purpose
of this Master Plan.
East Dakota and North Millbrook Structure (Manhole 2058-06). Manhole 2058-06 is located at
the intersection of East Dakota and North Millbrook Avenues. Flow enters the structure from the
north and east via a 24-inch and 18-inch pipe, respectively. Currently, flow is split approximately in
half to the south and west through two 21-inch pipes. The planned operation for this structure is
not anticipated to change for the purpose of this Master Plan.
North Chestnut and East Washington Structure (Manhole 2562-59). Manhole 2562-59 is
located at the intersection of North Chestnut and East Washington Avenues. Flow enters the
structure from the north via a 42-inch pipe and can exit south and west into a 42-inch and 21-inch
pipe, respectively. Specific design drawings of this structure could not be located; therefore a visual
inspection was conducted by the City. On the day of inspection, the majority of the flow was going
south. It is suspected that flow will only go to the west during high water level events. To emulate
this condition, the structure was modeled so that the pipe crowns matched.
Tributary Basins and Input Nodes
Wastewater flow is entered into the collection system model via input nodes. The tributary flow for
each input node is based on the land uses in the associated tributary basin. The input nodes and
tributary basins for the hydraulic model are based on work performed by the City as part of its
current GIS and system modeling effort. The City divided the study area into 18 cleaning basins,
which are subdivided into 167 sub-basins. The cleaning basins and sub-basins are shown on Figure
2-3. The sub-basins were further subdivided into over 3,400 smaller tributary basins. Wastewater
flows were generated for these smaller tributary basins and entered into the City’s model via 3,200
input nodes. Some input nodes were associated with more than one tributary basin. Information on
input nodes and tributary basins is located in the City’s GIS.
The City’s tributary basins and associated input nodes were used to identify input nodes and develop
tributary basins for the model developed for this Master Plan. In some cases, more than one City
tributary basin was assigned to the same input node. MOUSE does not allow an input node to have
more than one tributary basin. To meet this MOUSE requirement, City tributary basins were
consolidated to make one tributary basin for each input node. Figure 2-4 shows the location of the
input nodes within the Master Plan’s model.
2.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
2-12
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
The process for assigning new input nodes consisted of the following:
• Identifying those City tributary basins contributing flow to nodes that are not within the
current model network. This was performed by comparing the input node database of the
City’s model and the input node database of the current model. Those input nodes that do
not have a match required reassignment.
• Data from the tributary pipes (pipes not included in the current model) within the identified
tributary basins was reviewed for upstream and downstream nodes to determine the
direction of flow within the basin.
• A nearby-modeled node was assigned as the input node for the associated tributary basin.
Typically, new input nodes were assigned where 8-inch and 10-inch sewers connect to the
modeled sewers.
In addition to reassigning the City’s tributary basins to input nodes within the model, some tributary
basins were further subdivided. Additional input nodes were created within these tributary basins
based on the intersections of tributary pipes and modeled pipes. This effort insured that all modeled
pipes contained flow.
The Master Plan model of the current collection system has approximately 2,400 input nodes and
associated tributary basins. In the future, new sewer lines will be needed to serve areas that are
currently not developed. Additional input nodes and tributary basins will be developed as needed to
load these flows into the model network.
Flow from Clovis enters the City’s collection system at four metered connection points. Evaluation
of land use within Clovis is not part of this project; therefore, Clovis was not divided into tributary
basins. A small unincorporated area, north of Dakota Avenue, is located outside of the sphere of
influence but is included in the CHES basin. This area currently contributes wastewater to the City’s
collection system.
Portions of the study area along the northern boundary are not located within a tributary basin.
These areas are designated as open space in the General Plan and consequently will not contribute
wastewater to the collection system.
3-1
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
CHAPTER 3
LAND USE
This chapter describes the land use for the purpose of this Master Plan. The land use described
below is the foundation for the flow projections that will be discussed in the next chapter. The City’s
2025 General Plan (General Plan) was used as the final source for land use.
The General Plan contains land use information for the area within the City’s Sphere of Influence
(as of February 2002). This area is referred to as the 2002 SOI for this Master Plan. This General
Plan and the City’s related GIS are the primary sources of land use information for this Master Plan.
Land use information is assigned to each parcel using the City’s GIS. While consistent with the
General Plan, the resulting land use designations are developed solely for use for this Master Plan
and should not be considered as official City designations. Land use information is also assigned to
the parcels that are served by the Pinedale Public Utility District and the Pinedale County Water
District. Both districts are within the City’s Sphere of Influence and contribute wastewater to the
RWRF, but the sewers are not owned or maintained by the City. The City also provides wastewater
collection for an unincorporated area north of Dakota and Clovis Avenues. This area is not within
the City’s Sphere of Influence but is included in the land use analysis since it contributes wastewater
to the collection system and is not included in Clovis’ contributed wastewater flows.
The General Plan has over 70 land use designations. Many of these land uses generate comparable
wastewater flows and therefore were consolidated for this master planning effort into 18
designations. A correlation of land use designations from the City’s GIS and land use designations
used for this master plan is located on Appendix B.
As discussed above, the sphere of influence is divided into sub-basins and tributary basins. Land use
information is generated for each tributary basin. This information is used to project base flows for
use with the hydraulic model. A listing of current and future land use acres for each sub-basin is
included on Appendix D.
Current Land Use
Parcels currently connected to the City’s collection system are identified by the City primarily using
wastewater billing information. Parcels may not be currently connected to the collection system
because they are undeveloped or have on-site septic tank systems. Although City ordinances require
new development and existing residences to connect to the collection system when available, the
collection system has not been extended to all areas within the sphere of influence. Thus some
parcels remain unconnected. The connected parcels define the sewered areas within Fresno’s 2002
SOI. The land uses for currently sewered areas are shown on Figure 3-1 and are summarized in
Table 3-1. Current sewered areas are based on net acres and do not include streets, freeways, and
waterways.
3.0 LAND USE
3-3
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 3-1. Current Land Use Summary
Land Use Designation Designation Current Sewered
(acres)
Commercial Low CL 1,810
Commercial Medium CM 1,750
Commercial High CH 1,360
Hospital HO 135
Industrial Low IL 2,710
Industrial High IH 1,300
Open Space OS 710
Open Space Golf Course OSG 390
Open Space Park OSP 430
Public Facility Airport PFA 1,110
Public Facility Church PFC 65
Public Facility Fairgrounds PFE 145
Public Facility Fire Station PFS 8
Residential Single-Family RSF 19,980
Residential Medium High RMH 2,820
Residential High RH 145
School SH 1,970
School University SHU 1,260
Total 38,098
The dominant land use designation (52 percent) is Residential Single-Family (RSF). RSF includes all
single-family residential land use designations in the General Plan from Residential Rural through
Residential Medium. The City provided data on the number of single-family dwelling units on each
RSF designated parcel. Condominiums can have multiple single-family dwelling units per parcel so
the number of single-family dwelling units is about six percent greater than the number of RSF-
designated parcels. The total current number of single-family dwelling units is approximately
106,700.
The multi-family residential land use designations are Residential Medium High (RMH) and
Residential High (RH). The number of multi-family dwelling units for these land use designations is
based on densities listed in Table 3-2. The estimated current number of multi-family dwelling units is
50,100.
Table 3-2. Multi-family Residential Densities
Land Use Multi-family Residences
per acre
RMH 16.5
RH 24.6
3.0 LAND USE
3-4
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Future Land Use
The future land use is based on all parcels being developed according to the General Plan
designations and connected to the collection system. It should be noted that full development within
the City’s proposed Sphere of Influence might not occur by 2025. However, since collection systems
are typically designed to have useful lives of 50 to 100 years, the hydraulic assessment will be based
on full build-out of the 2025 proposed Sphere of Influence.
The proposed Sphere of Influence in Fresno’s General Plan includes two areas that are designated as
the “North Growth Area” and the “Southeast Growth Area”. Because of implementation policies in
the General Plan and the lack of a detailed community and/or specific plan for development of the
growth areas, these areas are discussed separately from the 2002 SOI. The 2002 SOI includes the
small unincorporated area north of Dakota and Clovis Avenues, Pinedale Public Utility District, and
Pinedale County Water District. The future land uses are shown on Figure 3-2 and are summarized
in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Future Land Use Summary
Land Use Designation
Designation 2002 SOI
(acres)
North
Growth
Area (acres)
Southeast
Growth
Area (acres)
Total
(acres)
Commercial Low CL 2,860 25 55 2,940
Commercial Medium CM 3,030 40 580 3,650
Commercial High CH 2,000 2 - 2,002
Hospital HO 135 - - 135
Industrial Low IL 7,800 - 1,510 9,310
Industrial High IH 4,135 - - 4,135
Open Space OS 5,860 2,270 350 8,480
Open Space Golf Course OSG 790 190 110 1,090
Open Space Park OSP 1,160 - - 1,160
Public Facility Airport PFA 1,110 - - 1,110
Public Facility Church PFC 95 - - 95
Public Facility Fairgrounds PFE 145 - - 145
Public Facility Fire Station PFS 16 - - 16
Residential Single-family RSF 37,180 680 4,600 42,460
Residential Medium High RMH 4,580 90 230 4,900
Residential High RH 190 17 - 207
School SH 2,790 18 225 3,033
School University SHU 1,260 - - 1,260
Total 75,136 3,332 7,660 86,128
3.0 LAND USE
3-6
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Future sewered areas do not include current streets, freeways, and waterways; however, in some
areas future streets have not been designated at this time. It is estimated that the future streets will
account for only a small percentage of total area that will be developed and consequently no
adjustment was made to account for the area of future streets.
For this Master Plan, it is assumed that RSF parcels greater than two acres will be subdivided and
new single-family housing would be constructed at the densities listed in Table 3-4. This assumption
was made since large undeveloped parcels will likely subdivide into smaller parcels in the future. For
currently connected parcels that are two acres or smaller, the number of single-family dwelling units
as determined from current wastewater billing information is assumed not to change. Parcels that are
two acres and smaller that are not currently connected were evaluated to determine if they are
already developed by having a house or being subdivided into a planned development. The
evaluation included reviewing aerial photos and parcel maps. If the parcels are already developed,
they are assigned one single-family dwelling unit. If the parcels are not already developed, the parcels
are assumed to subdivide at the densities listed in Table 3-4.
The total number of projected single-family dwelling units is 225,380 with 200,710 located in 2002
SOI, 1,550 located in the North Growth Area, and 23,120 located in the Southeast Growth Area.
Table 3-4. Future RSF Development Densities
Land use Single-family residences
per acre
Residential – medium 8.0
Residential – medium low 4.5
Residential – low 2.0
Residential – rural 1.2
Residential – mixed use (north of Copper) 8.0
Parcels that are designated as multi-family residential (RMH and RH) are assumed to develop at the
densities listed in Table 3-2.
The area that is located approximately south of Jensen Avenue and east of Elm Avenue is referred
to as the South Industrial Area. According to the City, it is anticipated that this area will continue to
develop over the next few years. Other anticipated short-term development includes the Fresno
Yosemite International Airport area, the Grantland/Cornelia area, and from the Fowler area to
north of Kings Canyon Road.
The General Plan includes a very long-range concept to accommodate 60,000 people in the
Blackstone Avenue and Freeway 41 mid-rise/high-rise corridor. (General Plan, p. 7) It is anticipated
that intensified multiple-story mixed-use developments will develop in the corridor within the
coming decades. (General Plan, p. 22) The land use designation in this area is primarily Commercial
Heavy (CH). The General Plan also indicates 1,000 new infill dwelling units in the Centre City area.
(General Plan, p.8) The Centre City is bounded by Ashlan, Chestnut, Jensen, and West Avenues.
The corridor and the Centre City area are shown on Exhibit 6 in the General Plan. The impacts of
both areas will be discussed in Chapter 4.
3.0 LAND USE
3-7
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
North Growth Area. The North Growth Area includes Copper River Ranch project and another
development to the north of Copper River Ranch. According to the General Plan, the North
Growth Area will accommodate up to approximately 10,000 residents (approximately 3,000 single-
family dwelling units). The land use in the area north of Copper River Ranch is designated as RSF
and is projected to have about 360 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU).
In 2003, the City adopted the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Copper River Ranch. The
project includes residential, commercial, and open spaces and a 706.5 acres site. The estimated
population is 7,950 (at 2.8 persons per unit) and the projected number of total residential units is
2,837, which includes single family and multi-family dwellings, plus nearly 60 acres of mixed-use
commercial development.. It assumes 42 percent of the residential units will be detached single-
family homes (1,192 units), and 58 percent will be multi-family units (1,645 units). Commercial
mixed-use development could occur at two locations – Copper Avenue at Maple Avenue and
Copper Avenue at Willow Avenue. Total proposed commercial and office development is estimated
at 250,000 square feet.
The EIR indicates that Copper River Ranch will have its own wastewater collection system and
treatment plant with an Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) capacity of 0.8 mgd. Processed wastes
(sludge) from the wastewater treatment plant will be discharged to the City’s collection system for
disposal at the RWRF. On an interim basis before the wastewater treatment plant is operating, the
City will allow up to 500 EDUs in Copper River Ranch to discharge directly into the City’s
collection system.
The North Growth Area includes a small area north of Copper River Ranch. Wastewater from this
area would have to traverse the Copper River Ranch development and be pumped to connect to the
City’s collection system. It may be possible to coordinate wastewater collection and treatment for
this area with Copper River Ranch.
Southeast Growth Area. The Southeast Growth Area (SEGA) consists of two primary areas for
expansion: an eastern portion and a southern portion. Contained in Appendix G of the City’s 2025
General Plan document is conceptual land use information for the SEGA. This conceptual land use
plan was used in the hydraulic modeling analysis conducted for this Master Plan. Following the
adoption of an official land use plan for these areas, the City might need to reevaluate the hydraulic
analysis in this portion of the collection system.
Within the eastern portion, the General Plan indicates that approximately 55,000 people will reside
in this growth area primarily in two areas planned for urbanization. The areas are comprised of an
urban village of about 10,000 people that will be located south of the Gould Canal and an urban
activity center located south of Tulare Avenue to accommodate approximately 45,000 people. The
southern portion is planned for Industrial Low (IL) development. Development within the SEGA
is currently subject to approval of a detailed community and/or specific plan and those
implementation policies identified in the General Plan. (General Plan, p. 33)
The City is considering constructing a satellite wastewater treatment facility to serve the eastern
portion of SEGA. The satellite facility may also provide wastewater treatment for the wastewater
from Clovis that connects to the proposed trunk sewer on Leonard Avenue. A satellite plant may be
located south of Jensen Avenue. This Master Plan will consider the impacts on the collection system
when initially wastewater from the eastern portion and Clovis may be diverted to the RWRF until
3.0 LAND USE
3-8
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
such time as the satellite plant is operational. If a satellite facility is not constructed south of Jensen
Avenue, wastewater from the eastern portion of the SEGA would need to be transported to and
treated by the RWRF on a more permanent basis requiring further capacity enhancements to both
the collection system and the RWRF.
Development in the southern portion of the SEGA will be primarily Industrial Low (IL). The City’s
current collection system can be easily extended to serve this area. At this time it is assumed that, if
constructed, a satellite facility in southeast Fresno would be located southeasterly of this southern
portion of the SEGA. The natural land gradient would make connecting the southern portion of the
SEGA to a satellite facility very difficult. Therefore wastewater from this area is anticipated to be treated
at the RWRF and will not be processed at a satellite facility.
4-1
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
CHAPTER 4
FLOW PROJECTIONS
This chapter documents the sewer flow projections for current and future conditions. Flow
monitoring data and the Master Plan land use designations described in Chapter 3 are used in
determining sewer flow factors for each type of land use, as well as calibrating the hydraulic model
to existing conditions. Parcels that do not currently contribute flow are assigned flow based on the
land use and calibrated flow factors. The following sections describe both the dry and wet weather
flow projections separately.
Current Dry Weather Flow Projections
Typically, wastewater consists of three components: base flow, groundwater infiltration (GWI), and
rainfall dependent infiltration and inflow (RDI/I). Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) consists of
base flow and GWI. During wet weather, RDI/I can cause the wastewater flow to increase. This
section discusses the development of current dry weather flow. The development of future ADWF
and RDI/I are presented later in this chapter.
Base flow is generated from residential, commercial, industrial, and public sources that discharge
into the wastewater collection system. It is directly related to land use and varies throughout the day
and between weekdays and weekends. Base flows are projected using the land use information
described in Chapter 3.
MOUSE requires base flow information to be entered into the model as either equivalent dwelling
units or equivalent population. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) were selected for this Master Plan.
The average single-family dwelling represents one EDU. The EDU for other land uses are the
number of theoretical or equivalent single-family dwelling units that together would generate the
same amount of wastewater as the specific land use. Base flow is calculated by summing the single-
family dwelling units and EDU from other land uses and then multiplying by the unit wastewater
flow rate.
The collection system has 53 large wastewater dischargers that were identified from information
provided by the City. The large dischargers produce more wastewater than would be projected by
using the typical EDU basis for the parcels’ land use designations. Flows from these large
wastewater dischargers are handled as point sources. A subsequent section discusses the large
discharges for this study.
Base flows from Clovis are based on flow meter information and the Clovis Master Plan. An analysis
of current and future land use in Clovis was not performed for this Master Plan. Flows from Clovis
are also handled as point sources.
The hydraulic model was used to calibrate the unit wastewater flow factor and EDU rates for non-
residential land uses. Model runs were compared to flow data from the RWRF and the City’s flow
monitoring network to determine the unit wastewater flow rate and EDU rates that yielded the best
overall calibration of the model.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-2
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Residential EDU rates were developed based on population data. These equivalent dwelling unit
population rates were determined first and used with the hydraulic model to determine the unit
wastewater flow rate that was applied Citywide. Residential water use is unmetered in Fresno so
water use data are unavailable to estimate residential wastewater flows.
Residential Equivalent Dwelling Units. Each single family residence is considered to be one
EDU. Single family residences typically have a higher average number of residents than is found in
multi-family residences, which constitute RMH and RH land uses. Consequently, each multi-family
residence is considered to be a fraction of an EDU for projecting wastewater flows. The fraction of
an EDU for RMH and RH is based on their average population density per acre.
2000 census data and current sewered land use information is used to calculate the average current
RSF population density. The analysis includes nine census tracks within the City. The selected tracks
have mostly RSF land use and are in areas that are currently sewered. The RSF population
occupancy rates range from 2.4 to 4.4 people per dwelling unit and average 3.2 people per dwelling
unit. The average is used to project the current population.
Residential population densities for RMH and RH currently served by the collection system are
estimated using land use and population information. The General Plan indicates that the 2000
population within the City’s sphere of influence was 482,485. The City estimates that population
growth between 2000 and 2003 at 1.5 percent per year. This growth rate yields a 2003 population of
504,540. The City estimates 29,870 people live within the 2002 SOI but are not connected to
collection system; 5,440 people live outside of the 2002 SOI but are connected to the collection
system; and 17,490 people live on parcels connected to the collection system but are not designated
as residential in the General Plan. The total population of people who are connected to the
collection system and who reside on parcels designated as residential is approximately 462,600.
Using a population of 462,600 for residents who reside on residential designated parcels, an analysis
was performed to estimate the residents per multi-family dwelling units for RMH and RH. The City
determined the typical number of multi-family dwelling units per acre for RMH and RH is 16.5 and
24.6, respectively. The analysis indicates the average number of residents per multi-family dwelling
unit for RMH is 2.4 and for RH is 1.8. City’s land use policies allow for maximum densities for
RMH and RH of 18 units per acre and 43 units per acre, respectively.
The EDU for RMH and RH are calculated by taking the ratio of their occupancy rates to the
occupancy rate for RSF. The EDU for RMH is 0.75 and for RH is 0.6. These correspond to 12
EDU per acre for RMH and 15 EDU per acre for RH.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-3
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Large Dischargers. Large dischargers are defined as having average daily wastewater flows of 0.01
mgd (10,000 gallons per day) or greater. Many commercial and industrial dischargers are billed based
on the actual measured or estimated wastewater discharge volumes. Actual wastewater flows are
measured with effluent meters. Estimated wastewater flows are based on water meters and the
effluent flow is estimated to be 90 percent of water use at these locations. Information on
commercial and industrial wastewater billings was provided by the City. Billing information from
these dischargers is summarized in Table 4-1. The City has 53 large dischargers and they contribute
a total ADWF of 9.2 mgd.
Table 4-1. Large Dischargers
Name Address Meter
typea
Average
gallons per day
Angelica Rental Service 422 S Fruit Ave EF 139,955
Aratex Services, Inc. 3333 N Sabre Dr EF 119,914
Beef Packers Inc 3115 S Marting L King EF 680,807
California State University Fresnob 5241 N Maple Ave EF 761,000
Capri Sun, Inc./Kraft 2494 S Orange Ave EF 168,701
Cellulo Co 124 M St WA 127,988
Community Hospitals/Central Ca/University 455 S Cedar Ave WA 99,896
Cornnuts, Inc. 4343 E Florence Ave EF 149,895
Danish Creamery/California Dairies 1410 Inyo St/755 F St EF 566,585
Darling-Delaware Inc 795 W Belgravia Ave EF 70,372
David & Sons 5626 E Shields Ave EF 27,510
E & J Gallo Winery 5610 E Olive Ave EF 693,135
Foster Farms – Dairy 3380 W Ashlan Ave EF 137,204
Foster Farms – Poultry 2960 S Cherry Ave EF 972,346
Fresno Community Hospital 115 N Thesta St WA 119,523
Gruma Corp/Mission Foods 2849 E Edgar Ave EF 15,448
Guild Wine Company/Cribari Wine Company 3223 E Church Ave EF 231,804
Kaiser Permanente, Inc. 7300 N Fresno St EF 119,119
Kalashian Packing 403 H St WA 10,086
La Tapatia Tortilleria 94 E Belmont Ave WA 23,326
Lamoure's 1304 G St WA 11,821
Lion Packing Co 3310 E California Ave EF 58,298
Lyons Magnus #1 1636 S Second St EF 146,389
Lyons Magnus #4 3180 E Hamilton WA 10,495
Mission Linen Supply 2555 S Orange Ave EF 67,630
New World Pasta/Hershey Pasta Group 2704 S Maple Ave EF 13,650
Pacific Choice Brands 4667 E Date Ave EF 128,761
Palace Meat Co 2447 W Church Ave EF 20,126
Pepsi Cola West 1150 E North Ave EF 166,793
Producers Dairy 144 E Belmont Ave EF 115,541
Prudential Supply 1260 E North Ave EF 42,602
Rich Products (Imperial Frozen Foods) 316 320 O St WA 25,407
S C Johnson (Dow USA) 4787 E Date Ave EF 34,185
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-4
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 4-1. Large Dischargers (continued)
Name Address Meter
type1
Average
gallons per day
San Joaquin Fig, Inc. 3564 N Hazel Ave WA 15,897
San Joaquin Valley Concentrate 5631 E Olive Ave WA 65,002
Sierra Hospital 2025 E Dakota WA 13,894
St Agnes Hospital 4770 W Herndon Ave WA 11,532
St Agnes Hospital 1303 E Herndon Ave WA 235,383
Stericycle/BFI Medical Waste System 4135 W Swift Ave WA 16,866
Sterling Uniform/R A Fields Company, Inc. 5258 E Pine Ave WA 18,611
The Fresno Bee 1626 E St EF 25,221
Toms Food Ltd. 2839 S Cherry Ave EF 17,343
VA Medical Center 134/Veterans Administration 2615 E Clinton Ave WA 170,421
Valley Children’s Hospital 3151 N Millbrook Ave WA 75,798
Valley Fig Growers 2028 S Third St EF 43,716
Valley Industrial Service/Ameri-Pride 1070 W Whites Bridge EF 77,390
Vendo 7209 N Ingram Pinedale 65,672
Wawona Frozen Foods 2202 S Cedar Ave EF 102,649
Yorkshire Dried Fruit & Nuts 1601 Kern St EF 81,506
Yosemite Linen Supply Inc 3330 E Church Ave EF 19,703
Zacky Brothers 900 W Belgravia Ave EF 1,350,513
Zacky Farms 3050 E California Ave EF 672,796
Zacky Farms 2222 S East Ave EF 134,940
a EF – effluent meter WA – water meter
b Adjusted to meter data provided by the City in March 2004.
California State University Fresno has two connection points to the City’s collection system with
meters. The meter at Maple Avenue was recently replaced and the reported wastewater flows
significantly increased.
Several industrial dischargers had on-site treatment and disposal facilities for food processing wastes.
In 2001, the potential for groundwater contamination caused these industries to cease on-site
treatment and disposal and discharge to the City’s collection system.
In order to avoid double counting of flow from the larger dischargers, the acres for the associated
land uses are reduced by the acres of the large dischargers.
City of Clovis. Clovis has four connections to the City’s collection system. The connections on
Herndon and Fowler are metered with monitors FR10 and FR12, respectively which are part of the
City’s long-term flow monitoring program. Flow through the connections at Peach and Sierra
Avenues are also metered by Fresno. Average daily flow data was reviewed from 1995 through June
2003. Average daily flows are typically greatest in September and lowest in May and June. Typical
average daily flows for 2003 are listed in Table 4-2. The connections to the City’s collection system
are shown on Figure 4-1.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-6
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 4-2. Summary of Clovis Flow Monitoring Data
Connection to City’s Collection
System
Average Dry Weather Flow
(mgd)
Peach 2.65
Herndon 1.65
Sierra 0.06
Fowler 2.36
Total 6.72
Groundwater Infiltration. GWI is groundwater that enters the wastewater collection system.
Typically, GWI increases during winter months when precipitation causes groundwater levels to rise
and decreases during the remainder of the year as groundwater levels drop. Groundwater in the
Fresno area is located well below the typical depth of the collection system, which is usually limited
to about 30 feet. Consequently, GWI does not occur in the collection system. This finding is
consistent with flow monitoring data, which does not show a typical seasonal variation of flow from
winter to summer correspond with seasonal GWI.
Current Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Sewer model calibration consisted of a two-step process, dry weather and wet weather. Each process
was implemented to confirm that the model accurately reflects existing system operations and
conditions. A comparison of flow data with computer model output allows model parameters to be
adjusted to more accurately reflect actual conditions. As with any calibration procedure, the resulting
model may not be completely accurate. The inaccuracy is due to unknowns such as the accuracy of
flow data, elevation data, or roughness factors for possibly corroded pipelines. Due to the
complexity of these unknowns, it is expected that some conditions may not be fully reproducible by
the model. The dry weather calibration is discussed below.
Flow Data. Wastewater flow data were obtained for the Department of Public Utilities flow
monitoring network in the collection system and the influent meter at the RWRF. The Department
of Public Utilities originally installed nine flow monitors in the collection system to measure
wastewater flows in 1984. An additional three flow monitors were installed between 1986 and 1996.
The flow monitoring equipment was provided by ADS, which maintained the monitors under
contract to the Department of Public Utilities. The flow monitors measure the depth and velocity of
the wastewater flow and this information is used to calculate the flow. The locations of these
monitors were designated from FR1 to FR12.
In 2001, the Department of Public Utilities relocated FR3, FR4, FR5, and FR7 and obtained four
additional monitors. The locations of the relocated and new monitors were designated FR13
through FR20. The Department of Public Utilities also temporarily removed FR18. Flow monitor
locations are shown on Figure 4-1.
Flow data are available in tabular and graphic formats from the Department of Public Utilities web
site. Average daily flows for each monitor location were reviewed to identify missing data, potential
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-7
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
periods of monitor calibration problems, and flow trends over time. Several flow monitor locations
had periods when data were either missing or seemed to be errant.
Under excellent flow conditions, flow monitors can measure flows with an accuracy of ±10 percent.
With less favorable conditions, the accuracy can deteriorate to +15 or 20 percent. In August 2003,
the Department of Public Utilities checked the flow depth calibration at FR2 and determined that
the monitor’s depth data was about 4.5 inches too low. This causes FR2’s flow data to be about 2.7
mgd lower than the actual flow.
Flow from July 2003 was selected for the dry weather calibration of the flow projections and
hydraulic model. These flows are listed on Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Flow Monitoring Network Data for July 2003
Monitor
number Location Status
Average dry
weather flow
(mgd)
FR1 Polk and Olive Active 4.04
FR2 Herndon and Blythe Active 6.63a
FR3 Marks and California Removed Nov. 2000 NA
FR4 Weber and Andrews Removed Oct. 2000 NA
FR5 Church and Hughes Removed Oct. 2000 NA
FR6 Ashlan and Fruit Active 4.71
FR7 North and Walnut Removed Dec. 2000 NA
FR8 Chestnut and Annadale Active 11.21
FR9 Chestnut and Madison Active 6.78
FR10 Fowler and Bellaire Active 2.65
FR11 North and Willow Active 2.99
FR12 Herndon and Willow Active 1.60
FR13 Fruit near North Active 7.76
FR14 Cherry near North Active 4.82
FR15 California near Fruit Active 6.98
FR16 Floradora and First Active 4.36
FR17 Marks north of Whitesbridge Active 8.06
FR18 Fruit and Hwy 180 Removed in 2001 NA
FR19 Church near Cornelia Active 29.14
FR20 North and Valentine Active 28.66
a Monitor out of calibration
The RWRF has an influent meter that measures the flow into the treatment plant. The influent
meter was recalibrated in 1998. Average daily flows are typically highest from December through
March and July through September. The latter period of high flow coincides with the period of
peak activity for food processing industries. The average daily influent flow in July 2003 was 72.74
mgd.
Average Dry Weather Flow Calibration. Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) projections were
calibrated using MOUSE. Projected flows were routed through the modeled network and compared
to the July 2003 flows at the flow monitors and RWRF. At the same time, the model sewer network
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-8
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
was evaluated for connectivity and any flow splits in addition to those discussed earlier in this
Master Plan ADWF calibration has three steps.
1. Determine the unit wastewater flow rate per EDU. This analysis is based primarily on
evaluating residential flow projections.
2. Set typical EDU/acre factors for other land uses.
3. Identify specific areas in the City where base flows do not calibrate and determine if
adjustments to the typical EDU/acre factors are warranted.
Multiple calibration runs were made with MOUSE to determine base flow factors. The results of
model calibration indicate a single-family dwelling unit flow rate of 290 gallons per day (gpd)/EDU.
Calibrated EDU/acre factors for each land use are listed in Table 4-4.
The calibrated model indicates the average commercial wastewater flow is 1,300 gpd/acre. This
corresponds to previous work performed by the City to determine actual commercial wastewater
flows. California State University Fresno land use is designated as SHU. However, the university is
also a large discharger. Therefore, the unit factor for the university is set at zero and actual measured
flows are used during the model calibration. The fairgrounds generate flow on an intermittent basis.
For model calibration, the flow contribution from the fairgrounds is set at zero. During the 10 year
design condition, the flow generation for the fairgrounds will be set at 2 EDU/acre. This flow rate
does not reflect a special event such as flow during the County Fair, but is instead an average daily
allocation. A separate point load analysis was conducted that will simulate a peak fair event during an
average dry weather condition. In 2002, approximately 551,000 people attended the 10 day County
Fair. Therefore, estimating each person generated 10 gallons, a point load of 0.55 mgd will be
applied.
Industrial Heavy (IH) includes various types of industries, which produce a wide range of
wastewater flow. For the hydraulic modeling, the industries that produce more than 0.01 mgd are
included as large dischargers. The remainder of the industries produce wastewater flows at lower
rates. The equivalent flow factor for these industries is estimated at 5 EDU/acre.
Flow monitoring data indicates that commercial medium, commercial heavy and industrial light land
uses in the City’s Centre City area generate more wastewater than similar land uses in other areas.
Consequently, the EDU/acre rates for these land uses were increased to improve model calibration.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-9
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 4-4. Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors
Land use categories Designation Typical unit
factors
(EDU/acre)
Adjusted unit flow
factors for Centre City
(EDU/acre)
Commercial Low CL 3 -
Commercial Medium CM 4 12
Commercial High CH 7 13
Hospital HO 24 -
Industrial Low IL 3 8
Industrial High IH 5 -
Open Space OS - -
Open Space Golf Course OSG 2 -
Open Space Park OSP - -
Public Facility Airport PFA 4 -
Public Facility Church PFC 2 -
Public Facility Fairgrounds PFE 2a -
Public Facility Fire Station PFS 3 -
Residential Single-family RSF 1 -
Residential Medium High RMH 12 -
Residential High RH 15 -
School SH 3 -
School University SHU -b -
aDue to intermittent flows, calibration was based on setting flow factor to 0. For hydraulic analysis, flow factor will be
2 EDU/acre
b SHU designates California State University Fresno which is a large discharger.
A comparison of calibrated model flows and flow monitoring flows for July 2003 is summarized in
Table 4-5 and shown on Figure 4-1. Overall, model calibration is good with projected model flows
within about 10 percent of flow monitor and RWRF flows at most monitors. Most importantly, the
model flows closely match the flows at the RWRF, FR19 and FR20, the two collection system flow
monitors with the largest tributary areas. As noted above, FR2 was out of calibration and under
reporting actual flows.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-10
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 4-5. Model Average Dry Weather Flow Calibration Summary
Monitor number
Monitor average dry
weather flow (mgd)
Calibrated model average
dry weather flow (mgd)
FR1 4.04 4.45
FR2 6.63a 9.94
FR6 4.71 4.78
FR8 11.21 11.34
FR9 6.78 7.29
FR10 2.65 2.65
FR11 2.99 2.95
FR12 1.60 1.60
FR13 7.76 7.78
FR14 4.82 3.76
FR15 6.98 6.93
FR16 4.36 3.03
FR17 8.06 10.74
FR19 29.14 28.63
FR20 28.66 28.50
RWRF 72.74 72.68
a Monitor out of calibration
Diurnal Hydrographs. Base flow varies hourly throughout a day and between weekdays and
weekends. MOUSE accounts for the hourly variation in flow with the use of typical hydrographs.
The hydrographs are applied to the average daily flow to simulate hourly flows in the collection
system.
Five typical hydrographs developed for the hydraulic modeling are shown on Appendix C. The
hydrographs include weekday and weekend factors. Hydrographs R1 and R2 simulate residential
flow and have two peaks to correspond to the wastewater generation in the morning before people
go to work and again in the evening after work. R1 has the larger peak, which is typically associated
with small basins. I1, I2, and C1 simulate industrial and commercial flow. Most commercial and
industrial establishments are open during business hours and have a single peak. I2 represents typical
flow from industrial dischargers that operate 24 hours per day.
The typical hydrographs were assigned to each input node based on the land uses within its tributary
area. Hydrograph assignments were adjusted to obtain good calibration of the modeled peak dry
weather flow with flow monitor data. The results of the calibration are summarized on Table 4-6.
The model and flow monitor peaking factors are calculated by dividing the maximum hour flow by
the average daily flow. The flow monitor peaking factors are based on July 2003.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-11
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 4-6. Model Peak Dry Weather Flow Calibration Summary
Monitor
number
Monitor dry weather
peaking factor
Calibrated model dry
weather peaking factor
FR1 1.41 1.42
FR2 1.36a 1.49
FR6 1.36 1.38
FR8 1.29 1.30
FR9 1.31 1.31
FR10 1.58 1.49
FR11 1.43 1.45
FR12 1.44 1.45
FR13 1.25 1.32
FR14 1.29 1.36
FR15 1.27 1.36
FR16 1.28 1.28
FR17 1.31 1.30
FR19 1.24 1.25
FR20 1.28 1.32
a Monitor out of calibration
Future Dry Weather Flow Projections
Future base flows are projected for each tributary basin for use in the hydraulic model. Base flows
are projected using the future land use information, EDU/acre factors, and a unit flow rate of 290
gpd/EDU. These base flows are the average day dry weather flow to which daily peaking and wet
weather events will be applied.
The EDU/acre factors for projecting future flow are presented on Table 4-7. These are the same
flow factors for projecting current flow except for IH. Future IH developments may contain
industries that discharge large volumes of wastewater so a base flow factor of 17 EDU/acre is used.
This corresponds to approximately 5,000 gpd/acre.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-12
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 4-7. Future Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors
Land use categories
Designation
Typical unit
factors
(EDU/acre)
Adjusted unit flow
factors for Centre City
(EDU/acre)
Commercial Low CL 3
Commercial Medium CM 4 12
Commercial High CH 7 13
Hospital HO 24
Industrial Low IL 3 8
Industrial High IH 17
Open Space OS 0
Open Space Golf Course OSG 2
Open Space Park OSP 0
Public Facility Airport PFA 4
Public Facility Church PFC 2
Public Facility Fairgrounds PFE 2
Public Facility Fire Station PFS 3
Residential Single-family RSF 1
Residential Medium High RMH 12
Residential High RH 15
School SH 3
School University SHU 0a
a SHU designates California State University Fresno, which is a large discharger.
A long-range concept in the General Plan is to accommodate 60,000 people in the Blackstone
Avenue and Freeway 41 corridor. This is shown on Exhibit 6 in the General Plan. The land use
designation in this area is primarily CH, which does not include residential development. According
to the General Plan, an area between 1, 000 and 1,200 acres will be needed to accommodate the
target population of 60,000. (General Plan, p. 22) Should such a plan be implemented, the additional
residential demands would equate to approximately 5 mgd. Since this demand would be additive to
the currently planned Heavy Commercial areas, there could be substantial impact on the current and
planned sewers in the immediate area and for some distance downstream, depending on the point or
point(s) of connection. If such development seems likely for implementation at some point in the
future, such plans, as are known at that time, should be the subject of a specific area study to
determine the local and regional effects of such additional development.
The General Plan also indicates 1,000 new infill dwelling units in the Centre City area. The area is
approximately 20,000 acres or 31 square miles. Therefore the 1,000 additional dwelling units would
equate to approximately 4.5 gallons per day per acre. This additional flow is insignificant when
compared to the overall flows being modeled, and therefore can be assumed to be included with the
future flows already modeled.
Base flows from large dischargers listed in Table 4-1 are projected to remain the same in the future.
These flows are treated as point sources in the model. GWI is projected to remain insignificant in
the future and consequently no allowance for GWI is included in the future flow projections.
Base flows from Clovis are based on information provided by Clovis and are summarized on Table
4-8. Clovis estimates a total future base flow of 22.62 mgd. Clovis plans on constructing a satellite
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-13
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
wastewater treatment plant that will ultimately handle 8.40 mgd of the total flow. The remaining
base flow would discharge to the City’s collection system. It should be noted, per an agreement with
the City of Fresno, that Clovis has exchanged 3 mgd of capacity in the Fowler Avenue sewer
pipeline for Fresno’s use on the basis that Fresno will replace Clovis’ capacity in future facilities.
Table 4-8. Future Wastewater Flows for Clovis
Connection to City’s collection system
Average dry
weather flow (mgd)
Peach 3.00
Herndon 2.80
Sierra 0.50
Fowler 7.92
Discharge to Clovis satellite WWTF 8.40
Total 22.62
At General Plan build-out, the projected future average dry weather base flow is 150 mgd. This flow
includes 8.7 mgd from large dischargers and 14.2 mgd from Clovis. The 8.40 mgd designated by
Clovis for treatment at a satellite wastewater treatment plant is not included. This flow also includes
all flow from the Southeast Growth Area and the flow from the anticipated treatment plant in the
North Growth Area.
Current Wet Weather Flow Projections
During wet weather, flows in the collection system increase because of RDI/I. RDI/I is storm water
that enters the wastewater collection system through defects in pipes, pipe joints, and sewer
structures or as inflow through illicitly connected downspouts, area drains, catch basins, or flooded
manholes. RDI/I is not dependent on land use and is projected separately from base flow.
MOUSE simulates RDI/I through two components. The components are:
• Fast Response Component (FRC)
• Slow Response Component (SRC)
FRC addresses the flow in the sewers that results from inflow and fast infiltration. These flows
increase with precipitation and dissipate quickly when the precipitation decreases. This component is
not influenced by antecedent rainfall. SRC addresses flow in the sewers that results from slow
infiltration that is influenced by antecedent rainfall. SRC simulates slow infiltration, which can take
several hours to respond to precipitation and can slowly dissipate over several days after the storm
passes. MOUSE tracks the antecedent rainfall and its affect on the soil moisture and groundwater
level.
Actual wet weather flow and precipitation data are used to calibrate RDI/I projections. An analysis
was then performed using historical rainfall data to simulate wet weather flows over many years.
This record of simulated flows is statistically evaluated to determine wet weather flows at various
recurrence intervals such as 5 years and 10 years. Specific historical storms associated with the
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-14
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
selected recurrence interval are identified and used in the model of the collection system to evaluate
the response to wet weather flows.
Wet Weather Data. Precipitation data from the recording rain gage at the Fresno Yosemite
International Airport were reviewed to identify a suitable period for calibrating RDI/I projections.
The average annual precipitation in Fresno is 10.85 inches with most rain occurring from October
through April. February 2000 had a total of 6.12 inches of precipitation and was selected for
calibrating RDI/I.
The City of Fresno currently collects sewer flow data from 16 flow meters located throughout the
collection system. The City began metering sanitary collection system flows in 1984 with the
installation of nine flow meters in the collection system. An additional three flow monitors were
installed between 1986 and 1996. In fiscal year 2000, the City relocated four of their existing meters
and installed an additional four meters. FR1, FR3, FR5, FR7, FR10, and FR12 were selected to
calibrate RDI/I. FR1, FR3, FR5, and FR7 measure most of the wastewater in the collection system
with only a small amount of flow contributed to the collection system between these monitors and
the RWRF. FR10 and FR12 measure flow from Clovis. These monitors were included to identify if
significant differences in RDI/I occur between the two cities.
Hourly flow data for the selected six flow monitors were provided by the City for the period from
October 1999 through August 2000. This period allows the RDI/I calibration to account for any
impacts from antecedent soil moisture on RDI/I. It also provides several storms to validate the
RDI/I calibrations.
Flow data from the six flow monitors showed sharp increases in flow corresponding to storm events
during the winter of fiscal year 1999/2000. The flow monitor data during this period was generally
good. The exception is FR5, which appears to have been out of calibration during February 2000.
Both depth and velocity data are shifted down in mid-April 2000, indicating that FR5 may have been
recalibrated. Flow data from FR7 shows the RDI/I response in February 2000 to occur about three
hours later than at the other monitors. Rainfall data was shifted by three hours during RDI/I
calibration of the FR7 tributary area.
Long-term precipitation data is required for the RDI/I analysis. The only available long-term record
is associated with the rain gage at the Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Hourly precipitation
data from late July 1948 to November 2002 was obtained for this site. The rain gage is centrally
located in the Fresno/Clovis area; however, due to the size of the area, actual rainfall patterns in
some locations may vary from the recorded data.
MOUSE also requires Evaporation/Transpiration (ET) data. ET data for California State
University Fresno from July 2002 through June 2003 was used.
Wet Weather Calibration. Flow, precipitation, and ET data are required inputs for MOUSE to
calibrate the FRC and SRC. The flow monitor data indicates that RDI/I responds quickly to
precipitation and dissipates shortly after rainfall stops. This indicates a preponderance of FRC
components in the response. Calibration runs found that the SRC components are minor in the
majority of the area. The FRC components were principally used to calibrate the model with small
contributions from the SRC components. RDI/I parameters were adjusted for the tributary basins
upstream of the monitors and the results were routed through the model network. The projected
flows were compared to monitor data and the parameters adjusted as needed.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-15
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
FRC parameters include the amount of sewered acres. Sewered acres are based on currently
connected acres as determined from sewer billing information and exclude open space.
The model network was modified to reflect conditions in February 2000. The primary differences
between the network in 2000 and now are related to the diversions at Herndon and Milburn
Avenues and at Church and Fruit Avenues. The gate on the Milburn outlet is currently closed;
however, in 2000 the gate was open. The 48-inch diversion pipe at the Church and Fruit Avenues is
not currently plugged. The plug evidently washed out in 2002 and was in place in 2000.
RDI/I calibrations are very good for FR1, FR3, FR7, FR10, and FR12. The calibrations indicate
similar levels of RDI/I in most of the City. Hydrographs of the monitored and calibrated projected
flows are shown on Appendix E. The general calibration standards used in this effort are as follows:
1. Simulated flows at major peaks are to be within 10 to 20 percent of observed.
2. Average error of simulated flows over all RDI/I related peaks should be within 10 percent.
3. Volume error in calibration periods should be less than 10 percent.
The model would not calibrate well at FR5 for the February 2000 storms. As noted above, FR5 may
have been out of calibration in February 2000. FR5 measures flow from the downtown and central
portion of the City. Flow data from January 2002 and December 2002 were used to calibrate RDI/I
from these areas and to verify the model calibration for the remainder of the City and Clovis. Since
FR5 was removed in 2001, data from FR13 and FR15 were used to calibrate RDI/I from the
downtown area of the City. Based on the 2002 storms, RDI/I is substantially greater in the
downtown area than in other areas of the City. Downtown has the oldest sewers and even with the
City’s efforts to install separate storm sewer facilities to eliminate storm cut-ins to the sanitary
collection system, many connections from roof downspouts, parking lot drains, loading docks, or
other illicit tie-ins may account for the high RDI/I rates.
In order to calibrate FR7, the rainfall data was shifted forward in time. A good calibration was
achieved by making this shift. This issue may likely be caused by a time differences between the rain
gauge and flow monitor. Overall, this shift in data does not impact the level of confidence in the
calibrations.
Design Wet Weather Flow. Since RDI/I varies with precipitation, design conditions must be
selected to evaluate the collection system. The City does not have a standard for wet weather flows
and has not historically included a specific RDI/I allowances in the evaluation and design of sewers.
Instead, due to its relatively dry and arid climate, the City has traditionally relied on pipeline design
peaking factors or other components of its sanitary sewer design criteria to accommodate wet
weather conditions. The RDI/I analysis performed using MOUSE allows the City to evaluate the
risk of a wet weather overflow from the collection system when selecting system design parameters.
Statistically, selecting a 10-year design condition would result in a 10 percent probability that the
actual peak flow in the collection system will exceed the design flow in any year. Selecting a 5-year
design condition would result in a 20 percent probability of the design conditions being exceeded.
Currently, state and federal regulators have not set standards for wet weather design conditions. In
the San Francisco Bay area, several agencies have adopted a 5-year design condition. In the Central
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-16
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Valley, Sacramento County has adopted a 10-year design condition and the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board has recently ordered the City of Folsom to use a 10-year design
condition.
Using provisions within MOUSE, a continuous simulation analysis was performed to estimate the
annual frequency series of peak flows. The continuous simulation analysis projected RDI/I using 53
years of historical rainfall data from the recording rain gage at the Fresno Yosemite International
Airport. The projected flows were routed through MOUSE using special routines that allow the
hydraulic analysis during dry periods to be abbreviated. This saves considerable processing time.
MOUSE projects that under very large storm conditions, the capacity of some sewers would be
exceeded. This is a common characteristic of virtually all collection systems. MOUSE was set to
prevent flow from overflowing from the collection system and being lost from the analysis. Instead,
any flow that would overflow was stored at the affected manholes and fed back into the collection
system as capacity was available. This approach provides a better estimate of peak flows.
The results of the continuous simulation are presented in Figure 4-2. Each data point on the figure
represents the peak 15-minute flow during a calendar year at the RWRF. All peak flows are related
to wet weather. A log-Pearson Type III analysis was performed on the data. Log-Pearson Type III
analysis is often used in hydrology because it accounts for the natural skew in hydrologic data. Based
on this analysis, the 5-year recurrence frequency peak flow is 130 mgd while the 10-year recurrence
frequency flow is 136 mgd. The recurrence frequency for the flow from the large February 2000
storm is about 3 years. The 2-year recurrence frequency flow is 120 mgd, which corresponds well to
flows recorded at the RWRF between 1996 and 2002. During these seven years, the peak annual
flow was between 116 mgd and 121 mgd only four times.
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-17
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Figure 4-2. Peak Annual Statistics for Flow Immediately Upstream of the Treatment Plant
(Period of Record = 1948 to 2002)
Brown and Caldwell recommends that the City of Fresno consider adopting policies and/or design
standards to address the potential impacts from RDI/I in the collection system. Brown and Caldwell
believes a 10-year flow recurrence frequency for developing an RDI/I standard would appear
consistent with recent actions by the Central Valley Regional Board for other areas with similar
climate conditions. A 10-year flow model would also provide substantially more protection from wet
weather related overflows than a 5-year flow model even though the 10-year flow is less than 5
percent greater than the 5-year flow.
The historical rainfall event that most closely corresponds to the 10-year recurrence frequency flow
occurred on February 9, 1976. MOUSE projects this event to generate a peak flow at the RWRF of
139 mgd, which is two percent greater than the 10-year flow from the Log Pearson Type III analysis.
The precipitation from the February 9, 1976 storm will be used to project RDI/I flow from Clovis
as well as for the City.
The peak RDI/I flow for the February 9, 1976 storm at the RWRF was approximately 500 gpd/acre
for existing sewered areas. These flows occur at approximately the same time as the peak dry
weather flow. MOUSE routes the RDI/I through the model network, which significantly attenuates
the peak RDI/I by the time the flow reaches the RWRF. In order to calibrate the model, RDI/I for
the downtown area was set at approximately 10,000 gpd/acre. Based on Brown and Caldwell’s
experience with other master plans, this is a high RDI/I rate. Annual Peak (15-min) Flow (cfs) 100
150
200
250
300
1 10 100
Return Period (yrs)
Log-Pearson Type III Fit
Annual Peak (15-min) Flow
4.0 FLOW PROJECTIONS
4-18
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Future Wet Weather Flows
Future wet weather flows are needed for currently developed areas and for areas that will develop in
the future. MOUSE will project the future flows using the historic rainfall pattern for the selected
design condition.
Most of the City has relatively low RDI/I rates and therefore collection system reconstruction to
provide the capacity needed to eliminate or substantially reduce RDI/I would not be fiscally
prudent. Over time, RDI/I rates, primarily through the SCR component, can increase as a collection
system ages. The City should investigate the system closely and evaluate its methods and policies to
limit and control RDI/I levels or at minimum provide sufficient maintenance in the collection
system to effectively maintain current RDI/I levels.
RDI/I in the downtown area appears to be so high that corrective measures to reduce RDI/I in the
area would be cost effective. Based on the modeling results, RDI/I in the downtown appears to
behave in a manner that is characteristic of inflow. As confirmation, Figure 4-3 shows known
locations of where storm water ties into the collection system. Since inflow is particularly cost
effective to reduce as compared to infiltration, Brown and Caldwell recommends that the City
continue to investigate and eliminate sources of RDI/I in the downtown area. Until the
investigations are completed, a definitive estimation of the reduction in RDI/I cannot be made.
Therefore, a conservative RDI/I allowance of 1,500 gpd/acre will be used to project future RDI/I
from downtown. The reduction in RDI/I to this rate should be readily achievable.
Over the projected 50 to 100 year useful life of newly constructed sewers, RDI/I can occur.
Maintaining newly constructed sewers in pristine condition to prevent any RDI/I is typically
uneconomical. A more cost-effective approach is to provide an allowance for future RDI/I. A
RDI/I allowance of 500 gpd/acre peak flow is recommended for new developments. This rate is
comparable to current rates in Herndon basin, which has relatively new sewers. MOUSE RFC and
SRF parameters will be set to produce this peak flow under the design
5-1
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
CHAPTER 5
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the results of the hydraulic evaluation of the collection system under current
and future conditions, and identifies recommended improvements. The City selected assessment
criteria to determine the adequacy of the collection system. This chapter summarizes the assessment
criteria for pipelines and pumping stations. The recommended improvements are developed into
capital projects in Chapter 6.
Assessment Criteria
The hydraulic evaluation applies to current sewers and proposed sewers to serve future
developments within the City’s SOI. In both cases, the hydraulic model was used to evaluate the
capacity requirements of the current and proposed sewers. As discussed in Chapter 2, the modeled
sewer network primarily contains sewers that are 12-inches in diameter and larger. Future sewers
smaller than 12-inches that will be constructed to provide sewer service to in-fill parcels and to
newly developed parcels were not analyzed, but will be included in development of capital
improvement projects in Chapter 6. The analysis also considers current lift stations that are included
in the hydraulic model or are proposed on sewers that are 12-inches or larger in diameter.
The hydraulic assessment criteria are presented in Table 5-1. Since collection systems are designed to
run under open channel flow, daily surcharging under dry weather flows is not acceptable. However,
infrequent surcharging under 10-year peak wet weather flow conditions is acceptable given two
conditions: 1) surcharging is less than two feet, and 2) a minimum of five feet of freeboard is
available. Freeboard is the distance between the rim of the manhole and the Hydraulic Grade Line
(HGL). By using this criterion, there is a 10 percent per year probability that surcharging will occur
two feet above the crown of pipe. An actual overflow will not occur until surcharging typically
exceeds 7 feet because of the freeboard criterion. This condition may occur during very large storms.
This criterion does not apply to future gravity sewers. Instead all future gravity sewers are designed
for full pipe during the 10-year design condition.
Table 5-1. Hydraulic Evaluation Criteria
Facility Criteria
Current Gravity Sewer
No dry weather surcharging
Minimal wet weather surcharging (typically less than 2 feet)
Minimum 5 feet of freeboard
Future Gravity Sewer Full pipe (no surcharging)
Lift Stations Reported capacity greater than peak flow
The results of the hydraulic assessment identify those pipe segments that need to be either replaced
or relieved by a parallel pipeline based on the criterion stated above. Development of specific capital
projects is discussed in Chapter 6 and will consider multiple conditions such as condition
assessment, constructability, and others. For the purpose of this study, potential relief and
replacement sewers will be developed using the slope of the existing associated sewers.
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5-2
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Assessment of Current Collection System
The hydraulic model was used to evaluate the current collection system under current design dry and
wet weather conditions. The modeled sewers for this analysis are shown in Figure 5-1. The results of
both the current dry and wet weather conditions are shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively.
As shown in Figure 5-2, the current collection system exceeds the assessment criteria in two
locations. During dry weather conditions less than 6 inches of surcharging is predicted to occur
along Ashlan Avenue and at N. Glenn Ave and La Salle Ave. This surcharging only last for
approximately 2 to 3 hours during the peak flow conditions.
The current collection system also exceeds the evaluation criteria during a design 10-year wet
weather event. Figure 5-3 shows surcharging (above 2 feet) occurring in the Garland/Dakota Sewer.
This is caused by a hydraulic bottleneck which backs up this sewer and also the sewer on Anna
Street. Surcharging occurs when the wastewater flow exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the sewer
pipes. However, not all surcharged pipes have inadequate capacity. Commonly surcharging can be
corrected by fixing a portion of the downstream surcharged pipeline. Since all capacity projects will
be sized to handle future design conditions, no improvements are designated based on current
flows. Instead, these currently deficient locations will be considered when prioritizing the Capital
Improvement Plan in Chapter 6.
Assessment of Future Collection System
This section presents the hydraulic assessment of the proposed future collection system within the
2002 SOI. In the General Plan, the sphere of influence includes two areas that have been designated
as the “North Growth Area” (NGA) and the “Southeast Growth Area” (SEGA). These areas are
shown on Figure 5-1. This section also presents the separate assessment of potential impacts on the
collection system from the development of these two areas.
2002 SOI. The General Plan land use map indicates considerable growth within the City’s 2002 SOI
to reach full build-out. Table 3-1 and Table 3-3, in Chapter 3, show the sewered land use by area for
the current and future conditions. This growth will result in additional wastewater flows in many
existing sewers and will require the construction of additional sewers to serve current and future
developments that are in areas not currently sewered. Future sewers that are 12 inches and larger will
be required to serve current and future development within the 2002 SOI. These future sewers are
shown on Figure 5-1 and were preliminarily established by City staff based on available information
for this Master Plan. During the actual design of the proposed future pipelines, detailed surveying
information should be available, which may allow the pipe slopes and diameters to be optimized.
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5-6
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
The current collection system has a special structure at West Church Avenue and South Fruit
Avenue. Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2 shows this location at Manhole 2952-37. This structure’s
construction was modified in 1963 to divert the flow in two 30-inch pipes on West Church Avenue
east of Fruit Avenue to the south into a 48-inch sewer on Fruit Avenue. The Fruit Avenue sewer
connects to a 66-inch sewer on North Avenue, which conveys the wastewater to the RWRF. The
original 48-inch pipe in Fruit Avenue flowed northerly from Jensen Avenue to West Church
Avenue. Modifications to the structure included plugging the existing 48-inch at the north end of
the structure to prohibit flow diverted to Fruit Avenue from continuing west in Church Avenue.
Since the structure’s modification in 1963, the redwood board gate and sand bag plug has blown out
allowing flow to continue westerly in Church Avenue. The City should consider on reinstalling a
plug in the structure to prevent the westward flow of wastewater. The hydraulic assessment will be
based on the plug being in place.
The diversion structure near North Milburn Avenue and West Herndon Avenue has two slide gates.
Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2 shows this location at Manhole 1346-25. When both gates are open, the
influent flow in a 45-inch sewer on Herndon splits and continues south in a sewer on Milburn and
west in a sewer on Herndon. Currently, one slide gate is closed causing all flow to continue west on
Herndon and into the Grantland Sewer. The hydraulic analysis will be based on this gate remaining
closed.
2002 SOI Recommended Improvements. The hydraulic model indicates extensive surcharging
within the collection system under future design flow conditions. The results for future dry weather
and wet weather are shown on Figure 5-4 and 5-5, respectively. Each potential surcharge was
evaluated to determine its extent and cause.
Several potential surcharges result from the construction of the collection system where smaller
pipes were connected to larger pipes with the crown of the smaller pipes below the crown of the
larger pipes. As a result, flows in the larger pipes cause surcharging in the smaller pipes close to the
point of connection. Commonly, the crowns of smaller pipes are designed to match the crown of
the larger sewers. Although several locations are modeled with mismatched crowns and predict
some surcharging to occur in the smaller pipes, it is recommended that the actual pipe configuration
at these locations be field verified. This condition does not impact the results of the model.
The current collection system also has several sewers where actual flow direction is counter to the
slope of the pipe. This condition occurs primarily on Fruit Avenue and Walnut Avenue near Church
Avenue. Evidently, the collection system was originally designed so that the sewer on Fruit Avenue
would convey wastewater to Church Avenue. However, the collection system was modified to direct
the wastewater to the sewer on North Avenue. None of the adverse slopes within the collection
system cause conditions that exceed the hydraulic capacity criterion.
Figure 5-4 and 5-5 show the hydraulic results of the future dry and wet weather flows on the
collections system without improvements. Both scenarios cause extensive surcharging that exceeds
the assessment criterion. Improvements were developed to eliminate those conditions that exceed
the hydraulic capacity criterion. The improvements are listed in Table 5-2 and are shown on Figure
5-6. These improvements only account for the future design flows within the 2002 SOI. This was
accomplished by assuming a satellite treatment plant was constructed in the Southeast. However, the
impacts of both the SEGA and the NGA will be assessed separately in subsequent sections. Each
area with significant surcharging is discussed below along with the proposed capacity improvements.
Table 5-2. 2002 SOI Relief Sewer Recommendations Project Upstream MH Downstream MH Length, lf Existing Diameter, inExisting Capacity, mgd Current Peak Wet Flow, mgd Future Peak Wet Flow, mgd Replace Diameter, in Relief Diameter, in North N1 3253-07 3245-01 (RWRF) 21,00066 64.6 62.6 111.6 NA 66 N2 a T335601 3253-07 10,30060 63.3 40.4 86 NA 48 Cross Connections b Intermittently placed 500NA NA NA NA NA 48 N3 T326001 T325902 4,70057 48 26.7 55.3 NA 48 Marks M1 2250-19 2649-01 9,25045 20.7 22.4 29.1 51 33 M2 2649-01 2749-01 2,90048 25.9 22.4 30.8 51 18 Ashlan A1 1951-04 1950-05 2,62039 13.6 14.5 17 42 24 A2 1955-04 1953-01 6,63033 9.7 10.7 12.3 36 21 Del Mar DM1 1655-15 1755-27 3,94030 9.7 9.2 11 33 15 DM2 1555-44 1555-48 2,65018 1.9 2.8 3.2 21 15 Glenn/La Salle Ave GL1 2456-20 2455-83 2,14018 2.6 3.4 3.7 21 15 Orange O1 2058-06 2058-21 3,10021 - 24 4 6.0 6.7 27 18 O2 2058-21 2257-01 7,10024 4.9 8.6 9.2 33 27 O3 2257-01 2358-08 3,30030 8 8.8 10.5 36 18 O4 2458-07 T255902 6,70030 8.5 10.5 11.9 36 24 O5 T255902 2858-01 9,20036 12.9 15.4 17.8 42 27 O6 2958-05 3056-03 7,90048 20 23.0 28.9 54 36 a Reactivate existing 60-inch pipeline b Cross connections are intermittently placed between the activated 60-inch pipeline and the existing 66-inch pipeline to level the hydraulic grade line.
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5-11
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
North. The North Avenue Sewer has insufficient capacity in three sections: 1) between RWRF and
Fruit Avenue (N1), 2) between Fruit Avenue and Cherry Avenue (N2) and, 3) between Cherry
Avenue and Maple Avenue (N3). This results in surcharging in excess of two feet in the North
Sewer and connecting sewers upstream to California Avenue. The existing capacity in N1 is
approximately 64.6 mgd and the future peak wet weather flow is 111.6 mgd. This can be corrected
by adding a new parallel 66-inch sewer from the RWRF to Fruit Avenue. N2 has an existing capacity
and future peak flow of approximately 68 mgd and 86 mgd, respectively. This section can be
corrected by reactivating the 60-inch sewer on North Avenue between Fruit Avenue and Cherry
Avenue. This 60-inch sewer on North Avenue was de-activated when the City constructed a new
66-inch parallel sewer. N3 has an existing capacity of 48 mgd and a peak flow of 55.3 mgd.
Therefore, it is recommended to add a new parallel 48-inch sewer from Cherry Avenue to Maple
Avenue.
Herndon. The Herndon Sewer has surcharging under peak wet weather conditions. The City is
installing a cured-in-place polyester resin lining into the existing pipeline to mitigate potential
adverse impacts associated with recent planned land use amendments in the area that will protect the
host pipe from any adverse impacts resulting from the surcharging. Therefore, no additional
capacity enhancement is recommended.
Marks. Wet weather surcharging occurs on the Marks Avenue Sewer and connecting modeled
sewers beginning near Nielsen Avenue and extending upstream almost to Bullard Avenue. The
surcharging also extends up the Ashlan Avenue sewer. This surcharging can be corrected by
eliminating a bottleneck in the downstream portion of the Marks sewer. Therefore, construction of a
relief sewer is recommended. (M1, M2)
Ashlan. A relief sewer on Marks Avenue would eliminate wet weather surcharging of the western
portion of the Ashlan Avenue sewer. However, surcharging remains in two upper sections of the
Ashlan sewer and into the lower reaches of Del Mar Avenue. Construction of two relief sewers is
recommended to eliminate the surcharging. (A1, A2)
Del Mar. The Del Mar Avenue sewer has two portions that exceed the wet weather hydraulic
assessment criterion. Both sections can be corrected with the construction of two relief sewers.
(DM1, DM2)
Glenn/La Salle. As previously mentioned, both dry and wet weather surcharging occur in the sewers
near and on Abby Avenue. This surcharging can be eliminated with a relief sewer on Glenn Avenue
and La Salle Avenue. (GL1)
Dakota/Garland. The extensive surcharging in the Dakota/Garland Sewer and connecting tributary
sewers can be eliminated by diverting all flow at the intersection of Dakota and Millbrook Avenues
to the south (Refer to Orange Sewer). Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2 shows this location at Manhole 2058-
06. This will reduce the peak flow in the Dakota/Garland Sewer by approximately 3.5 mgd and
eliminate the need for relief sewers along the Dakota/Garland Sewer and the sewer on West
Avenue. By implementing this recommendation, the timing of the construction of the Orange
project will change.
Orange. Prior to changing the diversion for the Dakota/Garland sewer, improvements are needed
to correct both dry and wet weather surcharging in the Orange sewer. The majority of the
improvements required for the Orange Sewer are located along First and Eighth Streets, between
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5-12
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
the intersections of Dakota and Millbrook Avenues upstream and Orange and California Avenues
downstream. Surcharging along the Orange Sewer and tributary pipelines, reaches levels in excess of
5 feet above the crown of the pipeline. These conditions can be corrected by constructing relief
sewers. (01 through 06) However, to minimize costs and impacts on the community, the
recommended relief sewers are also sized to handle the additional flow by implementing the
recommendation for the Dakota/Garland sewer. This additional flow does increase the required
replacement diameter from 24 inches to 30 inches. Currently, wet weather flows at the
Dakota/Millbrook locations are 2.3 mgd flowing west and 3.6 mgd flowing south. Although, under
future wet weather flows approximately 2.6 mgd is predicted to flow westerly at Dakota/Millbrook
and 4.1 mgd will flow south. The existing southern capacity at this diversion is approximately 4.0
mgd. Therefore, timing of the Orange projects and Dakota/Garland need to be coordinated.
South Industrial Area. Wastewater from the South Industrial Area will be conveyed to the North
Sewer via a new lift station located midway between Cherry Avenue and Central Avenue. Figure 5-7
shows the future sewer layout of the South Industrial Area. This layout was provided by the City and
was used in the model to convey the future flows of this area.
Fowler. Assuming Clovis will only discharge 6.8 mgd ADWF in the Fowler Sewer as resulting from
the previously discussed capacity exchange agreement between the two cities, minor wet weather
surcharging would occur at manhole 2717-63 in the Fowler Sewer. This is due to a change in slope
and a small drop in invert elevation. The surcharging does not exceed the hydraulic criterion;
therefore, no relief sewer is needed.
Lift Stations. Existing capacity and peak wet weather flows for the lift stations in the hydraulic
model are listed in Table 5-3. The lift stations appear to have adequate hydraulic capacity.
Table 5-3. Network Lift Stations Assessment
Name Capacity (mgd) a Design Peak Wet Weather Flow (mgd)
LS02 0.94 0.51
LS05 0.74 0.73
LS06 2.22 1.74
LS14 0.58 0.38
a Capacities for these lift stations were obtained from the GIS database supplied by City staff.
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5-14
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
North Growth Area. The proposed development of the NGA is discussed in Chapter 3. Ultimately,
the Copper River Ranch development will encompass most of the NGA and will have its own
satellite wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to be operated by the City with a capacity of about 0.8
mgd. This satellite WWTP will also treat flows from a development located north of Copper River
Ranch. These areas are shown on Figure 5-1. Solids from the satellite treatment plant will be
discharged to the City’s collection system at Maple Avenue and International Avenue. A pump
station and force main have been constructed south of Copper Avenue to convey this flow. The
design capacity of this pump station is 1.3 mgd.
On an interim basis, wastewater from up to 500 dwelling units in the Copper River Ranch
development will be discharged directly to the City’s collection system before the satellite treatment
plant is constructed and operational. This discharge will be pumped to the City’s collection system at
Maple Avenue and International Avenue and will include flow from some new developments south
of Copper within the 2002 SOI. The interim flow is less than the projected future flow after
construction of the satellite WWTP.
Impact of North Growth Area. Analysis was conducted for both interim and future scenarios. The
interim scenario does not cause the hydraulic capacity criterion to be exceeded but does cause less
than 2 feet of surcharging in the Herndon sewer. The future scenario also does not exceed the
criterion, but does increase the surcharging without exceeding two feet above the crown. The
Herndon sewer is relatively deep and would have about 10 feet of freeboard with this level of
surcharging.
The City has a program in progress to line this sewer to protect it from damage caused by
surcharging. Therefore, no additional capacity improvement projects beyond those currently
planned are proposed for this sewer.
Southeast Growth Area (Un-adopted). The SEGA consists of two areas: an eastern portion and a
southern portion. The City is currently studying these areas for future sewer improvement needs
and has developed preliminary alignments for future sewers. Flow from the southern portion that is
planned for light industrial development will be conveyed to the RWRF for treatment. A satellite
WWTP Study, prepared by Black & Veatch dated August, 2001, was conducted to evaluate the cost
and benefit of constructing a satellite plant for treatment and discharge of sewer effluent from the
eastern portion of SEGA versus construction of conveyance systems for the transportation of
sewage expansion of the RWRF. In general, the Black & Veatch study concluded that a satellite
plant could be a cost effective alternative to regional plant expansion and should be given further
consideration in planning future facility needs.
This study analyzed the two following alternatives:
Alternative #1 – Satellite WWTP
This alternative analyzes the impacts of building a satellite WWTP to serve the eastern
portion of SEGA including flow from Clovis in the Leonard Trunk and flow from the
existing Fowler Trunk sewer. A specific location has not yet been established for the future
treatment plant; however, it will likely be located south of the intersection of North and
Temperance Avenues as shown on Figure 5-1. For this Master Plan, it is assumed that the
existing Fowler Trunk sewer will convey its sewage to the RWRF and a future satellite
WWTP would be constructed to serve flows from the Leonard Trunk Sewer. The Leonard
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5-15
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Trunk sewer would be extended to the satellite WWTP. Until a satellite WWTP is sited and
constructed, a connection between the Temperance Trunk sewer and Fowler Trunk sewer
will accommodate a small portion of flow from the eastern portion of SEGA to the existing
Fowler pipeline. Including the 3.0 mgd from Clovis in the Leonard Trunk, the average dry
weather flow at the satellite WWTP would be approximately 12.5 mgd.
On an interim basis, flow from the eastern portion could be conveyed to the RWRF until a
new satellite treatment plant is operational. A connecting sewer would be constructed on
Church Avenue from Temperance to Fowler Avenues.
Alternative #2 – No Satellite WWTP
An alternative to building a satellite WWTP is to convey all wastewater from the SEGA and
the flow from Clovis in the Leonard Avenue pipeline to the RWRF for treatment and
disposal. With this alternative the new collection system in SEGA would be connected to the
existing collection system via a pipeline on North Avenue from Peach Avenue to
Temperance Avenue.
Clovis is planning on constructing its own satellite WWTP. The projected average daily flow capacity
of the Clovis WWTP is 8.4 mgd. This study assumes Clovis’ WWTP will be in full operation.
Additionally, Clovis and the City have agreed (Amendment to Fresno-Clovis JPA for Fowler
Capacity Exchange), to exchange 3 mgd of capacity owned by Clovis in the Fowler Avenue pipeline.
Fresno proposed to provide for replacement of Clovis’ 3 mgd of capacity in the proposed Leonard
Avenue pipeline.
Impact of SEGA. The City has developed a layout of sewers to serve the SEGA. Figure 5-8 shows
the sewer layout of the SEGA. This layout was provided by the City and was used in the model to
convey the future flows of this area. The hydraulic analysis evaluated the required diameters of these
sewers. The proposed sewers in SEGA will have adequate hydraulic capacity. The new sewer system
should be designed so that the elevations of sewer crowns match to avoid localized surcharging. The
proposed sewers are based on the alternative of constructing a new satellite WWTP. If this
alternative is not adopted, minor modifications to the proposed sewers will be needed to convey all
flow to the North Sewer without surcharging. Not constructing a satellite WWTP would impact
treatment capacity at RWRF. Evaluation of these impacts is beyond the scope of this Master Plan.
The impacts to the proposed collection system improvements are discussed below for the two
alternatives. The recommended improvements are shown in Table 5-4.
Alternative #1 – Satellite WWTP
North. The southern portion of SEGA will add approximately 1 mgd of peak wet weather
flow to the North Sewer. This additional flow does not impact the relief projects
recommended for the 2002 SOI.
Alternative #2 – No Satellite WWTP
North. The additional flow to the RWRF from SEGA would have significant impacts on the
North Avenue sewer. The future peak wet weather flow from SEGA is approximately 25
mgd. N1 will require a 72-inch relief sewer. N2 will require the reactivation of the 60-inch
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5-16
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
pipeline assuming there will be no decrease in capacity due to rehabilitation. If rehabilitation
does eliminate capacity, a new pipeline may be required. N3 will require a 54-inch pipeline.
As an interim basis, SEGA could temporarily connect to the Church Avenue sewer at
Fowler Avenue. If Clovis discharges an average of 6.8 mgd into the Fowler sewer, the future
peak wet weather design flow in the Church sewer is approximately 22 mgd. This pipeline
has approximately 28 mgd of capacity. Therefore, the temporary connection should not
exceed 6 mgd. Since Clovis is expected to discharge up to 3 mgd into the Leonard Avenue
sewer, Fresno may need to share interim capacity made available with Clovis until Fresno’s
satellite facility is constructed.
Actual timing for all projects needs to be coordinated with actual growth and development.
Implementing projects such as this interim connection to the Church Avenue sewer may
have adverse impacts on the North Avenue sewer. Therefore, flow monitoring should
continue so that projects will be phased in appropriately.
Table 5-4. Southeast Growth Area Relief Sewers Recommendations Project Upstream MH Downstream MH Length, lf Existing Diameter, in Existing Capacity, mgd Current Peak Wet Flow, mgd Future Peak Wet Flow, mgd Replace Diameter, in Relief Diameter, in North Alternative #1 – Satellite WWTP No impact to 2002 SOI Improvements Alternative #2 – No Satellite WWTP N1 3253-07 3245-01 (RWRF) 21,000 66 64.6 62.6 137 NA 72 N2 a 3358-12 3253-07 15,900 66 63.3 40.4 108 NA 54 Cross Connectionsb Intermittently placed 650 NA NA NA NA NA 48 N3 T326001 T325902 4,700 57 48 26.7 73.3 NA 54 a Reactivate existing 60-inch pipeline b Cross connections are intermittently placed between the activated 60-inch pipeline and the existing 66-inch pipeline to level the hydraulic grade line.
5-19
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Model runs were completed for the future dry and wet weather flow conditions that include the
recommended improvements. As shown in Figure 5-9, some locations are predicted to surcharge
under future dry weather flow conditions. Each of these locations was evaluated and surcharging is
caused primarily by matched inverts of large and small pipes. As previously discussed, this condition
is undesirable and should be further investigated to verify proper modeling of the connections.
Figure 5-10 shows the results of the future wet weather flow scenario. Several locations show some
surcharging but all are within the selected assessment criterion. Even though these locations do not
warrant a capacity relief/replacement project at this time, it is recommended these locations be
monitored and assessed in the future in combination with supplemental information such as
condition assessment data.
6-1
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
CHAPTER 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This chapter describes the development of the Capital Improvement Program. The program is a
comprehensive plan that incorporates the recommended improvements discussed in Chapter 5 and
other City supplied projects found through previous condition assessment studies. All projects are
cost estimated, prioritized, and scheduled.
Capital Improvement Projects were classified under two categories, namely “New Construction
Projects” and “Rehabilitation Projects”. New Construction Projects were further classified under a
number of subcategories, including: Infill, Growth, Capacity, Development Driven, and Trunk
Sewer. Similarly, Rehabilitation Projects were further classified under two size-related subcategories,
namely Mid-Sized Sewers and Large Sewers. Although there are a variety of sewer rehabilitation
processes that could be considered suitable for the Rehabilitation Projects, it was assumed for the
purposes of project development and cost estimating that all sewer pipeline rehabilitation would be
accomplished by cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) methods, the process most commonly used for City of
Fresno rehabilitation projects. Descriptions of each Capital Improvement Project subcategory are
provided in the following paragraphs.
New Construction Projects
Each classification of New Construction Projects is discussed below.
Infill Projects. Infill Projects consist of sewer improvements generally planned for developed areas
in which no sanitary sewer service is available and residents rely on septic systems for wastewater
treatment and disposal. Infill Projects are required by City ordinance to protect groundwater from
nitrate contamination. Planned sewers for Infill Projects range in size from 8 to 12 inches in
diameter. Most Infill Projects are planned for “county islands”, which are unincorporated land areas
surrounded by incorporated land areas, while others are planned for areas within the incorporated
limits of the City. It is expected that Infill Projects will be constructed by the City and/or County.
Infill Projects were identified by the City. The City provided the location and extent of the planned
Infill Projects, including sewer sizes and an identification number for each project. Infill Projects
were assigned identifying descriptors formatted “F#”, where “F” identifies the Capital Improvement
Project as an Infill Project, and “#” is a sequential number, for example: F5.
Growth Infill Projects. Growth Infill Projects consist of sewer improvements generally planned for
partially developed areas where the City expects additional growth to occur. Planned sewers for
Growth Infill Projects range in size from 8 to 10 inches in diameter. Some Growth Infill Projects
are planned for outlying areas within the incorporated limits of the City, while others are planned for
growth areas that currently lie in unincorporated land areas. It is expected that Growth Infill
Projects will be constructed by the City and/or County.
Sewers planned for Growth Infill Projects were identified by the City, which also assigned sewer
sizes. The sewers were grouped to form individual projects, using the City’s grouping of the Infill
Project sewers as a guide. Growth Infill Projects were assigned identifying descriptors formatted
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-2
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
“G#”, where “G” identifies the Capital Improvement Project as a Growth Infill Project, and “#” is
a sequential number, for example: G5.
Capacity Projects. Capacity Projects consist of sewer improvements planned for existing sewers
determined to lack sufficient capacity to convey current or projected wastewater flows. Capacity
Projects generally consist of sewers ranging in size from 15 to 66 inches in diameter. It is expected
that Capacity Projects will be constructed by the City, with project funding derived from
development fees or user fees, or a combination of those sources, depending on the extent to which
the capacity shortfall is determined to be related to growth.
With two exceptions, Capacity Projects were identified through the hydraulic assessment presented
in this master plan. The two exceptions consisted of capacity enhancements for portions of the
Herndon Avenue interceptor sewer that were planned by the City prior to the hydraulic assessment.
For most sewers where capacity shortfalls were identified by the hydraulic assessment presented in
Chapter 5, two capacity projects were initially developed. One of the projects consisted of
replacement sewer improvements, while the other consisted of relief sewer improvements.
Replacement Capacity Projects. Replacement Capacity Projects consist of sewer
improvements intended to provide the necessary sewer capacity by the removal of the sewer
facilities of insufficient capacity and the construction of replacement sewer facilities
providing the necessary capacity. Cost estimates prepared for Replacement Capacity
Projects included the cost of removal of the existing sewer facilities.
Relief Capacity Projects. Relief Capacity Projects consist of sewer improvements intended
to provide the necessary sewer capacity by the construction of additional “parallel” sewer
facilities which, when functioning in combination with the existing sewer facilities, can
provide the necessary sewer capacity.
Capacity Projects were assigned identifying descriptors formatted “C[BCid]-[Type]”. “C”
identifies the Capital Improvement Project as a Capacity Project. [BCid] represents the hydraulic
assessment project identifier used in Chapter 5. [Type] indicates the type of capacity project by an
entry of “REP” for Replacement Capacity Projects or “REL” for Relief Capacity Projects.
Examples are CA2-REP and CO6-REL.
Since Replacement Capacity Projects must include the cost of removal of the existing sewer facilities
and involve the construction of replacement facilities larger than those removed, their estimated cost
of construction is generally higher than their corresponding Relief Capacity Projects. Therefore,
unless a Rehabilitation Project was also identified for a sewer for which a Capacity Project was
identified, the Replacement Capacity Project was discarded in favor of the Relief Capacity Project.
However, if a Rehabilitation Project was also identified for a sewer for which a Capacity Project was
identified, the estimated cost of the Replacement Capacity Project is generally lower than the
combined estimated costs for the Relief Capacity Project and the Rehabilitation Project. In that
case, the Rehabilitation Project and the Relief Capacity Project were discarded in favor of the
Replacement Capacity Project. Since the replacement sewer would be constructed of pipe materials
not susceptible to sulfide-related corrosion, rehabilitation would not be necessary to halt corrosion
processes. That evaluation and decision process was used for all capacity projects with three
exceptions, as described in the following paragraphs.
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-3
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Capacity Project CM2-REP. For this project involving an existing 48-inch diameter sewer in Marks
Avenue at the State Route 180 alignment, the Relief Capacity Project was discarded in favor of the
corresponding Replacement Capacity Project even though no rehabilitation project was identified
for the existing sewer. That was done at the City’s direction, in consideration of the pending
construction of State Route 180 across Marks Avenue. Reconstruction of the sewer is expected to
be necessary in preparation for freeway construction, and a replacement project will result in a single
pipeline crossing of the freeway right-of-way.
Capacity Projects CH2-REL and CH3-REL. These two projects for the Herndon Avenue
interceptor sewer are unique among the Capacity Projects, in that they were planned by the City
prior to the hydraulic assessment. Furthermore, they are not true relief capacity projects, in the
same sense as other relief capacity projects, because they do not involve the construction of a
parallel sewer facility. Rather, they involve the installation of a cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner,
even though rehabilitation is not currently necessary for the existing sewer. The intent of the
proposed CIPP liner for the two projects is to provide a reduced friction coefficient, thereby
increasing the flow capacity of the sewer. The two projects are the second and third phase of
capacity improvements for the Herndon Avenue interceptor sewer; the first phase, immediately
upstream of the two projects, was completed in early 2004.
Development Driven Projects. Development Driven Projects consist of sewer improvements
planned for generally undeveloped areas where the City expects growth to occur. Planned sewers
for Development Driven Projects range in size from 8 to 30 inches in diameter. Some Development
Driven Projects are planned for outlying areas within the incorporated limits of the City, while
others are planned growth areas that currently lie in unincorporated land areas. It is expected that
Development Driven Projects will be constructed by developers, with project costs reimbursed by
the City with funding derived from development fees.
Sewers planned for Development Driven Projects were identified by the City, which also assigned
sewer sizes. However, since Development Driven Projects are expected to be constructed by
developers, rather than the City, Development Driven Projects were not developed as individual
projects. Rather, Development Driven Projects were grouped together by service area for the
preparation of a single overall cost estimate for each service area. The cost estimates are intended to
be used in the determination of related development fees to support cost reimbursement. No
identifying descriptors were used for Development Driven Projects.
Trunk Sewer Projects. Trunk Sewer Projects consist of trunk sewer improvements planned to
serve partially developed or undeveloped areas in and adjacent to the incorporated limits of the City.
Trunk sewer projects generally consist of sewers 30 inches and larger in diameter and related
facilities. It is expected that Trunk Sewer Projects will be constructed by the City, with project
funding derived from development fees as tributary areas develop.
The City provided the location and extent of the planned Trunk Sewer Projects, including estimated
sewer sizes. The capacity of the Trunk sewers were analyzed and adjusted during the hydraulic
assessment. Trunk Sewer Projects were assigned identifying descriptors formatted “T#”, where “T”
identifies the Capital Improvement Project as a Trunk Sewer Project, and “#” is a sequential
number, for example: T5.
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-4
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Rehabilitation Projects
Rehabilitation Projects consist of sewer improvements planned for existing sewers to halt and
remedy the effects of sulfide-related pipe corrosion. The existing sewers for which rehabilitation
projects were developed consist of unlined cementitous pipe materials susceptible to sulfide-related
corrosion processes that occur commonly in sanitary sewers under certain conditions. In general,
those pipe materials consist of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), non-reinforced (or standard)
concrete pipe (NRCP or SCP), and asbestos-cement pipe (ACP). It is expected that Rehabilitation
Projects will be constructed by the City.
Rehabilitation Projects were identified by the City on the basis of past sewer inspection and
evaluation efforts, as described in the following paragraphs.
Large Diameter Rehabilitation Projects. In 1992, the City commissioned an evaluation of its
then-existing concrete sewers 27 inches and larger in diameter and 10 years of age or older. The
study was entitled “Evaluation of Large Diameter Wastewater Collection System” and its purpose
was to evaluate the condition of the sewers and the need for rehabilitative measures. The study was
performed by Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers and the results were documented in a
series of reports culminating with prioritized rehabilitation recommendations and cost estimates. In
1996, resulting rehabilitation recommendations were made for more than 11 miles of the sewers
evaluated, generally those determined to be in “Very Poor” or “Poor” condition, with a total
estimated rehabilitation cost of approximately $21 million. The evaluation is referred to as the
“1996 Evaluation”. The City has since implemented all of the rehabilitation recommendations of
the 1996 Evaluation.
Since the time of the 1996 Evaluation, the City has continued to monitor and inspect many of the
sewers that were determined to be in “Fair” condition at the time of the 1996 evaluation and were
not then recommended for rehabilitation. Through those continued efforts, the City has since
identified a number of planned sewer rehabilitation projects. By virtue of their pipe sizes of 27
inches or larger in diameter, those projects are referred to as Large Diameter Rehabilitation Projects.
Primary and Secondary Rehabilitation Projects. In 1999, the City commissioned an evaluation
of its then-existing concrete sewers ranging from 12 to 27 inches in diameter. The evaluation was
documented in the 19th July, 2001, report entitled “Inspection and Evaluation of Concrete Sewers
12 Inches to 27 Inches in Diameter, Inspection and Evaluation Report”. The evaluation is referred
to as the “2001 Evaluation”. Primary sewer rehabilitation recommendations were made for
approximately 14.5 miles of the 2001 Evaluation sewers, generally those found to be in “Severe”
condition, with a total estimated rehabilitation cost of $11.1 million. Secondary sewer rehabilitation
recommendations were made for approximately 18.4 miles of the evaluation sewers, generally those
found to be in “Moderate” condition, with a total estimated rehabilitation cost of $11.0 million.
Together, the primary and secondary rehabilitation recommendations included approximately 32.9
miles of the 2001 Evaluation sewers, with a total estimated rehabilitation cost of $22.1 million.
The primary sewer rehabilitation recommendations included 16 separate projects, presented in order
of priority. Since the time of the 2001 Evaluation, the City has implemented Primary Rehabilitation
Priorities No. 1 through No. 11. The remaining projects, Primary Rehabilitation Priorities No. 12
through No. 16, are planned for implementation as part of the Capital Improvement Program.
Those projects are referred to as Primary Rehabilitation Projects.
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-5
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
The secondary sewer rehabilitation recommendations included six separate projects, each
comprising one or more construction units. All of the secondary rehabilitation recommendations
are planned for implementation as part of the Capital Improvement Program. Those projects are
referred to as Secondary Rehabilitation Projects.
Rehabilitation Projects were assigned identifying descriptors formatted “R[Type]#”. “R” identifies
the Capital Improvement Project as a Rehabilitation Project. [Type] indicates the type of
rehabilitation project by an entry of “P” for Primary Rehabilitation Projects, “S” for Secondary
Rehabilitation Projects, and “L” for Large Diameter Rehabilitation Projects. “#” represents a
number, or a number and a letter, corresponding to the project or priority number assigned under
the 1996 Evaluation, the 2001 Evaluation, or under the City’s continued inspection and evaluation
efforts. Examples are RP13, RS2A, and RL3.
Identification of Capital Improvement Projects
A total of 124 Capital Improvement Projects were developed as described in the foregoing
paragraphs, exclusive of Development Driven Projects. Refer to Appendix F, which contains a
tabulated listing of the Capital Improvement Projects. A map showing the locations and extents of
the Capital Improvement Projects is included as Appendix G, contained in the Map Pocket of this
report.
Unit Costs for Capital Improvement Project Cost Estimates
The objective of the development of unit costs for Capital Improvement Project cost estimates was
to develop a list of “loaded” unit costs which, when applied to the key elements of Capital
Improvement Projects of all types, would result in an estimated project construction cost inclusive
of all necessary associated and incidental work. To support the development of unit costs, bid
summaries for a number of recent City of Fresno sewer construction and sewer rehabilitation
projects were used.
For rehabilitation projects, bid summaries from ten CIPP sewer rehabilitation projects involving
sewers ranging from 12 to 60 inches in diameter were used. Rehabilitation projects generally include
fewer bid items than new construction projects and involve fewer bidders. The bid “spread”, or
variation between low and high bids, was found to be generally narrower than for new construction
projects. For the development of sewer rehabilitation unit prices, the unit prices of all bidders were
usually considered.
For new construction projects, bid summaries from five large projects involving the construction of
sewers ranging from 8 to 72 inches in diameter were used. In contrast to rehabilitation projects, the
new construction projects generally included a much higher number of bid items and involved a
greater number of bidders. Similarly, the bid “spread” was found to be generally wider than for
rehabilitation projects. For the development of new construction unit prices, the unit prices of only
the three lowest bidders were usually considered.
The process of developing “loaded” unit prices for sewer pipe materials from the bid summary data
consisted of the following steps for each bid summary.
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-6
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
• identification and elimination of items that would not normally be included;
• identification and elimination of certain non-pipe items expected to be separately
accounted for in cost estimates (manholes and house branches, for example);
• summation of the extended prices for all remaining items to arrive at an adjusted
total price;
• apportionment of the adjusted total price among the various pipe items on the basis
of the extended price for each pipe item; and
• determination of “loaded” unit prices by dividing the apportioned amounts by the
quantity for each pipe item
The methods used to implement the foregoing steps were varied for certain bid summaries,
depending on the complexity and number of item involved. In those cases, unit prices were loaded
by developing loading factors to account for the included non-pipe item costs, to the same end of
apportioning the non-pipe item costs to the pipe item costs. The loaded unit prices developed from
each bid summary were charted and used to develop a mathematical relationship from which unit
costs could be derived for pipe materials of any size.
For non-pipe items that would be separately accounted for in capital improvement project cost
estimates, such as manholes and house branches, a less complex process was employed. The unit
price data from the bid summaries was reviewed by the engineers involved, and a corresponding unit
cost judged to be representative of the bid summary data was established.
In addition to the unit costs developed on the basis of bid summary data, items were added for
contingency allowances, as well as management, engineering and inspection costs. As the result of
discussions among BCF, Brown and Caldwell, and City staff, contingency allowances of 15 percent,
20 percent and 25 percent were used for projects planned for implementation in 5-year, 5- to 10-
year, and 15-year-and-beyond time frames, respectively. Similarly, management, engineering and
inspection costs were accounted for by the inclusion of a cost factor of 18 percent, based on prior
City of Fresno practice that has proven to be reasonably accurate. The sewer facility unit costs used
for capital improvement project cost estimate preparation are included in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Sewer Facility Unit Costs
Item
No. Item Description Unit Cost
1 8'' PVC Sewer Pipe $100/lf
2 10'' PVC Sewer Pipe $110/lf
3 12'' PVC Sewer Pipe $120/lf
4 15'' PVC Sewer Pipe $135/lf
5 18'' PVC Sewer Pipe $150/lf
6 21'' PVC Sewer Pipe $165/lf
7 24'' PVC Sewer Pipe $180/lf
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-7
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 6-1. Sewer Facility Unit Costs (continued)
Item
No. Item Description Unit Cost
8 27'' PVC Sewer Pipe $200/lf
9 30'' PVC Sewer Pipe $215/lf
10 33'' PVC Sewer Pipe $230/lf
11 36'' PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe $320/lf
12 42'' PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe $360/lf
13 48'' PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe $400/lf
14 54'' PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe $440/lf
15 60'' PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe $480/lf
16 66'' PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe $520/lf
17 72'' PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe $550/lf
18 4'' House Branch $4,100/ea
19 48'' Manhole, Type S-2, PVC-Lined (New Sewer) $11,000/ea
20 48'' Manhole, Type S-3, PVC-Lined (New Sewer) $9,000/ea
21 48'' Manhole, Type S-3 (New Sewer) $4,000/ea
22 60'' Manhole, Type S-4, PVC-Lined (New Sewer) $14,000/ea
23 Remove / Abandon Existing Sewer Main $40/lf
24 Deduct for Permanent Pavement Replacement (-$40)/lf
25 8'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $70/lf
26 10'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $80/lf
27 12'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $90/lf
28 15'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $100/lf
29 16'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $105/lf
30 18'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $115/lf
31 20'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $125/lf
32 21'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $130/lf
33 24'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $145/lf
34 27'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $155/lf
35 30'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $170/lf
36 33'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $185/lf
37 36'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $200/lf
38 39'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $210/lf
39 40'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $215/lf
40 42'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $225/lf
41 45'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $240/lf
42 46'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $245/lf
43 48'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $255/lf
44 51'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $265/lf
45 54'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $280/lf
46 60'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $310/lf
47 66'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $335/lf
48 72'' CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $365/lf
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-8
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Table 6-1. Sewer Facility Unit Costs (continued)
Item
No. Item Description Unit Cost
49 48'' Manhole, Type S-2, PVC-Lined (Existing Sewer) $16,000/ea
50 48'' Manhole, Type S-3, PVC-Lined (Existing Sewer) $14,000/ea
51 48'' Manhole, Type S-3 (Existing Sewer) $5,000/ea
52 60'' Manhole, Type S-4, PVC-Lined (Existing Sewer) $19,000/ea
53 Manhole Rehabilitation $10,000/ea
54 Contingency Allowance (5 Year) 15%
55 Contingency Allowance (5-15 Year) 20%
56 Contingency Allowance (15+ Year) 25%
57 Management, Engineering and Inspection 18%
Capital Improvement Project Cost Estimates
A cost estimate was prepared for each Capital Improvement Project using the unit costs presented
in Table 6-1. Individual project cost estimates are included in Appendix H. The following
paragraphs present a discussion of certain conventions employed in cost estimate preparation.
Manhole Spacing. For all projects involving new construction, planned manholes were provided
at intervals not to exceed 600 feet, in keeping with current City of Fresno standards for manhole
spacing. For rehabilitation projects, which involve existing sewers with existing manholes, additional
planned manholes were provided where necessary to reduce the distance between manholes.
However, it is the City’s practice to construct additional manholes in conjunction with rehabilitation
projects only for those instances where the existing interval between manholes is 700 feet or more.
A manhole spacing convention was adopted that provided for a maximum interval of 600 feet
between manholes, but allowed for intervals of up to 700 feet to remain between existing manholes
for existing sewers.
Manhole Type and Lining. Manhole type assignments were based on pipe size, in conformance
with the requirements of City of Fresno Standard Drawings S-2, S-3 and S-4. In summary, Type S-3
manholes were designated for sewers with sizes up to and including 27 inches in diameter. Type S-4
manholes were designated for sewers with sizes greater than 27 inches, up to and including 42
inches, in diameter. Type S-2 manholes were designated for sewers larger than 42 inches in
diameter. The convention was adopted that manholes would be unlined for all sewers less than 15
inches in diameter, and that PVC-lined manholes would be used for all sewers 15 inches and larger
in diameter. Thus, all Type S-2 and Type S-4 manholes are planned to be PVC-lined, while Type S-3
manholes may or may not be PVC-lined, depending on pipe size.
House Branch Sewers. Cost estimates for Infill, Growth, and Development Driven Capital
Improvement Projects included provisions for house branch sewers. The number of house branch
sewers to be included with each project was determined by a spacing convention adopted for each
type of project. For Infill projects, one house branch sewer was added for each 50 feet of sewer
pipe length, to reflect the planned construction of one house branch sewer at intervals of 100 feet
on both sides of the sewer, consistent with medium density residential development expected for
most of the Infill Project areas. For Growth Projects, one house branch sewer was added for each
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-9
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
200 feet of sewer pipe length, to reflect the planned construction of one house branch sewer at
intervals of 400 feet on both sides of the sewer, consistent with the rural residential development
expected for most of the Growth Project areas. For Development Driven Projects, the same
spacing convention was adopted as for Growth Projects, since most of the Development Driven
Project sewers will be located in half-mile (quarter-section) streets. Even in areas of medium density
residential development, most newly developed residential properties are expected to be served by
internal sewers in subdivision streets, rather than sewers in major streets outside the subdivision.
Permanent Trench Resurfacing. In the development of unit costs to be used for capital
improvement project cost estimates for new construction, the cost of permanent trench resurfacing
was included in the “loaded” unit prices. However, it is likely that many or all of the Growth and
Development Driven projects will be constructed in new streets prior to pavement construction.
For those types of projects, then, the cost of permanent trench resurfacing was excluded from
project cost estimates by the inclusion of a deductive line item for permanent trench resurfacing.
For all other Capital Improvement Projects involving new construction, generally the Infill, Capacity
and Trunk Sewer Projects, permanent trench resurfacing was allowed to remain as included in the
cost estimate by virtue of the use of “loaded” unit prices. No permanent trench resurfacing was
included in the “loaded” unit prices developed for Rehabilitation Projects, and for the two special
case Capacity Projects that involve CIPP methods, as those projects will be done by trenchless
methods.
State Right-of-Way Crossings. At certain crossing of state rights-of-way, particularly for freeway
crossings, it is likely that bored and jacked steel casings will be necessary as a provision of the
Caltrans permit for the crossing. The requirement should be expected for all sewer crossings of
state freeway rights-of-way, except where the sewer will be constructed in an existing street under a
freeway overcrossing. For the purposes of Capital Improvement Project cost estimates, a sizing
convention was adopted to provide for a steel casing pipe 12 inches larger in diameter than the
outside diameter (OD) of the sewer pipe, extending across the entire width of the state right-of-way
at the crossing. Steel casing costs were estimated using a pricing convention of $10 per diameter
inch per linear foot of steel casing. For example, an 84-inch steel casing pipe would be assigned a
unit cost of approximately $840 per linear foot.
Wastewater Lift Station. As the result of direction provided by the City, a wastewater lift station
was included as part of Capital Improvement Project T4, a Trunk Sewer Project. It is expected that
the lift station would be located at the intersection of Cherry Avenue at Muscat Avenue. A unit cost
of $0.9 million was used for the lift station, based on the City’s reported experience with a recently
constructed lift station thought to be comparable.
Capital Improvement Project Prioritization and Scheduling
The objective of Capital Improvement Project scheduling was to develop a fiscal year (FY)
assignment for each project as a target date for project construction. Capital Improvement Project
scheduling was done with consideration given to the following elements:
• project priority
• needs expressed by the City of Fresno
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-10
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
• anticipated development growth rates and patterns
• cost distribution
Of all the types of Capital Improvement Projects, Rehabilitation Projects and Capacity Projects are
those with the most evident prioritizations needs. By virtue of the priority assignments made as part
of the 2001 Evaluation, Primary Rehabilitation Projects are clearly to be considered of higher general
priority than Secondary Rehabilitation Projects. For both Primary and Secondary Rehabilitation
Projects, individual project priorities were retained according to the priority designations given as
part of the 2001 evaluation, as reflected in the identifying descriptors assigned for the Capital
Improvement Program. Large Diameter Rehabilitation Projects should be considered comparable in
priority to the Secondary Rehabilitation Projects, according to the City, with individual project
priorities remaining as indicated by the order in which the projects were identified by the City. All
of the Rehabilitation Projects were planned for construction during the period from FY2005
through FY2012.
For Capacity Projects, priorities were developed on the basis of the hydraulic assessment efforts in
Chapter 5. The anticipated population growth rate of 1.5 percent per year was used to project
increases in wastewater flow to estimate the points in time when wastewater flow rates could be
expected to exceed the capacity of the existing sewer for each capacity project. Capacity Projects for
sewers expected to experience capacity shortfall sooner were considered to be of higher priority than
those expected to experience capacity shortfall later. For three Capacity Projects, the City gave
specific direction as to the fiscal year assignments to be made: FY2005 was designated for Capacity
Project CH2-REL and FY2006 was designated for Capacity Projects CH2-REL and CM2-REP. For
Capacity Project CN1-REL1, the City expects the improvements to be necessary within 5 to 15
years; accordingly, FY2014 was designated for the project. All of the Capacity Projects were
planned for construction during the period from FY2005 through FY2020.
For Trunk Sewer Projects, the City gave direction that Capital Improvement Project T4 should be in
place within approximately 2 years, and the Capital Improvement Projects T1, T2 and T3 should be
in place within approximately 5 years. Accordingly, all of the Trunk Sewer Projects were planned
for construction during the period from FY2006 through FY2010.
Infill Projects are considered by the City to be of generally higher priority than Growth Projects.
The City gave direction that construction of Infill Projects should begin within approximately 3
years and should be completed over a period of approximately 5 years. Accordingly, all of the Infill
Projects were planned for construction during the period from FY2008 through FY 2014. Growth
Projects were planned for construction during the period from FY2010 through FY2021.
No prioritization was done, and no fiscal year assignments were made, for Development Driven
Projects, which were grouped together by service area for cost estimating purposes, but were not
developed as individual capital improvement projects. It was assumed that the construction of
Development Driven Projects will occur at a uniform rate during the Capital Improvement Program
period, from FY2005 through FY2025.
The tabulated listing of Capital Improvement Projects contained in Appendix F includes the Fiscal
Year assignments made for all Capital Improvement Projects.
6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
6-11
6/8/2006\P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Fresno Final Report b.doc\dt
Capital Improvement Project Descriptions
Capital Improvement Project descriptions have two levels of detail based on the proposed year of
construction.
Basic Project Descriptions. For all Capital Improvement Projects, the tabulated listing of capital
improvement project contained in Appendix F, in conjunction with the Capital Improvement
Project Map included in Appendix G, contained in the Map Pocket, provide basic project
descriptions.
Detailed Project Descriptions. For those Capital Improvement Project planned for construction
during the period from FY2005 through FY2009, Detailed Project Descriptions were prepared. The
Detailed Project Descriptions provide a location map, a brief description of the project area, an
overview of the existing conditions to be encountered, and a description of key elements of the
project, along with other project-related content. The Detailed Project Descriptions are contained
in Appendix H.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Appendix A –References
Reference
1. 2025 Fresno General Plan, February 2002, City of Fresno.
2. The City of Fresno Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for the 2025
Fresno General Plan, EIR No. 10130. City of Fresno.
3. Fresno/Clovis Satellite WWTP Study, December 2000. Black and Veatch
Corporation.
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix A - References.doc 1
APPENDIX B
LAND USE DESIGNATION
Appendix B – Land Use Designations
Master Plan
Categories
2025
General
Plan
Categories Description
Commercial –Heavy
CH cgh General heavy
CH cop Professional services
CH cr Regional commercial
CH cs Special commercial
Commercial – Light
CL co Office
CL orcr Commercial recreational
CL pacc Community activity center
CL pf Public facility
CL pfpd Police Dept. (sub-station)
CL pgo Government offices
CL phce Court house
CL pnc Neighborhood center
CL ppo Post office
CL pqp Public/quasi public
Commercial – Medium
CM cbp Commercial business park
CM cc Community commercial
CM cce Commercial (Central area)
CM cce1 Comm. (Central area) mixed level 1
CM cce2 Comm. (Central area) mixed level 2
CM ccr Comm. (Central area)
CM cn Neighborhood commercial
CM ilce Commercial/industrial (Central Area
CM pcce Convention center
CM pcivce Public facility/civic center
Hospital
HO pqhc Convalescent hospital
HO pqmc Medical center
HO pqme Hospital (Central area)
HO pqmh Hospital
Industrial – Heavy
IH ih Industrial (Heavy)
Industrial – Light
IL il Industrial (Light)
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix B - Land Use Designation.doc 1
Appendix B – Land Use Designations
Master Plan
Categories
2025
General
Plan
Categories Description
IL pmce Municipal service center
Open Space
OS atsf Santa Fe Railroad
OS canal Canal
OS cp Parking
OS f168 Freeway 168
OS f180 Freeway 180
OS f99 Freeway 99
OS fwy180 Freeway 180
OS island Island
OS obp Ponding basin
OS oce Open Space (Central Area)
OS om Multi use
OS or Recreational
OS orbp Ponding basin park use
OS orcz Open space (Clear zone)
OS orea Outdoor environ. educational area
OS orfc Flood control project
OS os Open space
OS osw Water (Woodward Lake)
OS pqcm Cemetery
OS pqge PG&E substation
OS pwrb Water recharge basin
OS rail Railroad
OS road Proposed Road
OS trail Trail
Open Space – Golf Course
OSG orgc Golf course
Open Space – Park
OSP orp Park
OSP orpc Community park
OSP orpn Neighborhood park
OSP orpr Regional park
Open Space – Airport
PFA pa Airport
Public Facility – Church
PFC fatch Public facility/church related uses
PFC pqch Church
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix B - Land Use Designation.doc 2
Appendix B – Land Use Designations
Master Plan
Categories
2025
General
Plan
Categories Description
Public Facility – Fairgrounds
PFE pfg Fairgrounds
Public Facility – Fire Station
PFS pfs Fire station
Residential – High
RH rh High density
Residential – Medium High
RMH rce Residential (Central Area)
RMH rmh Medium high density
Residential – Single Family
RSF mt Mixed-use (North of Copper)
RSF rl Low density
RSF rm Medium density
RSF rml Medium low density
RSF rr Rural residential
RSF rru Rural density
Schools
SH pc College
SH psce School (Central Area)
SH pse Elementary school
SH psej Elementary & Junior high school
SH psem Elementary & Middle school
SH psemh Elementary, Middle & High school
SH psh High School
SH psjh Junior High school
SH psm Middle school
SH pss Special school
Schools – Cal. State Univ. Fresno
SHU pcsu Cal State University
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix B - Land Use Designation.doc 3
APPENDIX C
DRY WEATHER FLOW PROFILES
Appendix C1 0.65 0.62 0.76 1.03 0.53 0.82 0.74 0.63 0.93 0.582 0.51 0.44 0.77 0.97 0.45 0.65 0.53 0.69 0.88 0.473 0.43 0.34 0.75 0.83 0.37 0.59 0.40 0.54 0.91 0.424 0.40 0.30 0.64 0.78 0.32 0.49 0.33 0.57 0.87 0.385 0.38 0.34 0.61 0.79 0.30 0.42 0.29 0.56 0.82 0.386 0.61 0.57 0.59 0.79 0.33 0.41 0.34 0.58 0.89 0.407 1.21 0.96 0.67 0.93 0.42 0.63 0.50 0.66 0.84 0.418 1.60 1.41 0.87 1.05 0.59 0.93 0.88 0.77 0.74 0.549 1.49 1.45 1.11 1.18 0.87 1.52 1.36 0.75 0.75 0.7210 1.30 1.36 1.44 1.18 1.30 1.69 1.71 0.72 0.73 0.8911 1.22 1.23 1.65 1.19 1.63 1.80 1.88 0.79 0.85 1.1612 1.07 1.12 1.83 1.24 1.80 1.62 1.75 0.73 0.80 1.3313 1.00 1.09 1.77 1.28 1.77 1.54 1.48 0.73 0.73 1.5714 0.93 0.96 1.67 1.32 1.77 1.32 1.40 0.71 0.77 1.6715 0.85 0.92 1.58 1.34 1.77 1.25 1.28 0.81 0.74 1.4816 0.85 0.88 1.55 1.28 1.77 1.23 1.21 0.77 0.73 1.1417 0.96 0.95 1.54 1.25 1.66 1.19 1.17 0.92 0.79 0.8418 1.13 1.05 1.44 1.05 1.43 1.24 1.15 0.81 0.68 1.1119 1.18 1.13 1.28 1.05 1.19 1.26 1.23 0.87 0.74 1.2020 1.20 1.23 1.04 1.00 1.03 1.19 1.25 0.83 0.67 1.4221 1.26 1.30 0.92 1.05 0.87 1.22 1.30 0.77 0.79 1.5422 1.23 1.33 0.80 1.09 0.76 1.18 1.42 0.76 0.87 1.5923 1.07 1.25 0.70 1.04 0.65 1.14 1.31 0.75 0.88 1.32240.89 0.96 0.65 1.08 0.54 0.90 1.01 0.64 0.76 1.16R1 - Residential flow from small basins (larger peak to average ratios)R2 - Residential flow from large basins (smaller peak to average ratios)I1 - Industrial flow from industries operating during regular business hoursI2 - Industrial flow from industries operating 24 hours per dayC1 - Commercial flow from businesses operating during regular business hoursShaded values indicate peak flow ratio.I1R1 I2R2 C1Fresno Sewer Master PlanR1 I2R2 C1Weekday WeekendTimeDry Weather Wastewater Profile TableI1P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\R1R 1Residential flow from small basins (larger peak to average ratios)0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\R2R 2Residential flow from large basins (smaller peak to average ratios)0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\I1I 1Industrial flow from industries operating during regular business hours0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\I2I 2Industrial flow from industries operating 24 hours per day0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\C1C 1Commercial flow from businesses operating during regular business hours0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\R1-WeekendR 1 - WeekendResidential flow from small basins (larger peak to average ratios)0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\R2-WeekendR 2 - WeekendResidential flow from large basins (smaller peak to average ratios)0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\I1-WeekendI 1 - WeekendIndustrial flow from industries operating during regular business hours0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\I2-WeekendI 2 - WeekendIndustrial flow from industries operating 24 hours per day0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix C - Dry weather flow profiles.xls\C1-WeekendC 1 - WeekendCommercial flow from businesses operating during regular business hours0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00123456789101112131415161718192021222324TimeHourly to Average Flow Ratio
APPENDIX D
LAND USE SUMMARY
Appendix D - Land UseCURRENTSUBBASIN CH CL CM HO IH IL OS OSG OSP PFA PFC PFE PFS RH RMH RSF SH SHU TOTAL6.0 8.1 2.9 0.4 7.4 1.1 28.7 1.6 2.6 1.9 4.6 2.4 67.4 AMER_019.7 9.7 CHES_010.5 2.3 12.7 219.3 234.8 CHES_024.4 234.9 239.2 CHES_03381.2 43.9 48.6 473.6 CHES_0416.9 16.7 183.0 95.2 604.9 916.7 CHES_0517.1 3.2 95.9 1.7 55.9 268.1 49.2 54.2 545.4 CHES_068.1 7.3 172.0 17.8 102.9 10.9 319.1 CHES_071.7 3.2 3.4 4.7 6.0 22.4 146.7 32.8 220.9 CHES_0819.3 10.8 11.1 23.0 145.0 12.5 221.7 CHES_092.2 2.1 4.7 136.7 77.6 69.0 49.7 342.0 CHES_102.1 7.2 6.6 68.5 8.6 9.9 165.7 8.9 277.4 CHES_112.8 1.6 63.2 24.6 89.8 182.0 CHES_129.2 9.1 15.0 0.3 32.5 259.1 325.1 CHES_132.8 12.7 2.9 5.7 4.5 199.8 7.2 235.7 CHES_149.5 10.6 32.4 0.3 23.5 147.6 23.9 247.8 CHES_1519.6 24.2 29.0 42.7 74.4 189.8 CHES_1614.2 1.8 4.3 30.1 199.3 59.1 308.8 CHES_1754.2 60.9 12.2 13.6 57.6 156.9 45.6 401.0 CHES_180.4 27.0 2.9 141.5 129.6 89.1 390.6 CHES_1914.7 14.7 CORN_0119.5 3.0 8.7 0.0 216.4 247.6 CORN_024.2 9.2 5.7 3.8 214.1 9.9 246.9 CORN_035.8 22.0 184.9 10.3 223.0 CORN_0427.0 90.8 259.8 112.5 93.7 8.8 592.6 CORN_0556.8 10.4 179.6 34.4 85.8 24.3 391.4 CORN_060.8 13.9 1.5 15.8 0.2 17.3 231.8 19.1 300.5 CORN_071.6 1.9 9.3 24.1 2.9 192.4 47.2 279.4 CORN_086.5 10.6 6.9 3.0 279.0 31.8 337.8 FOWL_018.0 0.4 5.3 0.0 97.7 111.5 FOWL_022.3 2.3 FOWL_0417.5 5.3 60.8 0.4 217.6 33.3 334.9 FRUI_010.4 39.2 2.3 43.9 39.2 17.2 4.2 159.6 28.1 128.8 9.4 472.2 FRUI_0235.1 10.8 27.6 144.8 22.9 241.3 FRUI_0312.0 25.8 1.7 15.5 6.4 61.3 122.6 FRUI_043.3 11.1 10.1 22.8 1.7 8.6 152.5 210.1 FRUI_0513.6 7.0 13.4 299.2 29.2 362.4 FRUI_067.4 6.7 0.2 1.9 172.6 34.0 222.8 FRUI_072.9 2.5 7.7 75.9 60.3 149.4 FRUI_0829.5 7.9 37.0 206.3 17.4 298.1 FRUI_0948.8 7.4 9.4 11.7 100.4 177.7 FRUI_1098.3 14.0 7.4 0.8 21.2 46.8 187.9 FRUI_118.9 12.7 1.5 171.3 17.1 211.5 FRUI_1225.7 10.1 2.7 10.8 209.0 258.4 FRUI_1377.9 58.7 20.9 8.9 15.6 189.3 37.7 408.8 FRUI_148.4 10.5 0.3 21.3 200.8 8.0 249.3 FRUI_151.4 10.0 10.3 167.8 25.4 214.8 FRUI_162.7 0.4 11.6 90.0 1.9 106.6 FRUI_170.8 2.2 8.5 58.3 37.4 8.3 115.6 GRNT-010.2 0.3 7.2 263.2 9.7 280.5 GRNT-024.9 2.9 108.5 42.9 159.2 GRNT-0411.1 11.1 P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix D - Land Use Summary.xlsCurrent_Subbasin_By_PLU
Appendix D - Land UseCURRENTSUBBASIN CH CL CM HO IH IL OS OSG OSP PFA PFC PFE PFS RH RMH RSF SH SHU TOTALGRNT-064.0 88.2 8.9 101.1 GRNT-1119.7 20.5 40.1 GRNT-144.3 4.3 HERN_022.2 68.3 70.5 HERN_0318.0 112.5 130.6 HERN_046.7 1.8 94.6 103.1 HERN_0521.9 4.6 9.3 7.5 179.5 5.9 228.8 HERN_066.7 2.1 55.0 123.2 14.5 201.5 HERN_073.6 383.7 16.4 403.6 HERN_081.7 0.9 103.1 16.3 121.9 HERN_0963.4 63.4 HERN_104.8 12.4 2.7 120.2 7.5 9.0 383.4 29.0 569.0 HERN_120.3 0.2 12.4 126.2 139.1 HERN_1318.7 2.8 26.3 130.1 177.9 HERN_1458.8 14.5 2.2 26.1 8.0 80.8 190.4 HERN_155.9 15.1 2.3 8.8 131.2 163.3 HERN_160.9 116.7 75.1 192.6 HERN_1727.4 27.9 14.1 0.7 33.1 71.6 174.9 HERN_180.8 252.3 253.1 HERN_194.5 18.6 46.7 4.7 26.7 150.0 61.9 313.1 HERN_2072.8 98.6 4.6 20.4 99.8 296.1 HERN-213.9 2.8 21.3 66.2 76.7 159.0 330.0 HERN-2232.2 32.2 HERN-230.8 8.2 0.4 5.9 88.5 103.9 HERN-243.5 1.0 240.5 245.0 HERN-2520.8 9.7 5.1 5.4 169.4 210.3 HERN-264.8 141.3 10.6 156.6 HERN-276.4 19.3 8.4 2.3 105.6 142.1 JENS_013.2 9.5 302.4 93.7 0.2 0.8 101.3 8.1 519.2 JENS_028.8 4.0 140.7 30.7 0.7 1.1 28.2 214.2 JENS_035.0 141.0 8.4 154.5 MRKS_01212.7 212.7 MRKS_020.2 9.3 14.1 168.9 19.7 212.1 MRKS_034.1 2.2 14.2 135.9 9.0 165.4 MRKS_0414.5 11.5 0.5 208.4 25.0 259.9 MRKS_0519.7 24.6 0.8 34.8 69.1 9.2 158.3 MRKS_060.8 40.1 3.8 61.1 76.9 182.7 MRKS_0793.9 23.6 5.5 1.4 31.2 204.3 8.9 368.8 MRKS_08149.0 39.4 2.5 6.8 42.5 259.3 8.4 507.8 MRKS_0914.2 24.0 0.4 4.7 382.0 29.9 455.1 MRKS_109.1 5.9 7.6 159.6 21.9 204.2 MRKS_1152.2 4.7 1.8 5.2 220.3 64.3 348.6 MRKS_126.6 13.8 3.3 205.8 229.6 MRKS_138.1 1.6 210.6 220.3 MRKS_1425.8 44.9 22.2 157.0 249.9 MRKS_15276.7 276.7 MRKS_1620.2 12.7 19.0 28.7 407.1 487.6 MRKS_1721.8 4.2 193.3 8.3 227.6 MRKS_187.5 76.8 8.6 0.3 13.0 204.7 10.4 321.4 MRKS_192.3 4.0 6.0 65.3 25.8 8.3 111.8 MRKS_201.3 14.5 35.6 42.7 113.0 6.7 213.7 MRKS_212.4 77.4 79.5 90.7 250.0 P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix D - Land Use Summary.xlsCurrent_Subbasin_By_PLU
Appendix D - Land UseCURRENTSUBBASIN CH CL CM HO IH IL OS OSG OSP PFA PFC PFE PFS RH RMH RSF SH SHU TOTALMRKS_22103.3 26.2 1.0 0.9 50.6 55.2 12.4 158.1 95.5 21.1 524.2 MRKS_232.0 8.6 13.2 86.9 63.2 5.1 60.8 18.8 258.6 NCEN_0117.4 11.4 7.5 39.9 82.0 17.7 175.8 NCEN_0222.2 1.5 4.1 13.8 71.0 26.4 139.1 NCEN_0319.1 23.3 4.1 17.0 9.5 9.9 0.6 20.7 143.8 7.6 255.4 NCEN_0439.8 2.7 32.7 12.9 23.3 17.0 128.4 NCEN_0529.1 18.1 13.7 1.0 63.8 35.8 58.2 219.6 NCEN_061.6 52.9 22.2 2.0 71.8 6.9 157.3 NCEN_07118.6 5.6 4.2 128.3 NCEN_082.0 69.7 2.0 0.9 17.8 92.5 NCEN_094.6 25.9 1.2 1.5 0.2 17.3 79.7 129.8 NCEN_100.7 39.9 3.0 63.4 5.3 112.3 NORT_01420.7 420.7 NORT_021.4 12.9 3.8 5.1 153.9 14.7 116.5 27.1 335.4 NORT_0321.9 21.9 ORAN_01100.0 31.1 0.4 108.5 18.1 303.0 44.2 1,264.3 1,869.6 ORAN_020.7 35.5 32.7 12.6 6.0 8.4 23.7 51.7 299.2 25.7 496.3 ORAN_0352.0 50.1 5.3 31.0 212.6 17.0 368.0 ORAN_0413.7 5.6 6.4 8.3 18.2 219.0 49.1 320.3 ORAN_051.7 9.7 12.3 6.1 7.5 15.0 221.0 2.4 275.8 ORAN_067.7 30.6 9.9 33.7 0.8 46.5 200.9 28.5 358.6 ORAN_0735.2 6.2 6.8 1.6 9.1 0.5 15.0 190.9 20.4 285.8 ORAN_0812.3 4.3 0.8 54.9 3.6 83.1 7.8 166.8 ORAN_0919.3 3.8 1.9 0.9 193.2 17.6 236.8 ORAN_103.7 0.8 3.4 32.8 2.0 155.8 37.8 236.3 ORAN_1111.4 13.6 2.0 0.6 48.1 10.9 155.0 23.2 264.7 ORAN_128.5 7.8 17.8 10.0 96.9 0.4 34.8 194.6 8.4 379.2 ORAN_133.9 10.7 1.0 22.1 143.0 36.4 18.5 15.5 154.8 18.5 424.3 PCWD132.6 16.1 20.9 64.7 13.5 158.2 319.5 19.1 744.7 PPUD43.8 36.3 7.5 33.8 118.1 4.6 46.1 489.8 26.2 806.2 SCEN_016.7 4.4 44.7 7.9 4.1 42.1 6.7 116.5 SCEN_021.4 130.7 5.5 13.9 7.0 158.6 SCEN_034.1 2.7 25.1 14.4 19.3 103.6 169.3 SCEN_047.2 11.4 1.3 0.2 2.8 124.9 147.7 SCEN_050.3 6.9 6.0 37.0 39.0 21.0 1.3 71.2 7.3 190.0 SCEN_06111.5 111.5 SCEN_070.1 121.0 34.0 2.3 157.5 SCEN_088.2 4.1 1.9 9.5 0.9 7.7 82.8 4.9 120.0 SCEN_0911.1 1.6 0.2 5.5 72.0 60.7 40.1 191.2 SCEN_105.7 24.5 2.7 18.7 18.8 70.5 WALN_012.0 0.3 5.2 10.2 72.5 90.3 WALN_031.0 2.5 39.3 42.8 WALN_046.5 1.4 2.6 1.3 77.0 88.7 WALN_0510.7 4.0 4.4 3.9 37.2 6.4 66.6 WALN_0610.5 6.6 0.2 2.4 72.2 92.0 WALN_076.7 6.2 7.5 17.0 0.2 1.9 122.8 8.1 170.4 WALN_0814.9 8.5 11.7 4.7 2.6 11.7 64.5 118.5 WALN_0978.2 25.7 4.6 1.5 110.0 WALN_1013.0 14.8 0.3 35.9 74.6 8.3 146.9 TOTAL 1,358.0 1,805.1 1,750.1 137.1 1,298.0 2,710.0 708.4 389.4 427.6 1,108.9 65.7 145.0 8.1 146.8 2,819.6 19,984.0 1,969.6 1,264.3 38,094.4 P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix D - Land Use Summary.xlsCurrent_Subbasin_By_PLU
APPENDIX E
WET WEATHER CALIBRATIONS
Appendix E – Wet Weather Calibration Comparisons
FR 1 RDI/I Calibration
00:00:00
26-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
27-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
28-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
[cfs]
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
[]
Time Series DISCHARGE BRANCHES
Flow,cfsLEGEND:
---- Rainfall
---- Measured
---- Modeled Rainfall,inches
FR 3 RDI/I Calibration
00:00:00
26-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
27-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
28-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
[cfs]
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.0
[]
Time Series DISCHARGE BRANCHES
LEGEND:
---- Rainfall
---- Measured
---- Modeled Rainfall,inchesFlow,cfs
02/05/04P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix E - Wet Weather Calibrations.doc
Appendix E – Wet Weather Calibration Comparisons
FR 7 RDI/I Calibration
00:00:00
26-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
27-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
28-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
[cfs]
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
[]
Time Series DISCHARGE BRANCHES (Fresno_1.PRF)
LEGEND:
---- Rainfall
---- Rainfall Shifted
---- Measured
---- Modeled
---- Modeled Shifted
Rainfall,inchesFlow,cfs
FR10 RDI/I Calibration
00:00:00
26-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
27-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
28-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
[cfs]
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.0
[]
Time Series DISCHARGE BRANCHES (FM10_18.PRF)
LEGEND:
---- Rainfall
---- Measured
---- Modeled Rainfall,inchesFlow,cfs
02/05/04P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix E - Wet Weather Calibrations.doc
Appendix E – Wet Weather Calibration Comparisons
FR 12 RDI/I Calibration
00:00:00
26-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
27-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00 00:00:00
28-2-2000
06:00:00 12:00:00 18:00:00
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
[cfs]
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.0
[]
Time Series DISCHARGE BRANCHES
LEGEND:
---- Rainfall
---- Measured
---- Modeled Rainfall,inchesFlow,cfs
02/05/04P:\Gen\23667 FRESNO\06 Report\Final\Appendix\Appendix E - Wet Weather Calibrations.doc
APPENDIX F
BASIC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT TYPE
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
DESIGNATION FISCAL Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
(See Note)YEAR (Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
F01 2015 8 8 4,472 $1,037,000.00 $187,000.00 $1,224,000.00
F02 2015 8 8 5,399 $1,247,000.00 $225,000.00 $1,472,000.00
F03 2015 8 8 3,054 $420,000.00 $76,000.00 $496,000.00
F04 2015 8 8 1,981 $286,000.00 $52,000.00 $338,000.00
F05 2012 8 8 5,137 $694,000.00 $125,000.00 $819,000.00
F06 2012 8 8 9,905 $1,304,000.00 $235,000.00 $1,539,000.00
F08 2012 8 8 2,765 $371,000.00 $67,000.00 $438,000.00
F09 2012 8 8 2,821 $377,000.00 $68,000.00 $445,000.00
F10 2011 8 8 3,979 $512,000.00 $93,000.00 $605,000.00
F11 2011 8 10 10,970 $1,507,000.00 $272,000.00 $1,779,000.00
F12 2011 8 8 5,817 $794,000.00 $143,000.00 $937,000.00
F13 2011 8 8 7,087 $947,000.00 $171,000.00 $1,118,000.00
F14 2009 8 8 28,634 $3,753,000.00 $676,000.00 $4,429,000.00
F15 2010 8 10 22,677 $2,918,000.00 $526,000.00 $3,444,000.00
F16 2010 8 8 10,177 $1,350,000.00 $243,000.00 $1,593,000.00
F17 2013 8 8 882 $116,000.00 $21,000.00 $137,000.00
F18 2013 8 8 6,364 $851,000.00 $154,000.00 $1,005,000.00
F19 2013 8 8 2,436 $322,000.00 $58,000.00 $380,000.00
F20 2013 8 8 1,880 $272,000.00 $49,000.00 $321,000.00
F21 2013 8 8 1,013 $132,000.00 $24,000.00 $156,000.00
F22 2014 8 8 8,169 $1,158,000.00 $209,000.00 $1,367,000.00
F23 2014 8 8 2,157 $298,000.00 $54,000.00 $352,000.00
F24 2014 8 12 5,677 $805,000.00 $145,000.00 $950,000.00
TOTALS 153,454 $21,471,000.00 $3,873,000.00 $25,344,000.00
CN1-REL1 2013 66 66 20,961 $13,727,000.00 $2,471,000.00 $16,198,000.00
CN2-REL 2020 60 60 15,525 $6,556,000.00 $1,181,000.00 $7,737,000.00
CN3-REL1 2021 48 48 4,738 $3,544,000.00 $638,000.00 $4,182,000.00
CM1-REL 2010 33 33 9,248 $2,849,000.00 $513,000.00 $3,362,000.00
CM2-REP 2007 60 60 2,897 $1,834,000.00 $331,000.00 $2,165,000.00
CA1-REL 2012 24 24 2,623 $664,000.00 $120,000.00 $784,000.00
CA2-REP 2011 36 36 6,633 $3,135,000.00 $565,000.00 $3,700,000.00
CDM1-REP 2017 33 33 3,934 $1,494,000.00 $269,000.00 $1,763,000.00
CDM2-REL 2007 15 15 2,615 $500,000.00 $90,000.00 $590,000.00
CGL1-REL 2008 15 15 2,140 $405,000.00 $73,000.00 $478,000.00
CO1-REP 2018 27 27 3,125 $1,030,000.00 $186,000.00 $1,216,000.00
CO2-REP 2009 33 33 7,093 $2,509,000.00 $452,000.00 $2,961,000.00
CO3-REP 2019 36 36 3,261 $1,527,000.00 $275,000.00 $1,802,000.00
CO4-REP 2016 36 36 6,682 $3,379,000.00 $609,000.00 $3,988,000.00
CO5-REP 2014 42 42 9,212 $4,977,000.00 $896,000.00 $5,873,000.00
CO6-REL 2013 36 36 5,233 $2,279,000.00 $411,000.00 $2,690,000.00
CO7-REP 2013 36 36 2,635 $1,240,000.00 $224,000.00 $1,464,000.00
CH2-REL 2006 42 48 5,304 $1,640,000.00 $296,000.00 $1,936,000.00
CH3-REL 2007 48 48 7,182 $2,299,000.00 $414,000.00 $2,713,000.00
TOTALS 121,041 $55,588,000.00 $10,014,000.00 $65,602,000.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 1 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT TYPE
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
DESIGNATION FISCAL Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
(See Note)YEAR (Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
G01 2019 8 8 7,673 $1,057,000.00 $191,000.00 $1,248,000.00
G02 2019 8 8 1,917 $256,000.00 $47,000.00 $303,000.00
G03 2020 8 8 1,091 $148,000.00 $27,000.00 $175,000.00
G04 2020 8 8 2,462 $339,000.00 $62,000.00 $401,000.00
G05 2021 8 8 3,733 $520,000.00 $94,000.00 $614,000.00
G06 2021 8 8 1,145 $158,000.00 $29,000.00 $187,000.00
G07 2022 8 8 1,139 $157,000.00 $29,000.00 $186,000.00
G08 2022 8 8 1,306 $185,000.00 $34,000.00 $219,000.00
G09 2018 8 8 3,185 $435,000.00 $79,000.00 $514,000.00
G10 2018 8 8 3,741 $505,000.00 $91,000.00 $596,000.00
G11 2017 8 8 3,011 $403,000.00 $73,000.00 $476,000.00
G12 2017 8 8 984 $135,000.00 $25,000.00 $160,000.00
G13 2011 8 8 5,767 $783,000.00 $141,000.00 $924,000.00
G14 2011 8 8 3,711 $493,000.00 $89,000.00 $582,000.00
G15 2012 8 8 1,266 $175,000.00 $32,000.00 $207,000.00
G16 2012 8 10 10,753 $1,444,000.00 $260,000.00 $1,704,000.00
G17 2012 8 8 2,044 $280,000.00 $51,000.00 $331,000.00
G18 2013 8 8 2,368 $328,000.00 $60,000.00 $388,000.00
G19 2013 8 8 2,602 $349,000.00 $63,000.00 $412,000.00
G20 2014 8 8 3,244 $430,000.00 $78,000.00 $508,000.00
G21 2014 8 8 6,898 $947,000.00 $171,000.00 $1,118,000.00
G22 2014 8 8 6,940 $931,000.00 $168,000.00 $1,099,000.00
G23 2015 8 8 1,304 $173,000.00 $32,000.00 $205,000.00
G24 2015 8 8 1,503 $211,000.00 $38,000.00 $249,000.00
G25 2016 8 8 3,252 $435,000.00 $79,000.00 $514,000.00
G26 2016 8 8 2,342 $316,000.00 $57,000.00 $373,000.00
G27 2016 8 8 5,390 $741,000.00 $134,000.00 $875,000.00
G28 2015 8 8 1,094 $143,000.00 $26,000.00 $169,000.00
G29 2015 8 8 521 $67,000.00 $13,000.00 $80,000.00
TOTALS 92,386 $12,544,000.00 $2,273,000.00 $14,817,000.00
AMERICAN 2006-25 8 36 42,144 $6,793,000.00 $1,223,000.00 $8,016,000.00
CHESTNUT 2006-25 8 8 1,339 $146,000.00 $27,000.00 $173,000.00
CORNELIA 2006-25 8 24 123,909 $15,524,000.00 $2,795,000.00 $18,319,000.00
FOWLER 2006-25 8 24 79,448 $9,559,000.00 $1,721,000.00 $11,280,000.00
FRUIT 2006-25 8 8 1,769 $196,000.00 $36,000.00 $232,000.00
GRANTLAND 2006-25 8 21 185,041 $23,319,000.00 $4,198,000.00 $27,517,000.00
HERNDON 2006-25 10 10 2,592 $306,000.00 $56,000.00 $362,000.00
LEONARD 2006-25 8 24 202,797 $26,384,000.00 $4,750,000.00 $31,134,000.00
MARKS 2006-25 8 12 51,680 $5,998,000.00 $1,080,000.00 $7,078,000.00
NORTH 2006-25 10 12 10,894 $1,328,000.00 $240,000.00 $1,568,000.00
TOTALS 701,612 $89,553,000.00 $16,126,000.00 $105,679,000.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 2 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT TYPE
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
DESIGNATION FISCAL Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
(See Note)YEAR (Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
RP12 2006 24 24 5,263 $1,016,000.00 $183,000.00 $1,199,000.00
RP13 2006 18 24 7,784 $1,410,000.00 $254,000.00 $1,664,000.00
RP14 2006 12 18 5,883 $1,014,000.00 $183,000.00 $1,197,000.00
RP15 2007 20 20 2,910 $488,000.00 $88,000.00 $576,000.00
RP16 2007 18 18 1,991 $310,000.00 $56,000.00 $366,000.00
RS01A 2008 18 21 5,322 $925,000.00 $167,000.00 $1,092,000.00
RS01B 2008 18 18 832 $168,000.00 $31,000.00 $199,000.00
RS01C 2008 18 18 1,317 $221,000.00 $40,000.00 $261,000.00
RS01D 2008 18 21 2,959 $525,000.00 $95,000.00 $620,000.00
RS01E 2008 18 21 4,587 $756,000.00 $137,000.00 $893,000.00
RS01F 2008 18 18 816 $136,000.00 $25,000.00 $161,000.00
RS01G 2008 18 18 1,988 $344,000.00 $62,000.00 $406,000.00
RS02A 2009 15 15 1,244 $167,000.00 $31,000.00 $198,000.00
RS02B 2009 15 15 1,051 $156,000.00 $29,000.00 $185,000.00
RS02C 2009 18 18 5,310 $852,000.00 $154,000.00 $1,006,000.00
RS02D 2009 21 21 2,646 $477,000.00 $86,000.00 $563,000.00
RS02E 2009 12 15 2,312 $270,000.00 $49,000.00 $319,000.00
RS02F 2009 24 24 2,629 $570,000.00 $103,000.00 $673,000.00
RS02G 2009 18 18 1,319 $221,000.00 $40,000.00 $261,000.00
RS03A 2010 24 24 3,118 $578,000.00 $105,000.00 $683,000.00
RS04A 2011 18 21 4,341 $804,000.00 $145,000.00 $949,000.00
RS04B 2011 18 18 2,599 $424,000.00 $77,000.00 $501,000.00
RS04C 2011 12 12 503 $79,000.00 $15,000.00 $94,000.00
RS04D 2011 12 18 6,090 $1,021,000.00 $184,000.00 $1,205,000.00
RS04E 2011 15 24 3,515 $574,000.00 $104,000.00 $678,000.00
RS04F 2011 21 21 737 $139,000.00 $26,000.00 $165,000.00
RS05A 2012 12 12 5,527 $897,000.00 $162,000.00 $1,059,000.00
RS05B 2012 15 15 5,280 $850,000.00 $153,000.00 $1,003,000.00
RS05C 2012 15 20 1,982 $350,000.00 $63,000.00 $413,000.00
RS05D 2012 12 12 4,892 $751,000.00 $136,000.00 $887,000.00
RS05E 2012 10 12 2,260 $352,000.00 $64,000.00 $416,000.00
RS05F 2012 12 12 2,598 $365,000.00 $66,000.00 $431,000.00
RS06A 2013 18 21 1,999 $378,000.00 $69,000.00 $447,000.00
RS06B 2013 15 15 300 $61,000.00 $11,000.00 $72,000.00
RS06C 2013 16 16 2,351 $405,000.00 $73,000.00 $478,000.00
RS06D 2013 21 21 2,655 $475,000.00 $86,000.00 $561,000.00
RS06E 2013 12 21 2,640 $399,000.00 $72,000.00 $471,000.00
RL01 2006 30 42 9,358 $2,538,000.00 $457,000.00 $2,995,000.00
RL02 2007 48 48 2,644 $847,000.00 $153,000.00 $1,000,000.00
RL03 2008 21 30 2,299 $551,000.00 $100,000.00 $651,000.00
RL04 2008 33 33 2,598 $611,000.00 $110,000.00 $721,000.00
RL05 2009 39 39 2,573 $691,000.00 $125,000.00 $816,000.00
RL06 2010 42 45 3,665 $1,114,000.00 $201,000.00 $1,315,000.00
RL07 2011 36 36 1,346 $372,000.00 $67,000.00 $439,000.00
RL08 2011 27 27 989 $220,000.00 $40,000.00 $260,000.00
RL10 2012 27 30 14,571 $3,528,000.00 $636,000.00 $4,164,000.00
RL11 2012 48 54 3,992 $1,410,000.00 $254,000.00 $1,664,000.00
RL12 2013 24 48 14,149 $3,784,000.00 $682,000.00 $4,466,000.00
RL13 2013 27 27 4,989 $1,024,000.00 $185,000.00 $1,209,000.00
TOTALS 174,722 $35,618,000.00 $6,434,000.00 $42,052,000.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 3 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT TYPE
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
DESIGNATION FISCAL Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
(See Note)YEAR (Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
T1 2008 36 48 38,801 $19,401,000.00 $3,493,000.00 $22,894,000.00
T2 2009 48 48 8,022 $3,906,000.00 $704,000.00 $4,610,000.00
T3 2010 48 48 16,013 $7,809,000.00 $1,406,000.00 $9,215,000.00
T4 2007 30 36 13,150 $6,042,000.00 $1,088,000.00 $7,130,000.00
TOTALS 75,985 $37,158,000.00 $6,691,000.00 $43,849,000.00
MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
MASTER PLAN CATEGORY COSTS
Management Total
CATEGORY TYPE Construction & Engineering Cost
INFILL $21,471,000.00 $3,873,000.00 $25,344,000.00
CAPACITY $55,588,000.00 $10,014,000.00 $65,602,000.00
GROWTH $12,544,000.00 $2,273,000.00 $14,817,000.00
DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN $89,553,000.00 $16,126,000.00 $105,679,000.00
REHABILITATION $35,618,000.00 $6,434,000.00 $42,052,000.00
TRUNK $37,158,000.00 $6,691,000.00 $43,849,000.00
TOTAL MASTER PLAN COSTS $251,932,000.00 $45,411,000.00 $297,343,000.00
Note:
C Indicates "Capacity" sewer improvements.
Designation Examples:
CM1-REP: "C"=capacity type designator, "M1"=project identifier, "REP" indicates pipe replacement.
CM1-REL: As above, except "REL" indicates relief sewer.
CN3-REL2: As above, except final digit (1or 2) indicates alternative sewer improvements.
F Indicates "Infill" sewer improvements.
G Indicates "Growth" sewer improvements.
T Indicates "Trunk" sewer improvements.
R Indicates sewer "Rehabilitation" improvements.
Rehabilitation Subtypes:
"RP" Indicates "Primary" sewer rehabilitation priority (12 inches Diameter < 27 inches).
"RS" Indicates "Secondary" sewer rehabilitation priority (12 inches Diameter < 27 inches).
"RL" Indicates "Large" diameter sewer rehabilitation (Diameter >27 inches).
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 4 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY GROUP AND PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2009 F14 8 8 28,634 $3,753,000.00 $676,000.00 $4,429,000.00
2010 F15 8 10 22,677 $2,918,000.00 $526,000.00 $3,444,000.00
2010 F16 8 8 10,177 $1,350,000.00 $243,000.00 $1,593,000.00
2011 F10 8 8 3,979 $512,000.00 $93,000.00 $605,000.00
2011 F11 8 10 10,970 $1,507,000.00 $272,000.00 $1,779,000.00
2011 F12 8 8 5,817 $794,000.00 $143,000.00 $937,000.00
2011 F13 8 8 7,087 $947,000.00 $171,000.00 $1,118,000.00
2012 F05 8 8 5,137 $694,000.00 $125,000.00 $819,000.00
2012 F06 8 8 9,905 $1,304,000.00 $235,000.00 $1,539,000.00
2012 F08 8 8 2,765 $371,000.00 $67,000.00 $438,000.00
2012 F09 8 8 2,821 $377,000.00 $68,000.00 $445,000.00
2013 F17 8 8 882 $116,000.00 $21,000.00 $137,000.00
2013 F18 8 8 6,364 $851,000.00 $154,000.00 $1,005,000.00
2013 F19 8 8 2,436 $322,000.00 $58,000.00 $380,000.00
2013 F20 8 8 1,880 $272,000.00 $49,000.00 $321,000.00
2013 F21 8 8 1,013 $132,000.00 $24,000.00 $156,000.00
2014 F22 8 8 8,169 $1,158,000.00 $209,000.00 $1,367,000.00
2014 F23 8 8 2,157 $298,000.00 $54,000.00 $352,000.00
2014 F24 8 12 5,677 $805,000.00 $145,000.00 $950,000.00
2015 F01 8 8 4,472 $1,037,000.00 $187,000.00 $1,224,000.00
2015 F02 8 8 5,399 $1,247,000.00 $225,000.00 $1,472,000.00
2015 F03 8 8 3,054 $420,000.00 $76,000.00 $496,000.00
2015 F04 8 8 1,981 $286,000.00 $52,000.00 $338,000.00
INFILL TOTALS 153,454 $21,471,000.00 $3,873,000.00 $25,344,000.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 1 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY GROUP AND PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2011 G13 8 8 5,767 $783,000.00 $141,000.00 $924,000.00
2011 G14 8 8 3,711 $493,000.00 $89,000.00 $582,000.00
2012 G15 8 8 1,266 $175,000.00 $32,000.00 $207,000.00
2012 G16 8 10 10,753 $1,444,000.00 $260,000.00 $1,704,000.00
2012 G17 8 8 2,044 $280,000.00 $51,000.00 $331,000.00
2013 G18 8 8 2,368 $328,000.00 $60,000.00 $388,000.00
2013 G19 8 8 2,602 $349,000.00 $63,000.00 $412,000.00
2014 G20 8 8 3,244 $430,000.00 $78,000.00 $508,000.00
2014 G21 8 8 6,898 $947,000.00 $171,000.00 $1,118,000.00
2014 G22 8 8 6,940 $931,000.00 $168,000.00 $1,099,000.00
2015 G23 8 8 1,304 $173,000.00 $32,000.00 $205,000.00
2015 G24 8 8 1,503 $211,000.00 $38,000.00 $249,000.00
2015 G28 8 8 1,094 $143,000.00 $26,000.00 $169,000.00
2015 G29 8 8 521 $67,000.00 $13,000.00 $80,000.00
2016 G25 8 8 3,252 $435,000.00 $79,000.00 $514,000.00
2016 G26 8 8 2,342 $316,000.00 $57,000.00 $373,000.00
2016 G27 8 8 5,390 $741,000.00 $134,000.00 $875,000.00
2017 G11 8 8 3,011 $403,000.00 $73,000.00 $476,000.00
2017 G12 8 8 984 $135,000.00 $25,000.00 $160,000.00
2018 G09 8 8 3,185 $435,000.00 $79,000.00 $514,000.00
2018 G10 8 8 3,741 $505,000.00 $91,000.00 $596,000.00
2019 G01 8 8 7,673 $1,057,000.00 $191,000.00 $1,248,000.00
2019 G02 8 8 1,917 $256,000.00 $47,000.00 $303,000.00
2020 G03 8 8 1,091 $148,000.00 $27,000.00 $175,000.00
2020 G04 8 8 2,462 $339,000.00 $62,000.00 $401,000.00
2021 G05 8 8 3,733 $520,000.00 $94,000.00 $614,000.00
2021 G06 8 8 1,145 $158,000.00 $29,000.00 $187,000.00
2022 G07 8 8 1,139 $157,000.00 $29,000.00 $186,000.00
2022 G08 8 8 1,306 $185,000.00 $34,000.00 $219,000.00
GROWTH TOTALS 92,386 $12,544,000.00 $2,273,000.00 $14,817,000.00
2006-25 AMERICAN 8 36 42,144 $6,793,000.00 $1,223,000.00 $8,016,000.00
2006-25 CHESTNUT 8 8 1,339 $146,000.00 $27,000.00 $173,000.00
2006-25 CORNELIA 8 24 123,909 $15,524,000.00 $2,795,000.00 $18,319,000.00
2006-25 FOWLER 8 24 79,448 $9,559,000.00 $1,721,000.00 $11,280,000.00
2006-25 FRUIT 8 8 1,769 $196,000.00 $36,000.00 $232,000.00
2006-25 GRANTLAND 8 21 185,041 $23,319,000.00 $4,198,000.00 $27,517,000.00
2006-25 HERNDON 10 10 2,592 $306,000.00 $56,000.00 $362,000.00
2006-25 LEONARD 8 24 202,797 $26,384,000.00 $4,750,000.00 $31,134,000.00
2006-25 MARKS 8 12 51,680 $5,998,000.00 $1,080,000.00 $7,078,000.00
2006-25 NORTH 10 12 10,894 $1,328,000.00 $240,000.00 $1,568,000.00
DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN TOTALS 701,612 $89,553,000.00 $16,126,000.00 $105,679,000.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 2 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY GROUP AND PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2006 CH2-REL 42 48 5,304 $1,640,000.00 $296,000.00 $1,936,000.00
2006 RP12 24 24 5,263 $1,016,000.00 $183,000.00 $1,199,000.00
2006 RP13 18 24 7,784 $1,410,000.00 $254,000.00 $1,664,000.00
2006 RP14 12 18 5,883 $1,014,000.00 $183,000.00 $1,197,000.00
2006 RL01 30 42 9,358 $2,538,000.00 $457,000.00 $2,995,000.00
2007 CM2-REP 60 60 2,897 $1,834,000.00 $331,000.00 $2,165,000.00
2007 CDM2-REL 15 15 2,615 $500,000.00 $90,000.00 $590,000.00
2007 CH3-REL 48 48 7,182 $2,299,000.00 $414,000.00 $2,713,000.00
2007 RP15 20 20 2,910 $488,000.00 $88,000.00 $576,000.00
2007 RP16 18 18 1,991 $310,000.00 $56,000.00 $366,000.00
2007 RL02 48 48 2,644 $847,000.00 $153,000.00 $1,000,000.00
2007 T4 30 36 13,150 $6,042,000.00 $1,088,000.00 $7,130,000.00
2008 CGL1-REL 15 15 2,140 $405,000.00 $73,000.00 $478,000.00
2008 RS01A 18 21 5,322 $925,000.00 $167,000.00 $1,092,000.00
2008 RS01B 18 18 832 $168,000.00 $31,000.00 $199,000.00
2008 RS01C 18 18 1,317 $221,000.00 $40,000.00 $261,000.00
2008 RS01D 18 21 2,959 $525,000.00 $95,000.00 $620,000.00
2008 RS01E 18 21 4,587 $756,000.00 $137,000.00 $893,000.00
2008 RS01F 18 18 816 $136,000.00 $25,000.00 $161,000.00
2008 RS01G 18 18 1,988 $344,000.00 $62,000.00 $406,000.00
2008 RL03 21 30 2,299 $551,000.00 $100,000.00 $651,000.00
2008 RL04 33 33 2,598 $611,000.00 $110,000.00 $721,000.00
2008 T1 36 48 38,801 $19,401,000.00 $3,493,000.00 $22,894,000.00
2009 CO2-REP 33 33 7,093 $2,509,000.00 $452,000.00 $2,961,000.00
2009 RS02A 15 15 1,244 $167,000.00 $31,000.00 $198,000.00
2009 RS02B 15 15 1,051 $156,000.00 $29,000.00 $185,000.00
2009 RS02C 18 18 5,310 $852,000.00 $154,000.00 $1,006,000.00
2009 RS02D 21 21 2,646 $477,000.00 $86,000.00 $563,000.00
2009 RS02E 12 15 2,312 $270,000.00 $49,000.00 $319,000.00
2009 RS02F 24 24 2,629 $570,000.00 $103,000.00 $673,000.00
2009 RS02G 18 18 1,319 $221,000.00 $40,000.00 $261,000.00
2009 RL05 39 39 2,573 $691,000.00 $125,000.00 $816,000.00
2009 T2 48 48 8,022 $3,906,000.00 $704,000.00 $4,610,000.00
2010 CM1-REL 33 33 9,248 $2,849,000.00 $513,000.00 $3,362,000.00
2010 RS03A 24 24 3,118 $578,000.00 $105,000.00 $683,000.00
2010 RL06 42 45 3,665 $1,114,000.00 $201,000.00 $1,315,000.00
2010 T3 48 48 16,013 $7,809,000.00 $1,406,000.00 $9,215,000.00
2011 CA2-REP 36 36 6,633 $3,135,000.00 $565,000.00 $3,700,000.00
2011 RS04A 18 21 4,341 $804,000.00 $145,000.00 $949,000.00
2011 RS04B 18 18 2,599 $424,000.00 $77,000.00 $501,000.00
2011 RS04C 12 12 503 $79,000.00 $15,000.00 $94,000.00
2011 RS04D 12 18 6,090 $1,021,000.00 $184,000.00 $1,205,000.00
2011 RS04E 15 24 3,515 $574,000.00 $104,000.00 $678,000.00
2011 RS04F 21 21 737 $139,000.00 $26,000.00 $165,000.00
2011 RL07 36 36 1,346 $372,000.00 $67,000.00 $439,000.00
2011 RL08 27 27 989 $220,000.00 $40,000.00 $260,000.00
2012 CA1-REL 24 24 2,623 $664,000.00 $120,000.00 $784,000.00
2012 RS05A 12 12 5,527 $897,000.00 $162,000.00 $1,059,000.00
2012 RS05B 15 15 5,280 $850,000.00 $153,000.00 $1,003,000.00
2012 RS05C 15 20 1,982 $350,000.00 $63,000.00 $413,000.00
2012 RS05D 12 12 4,892 $751,000.00 $136,000.00 $887,000.00
2012 RS05E 10 12 2,260 $352,000.00 $64,000.00 $416,000.00
2012 RS05F 12 12 2,598 $365,000.00 $66,000.00 $431,000.00
2012 RL10 27 30 14,571 $3,528,000.00 $636,000.00 $4,164,000.00
2012 RL11 48 54 3,992 $1,410,000.00 $254,000.00 $1,664,000.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 3 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY GROUP AND PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By: Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers
Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2013 CN1-REL1 66 66 20,961 $13,727,000.00 $2,471,000.00 $16,198,000.00
2013 CO6-REL 36 36 5,233 $2,279,000.00 $411,000.00 $2,690,000.00
2013 CO7-REP 36 36 2,635 $1,240,000.00 $224,000.00 $1,464,000.00
2013 RS06A 18 21 1,999 $378,000.00 $69,000.00 $447,000.00
2013 RS06B 15 15 300 $61,000.00 $11,000.00 $72,000.00
2013 RS06C 16 16 2,351 $405,000.00 $73,000.00 $478,000.00
2013 RS06D 21 21 2,655 $475,000.00 $86,000.00 $561,000.00
2013 RS06E 12 21 2,640 $399,000.00 $72,000.00 $471,000.00
2013 RL12 24 48 14,149 $3,784,000.00 $682,000.00 $4,466,000.00
2013 RL13 27 27 4,989 $1,024,000.00 $185,000.00 $1,209,000.00
2014 CO5-REP 42 42 9,212 $4,977,000.00 $896,000.00 $5,873,000.00
2016 CO4-REP 36 36 6,682 $3,379,000.00 $609,000.00 $3,988,000.00
2017 CDM1-REP 33 33 3,934 $1,494,000.00 $269,000.00 $1,763,000.00
2018 CO1-REP 27 27 3,125 $1,030,000.00 $186,000.00 $1,216,000.00
2019 CO3-REP 36 36 3,261 $1,527,000.00 $275,000.00 $1,802,000.00
2020 CN2-REL 60 60 15,525 $6,556,000.00 $1,181,000.00 $7,737,000.00
2021 CN3-REL1 48 48 4,738 $3,544,000.00 $638,000.00 $4,182,000.00
CAPACITY, REHABILITATION & TRUNK TOTALS 371,749 $128,364,000.00 $23,139,000.00 $151,503,000.00
MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
MASTER PLAN CATEGORY COSTS
Management Total
CATEGORY TYPE Construction & Engineering Cost
INFILL $21,471,000.00 $3,873,000.00 $25,344,000.00
GROWTH $12,544,000.00 $2,273,000.00 $14,817,000.00
DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN $89,553,000.00 $16,126,000.00 $105,679,000.00
CAPACITY, REHAB. & TRUNK $128,364,000.00 $23,139,000.00 $151,503,000.00
TOTAL MASTER PLAN COSTS $251,932,000.00 $45,411,000.00 $297,343,000.00
Note:
C Indicates "Capacity" sewer improvements.
Designation Examples:
CM1-REP: "C"=capacity type designator, "M1"=project identifier, "REP" indicates pipe replacement.
CM1-REL: As above, except "REL" indicates relief sewer.
CN3-REL2: As above, except final digit (1or 2) indicates alternative sewer improvements.
F Indicates "Infill" sewer improvements.
G Indicates "Growth" sewer improvements.
T Indicates "Trunk" sewer improvements.
R Indicates sewer "Rehabilitation" improvements.
Rehabilitation Subtypes:
"RP" Indicates "Primary" sewer rehabilitation priority (12 inches Diameter < 27 inches).
"RS" Indicates "Secondary" sewer rehabilitation priority (12 inches Diameter < 27 inches).
"RL" Indicates "Large" diameter sewer rehabilitation (Diameter >27 inches).
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 4 of 4
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2006 CH2-REL 42 48 5,304 $1,640,000.00 $296,000.00 $1,936,000.00
2006 RP12 24 24 5,263 $1,016,000.00 $183,000.00 $1,199,000.00
2006 RP13 18 24 7,784 $1,410,000.00 $254,000.00 $1,664,000.00
2006 RP14 12 18 5,883 $1,014,000.00 $183,000.00 $1,197,000.00
2006 RL01 30 42 9,358 $2,538,000.00 $457,000.00 $2,995,000.00
2006 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2006 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2006 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2006 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2006 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2006 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2006 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2006 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2006 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2006 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2006 Total 68,673 $12,095,650.00 $2,179,300.00 $14,274,950.00
2007 CM2-REP 60 60 2,897 $1,834,000.00 $331,000.00 $2,165,000.00
2007 CDM2-REL 15 15 2,615 $500,000.00 $90,000.00 $590,000.00
2007 CH3-REL 48 48 7,182 $2,299,000.00 $414,000.00 $2,713,000.00
2007 RP15 20 20 2,910 $488,000.00 $88,000.00 $576,000.00
2007 RP16 18 18 1,991 $310,000.00 $56,000.00 $366,000.00
2007 RL02 48 48 2,644 $847,000.00 $153,000.00 $1,000,000.00
2007 T4 30 36 13,150 $6,042,000.00 $1,088,000.00 $7,130,000.00
2007 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2007 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2007 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2007 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2007 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2007 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2007 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2007 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2007 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2007 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2007 Total 68,469 $16,797,650.00 $3,026,300.00 $19,823,950.00
2008 CGL1-REL 15 15 2,140 $405,000.00 $73,000.00 $478,000.00
2008 RS01A 18 21 5,322 $925,000.00 $167,000.00 $1,092,000.00
2008 RS01B 18 18 832 $168,000.00 $31,000.00 $199,000.00
2008 RS01C 18 18 1,317 $221,000.00 $40,000.00 $261,000.00
2008 RS01D 18 21 2,959 $525,000.00 $95,000.00 $620,000.00
2008 RS01E 18 21 4,587 $756,000.00 $137,000.00 $893,000.00
2008 RS01F 18 18 816 $136,000.00 $25,000.00 $161,000.00
2008 RS01G 18 18 1,988 $344,000.00 $62,000.00 $406,000.00
2008 RL03 21 30 2,299 $551,000.00 $100,000.00 $651,000.00
2008 RL04 33 33 2,598 $611,000.00 $110,000.00 $721,000.00
2008 T1 36 48 38,801 $19,401,000.00 $3,493,000.00 $22,894,000.00
2008 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2008 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2008 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2008 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2008 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2008 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2008 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2008 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2008 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2008 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2008 Total 98,740 $28,520,650.00 $5,139,300.00 $33,659,950.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 1 of 8
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2009 F14 8 8 28,634 $3,753,000.00 $676,000.00 $4,429,000.00
2009 CO2-REP 33 33 7,093 $2,509,000.00 $452,000.00 $2,961,000.00
2009 RS02A 15 15 1,244 $167,000.00 $31,000.00 $198,000.00
2009 RS02B 15 15 1,051 $156,000.00 $29,000.00 $185,000.00
2009 RS02C 18 18 5,310 $852,000.00 $154,000.00 $1,006,000.00
2009 RS02D 21 21 2,646 $477,000.00 $86,000.00 $563,000.00
2009 RS02E 12 15 2,312 $270,000.00 $49,000.00 $319,000.00
2009 RS02F 24 24 2,629 $570,000.00 $103,000.00 $673,000.00
2009 RS02G 18 18 1,319 $221,000.00 $40,000.00 $261,000.00
2009 RL05 39 39 2,573 $691,000.00 $125,000.00 $816,000.00
2009 T2 48 48 8,022 $3,906,000.00 $704,000.00 $4,610,000.00
2009 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2009 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2009 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2009 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2009 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2009 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2009 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2009 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2009 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2009 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2009 Total 97,912 $18,049,650.00 $3,255,300.00 $21,304,950.00
2010 F15 8 10 22,677 $2,918,000.00 $526,000.00 $3,444,000.00
2010 F16 8 8 10,177 $1,350,000.00 $243,000.00 $1,593,000.00
2010 CM1-REL 33 33 9,248 $2,849,000.00 $513,000.00 $3,362,000.00
2010 RS03A 24 24 3,118 $578,000.00 $105,000.00 $683,000.00
2010 RL06 42 45 3,665 $1,114,000.00 $201,000.00 $1,315,000.00
2010 T3 48 48 16,013 $7,809,000.00 $1,406,000.00 $9,215,000.00
2010 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2010 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2010 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2010 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2010 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2010 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2010 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2010 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2010 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2010 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2010 Total 99,978 $21,095,650.00 $3,800,300.00 $24,895,950.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 2 of 8
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2011 F10 8 8 3,979 $512,000.00 $93,000.00 $605,000.00
2011 F11 8 10 10,970 $1,507,000.00 $272,000.00 $1,779,000.00
2011 F12 8 8 5,817 $794,000.00 $143,000.00 $937,000.00
2011 F13 8 8 7,087 $947,000.00 $171,000.00 $1,118,000.00
2011 G13 8 8 5,767 $783,000.00 $141,000.00 $924,000.00
2011 G14 8 8 3,711 $493,000.00 $89,000.00 $582,000.00
2011 CA2-REP 36 36 6,633 $3,135,000.00 $565,000.00 $3,700,000.00
2011 RS04A 18 21 4,341 $804,000.00 $145,000.00 $949,000.00
2011 RS04B 18 18 2,599 $424,000.00 $77,000.00 $501,000.00
2011 RS04C 12 12 503 $79,000.00 $15,000.00 $94,000.00
2011 RS04D 12 18 6,090 $1,021,000.00 $184,000.00 $1,205,000.00
2011 RS04E 15 24 3,515 $574,000.00 $104,000.00 $678,000.00
2011 RS04F 21 21 737 $139,000.00 $26,000.00 $165,000.00
2011 RL07 36 36 1,346 $372,000.00 $67,000.00 $439,000.00
2011 RL08 27 27 989 $220,000.00 $40,000.00 $260,000.00
2011 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2011 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2011 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2011 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2011 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2011 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2011 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2011 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2011 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2011 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2011 Total 99,165 $16,281,650.00 $2,938,300.00 $19,219,950.00
2012 F05 8 8 5,137 $694,000.00 $125,000.00 $819,000.00
2012 F06 8 8 9,905 $1,304,000.00 $235,000.00 $1,539,000.00
2012 F08 8 8 2,765 $371,000.00 $67,000.00 $438,000.00
2012 F09 8 8 2,821 $377,000.00 $68,000.00 $445,000.00
2012 G15 8 8 1,266 $175,000.00 $32,000.00 $207,000.00
2012 G16 8 10 10,753 $1,444,000.00 $260,000.00 $1,704,000.00
2012 G17 8 8 2,044 $280,000.00 $51,000.00 $331,000.00
2012 CA1-REL 24 24 2,623 $664,000.00 $120,000.00 $784,000.00
2012 RS05A 12 12 5,527 $897,000.00 $162,000.00 $1,059,000.00
2012 RS05B 15 15 5,280 $850,000.00 $153,000.00 $1,003,000.00
2012 RS05C 15 20 1,982 $350,000.00 $63,000.00 $413,000.00
2012 RS05D 12 12 4,892 $751,000.00 $136,000.00 $887,000.00
2012 RS05E 10 12 2,260 $352,000.00 $64,000.00 $416,000.00
2012 RS05F 12 12 2,598 $365,000.00 $66,000.00 $431,000.00
2012 RL10 27 30 14,571 $3,528,000.00 $636,000.00 $4,164,000.00
2012 RL11 48 54 3,992 $1,410,000.00 $254,000.00 $1,664,000.00
2012 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2012 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2012 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2012 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2012 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2012 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2012 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2012 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2012 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2012 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2012 Total 113,497 $18,289,650.00 $3,298,300.00 $21,587,950.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 3 of 8
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2013 F17 8 8 882 $116,000.00 $21,000.00 $137,000.00
2013 F18 8 8 6,364 $851,000.00 $154,000.00 $1,005,000.00
2013 F19 8 8 2,436 $322,000.00 $58,000.00 $380,000.00
2013 F20 8 8 1,880 $272,000.00 $49,000.00 $321,000.00
2013 F21 8 8 1,013 $132,000.00 $24,000.00 $156,000.00
2013 G18 8 8 2,368 $328,000.00 $60,000.00 $388,000.00
2013 G19 8 8 2,602 $349,000.00 $63,000.00 $412,000.00
2013 CN1-REL1 66 66 20,961 $13,727,000.00 $2,471,000.00 $16,198,000.00
2013 CO6-REL 36 36 5,233 $2,279,000.00 $411,000.00 $2,690,000.00
2013 CO7-REP 36 36 2,635 $1,240,000.00 $224,000.00 $1,464,000.00
2013 RS06A 18 21 1,999 $378,000.00 $69,000.00 $447,000.00
2013 RS06B 15 15 300 $61,000.00 $11,000.00 $72,000.00
2013 RS06C 16 16 2,351 $405,000.00 $73,000.00 $478,000.00
2013 RS06D 21 21 2,655 $475,000.00 $86,000.00 $561,000.00
2013 RS06E 12 21 2,640 $399,000.00 $72,000.00 $471,000.00
2013 RL12 24 48 14,149 $3,784,000.00 $682,000.00 $4,466,000.00
2013 RL13 27 27 4,989 $1,024,000.00 $185,000.00 $1,209,000.00
2013 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2013 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2013 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2013 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2013 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2013 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2013 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2013 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2013 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2013 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2013 Total 110,537 $30,619,650.00 $5,519,300.00 $36,138,950.00
2014 F22 8 8 8,169 $1,158,000.00 $209,000.00 $1,367,000.00
2014 F23 8 8 2,157 $298,000.00 $54,000.00 $352,000.00
2014 F24 8 12 5,677 $805,000.00 $145,000.00 $950,000.00
2014 G20 8 8 3,244 $430,000.00 $78,000.00 $508,000.00
2014 G21 8 8 6,898 $947,000.00 $171,000.00 $1,118,000.00
2014 G22 8 8 6,940 $931,000.00 $168,000.00 $1,099,000.00
2014 CO5-REP 42 42 9,212 $4,977,000.00 $896,000.00 $5,873,000.00
2014 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2014 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2014 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2014 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2014 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2014 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2014 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2014 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2014 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2014 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2014 Total 77,378 $14,023,650.00 $2,527,300.00 $16,550,950.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 4 of 8
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2015 F01 8 8 4,472 $1,037,000.00 $187,000.00 $1,224,000.00
2015 F02 8 8 5,399 $1,247,000.00 $225,000.00 $1,472,000.00
2015 F03 8 8 3,054 $420,000.00 $76,000.00 $496,000.00
2015 F04 8 8 1,981 $286,000.00 $52,000.00 $338,000.00
2015 G23 8 8 1,304 $173,000.00 $32,000.00 $205,000.00
2015 G24 8 8 1,503 $211,000.00 $38,000.00 $249,000.00
2015 G28 8 8 1,094 $143,000.00 $26,000.00 $169,000.00
2015 G29 8 8 521 $67,000.00 $13,000.00 $80,000.00
2015 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2015 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2015 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2015 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2015 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2015 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2015 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2015 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2015 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2015 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2015 Total 54,410 $8,061,650.00 $1,455,300.00 $9,516,950.00
2016 G25 8 8 3,252 $435,000.00 $79,000.00 $514,000.00
2016 G26 8 8 2,342 $316,000.00 $57,000.00 $373,000.00
2016 G27 8 8 5,390 $741,000.00 $134,000.00 $875,000.00
2016 CO4-REP 36 36 6,682 $3,379,000.00 $609,000.00 $3,988,000.00
2016 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2016 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2016 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2016 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2016 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2016 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2016 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2016 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2016 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2016 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2016 Total 52,747 $9,348,650.00 $1,685,300.00 $11,033,950.00
2017 G11 8 8 3,011 $403,000.00 $73,000.00 $476,000.00
2017 G12 8 8 984 $135,000.00 $25,000.00 $160,000.00
2017 CDM1-REP 33 33 3,934 $1,494,000.00 $269,000.00 $1,763,000.00
2017 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2017 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2017 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2017 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2017 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2017 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2017 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2017 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2017 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2017 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2017 Total 43,010 $6,509,650.00 $1,173,300.00 $7,682,950.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 5 of 8
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2018 G09 8 8 3,185 $435,000.00 $79,000.00 $514,000.00
2018 G10 8 8 3,741 $505,000.00 $91,000.00 $596,000.00
2018 CO1-REP 27 27 3,125 $1,030,000.00 $186,000.00 $1,216,000.00
2018 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2018 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2018 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2018 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2018 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2018 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2018 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2018 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2018 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2018 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2018 Total 45,131 $6,447,650.00 $1,162,300.00 $7,609,950.00
2019 G01 8 8 7,673 $1,057,000.00 $191,000.00 $1,248,000.00
2019 G02 8 8 1,917 $256,000.00 $47,000.00 $303,000.00
2019 CO3-REP 36 36 3,261 $1,527,000.00 $275,000.00 $1,802,000.00
2019 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2019 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2019 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2019 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2019 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2019 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2019 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2019 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2019 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2019 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2019 Total 47,931 $7,317,650.00 $1,319,300.00 $8,636,950.00
2020 G03 8 8 1,091 $148,000.00 $27,000.00 $175,000.00
2020 G04 8 8 2,462 $339,000.00 $62,000.00 $401,000.00
2020 CN2-REL 60 60 15,525 $6,556,000.00 $1,181,000.00 $7,737,000.00
2020 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2020 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2020 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2020 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2020 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2020 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2020 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2020 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2020 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2020 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2020 Total 54,158 $11,520,650.00 $2,076,300.00 $13,596,950.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 6 of 8
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2021 G05 8 8 3,733 $520,000.00 $94,000.00 $614,000.00
2021 G06 8 8 1,145 $158,000.00 $29,000.00 $187,000.00
2021 CN3-REL1 48 48 4,738 $3,544,000.00 $638,000.00 $4,182,000.00
2021 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2021 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2021 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2021 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2021 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2021 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2021 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2021 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2021 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2021 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2021 Total 44,696 $8,699,650.00 $1,567,300.00 $10,266,950.00
2022 G07 8 8 1,139 $157,000.00 $29,000.00 $186,000.00
2022 G08 8 8 1,306 $185,000.00 $34,000.00 $219,000.00
2022 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2022 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2022 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2022 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2022 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2022 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2022 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2022 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2022 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2022 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2022 Total 37,525 $4,819,650.00 $869,300.00 $5,688,950.00
2023 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2023 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2023 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2023 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2023 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2023 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2023 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2023 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2023 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2023 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2023 Total 35,081 $4,477,650.00 $806,300.00 $5,283,950.00
2024 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2024 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2024 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2024 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2024 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2024 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2024 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2024 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2024 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2024 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2024 Total 35,081 $4,477,650.00 $806,300.00 $5,283,950.00
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 7 of 8
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SORTED BY PROJECT YEAR
Prepared By:Blair, Church & Flynn Date: June 22, 2004
Consulting Engineers Base Year 2005
PROJECT PROJECT PIPE QUANTITIES PROJECT COSTS
FISCAL DESIGNATION Min. Pipe Dia. Max. Pipe Dia.Length Management Total
YEAR (See Note)(Inches)(Inches)(Feet)Construction & Engineering Cost
2025 AMERICAN 8 36 2,107 $339,650.00 $61,150.00 $400,800.00
2025 CHESTNUT 8 8 67 $7,300.00 $1,350.00 $8,650.00
2025 CORNELIA 8 24 6,195 $776,200.00 $139,750.00 $915,950.00
2025 FOWLER 8 24 3,972 $477,950.00 $86,050.00 $564,000.00
2025 FRUIT 8 8 88 $9,800.00 $1,800.00 $11,600.00
2025 GRANTLAND 8 21 9,252 $1,165,950.00 $209,900.00 $1,375,850.00
2025 HERNDON 10 10 130 $15,300.00 $2,800.00 $18,100.00
2025 LEONARD 8 24 10,140 $1,319,200.00 $237,500.00 $1,556,700.00
2025 MARKS 8 12 2,584 $299,900.00 $54,000.00 $353,900.00
2025 NORTH 10 12 545 $66,400.00 $12,000.00 $78,400.00
2025 Total 35,081 $4,477,650.00 $806,300.00 $5,283,950.00
TOTAL OF ALL PROJECTS 1,319,200 $251,932,000.00 $45,411,000.00 $297,343,000.00
Note:
C Indicates "Capacity" sewer improvements.
Designation Examples:
CM1-REP: "C"=capacity type designator, "M1"=project identifier, "REP" indicates pipe replacement.
CM1-REL: As above, except "REL" indicates relief sewer.
CN3-REL2: As above, except final digit (1or 2) indicates alternative sewer improvements.
F Indicates "Infill" sewer improvements.
G Indicates "Growth" sewer improvements.
T Indicates "Trunk" sewer improvements.
R Indicates sewer "Rehabilitation" improvements.
Rehabilitation Subtypes:
"RP" Indicates "Primary" sewer rehabilitation priority (12 inches Diameter < 27 inches).
"RS" Indicates "Secondary" sewer rehabilitation priority (12 inches Diameter < 27 inches).
"RL" Indicates "Large" diameter sewer rehabilitation (Diameter >27 inches).
P:\202-0149\ss\202-0149-MP-Est.xls Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX G
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MAP
APPENDIX H
DETAIL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Project:CH2-REL Capacity Project: CIPP Liner
Fiscal Year:2006
Project Purpose:CIPP Liner Improvements to Provide Additional Sewer Capacity
Project Location:
Council District:2, 6
Planning Area:Bullard, Woodward Park
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,807 LF of 42" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
3,497 LF of 48" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
6-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Commercial and Residential Settings
Freeway Crossing (SR41)
Extensive Undergound Communications Utilities
Herndon Ave just West of S.R. 41
Links to Additional Photographs:
Herndon Ave just East of Maroa Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$1,640,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$296,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,936,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Herndon Ave (Ingram Ave to S.R. 41)
RL01 Rehabilitation Project: Large Diameter
Priority Year:2006
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:4, 7
Planning Area:McLane, Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,334 LF of 30" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
6,360 LF of 39" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
1,663 LF of 42" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Freeway Crossing (SR180)
Parallel Irrigation Canal (McKinley)
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Chestnut Ave just South of McKinley Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:McKinley Ave, just East of Chestnut Ave
Recommendation:Chestnut Ave at SR 180
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.Chestnut Ave at Washington Ave
Estimated Construction Cost:$2,538,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$457,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$2,995,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
1996
0 LF
None
6,011 LF
3,346 LF
Project:
Chestnut Ave (Tulare St to McKinley Ave)
McKinley Ave (Chestnut Ave to Winery Ave)
RP12 Rehabilitation Project: Primary
Priority Year:2006
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 5
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
5,263 LF of 24" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
Commercial / Industrial Setting
Railway Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Church Ave at Railroad Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Church Ave between Railroad Ave and Orange Ave
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$1,016,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$183,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,199,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
5,263 LF
0 LF
Project:
Church Ave (East Ave to Cedar Ave)
RP13 Rehabilitation Project: Primary
Priority Year:2006
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:4
Planning Area:McLane
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,709 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
2,657 LF of 21" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
2,419 LF of 24" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4/6-Lane Divided Arterial Streets
Railway Crossing
Adjacent to FYI Airport
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Clovis Avenue at Westover Avenue
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Clovis Ave at Clinton Ave
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$1,410,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$254,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,664,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Clovis Ave (McKinley to Shields Ave)
Shields Ave (Clovis Ave to Sunnyside Ave)
2001
0 LF
None
6,598 LF
1,187 LF
RP14 Rehabilitation Project: Primary
Priority Year:2006
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:5
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
982 LF of 12" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
2,055 LF of 16" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
2,846 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Residential and Commercial / Industrial Settings
Parallel / Crossing Railways
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Third St at Woodward Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Third St at Woodward Ave
Recommendation:Third St at El Monte Way
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.California Ave at Fourth St
Estimated Construction Cost:$1,014,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$183,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,197,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
California Ave (Fifth St to Third St)
Third St (California Ave to El Monte Way)
2001
0 LF
None
3,633 LF
2,250 LF
Project:CDM2-REL Capacity Project: Relief
Fiscal Year:2007
Project Purpose:Parallel Relief Sewer Improvements to Provide Additional Sewer Capacity
Project Location:
Council District:2
Planning Area:Bullard
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,615 LF of 15" PVC Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Residential Setting
Current Capacity Shortfall (Modeled)
Del Mar Ave just North of Barstow Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$500,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$90,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$590,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Del Mar Ave (Barstow Ave to Bullard Ave)
Project:CH3-REL Capacity Project: CIPP Liner
Fiscal Year:2007
Project Purpose:CIPP Liner Improvements to Provide Additional Sewer Capacity
Project Location:
Council District:2
Planning Area:Bullard
Approximate Project Quantities:
7,182 LF of 48" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
6-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Commercial and Residential Settings
Extensive Undergound Communications Utilities
Herndon Ave at Fruit Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Herndon Ave at West Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$2,299,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$414,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$2,713,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Herndon Ave (West Ave to Ingram Ave)
Project:CM2-REP Capacity Project: Replacement
Fiscal Year:2007
Project Purpose:Replacement Sewer Improvements to Provide Additional Sewer Capacity
Project Location:
Council District:3
Planning Area:Edison
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,897 LF of 60" PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Rural Residential Setting
Freeway Crossing (SR180)
Current Capacity Shortfall (Modeled)
Marks Ave at Whites Bridge Ave
Marks Ave between Whitesbridge Ave and Nielsen Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$1,834,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$331,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$2,165,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Marks Ave (680' South of Whites Bridge Ave to 420' South of Nielsen Ave)
RL02 Rehabilitation Project: Large Diameter
Priority Year:2007
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 5
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,644 LF of 48" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
Commercial / Industrial Setting
Railway Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Orange Avenue, just South of Church Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Orange Ave at California Ave
Recommendation:Orange Ave just North of Jensen Ave
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$847,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$153,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,000,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Orange Ave (Church Ave to California Ave)
1996
0 LF
None
0 LF
2,644 LF
RP15 Rehabilitation Project: Primary
Priority Year:2007
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:1, 7
Planning Area:Fresno High/Roeding, McLane
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,910 LF of 20" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
6-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Commercial Setting
Railway Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Blackstone Ave just South of McKinley Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Blackstone Ave just North of Olive Ave
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$488,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$88,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$576,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
922 LF
1,988 LF
Project:
Blackstone Ave (Abby St to Peralta Way)
RP16 Rehabilitation Project: Primary
Priority Year:2007
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:3
Planning Area:Edison
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,991 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Elm Ave at Church Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$310,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$56,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$366,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
666 LF
1,325 LF
Project:
Elm Ave (Church Ave to Lorena Ave)
T4 Trunk Sewer Project
Fiscal Year:2007
Project Purpose:New Trunk Sewer to Serve Growth Areas
Project Location:
Council District:3
Planning Area:Edison, Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,619 LF of 30" PVC Sewer Pipe
10,531 LF of 36" PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Rural Residential and Agricultural Setting
Irrigation Canal Crossings
Cherry Ave just South of North Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Central Ave East of Cherry Ave
Orange Ave South of Central Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$6,042,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$1,088,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$7,130,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Cherry Ave (North Ave to Central Ave)
Central Ave (Cherry Ave to Orange Ave)
Orange Ave (Central Ave to Malaga Ave)
Project:CGL1-REL Capacity Project: Relief
Fiscal Year:2008
Project Purpose:Parallel Relief Sewer Improvements to Provide Additional Sewer Capacity
Project Location:
Council District:3
Planning Area:Fresno High/Roeding
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,140 LF of 15" PVC Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Residential Setting
Current Capacity Shortfall (Modeled)
La Salle Ave at Blackstone Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
La Salle between Blackstone Ave and Abby Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$405,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$73,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$478,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Glen Ave (S.R. 180 to La Salle Ave)
La Salle Ave (Glen Ave to Abby St)
RL03 Rehabilitation Project: Large Diameter
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 3, 5
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
12 LF of 21" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
2,287 LF of 30" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Commercial / Industrial Setting
Extensive Overhead Utilities
Parallel / Crossing Railways
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:East Ave at Florence Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:California Ave just East of East Ave
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$551,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$100,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$651,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
1996
2,287 LF
None
0 LF
0 LF
Project:
East Ave (Florence Ave to California Ave)
California Ave (East Ave to Third St)
RL04 Rehabilitation Project: Large Diameter
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 7
Planning Area:Bullard
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,598 LF of 33" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Del Mar Ave at Austin Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$611,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$110,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$721,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
1996
0 LF
None
0 LF
2,598 LF
Project:
Del Mar Ave (Ashlan Ave to Gettyburg Ave)
RS01A Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:4, 6
Planning Area:Hoover
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,466 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
3,856 LF of 21" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Bullard Ave at Ninth St
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$925,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$167,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,092,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
5,322 LF
Project:
Bullard Ave (First Ave to Cedar Ave)
RS01B Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:6
Planning Area:Hoover
Approximate Project Quantities:
832 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:First St just North of Escalon Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$168,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$31,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$199,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
First St (Stuart Ave to Vartikian Ave)
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
832 LF
RS01C Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:6
Planning Area:Hoover
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,317 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
5-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Fresno St at Browning Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$221,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$40,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$261,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Fresno St (Browning Ave to Barstow Ave)
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
1,317 LF
RS01D Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 1, 2
Planning Area:Bullard
Approximate Project Quantities:
868 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
2,091 LF of 21" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Residential and Commercial Settings
Railway Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Marks Ave just North of Shaw Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$525,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$95,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$620,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
2,959 LF
Project:
Marks Ave (Alamos Ave to San Jose Ave)
Marks Ave (San Carlos Ave to Bartow Ave)
RS01E Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 7
Planning Area:Bullard
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,970 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
2,618 LF of 21" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Fruit Ave just North of Ashlan Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$756,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$137,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$893,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Fruit, Gettysburg, Vagedes and Santa Ana Aves
(Ashlan Ave to Arthur Ave)
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
4,588 LF
RS01F Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:3
Planning Area:West
Approximate Project Quantities:
816 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Commercial / Industrial Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Marks Ave just North of Clinton Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$136,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$25,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$161,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
816 LF
Project:
Marks Avenue (Shield Ave to Princeton Ave)
RS01G Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2008
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 7
Planning Area:Fresno High/Roeding
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,988 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Residential Setting
Irrigation Canal Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Wishon Ave between Garland Ave and Griffith Way
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$344,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$62,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$406,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Wishon Ave (Garland Ave to Griffith Way)
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
1,988 LF
T1 Trunk Sewer Project
Fiscal Year:2008
Project Purpose:New Trunk Sewer to Serve Growth Areas
Project Location:
Council District:5
Planning Area:McLane, Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
7,328 LF of 36" PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe
18,552 LF of 42" PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe
12,921 LF of 48" PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Rural Residential and Agricultural Setting
Irrigation Canal Crossings
Temperance Ave South of Butler Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Leonard just North of Shields
Shields just West of Leonard
Estimated Project Costs:DeWolf between Shields and McKinley
McKinley just West of DeWolf
Estimated Construction Cost:Temperance South of Kings Canyon
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$3,493,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Leornard Ave (Dakota Ave to Shields Ave)
Temperance Ave (Church Ave to McKinley Ave)
$19,401,000.00
$22,894,000.00
Shields Ave (DeWolf Ave to Leornard Ave)
DeWolf Ave (McKinley Ave to Shields Ave)
McKinley Ave (Temperance Ave to DeWolf Ave)
Church Ave (Fowler Ave to Temperance Ave)
Project:CO2-REP Capacity Project: Replacement
Fiscal Year:2009
Project Purpose:Replacement Sewer Improvements to Provide Additional Sewer Capacity
Project Location:
Council District:7
Planning Area:McLane
Approximate Project Quantities:
7,093 LF of 33" PVC Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Commercial and Residential Settings
Parallel Irrigation Canal (McKinley)
Current Capacity Shortfall (Modeled)
Shields Ave between First Street and Millbrook Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
First St at McKinley Ave
Intersection of First Street and Shields Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$2,509,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$452,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$2,961,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
First St (McKinley Ave to Shields Ave)
Shields Ave (First St to Hilliard Lane)
F14 Infill Project
Fiscal Year:2009
Project Purpose:New Collector Sewers for Areas Served by Septic Systems
Project Location:
Council District:County
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
28,634 LF of 8" PVC Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Butler Ave at Fowler Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Sunnyside Ave at Butler Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$3,753,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$676,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$4,429,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Miscellaneous residential streets
(Kings Canyon Road to Butler Ave, Clovis Ave to Fowler Ave)
Project:
RL05 Rehabilitation Project: Large Diameter
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:1, 7
Planning Area:Bullard, Fresno High/Roeding
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,573 LF of 39" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Irrigation Canal Crossing
Railway Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Ashlan Ave just East of West Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Ashlan Ave just West of Fruit Ave
Recommendation:Ashlan Ave just West of Fruit Ave
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$691,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$125,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$816,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
1996
0 LF
None
0 LF
2,573 LF
Project:
Ashlan Ave (West Ave to Fruit Ave)
RS02A Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:4
Planning Area:McLane
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,244 LF of 15" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Commercial and Residential Settings
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Chestnut Ave at University Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Chestnut Ave at University Ave
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$167,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$31,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$198,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
664 LF
None
0 LF
580 LF
Project:
Chestnut Ave (McKinley Ave to Weldon Ave)
RS02B Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:4
Planning Area:McLane
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,051 LF of 15" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Divided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Shields Ave at Claremont Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$156,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$29,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$185,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
1,051 LF
Project:
Shields Ave (Claremont Ave to Fordham Ave)
RS02C Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:County, 4, 7
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
5,310 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Olive Ave at Helm Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Olive Ave just East of Chestnut Ave
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$852,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$154,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,006,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Olive Ave (Chestnut Ave to Peach Ave)
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
5,310 LF
RS02D Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:7
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,646 LF of 21" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Washington Ave at Sierra Vista Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Sierra Vista Ave at Iowa Ave
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$477,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$86,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$563,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
2,646 LF
Project:
Sierra Vista Ave (Iowa Ave to Washington Ave)
Washington Ave (Sierra Vista Ave to Chestnut Ave)
RS02E Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:7
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,651 LF of 12" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
662 LF of 15" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Illinois Ave at Sierra Vista Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$270,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$49,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$319,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Illinois Ave (Sierra Vista Ave to Chestnut Ave)
Recreation and Iowa Aves (Illinois Ave to Chestnut Ave)
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
2,313 LF
RS02F Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:5
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,629 LF of 24" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
3-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Butler Ave at Chestnut Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$570,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$103,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$673,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
2,645 LF
Project:
Butler Ave (Chestnut Ave to Willow Ave)
RS02G Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2009
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:5
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
1,319 LF of 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
Commercial and Residential Settings
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Maple Ave just South of Butler Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$221,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$40,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$261,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Maple Ave (Hamilton Ave to Butler Ave)
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
1,319 LF
T2 Trunk Sewer Project
Fiscal Year:2009
Project Purpose:New Trunk Sewer to Serve Growth Areas
Project Location:
Council District:County
Planning Area:Roosevelt, County
Approximate Project Quantities:
8,022 LF of 48" PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Rural Residential and Agricultural Setting
Irrigation Canal Crossings
Temperance Ave at Church Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Temperance Ave between Jensen Ave and Annadale Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$3,906,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$704,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$4,610,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Temperance Ave (Church Ave to North Ave)
Project:CM1-REL Capacity Project: Relief
Fiscal Year:2010
Project Purpose:Parallel Relief Sewer Improvements to Provide Additional Sewer Capacity
Project Location:
Council District:3, County
Planning Area:West
Approximate Project Quantities:
9,248 LF of 33" PVC Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Rural Residential Setting
Current Capacity Shortfall (Modeled)
Marks Ave at Olive Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Marks Ave at Olive Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$2,849,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$513,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$3,362,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Marks Ave (Just South of Nielsen Ave to just North of McKinley Ave)
F15 Infill Project
Fiscal Year:2010
Project Purpose:New Collector Sewers for Areas Served by Septic Systems
Project Location:
Council District:County
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
21,362 LF of 8" PVC Sewer Pipe
1,315 LF of 10" PVC Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Lyell Ave at Fowler Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Lane Ave at Armstrong Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$2,918,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$526,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$3,444,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Miscellaneous residential streets
(Kings Canyon Road to California Ave, Fowler Ave to Armstrong Ave)
F16 Infill Project
Fiscal Year:2010
Project Purpose:New Collector Sewers for Areas Served by Septic Systems
Project Location:
Council District:County
Planning Area:Roosevelt
Approximate Project Quantities:
10,177 LF of 8" PVC Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Streets
Residential Setting
Dwight Ave at Parkside Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
Parkside Ave at Dwight Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$1,350,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$243,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,593,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
Miscellaneous residential streets
(Butler Ave to California Ave, Fowler Ave to Sunnyside Ave)
RL06 Rehabilitation Project: Large Diameter
Priority Year:2010
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:1
Planning Area:Fresno High/Roeding
Approximate Project Quantities:
2,015 LF of 42" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
1,650 LF of 45" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Freeway Crossing (SR99)
Railway Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Weber Ave at Marks Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:Links to Additional Photographs:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:Shields Ave at Weber Ave
Recommendation:Marks Ave at Weber Ave
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$1,114,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$201,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$1,315,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
1996
0 LF
None
0 LF
3,665 LF
Project:
Marks and Weber Aves (Garland Ave to Princeton Ave)
RS03A Rehabilitation Project: Secondary
Priority Year:2010
Project Purpose:Rehabilitation of Existing Sewer Facilities
Project Location:
Council District:4
Planning Area:McLane
Approximate Project Quantities:
3,118 LF of 24" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
Project Conditions:
4-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
Residential Setting
Irrigation Canal Crossing
Sewer Evaluation Rating:
Assessment Year:
Severe:Millbrook Ave at Tollhouse Ave
Moderate:
Acceptable:
Hydraulic Deficiencies:
Recommendation:
Install cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner.
Estimated Construction Cost:$578,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$105,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$683,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
2001
0 LF
None
0 LF
3,118 LF
Project:
Millbrook Ave (Dakota Ave to Ashlan Ave)
T3 Trunk Sewer Project
Fiscal Year:2010
Project Purpose:New Trunk Sewer to Serve Growth Areas
Project Location:
Council District:County
Planning Area:Roosevelt, County
Approximate Project Quantities:
16,013 LF of 48" PVC-Lined RCP Sewer Pipe
Project Conditions:
2-Lane Street
Rural Residential and Agricultural Setting
Irrigation Canal Crossings
North Ave at Armstrong Ave
Links to Additional Photographs:
North Ave at Clovis Ave
North Ave at Peach Ave
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Cost:$7,809,000.00
Estimated Management & Engineering Cost:$1,406,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost:$9,215,000.00
City of Fresno
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary Sheet
Project:
North Ave (Peach Ave to Temperance Ave)
APPENDIX G.
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
SEWER CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
CAPITAL PROJECTSSUMMARYFY14 COLLECTION Capital projects Fund# Org# Proj ID#Budget FY14 Project Manager40501 413501RC00005 - Emergency Repairs - Short Extension$250,000 Kevin/Rosa ATTY - Attorney Charges40501 413501RC00010 - Lift Station Rehab$75,000 Kevin/Rosa CC - Contract Compliance40501 413501RC00080 - Manhole Rehab$80,000 Kevin CCITY - Const. By City staff40501 413501RC00084 - McKinley (Clovis-Winery) Rehab.$28,000 Kevin CCNT - Construction Contract 40501 413501 RC00099 - Citywide Access Sewer Structures $100,000 Kevin CL - Project Close out40501 413501 RC00121 - Ashlan Avenue Replacement $5,500,000 Kevin CMAT - Construction Materials40501 413501 RC00122 - Downtown Collection System Improvements $1,300,000 Kevin CSVY - Construction Survey40501 413501 RC00127 - Fresno and McKinley Rehab. $3,000 Kevin CUP - Conditional Use Permit40501 413501 RC00128 - Shields Ave from Cedar to Hillard Rehab. $45,300 Kevin DCNT - Design Consult40501 413501 RC00129 - Ashlan Ave from First to Hampton Way Rehab. $1,000 Kevin DCTY - Design City Stf40501 413501 RC00131 - Merced (Glenn-Thorne) Rehab $5,850,000 Kevin EIR - Envir Impact Report40501 413501 RC00132 - Blackstone from San Jose to North Rehab $10,000 Kevin ICNT - Inspect Contract40501 413501 RC00133 - South Industrial Area Collection System Infrastructure Phase I $5,161,400 Kevin ICTY - Inspection City Stf40501 413501 RC00134 - Collection System Master Plan Update $20,000 Kevin MSA - Miscellaneous Admin40501 413501 RC00135 - Teilman Avenue From Durant to Floradora Rehab $461,000 Kevin MSE - Misc. Engineering & Plan40501 413501 RC00136 - Blackstone From Clinton to McKinley Rehab $351,000 Kevin MSP - Project Miscellaneous40501 413501 RC00137 - Chestnut From Weldon to McKinley Rehab $289,000 Kevin MSR - Misc Right of Way40501 413501 RC00138 - Shields From Fordham tok Claremont Rehab $157,300 Kevin OVH - Overhead40501 413501 RC00139 - Merced Street From H Street to Tulare Rehab $447,000 Kevin OTH - Other Misc (Not all Proj)40501 413501 RC00142 - "T" Lot Sewer $62,800 Kevin PM - Proj Management & Admin40501 413501 RC00145 - Ashlan Avenue West of Sherman St Sewer Rehab $38,000 Kevin PMT - Permits40501 413501 RC00146 - Lift Station Security $86,000 Kevin PSVY - Preliminary Survey40501 413501 RC00147 - 180 West Frontage Road $447,200 Kevin RA - R/W Acquisition-PurchTotal Collection Capital Funded Through Reserves $20,763,000RE - R/W Eminent DomainREV - Capital Project Revenue*Note: Bonded Projects Fund 40525:RFP - Request for Proposal40525413501 RC00102- Marks Ave Trunk Relief* $4,100,200 Kevin SRV - Survey (Not all Projects)40525413501 RC00111 - Harrison (Olive-Merced) Rehab $500,000 Kevin TLAB - Testing & Lab Services40525413501 RC00143 -Fresno Street Sewer Rehab $520,000 Kevin TRAFCTRL - Traffic Control (Public Works CM)40525413501 RC00144 - West Avenue Sewer Rehab $580,000 KevinTotal Collection Capital Funded Through Bonds $5,700,200Total Collection System Capital FY14 $26,463,2001 of 1
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 10,000 10,000 30,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 300,000 1,080,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 230,000 230,000 590,000 0 0 0 0 590,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 10,000 10,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000Total 250,000 250,000 650,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 300,000 1,700,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 25,500 25,500 0 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 300,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 44,80044,800 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 2,700 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 75,000 75,000 0 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 300,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 15,200 15,200 28,500 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 628,500413501 40501 CCNT 57301 56,000 56,000 105,000 0 0 0 0 105,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 8,800 8,800 16,500 0 0 0 0 16,500Total 80,000 80,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000413501 40501 PM 51101 574 3 20,000 9,500 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 800 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 8,000 4,700 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 28,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0414501 40501 PM 51101 574 3 0 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000414501 40501 DCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0414501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000414501 40526 PM 51101 0 0 0 0 0 42,999,000 42,999,000414501 40526 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0414501 40526 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,999,000 42,999,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM1 3 13,000 13,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 110,000 110,000 85,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 485,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 11,500 11,500 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000Total 134,500 134,500 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40525 PM 51101 30,000 35,000 50,0000 0 0 0 50,000413501 40525 CCNT 57301 4,042,200 4,042,200 430,000 0 0 0 0 430,000413501 40525 MSA 59105 18,000 13,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000413501 40525 MSA 59117 10,000 10,000 35,000 0 0 0 0 35,000Total 4,100,200 4,100,200 525,000 0 0 0 0 525,000Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526RC00005EMERGENCY REPAIRS - SHORT EXTENSION. During the ongoing preventative maintenance, video inspection, and cleaning of sewer lines performed by the Wastewater Mgt. Division's Collection System Workgroup, lines that are in need of repair are identified. There are instances where the repairs are of a critical nature and need to be repaired immediately. If not repaired, the potential for sanitary sewer overflows or road damage/collapse exists. OngoingOrange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595RC00102MARKS AVE TRUNK RELIEF. This project is for parallel relief sewer improvements to provide additional sewer capacity at Marks Ave, just South of Nielsen Ave to just North of McKinley Ave. (To address Capacity: McKinley to Neilsen. Master Plan Project Description CM1-REL)OngoingOngoingRC00010LIFT STATION REHAB. Funds to perform rehabilitation or replacement of existing lift stations approaching deterioration to the point of inefficiency and/or failure, as well as a need to increase security.OngoingRC00085SOUTHEAST GROWTH AREA (SEGA). This project is to provide wastewater collection and/or treatment capacity for the Southeast Growth Area. Currently no wastewater infrastructure exists in the area. FY18 budget includes funding to begin the design process. This new wastewater infrastructure is necessary before any new development can take place in the SEGA. FY15 5-Year CIPRC00080MANHOLE REHAB. Funds to perform rehabilitation of existing manholes approaching deterioration to the point of inefficiency and/or failure.OngoingRC00084MCKINLEY (CLOVIS-WINERY) REHAB. Funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline.OngoingRC00099CITYWIDE SEWER ACCESS STRUCTURES. This project provides funding to construct new manholes in the wastewater collection system in areas where additional access to the collection system is needed to properly maintain the sewer lines. OngoingC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 1 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 MM43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40525 PM 51101 30,000 35,900 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40525 CCNT 57301 452,000 100 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40525 MSA 59105 18,000 14,000 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 500,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 0 0 0 0 100,000 1,000,000 0 1,100,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 100,000 1,000,000 0 1,100,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 50,000 70,000 315,000 0 0 0 0 315,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 5,338,500 20,000 7,000 0 0 0 0 7,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 10,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 30,000 35,000 178,000 0 0 0 0 178,000Total 5,428,500 130,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000413501 40501 PM 51101 M M 4 3 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 1,260,000 1,260,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 1,345,000 1,345,000 0 0 0 0 0 0RC00113 CENTRAL AVE FORCE MAIN. This project provides funds to bring additional wastewater flows from the industrial area south of Central Ave. and east of Central Ave. This line could provide sewer capacity for industrial growth in the area, a high speed rail facility should it be built in this area, and an interconnection with the Malaga wastewater facility should the agencies agree to consolidate sewer services.OngoingRC00111 HARRISON FROM OLIVE-MERCED REHAB. This project provides funds for the rehabiliation of 14,571 feet of 27-30 inch line in Harrison between Olive and Merced. OngoingRC00122DOWNTOWN COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. Funds for improvements of the downtown area collection system to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and to rehabilitate structurally insufficent sewer trunklines. OngoingRC00121ASHLAN AVE REPLACEMENT. This project is for capacity enhancement in the Ashlan Ave. trunk to replace 6,633 feet of 33" pipe with 36" pipe between Del Mar and Palm (Manholes 1955-04 to 1953-01). (To address Capacity Master Plan Project Description CA2-REP)OngoingRC00120ASHLAN AVE TRUNK RELIEF. This project is intended to address collection system capacity shortfall in Ashlan Ave. between West and Van Ness. A capacity shortfall currently exists in this pipe segment resulting in intermittent surcharge conditions. High flow events represent a potential threat of sewer collection system over flows. This project is identified in the Sewer Collection System Master Plan as Project Description CA1-REL. OngoingC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 2 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 7M4 3 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 3,000 200 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 3,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 PM 51101 M64 3 20,000 400 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 3,100 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 24,300 200 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 45,300 3,700 0 0 0 0 0 0RC00127FRESNO AND McKINLEY REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP4-RS05B. This manhole rehabilitation project is along 2,654 ft. of 15 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of McKinley Ave. and Fresno St., continues west on McKinley Ave. and ends at Blackstone Ave. (MH No. 2256-01 to 2356-71). Also part of this project is work along 2,626 ft. of 15 in. SCP sewer pipe section that starts at Fresno St. and Clinton Ave., continues going south on Fresno St., and ends at McKinley Ave. (MH No. 2256-61 to 2256-01).OngoingRC00128SHIELDS AVE FROM CEDAR TO HILLARD REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP4-RS04E. This manhole rehabilitation project is along 1,978 ft. of 15 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Cedar Ave. and Shields Ave., continues west on Shields Ave. and ends at Eighth St. (MH No. 2059-14). Also part of this project is work along 702 ft. of 18 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Eighth St. and Shields Ave., continues west on Shields Ave. and ends at Millbrook Ave. (MH No. 2059-14 to 2058-60). Another part will occur along 835 ft. of 24 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Shields and Millbrook Ave., continues west on Shields Ave., and ends at Hillard Ave. (MH No. 2058-60 to 2058-21).OngoingC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 3 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 464 3 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 1,000 100 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 1,000 400 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40595 PM 51101 MM43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40595 CCNT 57301 100,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 800,000413501 40595 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 100,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 800,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 50,000 300 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 5,760,000 182,700 5,582,000 0 0 0 0 5,582,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 10,000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 MSA 59117 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000Total 5,850,000 183,000 5,667,000 0 0 0 0 5,667,000413501 40501 PM 51101 414 3 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RC00130SEWER LATERAL REVOLVING PROJECT. Funds to support a loan program for abandonment of single family residential septic tank and cesspool systems and sewer line installation and connection to the City sewer system. Loans shall be repaid in monthly installments amortized over a period of not more than fifteen years, at a rate of interest periodically established by the Controller and adopted by City Council in the Master Fee Resolution.OngoingRC00132BLACKSTONE FROM SAN JOSE NORTH REHAB. Funds to rehabilitate 490 feet of structurally failing sewer trunk line on Blackstone Ave. from San Jose North.OngoingRC00131MERCED (GLENN-THORNE) REHAB. This project is for the rehabilitation of 14,149 feet of 24-48 inch concrete sewer line in Merced between Glenn and Thorne.OngoingRC00129ASHLAN AVE FROM FIRST TO HAMPTON WAY REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP4-RS04C. This manhole rehabilitation project is along 610 ft. of 12 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Ashlan Ave. and First St., continues south on First St., and ends at Hampton Way (MH No. 1957-11 to 1957-08).OngoingC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 4 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 3 3 1 3 100,000 1,000 150,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 4,150,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 4,963,400 0 8,801,400 0 0 0 0 8,801,400413501 40501 MSA 59105 20,000 500 90,000 0 0 0 0 90,000413501 40501 MSA 59117 78,000 0 120,000 0 0 0 0 120,000Total 5,161,400 1,500 9,161,400 4,000,000 0 0 0 13,161,400413501 40501 PM 51101 MM6 3 10,000 1,600 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 10,000 500 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 20,000 2,100 0 0 0 0 0 0RC00134COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE. The current Wastewater Collection System Master Plan was completed in 2006 by Brown and Caldwell. This plan will be updated upon completion of the City's General Plan update to ensure the collection system will support the City's General Plan. Several of the proposed General Plan alternatives could result in significant changes in capacity demands in various portions of the sewer collection system infrastructure. This plan will study those changes and address the required sewer infrastructure needs. In addition, the update will review the implementation of the current plan and recommend adjustments as appropriate. This master plan update will be the basis for the future capital improvement program for the sewer collection system.OngoingOngoingRC00133SOUTH INDUSTRIAL AREA COLLECTION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE I. Funds to construct new sewer infrastructure to comply with industrial growth per the City’s 2025 general plan. Project includes 2,700 feet of new sewer infrastructure in Cedar Ave. north of Central Ave., 3,100 feet of new sewer infrastructure in Orange Ave. north of Central Ave., 3,100 feet of new sewer infrastructure in East Ave. north of Central Ave., and 2,700 feet of new sewer infrastructure in Central Ave. east of Orange Ave. This project is in alignment with the Mayor’s plans for economic development and the efforts of the Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2), a federal interagency collaboration aimed to increase the capacity of local government and support the Mayor’s economic development plans. The Community Solutions Team (CST), comprised of 12 federal agencies, partnered with the Mayor’s Office in a place-based strategy to develop a work plan including specific actions to advance the goals of the City. C:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 5 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 511013M4 3 28,000 28,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 372,000276,500 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 12,000 12,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000Total 416,000 320,500 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 PM 51101 7M4 3 28,000 28,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 370,000352,800 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 6,000 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 16,000 16,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000Total 420,000 402,800 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000RC00136BLACKSTONE FROM CLINTON TO McKINLEY REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP5-RS05C. This manhole rehabilitation project is along1,458 ft. of 15 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Clinton and Blackstone Ave., continues south on Blackstone Ave., and ends in between Cambridge Ave. and University Ave (MH No. 2255-12 to 2255-71). Also part of this project is work along 523 ft. of 20 in. SCP pipe that starts in between Cambridge and University Ave. on Blackstone, continues south on Blackstone, and ends at McKinley Ave. (MH No. 2255-52 to 2255-67). RC00135TEILMAN AVENUE FROM DURANT TO FLORADORA REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP5-RS05D. This manhole rehabilitation project is along1,829 ft. of 12 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts in between Durant Way and Pine Ave. on Teilman Ave., continues south on Teilman Ave., and ends at W. Floradora Ave. (MH No. 2352-46 to 2352-32).OngoingOngoingC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 6 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 464 3 28,000 28,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 240,000137,600 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 6,000 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 15,000 15,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000Total 289,000 186,600 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 PM 51101 464 3 23,000 23,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 146,800140,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 11,000 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 182,300 175,500 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000RC00138SHIELDS FROM FORDHAM TO CLAREMONT REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP5-RS02B. This manhole rehabilitation project is along1,051 ft. of 15 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Shields and Fordham Ave., continues West on Shields Ave., and ends at Claremont Ave. (MH No. 2067-47 to 2067-82).OngoingRC00137CHESTNUT FROM WELDON TO McKINLEY REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP5-RS02A. This manhole rehabilitation project is along1,244 ft. of 15 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Weldon Ave. and Chestnut Ave., continues south on Chestnut Ave., and ends at McKinley Ave (MH No. 2261-27 to 2261-01). OngoingC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 7 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 324 3 28,000 28,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 306,000245,300 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 14,000 14,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000Total 353,000 292,300 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 PM 51101 334 3 0 0 5,000 4,700,000 0 0 0 4,705,000413501 40501 DCNT 57301 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 MSA 59117 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000Total 0 0 300,000 4,700,000 0 0 0 5,000,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 0 4,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000413501 40501 CCNT 57507 62,800 241,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000413501 40501 MSA 59117 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000Total 62,800 247,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 15,000413501 40501 PM 51101 MM4 3 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,000,000 7,000,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,000,000 7,000,000RC14001COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION/IMPROVEMENTS. Funds for rehabilitation and regulatory improvements of the collection system to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and to rehabilitate structurally insufficent sewer trunklines. OngoingRC00139RC00142"T" Lot Sewer Funds to construct sewer infrastructure in support of "T" lot.OngoingMERCED STREET FROM H STREET TO TULARE REHAB. This project provides funds to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunkline. The Sewer System Master Plan identified six construction units considered to be in moderate condition/need of repair. Blair, Church and Flynn's sewer line condition assessment of these midsized sewers has prioritized the rehabilitation requirements for 12-27 inch sewer lines based on pipe conditions. This project has been identified as a result of the assessment and was previously included in SP5-RS06A. This manhole rehabilitation project is along 999 ft. of 21 in. SCP sewer pipe that starts at the intersection of Merced and H St., continues south along Merced St., and ends at Maroa St. (MH No. 2755-62 to 2755-58). Also part of this project is work along 490 ft. of 18 in. SCP pipe that starts at the intersection of Merced and Maroa St., continues south on Merced, and ends at Tulare St. (MH No. 2755-58 to 2755-83).OngoingRC00141VETERAN'S BOULEVARD SEWER. Funds to construct sanitary sewer and recycled water mains in Golden State Blvd, across project frontage, to existing sewer mains between Sierra Avenue and SR 99 and a portion of the Herndon Ave. recycled water main. OngoingC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 8 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 7M4 3 50,000 50,000 32,000 0 0 0 0 32,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 455,000455,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 10,000 10,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000Total 520,000 520,000 52,000 0 0 0 0 52,000413501 40501 PM 51101 344 3 50,000 50,000 36,000 0 0 0 0 36,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 515,000515,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 10,000 10,000 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000Total 580,000 580,000 58,000 0 0 0 0 58,000413501 40501 PM 51101 764 3 7,000 500 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57301 24,00019,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59105 2,000 100 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 5,000 500 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 38,000 20,100 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 PM 51101 MM3 2 42,000 42,000 35,000 0 0 0 0 35,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 42,000 42,000 35,000 0 0 0 0 35,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 2,000 2,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000Total 86,000 86,000 75,000 0 0 0 0 75,000413501 40501 PM 51101 331 3 0 0 24,700 0 0 0 0 24,700413501 40501 CCNT 57507 447,200447,200 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000Total 447,200 447,200 44,700 0 0 0 0 44,700RC00144WEST AVENUE SEWER REHAB.Funds for rehabilitation of structurally insufficient sewer trunk line. CCTV inspections completed by Wastewater Collection Maintenance work group Identified sewer pipe in West Ave from Mckinley Ave to Weber Ave, Weber Ave from West Ave to Southeast of N. Brooks Ave (MH 2351-25), and from Southeast of N. Brooks Ave to intersection of West and Pine Ave (MH 2351-19) in need of repair. OngoingLIFT STATION SECURITY.Funds to install cameras at lift stations to monitor properties, deter theft, and help ensure the safety of individual employees often called to sites after hours. Supervisors can view activity in real-time from a live-feed. Cameras are currently installed in five of fifteen lift stations.RC00143FRESNO STREET SEWER REHAB.Funds for rehabilitation of structurally insufficient sewer trunk line. CCTV inspections completed by Wastewater Collection Maintenance work group Identified sewer pipe in Fresno St from E. Olive Ave to E. Lewis Ave, Lewis Ave from N. Fresno St to N. Mariposa St, Webster Ave from Fresno St to Augusta St, Clay/Tyler Ally from Fresno St to Augusta, Tyler/Lewis Ally from Fresno to Augusta, and Clay/Tyler Ally from Thesta St to Fresno St. in need of repair.RC00145ASHLAN AVENUE WEST OF SHERMAN STREET SEWER REHAB.Funds for rehabilitation of structurally insufficient sewer trunk line. CCTV inspections completed by Sewer Maintenance Identified sewer pipe in Ashlan Ave from Angus St. to Sherman St. in need of repair.OngoingOngoingRC00147180 WEST FRONTAGE ROAD.Funds to install 4,965 l.f. of sewer pipeline in a new frontage road. This frontage road is north of Kearney between Marks ave. and the Hughes-West collector in Southwest Fresno.OngoingOngoingRC00146C:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 9 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 331 3 13,000 13,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000413501 40501 MSP 53402 4,500 4,400 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSP 55501 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 CCNT 57507 10,00010,000 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59116 1,000 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0413501 40501 MSA 59117 8,000 8,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000Total 37,000 37,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000413501 40501 PM 51101 M M 4 3 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 60,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000Total 0 0 2,100,000 0 0 0 0 2,100,000413501 40501 PM 51101 M M 4 3 0 0 25,500 0 0 0 0 25,500413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 044,800 0 0 0 0 44,800413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 4,700 0 0 0 0 4,700Total 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 75,000413501 40501 PM 51101 631 3 0 0 155,000 0 0 0 0 155,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 1,298,400 0 0 0 0 1,298,400413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000413501 40501 MSA 59117 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000Total 0 0 1,458,400 0 0 0 0 1,458,400413501 40501 PM 51101 M M 4 3 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0700,000 0 0 0 700,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000Total 0 0 0 750,000 0 0 0 750,000RC15003RC00148PEACH SEWER TULARE TO HUNTINGTON.Funds to install 1,311 L.F. of new 8" sewer pipeline as part of a Public Works Dept. project to widen Peach Ave. between Kings Canyon Road and Belmont Ave. OngoingFT. WASHINGTON SEWER PIPELINE INSTALLATION.In association with Public Works, funds to install over 8,000 LF of 8" sewer mains, manholes and 4" sewer house branches, in neighborhoods bounded by Millbrook, Plymouth Way, and Cedar Aves. This project is located in a County of Fresno island and the current residents are on septic tanks. Once the project is accepted, the residents will have 3 years to connect to the City Sewer System.NewRC15001CHINATOWN BETWEEN G ST. / HWY 99 AND STANISLAUS / INYO COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. Funds for evaluation and improvements of the Chinatown collection system to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, the Downtown Specific plan, and to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunk lines. The project includes approximately 2 miles of 4-24" sewer pipe.NewRC16001FULTON MALL BETWEEN FULTON / H ST. AND STANISLAUS / FRESNO ST. COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. Funds for evaluation and improvements of the Fulton Mall collection system to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, the Downtown Specific plan, and to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunk lines. The project includes approximately 1/2 a mile of 6-10" sewer pipe.NewRC15002LIFT STATIONS LS4, LS5, AND LS10 REHABILITATION. Funds to perform rehabilitation of sewer lift stations which are approaching deterioration to the point of inefficiency and/or failure. Repairs range from replacing/repairing liners, pumps, valves, and could extend to complete overhaul.NewC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 10 of 11
White = funded in 40501 OperatingGeneral 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20195 YR CIP (2015 thru 2019)ProjectID Project Title/Description Org Fund Activity Account CD PlanClassFunctionStatus Amended YE Estimates ProjectedProjected Projected Projected ProjectedTotal Projected (FY15 - FY19)Wastewater Management Division - FY14 Year End Estimates & Proposed FY15-19 BudgetPurple = SRF Loan Funded in FY15 40527Yellow = Bond funded in FY08 Fund 40525Blue = Bond funded in FY18 Fund 40526Orange = SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595 FY15 5-Year CIP413501 40501 PM 51101 M M 4 3 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0825,000 0 0 0 825,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 45,000 0 0 0 45,000Total 0 0 0 900,000 0 0 0 900,000413501 40501 PM 51101 331 3 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000413501 40501 CCNT 57301 0 0 0 0945,000 0 0 945,000413501 40501 MSA 59105 0 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 7,000413501 40501 MSA 59117 0 0 0 0 18,000 0 0 18,000Total 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000Sewer TotalSEWER TOTAL 26,563,200 9,886,400 21,161,50012,725,000 3,275,000 6,175,000 46,724,000 90,060,500O&M Fund 40501Sewer not bonded 20,763,000 4,436,200 20,326,50012,425,000 3,175,000 6,075,000 3,625,000 45,626,500BOND 08 Fund 40525Sewer Bonded 5,700,200 5,250,200 635,000 0 0 0 0 635,000BOND 15+ SRF Loan Fund 40527FUTURE SRF LOAN FUNDED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0BOND 18+ Future Bonds Fund 40526FUTURE BOND FUNDED 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,999,000 42,999,000SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595REVOLVING LATERAL LOAN FUND 100,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 800,000SEWER & WASTEWATER TOTALSEWER & WASTEWATER TOTAL #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!O&M Fund 40501Sewer & Wastewater Not Bonded #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!BOND 08 Fund 40525TOTAL TO BE BONDED #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!BOND 15+ SRF Loan Fund 40527FUTURE SRF LOAN FUNDED #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!BOND 18+ Future Bonds Fund 40526FUTURE BOND FUNDED #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!SEWER LATERAL Revolving Fund 40595NEW REVOLVING LATERAL LOAN FUND 100,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 800,000RC17001PEACH NORTH OF NORTH.This project provides funds for installation of new sewer along South Peach Ave. between E. North Ave. And E. Annadale Ave. The length of new sewer pipe totals approximately 875 linear feet and is 8 inches in diameter.NewRC16002NORTH CENTRAL DOWNTOWN BETWEEN Q ST. / L ST AND SAN JOAQUIN / FRESNO ST. COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. Funds for evaluation and improvements of the North Central collection system to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, the Downtown Specific plan, and to rehabilitate structurally insufficient sewer trunk lines. The project includes approximately 0.6 miles of 6 and 8" sewer pipe.NewC:\Users\rosas\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2BY7RM42\FY14 YE Estimate and FY15 thru FY19 5yr Capital TemplatePage 11 of 11
APPENDIX H.
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
SSMP Performance Measures- Page 1
SSMP Performance Measures- Page 2
SSMP Performance Measures- Page 3
SSMP Performance Measures- Page 4
SSMP Performance Measures- Page 5
SSMP Performance Measures- Page 6
APPENDIX I.
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Outlined Headline & Dingbat Arrows for pdf output
FOLLOW THESE EASY STEPS:
1. Pour all fats, oils, and grease into a separate
container with a lid (like an old can or jar)
2. Allow the fats, oils, or grease to cool
3. Throw the fats, oils, or grease (container and all)
into your gray garbage cart
Pouring fats, oils, and grease down your drain can clog your pipes,
causing a sewer backup that can cost you thousands of dollars in cleanup or repairs!
A Nationally Accredited
Public Utility Agency
APPENDIX J.
CITY OF FRESNO
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
2009 SSMP COUNCIL APPROVAL
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-638 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-D
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:THOMAS C. ESQUEDA, Director
Department of Public Utilities
THROUGH:STEPHEN A. HOGG, Assistant Director
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
BY:KEVIN L. NORGAARD, PE, Supervising Professional Engineer
Department of Public Utilities - Wastewater Management Division
SUBJECT
Actions pertaining to the Sewer Mains in Loma Linda Avenue and Sequoia Drive (Council District 2)
1.Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption of Class 4,pursuant to Section 15304(f)(Minor
trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored)and Statutory Exemption pursuant to
Section 15282(k)(The installation of new pipeline or maintenance,repair,restoration,removal,or
demolition of an existing pipeline as set forth in Section 21080.21 of the Public Resources Code,
as long as the project does not exceed one mile in length)of the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines
2.Award a $375,840 contract to Bill Nelson G.E.C., Inc. of Fresno, California
3.Authorize the Director of Public Utilities or his designee to sign the contract on behalf of the
City
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption of Class 4,pursuant to
Section 15304(f)(Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored)and Statutory
Exemption pursuant to Section 15282(k)(The installation of new pipeline or maintenance,repair,
restoration,removal,or demolition of an existing pipeline as set forth in Section 21080.21 of the
Public Resources Code,as long as the project does not exceed one mile in length)of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA),award a $375,840 construction contract to Bill Nelson
GEC,Inc.,of Fresno,California,and authorize the Director of Public Utilities or his designee to sign
the contract on behalf of the City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Public Utilities (DPU),Wastewater Management Division is seeking to award a
construction contract in the amount of $375,840 to Bill Nelson G.E.C.,Inc.,for Sewer Mains in Loma
Linda Avenue and Sequoia Drive.The proposed sewer main installation will provide City sewer
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-638 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-D
Linda Avenue and Sequoia Drive.The proposed sewer main installation will provide City sewer
services to residences that are currently on private septic systems that live within the Fresno City
limits.
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the City Council adopted the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)prepared by the
DPU,as required by the statewide General Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer
Collection Systems.This plan requires evaluations and creates schedules for improvements.The
SSMP utilizes the 2006 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan)to identify areas
with no service within the City and surrounded by the sewer collection system.This Master Plan
identified this project as infill project F04 and targeted construction for FY15.The new sewer mains
will provide City sewer services to residences that are currently on private septic systems that live
within the Fresno City limits.
Plans and specifications were prepared for the project.A Notice Inviting Bids was published on
October 1,2014,posted on the City’s website and faxed to ten building exchanges.The
specifications were distributed to 34 prospective bidders.Seven sealed bid proposals were received
and publicly opened on October 21, 2014. The bid price for the project was $375,840.
Staff has determined that Bill Nelson G.E.C.,Inc.,of Fresno,California is the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder with a submitted bid of $375,840.Their bid price is 22%below the Engineer’s
Estimate of $482,000.The staff determination was posted on the City website on November 10,
2014.Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $375,840 to Bill
Nelson G.E.C., Inc., of Fresno, California as the lowest and responsive bidder.
Upon approval by the City Council,the agreement will be executed by the Director of Public Utilities
or designee, who has been delegated this authority by the City Manager.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Staff has performed a preliminary environmental assessment of this project and has determined that
it falls within Class 4 of Categorical Exemption set forth in the CEQA Guidelines,Section 15304(f)
(Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored)and Statutory Exemption pursuant to
Section 15282(k)(The installation of new pipeline or maintenance,repair,restoration,removal,or
demolition of an existing pipeline as set forth in Section 21080.21 of the Public Resources Code,as
long as the project does not exceed one mile in length).Furthermore,none of the exceptions to
Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 apply to this project.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Local preference did not affect the award of this project because the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder is a local business according to the Fresno Municipal Code Section 4-108.
FISCAL IMPACT
This project has no impact to the General Fund and is located in Council District 2.This project is
identified in the five-year Capital Improvement Plan.Funds in the amount of $502,000 for the
construction project are budgeted in the 2015 Sewer Enterprise Fund No.40501.The fiscal impactCity of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-638 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:2-D
construction project are budgeted in the 2015 Sewer Enterprise Fund No.40501.The fiscal impact
of this contract would be $393,040.
Attachments:
·Bid Evaluation
·Fiscal Impact Statement
·Vicinity Map
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
EVALUATION OF BID
PROPOSALS
Page 1
FOR: SEWER MAINS IN LOMA LINDA AVENUE AND SEQUOIA DRIVE
BIDDERS
1. 'Bill Nelson G.E.C., Inc.
2741 E Malaga Ave
Fresno, CA 93725
2. Haydon Construction, Inc.
2350 N Chestnut Ave #1 03
Fresno, CA 93703
3. JT2 Inc dba Todd Companies
P.O. Box 6820
Visalia, CA 93291
4. West Valley Construction Company, Inc .
P.O. Box 5639
San Jose, CA 95150
5. Floyd Johnston Construction Co ., Inc.
2301 Herndon
Clovis, CA 93611
6. Emmett's Excavation, Inc.
6207 E. Clinton Ave.
Fresno, CA 93727
7. Dawson-Mauldin Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 8397
Huntington Beach, CA 92615
Bid File No . 3317
Bid
Opening: 10/21/14
TOTAL NET BID AMOUNT
$375,840.00
$398,109.00
$402,010.00
$405,536.00
$416,936.00
$443,112.00
$484,404.00
Each bidder has agreed to allow the City sixty-four (64) days from date bids are opened to
accept or reject their bid proposal. Purchasing requests that you complete the following
sections and return this bid evaluation to the Purchasing Division at the latest by Wednesday,
November 12, 2014 at 5:00P.M.
K:\FORMSIEVALUA TIONFORM
EVALUATION OF BID
PROPOSALS
Page2
FOR: SEWER MAINS IN LOMA LINDA AVENUE AND SEQUOIA DRIVE
Bid File No. 3317
Bid
Opening :10/21/14
The Engineer's Estimate for this expenditure is $482,000.00 . The contract price is 22% below
the Engineer's Estimate. If the overage is greater than 10% or only one bid was received, give
explanation:
BACKGROUND OF PROJECT :
In 2009 the City Council adopted the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) prepared by
the Department of Public Utilities (DPU), as required by the statewide General Wastewater
Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems. This plan requires
evaluations and creates schedules for improvements . The SSMP utilizes the 2006
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) to identify areas with no service
within the City and surrounded by the sewer collection system. This Master Plan identified
this project as infill project F04 and targeted construction for FY15. The new sewer mains will
provide City sewer services to residences that are currently on private septic systems.
K:IFORMSIEVALUA TIONFORM
EVALUATION OF BID
PROPOSALS
Page 3
FOR : SEWER MAINS IN LOMA LINDA AVENUE AND SEQUOIA DRIVE
DEPARTMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION :
Bid File No. 3317
Bid
Opening :10/21/14
LX.J Award a contract in the amount of$ $375 ,840 .00 to Bill Nelson G. E. C., Inc. as
the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Remarks :
[_] Reject all bids . Reason :
Title Assistant Director of Public Utilities
Date ;/-.{-If
[X] Approve Dept. Recommenda t ion [ !; Approve Finance/Purchasing Recommendation
LJ Disapprove LJ Disapprove
LJ See Attachment
CITY MANAGER
Date
K:\FORM SIEVALUATION FORM
PROGRAM:
RECOMMENDATION
Direct Cost
Indirect Cost
TOTAL COST
Additional
Revenue or Savings
Generated
Net City Cost
Amount Budgeted
(If none budgeted,
identify source)
*Indirect Costs
Inspection
Administration
Contract Compliance
Other
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TOTAL OR
CURRENT
$375,840.00
*$17,200.00
$393,040 .00
$0.00
$393,040 .00
$502,000.00
$9,400.00
$3,800.00
$2,000.00
$2.000.00
ANNUALIZED
COST
The funds for this project are available in the 2015 Sewer Enterprise Reserves Fund
No. 40501 .
K:I FORMSIEVALUATIONFORM
N . VANNESS BLVD
~
> t"'
t"' c < ...... > t"'
> ~
[/! ~ tr1
,0 c t"'
0 0
>-< 5:: > > tJ t"' ?=I ...... a > > ~
N. SEQUOIA DR
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-659 Agenda Date:12/11/2014 Agenda #:3-A
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:STEVE BRANDAU, Council President
Council Offices
SUBJECT
RESOLUTION -In support of the draft policy for the use of Measure C trail funds to maintain new
trails
Attachment:Resolution and Draft Policy
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE DRAFT
POLICY FOR THE USE OF MEASURE C TRAIL FUNDS
TO MAINTAIN NEW TRAILS
WHEREAS, the trail fund component of Measure C has been has been pivotal in
the development of trails and trail facilities in the city; and
WHEREAS, the city had developed over twenty miles of trails and has planned
for the development of over fifty miles of trails; and
WHEREAS, limited trail maintenance funding has adversely affected the
development of new trails in the Fresno County region; and
WHEREAS, the council supports adoption of a policy regarding the use of
Measure C trail funds to maintain new trails.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
1. The council supports the proposed modification to the trail fund
component of Measure C allowing for limited maintenance funding as described in the
draft policy attached as Exhibit "A".
tH
Ht
Ht
Ht
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
1 ot2
Resolution No.
STATE OF CALIFORNTA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
ctTY oF FRESNO )
l, WONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
2014.
Mayor Approval:
Mayor Approval/No Return :
2014
2014
2014
2014
Mayor Veto:
Council Override Vote:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
WONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Deputy
By:
Katherine B. Doerr Date
Assistant Deputy
Attachment: Exhibit A
KBD:elb [66388e1b/kbd] Reso 12103/14
2 ol2
DRAFT POLICY
ON USE OF MEASURE C TRAIL FUNDS
The Cities of Fresno and Clovis, as well as Fresno County, have raised concems about the use of
Measure C trail funds for the construction of new projects with general fund monies insuffrcient
to support their on-going maintenance. To address this concern and yet still remain true to the
intent and promise of Measure C, the following pilot policy modihcation is offered for a one
year trial period. This proposal recognizes the efforts that went into specifically allocating
Measure C Trail funds for new construction as part of the Measure C development and election
process. This trial period is an attempt to allow for unforeseen issues to be addressed, on a one-
year trial basis, before a final policy is put in place.
It is proposed that when Cities of Fresno and Clovis, as well as Fresno County, proposes a new
trail project, either by building an entirely new trail or by extending an existing trail that is
funded in whole or in part from a source or sources other than Measure C Trail funds, the Cities
of Fresno and Clovis, as well as Fresno County, may qualifr for matching Measure C Trail funds
for on-going trail maintenance at a rate of 5 to1 (i.e., use of Measure C Trail funds for on-going
maintenance equal to 20%o of the project's non-Measure C Trail funds). The projects must meet
all of the following:
a. The project must be consistent with their respective circulation elements and adopted trail
master plans.
b. The project must be developed to meet AASHTO or California State guidelines.
c. The jurisdiction must agree to maintain the new trail (segment) for at least twenty years.
d. The maintenance match shall not exceed 20Yo of the construction cost and shall not be greater
than $10,000 per year per mile for a maximum of five years (i.e., $50,000 for five years).
Example: A two (2) mile trail costing $250,000 per mile ($500k total) using funds other than
Measure C Trail money would be eligible for $100,000 in trail maintenance funds from the
Measure C Trails account (20% of $250K: $50K x 2 miles: $100K total for maintenance costs
assuming the total project cost of $500k was from non-Measure C Trail Funds). The funds would
provide for up to $10,000 per mile for maintenance per year for five years. If the jurisdiction can
find other ways to support the maintenance efforts it can extend the use of the funds for
maintenance. If the project cost exceeds $250,000 per mile, the $10,000 per mile per year cap for
maintenance would reduce the ratio of Measure C Trail funds for maintenance. For example, if a
jurisdiction's design resulted in a $500K per mile cost, that jurisdiction would not be eligible for
$200K in maintenance matching money since the $10K cap would apply. While a jurisdiction
could use Measure C trail money for the capital construction, only the capital cost from other,
non-Measure C, sources could be used to calculate the five-to-one match for maintenance money
and the $10K per mile per year cap for maintenance matching funds would apply.
Under this one year pilot policy, "on-going maintenance" is limited to the maintenance on newly
built, not existing, trails and is defined as including:
. Tree and shrub trimming, tree stake retying, replacement or removal
. Fertilizing and weed control chemicals and their application
. 'Weed removal
. Pot holes, breaks in the asphalt surface, or tree root uplifting,
. Irrigation system repair and upkeep (repair breaks, missing heads),
. Repair or reset timers
. Replace or repair stolen or damaged wires
. Litter removal
. Replace burned out light bulbs
"On-going maintenance" does not include:
. Resurfacing of asphalt except to do spot repairs resulting from things such as a broken water
line
. Restriping any median lines
. Installing or replacing signing
. Paying for the cost of water or electricity
. Maintenance at adjacent trail heads or parks
City of Fresno
Staff Report
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
www.fresno.gov
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2014
FROM:JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Development and Resource Management Department
SUBJECT
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update (Citywide)
1.Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management
Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
a. RESOLUTION -Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. SCH 2012111015
prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. RESOLUTION -Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the 2025
General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014
c. RESOLUTION -Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as “City
of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use” in the “Land Use Change Requests” and “Land Use and
Circulation Map,” and denying the remaining plan modifications
d. RESOLUTION -Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director or her
designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related EIR SCH No.2012111015 filed
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 1 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related EIR SCH No.2012111015 filed
by Jennifer K.Clark,Development and Resource Management Director,on behalf of the City of
Fresno, citywide application:
a.Approve Resolution -Certifying Final EIR No.SCH 2012111015 prepared for the General
Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i.Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code,section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii.Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii.Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b.Approve Resolution -Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan,including all text,policies,maps,tables,and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014;
c.Approve Resolution -Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as
“City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use”in the “Land Use Change Requests”and “Land Use
and Circulation Map,” and denying the remaining plan modifications; and
d.Approve Resolution -Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director
or her designee to update the text,policies,maps,tables,and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council,to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By design,the General Plan (Plan)is a visionary document.It envisions a future in which the best
traits of today’s Fresno are preserved,and opportunities for improvement are seized.The theme of
resilience runs throughout the Plan and its strategies to address the city’s challenges and capitalize
on its assets.The Plan describes a balanced city with an appropriate proportion of its growth and
reinvestment focused in Downtown,established neighborhoods,and along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
corridors.This will result in a city with a revitalized core and with livable new suburban
neighborhoods supporting one another.
The Plan is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists.While it is general and long-range in
scope,the Plan is also comprehensive with many near-term actions.It lays out policies and
implementation strategies from the date of adoption to 2035 and beyond.The defined policies,
figures,standards,guidelines and actions to be undertaken by the City focus on what is concrete and
achievable in order to accommodate the future population.At its heart,the Plan gives the City the
opportunity to effectively and efficiently plan for long-term land uses in a comprehensive way so that
future development is implemented in a cohesive and sustainable manner.
The three guiding principles of the new Fresno General Plan,which are woven throughout the
document, are as follows:
·Protect.The new General Plan protects existing and future investments in homes,property,
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 2 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
·Protect.The new General Plan protects existing and future investments in homes,property,
and businesses.
·Preserve.The new General Plan preserves the character and values that make Fresno a
unique and desirable place.
·Promote.The new General Plan promotes and incentivizes new investments by existing
businesses and by new businesses seeking to relocate or expand.
The Plan is the result of input from hundreds of interviews,workshops,over 40 public meetings and
hearings,and other outreach to thousands of residents,business owners and community
stakeholders.In addition,the City conducted a survey of 400 area residents on their vision for the
future of Fresno and incorporated the findings in the Plan.In total,the Administration,General Plan
Advisory Committee,Planning Commission,and City Council have led an extensive four-year
outreach process, setting a new standard for public engagement in the City of Fresno.
On April 19,2012,the City Council voted (5-2)to adopt the Alternative “A-Modified”as the preferred
General Plan Alternative.On August 23,2012,the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2012-150 (Exhibit C)which initiated the General Plan update based upon the preferred alternative
and further initiated the amendment and/or repeal of several Specific and Community Plans.These
actions were a culmination of a plan development process that included 12 public workshops,22
General Plan Citizens Committee (GPCC)meetings,six Planning Commission meetings and three
City Council hearings.
Following the direction contained in the Council’s action,the staff,together with the consulting firms
of Dyett &Bhatia and MW Steele Group,has prepared the proposed Fresno General Plan.The
Public Review Draft of the Plan was available from July 2 through October 9,2014 and the Draft
Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR),conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)was
available for public review and comment from July 31 through October 9,2014.During this public
review period,public presentations were made to numerous groups;including but not limited to all
seven Council Districts, the Planning Commission, and the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the community’s most important planning tool.A General Plan is a
comprehensive,long-range planning document that every city and county in California is required to
have under state law (California Government Code Section 65300).The California Supreme Court
has described a general plan as “the constitution for future development.”A general plan expresses
the community’s vision,values and priorities and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of
future public and private land uses.What this means is that the policies of the general plan are
intended to serve as the framework for future land use decisions and is intended to provide the
following:
1.Reflect the community’s vision,values and priorities related to land use,as well as the
community’s goals for circulation,environmental,economic,social issues and policies which
are affected by future land use and development.
2.Provide the framework for the City’s decision-making associated with future development
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 3 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
approvals.
3.Provide residents with an opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities.
4.Inform citizens,developers,decision-makers,and other public agencies of the principles that
guide development in the City.
As a charter city,Fresno is required to adopt a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements
set out in Government Code Section 65302.These required elements are:land use,circulation,
housing,conservation,open-space,noise,and safety.Under Government Code Section 65303,the
City can adopt optional elements beyond the mandatory list to address additional specific needs that
relate to the physical development of the City.Optional elements were created for the new General
Plan to address specific needs for the City such as economic development and historic preservation,
as well as the ability to provide and maintain essential services.The Plan also includes an
implementation chapter to assist the policy makers in carrying out the visions,goals,policies,and
objectives of the Plan.These additional elements evolved out of feedback received during the initial
public outreach for the Plan.Upon adoption,they carry the same weight as the state-mandated
elements.
As initiated by the Council, the Plan establishes 17 goals for the City which are as follows:
Initiated Plan Goal Commentary
Goal 1. Increase opportunity, economic
development, business and job creation.
Use urban form, land use, and Development Code
policies to streamline permit approval, promote local
educational excellence and workforce relevance,
significantly increase business development and
expansion, retain and attract talented people, create
jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically
locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over-
saturation of a single type of housing, retail or
employment.
Goal 2. Support a successful and competitive
Downtown.
Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central
core area as the primary activity center for Fresno and
the region by locating substantial growth in the
Downtown, and along the corridors leading to the
Downtown. Use vision-based policies in a development
code specific to the Downtown, when adopted, to
ensure the creation of a unique sense of place in the
central core.
Goal 3. Emphasize conservation, successful
adaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the
use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural
resources, and fiscal resources required for the
long-term sustainability of Fresno.
Acknowledges both the environmental and fiscal
impacts of future growth and the limitations related to
water, energy, natural resources as well as provide and
maintain essential services, amenities, and supporting
infrastructure.
Goal 4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritizes and incentivizes infill development as well as
investing in alternative modes of transportation,
including Bus Rapid Transit, which are needed to
reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and
associated emissions.
Goal 5. Support agriculture and food production
as an integral industry.
Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno as
a center of agriculture and food production systems by
conserving farmland through a focus on developing
vacant and underutilized land within the established
Sphere of Influence of the City, limiting any further
urban boundary expansion, and developing urban
agriculture within the city and designated growth areas.
Goal 6. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural,
historic, and cultural resources.
Emphasize the continued protection of important
natural, historic and cultural resources in the future
development of Fresno. This includes both designated
historic structures and neighborhoods, but also “urban
artifacts” and neighborhoods that create the character
of Fresno.
Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts,
neighborhoods, housing types (including
affordable housing), residential densities, job
opportunities, recreation, open space, and
educational venues that appeal to a broad range
of people throughout the city.
Recognizes the need to provide other forms of housing
opportunities that are conveniently located close to
employment, educational, and other activity centers
that can be easily accessed without having to incur the
cost of owning an automobile.
Goal 8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and
districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and
affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and
public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services
as possible within walking distance.
Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an
outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do
not result in Complete Neighborhoods.
Goal 9. Promote a city of healthy communities and
improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in
Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible
streets, public utilities, education and job training,
proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable
housing, youth development opportunities, open space
and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for
home grown businesses.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 4 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Initiated Plan Goal CommentaryGoal 1. Increase opportunity, economicdevelopment, business and job creation.Use urban form, land use, and Development Codepolicies to streamline permit approval, promote localeducational excellence and workforce relevance,significantly increase business development andexpansion, retain and attract talented people, createjobs and sustained economic growth, strategicallylocate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over-saturation of a single type of housing, retail oremployment.Goal 2. Support a successful and competitiveDowntown.Emphasize infill development and a revitalized centralcore area as the primary activity center for Fresno andthe region by locating substantial growth in theDowntown, and along the corridors leading to theDowntown. Use vision-based policies in a developmentcode specific to the Downtown, when adopted, toensure the creation of a unique sense of place in thecentral core.Goal 3. Emphasize conservation, successfuladaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the
use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural
resources, and fiscal resources required for the
long-term sustainability of Fresno.
Acknowledges both the environmental and fiscalimpacts of future growth and the limitations related to
water, energy, natural resources as well as provide and
maintain essential services, amenities, and supporting
infrastructure.
Goal 4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritizes and incentivizes infill development as well as
investing in alternative modes of transportation,
including Bus Rapid Transit, which are needed to
reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and
associated emissions.
Goal 5. Support agriculture and food production
as an integral industry.
Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno as
a center of agriculture and food production systems by
conserving farmland through a focus on developing
vacant and underutilized land within the established
Sphere of Influence of the City, limiting any further
urban boundary expansion, and developing urban
agriculture within the city and designated growth areas.
Goal 6. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural,
historic, and cultural resources.
Emphasize the continued protection of important
natural, historic and cultural resources in the future
development of Fresno. This includes both designated
historic structures and neighborhoods, but also “urban
artifacts” and neighborhoods that create the character
of Fresno.
Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts,
neighborhoods, housing types (including
affordable housing), residential densities, job
opportunities, recreation, open space, and
educational venues that appeal to a broad range
of people throughout the city.
Recognizes the need to provide other forms of housing
opportunities that are conveniently located close to
employment, educational, and other activity centers
that can be easily accessed without having to incur the
cost of owning an automobile.
Goal 8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and
districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and
affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and
public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services
as possible within walking distance.
Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an
outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do
not result in Complete Neighborhoods.
Goal 9. Promote a city of healthy communities and
improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in
Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible
streets, public utilities, education and job training,
proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable
housing, youth development opportunities, open space
and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for
home grown businesses.
Goal 10. Emphasize increased land use intensity
and mixed-use development at densities
supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno.
Greater densities can be achieved through
encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill
and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity
Centers.
Goal 11. Emphasize and plan for all modes of
travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno.
Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor
vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods,
districts, major campuses and public facilities, shopping
centers and other service centers, and regional
transportation such as air, rail, bus and highways.
Goal 12. Resolve existing public infrastructure
and service deficiencies. Make full use of existing
infrastructure, and invest in improvements to
increase competitiveness and promote economic
growth.
Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining
sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public
infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees,
financing and public investments to implement the
General Plan. Adequately address accumulated
deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to
service continuity, desired standards of service to meet
quality-of-life goals, and required infrastructure to
support growth, economic competitiveness and
business development.
Goal 13. Emphasize the City as a role model for
good growth management planning, efficient
processing and permit streamlining, effective
urban development policies, environmental
quality, and a strong economy.
Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
institutions to further these values throughout the
region. Positively influence the same attributes in other
jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley-and thus the
potential for regional sustainability-and improve the
standing and credibility of the City to pursue
appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies
that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated
community development which compete with and
threaten the success of sustainable policies and
development practices in Fresno.
Goal 14. Provide a network of well-maintained
parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking
and biking trails connecting the city’s districts and
neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad range
of individuals, benefit the health of residents, and
provide the level of public amenities required to
encourage and support development of higher
density urban living and transit use.
Emphasizes the importance of providing these kind of
amenities in order to improve the quality of life for our
residents, and how these kind of investments help to
maintain and enhance the value of the properties in
which these types of amenities are located.
Goal 15. Improve Fresno's visual image and
enhance its form and function through urban
design strategies and effective maintenance.
Goal 16. Protect and improve public health and
safety.
Goal 17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's
cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an
informed and engaged citizenry.
Emphasize shared community values and genuine
engagement with and across different neighborhoods,
communities, institutions, businesses and sectors to
solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for
the success of Fresno and all its residents.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 5 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Goal 10. Emphasize increased land use intensity
and mixed-use development at densities
supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno.
Greater densities can be achieved through
encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill
and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity
Centers.
Goal 11. Emphasize and plan for all modes of
travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno.
Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor
vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods,
districts, major campuses and public facilities, shopping
centers and other service centers, and regional
transportation such as air, rail, bus and highways.
Goal 12. Resolve existing public infrastructure
and service deficiencies. Make full use of existing
infrastructure, and invest in improvements to
increase competitiveness and promote economic
growth.
Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining
sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public
infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees,
financing and public investments to implement the
General Plan. Adequately address accumulated
deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to
service continuity, desired standards of service to meet
quality-of-life goals, and required infrastructure to
support growth, economic competitiveness and
business development.
Goal 13. Emphasize the City as a role model for
good growth management planning, efficient
processing and permit streamlining, effective
urban development policies, environmental
quality, and a strong economy.
Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
institutions to further these values throughout the
region. Positively influence the same attributes in other
jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley-and thus the
potential for regional sustainability-and improve the
standing and credibility of the City to pursue
appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies
that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated
community development which compete with and
threaten the success of sustainable policies and
development practices in Fresno.
Goal 14. Provide a network of well-maintained
parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking
and biking trails connecting the city’s districts and
neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad range
of individuals, benefit the health of residents, and
provide the level of public amenities required to
encourage and support development of higher
density urban living and transit use.
Emphasizes the importance of providing these kind of
amenities in order to improve the quality of life for our
residents, and how these kind of investments help to
maintain and enhance the value of the properties in
which these types of amenities are located.
Goal 15. Improve Fresno's visual image and
enhance its form and function through urban
design strategies and effective maintenance.
Goal 16. Protect and improve public health and
safety.
Goal 17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's
cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an
informed and engaged citizenry.
Emphasize shared community values and genuine
engagement with and across different neighborhoods,
communities, institutions, businesses and sectors to
solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for
the success of Fresno and all its residents.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 6 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
Timeline
As noted in previous reports to the Council,the effort to update the City’s General Plan and
Development Code has been funded by federal grants from the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE)
under the Energy Efficiency &Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)program,HUD Sustainable
Communities Initiative,and a state grant from the California Strategic Growth Council Sustainable
Communities program.The DOE grant was provided to the City of Fresno for the Energy Efficiency
Survey program and to encourage comprehensive energy conservation and efficiency in Fresno’s
land use planning and property development standards.The other grants were provided to integrate
long term community sustainability principles and practices into the City’s comprehensive General
Plan addressing land use,transportation,public utilities and services,and resource management
goals and the implementing property development regulations.
A complete description of the Fresno General Plan update planning process and alternative growth
concepts was presented to the City Council on April 5,2012,with additional requested information
presented at a follow-up meeting occurring on April 19,2012.Both meetings included thorough
discussion.At the conclusion of this review,the Council selected a preferred alternative and four
months later on August 23, 2012, initiated the completion of the Plan.
The Public Review Draft of the Plan and the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR)with
technical studies,conducted by FCS were released for public review and comment on July 31st.On
July 29th,a community information meeting about the public review draft was held at Fresno City
College which was attended by more than 200 people.During the public comment period,public
workshops were held in each Council District.Presentations were also made to numerous community
groups, and a Planning Commission workshop was held.
Summary of Public Comments
The public comment period ended on October 9,2014.Numerous comments were received during
the public review period including letters on both the General Plan and the Draft Master
Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR).Comments on the Plan itself were carefully considered and
thoroughly analyzed by staff.As part of the longstanding commitment to community involvement in
the Plan,requested changes that could feasibly be accommodated without creating internal
contradictions,or conflicts with the goals of the Plan or MEIR,were accommodated.A summary of
the comments and how these were incorporated into the General Plan are listed in Exhibit K.
Comments on the DMEIR were forwarded to FCS.FCS then wrote,in coordination with City staff,
formal responses to each DMEIR comment. These responses are incorporated into the Final MEIR.
Comments on the General Plan were diverse and in some cases contradictory in nature. The main
categories of comments were as follows:
Land Use Diagram.Many of the comment letters requested very specific changes to the land
use diagram.In particular,it was often requested that certain parcels of land be changed from
one land use designation to another.For example,the draft Plan may have shown a parcel as
Medium High Density Residential,but the commenter requested that it be changed to Medium
Density Residential.Such comments were received from property owners regarding their own
land, as we as from people who did not own the sites in question.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 7 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
The”Roughly Half”Ratio of Infill Development.Some commenters felt that this policy was
too biased in favor of new growth areas,while others felt that it was too biased in favor of infill.
Many felt that it wasn’t strong enough and that there ought to be strict control mechanisms to
ensure that half of the City’s growth was in the form of infill,but some letters expressed
concern that the language in the draft Plan was already too strict and could result in a
development moratorium in new growth areas.
Underserved Neighborhoods.There were several comments urging that the Plan do more to
address needs in traditionally underserved neighborhoods.Some comments focused on the
need for infrastructure in certain areas,while others commented on a disproportionate
concentration of industrial uses in certain neighborhoods.
Non-Automobile Transportation.Several commenters requested that a stronger emphasis
be placed on infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation.Bicycle facilities were
commonly requested,and walkability was also discussed.Multiple letters requested better
public transit,some of which focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)specifically,and others
which discussed the bus system more generally.
Non-Suburban Development and Transportation Concepts.Some letters expressed
discomfort with the Plan’s intentions to create a more compact urban environment in
Downtown and along the BRT corridors.Reasons included concerns over traffic,potential BRT
costs, and fears that conventional suburban lifestyle options would be eliminated.
Outward Growth.The consequences of outward growth were the focus of some of the
comment letters received by staff.Some commenters stated that there was a need for
stronger farmland preservation strategies,and others felt that new growth at the edge of the
City ought to pay the full costs of its required infrastructure.
The Development Code.Some commenters felt that the new Development Code should be
adopted at the same time as the General Plan.
In addition to the broader issues addressed above,there are several erroneous statements that have
been made recently about the Plan.It is important to address such statements in order to clear up
misunderstandings and provide accurate information for the City Council and the public.
·Statement: The General Plan intends for Fresno to be more dense that San Francisco.
This statement is false.At 4,545 people per square mile,Fresno’s density is significantly lower
than San Francisco’s 17,867 people per square mile.While the General Plan does call for
targeted increases in density in order to revitalize Downtown and to maximize the benefit of
infrastructure investments,the overall density of the community will only rise to 5,732 people
per square mile under the Plan,and most existing neighborhoods won’t experience any
increases in density.
·Statement:The General Plan will repeal the Community and Specific Plans,leaving
neighborhoods with no protections.
This statement is false.The community and specific plans will not automatically be repealed.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 8 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
This statement is false.The community and specific plans will not automatically be repealed.
They will remain in place until the protections that they afford are carried forward in the new
Development Code and/or new community and specific plans.
·Statement:The General Plan will constrain greenfield developers or result in a
moratorium on greenfield development.
This statement is false.Roughly half of future growth will be greenfield development.Over
10,000 greenfield lots in the incorporated areas,which represent nearly 10 years of inventory.
While certain thresholds must be met before development can occur in some growth areas,
other growth areas will be available immediately for development.
·Statement: The General Plan is far too weak to promote infill.
This statement is false.Roughly half of future growth will be infill development,and the Plan
provides for the strongest set of infill incentives in the region in order to help that goal become
a reality.
·Statement:The General Plan doesn’t address the needs of underserved
neighborhoods, especially in south Fresno.
This statement is false.Most new development will occur south of Shaw Avenue.The City will
make capital improvements based on the age and condition of infrastructure,and based on
these criteria the greatest needs are south of Shaw.Additionally,given substantial greenfield
development opportunities in Southwest and Southeast Fresno,the City will create specific
plans to further define investment opportunities in these areas.Further community input and
resident involvement will be sought through this process.
·Statement: The General Plan plans Industrial uses only for low income neighborhoods.
This statement is false.Concerns about industrial uses were taken very seriously and every
effort was made to accommodate such concerns when it was feasible.The General Plan
update does not expand industrial uses.In fact,some industrial land uses have been moved
from Southwest to Northwest Fresno.Furthermore,the Plan’s implementing Development
Code will require that new industrial uses provide buffers adjacent to neighborhoods,and
where it was possible to do so,the Plan designates Heavy Industrial uses away from
neighborhoods.Some commenters expressed interest in removing all industrial from south
Fresno, but given the location of rail and highway infrastructure this is not feasible.
·Statement:The General Plan doesn’t address Disadvantaged Unincorporated
Communities (DUCs).
This statement is misinformed.DUCs,such as Calwa,remain in Fresno County where the City
of Fresno has no jurisdiction to provide services.However,the City of Fresno is willing to work
with these communities to find a path forward to annexation if that is their desire.
·Statement:The General Plan doesn’t promote parks in underserved/underrepresented
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 9 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
neighborhoods.
This statement is false.The Plan calls for the park supply to grow to 3 acres of pocket,
neighborhood,and community parks per 1,000 residents,and calls for an additional 2 acres of
regional parks per 1,000 residents.In addition to the creation of new City parks,the City of
Fresno will identify joint use opportunities in locating parks with other public facilities such as
schools.
·Statement:The General Plan does not do enough to limit the overconcentration of
liquor stores in low income areas.
This statement is premature.The Community will have an opportunity to address the location,
separation and number of package liquor stores as part of the Development Code.
·Statement: The General will eliminate cul-de-sacs.
This statement is false.As long as pedestrian options are available to connect neighborhoods
to adjacent services and shopping,some cul-de-sacs can still be built.Specific standards will
be addressed in the forthcoming Development Code.
Next Steps
On Monday,December 8 the Planning Commission considered this item.Staff will provide an oral
report on those proceedings to the Council at their meeting on December 11.
If the Plan is adopted by the Council, two significant implementation actions will follow:
Citywide Development Code.After the adoption of the General Plan,staff will proceed with
the completion of the public review draft of the Citywide Development Code,and will then
bring the Code to the City Council for consideration.If adopted,this document will replace the
current Zoning Ordinance,which has not been comprehensively updated since 1964.It is
anticipated that the Citywide Development Code will be presented to the City Council for
consideration by the summer of 2015.
Downtown Plans and Development Code.The Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan,
the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan,and the Downtown Development Code-which propose a
refined vision,revitalization strategy,and development regulations for the center of the City-
were released for public comment in 2011.After the adoption of the General Plan they will be
revised and brought to the City Council for consideration by the summer of 2015.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
An environmental document for the proposed Fresno General Plan was prepared by the City to
satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The City is the lead agency for the Project
under CEQA and a Draft Master Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Fresno General
Plan,pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15175,et seq.The MEIR was
prepared by FCS/Michael Brandman Associates (FCS) under contract with the City.
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 10 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
LOCAL PREFERENCE
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal Impact of Developing the General Plan -Funds for consultants to assist in completion of the
Fresno General Plan and Development Code documents were provided by a grant from the
California Strategic Growth Council.All environmental assessment studies and reports were funded
by grants from the U.S. Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development.
Fiscal Impact on the City Resulting from Implementation of the General Plan -Analysis was
conducted on the financial impact of implementing the goals and policies in the General Plan.Initial
fiscal analysis reveals a distinct revenue advantage for development in incorporated areas (i.e.infill
areas)primarily as a result of the existing Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County.It also reveals
a need for new strategies to fund ongoing maintenance of development in unincorporated areas.
·The City of Fresno receives more tax revenue in the existing neighborhoods and downtown
(incorporated/infill)than in the unincorporated areas.The City receives 27-31 percent of tax
revenue in the incorporated areas of the City,as compared to 17-22 percent of tax revenues
when development occurs in unincorporated areas that are annexed to the City:
o Fiscal advantage of almost 50 percent from incorporated areas -on average,every
$1,000 of new assessed value from existing neighborhoods and downtown generates
$2.90 compared to unincorporated area where the amount is only $1.95.
o Under the Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County,the County retains its share of
property tax base plus 62 percent of increment on new development.In other words the
General Fund “capture rate”on annexed land is significantly below that within existing
City boundaries.
·The City of Fresno falls behind on every annexed property without adding a new funding
source for maintenance.Impact fees and Community Facility Districts (CFD)are among the
options to pay for construction and maintenance in the new growth areas for public streets,
curbs,gutters,and sidewalks within neighborhoods,median islands,and parks spaces.Public
Safety and infrastructure on main thoroughfares will require additional contribution from the
General Fund or “other”funding sources.Providing services in unincorporated areas,without
additional funding,will further constrain the already stressed service levels is existing
neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Exhibit A: Land Use Change Requests, Map and Table
·Exhibit B: Staff Recommended Land Use and Circulation Map
·Exhibit C: City Council Resolution 2012-150 Initiation of the General Plan Update
·Exhibit D: Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR SCH NO. 2012111015)
·Exhibit E: Final Master Environmental Impact Report (FMEIR)
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 11 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:ID#14-653 Agenda Date:12/18/2014 Agenda #:
·Exhibit F: Revised General Plan, December 2014
·Exhibit G: Redline General Plan
·Exhibit H: Errata Sheet for Redline General Plan
·Exhibit I: Table of General Plan Text Revisions
·Exhibit J: General Plan Comment Letters
·Exhibit K: Frequently Asked Questions
·Exhibit L: Planning Commission Staff Report
City of Fresno Printed on 12/16/2022Page 12 of 12
powered by Legistar™
,ircflvfD
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
¡û1r1 ¡[t B f;n g 0I Date: LzlLLlL4
crTY clrRr{, FiFffiSNO CITY COU NCI L
City ofÉo=alrSr/z:fflE-=iE?ñ-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December Lf-,2Ot4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2').
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at621,-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf vou need assistance with seating because of a disability,see Sec
To:
Subject:
)effrey Roberts
General Plan Update; December 9th,2074, Planning Commission Hearing
ç)t-rn
7J
ì7)rrl
aJ)
o
c)
These items will be discussed by Granville Homes at the scheduled hearing of the Pf anning Commission on December
12'h,2or4 @ 5:oo pm:
The proposed "Modifications" to the General Plan land Use map that were previouslysubmitted by Granville
Homeson several different occasions. Some of these Modification requests proposed a change in land use and
others were submitted to maintain the existing land use and density previously approved for the property. Only
those proposed modifications not supported by the staff in the report to the Planning Commission will be
discussed in the public hearing, The discussíon at the Commission Hearing will include the followíng;a. Several modifications in the "Copper River Ranch" project area
b. Several modifications in the vicinity of N. Fowler and E. clinton Avenuesc. Several Modifications of land within the "Mission Ranch" ( formerly "Running Horse,, )
Request a modífication to the Land Use map for 75.72 acres of land located at the southeast corner of W.
Herndon Ave. and N. Riverside Dr. ( APN 504-O9t-I4,35, 37 ) be changed from "High Density', to ,,Urban
Neighborhood".
The need for Zoning Districts that can "implement" the land use designations outlined in the General plan
Document / Plan Map if they are approved by the City Council ahead of the creation/adoption of the proposed
Development Code. This can be accomplished with a modified "Zoning Consistency Matrix" ( Table 3-3 or Table
12-1 ) or a new Matrix that will identífy applicable zoning categories available to implement the plan
designations until a new "Development Code" is adopted by the Council at a later date. This MatrÍx needs to be
adopted as a part of any Council action or selected propert¡es in the City will not be able to develop as planned.
Elimination of Policy No. RC-9-b including the creation of a "Farmland Preservation policy"
Modification of Policy No. ED-S-b that requires new development annexing to the City to "fully fund ongoing
public safety and public service cost".
Modification of Polícy UF-12 and UF-13 ( and assocíated "Commentary" )to provide clarity regarding the intent
forgrowthanddevelopment¡nall oftheareasdesignatedas"Residential" bytheGeneral planUpdate(see
attached wording changes )
Any and possibly allof the issues that have been submitted to the City in wr¡ting or presented orally at
scheduled public workshops or public hearings where the General Plan Update/ Development Cotidoraft
Environmental lmpact Report has been the scheduled topic of discussion.
Jeffrey T. Roberts
¡ i; :' ! j,
d'íi f t'j.li,, i-) t ¡ ¡ t ¡ t ¡ ti I i: ¡e ! ¡ ¿ ;t! ! ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¿ t 1, ¡ ¡ ¡ 7 ¡ t : ;
1396 W. Herndon Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93711
559.436.0900 / fax 559.436.1659 / ce||559.288.0688
Visit us at www.ovhomes.com to follow us on facebooko and YouTubeg!
1
2.
3.
4
5.
6
7
-E
r-lancl
cÐ
=
co
C]r\)
c)
=:il
l'lr)
rrl
r1IO
/ T€'tr( lrh -L
4¿¿- lþ rcßl1î¿f nnp PÆv/ôê(9Lr" lttgørtÉt TD TvtE Clry
-
l"noo UÇe ¿4lF /Ltootn+w'ÚÐ
7'l& D¡! ir t¡ ^'w.¡¡t atDpttt sty.ltò d tD ú øtt^.ó û ñ.lrvbgd úñrlip ú crvltiqtt ú M þt
amþt ol ÆìE s ,d,
Agrlcultural P¡eserue
J.C. Forkner Fþ Ga¡&n No.3 - Plat 8k.8, P9.79
J,C, Forkner FþGatún No.7 - PIatBk.lA Pg.t7
J.C. FükEr Flgcerden No.tO. PlatBkro, pg.æ
Parcel Map No 2æ8-13 - Bk 71, Pgs.9t-At)
Ræ,ord ol Survey - 8k.48. Pgs.3-4
¡rtas2ot. sH Record ol Suuey:8k. 54, pç. 25-2g
@sz07Ac
I
suBDtvtDED [-AND IN pOR._ SEC.4 Z13S., R.19E., M.D.B.&M_
| æ ¡.r¿s
. 7.r9S
@
a"ò\lay N
t
l.\ì,t€,V
4ye
0Ð
0s)
¡rOfE - Assqr.sor'! &ocl ,VûrÈ.rs St¡ofl/¡ ,n f.lrþscs
Asos¡oll Pdæl NtfrrûÆrs Sluyn in Cidos-
Assessor's Map 8,k.504 - Pg. O9
County ol Fresno, Calit.O
..e.t
æ
ÞI
zrt
I
It.rt
t;
I
I
I
I
Iì-
I
I
¡t.rÍ
t8
I
I
t
I
ãtt
2?6
@s8,to^cs
P,,rcH_x
fa ra
@sg.2EÆ
¡t¡
,,.rr\
714
Os
ô38Äc'
FI
â
åi
g
t
=
]
I
ç
Tf.l
¿I
r
lrItÌ
.r
ıt¡I
I
17ÐÛ( l^b.
Jeffrey RoË:rts
7
From:
Sent
To:
Subjcct:
leffrey Roberts
Friday, December 05,20t410:36 AM
Jeffrey Roberts
Zoníng Consistency matrix
For the following land use designations proposed by the Draft General Plan Update, the zoning districts that are
currently adopted should be used to implement the development on selected sites in the City of Fresno:
1. "Medium Low Density'' Designation: Use R-1 Zoning ( 12-211 FMC )2. "Medium Density''designation: Use R-1 Zoning ( 12-211 FMC )3. "Medium High Density'' Designation: Use R-2 Zoning ( 12-212 FMC )4. "Urban Neighborhood" Designation: Use R-3 Zoning for existing Code ( 12-213 FMC )5. "High Densit/ Designation: Use R-4 Zoning ( 12-214 FMC )
This will allow development to continue during the ongoing discussion of the Devetopment Code/Zoning Ordinance.
The Council must adopt thís "Matrix" concurrent w¡th the General Plan.
Jcffity T. Robort¡
(ii':t;¡ i'iilc Éí r)ìircs
Possitttt, Contmiltttcnl &. Innotúiott {'. '.!'. .,'
1396 W. Hcrndon Suite l0l, Frosno, CA 93711
559.436.0900 I Íax559.436.1659 lcell 559.288.0688
Vlrit ug at rrryw.ovhomes.com to follow us on facebook6 and YouTubeq¡
I c
/7aU /Jo'+
City ol Frctno
Gencrol Plon ønd Development Code Updotí
F es po n s.è to Co m ñê nl I Ò, .! 9_!r:lt ! "
t t *.'l!!
P age 5,2-I2, Agricultu ra f Resou rces
The following is ¿dded after Policy RC-g-b.
proRramS.
farmland."
Page 5.2-13, Agricultural Resources
The following is added after policy RC-g-b.
proqrams,
farmland."
Page 5.2-13, Agricultural Resources
The reference to Policy RC-8-c is revised as follows;
"PolicyR€-8-e RC-9-c. Farmland Enrollment. Advocate for the enrollment ..."
/IE/UL t9a' î
l)0 ,1 IT A¿' t't4e'<tT
| |Etur e ¿=
Qenerat 5 (rurrtt aeat)
The proposed wording modifications will strengthen the objectives and provide clarity regarding the ¡ntent of theobjectives contained in the General Plan. The exact wording recommended by staff was used and enhanced withadditional text contained in two of the "commentary" sections following the objectives:
1. Objective No- UF-12 ( proposed by staff )
"Locate roughly one half of future resíde pment in the ínfill areas defined as being within the city ofFresno on December 3I't,2072, includíng the c
The commentary discussion below this objective includes the foilowing words:
"The Planning Director will provide an annual report describing the cítys'compliance with the plan and progress torrardmeetíng the goals and objectives to City , and pre
with recommended appropriate policy a ents and
meeting this goal
areas may pfogre
those related to BRT ) and the impacl of market brces. However, the cityexpects to make steady progress toward all of the goals and objectives and anticipates meet¡ng them at or near theclose of the General Plan Horizon in 2035' see the tmplementaiion Element for additional imptementat¡on str¿tegies furthis objective"
i r. Objective No. UF-12 ( proposed dification ) i
"Locate roughly one harf of future residentiat deverop nfiil areas ithin the city ofFresno on Decembel3!'t,2O].Z including the Downtown C surround mixed use center$and transit oriented development along Major BRT corridor non_corri vacant land. Thetoward mee al ís n in a linear or'one to one" pattern. Development ofs growth are tress , depending upon the schedure of relevant keyms (such as ed to of market forces,,
The "Modified" Commentary language would read as follows:
'The Planning Director wíll provide an annual report describing the citys' compliance with the ptan and progress tounrd
with recommended appropriate policy amendments and als
goal by 2035' However, the city expects to make steady progress toward all of the goals and objectives and anticipatesmeeting them at or near the close of the General Plan Horizon in 2035. see the lmplementation Elernent for add¡t¡onalim plementatio n strategies for this o bjective.,,
t7E/t/ * þ -Z
ifications will
General plan. íty regarding the intent of the
two of the "c ,i!'.1"t"0
and enhanced with
1. O ctive No. UFt3 ( proposed by staff );
"Locate roughly one half of future residentíal development in the Growth Areas, defined as unincorporated rand asof December 311 zorz sol, which are to be-developed wittr comptete Neighborhoods that include housíng, services,and rec tion; mixed use centersi or along future BRT corridors.,,
The commentary discussion betow this objective incrudes the foilowing words:
with recommended appropriate policy amendments and also new implementatgoal by 2o35' The rate of progress toward meet¡ng this goal is not expected to occur in a rinear or ,,one to one,, pattern.
relevant kev i ntive programs ( such as rhose rerated ro BRl and rhe impact ïT:ri"",i:iä:i"JJÏ.ïi;:1iltexpects to make steâdy progress toward all of the goals and objectives and anticipates meeting them at or near theclose of the General Plan Horizon in 2035. see the lmplementaiion Element for additional implementation strategies forthis obj ive-
1. O No. UFt3 ( proposed Modification )
-Locate roughly one half of future residential development in the Growth Areas, defined as unincorporated land asof December 3r1 zorz sot, which are to be developed with compËte Neighborhoods that include housing, services,and recreatbn; mixed use centers; or along future 8RT corridors". The rate of progress toward meeting this goal is norexpe d lo occur in a linear or 'one to one" pattern. Development of ¡nfill ,ra., J"rr* growth areas rnay progress in
låä*å:?ïî'ïiå1':t upon the schedule of relevanr kev incentive prosrams I su-crr as those reratåå toîÃi I .n¿
The -Modífied'Commentary language would read as follows:
with recommended appropriate policy amendments and also new implementation strategies necessary to meet thisgoal by 2035' However' the city expects to rnake steady progress toward ail of the goats ano objectives and anticípatesmeeting them at or near the close of the General Plan Horizon in 2035. see the lm plementation Element for additíonalimplerneniat¡on strateg¡es for this object ve.,,
Jìf CEIVf D
¡,Jlt{ Dit t Rr.l iL ?0 Agenda ltem: lD#14-6s3 (5:00 P.M.}
Date: tzltllt4
crTY
'LERH'
r'rs*û
Énesruo clTy cou Ncr L
City ofÉo=ar,rSlzzfflE=iEz¿¡ñ---
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tt,20t4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and ce¡tification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2l,.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office aL 627-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Security.
F_RE_SN _SIA_TE
Community and Economic Develop íl I C I lV E D
December 8,2014 ¡,li'l DIi] I fin 11 1?
The Honorable Steve Brandau, Oliver Baines, Lee Brand, Paul Caprioglio, Clint Olivier,
Sal Quintero, and Blong Xiong ClîY tl[f þi, FRSSN9 CA
Fresno City Council
2600 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor
Fresno, California 937 2l
Dear Council President and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Offrce of Community and Economic Development (OCED) at Fresno State, I
write in strong support of the 2035 Fresno General Plan (draft dated December 2014).
Established in August 2000, OCED is an on-campus division of Fresno State that is dedicated to
aligning the University's intellectual capacity and innovation-driven economic development
initiatives to improve the competitiveness and prosperity of the San Joaquin Valley region.
Recognized regionally for its ability to link, align and leverage the University and its resources to
the needs of the community, OCED continues to serve the region through several programs,
initiatives, and collaboratives.
As the Secretariat for California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (Partnership), OCED has
worked to encourage collaboration on a regional scale by bringing together experts and leaders
committed to the same purpose- sustainable economic development, environmental stewardship,
and human advocacy. The Partnership is an unprecedented public-private partnership sharply
focused on improving the region"s oconomic vitality and quality of life for the over 4 million
residents who call the San Joaquin Valley home. Founded in June 2005 by Governor
Schwarzenegger with Executive Order 5-05-05, the Partnership is an effort to address the unique
challenges facing the Valley as well as the region's importance to California.
Building on years of regional cooperation established by the development of the Partnership, the
Partnership's Strategic Action Proposal, and the San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint's smart growth
principles, Smart Valley Places - FYl0 HUD $4 million Regional Planning Grant under the Federal
Partnership for Sustainable Communities- is the region's roadmap to creating more transportation
choices, equitable-affordable housing, economic competitiveness, and healthier, safer and walkable
neighborhoods.
As the regional administrator for Smart Valley Places, OCED has been working with the region's urban
cities, including the City of Fresno, to promote sustainable development through the adoption of smart
growth principles into local planning documents and through building local capacity for sustained civic
engagement in the planning process. In August 2010, the City of Fresno entered into the compact of
urban cities in the San Joaquin Valley by contributing a comprehensively updated General Plan with all
Office.of Community & Economic Development
California State University, Fresno ¡ Student Recreation Center
5010 North Woodrow Avenue Suite 200 M/S WC142 r Fresno, California 93740
P 559.294.602t F 559.294..æ24 ww-FtesnoState-edu/oced THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
mandatory and some additional innovative elements and a revised development code, both built with
Smart Growth and Livability Principles, designed and assessed using an I-PLACE3S GIS technology
platform.
In August 20II, OCED received an Economic Adjustment grant from the U.S. Economic
Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce, to prepare a Valley-wide
industry cluster analysis and a regional strategy - Cluster Action Plan - to catalyze the growth of
priority clusters. The goal of the project is to support improved regional economic performance,
sustainability, and shared opportunity for Valley residents, businesses and communities. As a
result of the Cluster Action Plan, the Regional Industry Clusters Initiative got its official start in
February 2013, with team members engaging champions in the seven identified clusters:
Agriculture, Clean Energy, Health & Wellness, Logistics, Manufacturing, Public Sector
Infrastructure, and W ater Technology.
Fresno's General Plan not only meets the purpose of the Partnership - sustainable economic
development, environmental stewardship, and human advocacy- and the smart land-use and
sustainability planning goals and objectives of Smart Valley Places, but also demonstrates
Fresno's commitment and imperative vision to ensure the City continues to be economically
competitive while ensuring prudent stewardship of financial and natural resources. The General
Plan accomplishes this by prioritizing the following:
. Emphasize conservation, successful adaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the use of energy, water, land, buildings,
natural resources, and fiscal resources required for the long-term sustainability ofFresno
o Support agriculture and food production as an integral industry
o Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (affordable housing),
residential densities,job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues
that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the city
o Develop Complete Neighborhoods and districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance.
o Promote a city of healthy communities and improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
This type of planning, infrastructure, and community building is exactly the tlpe of work that
Smart Valley Places and the Partnership were meant to encourage. The City of Fresno has been
an important partner in regional planning efforts and partnerships, and the 2035 Fresno General
Plan will no doubt lead Fresno and the region in making improvements that have catalytic impacts in
regard to preserving agriculture land, improving air quality, and promoting livable communities
in general.
I know there has been and will continue to be criticism of this plan. A vision and blueprint for a city of a half
million people and growing shouldn't be without careful deliberation and consideration of all perspectives.
However, after nearly four years of careful analysis, community outreach, and deliberation, I believe that this plan
has evolved into a vision that sets a higher bar for the City to lead as the major economic force in the region,
while protecting property values, accommodating market forces, and preserving neighborhood character. We
cannot further delay this opportunity to set a compelling vision - and as a partner of the City of Fresno, I look
forward to working to help implement this blueprint immediately in the new year.
On behalf of OCED, I am pleased to support the 2035 Fresno General Plan and strongly encourage
your affirmative vote when it comes before you later this month. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Mike Dozier
Executive Director
cc:
Mayor Ashley Swearengin
City Clerk Yvonne Spence
RECrivEo
¡ù1tl DtC I Rn i1 i7
Louise A. Yenovkian
clo246 West Shaw Ave
Fresno, CL 93704 CITY CLERK, FRESNO CA
I)ecember 4,2014
City of Fresno Council Members
2600 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor
Fresno, California 93721
Honorable Counoil Members:
I am writing to express my support of the 2035 Fresno General Plan Update (Plan
Update) as General Plan Citizens Aclvisory Committee member. 'this plan provides
strong policy frameworlc and visioti to ensure that the City continues to protect, preserve
and promote Fresno,
As amember of the 2035 General Plan Citizens Committee, I have an extensive
understanding of the Plan Update and the importance of this vision document, We lrave
been engaged in this processfor over 5 years. This planwas careftrllythought out,
Although the Citizens Committee disbanded ín 2013, ahandful of the members have
remained engaged in this subject. I, for one, remain fully engaged in the issue and am
confident that our efforts will not be in vain,
After several years of unprecedented community outreach, analysis and discussion, I urge
you to approve ttre 2035 General Plan Update on December 18, 2014. Unnecessatily
delaying the approval of the plan is not in the best interest of moving our community
fo¡ward, Rather, it is important that we begin as soon as possible working on the
implementation of the PlanUpdate.
Agam, I would strongly encourage your affumative vote of the 2035 General Plan when
it comes before you later this month. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at my office (559)224-2L31 or via my email at Lyenovkian@wctlaw,com
/n ,-'
ccl
MayorAshþ Swearengin
City Clerlc Yvome Spence
Soulhcast Fresno (-onrr
{iÀ t( }t r!ì; ' l "ti-'l,elt rl iÏ
qTCfIVED
¡i1'r Dtc B Rn i1 17
CITY CLER{, FRESNO C,1
December 5,2014
Paul Caprioglio
Councilmember
Dlstrlct4
fennifer Clark
Fresno City
PlanningCommission
Mayor Ashley Swearengin
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Room 2075
Fresno, C493721
Dear Mayor Swearengin:
RE: Resolution in Support of 2035 General Plan
On behalf of the Board of DirectoÌs of the Southeast Fresno Community Economic Development
Association we would like to express our support for the current version ofthe 2035 Generd Plan.
The City of Fresno continues to rank number one in concentrated poverty in the State and number
two in the Nation Ttre implementation of the General Plan is a unique opportunity to improve
quallty of life and promote better economic conditions in our clty and Southeast Fresno. A more
prosperous communlty can also bring more revenue to the Clty's General Fund.
Although we support the approrral of the General Plan in its current form, tle attached resolution
idendfies areas we view as high priorides for our city and Southeast Fresno and we provide
recommendaüons on more specific projects and lnidadves for Southeast Fresno thatwe would
support and help in the implementaüon stages of thls General Plan.
The areas that we consider to be a high priority for our city are:
1. Employment, Vocadonal Training Entrepreneurship
2. Housing and Healthy Netghborhoods
3. Recreation
4. Educadonal lnstitutions.
We look furwerd to participate in your final hearing of thls important matter. On behalf of the
Board and member: of SEFCEDA we urge you to approve the 2035 General Plan.
CC:
BlongXiong
Councilmember
District 1
Sal Quintero
Councilmember
DisuictS
Enclosure
Steve Brandau
Councilmember
District2
Lee Brand
Councilmember
District 6
t/
Oliver L. Baines lll
Councilmember
Dlstrict 3
Clint Olivier
Councilmember
District 7
www.SEFCEDA.org
CA 93747 c 'IEL: (559) 453-0124
josc'l tlon ber rr¿ì z-a (0 s ef ce(la, o rg
P.O. Box BBl 7 o Fresno,¡ FAX: (559) 25r.¡-7635
RESOTUTION
SOUTHEAST FRESNO COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVETOPMENT ASSOCIATION
(SEFCEDA)
In the matter of: IN SUPP0RT OF THE 2035 FRESNO CITY GENERAT PLAN.
WHEREAS, the mission of SEFCEDA is to improve the quality of life of southeast
Fresno and Fresno Region residents and promote economic prosperityby
e:çanding opporhrnities in education, recreation, employmenÇ housing and
entrepreneurship for healthy neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, SEFCEDA is already actively involved in improving economic conditions
and qualÍty of life in our city and Southeast Fresno and welcomes the opportunity to
partner with the City of Fresno and other entities in this efforÇ
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno is considering adoption of the 2035 Fresno City
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the SEFCEDA Board views this planning document as the foundation and
vision to address current and future needs of the residents of our city and Southeast
Fresno; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan is an important tool to improve the quality of life of the
resÍdents of our city and Southeast Fresno and promote economic prosperity;
The SEFCEDA Board hereby supports the adoption of this plan and makes the
following recommendations to ensure a positive economlc lmpact on the City of
Fresno and Southeast Fresno residents:
1. EMPTOYMENT, VOCATIONAL TRAINING, & ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Background:
The General Plan recognizes the need to improve economic conditions and increase
the earning power of Fresno residents.
SEFCEDA Recommendations:
a) Efforts of the City of Fresno to address poverty should be directed to the most
impoverished neighborhoods in the City of Fresno to change Fresno's ranking as
number one in concentrated poverty in the State and number 2 in the nation.
Improving this ranking should be the most important goal of the General Plan.
(1)
www.SEFCEDA.org
P.O. Box BB17 . Fresno, CA 93147 .'lEL: (559) 453-0124 . FAX: (559) 255-7635
jose leorrba rra za @sefcecla.org
b) The City of Fresno needs to be a stronger advocate in seeking state and federal resources to prepare
the Fresno workforce to fill jobs that go unfilled because resources to improve the skills of the workforce
are limited and inadequate.
c. The City of Fresno should more actively dupport efforts to expedite the construction of a Career
Technical Center in Southeast Fresno by the State Center Community College District. SEFCEDA is
committed to be a partner with the State Center Community College District, the City of Fresno and
other entities/organÍzations to ass¡st in generating community/public support to accelerate the
implementation of this project.
d. SEFCEDA welcomes the opportunity to partner with the City of Fresno in the creation of good paying
jobs and the attraction, retention, and expansion of businesses in Southeast Fresno through the
implementation of new more creative ideas that can improve economic conditions.
e. The General Plan should encourage funding of programs that offer opportun¡ties to train and prepare
residents to open their own businesses
2. HOUSING AND HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS
Backqround:
SEFCEDA supports provisions of the General Plan that call for the creation of complete neighborhoods
for a safe and healthy community with adequate access and proximity to recreational opportunities,
transportation, businesses and other amenities.
SEFCEDA concurs that high density housing and affordable housing are necessary to accommodate
population growth of our city.
The General Plan (UF-12 states: "Locate roughly one half of future residential development in infill
areas-defíned as being within the City on December 2L,2ÛL2-including the Downtown core area and
surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-development along major BRT corridors, and
other non-corridor infill areas and vacant land" Future residential development ¡s to occur in the form of
infÍll and new construction within the sphere of influence of the City of Fresno.
SEFCEDA appreciates that the Ventura/Kings Canyon Corridor is a major BRT Corridor being targeted by
the General Plan to include infill development with higher-densities, mixed-use centers and transit
development. The targeting of well designed, higher density residential projects and high-quality
affordable housing on the Ventura/Kings Canyon Corridor can bring economic benefits to the area with
adequate economic incentives. SEFCEDA is already involved in the revitalization of the Ventura/Kings
Canyon Corridor along with other commun¡ty partners.
(2)
SEFCEDA Recommendations:
a, The City of Fresno needs to further clariff a policy for future residential development as to the
sequence of where and when ínfill and sphere of influence residential development is to take place.
a. SEFCEDA supports infill and revitalization of the Ventura/Kings Canyon Corridor and efforts to fund
improvement of established neighborhoods along this corridor
b. SEFCEDA also supports the revitalization of other established neighborhoods in Southeast Fresno in
combination with new residential development w¡thin the sphere of influence boundaries. A balance of
infill development and sphere of influence growth must take into consideration the economic benefits
that a vibrant housing industry under both scenarios can bring to the Fresno's economy,
c. The proposed housing mix for Development Area 4-East shows 5,100 multi-family units versus 3,800
single-family units. SEFCEDA believes that higher densities and affordable housing should be available
at all parts of our City and should not be concentrated only in impoverished neighborhoods.
3. RECREATION.
Backsround:
According to the Draft Fresno General Plan, South ofShaw City Park Space is 1.02 acres per 1,000
residents (Total Acres: 242.73 acres). North of Shaw City Park Space is 4.62 acres per 1,000 residents
(Total Acres: 764.431. This disparity in the provision of parks and recreational facilities in established
neighborhoods south of Shaw versus north of Shaw Avenue and the very low availability of park
facílities compared to other cities in the Central Valley, the State and the Nation reported in recent
surveys is a serious quality of life problem that requires the attention of our City.
SEFCEDA's Recommendations:
a. SEFCEDA desires a partnership with the City of Fresno and other like minded community and
corporate entitíes for the purpose of establishing and sustaining more ambitious short-term and long-
term goals greater than 3 acres of parks per 1,000 residents for Southeast Fresno, lncluding the funding
and construction of a regional park facility with a soccer fields complex in Southeast Fresno.
4. EDUCATIONAL I NSTITUTIONS.
Backsround:
Elementary and high schools, community colleges and universities play an important role in preparing
residents for the job market. Low performance of these institutíons in the number of students who
graduate continues to be a problem in the Fresno Region. We must address this problem in order to
reverse the cycle of poverty ¡n the Fresno Region.
(3)
R TCf ,VED
¿f1lr orc s Rn 11 ï1 åï:l',iti; Àf,o'o-'53
(5:00 P'M')
crTY cLERx, TnFRESNO CITY COU NCI L
Ëå=er.lSrzzfflE-=iE7¿¡ñ--
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December 9,2OL4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
l. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, cityruide application
Supplemental lnformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAI:
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at 62L-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf vou need assistance with because of a disability, please see Security.
File lD#14-653
5:00 P.M. HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed
General Plan Update (Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related
Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by
Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management Director, on
behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
For additional information regarding the Proposed General Plan Update
please refer to the link below. The URL will take you to the Development
and Resource Management Department's website where all the information
for the General Plan Update is located.
.htm
-\,("-
C) -E
=
cJ s)
t- l'lq LL> C)ãmTrÐ=;¡ --a\
ü=Frlz
(]v
C-J(r c-c
RICEIVED
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
irllÏ Ctû io PR ? û8 Date: tzlLLlL4
CITY CLTRK, FRESËRESNO CITY COUNCI L
Ëåi=arrSrz¿fflE=i?z¿¿ñ-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Suppfemental Packet Date: December LO,2OL4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at62L-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see
RE: 2035 General Plan
N ECf IVED
December gth,20t4 clTy CLERK, FRESHo cA
The Honorable Steve Brandau, Oliver Baines, Lee Brand, Paul Caprioglio, Clint Olivier,
Sal Quintero, and Blong Xiong
Fresno City Council
2600 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor
Fresno, California 937 2l
Dear Council President and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to express my strong support of the 2035 Fresno General Plan (draft dated
December 2014) as a member of The General Plan Citizens Committee. This plan
provides an imperative vision to ensure that the City continues to be economically
competitive while ensuring prudent stewardship of our financial and natural resources.
I know there has been and will continue to be criticism of this plan. A vision and
blueprint for a city of a half million people and growing shouldn't be without careful
deliberation and consideration of all perspectives. However, after nearly four years of
careful analysis, community outreach, and deliberation, I believe that this plan has
evolved into a vision that sets a higher bar for the City to lead as the major economic
force in the region, while protecting properly values, accommodating market forces, and
preserving neighborhood character. We cannot further delay this opportunity to set a
compelling vision - and as a partner of the City of Fresno, I look forward to working to
help implement this blueprint immediately in the new year.
I would shongly encourage your affirmative vote of the 2035 General Plan when it comes
before you later this month. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (559) 790-5484.
Sincerely,
Ryan Calvert
cc:
Mayor Ashley Swearengin
City Clerk Yvonne Spence
f,í[CflVfD
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
¡l1T û[C i0 FR 1 ¡5Date: tzlLLlLa
CTryRGTN@GITY COUNCIL
City ofÉo=alrSr/z-fflE=iE7¿¡¡:-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related Items - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tO,2OL4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental I nformation:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council afterthe
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2).
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office aT 621,-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Security.
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 11,2014
!ircIivfD
¡ ;'i i.l ;û fl 3 13
CtiY ÛLT;:í, IRESi.IC C,{FROM: JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Development and Resource Management Department
SUBJECT
..Title
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update (Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental lmpact Report
(ElR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management
Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
a. RESOLUTION - Certifying Final Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) No. SCH 2012111015
prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. RESOLUTION - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the 2O2S
General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December,2014
c. RESOLUTION - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as "City of
Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use and
Circulation Map," and denying the remaining plan modifications
d. RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director or her
designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency
..Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions.
Consideration of General Plan Update and ceftification of the related EIR SCH No.201211101Sfiled
by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of
Fresno, citywide application :
a. Approve Resolution - Certifying Final EIR No. SCH 2012111015 prepared for the General
Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a)
and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code,
section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public
Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
b. Approve Resolution - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014;
c. Approve Resolution - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as
"City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use
and Circulation Map," arìd denying the remaining plan modifications; and
d. Approve Resolution - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director
or her designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By design, the General Plan (Plan) is a visionary document. lt envisions a future in which the best
traits of today's Fresno are preserved, and opportunities for improvement are seized. The theme of
resilience runs throughout the Plan and its strategies to address the city's challenges and capitalize
on its assets. The Plan describes a balanced city with an appropriate proportion of its growth and
reinvestment focused in Downtown, established neighborhoods, and along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
corridors. This will result in a city with a revitalized core and with livable new suburban neighborhoods
supporting one another.
The Plan is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists. While it is general and long-range in
scope, the Plan is also comprehensive with many near-term actions. lt lays out policies and
implementation strategies from the date of adoption to 2035 and beyond. The defined policies,
figures, standards, guidelines and actions to be undertaken by the City focus on what is concrete and
achievable in order to accommodate the future population. At its heart, the Plan gives the City the
opportunity to effectively and efficiently plan for long-term land uses in a comprehensive way so that
future development is implemented in a cohesive and sustainable manner.
The three guiding principles of the new Fresno General Plan, which are woven throughout the
document, are as follows:
o Protect. The new General Plan protects existing and future investments in homes, propefty,
and businesses.
Preserve. The new General Plan preseryes the character and values that make Fresno a
unique and desirable place.
Promote. The new General Plan promotes and incentivizes new investments by existing
businesses and by new businesses seeking to relocate or expand.
The Plan is the result of input from hundreds of interviews, workshops, over 40 public meetings and
hearings, and other outreach to thousands of residents, business owners and community
stakeholders. ln addition, the City conducted a survey of 400 area residents on their vision for the
future of Fresno and incorporated the findings in the Plan. ln total, the Administration, General Plan
Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council have led an extensive four-year
outreach process, setting a new standard for public engagement in the City of Fresno.
On April 19,2012, the City Council voted (5-2) to adopt the Alternative "A-Modified" as the preferred
General Plan Alternative. On August 23,2012, the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No.
2012-150 (Exhibit C) which initiated the General Plan update based upon the preferred alternative
and further initiated the amendment and/or repeal of several Specific and Community Plans. These
actions were a culmination of a plan development process that included 12 public workshops, 22
General Plan Citizens Committee (GPCC) meetings, six Planning Commission meetings and three
City Council hearings.
Following the direction contained in the Council's action, the staff, together with the consulting firms of
Dyett & Bhatia and MW Steele Group, has prepared the proposed Fresno General Plan. The Public
Review Draft of the Plan was available from July 2 through October 9, 2014 and the Draft Master
Environmental lmpact Report (DMEIR), conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) was available for
public review and comment from July 31 through October 9,2014. During this public review period,
public presentations were made to numerous groups; including but not limited to all seven Council
Districts, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The Planning recommended cedification of
the Final Master Environmental lmpact Report and adoption of the General Plan on Monday,
December 8,2014.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the community's most important planning tool. A General Plan is a
comprehensive, long-range planning document that every city and county in California is required to
have under state law (California Government Code Section 65300). The California Supreme Court
has described a general plan as "the constitution for future development." A general plan expresses
the community's vision, values and priorities and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of
future public and private land uses. What this means is that the policies of the general plan are
intended to serve as the framework for future land use decisions and is intended to provide the
following:
1. Reflect the community's vision, values and priorities related to land use, as well as the
community's goals for circulation, environmental, economic, social issues and policies which
are affected by future land use and development.
2. Provide the framework for the City's decision-making associated with future development
approvals.
3. Provide residents with an opportunity to padicipate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities.
4. lnform citizens, developers, decision-makers, and other public agencies of the principles that
guide development in the City.
As a charter city, Fresno is required to adopt a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements
set out in Government Code Section 65302. These required elements are: land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. Under Government Code Section 65303, the
City can adopt optional elements beyond the mandatory list to address additional specific needs that
relate to the physical development of the City. Optional elements were created for the new General
Plan to address specific needs for the City such as economic development and historic preservation,
as well as the ability to provide and maintain essential services. The Plan also includes an
implementation chapter to assist the policy makers in carrying out the visions, goals, policies, and
objectives of the Plan. These additional elements evolved out of feedback received during the initial
public outreach for the Plan. Upon adoption, they carry the same weight as the state-mandated
elements.
As initiated by the Council, the Plan establishes 17 goals for the City which are as follows:
I u¡ilil rÌr'fd ll kì ¡r (c ('r.J O¡c.r ¡¡l¡ rlt'l¡t¿riyr
Goal 1. lncrease opportunity, economic
development, business and job creation.
Goal 2. Support a successful and competitive
Downtown.
Goal 3. Emphasize conservation, successful
adaptation to climate and changing resource
conditions, and performance effectiveness in the
use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural
resources, and fiscal resources required for the
long-term sustainability of Fresno.
Use urban form, land use, and Development Code
policies to streamline permit approval, promote local
educational excellence and workforce relevance,
significantly increase óusrness development and
expansion, retain and attract talented people, create
jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically
locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid
over-saturation of a single type of housing, retail or
employment.
Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central
core area as fhe primary activity center for Fresno and
the region by locating substantial growth in the
Downtown, and along the corridors leading to the
Downtown. Use vision-based policies in a
development code specific to the Downtown, when
adopted, to ensure the creation of a unique sense of
place in the central core.
Acknowledges both the environmental and fiscal
impacts of future growth and the limitations related to
water, energy, natural resources as well as provide
and maintain essenfla/ services, amenities, and
su p pofti n g i nfrastru ctu re.
Goal 4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritizes and incentivizes infill development as well
as investing in alternative modes of transpoftation,
including Bus Rapid Transit, which are needed to
reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and
associafed emlssions.
Goal 5. Support agriculture and food production
as an integral industry.
Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno
as a center of agriculture and food production
sysfems by conserving farmland through a focus on
ínq vacant and underutilized land within the
established Sphere of lnfluence of the City, limiting
any fufther urban boundary expansion, and
developing urban agriculture within the city and
designated growth areas.
Goal 6. Protect, preserve, and
historic, and cultural resources.
enhance natural,Emphasize the continued protection of impoftant
natural, historic and cultural resources in the future
development of Fresno. This includes both designated
historic structures and neighborhoods, but also "urban
artifacts" and neighborhoods that create the character
of Fresno.
Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts,
neighborhoods, housing types (including
affordable housing), residential densities, job
opportunities, recreation, open space, and
educational venues that appeal to a broad range
of people throughout the city.
Recognizes fhe need to provide other forms of
housing oppoftunities that are conveniently located
close to employment, educational, and other activity
centers that can be easily accessed without having to
incur the cost of owning an automobile.
Goal 8. Develop Gomplete Neighborhoods and
districts with an efficient and diverse mix of
residential densities, building types, and
affordability which are designed to be healthy,
attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and
public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and that provide as many services
as oossible within walkinq distance.
lntentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an
outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do
not result in Complete Neighborhoods.
Goal 9. Promote a city of healthy communities and
improve quality of life in established
neighborhoods.
Emphasize suppoñing established neighborhoods in
Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible
sfreefs, public utilities, education and job training,
proximity to jobs, retail seruices, health care,
affordable housing, youth development oppoftunities,
open space and parks, transportation options, and
oppoñunities for home qrown buslnesses.
Goal 10. Emphasize increased land use intensity
and mixed-use development at densities
supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno.
Greater dens/res can be achieved through
encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill
and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity
Centers.
Goal ll. Emphasize and plan for all modes
travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno.
Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor
vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods,
districts, major calnpuses and public facilities,
shopping centers and other service centers, and
regional transportation such as air, rail, bus and
highways.
Goal 12. Resolve existing public infrastructure
and service deficiencies. Make full use of existing
infrastructure, and invest in improvements to
increase competitiveness and promote economic
growth.
Emphasize the fair and necessary cosfs of
maintaining sustainable water, sewer, sfreefs, and
other public infrastructure and service sysfems rn
rates, fees, financing and public investments to
implement the General Plan. Adequately address
accumulated deferred maintenance,
infrastructure, nsks to service continuity, desired
standards of se¡vice to meet quality-of-life goals, and
required infrastructure to support growth, economic
competitiveness and óusrness development.
Goal 13. Emphasize the City as a role model for
good growth management planning, efficient
processing and permit streamlining, effective
urban development policies, environmental
quality, and a strong economy.
Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and
institutions to further fhese values throughout the
region. Positively influence the same attributes in
other jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley-and
thus the potential for regional sustainability-and
improve the standing and credibility of the City to
pursue appropriate Sfafe, LAFCO, and other regional
policies that would curb sprawl and prevent new
unincorporated community development which
compete with and threaten fhe success of sustainable
policies and development practices in Fresno.
Goal '14. Provide a network of well-maintained
parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking
and biking trails connecting the city's districts
and neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad
range of individuals, benefit the health of
residents, and provide the level of public
amenities required to encourage and support
development of higher density urban living and
transit use.
Emphasizes the importance of providing fhese kind of
amenities in order to improve the quality of life for our
residents, and how ff¡ese kind of investments help to
maintain and enhance the value of the properties in
which fhese types of amenities are located.
Goal 15. lmprove Fresno's visual image and
enhance its form and function through urban
design strategies and effective maintenance.
Goal 16. Protect and improve public health and
safetv.
Goal 17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's
cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an
informed and engaged citizenry.
Emphasize shared community values and genuine
engagement with and across different neighborhoods,
communities, institutions, businesses and secfors fo
solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for
fhe success of Fresno and allifs residenfs.
Timeline
As noted in previous reports to the Council, the effort to update the City's General Plan and
Development Code has been funded by federal grants from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
under the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program, HUD Sustainable
Communities lnitiative, and a state grant from the California Strategic Growth Council Sustainable
Communities program. The DOE grant was provided to the City of Fresno for the Energy Efficiency
Survey program and to encourage comprehensive energy conservation and efficiency in Fresno's
land use planning and property development standards. The other grants were provided to integrate
long term community sustainability principles and practices into the City's comprehensive General
Plan addressing land use, transportation, public utilities and services, and resource management
goals and the implementing property development regulations.
A complete description of the Fresno General Plan update planning process and alternative growth
concepts was presented to the City Council on April 5,2012, with additional requested information
presented at a follow-up meeting occurring on April 19, 2012. Both meetings included thorough
discussion. At the conclusion of this review, the Council selected a preferred alternative and four
months later on August 23,2012, initiated the completion of the Plan.
The Public Review Draft of the Plan and the Draft Master Environmental lmpact Report (DMEIR) with
technical studies, conducted by FCS were released for public review and comment on July 31st. On
July 29th, a community information meeting about the public review draft was held at Fresno City
College which was attended by more than 200 people. During the public comment period, public
workshops were held in each Council District. Presentations were also made to numerous community
groups, and a Planning Commission workshop was held.
Summary of Public Comments
The public comment period ended on October 9,2014. Numerous comments were received during
the public review period including letters on both the General Plan and the Draft Master
Environmental lmpact Report (DMEIR). Comments on the Plan itself were carefully considered and
thoroughly analyzed by staff. As part of the longstanding commitment to community involvement in
the Plan, requested changes that could feasibly be accommodated without creating internal
contradictions, or conflicts with the goals of the Plan or MEIR, were accommodated. A summary of
the comments and how these were incorporated into the General Plan are listed in Exhibit K.
Comments on the DMEIR were fon¡uarded to FCS. FCS then wrote, in coordination with City staff,
formal responses to each DMEIR comment. These responses are incorporated into the Final MEIR.
Comments on the General Plan were diverse and in some cases contradictory in nature. The main
categories of comments were as follows:
Land Use Diagram. Many of the comment letters requested very specific changes to the land
use diagram. ln particular, it was often requested that certain parcels of land be changed from
one land use designation to another. For example, the draft Plan may have shown a parcel as
Medium High Density Residential, but the commenter requested that it be changed to Medium
Density Residential. Such comments were received from property owners regarding their own
land, as we as from people who did not own the sites in question.
The" Roughly Half" Ratio of lnfill Development. Some commenters felt that this policy was
too biased in favor of new growth areas, while others felt that it was too biased in favor of infill.
Many felt that it wasn't strong enough and that there ought to be strict control mechanisms to
ensure that half of the City's growth was in the form of infill, but some letters expressed
concern that the language in the draft Plan was already too strict and could result in a
development moratorium in new growth areas.
Underserved Neighborhoods. There were several comments urging that the Plan do more to
address needs in traditionally underserved neighborhoods. Some comments focused on the
need for infrastructure in cerlain areas, while others commented on a disproportionate
concentration of industrial uses in certain neighborhoods.
Non-Automobile Transportation. Several commenters requested that a stronger emphasis
be placed on infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation. Bicycle facilities were
commonly requested, and walkability was also discussed. Multiple letters requested better
public transit, some of which focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) specifically, and others
which discussed the bus system more generally.
Non-suburban Development and Transportation Goncepts. Some letters expressed
discomfort with the Plan's intentions to create a more compact urban environment in
Downtown and along the BRT corridors. Reasons included concerns over traffic, potential BRT
costs, and fears that conventional suburban lifestyle options would be eliminated.
Outward Growth. The consequences of outward growth were the focus of some of the
comment letters received by staff. Some commenters stated that there was a need for stronger
farmland preservation strategies, and others felt that new growth at the edge of the City ought
to pay the full costs of its required infrastructure.
The Development Code. Some commenters felt that the new Development Code should be
adopted at the same time as the General Plan.
ln addition to the broader issues addressed above, there are several erroneous statements that have
been made recently about the Plan. lt is important to address such statements in order to clear up
misunderstandings and provide accurate information for the City Council and the public.
o Statement: The General Plan intends for Fresno to be more dense that San Francisco.
This statement is false. At 4,545 people per square mile, Fresno's density is significantly lower
than San Francisco's 17,867 people per square mile. While the General Plan does call for
targeted increases in density in order to revitalize Downtown and to maximize the benefit of
infrastructure investments, the overall density of the community will only rise to 5,732 people
per square mile under the Plan, and most existing neighborhoods won't experience any
increases in density.
. Statement: The General Plan will repeal the Community and Specific Plans, leaving
neighborhoods with no protections.
This statement is false. The community and specific plans will not automatically be repealed.
They will remain in place until the protections that they afford are carried fon¡rard in the new
Development Code and/or new community and specific plans.
o Statement: The General Plan endangers the Forestiere Underground Gardens.
This statement is false. The General Plan does not propose that the Underground Gardens be
removed or changed. The Gardens are on the National Register of Historic Places, the Local,
Register of Historic Resources, and are a designated California Landmark. This means that
they are protected by both the Fresno Historic Preservation Ordinance and the California
Environmental Quality Act. lt is true that the Highway City Specific Plan, which includes the
Underground Gardens, was written long ago and is proposed to be repealed by the staff-
recommended General Plan. However, Highway City Specific Plan will remain in place until it
is replaced by new plans and codes that will be created with the participation of community
residents. Further, repeal of the Highway City Specific Plan, and adoption of its replacement,
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council following
noticed public hearings.
Statement: The General Plan will constrain greenfield developers or result in a
moratorium on greenfield development.
This statement is false. Roughly half of future growth will be greenfield development. Over
10,000 greenfield lots in the incorporated areas, which represent nearly 10 years of inventory.
While certain thresholds must be met before development can occur in some growth areas,
other growth areas will be available immediately for development.
Statement: The General Plan is far too weak to promote infill.
This statement is false. Roughly half of future growth will be infill development, and the Plan
provides for the strongest set of infill incentives in the region in order to help that goal become
a reality.
Statement: The General Plan doesn't address the needs of underserved neighborhoods,
especially in south Fresno.
This statement is false. Most new development will occur south of Shaw Avenue. The City will
make capital improvements based on the age and condition of infrastructure, and based on
these criteria the greatest needs are south of Shaw. Additionally, given substantial greenfield
development opportunities in Southwest and Southeast Fresno, the City will create specific
plans to further define investment opportunities in these areas. Further community input and
resident involvement will be sought through this process.
Statement: The General Plan plans lndustrial uses only for low income neighborhoods.
This statement is false. Concerns about industrial uses were taken very seriously and every
effort was made to accommodate such concerns when it was feasible. The General Plan
update does not expand industrial uses. ln fact, some industrial land uses have been moved
from Southwest to Northwest Fresno. Furthermore, the Plan's implementing Development
Code will require that new industrial uses provide buffers adjacent to neighborhoods, and
where it was possible to do so, the Plan designates Heavy lndustrial uses away from
neighborhoods. Some commenters expressed interest in removing all industrial from south
Fresno, but given the location of rail and highway infrastructure this is not feasible.
Statement: The General Plan doesn't address Disadvantaged Unincorporated
Communities (DUCs).
This statement is misinformed. DUCs, such as Calwa, remain in Fresno County where the City
of Fresno has no jurisdiction to provide services. However, the City of Fresno is willing to work
with these communities to find a path fonruard to annexation if that is their desire.
Statement: The General Plan doesn't promote parks in underserved/underrepresented
neighborhoods.
This statement is false. The Plan calls for the park supply to grow to 3 acres of pocket,
neighborhood, and community parks per 1,000 residents, and calls for an additional 2 acres of
regional parks per 1,000 residents. ln addition to the creation of new City parks, the City of
Fresno will identify joint use opportunities in locating parks with other public facilities such as
schools.
o Statement: The General Plan does not do enough to limit the overconcentration of
liquor stores in low income areas.
This statement is premature. The Community will have an opportunity to address the location,
separation and number of package liquor stores as part of the Development Code.
. Statement: The General will eliminate cul-de-sacs.
This statement is false. As long as pedestrian options are available to connect neighborhoods
to adjacent services and shopping, some cul-de-sacs can still be built. Specific standards will
be addressed in the forthcoming Development Code.
Nexf Sfeps
On Monday, December I the Planning Commission considered this item. The Commission
recommended certification of the FMEIR and adoption of the General Plan (with minor corrections to
the staff-proposed land uses) by a vote of 6 to 1.
lf the Plan is adopted by the Council, two significant implementation actions will follow:
Gitywide Development Code. After the adoption of the General Plan, staff will proceed with
the completion of the public review draft of lhe Citywide Development Code, and will then bring
the Code to the City Council for consideration. lf adopted, this document will replace the
current Zoning Ordinance, which has not been comprehensively updated since 1964. lt is
anticipated that the Citywide Development Code will be presented to the City Council for
consideration by the summer o12015.
Downtown Plans and Development Code. The Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan,
the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and lhe Downtown Development Code-which propose a
refined vision, revitalization strategy, and development regulations for the center of the City-
were released for public comment in 2011. After the adoption of the General Plan they will be
revised and brought to the City Council for consideration by the summer of 2015.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
An environmental document for the proposed Fresno General Plan was prepared by the City to
satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency for the Project
under CEQA and a Draft Master Environmental lmpact Repod was prepared for the Fresno General
Plan, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15175, et seq. The MEIR was
prepared by FCS/Michael Brandman Associates (FCS) under contract with the City.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal lmpact of Developing the General Plan - Funds for consultants to assist in completion of the
Fresno General Plan and Development Code documents were provided by a grant from the California
Strategic Growth Council. All environmental assessment studies and reports were funded by grants
from the U.S. Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development.
Fiscal lmpact on the Gity Resulting from lmplementation of the General Plan - Analysis was
conducted on the financial impact of implementing the goals and policies in the General Plan. lnitial
fiscal analysis reveals a distinct revenue advantage for development in incorporated areas (i.e. infill
areas) primarily as a result of the existing Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County. lt also reveals
a need for new strategies to fund ongoing maintenance of development in unincorporated areas.
. The City of Fresno receives more tax revenue in the existing neighborhoods and downtown
(incorporated/infill) than in the unincorporated areas. The City receives 27-31 percent of tax
revenue in the incorporated areas of the City, as compared lo 17-22 percent of tax revenues
when development occurs in unincorporated areas that are annexed to the City:
o Fiscal advantage of almost 50 percent from incorporated areas - on average, every
$1,000 of new assessed value from existing neighborhoods and downtown generates
$2.90 compared to unincorporated area where the amount is only $1.95.
o Under the Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County, the County retains its share of
properly tax base plus 62 percent of increment on new development. ln other words the
General Fund "capture rate" on annexed land is significantly below that within existing
City boundaries.
. The City of Fresno falls behind on every annexed property without adding a new funding
source for maintenance. lmpact fees and Community Facility Districts (CFD) are among the
options to pay for construction and maintenance in the new growth areas for public streets,
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks within neighborhoods, median islands, and parks spaces. Public
Safety and infrastructure on main thoroughfares will require additional contribution from the
General Fund or "other" funding sources. Providing services in unincorporated areas, without
additional funding, will further constrain the already stressed service levels is existing
neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
o Exhibit A: Land Use Change Requests, Map and Table [Previously provided on 12/9, updated
version provided on 12/101
. Exhibit B: Staff Recommended Land Use and Circulation ltlap [Previously provided on 12/9,
updated version provided on 12/101
. Exhibit C: City Council Resolution 2012-150 lnitiation of the General Plan Update [Previously
provided on 12/91
. Exhibit D: Draft Master Environmental lmpact Reporl (DMEIR SCH NO.2012111015)
[Previously provided on 12/9]
o Exhibit E: Final Master Environmental lmpact Report (FMEIR) [Previously provided on 12/9]
. Exhibit F: Revised General Plan, December 2014 [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit G: Redline General Plan [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit H: Errata Sheet for Redline General Plan [Previously provided on 12/9]o Exhibit l: General Plan Comment Letters [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit J: Frequently Asked Questions [Previously provided on 12/9]o Exhibit K: Planning Commission Staff Report [Previously provided on 12/9]. Exhibit L: Errata Sheet for December 2014 General Plan fNof previously providedl
. Exhibit M: Planning Commission Resolution 13313 [Not previously provided]. Exhibit N: Planning Commission Resolution 13312 [Not previously provided]o Exhibit O: RESOLUTION - Certifying Final Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) No. SCH
201211 1015 prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update fNof
previously providedl. Exhibit P: RESOLUTION - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014 [Not previously provided]. Exhibit Q: RESOLUTION - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as
"City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use
and Circulation Map," and denying the remaining plan modifications fNof previously providedlo Exhibit R: RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director
or her designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno
General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such
updates are necessary to maintain consistency [Not previously provided]
fi I¡:IiVID
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
¿Ìiï ü:l it i'n T 1E Date: t2ltLlt4
c;TY cLIF.,., rorr',TFRESNO CITY COU NCI L
City ofÉoeauSru¿fffE-=iE7¿¿N-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tO,2Ot4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
l. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation :
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2't.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAI:
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language ¡nterpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meet¡ng. Please call
City Clerk's Office at62t-765O. Please keep the doonruays, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a d se see
¡i]ï i:: iû ffl T ûû
CiTY CL!1Ii, FÍì[5}iÛ CA
EXHIBIT L
Errata Sheet for December 2014
General Plan
Paqe November 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections:
lUpdate inside coverl
I 6.6 Disadvantaqed Unincorporated Communities 6-30
IList of Tables]
Table 1 1 -3....,....1 1 -6
Table 1 1 -6... ......1 1 -1 I
Table 11-7 .........1 1 -1 9
Table 1 1 -8.. .......11-21
Table 1 1 -9.. .......11-23
Table 1 1-10. ........11-24
Table 1 1 -1 1 .........11-25
Table 11-12 Building Form and location Standards--Mixed-
Use Districts in General Plan. .....11-26
Table 1 1 -1 3. ........11-27
[List of Tables]
Table 1 1 -3.,.......1'1 -5
Table 1 1 -6.. .......11 -17
Table 11-7 .... ....1 1 -18
Table 1 1 -8.. .......1 1 -20
Table 1 1 -9.. .......11-22
Table 1 1 -1 0. ........1 1-23
Table 11-1 1 .........11-24
Table 11-12 Building Form and Location Standards--Mixed-
Use Districts in General Plan. .....11-25
Tahle 1 1-13 11-26
1 lChapter 1 - Add paqe numbers for odd paqesl
1-4
The update process that created this General Plan was
initiated to take a comprehensive look at where the city is,
where it would like to be by General Plan Horizon (2035),
and by General Plan Buildout beyond 2035 (see
description for both on page 1-20).
The update process that created this General Plan was
initiated to take a comprehensive look at where the city is,
where it would like to be by General Plan Horizon (2035),
and by General Plan Buildout beyond 2G35 (see
description for both on page 1-19).
1-19
It elected not to expand the SOI in part to fully develop
Development Areas west and southwest of State Route 99,
and to plan for the phased development of the Southeast
Development Area (SEDA), formally known as Southeast
Growth Area (SEGA) which requires its development
through adoption of a specific plan that include
comprehensive provision of public infrastructure.
It elected not to expand the SOI in part to fully develop
Development Areas west and southwest of State Route 99,
and to plan for the phased development of the Southeast
Development Area (SEDA), formerly known as Southeast
Growth Area (SEGA), which requires its development
through adoption of a Specific Plan that includes
comprehensive provision of public infrastructure.
1-26
It creates a framework for provision of Complete Streets,
identifies future street and bikeway improvements,
addresses trails, parking, public transit, goods movement,
and long-term plans for the municipal airport.
It creates a framework for provision of Complete Streets;
identifies future street and bikeway improvements; and
addresses trails, parking, public transit, goods movement,
and long-term plans for the municipal airport.
2-4
ln addition, the percentage of families receiving food
stamps is significantly percent higher in the city than that of
the state. Table 2-1 provides details.
ln addition, the percentage of families receiving food
stamps is significantly higher in the city than that of the
state. Table 2-1 provides details.
1-of8
Paoe November 25th Published Draft Proposed Co'rrections
2-8
A balance of jobs across all industry sectors throughout the
County ensures that jobs are offered across the income
spectrum and support all aspects of a healthy local
economv.
A balance of jobs across all industry sectors throughout the
county ensures that jobs are offered across the income
spectrum and support all aspects of a healthy local
economv.
2-8
While this data is for the entire County and these sectors do
not currently represent a very high percentage of total jobs,
except for manufacturing and financial activities, all are
projected to increase its share over the next decade. Since
the large majority of the County's job base is located in the
city, this is an encouraging statistic for the city.
While this data is for the entire county and these sectors do
not currently represent a very high percentage of total jobs,
except for manufacturing and financial activities, all are
projected to increase its share over the next decade. Since
the large majority of the county's job base is located in the
city, this is an encouraging statistic for the city.
2-16
Planned efforts include providing City Hall procurement
briefings to ensure these entity know about opportunities to
bid on Citv proiects.
Planned efforts include providing City Hall procurement
briefings to ensure these entities know about opportunities
to bid on Citv proiects.
2-19
This would include maintaining appropriate financial
reserves in Enterprise Funds to provide necessary bond
debt coverage ratios and emergency reserves for these
essential utilities
This would include maintaining appropriate financial
reserves in Enterprise Funds to provide necessary bond
debt coverage ratios and emergency reserves for these
essential utilities.
3-6
. The California Avenue BRT corridor, which will connect
Southwest Fresno from the area located between Hughes
and Marks Avenues to Downtown; and
. The California Avenue BRT corridor, which will connect
southwest Fresno from the area located between Hughes
and Marks Avenues to Downtown; and
3-19
. Concept Plans should envision parks, and in some cases
a school, with a variety of densities clustered around the
park and school, and predominantly medium-density
residential development with a mix of housing types beyond
the core.
. Concept Plans should envision parks, and in some cases
a school, with higher densities located around the park and
school, and predominantly residential development with a
mix of housing types beyond the core.
3-22
The Veteran's Community Activity Center will be centered
by a community park next to the Veteran's Home Complex
located on the Southeast corner of Marks and California
Avenues. This area is envisioned as a high density and
urban neighborhood residential density around the core with
Complete Neighborhoods to the noñh, south, and east.
The Veteran's Community Activity Center will be centered
by a community park next to the Veteran's Home Complex
located on the southeast corner of Marks and California
Avenues. This area is envisioned for high density and urban
neighborhood residential density around the core with
Complete Neighborhoods to the north, south, and east.
2of8
Page November 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections
3-25
Primarily a residential area, the area would be served with
local strets, park and recreational trails, and multi-family
townhomes, and it will be filled-out by medium density
residential to conform with adiacent centers.
Primarily a residential area, the area would be served with
local streets, park and recreational trails, and multi-family
townhomes, and it will be filled-out by medium density
residential to conform with adiacent centers.
3-28
Block Length. Create development standards that provide
desired and maximum block lengths in residential, retail,
and mixed-use districts in order to enhance walkability.
UF-14-c Block Length. Create development standards that
provide desired and maximum block lengths in residential,
retail, and mixed-use districts in order to enhance
walkabilitv.
3-56
[LU-6-d] Neighborhoods can be anchored by community
commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area's
needs and create a sense of place; and
[LU-6-d] Neighborhoods will be anchored by community
commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area's
needs and create a sense of place; and
4-40
[MT-6-g] Commentary: This should be done pursuant to
Figure MT-2: Paths and Trails, and the adopted BMP, as
mav amended..
[MT-6-g] Commentary: This should be done pursuant to
Figure MT-2: Paths and Trails, and the adopted BMP, as
mav amended.
5-8
[Footnote 4] ...ponding basins with park improvements
(excludes fenced off flood areas); Clovis and Central
Unified School District School playgrounds, Fresno Unified's
Borroughs Elementary and Yosemite Middle School (grass
fields and courts, Kindergarlen play areas, and parking
areas onlv).
[Footnote 4] ...ponding basins with park improvements
(excludes fenced-off flood areas); Clovis and Central
Unified School District playgrounds, Fresno Unified's
Burroughs Elementary and Yosemite Middle School (grass
fields and courts, Kindergarten play areas, and parking
areas onlv).
5-9
Nevertheless, Clovis and Central Unified' policies for open
playgrounds provide a very significant amount of
recreational area for residents in those school districts.
lncluding Fresno Unified's Borroughs Elementary and
Yosemite Middle School open space, city schools provide
over 450 acres of recreational land.
Neverlheless, Clovis and Central Unified's policies for open
playgrounds provide a very significant amount of
recreational area for residents in those school districts.
lncluding Fresno Unified's Burroughs Elementary and
Yosemite Middle School open space, city schools provide
over 450 acres of recreational land.
5-21 IPOSS-1-bl Consider updatinq the Parks Master Plan.|'POSS-1-bl Uodate the Parks Master Plan.
5-28 The vision of the Valley Arboretumu is to establish a link the
"botanical brothers" in the reqion...
The vision of the Valley Arboretumt is to establish a link
between the "botanical brothers" in the reoion...
6-5 ...Ceasefire (prevention, intervention and community-
mobilization strateqies to reduce community)...
...Ceasefire (prevention, interyention and community-
mobilization strateqies to reduce violence)...
7-30 Groundwater pumpage in 2010 was 128,578 af. which
created a 28,578 af overdraft on the aquifer that year alone.
Groundwater pumpage in 2010 was 128,578 af which
created a 28,578 af overdraft on the aquifer that year alone.
3of8
Paoe November 25th Published Draft Proposed CorrectionÈ' "'.'
7-40
tRc-8-bl Commentary: Theses targets represent 28 and
30 percent reductions respectively, fom the 2010 rate of
consumotion.
[RC-8-b] Commentary: These targets represent 28 and
30 percent reductions respectively, from the 2010 rate of
eonsumotion.
9-5
Each of the three airports in Fresno have their own noise
policies and land use compatibility criteria, all of which are
incoroorated into this Plan.
Each of the three airports in Fresno has its own noise
policies and land use compatibility criteria, all of which are
incorporated into this Plan.
9-9
Ã-LUC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
provides guidance to localjurisdictions on determining
appropriate and compatible adjacent land uses through the
detailed findings and policies of ALUCPS. Among other
objectives, these airport plans strives to minimize the effects
of aircraft noise on communities adjacent to airports and
prevent uses incompatible with airport operations from
locatino near the airport.
ALUC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
provide guidance to localjurisdictions on determining
appropriate and compatible adjacent land uses through the
detailed findings and policies of ALUCPS. Among other
objectives, these airport plans strive to minimize the effects
of aircraft noise on communities adjacent to airports and
prevent uses incompatible with airport operations from
locatino near the airport.
9-13 Inseft Figure NS-4 Existing Fresno Yosemite lnternational
Airoort Noise and Safetv Zonesl
4of8
November 25th Published Draft Prooosed eoirectionS,
9-16
NS-1-a Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior
Noise Environment. Establish 65 OdBA L¿nor CNEL as the
standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise
levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and
noise-sensitive uses for noise, but designate 605 dBA L6n or
CNEL (measured at the propefty line) for noise generated
by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-
sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA LDN or CNEL as the
maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive
commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA LDN or CNEL
as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land
uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels
where noise is generated which may impinge on
neighboring propefties,
Commentary: The Noise Ordinance will define usable
exterior areas for single family and multiple family
residential and noise sensitive uses to include rear yards
and other outdoor areas intended to accommodate leisure
or active Ltse, exclLtding front or side yard areas, and front
or side porches. Balconies or roof decks ( facing front and
side yards shall be included in designated areas to be
protected from noise where these spaces are used to
calculate compliance with required outdoor living area as
required by adopted development standards ) .
NS-1-a Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior
Noise Environment. Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the
standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise
levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and
noise-sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dBA L¿n or
CNEL (measured at the propefty line) for noise generated
by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-
sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA L6¡ or CNEL as the
maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive
commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA L¿¡ or CNEL as
maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land
uses, both to be measured at the propedy line of parcels
where noise is generated which may impinge on
neighbori ng properties.
Commentary: The Norse Ordinance will define usable
exterior areas for single family and multiple family
residential and noise sensitive uses to include rear yards
and other outdoor areas intended to accommodate leisure
or active use, exclLtding front or side yard areas, and front
or side porches. Balconies or roof decks facing front and
side yards shall be included in designated areas to be
protected from noise where these spaces are used to
calculate compliance with required outdoor living area as
required by adopted development standards.
5of8
Paoe Ñovember 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections
9-17
NS-1-c Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise
Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of
greater than 7065d8 L6nor CNEL to be generally
unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses
for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study
alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if
othenruise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing
mitigation measures as determined by a site specific
acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or
generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required
45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 as
conditions of permit approval.
NS-1-c Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise
Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of
greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally
unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses
for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study
alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if
othenruise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing
mitigation measures as determined by a site specific
acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or
generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required
45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 as
conditions of permit approval.
9-18
NS-1-f Performance Standards. lmplement performance
standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise
sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels
from transportation sources above 65 dB L6¡ or CNEL, as
shown on Figure NS-3: Future Noise Contours, or as
identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on
the target acceptable noise levels set in Tables 9-2 and 9-3
and Policies NS-1-a throuqh NS-1-c.
NS-1-f Performance Standards. lmplement performance
standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise
sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels
from transportation sources above 65 dB L6¡ or CNEL, as
shown on Figure NS-3: Future Noise Contours, or as
identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on
the target acceptable noise levels set in Tables 9-2 and 9-3
and Policies NS-1-a through NS-1-c.
9-19
NS-1-¡ Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold
of significance for the City's environmental review process,
that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is
assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the
immediate vicinity by 5 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the
ambient noise limits established in this General Plan
Update.
NS-1-j Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold
of significance for the City's environmental review process,
that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is
assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the
immediate vicinity by 3 dB L6n or CNEL or more above the
ambient noise limits established in this General Plan
Update.
9-24
NS-2-d Bluff Preservation Overlay Zone. Per the
requirements of the Bluff Preservation Overlay Zone District
and Policy POSS-7-f (Chapter 5, Parks and Open Space),
the following standards shall be applicable for property
located within the Bluff Preservation zone
NS-2-d Bluff Preservation Overlay Zone. Per the
requirements of the Bluff Preseruation Overlay Zone District
and Policy POSS-7-Í (Chapter 5, Parks and Open Space),
the following standards shall be applicable for property
located within the Bluff Preservation zone:
6of8
Paqe November 25th Published Draft Proposed Corrections
10-19
While Fresno is surrounded by some of the most productive
agricultural land in the world, one in five residents in the
County of Fresno are "food insecure," and less than 10
percent of residential land in the city is within walking
distance to a qrocery store.
While Fresno is surrounded by some of the most productive
agricultural land in the world, one in five residents in the
county of Fresno is "food insecure," and less than 10
percent of residential land in the city is within walking
distance to a grocery store.
10-22
Public transit provides travels option for people who cannot
or choose not to drive, and can be a crucial means of
accessing health services as well as jobs and education.
Public transit provides travels options for people who cannot
or choose not to drive, and can be a crucial means of
accessinq health services as well as iobs and education.
10-23
The City Council adopted the Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails
Master Plan (BMP). Which serues as an administrative and
implementing guide, to increase the miles of bike lane
(along roadways) and bike paths (separate rights-of way)
available to bike riders.
The City Council adopted the Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails
Master Plan (BMP), which serues as an administrative and
implementing guide, to increase the miles of bike lane
(along roadways) and bike paths (separate rights-of way)
available to bike riders.
1 1-1 1
12.1.161 Nevertheless, the General Plan is not inconsistent
with this program.See LU-S and implementing policy LU-4-c
and HC-2-b.
12.1.16] Nevertheless, the General Plan is not inconsistent
with this program. See LU-S and implementing policy LU-4-
c and HC-2-b.
12-17
Density and intensity limits, consistent with the Plan's land
use classifications, will also being updated.
Density and intensity limits, consistent with the Plan's land
use classifications, will also be updated.
12-24
Due to these limitations, the City will need to establish a
method to monitor investment within infill areas, and
Growth Area '1 prior to approving development in areas
subject to the restrictions enumerated in the City/County
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Due to these limitations, the City will need to establish a
method to monitor investment within infill areas and Growth
Area 1 prior to approving development in areas subject to
the restrictions enumerated in the City/County
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
12-29
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing Policy]
Retain talented people and attract new talent to the city;
increase educational attainment and relevant job skill levels
in the Fresno workforce.[Add Policies ED-4-e, ED-4-f]
12-29
[Table 12-2 lmplementing Policy]
Coordinate, establish partnerships, and strengthen
relationships with other local and regional public and private
entities, including California State University, Fresno.lAdd Policies ED-4-e, ED-4-fl
7of8
Paoe November 25th Published'Draft
12-30
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Continue to implement housing programs that support a
diversity of neighborhoods, activities, and housing types in
the Fresno Planning Area, while accommodating
m arket/cost con strai nts.lAdd Policv LU-S-il
12-30
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Adopt and apply local urban form, land use, and design
policies to specific neighborhoods and locations.lAdd Policv D-7-bl
12-32
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Support the goods movement transportation system with
capacity increasing and inter-modal connectivity enhancing
improvements.lAdd Policv MT-1 1-fl
12-33
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Utilize existing and future public infrastructure efficiently,
and adopt priority improvement programs for neighborhoods
with the qreatest needs.[Add Policv RC-1-hl
12-34
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Protect agricultural land outside of the area planned for
urbanization under this General Plan.tAdd Policv RC-9-cl
12-36
[Table 1 2-2 lmplementing PolicY]
Adopt regulations and programs and support efforts to
create safe, healthy, and affordable housing, and to
improve property maintenance.lAdd Policies HC-4-e, HC-4-fl
G-13
Fresno Metropolitan Area. See Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan
Area (FCMA) for definition.
G-34 FAX: City of Fresno's Fresno Area Express FAX: Fresno Area Express
Land Use Change Request '
27- STaÍÍ recommended at the Planning Commission hearing held on December 8, 2014 fo update the incorrect land use
designation of Office with the correct designation of Commercial/General. The Planning Commission voted in favor of this
recommendation and on December 10,2014, the Staff Preferred Land Use has been changed to reflectthis decision.
3h2, 59, 211,46 and F12 - Staff recommended at the Planning Commission hearing held on December 8, 2014, to have the City
of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use revert backto the land use in the lnitiation Draft, dated August 9,2012'The Planning
Commission voted in favor of this recommendation and on December 10, 2014, the Staff Preferred Land Use has been changed
to reflect this decision.
8 of 8
P: T CIIVED
tiif iû Pn T c0
EXHIBIT M r'Tyclr,ì:i,FRE$Fjû cfi
Planning Commission Resolution
13313
FRESNO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 13313
The Fresno City Planning Commissio.l at itsregular meeting on December g, 2014,ad.opted the follorruingresolution relatilg .1g ReıommenOing"to tfiã-C¡t/ Councl-tnäAdoption of the Stafl Recommended Módifications to the fiesno Ceñeial plãn l_anãuse and circulation Map and the Associated Environmental nnãìysis. -
$|llFl_SL C,llY, staff prepared a modified Land Use and Circutation Map datedDecemþer 5, 2014, based on comments received from the public, land o*nórs äñOother stake holders; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared addit
Use and Circulation Map and concl
and Circulation Map did not result
what was assessed in the DEIR o
assessed in the DEIR; and
t to Fresno Municipal Code section 12-609,nning Commission was held to consideiing the FMEIR and proposed Fresno
to the Land Use and Circulation Map, ataff presentation as well as written'and
e public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that the Fresno City Planning Commissionfinds as follows:
1' The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.2' The Planning Commission recommènds to the city Counıil-aãoplion otthe modified Land Use and Circulation Map dated Däcember S,2O'14, aidassociated environmental review entitled 'iAppendix 1 Planneci LanO'ÙseRequests Environmental Evaluation.',3. The foregoing Resolution w?s adopted by the Fresno planning
Commission u.qol a motion by Commissioñer Reed,- seconOeO O|Commissioner Holt.
vorlNG åyes - F-"ed, catalano, Garcia, Torossian, vasquez, HoltNoes - Medina
Not Voting - None
Absent - None
DATED: December 8,2014
Filed By: 13313-
Action: Recommend Approval
'K. Clark, Secretary
City Planning Commission
EXHIBIT N
fiiCEIVED
: -4|l r¡.. .r
^, .,i !,., *U i'íJ I t0
C:;'r' Ci[11.., F,Ì[l¡:C Ci'
Planning Commission Resolution
13312
FRESNO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO 13312
The Fresno City Planning Commission at its regular meeting on December 8, 2014,
adopted the following resolution relating to Recommending the Certification of the Final
Environmental lmpact Report for the Fresno General Plan, the Adoption of a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, and the Adoption of the Fresno General Plan to the City
Council.
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, by Resolution No, 2002-378, the Council of the
City of Fresno updated the 1984 Fresno General Plan for the Fresno-Clovis
Metropolitan Area by adopting the 2025 Fresno General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 12-605-G of the City's Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance
(LPPO), found in Chapter 12, Arlide 6 of the Fresno Municipal Code, calls for the
periodic review, and revision as necessary, of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2012, the City Council initiated the update of the General
Plan based on the matters generally outlined in the 2035 Fresno General Plan lnitiation
Review Draft; and
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2014, the Planning Commission held a workshop on the Draft
Master Environmental lmpact Report (DEIR) and Draft Fresno General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 31 ,2014, the DEIR and Draft Fresno General Plan were published,
distributed, posted on the City's website and made available for review and comment by
responsible and trustee agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, persons and entities
requesting copies of said documents and the public, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15087; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the DEIR was filed with the State Office of Planning &
Research under State Clearinghouse No. 201211 1015; and
WHEREAS, on October 9,2014, the public review and comment period closed; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments received during the
comment period and included these responses in a separate volume entitled
"Responses to Comments on the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General
Plan and Development Code Update" which together with the DEIR and other
information required by CEQA Guidelines section 15132 constitutes the Final Master
Environmental lmpact Report (FMEIR); and
WHEREAS, on December 8,2014, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code section 12-608,
a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission was held to consider
recommendations to the City Council regarding the FMEIR and proposed Fresno
General Plan at which the Planníng Commission received a staff presentation as well as
written and extensive oral testimony from members of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED, that the Fresno City Planning Commission
finds as follows:
The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.
The Planning Commission recommends certification of the FMEIR and
adoption of the Fresno General Plan to the City Council based on the
following findings:a. That the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing and
reviewed the proposed Fresno General Plan pursuant to Section
12-609 of the Fresno Municipal Code; andb. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and analyzed the
FMEIR and other information in the entire record and has
considered the information contained therein, including the written
and oral comments received at the public hearing on the FMEIR
and the proposed Fresno General Plan, prior to acting upon and
recommending certification of the FMEIR and adoption of the
Fresno General Plan to the City Council; andc. That the Planning Commission has determined that the FMEIR is
adequate and sufficient and has been completed in compliance
with CEQA, and represents the independent judgment of the City of
Fresno.
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations that complies with the
requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15093 and that identifies the
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including
region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed General
Plan that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of
implementing the proposed General Plan, thus making the adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Fresno Planning
Commission upon a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by
Commissioner Holt.
VOTING Ayes - Reed, Catalano, Garcia, Torossian, Vasquez, Holt
Noes - Medina
Not Voting - None
Absent - None
DATED: December 8,2014
Resolution No. 13312
Fíled By: Jennifer K. Clark, City of Fresno
Action: Recommend Approval
1.
2.
3.
4.
K. Clark, Secretary
City Planning Commission
EXHIBIT O
RilCf IVED
:riti Ll:l iû fn T 00
Ti;Y CLiRI, FRIS¡{O CA
Certifying Final Environmental
lmpact Report (EIR) No. SCH
20121 11 015
Plan
prepared for the
Update and theGeneral
Development Code Update
FTCTIVED
¡f1'l Uil iû Pn T 00
EXHIBIT P c:Ty clrn:{,FRrs¡is c,l
Adopt¡ng the proposed Fresno
General Plan as an update to the
2025 General Plan, including all
text, policies, maps, tables, and
exhibits and contained in the
Fresno General Plan document
dated December, 2014
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN AS AN UPDATE TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING ALL TEXT, POLICIES,
MAPS, TABLES, AND EXHIBITS CONTAINED IN THE
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT DATED
DECEMBER 2014
WHEREAS, the California Planning and Zoning Law, specifically California
Government Code Section 65300, requires the City to adopt a comprehensive, long
term general plan for the City's physical development and for any land outside City
boundaries which bear relation to the City's planning; and
WHEREAS, On November 19, 2002, the City Council of the City of Fresno
(Council) adopted the2025 General Plan as a comprehensive update to the City's 1984
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 12, Atlicle 6, of the Fresno Municipal Code, known as the
Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance (LPPO), at Section 12-601, ef seq., governs
procedures for the adoption and amendment of general, community, and specific plans;
and
WHEREAS, Section 12-605-G of the LPPO calls for periodic review (and
revision, as necessary) of the City's general plan, and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2012, pursuant to LPPO Section 12-606, the Council
adopted Resolution No. 2012-150, initiating a comprehensive update to the 2025
General Plan, initially referred to as the 2035 General Plan, and now titled "Fresno
General Plan"; and
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
1of 7
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, the Fresno General Plan was initiated based upon the Preferred
General Plan Alternative presented in the 2035 General Plan lnitiation Review Draft,
and included all plan elements as a comprehensive update to the 2025 General Plan
(with the exception of the Housing Element, which has been processed, heard, and
enacted separately as required by State law); and
WHEREAS, the Fresno General Plan was selected as the preferred alternative
from four alternatives presented to the Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the LPPO, numerous plan modification
requests were received by the Development and Resource Management Department
which are identified in Exhibit A to the resolution titled "A Resolution of the Council of
the City of Fresno, California, Adopting Plan Modifications Recommended By Staff and
ldentified As 'City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use' in the 'Land Use Change
Requests' and 'Land Use and Circulation Map' Denying the Remaining Plan
Modifications"; and
WHEREAS, the City procured the assistance of a professional environmental
consultant to assist in the drafting and circulation of Master Environmental lmpact
Report (MEIR) SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan and Development
Code Update, and to include assessment of the initiated text, policies, land use and
circulation map amendments to the Fresno General Plan as well as potential future
changes to the initiated text, policies, land use and circulation map amendments to
various community and specific plans; and
WHEREAS, staff conducted a series of duly noticed Planning Commission
workshops, Council workshops, and public informational meetings on Draft MEIR SCH
2of7
No. 2012111015 and the Fresno General Plan including the proposed text, policies,
land use and circulation map for the Fresno General Plan, at which substantial public
input was received on the merits of the Fresno General Plan and Draft MEIR SCH No.
2012111015; and
WHEREAS, on December 1,2014, the Airporl Land Use Commission (ALUC)
determined that the Fresno General Plan is consistent with the ALUC's Sierra Sky Park
Land Use Policy Plan, ALUC's Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy
Plan and the ALUC's Fresno Air Terminal Land Use Policy Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Fresno City Planning Commission, pursuant to a duly noticed
and scheduled hearing on December 8, 2014, received public testimony and other
information and deliberated and considered the provisions of the Fresno General Plan,
the requested plan modifications and Draft MEIR SCH No. 201211 1015; and
WHEREAS, on December 8,2014, the Planning Commission made the following
recommendations to the City Council regarding the Fresno General Plan and MEIR
SCH No. 2012111015, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 133'12 and
13313 as follows:
1. That the City Council review and consider Master Environmental lmpact
Report (MEIR SCH No. 2012111015), apply the Council's independent judgment and
analyses to the review, and then certify the MEIR as having been completed in
compliance with CEQA, based on the Commission's recommendations on the proposed
Draft MEIR and comments thereon.
2. That the Council find that based upon testimony presented by staff, there
are significant, unavoidable environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to a
3 of7
level below significant. Therefore, the City Council should consider an appropriate
statement of overrid ing considerations.
3. That the Council adopt the proposed MEIR with all the recommendations
as presented by staff at the public meetings.
4. That the Council find that the proposed Fresno General Plan has been
prepared in accordance with the Local Planning and Procedures Ordinance (LPPO).
5. That the Council adopt the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to
the 2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits as
contained in the Fresno General Plan document dated December,2014.
6. That the Council adopt the plan modifications recommended by staff and
identified as "City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" on the "Land Use Change
Requests" and "Land Use and Circulation Map" and submitted pursuant to the
provisions of the LPPO to this report, and recommend that the Council deny the
remaining plan modifications.
7. To the extent that approval of the staff recommended plan modifications
requires updates to the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the
proposed Fresno Plan General Plan document in order to maintain consistency, the
Planning Commission further recommends that the Council authorize the Director of
Development and Resource Management Department or her designee to update those
items to reflect the final action taken by Council.
8. That the Council make the findings and take the action recommended in
relation to the MEIR (SCH NO. 2012111015).
4 of7
L That the Council consider the Planning Commission's additional
comments and recommendations as articulated; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2014, the City conducted a public hearing and
received public testimony and reviewed and considered the information in the Fresno
General Plan and related MEIR SCH No. 2012111015, including, but not limited to, the
"Response to Comments on the Draft Master Environmental lmpact Report General
Plan and Development Code Update" and "Planned Land Use Requests Environmental
Evaluation"; and all recommendations as presented by staff at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014 the City Council considered and discussed
the adequacy of the proposed Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 as an informational
document, reviewed the potential significant impacts of the Fresno General Plan and
Development Code Update as presented in the Final MEIR and takes the following
action to certify the Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015, as having been completed in
compliance with the Californian Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
1. All staff reports and analysis submitted in connection with this matter are
hereby incorporated by this reference.
2. The Council completed and closed its hearings on the Fresno General
Plan on December 11 ,2014, in accordance with all relevant provisions of the LPPO.
3. The Council finds that the Fresno General Plan has been prepared in
accordance with the LPPO and the provisions of Government Code Section 65302.
5of7
4. The Council adopts the Fresno General Plan (formerly the 2035 General
Plan) as an update to the 2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables,
and exhibits as contained in the Fresno General Plan document dated December 2014.
5. The Council adopts the plan modifications as set out in the resolution titled
"A Resolution of the Council of the City of Fresno, California, Adopting Plan
Modifications Recommended by Staff and ldentified as 'City of Fresno Staff Preferred
Land Use' in the 'Land Use Change Requests' and 'Land Use and Circulation Map'
Denying the Remaining Plan Modifications".
6. The Council makes the findings and takes the action recommended in the
attached exhibits and in the accompanying resolution relating to Final MEIR SCH No.
2012111015.
Hl
Ht
ilt
6 of7
STATE OF CALTFORNTA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
crTY oF FRESNO )
l, WONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
2014.
Mayor Approval:,2014
,2014
,2014
Mayor Approva l/No Return:
Mayor Veto:
Council Override Vote:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
WONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
2014
By:
Deputy
By:
Talia Kolluri-Barbick Date
Senior Deputy City Attorney
TKB:elb [66427e1b/tkb] Resolution 12'1014
7 o17
íi ICf IV ED
¿litl DtC i0 Pn T C0
EXH I BIT ö CLTR.{' FR.SI*O TA
Adopting plan modif¡cat¡ons
recommended by staff and
identified as "City of Fresno Staff
Preferred Land Use"the "Land
"LandUse Change Requests" and
Use and Circulation Map," and
denying the remaining plan
mod¡f¡cations
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PLAN
MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND
IDENTIFIED AS -CITY OF FRESNO STAFF PREFERRED
LAND USE' IN THE "LAND USE CHANGE REQUESTS"
AND "LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAP'' DENYING
THE REMAINING PI-AN MODIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, on August 23,2012, pursuant to LPPO section 12-606, the Council
of the City of Fresno adopted Resolution NO. 2012-150, initiating a comprehensive
update to the 2025 General Plan, initially referred to as the 2035 General Plan, and now
titled "Fresno General Plan"; and
WHEREAS, after initiation and pursuant to the provisions of the LPPO, numerous
plan modification requests were received by the Development and Resource
Management Depaftment; and
WHEREAS, City of Fresno Staff reviewed each plan modification request and
made a determination as to Staff's recommended land use designation for every parcel
that was the subject of a plan modification; and
WHEREAS, Staff, in conjunction with a professional environmental consultant,
reviewed the environmental impacts of adopting the plan modification requests, as set
forth in Final MEIR SCH No.2012111015 document "Planned Land Use Requests
Environmental Evaluation"; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2014, the Council of the City of Fresno heard staff
presentations and public comment regarding the Fresno General Plan and Final MEIR
SCH No.2012111015; and
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
1of 3
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, included in the staff presentation at the December 11,2014,
hearing, staff presented the Council with minor corrections to the "Staff Preferred Land
Use".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
1. The Council adopts the plan modifications identified as "City of Fresno
Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" table attached as Exhibit
A and "Land Use and Circulation Map" attached as Exhibit B, submitted pursuant to the
provisions of the LPPO, with the incorporation of the corrections recommended by Staff.
2. The Council denies the remaining plan modifications included in Exhibit A,
submitted pursuant to the provisions of the LPPO.
ul
ill
Ht
2 ol3
STATE OF CAL¡FORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.
crTY oF FRESNO )
l, WONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
2014.
Mayor Approval:,2014
Mayor Approval/No Retu rn :2014
Mayor Veto:,2014
,2014
WONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
Talia Kolluri Barbick Date
Deputy City Attorney
TKB:elb [66430e1b/tkb] Resolution 121014
Council Override Vote:
By:
3of3
F I CTIV ED
-ri1 [i;l iÛ Pn I 00
EXHIBIT R TTTYCLERä'FRESN. cA
Authorizi ng the Development and
Resource Management Director or
her deslgnee to update the text,
policies, maps, tables, and exh¡bits
contained in the Fresno General
Plan document to reflect the fi nal
action taken by Council, to the
extent that such updates are
necessary to maintain consistency
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DIRECTOR OR HER DESIGNEE TO UPDATE THE TEXT,
POLICIES, MAPS, TABLES, AND EXHIBITS CONTAINED
IN THE FRESNO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT TO
REFLECT THE FINAL ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL, TO
THE EXTENT THAT SUCH UPDATES ARE NECESSARY
TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno (City) has prepared a Fresno General Plan
document which contains the goals, objectives, policies, maps, tables and exhibits
necessary to fully describe the required components and clarifying details of the plan;
and
WHEREAS, City of Fresno Staff (Staff) has prepared a table of potential land use
designation changes that were either proposed by City of Fresno Staff or submitted to
the City by members of the community, and presented the same to the Planning
Commission and Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of
Fresno considered the Fresno General Plan, the proposed land use changes, and Final
MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 and recommended approval of the same to the Council of
the City of Fresno; and
WHEREAS, on December 11,2014, the Council of the City of Fresno heard staff
presentations and public comment regarding the Fresno General Plan, the proposed
land use changes, and Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015; and
Date Adopted:
Date Approved:
Effective Date:
City Attorney Approval:
1of 3
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, on December 18,2014, the Council of the City of Fresno completed
deliberations and took action on the Fresno General Plan, the proposed land use
changes, and Final MEIR SCH No. 2012111015; and
WHEREAS, changes to the Fresno General Plan and approval of land use
designation changes may require clerical updates to the text, policies, tables, maps and
exhibits contained in the Fresno General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as
follows:
1. The Director of the Development and Resource Management Department,
or her designee, is hereby authorized to update the text, policies, tables, exhibits, and
maps contained in the Fresno General Plan to reflect the final action taken by the
Council of the City of Fresno to the extent such changes are necessary to maintain
consistency.
2. The Director of the Development and Resource Management Department,
or her designee, is hereby authorized to update the land use map for the Fresno
General Plan to reflect the final action taken by the Council of the City of Fresno.
ut
ilt
ilt
2of3
**************
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
CITY OF FRESNO
l, WONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held
on the day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
2014.
SS.
Mayor Approval:2014
2014
2014
2014
Mayor Approval/No Return:
Mayor Veto:
Council Override Vote:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney
WONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Deputy
By:
Talia Kolluri-Barbick Date
Senior Deputy City Attorney
TKB:elb [66431e|b/tkb] Resolution 121014
3of3
=T*CíìV
ED
Agenda ltem: lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Date: LzlLLlL4
¡ìli\ D[t 1Û Pn 'l l'8
C1TY CLTçJ
CITY COUNCIL
Ë[,=olrs\r/,-fflE-=iE7¿¿N-
Supplemental lnformation Packet
Agenda Related ltems - tD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Supplemental Packet Date: December tO,2OI4
Item(s)
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, cityruide application
Supplemental lnformation :
Anyagenda related publicdocuments received and distributed to a majorityof the CityCouncilafterthe
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at 62I-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability,see Securitv.
fif CTIVED
¡ùiT ttr L0 Prj I 17
C|TY CL[Rï{, FRISHO CA
Sophia DeWitt
4910 N. Sequoia Avenue, #104
Fresno, CA 93705
(ssg) 222-904s
s ophi a_d ew iÍt@att.net
December I0,2014
Dear Fresno City Council Members:
I write in strong support of the Final 2035 General Plan now before you for consideration and
vote. The plan before you is the result of almost four years of an extensive public engagement
process, during which time all segments of the community have been heard-- in many diverse
languages-- including many hundreds of residents of our City's oldest neighborhoods in south
Fresno. While no plan is perfect, and much depends on implementation, the General Plan before
you is a good plan and a step in the right direction for our City-away from the sprawl pattem of
development that has charactenzed our city since World War II and towards reinvesting in our
city's oldest neighborhoods and their people.
In my role at Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries(FlRM), it was my pleasure,
beginning in 2010 and continuing until June of 2014 to work with many diverse residents of
South Fresno from Southeast Asian, African-American, Latino, indigenious and faith-based
backgrounds. We learned together about about City Planning terms, discussed what residents
wanted and needed in their neighborhoods in the future, studied each draft policy paper and
chapter of the plan, testified at public meetings of the General Plan Citizen's Committee, the
Planning Commission and City Council-as well as holding individual meetings with each of
you. Community members came up with a list of nine planning values including: Affordable
Variety of Housing Options, Anti-Displacement, Complete Neighborhoods, Funding for
Infrastructure, Healthy Air and Food, Local Jobs and Homegrown Businesses, Parks and Open
Space, Safety and Transportation. Based on these values, South Fresno neighbors asked for
specific policies to be included in the final General Plan
These values were represented in the planning theme selected by Council in April, 2012,
Altemative A, modified. I am gratified to see that these values, as well as specific policies
requested by the community in the last two years, are included in the General Plan before you.
Specifically,l am pleased to see that while the goal is for half of new growth to occur within City
Limits, there are also annual reports to the Council and community to make sure the plan is on
track. (UF, 12) The plan also requires fiscal impact analyses for all proposed annexations of land
and General Plan ammendments, an important test of the f,rscal sustainability of new growth.
(ED-5-e) The plan includes a policy for proactive code enforcement, something that community
members who daily live in substandard housing have long desired. (LU,4), along with support
for community-based testing programs for housing related illnesses, such as childhood lead
poisoning and respiratory health conditions. (HC-3-b)
Sophia DeWitt
4910 N. Sequoia Avenue, #104
Fresno, Cl^93105
(sse) 222-e04s
s ophi a_dew itt@att.net
Many residents in South Fresno rely on public transportation, and had asked that the plan
prioritize improvements to the City's public transportation system and basic infrastructure in
older neighborhoods. I am pleased to see that the plan prioritizes the needs of transit and
pedestrians, including such things as support for Bus Rapid Transit, sidewalk improvements so
that children can get to school safely and additional bike trails in neighborhoods with low vehicle
ownership rates. I am also pleased to see that the plan prioritizes land use patterns that make
more efftcient use of the transportation system and discourages investment in infrastructure that
does not meet these criteria. (RC-2-a)
Residents have consistently asked for more parks and open space in south Fresno so that children
and families would have safe places to play. The plan responds to this request by setting a goal
of 5 acres of parks/I,000 residents, with 3 acres/l,000 residents within a half mile of homes.
(POSS-2-b) Priority would be given to neighbohoods with low public health scores. (HC-7-a)
This would be a huge improvement in park space in Fresno, which currently ranks last among
cities in Califomia-and where some neighborhoods in Southwest Fresno have as little as 0.6
acres/l,000 residents of open space currently. Increased park space in older neighborhoods will
help impove health of residents.
I am also pleased that the final General Plan retains an entire chapter devoted to Healthy
Communities, which recognizes the role of residents and their health in the success of the City.
This chapter also includes several other community requests including Neighborhood
Associations to assist in the implementation of the plan (HC-1-a) and increased siting of medical
facilities in South Fresno, that can serve the diverse communities of Fresno with cultural
sensitivity and competence, (HC- 1 -d, HC-3 -e).
The 2035 General Plan before you is the "People's Plan", representing the hopes of residents
across Fresno for a healthier City, with opportunities for all. I urge you to vote for the plan at
your next Council meeting on December l8th, setting the stage to turn the page to implementation
in2015. I look forward to continuing to work with the City and diverse residents of Fresno on
the implementation of this plan, to assure that it lives up to its promise of improving Fresno's
future.
Sincerely,
Rev. Sophia DeWitt
CC: Ashley Swearingin, Mayor, City of Fresno
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
PM
¿til Dtt i0 Pn T 17
CITY CLEÊI{, FRISNO CA
One more supplement.
From: Trai Her
Sent: Wednesday, December I0, 2014 4:05 PM
To: Yvonne Spence
Subject: GP letter - FW: Butler/Villa
Another letter
From: Arnoldo Rodriguez
Sent: Wednesday, December 10,2014 3:58 PM
To: Trai Her
Cc: Talia Kolluri
Subject: FW: Butler/Villa
PIease add to Council report
From: seisavo@vahoo.com lmailto:seisayp@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December I0,20L4 3:57 PM
To: Arnoldo Rodriguez
Subject: Butler/Villa
Hello, hope you are having a good day. We leave here in the neighborhood of Butler/Villa and
Minnewawa. We see the proposed plan for this area and hope it changes. This area cannot take high density
development. As it is their is a lot of car activity without the proposal and with the proposal it will get
worse. This area is truly for low density development. It would be great if the city can put a great park in these
locations, but I know money and safety is an issue. But I'm sure their is a way around that.
I thank you for your hard work and hope the planning department will do what is right for our neighborhood as
if they leaved here also.
Have a great and productive rest of the week.
Thanks
Sent frcm rny Verizon Wireless 4G LTE srnartphone
Yvonne Spence
Wednesday, December 10,201.4 4:08
Cindy Bruer
FW:GP letter - FW: Butler/Villa
December 10,2074
Ms. Jennifèr K, Clark, AICP
Director of Development
City of Fresno Development & Resource Management Depafitnent
2600 Fresno Street, Roorn 3065
Ftesno, CA9372I
S['JBJECT: Siena Nut House Property NEC Siena and Chestnut Avenues
Dear Ms, Clark,
DIRK POESCHEL 923 Yan Ness Avenue, Suite 200 . Frcsno, Califomia 93721
Land Dewlopmenl Seruices, Inc 5591445-0374 . Fax: 559/445-0551 . e-mail: dpoeschel@dplds.com
C)
=
C)r-m:o
;
7Jm
<n
O
(lÞ
Reference is made to the 3 .57 ac.;re parcel at 3034 East Sierra Ave, owned by my client
Ms. Joann Sorrenti, Since 1974, Ms. Sorrenti has operated Sierra Nut House at the
aforementionecl location. The site is zoned AE-5 ancl designated in the current City of
Fresno General Plan for medium density residential uses.
Ms, Sorrenti's requests that thc subject property be clesignated for ofÍice uses as part of
the city's gencral plan update process. We sincerely apologize for making this late
request. Due to Ms, Sorrenti's focus on business and related matters, she simply did not
recognize the opportunity to modify the proposed land-use designation as part of your
general plan update process.
The proposed change to officc is justihed due to the property's location proximate to the
three major hospitals serving our community and excellent access to State Route I68 and
Hemdon Avenue. The site is irnmediately adjacent to Fresno State University.
The site has an irregular shape with a canal along the northern borcler and will require
significant road dedications, Such factors severely affect the ability of the property to
yicld adequate number of residential units. Based on conversations Ms. Sorrenti has had
with local real estate brokers, a high quality ofhce project would likely be very successful
on the subject site.
Water consumption and trafflrc generation are insignificant as it relates to the evaluation
of plan uses in the general plan update environmental impact reporl. A simplilied review
of the project site suggests that approximately 8 offices of 5000 ft.' or less would likcly
be developed on the subject site. The same review suggests that approximately 34
residential units would be developed on the Sorrenti property.
â
F]
T
rTìtl
C]
frl(]-)
c)
-u
=]-
{
December 10,2014
Ms. Jennifer Cla¡k, AICP
Director of Deveþment
Page2
Ms. So¡renti and I apologize for our late request btû believc this proposal tns de minimr¡s
impacts, provides a moTe logical use of the property and should therefore be srryported by
city staff. Thark you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions
please feel free to contactmc.
I trust this ove,rr¡iew has been of assistance. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Oun ft.
Dirk Poeschel, AICP
Attachment
cc. \ds. Jsann Sorrenti
cc. CouncilmanLeeBrand
g:\wpdocs\siena nut house expansion l4-60\conespondence\12-10.14 darft jennifer clark l@er-do€(
I r3 S., R.2tÊ. n D, B. a n.làt fu)e Atoo
t.n
-rcfl-naìf a1ú,,f,Ertt''lI',arrtllDtra.cr'|f/'llarrf/'Ðtr''
llOÊ-lr üt åd ilsrÊrr i¡crn h Etilln..,bl Ècd ftunô¡r $rn h Orrlr.
4I
F"
8,.
Ë
-ll¡l.¡EÐ
J
Ë
aa'
t-Illlt,
H(t
Ë
ìlltîl
I l,e t
@
ta
o
,lt
o
lr
Ø
ø
2t
Ø
a
ø
t
Øto¡
i
4rt/*ttr'rdÜ*¡'tl'.,
u@,
lTntat I @ @
0a
a ,toa] a,
at
I taact at
c7@trtøat t[-t
9
fl
.*
,r?*+@
tt. .t'
@i
- (nt
@>.L
a,
l't- &
Øtt'tutt
a
l rat'' Ò,@
¿rt
lrl@ at
@
{
taara at
,t@
IIENLO AYE.'|
Jaa
I t ottt lt
@
aa
laøat
o
$twat
Ø
al
I tcrat at
ø
@
Llt
i ttottt ot
,t'l -. --
@
4l.øat
ø
1lîr'',at
e
Ilto ilnaÐat
aat,
t A¡
a.t4 .3
9lrn!
-,
Tt ìto.æt _-_ptgt e*!o, fr, ooTræ¡ lto æ- pta¡ Bt-.E , tþ. d-'-
Ørtrly ol Fntp, Øllî,
Trai Her
From:
Sent:
lo:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cecilia Lopez
Wednesday, December I0, 2014 1:37 PM
Jennifer Clark; Trai Her; Arnoldo Rodriguez
FW:3283 N. Marks
attachment_l- 478236904383_image001,png; image00L-2.png
Please see below email. Thank you,
From : Tony Terzia n fmailto :tt_0553@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 70,2014 10:48 AM
To: Cecilia Lopez
Subject: 3283 N, Marks
Hi Cecilia,
Could you kindly forward this email to Jennifer Clark and the members ofthe planning commission. Thank you.
'fhank you for the opportunity to speak at the platrning commission meeting on Monday evening. I arn writing so that you may
reconsider your decision on3282 N. Marks Avenue. As you know, the area along Marks avenue is Ml and Commercial, while the
area along Pleasant street is residential. With that in mind, may I propose that the west parcel to be M I and keep the east parcel the
same so that more uniformity is givin to the zoning in the arca. This would complement the area on both Marks and Pleasant street
well as is creates a smooth buffer between the two areas. I have attached an aerial photo that demonstrates the plan. If you have any
further questions, please let me know. Thank you for you consideration,
Tony Terzian
-\'r
(? -ç
4 V) ttJ rn .^t
; Ç') [rlr'ñsoä
^;3"ã -r rrl.n -E f-'l
OPc) co
I
I
I
I
t_l
i)
F.RESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
File 400.20
Decembcr 10, 2014
Jennitbr K Clark, Director
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
Dear Ms. Clark,
Additional Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Comments
on the City of Fresno's 2035 General Plan Update Land Uses
This letter is in response to the letter you sent to the District on November 26,2014 in regards to
reviewing the latest digital version of the 2035 General Plan Update, The District would like to
reiterate our previous comments regarding land use densification.
In solne instances, where land use densities at'e increasing above the current land uses that were
previously adopted and implemented tllough the existing General Plan, drainage mitigation may
be reqr,rired. For example, within a District developed drainage system that the pipeline was
designed, sized and constructed for approved medium density residential and a development
proposal comes in f'or a higher density development such as cornmercial, mitigation would most
likely be required. Mitigation options ale usually a District condition that is required through the
ploject entitlement permitting process. The following is a sample of the standard Distlict
language used and includes the requested mitigation options;
The District's Master Plan drainage system for the areaof the subject site is designed to
serve medium density residential uses. The existing Master Plan fàcilities do not have
adequate capacity to serve the proposed land use of the subject project. The District
requests, as a condition of the subject development, the Developer be required to mitigate
the impacts of the increased runoff fiom the proposed use to a rate that would be
expected if developed in conformance with the Master Plan, The Developer may either
make improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may
use some type of permanent peak reducing fäcilities in order to eliminate adverse impacts
on the existing system. Should the Developer choose to construct a permanent peak
reducing facility, the Developer will need to provide a peak reducing pond to mitigate the
additional runoff. Such a system would be required to reduce runoff from a ten-year (10)
storm produced by the development, to a two-year (2) discharge which would be
produced by the property if developed in conformance to the District's Master Plan. The
Developer will be required to submit improvement plans to the District for review and
approval showing the proposed method of mitigation.
K:\Lener s\City Of Fresno General Plan\General Plan Update 2035 Cornrnents l2- I l-20l4.Docr(
l'\)
a) -E
ãc-l-n
1 T'1 lv
cl c? frl(' t--¡qcr;í-;.- | r¡
'ryt,/11 _-Y <-
- -j rrlu, __E l-l'o
c) co
5469 E. OLIVE . FRESNO, C^93727 . (559) 456-3292. FÐ((559) 456-3194
Ms. Jennifer Cl¡rk
Ilecember 10,2014
Pnge2
The above language is just an example of medir¡m dcnsity æsidential to a higber
density. Other types of land uses other than medir¡ur fusity rcsiertial rezone to higber
land use densities may also be subject to drainage mitigation rcqulrcmens. has looked at
each individuat requested tand usc change sent by th City of F¡cmo ad by the Disüict
on December 1,2014 to determine how it impacts tb Dishict's sys[em- A of those proposed
pro.iects uùere mitigation may be required are atlached.
Please implement this letter as an attachment to the 2035 Gcr¡er¿l Plm . Thank you for
the oppornrnity to comment.
Very truly youn¡,
VlhMé-
Wendell Lum
Maser Planning & Special Projects Manager
WL/BN/lrl
Attachmen(s)
f:Uclcrsìc¡ry dfcsto Bstcret d¡rÞæd pln rAdlc ãl35 m ¡2-llãll
1.¡L l, lål l¡r
Cl¡[.ht.a Cì.{.h#rasl¡'rshlll ¡{l¡}
ls, tôr ltt 0 ¡lilllfàhlly
la¡ll ffilðù.ll4l4¡k
å¿ Ux ó{a. t.qrÍ lþ ol ¡rü Sl{ trú.r.¿ ¡¡.¿ lre
ù¡l#r
^¡tr.a 'l¡tac¡
t¡d Il||¡h
clæhll ct {.Lw¿r¡rqffilll tdll,
*úru.¡.r|il
Iti 'ksfdrË C¡ryhIJar¡h*lrl
N 9oull ol$aw Cllv
t t,l loftl.lttñûûl 0
ilL{
0
¡0
I Ë l,ot ir! Mrdrufrl¿ 1l Þoblr fidill !¡ra N 9òu(fr619ù.* t[Y Mlllrl¡((1
ir! MÈdruil lðw (i ll tðffìñ
tðnhpdl(I 9)Ollil{ t
3 a Etth trhh
p¡ht10ì i!! MtútühßJil EI
0at 0
tl ¡t
¡ t¡åt **"--*":':lì:shdsfltlhr$Mhsd uÉ #BúrÁlnúllhrd ulr Mult hhrlt rÅ I ihfl¡ t[Y Mllt.Èt(M
¿9 Ht¡ñWat ¡ Âutd ñ6trı- w--EI
9¡
gôUth ot 9ff.T Cilt
I ?09¡tt3
t009 ¡{, Mldluñ to*t9 0 c$
,N
il Nöiliot sñr, cily
¡¡9 129 0 n ilôilñ bll¡¡* Cl
t
¡a! M.dr0nHr¡hlt,rri
l.¡ l6 66 cñhuiilyeffihlrcl.l(t l!,!¡ Mrdruh ro lt,6{mñ.frt.| 0 o M![!hñ¡li N ilôilù ol th.* tlv MDRdO & MIII}R
'N
1., M.dlunlt la¡ P.itr.l0 r l4,r ll rr¡ i.t !t .¡,Mdrùóro* 17 0 !ra! l.dly ñ Nðnh dr$¡* Clv )N
tii
a:tt1fi
{ft¡ tr¡l¡¡n F¡ ¡rr! ulnN prqrn ràÞ llff
ll ill! öülderP¡Allil
iz1Êz=
Er,ZZ,è e=
',=r22=.¿
ËiiãEÉEt¿" i
i¿=li
E:i!Et¿!
Ê E E.'
È!! ì
t :r
e
Î.¡L ¡r l$¡ Ur C¡sa. l.{srtr ' Clï oa fi.ru l,t.ll
Îl¡L ll td¿ ur Clmt. t.qf,!ú . t*{¿r¿ lhd lll.|l l¡f
lrttr,úUr. tß¡ú vr i.lúþ1.Ù úrifry
p tr rìElv EDí1it-w
zllltl Ûtt 10 Pn T 18
November 70,2074
CITY CLERK, FRESI{O CA
fennifer K. Clark, AICP
Director, Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA937ZI
RE: Proposed Land Use Changes in the Draft General Plan Update
ATT: Miss Clark
Canyon and Minnewawa remain as Office.
Thå proposed Corridor Center Mixed Use application in the 2035 Generaì PÌan Update, which would
require 16-30 units an acre and unspecified commerciaì uses, is not compatible with the adjacent
ìow-densily residential uses.
Both parcels are currently located in the County, zoned for Residential/Professional (R/P) Single
Story Office onìy. The parcel on the corner is developed with a single farnily home and the parcel to
the east is vacant. The remainder ofthe block to the east and the entire block to the south is
deveìoped with single family homes and is designated as low-density residential with R1AH zoning
(minimum 20,000 square foot parcels, horses allowedJ. R/P is compatible with the residential area
and would serve the community with additional offìce space depending on the preference of the
landowner. The adopted 2025 Ciry General Plan designates the two parcels as office.
Careful consideration ís needed to ensure that all proposed land uses are consistent with one ofthe
primary goals ofthe General PIan update, to preserve neighborhood character and protect
community values.
Respectfull¡
,/' ',,' :.,'
-. 'J.,1,, iL(¿i.t.', *n
(6^f ù.JL*ü-
Sue and Kurt Williams
5437 E. Montecito Avenue
Fresno, CI^93727
Cc: Supervisor Debbie Poochigian
ftlcllv[D
Post Office Box 8074
_ Squaw Valley, California 93675
:'i1ï Dll iÛ iR '1 13
December 10,2014
CITY tLIl;i' FíìitS::ü ;i\
Fresno City Council
c/o Fresno City Clerk
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
SUBJECT: WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LAND USE CHANGE REQUEST #32
I am submitting this letter as a California Registered Environmental Health Specialist (#4916),
as a private person, not as a City employee. I am writing this letter to support the staff's and
the Planning Commission's recommendation that Land Use Change Request #32 be denied.
The applicants always have the opportunity to use the plan amendment process, with a
complete assessment, to evaluate and deal with landfill contamination and allow future
development.
The applicant for Planned Land Use Change #32 is requesting "corridor mixed use," which
would provide for residential development to occur in conjunction with commercial use
(dwelling units would be built on this site if "mixed use" were approved). The subject property
is not on one of the identified transit corridors in the General Plan; it is at the edge of the urban
area, an area where there is no planned intensification of through traffic. That makes the
requested "Corridor mixed use" inconsistent with the site's location.
The main issue for #32 is that this property was once used for disposal of waste. Testing of
soil vapor on the property revealed not only methane, but also the presence of vinyl chloride.
Vinyl chloride forms when trichloroethylene (TCE) solvent decays underground. Vinyl chloride
is flammable, but the main concern for long-term exposure (of residents, including children) is
that vinyl chloride is an identified carcinogen.
ln general, contaminated properties have to be tested and remediated prior to re-use. The
level of study and remediation required for residential use is much higher than the requirement
for most commercial uses, or for industrial use.
State regulations specific to solid waste facilities require that a Post Closure Landfill Plan be
approved by the State (CalEPA) or its Lead Enforcement Agency before property can be re-
used after landfill activity is discontinued. To date, no acceptable Post-Closure Landfill Plan
for this site has been provided to the Lead Enforcement Agency.
Approving this site for "mixed use" would be to plan it for residential units (under the General
Plan definition of "mixed use"). However, the plan modification (land use change) request
process did not include detailed site assessments.
Letter supporting staff and Planning Commission recommendation on Land Use Change No. #32
December 10,2014
Page 2
The plan modification process should not be used to evade the health protections of state law
relating to former landfill sites. These land use change requests were not accompanied by
technical reports or studies, were not routed to responsible and trustee agencies for individual
evaluation, and do not have conditions or mitigations which would provide for public health and
safety.
California Environmental Quality Act case law does not allow deferral of analysis or mitigation
when a discretionary decision is being made on a matter where there are known potential
adverse effects.
Given the information that is provided for consideration of Land Use Change #32, it is not clear
vinyl chloride exposures could be prevented or managed to protect human health.
What is clear is, vinyl chloride is present; what is known is, long-term exposure to vinyl chloride
could affect human health.
Also, if this site were approved for "mixed use," but if it could never be approved for
construction of residences, then the City could find itself in the situation of not allowing a use
which it had designated on the property. Years ago, this scenario was found to be a
"regulatory taking" and the City ended up losing the "Blosser" case, at great expense.
As an environmental health professional,
Sincerely,
5u,,,rS^r%u l<
Sandra L. Brock
Attachments
Plan Change Request #32
Requesting "Corridor M¡xed Us e"
...located on the
terminus of North
Palm Avenue.
This site is not on
a ny tra nsit corridor
identified in the GP.
Problematic location for residential use!
Site #32 is the location of a former landf¡ ll, where
methane and vinyl chloride gases are in the soil
.Ll-/:t'\/>
Ë
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Malthew Roctrlguoz
Secretary for
Envlronmental Protgctio¡l
Deborah O. Raphael, Director
1515 Tollhouse Roacl
Clovis, California 9361 1
Edntund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
As described in the Amendment, the future development would consist "of a mixed use
retail and residential project consisting of approximately 7 thousand squaro feet of retail
space on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for multiple farnily
residential dwelling and residential amenities." lnformation included in the report
indiætes that the footprint of the subject development will partially overlie a landfill
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
has determined that vinyl chloride is a known
carcinogen. The lnternational Agency for Research on
Cancer has determined that vinyl chloride is
carcinogenic to people. The U.S. EPA has determined
that vinyl chloride is a human carcinogen.
htt www.atsdr.cdc.ovlPHS/PHS.as ?¡d=280&tid=51
The California Health Screening Level for vinyl chloride
is 1-3 micrograms per cubic meter.
ln the subsoil of site #32, vinyl chloride was found at
460 and Lzo micrograms per cubic meter.
Contamination at Site #32 has not been
evaluated to the satisfaction of
DTSC or other regulato ry agencies.
No Post-Closure Land Use Report
has been approved by
sol¡d waste enforcement agencies
to provide for future residential use.
CEQA case law does not allow defeffal of
studies or mitigation of ident¡f¡ed
problems to future appl¡catiorìs.
g
Matthew Rodriquez
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
May 9,2012
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Supervisíng Planner
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 8065 AND BO75 NORTH PALM AVENUE, FRESNO
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:
This is in regards to your e-mail dated April 23, 2012wherein it is requested that
Depadment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) staff review environmental related
documents associated with a proposed development at the above noted location. The
documents include a "Plan Amendment Submittal" that was routed originally for public
review between August 5,2011 and August 1s,2011, and one dated Ãpril ã, 2012 and
titled "Limíted Soil Vapor lnvestigation Report."
As described in the Amendment, the future development would consist "of a mixed use
retail and residential project consisting of approxim ately 7 thousand square feet of retail
space on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for multiple family
residential dwelling and residential amenities." lnformation included ¡n ine report
indicates that the footprint of the subject development will partially overlie a landfill
known as the Spanos Landfill, which is near the northwest intersection of North palm
Avenue and West Ness Avenue in Fresno. The report presents the results of two soil
gas samples that were collected at a depth of about 30 feet below the ground surface,
The report notes that methane was detected "at concentrations of 21% of total gases in
sample SVP-1 and 17% of total gases in sample SVP-2." The indicated lower explosive
limit (LEL) for methane is approximately 5%. Vinyl chloride was reported at
concentrations of 460 ug/m3 in SVP-1 and 120 ug/m3 in SVP-2. The California Human
Health Screening Level for vinyl chloride in a residential setting is 13 ug/m3. Estimated
risks based on a Johnson and Ettinger model that is due to vapor intruéion to indoor air
is presented. These risks were apparently calculated using the "Johnson and Ettinger
(J&E) soil gas screening model EPA version 2.0."
¡lP:cm
MP02512
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
"IY:ty>
ã
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Deborah O. Raphael, Director
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, California 9361 1
O I-'llt(er,l on l"ìr..r;ylír:ci lr;:f,ll
Ms. Sophia Paqoulatos
May 9,2012
Page 2
DTSC staff comments for consideration are as follows.1. lt is not clear if the estimated risks are for a commercial/industrial setting or if
they are for an unrestricted, residential setting. Many of the parameters utilized
for the modeling are not included in the report text. DTSC has a modified
Johnson and Ettinger model on its web site that should be used. The accuracy
of the risk calculations were not reviewed by DTSC staff or a DTSC toxicologist.
It is not clear if the estimated risks are cumulative risks, which sum the risks
posed by all of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in the two
samples collected. lf not, then the risks may be underestimated.
2. Collection of additional soil gas samples is warranted and there is a need to
assess the extent of soil gas contamination. This should include the collection of
relatively shallow soil gas samples, such as from a depth of about 10 feet below
ground surface.
3. A risk analysis should be completed after the extent of soil gas contamination is
collected.
4. lf appropriate, remedial actions or mitigation measures should be evaluated and
ímplemented. Mitigation measures that may be appropriate can be found in the
DTSC document titled Final Guidance for the Evaluation & Mitigation of
Subsurface Vapor lntrusion to lndoor Air. A copy of this document can be found
at http ://www.dtsc.ca. gov/SiteC I ea n u p/Va por I ntrus ion. cfm,
5. lf needed or desired DTSC can enter into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with
the proponent to oversee needed activities such as soil gas assessment work
and risk analysis. The Agreement would identify a scope of work and include
provisions for reimbursement of DTSC staff oversight costs.
6. ln 2007, assessment and remediation work was competed at a nearby property
located at 675 West Nees Avenue, near the south east corner of North Palm
Avenue and West Nees Avenue, Fresno. The work was overseen by County of
Fresno representatives. The results of the assessment activities and a summary
of the remediation work is summarized in a report dated February 7, 2008 and
titled "Subsurface lnvestigation Report, Building 4.1.' A single soil gas sample
was collected in soil at a location below where contaminated soil and other
materials (approximately 300-55 gallon drums) were removed, Volatile organic
compounds were detected, including vinyl chloride at a concentration of 51,000
ug/m3 and trichloroethylene at a concentration of 23,000 ugim3' This may be
important to consider if additional assessment work is conducted at the subject
property.
lvlP:m
MP02.512
Ms. Sophia Paqoulatos
May 9,2012
Page 3
lf you have any quest¡ons, please contact me at (559) 297-3958 or by e-mail at
mpfister@dtsc.ca. gov.
Sincerely,
)/'UJ*,} ?/ffi-
Michael Pfister, PG, CEG
Engineering Geologist
San Joaquin & Legacy Landfills Office
Clovis Office
cc: Ms. Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist lll
Environmental Health Division
County of Fresno
1221Fulton Mall
P.O. Box 11867
Fresno, California 9377 5
Mr. RussellWalls, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
1685 E Street
Fresno, California 93706
Mr. Tim Miles
Hazardous Substances Scientist
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
8800 CalCenter Drive
Sacramento, California 95826
MP:m
MP02 512
City ofEEDEGII.I>'"'---rfrEiEfiãiF Develop ent and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor Jennifer K. Clark
Fresno, California 93721-3604 Director
(559) 621-8003, FAX (559) 498-1026
Please Replv To:
Mike Sanchez
(5s9) 621-8040
mi ke. sanch e z@f resn o. g ov
April 1 ,2014
Bradley Roznovsky
New Generations Group, LP and Oscar Spano Trust
7545 North Del Mar Avenue, Suite 206
Fresno, California 93711
Greg Quiring
The Quiring Corporation
51 18 East Clinton Way, Suite 201
Fresno, California 93727
Gentlemen,
SUBJECT: Plan Amendment Application No. A-11-08 and Rezone Application
No. R-1 1-01 1 regarding approximately 4.4 acres of property located on
the northwest corner of the intersection of West Nees and North Palm
Avenues
The Development and Resource Management Department has met internally to ensure that
there is a common understanding regarding the plan amendment and rezone applications
for the aforementioned project, including the subject property's location, land use history,
and the status of surrounding properties with regard to assessment of contamination and
remediation.
As you are aware, technical reports have been submitted to various responsible agencies
for their review and comment. These agencies include the following:
. Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division (EHS) as
Lead Enforcement Agency (LEA) for state solid waste disposal regulations
promulgated by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle);
. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD);
. California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); and
. California Water Board/Central Valley RegionalWater Quality Control (RWOCB).
Comments from these entities have been previously provided to you and have been
attached for your information.
Plan Amendment Application No. A-1 1-08 and Rezone Application No. R-1 1-01 1
April 1 ,2014
Page 2
Because the former solid waste disposal activity at the subject property ceased prior to the
effective date of certain water quality regulations, RWQCB advised that it wold not be
involved in resolving contamination issues at the subject property unless it is discovered that
groundwater beneath this site is contaminated with substances derived from material
previously disposed of on the subject property.
The responsible and trustee agencies all related that key information has not been supplied
that would have a bearing on their interpretation of these and future studies of the subject
property. The information needed includes: A site diagram (site plan) showing the location
of the proposed building on the subject property, areas to be paved for parking and access,
and areas intended for passive or active use of building residents
. A site diagram (site plan) showing the location of the proposed building on the subject
property, areas to be paved for parking and access, and areas intended for passive
or active use of building residents.
o Elevation detail, particularly design detail of the elevators for the future building
(including subterranean construction and type of lift mechanism to be employed)
. Existing topography of the subject property and intended future topography of the
subject property, to reveal whether existing filled areas will be excavated and where
any new fill material may be placed
. Geotechnical information for soils beneath the proposed building, parking lots, and
on-site open space areas intended for use of future building residents.
ln the absence of concurrence from responsible and trustee agencies regarding the
presence and health risk of contaminants at the subject property, our department cannot
determine the extent of potential environmental impacts of this project or levels of
significance of those impacts.
While it is understood that the preparation of a conditional use permit may be difficult at this
time, the typical information that is found on the permit application would supply necessary
information, and would clarify other issues relating to the project such as grading, and
construction details of the proposed buildings (e.9., how they relate to abutting San Joaquin
River Parkway property).
It is strongly recommended that the project applicants facilitate discussions with the
respective agencies and provide any additional documentation, such as topographical
information and a revised, site-specific Post Closure Plan needed to complete their
respective evaluations.
Staff will suspend further processing of this project until the necessary information has been
provided and reviewed by the respective agencies. lf you have any questions, or wish to
meet with us regarding this project, please feel free to contact me at the number listed above.
Plan Amendment Application No. A-1 1-08 and Rezone Application No. R-1 1-01 1
April 1 ,2014
Page 3
Mike Sanchez
Planning Manager
Enclosures: December 19, 2013 emailfrom Michael Pfister, DTSC
December 19,2013 email from Patia Siong, APCD
December 20,2013 email from David Warner, APCD
December 23,2013 letter from Janet Gardner, EHS
December 30,2013 email from Alfred Worcester, CalRecycle
c. Ed Bergthold, Fresno Supreme/New Generations Group LP
Joseph J. Miller, SCS Engineers
Alvin P. Solis, Sol Development Associates
Janet Gardner, REHS, Fresno County Certified Unified Permit Agency
Michael Pfister, DTSC Clovis regional office
David Warner, APCD
Dan Carlson, RWQCB
Sandra Brock
Subject: FW: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for
the "New Generations" Project
From: Pfister, Michael@DTSC I
Senh Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:29 PM
To: Sandra Brock
Cc: Shaddy, Kevin@DTSC
SubJech RE: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for the "New
Generations" Project
Hi Sandra,
ISUBJECT:] REVIE\ry OF ..VAPOR INTRUSION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF INTERSECTION OF WEST NEES
AVENUE AND NORTH PALM AVENUE, FRESNO DATED OCTOBER 1,2013; AND
REVIEW OF "RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATION'' SUBMITTAL DATED AUGUST 28,
2013
Per your request I have completed a cursory review of the above two documents. Comments
regarding review of the August submittal are as follows.
1. The vinyl chloride reporting limit for the active soil gas survey conducted at the site
using a mobile lab was 100 ug/m3. This exceeds by about one order of magnitude
most screening levels that are used for evaluating vapor intrusion to indoor air
conditions.
2. All soil gas samples were collected from a depth of approximately 5 feet below ground
surface. The shallow lithology at the site is not described. The shallow lithology is
important for determining the appropriate interval(s) for collecting soil gas samples.
This is often determined by the collection of continuous cores prior to the start of the
survey. Review of the shallow lithology is used for determining the depth intervals
from which the soil gas samples should be collected.
3. Soil samples from the interval from which the sampling occurred were apparently not
collected. Site specific soil parameters such as moisture content, porosity and
hydraulic conductivity are usually needed for properly estimating the potential vapor
intrusion risk using the Johnson and Ettinger model.
4. Surface emission testing for methane was conducted. There may be some benefit to
collecting ambient air samples and analyzing them for chlorinated VOCs.
5. Soil gas samples were collected from the apparent three permanent vapor wells at the
site. VOC analysis was apparently not performed.
Comments regarding review of the October submittal are as follows.
1. A DTSC toxicologist or equivalent should complete a peer review of the submittal.
2. The exposure point concentrations for the contaminants that were used for the
presented risk calculations are listed. The concentration used for vinyl chloride was
320 ug/mS and was calculated using a 95 UCL. The maximum concentration detected
at concentrations about reporting limits was 550 ug/m3. The maximum concentration
should be utilized.
3. Ïhe indicated cancer risk "for standard slab-on-grade construction (without mitigation)"
is 6.75 x 10-6. This exceeds the 1 x 10-6 point of departure that is considered. Again I
recommend that a toxicologist review the risk analysis.
4. Numerous VOCs were detected in the two deeper soil gas samples that were
collected at the site and that are reported in the BSK report dated April2,2012 and
titled "Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation Report." An evaluation of this data is not
included in the subject submittal and should be considered for evaluating potential
risks at the site.
5. lnformation indicates that the proposed housing facility at the site will consist of four
stories and that the first level will consist of a "non-enclosed, podium-deck parking
area." The submittal also proposes installation of a 60-mil liner underlain by a passive
ventilation system. The design plans for this should be peer reviewed by person with
expertise in these types of mitigation measures. This should be accompanied by a
proposal that includes a contingency for a covenanVdeed restriction that requires that
these measures be maintained and that sensitive land uses at other locations at the
site be precluded.
Mike
Mike Pfister, PG, CHG, CEG
Engineering Geologist
Department of Toxic Substances Control
1 515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA 93619
559-297-3958
Fax = 559-297-3904
From: Patia Siong I
Sent Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:45 PM
To: Sandra Brock
Cc: Leland Villalvazo
SubjecÈ FW: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for the "New
Generations" Project
Importance: High
Good afternoon Sandra,
Per your request, please find below our comments. lf you have any questions, please don't
hesitate to contact us.
Health lmpacts: Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as air pollutants that
which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which
may pose a hazard to human health. The most common source of TACs can be
attributed to diesel exhaust fumes that are emitted from both stationary and mobile
sources. Health impacts may require a detailed health risk assessment (HRA).
i) The location of development projects is a major factor in determining whether they
will result in localized air quality impacts. ïhe potential for adverse air quality
impacts increase as the distance between the source of emissions and receptors
decrease. From a health risk perspective there are two types of land use projects
that have the potential to cause long{erm public health risk impacts: those that
locate new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors and those that locate
new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.
Accurate quantification of health risks and operational emissions requires detailed
site specific information, e.g. type of emission source, proximity of the source to
sensitive receptors, and trip generation information. The required level of detail is
typically not available until project specific approvals are being granted.
ii) Various tools exist to perform a screening level analysis for emissions from new
stationary sources, such as prioritization charts, and various spreadsheets
available from the District's website. For projects being impacted by existing
emission sources, one screening tool is contained in the ARB Handbook: Alr
Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The document
includes a table with recommended buffer distances associated with various types
of common sources. The ARB handbook can found on the ARB's website at:
http ://www.arb.ca. govichllanduse. htm
lf the screening level analysis indicates that TACs arc a concern, the District
recommends that a more detailed HRA be performed. lf an HRA is to be
performed, it is recommended that the project proponent contact the District to
review the proposed modeling approach. The project would be considered to have
a significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that project related health impacts
would exceed the District's significance threshold of 10 in a million.
More information on TACs, prioritizations and HRAs can be obtained by:
. E-mailing inquiries to: hramodeler@valleyair.org; or
. Visiting the District's website at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.
htm
Patia Siong
Supervising Air Quality Specialist
San Joaquin Valley APCD
1990 East Gettysburg Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726
559-230-5930
Leland Villalvazo
Supervising Air Quality Specialist
San Joaquin Valley APCD
1990 E Gettysburg Ave
Fresno, CA93726
Ph:(559) 230-5881
Fax(559) 230-6061
Emails:
H RAModeler@vallevai r.oro
i nventorv@vallevai r.org
UJ
HE.ILTHY AIR I.IVIIIB'
wvw,hr¿l thV¡irlitl in0.¡om
M¿ke ons change for cle¿n ¿i¡!
Sandra Brock
Subject: FW: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for
the "New Generations" Project
From ¡ David Wa¡:ner Imailto:dave.warner@ualleyair.org]
Sent: Friday, December 20,20t3 8:09 AM
To: Sandra Brock
Cc: Patia Siong; Leland Villalvazo
Subject: RE: request for your written response to studies submitted in latter part of 2013 for the "New
Generations" Project
Sandra,
After our discussion, I would like to clarify that the comments subm¡tted by Ms. Siong apply to
all sources of air toxics near a proposed development, not just those specifically listed in the
comments.
As the comments below also indicate, we would be pleased to work with you and the project
proponent to review a health risk assessment plan and prócess, to assist the city in its
obligation as a CEQA lead agency in identifying all potentially significant environmental
impacts.
We understand that there may be concern about toxic emissions from an abandoned landfill
or illegal dumping site underneath the planned development. While we are not experts on
expected emissions from such sites, we do have the expertise to analyze and assess
potential health risks based on known or suspected emission rates, and it this latter expertise
that we offering to use to review, or even help design, any health risk analysis process
required of the project proponent by the city in its CEQA role.
Dave Warner
Director of Permit Services
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
County of Fresno
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DAVID POMAVILLE, M.B.A., R.E.H.S.
INTERIM DIRECTOR
December 23,2013
Sandra Brock
City of Fresno
Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Dear Ms. Brock:
PROJECT NUMBER: A-11-08, R-1'1-011
New Generations Group, LP project
Plan AmendmentApplication No. A-11-008 and Rezone Application No. R-11-011 were filed by
Brad Roznowsky of New Generation Group LP, and pertain to 424 acres of property located on the
northwest corner of North Palm and West Nees Avenues. Plan Amendment Application No. A-11-
008 proposes to amend the 2025 Fresno General Plan and Bullard Community Plan from the special
commercial planned land use designation to the offìce commercial land use designation. Rezone
Application No. R-11-011 proposes to reclassify the property from the C-UUGM (Commercial
Limited/Urban Grovvth Management) zone district to the C-P/UGM (Administrative and Professional
Qffice/ Urban Grovvth Management) zone district. The applicant proposes the future development of a
mixed use retail and residential project consisting of approximately 7,000 square feet of retail space
on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for 180 multiple family residential dwellings
and residential amenities.
APN:402-030-70, -43
ZONING: C-LIUGM to C-P/UGM
ADDRESS: 8011 N Palm Ave (site address)
This Department's comments have been prepared as both a responsible agency for local land use
projects as well as that of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), as designated by the Department
of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycfe) for permitting and enforcement relating to
solid waste facilities within the County of Fresno.
These parcels are part of the Spano River Ranch Disposal Site and are listed in the Solid Waste
lnformation System (SWIS) database as site number 10-CR-0014. Any proposed change to the
use of the parcels requires compliance with Californía Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27, Title
14, and Public Resources Code.
Prior to further consideration and any action by the City of Fresno, clarification of the
proposed project and a site specific post-closure land use plan is required to be submitted to the
Enforcement Agency (EA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), local air district and
local land use agency.
DedÍcated to Public Health
1221 Fulton Mall I P.o. Box 11867, Fresno, californta93775 / (559) 600-327L1 FM (559) 600-7629
Equal Employment Opportunity ' Affirmative Action ' Disabled Employer
www,fcdph.org
FAo270876
1U001 61 33
2602
CX
Sandra Brock
A-11-08, R-11-011
December 23,2013
Page 2 of 3
From the Operational Statement for the proposed project it consists of mixed use with a garage
structure and 7,000 square-feet of retail space "on grade" and four stories of "Type VA" apartments
above the garage and retail portion. The amenities proposed are related to "resort lifestyle" with a
pool and spa, fitness room(s), lounge/game rooms, conference rooms and a business center.
A LimÌted SoilVapor lnvestigation was conducted by BSK Associates in March 2012 which
included two exploratory soil vapor probes installed to a depth of roughly 3OJeet below ground
surface, at or near the New Generations westerly property boundary APN: 402-030-70 and -43.
Results of samples taken from the probes indicate methane levels of 21 percent and 17 percent.
This is above the five percent lower explosive limit for methane (Title 27 CCR 520921(a)(2)). Vinyl
chloride was also reported at 460 uglms and 120 lJgtmt in the two soil vapor probes. tne
residential CHHSL for vinyl chloride is 13 ¡.rglm'. ln accordance with Title 27 CCR 520921(a)(3)
trace gases also need to be controlled to prevent adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic
and/or carcinogenic compounds.
A subsequent Field lnvestigation was conducted in June 2013 and Vapor lntrusion Health Risk
Assessmenf completed in October 2013 by SCS Engineers. The Vapor lntrusion Health Risk
Assessmenf consisted of forty nine (49) five-foot soíl vapor samples taken on a 50 by 50 foot grid
layout. Results and conclusion of the SCS report indicate VOCs were not detected in 40 of the 49
probe locations tested.
Concerns: The five-foot probe depth does not adequately reflect final grade for the proposed
project. Given the current grade of the property, the top five or more feet could easily be graded
away for the proposed structure(s) and parking areas. There is a roughly five to eight foot rise ín
elevation from Palm Avenue going west.
. Soil lithology was not included with the report. The soil type used for Assessment model was
sandy clay. This is inconsistent with soils/materials known to be in the area of the probes
toward the west.o Depth of the 49 probes relative to final grade of the proposed project was not addressed.. Maximum soil gas concentration levels for each VOC were not used in the model calculation
for the Health RrskAssessøenf.¡ Results of the prior Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation by BSK Assocrates 30-foot probe samples
were not evaluated as part of the Assessment.. The submitted Land Use proposal indicates 7,000 square-feet of retail space "on grade".
The Assessment indicates the first level as a "non-enclosed, podium-deck parking area."
A site specific Post-closure Land Use proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Title 27 CCR
S21 100 et seq. As per Title 27 CCR S21 190(c) All proposed postclosure land uses, other than
non-irrigated open space, on sites implementing closure or on closed sites shall be submitted to
the EA, RWQCB, local air district and local land use agency.
The Vapor lntrusion Health Rrsk Assessmenf shall be revised to address final proposed grade
relevant to five-foot probe results. The postclosure land use plan shall include methods proposed
to protect public health and safety for future tenants from indoor and outdoor exposure to landfill
gas emissions, potential land subsidence in areas of landfill debris, structure construction and
indoor air monitoring and alarm methods. An Emergency Response Plan shall be íncluded to
Sandra Brock
A-1'1-08, R-11-0'11
December 23,2013
Page 3 of 3
address the control of landfill gas emissions as well as potential evacuation of residents and
temporary relocation should it be necessary,
It is highly recommended that a toxicologist or equivalent complete a peer review of the submittal
and all data pertinent to the proposed project.
As per Tille 27 CCR S21 190(d) ... The owner or operator shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
EA that the activities will not pose a threat to public health and safety and the environment. Results
oT the Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation by BSKAssociates indicate landfill gases are migrating
across the parcel line between APNs 402-030-70 and 402-03043 in excess of regulatory
requirements and would have an effect on future structures within the area.
lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (559) 600-3271.
Sincerely,
-1
J¿"r/ fu.øá',t2
Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist lll
Environmental Health Division
JG/bbj
cc: David Pomaville, lnterim Director, Public Health Department
Glenn Allen, lnterim Director, Environmental Health Division
Abel Martinez-Centeno, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via e-mail)
Alfred Worcester, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via e-mail)
Daniel Carlson, Regional Water Quality Conhol Board (via +mail)
Mike Pfister, Department of Toxic Substances Control(via e-mail)
Sandra Brock
Subject:FW: New Generations Proposed Project
From: Worcester, Alfred@CalRecycle I
Sanh Monday, December 30, 2013 11:17 AM
To: 'Gardner, Janet'; Sandra Brock
Cc: Allen, Glenn; Maftinez-Centeno, Abel@CalRecycle; dcarlson@waterboards,ca.gov; mpfister@dtsc.ca.qov;
Pomaúlle, David
Subject: RE: New Generations Proposed Project
HiJanet:
I have to agree w all of the proposed concerns, esp w regards to the submittal of a PCLU for
the proposed project. Based on my limited knowledge of the site, it appears that a more
complete geotechn¡cal and geo-environmental assessment of the site is needed before
further consideration can be given to the project. As you are aware, in PCLU matters we take
an adv¡sory role w the LEA as a lead. However, we can comment on any of the submitted
documents, up to incl the PCLU submittals. We would also advise the LEA to consider
conduct¡ng a third party review of the PCLU; the proponent/owner/operator would be required
to pay for this third party review.
Please call if you have any further questions.
Thanks,
Alfred
Alfred P. Worcester, P.G., C.E.G.
Englneerlng Geologist
Closure & Technical Support Section
Enginæring Support Branch
Waste Permitting, Compllance and ìlitigation Division
Department oî Resources Recycling and Recovery - CalRecycle
tel: 91 6.341.6353 fax: 31 9,7462 cel: 61 3.6053
e-mail:
Web Address : calrecycle.ca. gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a PRIVATE communication and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed' rt mav contain 't"-il;"r'3ã i.so,'¿T.å:n.itJ.ätiff:ix,:H'ffii;,?lå'..;?:ii''.ïl i":'",ï'# #i,îirî#'iî 13.
otify the sender of the delivery enor by replying to th¡s message, and then delete it from your
unication. Thank you.
RiCf IVED Agenda ttem: ID#14-6s3 (5:00 p.M.)
Date: L2lLLlL4
¡i111 DtC 1i Pn ? -39
FRESNO CITY COUNCIL
clTY CLERä, FRtSNo CA cigof
FRES}Td3
Supplemental Information Packet
Agenda Related ltems - lD#14-653 (5:00 P.M.)
Contents of Supplement: An additional Letter
Item(sl
HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update
(Citywide)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental
lmpact Report (ElR) SCH No. 201211 1015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and
Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
Supplemental lnformation :
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(21.
ln addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
City Clerk's Office at 621-7650. Please keep the doonruays, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. lf you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Securi
R ICf IVED
DAVID POMAVILLE, DIRECTOR
CITY CLERH, FRTSHO CA
December 11,2014
Jennifer K. Clark, Director (via email)
Development and Resource Management
City of Fresno
F40270876
1U001 61 33
2602
CX
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
Dear Jennifer K. Clark:
Master Environmental lmpact Report (MEIR)
Gity of Fresno General Plan and Development Code Update
Change Request ltem # 32
APN:402-030-70
This Department's comments are being provided as both a responsible agency for local land use
projects as well as that of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), as designated by the Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)for permitting and enforcement relating to solid
waste facilities within the County of Fresno. The subject parcel, identified within Change Request
Item # 32 of the General Plan and Development Code Update is part of the Spano Rivér Ranch
Disposal Site which is listed in the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), Solid Waste lnformation System (SWIS) database as site numberl0-CR-0014. The
parcel lies within the defined landfill boundary and as such is subject to Title 27 California Code of
Regulations for any post closure land use development.
The City of Fresno routed General Plan Amendment Application No. A-11-OO8 and Rezone
Application No. R-1 1-01 1 in August 2011 , filed by New Generation Group LP. ln the time since the
application submittal the Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division has met with
and corresponded with the applicant and/or their consultants on multiple occasions concerning the
requirement for a Solid Waste Facility Post-closure Land Use plan that clearly identifies the potential
hazards and offers mitigation measures addressing the protection of public health and safety for the
proposed project. The applicants have submitted studies; however, specific mitigation measures for
the proposed project have not been proposed in writing nor approved.
MEIR Section 3.8-Hazards and Hazardous Materials does not identify the parcel as part of a Solid
Waste Disposal Site, nor does it consider the potentialhazard to public health and the environment.
The MEIR indicates under City of Fresno Preferred PLU, CEQA lmpacts: "No lmpacts" resulting from
the change in use for ltem #32.
Additional analysis is required to properly evaluate and offer mitigations for potential health effects in
an area where landfill gases are known to be present. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) also expressed concerns with prior submittals by the New Generations Group (see enclosed
letter).
Promotion, preservation and protection of the community's health
1221 Fulton Mall / P.O. Box 11867 / Fresno, California 93775 | Phone (559) 600-3271 / FAX (559) 4554646
Emair:Environm:ffi
H;?|Iis;i[iìtrf iHï:.ffi;:J!ii,ä'.us':'r';ww'f cdph.org
City of Fresno
MEIR General Plan and Development Code Update
December 11,2014
Page 2 of 2
A Limited SoilVapor lnvestigation was conducted by consultants hired by the New Generation Group
LP in March 2012 consisting of two soil vapor probes installed to a depth of roughly 3O{eet below
ground surface, along the property boundary between APNs 402-030-70 and 402-030-43. (Both
within the defined boundary of the disposal site) Results of samples taken from the probes indicated
methane levels of 21 percent and 17 percent, above the five percent lower explosive limit for methane
(Tille 27 CCR 520921(a)(2)). Vinyl chloride was reported at 460 lrglm3 and 120 pglm3 in the two soil
vapor probes, where the residential CHHSL for vinyl chloride is 13 ¡,rglm3. The results of the sampling
indicate there is a potential for adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic
compounds.
The analysis performed for this MEIR is not adequate considering the potential environmental effects
resulting from the change in zoning designation within the General Plan and planned adoption of
zoning utilizing the same MEIR for Change Request ltem #32 within the Spano River Ranch Disposal
Site. The Environmental Health Division concurs with the City of Fresno Staff "Planned Land Use" of
Community Commercial, and to not approve change request #32 requesting a "Planned Land Use" of
Corridor/Center Mixed Use on APN 402-030-70. The applicant's proposed land use change warrants
further CEQA review and analysis.
lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (559) 600-3271.
Sincerely,
,/+*--6^.--
Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist lll
Environmental Health Division
JG
cc: David Pomaville, Director, Public Health Depaftment
Glenn Allen, Environmental Health Division
Abel Martinez-Centeno, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via email)
William Heung, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via email)
Gino Yetka, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (via email)
Daniel Carlson, Regional Water Quality Control Board (via email)
Kevin Shaddy, Department of Toxic Substances Control (via email)
Mike Pfister, Department of Toxic Substances Control (via email)
Amoldo Rodriguez, City of Fresno (via email)
Mike Sanchez,Ctty of Fresno (via email)
Steve Brandau, Fresno City Council, District 2 (via web email)
l/tø (zt,t¿rrti,"*
RECEIVTJ
MAY I O ZÜiZ
f hrblic
Heulth
Matthew Rodriquez Deborah o' Raphael' Director
Secretary for , 15'1 5 Tollhouse Road Edmund G' Brovi
Environmentat protection clovis, california 93611 Governor
May 9,2012
Deborah O. Raphael, Director
15'15 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, California 9361 1
Edmund G, Brown Jr.
Governor
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Supervising Planner
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 8065 AND 8075 NOR-IH PALM AVENUE, FRESNO
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:
This is in regards to your e-mail dated April 23, 2012wherein it is requested that
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) staff review environmental related
documents associated wíth a proposed development at the above noted location. -[he
documents include a "Plan Amendment Submittal" that was routed originally for public
review between August 5,2011 and August 15,2011 , and one dated April 2, 2012 and
titled "Limited Soil Vapor lnvestigation Report."
As described in the Amendment, the future development would consist "of a mixed use
retail and residential project cons¡sting of approximately 7 thousand square feet of retail
space on grade with a garage structure and four stories above for multiple family
residential dwelling and residentialamenities." lnformation included in the report
indicates that the footprint of the subject development will partially overlie a landfill
known as the Spanos Landfill, which is near the northwest intersection of North Palm
Avenue and West Ness Avenue in Fresno. The report presents the results of two soil
gas samples that were collected at a depth of about 30 feet below the ground surface.
The report notes that methane was detected "at concentrations of 21% of total gases in
sample SVP-1 and 17% of total gases in sample SVP-2." The indicated lower explosive
limit (LEL) for methane is approximately 5%. Vinyl chloride was reported at
concentrations of 460 ug/m3 in SVP-1 and 120 ug/m3 in SVP-2. The California Human
Health Screening Level for vinyl chloride in a residential setting is 13 ug/m3. Estimated
risks based on a Johnson and Ettinger model that is due to vapor intrusion to indoor air
is presented. These risks were apparently calculated using the "Johnson and Ettinger
(J&E) soil gas screening model EPA version 2.0."
MP:cm
MP02 512
O i)iiii::,,1 r.;lr lìec/':liil i'¿Ì:rit
Måi 8:Bbi"rtasouratos
Page 2
DTSC staff comments for consideration are as follows.1. lt is not clear if the estimated risks are for a commercial/industrial setting or if
they are for an unrestricted, residential setting. Many of the parameters utilized
for the modeling are not included in the report text. DTSC has a modified
Johnson and Ettinger model on its web site that should be used. The accuracy
of the risk calculations were not reviewed by DTSC staff or a DTSC toxícologist.
It is not clear if the estimated risks are cumulative risks, which sUm the risks
posed by all of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in the two
samples collected. lf not, then the risks may be underestimated.
2. Collection of additional soil gas samples is warranted and there is a need to
assess the extent of soil gas contamination. This should include the collection of
relatively shallow soil gas samples, such as from a depth of about 10 feet below
ground surface.
3. A risk analysis should be completed after the extent of soil gas contamínation is
collected.
4. lf appropriate, remedial actions or mitigation measures should be evaluated and
implemented. Mitigation measures that may be appropriate can be found in the
DTSC document titled Final Guidance for the Evaluation & Mitigation of
Subsurface Vapor lntrusion to lndoor Air. A copy of this document can be found
at http://www.dtsc.ca.qov/SiteCleanup/Vapor_l ntrusion.cfm.
5. lf needed or desired DTSC can enter into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with
the proponent to oversee needed activities such as soil gas assessment work
and risk analysis. The Agreement would identify a scope of work and include
provisions for reimbursement of DTSC staff oversight costs.
6. |n2007 , assessment and remediation work was competed at a nearby property
located at 675 West Nees Avenue, near the south east corner of North Palm
Avenue and West Nees Avenue, Fresno. The work was overseen by County of
Fresno representatives. The results of the assessment activities and a summary
of the remediation work is summarÍzed in a report dated February 7, 2008 and
titled "Subsurface lnvestigation Report, Building A.1.' A single soil gas sample
was collected ín soil at a location below where contaminated soil and other
materials (approximately 300-55 gallon drums) were removed. Volatile organic
compounds were detected, including vinyl chloride at a concentration of 51,000
ug/m3 and trichloroethylene at a concentration of 23,000 ug/m3 This may be
important to consider if additional assessment work is conducted at the subject
property.
MP:m
MPO2512
Ms. Soohia Paooulatos
May 9,2012
Page 3
lf you have any questions, please contact me at (559) 297-3958 or by e-mail at
mpfister@dts c. ca. gov.
Sincerely,
t/t,|úJ*JW'T-
Michael Pfister, PG, CEG
Engineering Geologist
San Joaquin & Legacy Landfills Office
Clovis Office
cc: Ms. Janet Gardner, R.E.H.S.
Environmentai Health Specialist I ll
Environmental Health Division
County of Fresno
1221Fulton Mall
P.O. Box 11867
Fresno, California 9377 5
Mr. RussellWalls, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
1685 E Street
Fresno, California 93706
Mr. Tim Miles
Hazardous Substances Scientist
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826
MP;m
MP02.512
lt
2' Modification of Policy No' RC-9-c { Agricultural preservation program affecting new growth areas ) ?-C
3. Modification of policy ED-s-d and Elimination of policy No. pU_3_a ( affecting New Growth areas ) ?- C
4' Modification of objectives uF-12 and uF-13 ( affecting deveropment alr over the city )2-?
leY fre z-A
Subjeet:
Request:
Adoption "Interím Zoning Consistency Matrix,,
The Development code /zoningordinance has not been completed at the time of hearing for the Generar pran update.blic that they can continue to enjoy the full use of their property, the counciltency Matrix" for the residential zone districts. This action will provide assuranceplan' can continue using the current st ¡ndarJs consistent w¡th the new rand use
wilt no longer be needed and can o" ,."ä"?ïiffi:i"t""i /zoninsordinance, the lnterim Zoning consistency Matrix
For the following land use-designations proposed by the Draft Generar pran update, the zoning districts that arecurrently adopted should be used t" itpt"r"nt the deverop*"nì ãn serected sites in the c¡ty of Fresno:
nat¡on: Use R_l Zoning ( 12-211 FMC l
)
de ( 12-213 FMC )
êüy / ë,*,ffi,
Modificatíon of policy No. RC_9_c ( page No. 7_45 )
Modifo wording of the wording of the proposed Farmtand preservation Frogram,, to eriminate the reference to amandatory use of an easement at a l:L ratio. This modification would resuri in the removar of one sentence from thepolicy' This sentence was placed within the plan within the last two weeks and promotes the use of something that isuncommon within the state of california and is not used ,hrougr,or, the region. rf the Foricy remains as recentry draftedby staff it will place an unnecessary burden upon developr"ntl within tr," city of rresno onry. communitíes adjacent;:ffi;::ï:ï"nï:,îil1îlïiî,:'åî';;r'Jå:t',ffiî:ïi,tion in rresnó wou,d serve to increase the costor
Subject:
Request:
Subjeet:
y â*c
Modíficatíon of porícy ED-s-d and Erimination of poricy No. pu-3-a.
Request,
Modify the wording on two proposed policies that require development in ',Growth Areas,, to pay for the ,,staffing,operation and maintenance of fire stations' and "fully rrn¿ puui¡. safety and public service costs,,. The two polices, attwo completely different locations within the Generai plan iocument, prace a new financiar ,,burden,, on every newhomeowner in the Growth areas' The city has not done the required "Nexus', *roy io determine the appropriate feelevels yet wants to mandate that the unknown costs are paid by owners of new residences. These policies should bemodified to eliminate the wording referenced above:
ED-5-t Fair and Proportionatr payments. Requrre new residentialand commercial development that ..qriro annexabion to theCiry (nor including Counry Islandj ro pay its fair andproportional share of needed community improvements throughimpact fees, assessment districts,
".rd othe, mechanisms. ,\pprovenew residential and commercial development projects thatrequrre annexarion ro the Ciry (nor including Counry Islands)only after making findings that all of the following condirions aremet:
co¡nmr¡nÍty Faciritics Di¡E¡ct nor emegsnsy .scruiq" Ðweropstrat€gies to mandate Conmnunity Facilities District forrnations ir, r"iDevelopment Areas to fund the staffing, operation, and maintcnanceof the primaqy response ftre stations r;r; those areas so that sucl¡sewices do not overþ irrrpact the Genera! Frlnd.
No Ciry revenue will 6. used to replace or providedeveloper, funding that has or *""fj have beencommitted to âny mitigation projecr;
The dwelopmenr project will fully fund public facilitiesand infrastructure as ner:ec(îh, r^ *:,;^^i.
arising from the ".- oÏtåifl.lo mitiSate any impacts
The developmenr projec will pay andinfrastructure improvements in thedevelopmenr's neighborhood and c d
The developmenr will fully fund ongoi ilirv aand infrasmucrure m2' ;i (
public service costs.
rntenance and p
"r'
Fti-z-g
Suhjeet:
/ ff ""JÞ
Modification of objective No. uF-12 and objective No. uF-13 ( page No. 3_1g and 3_28
Tàe ælt". e{pÆs=sp
fue,
Ptogtæs ín an. un*en pattem-...der zd¡ng_ uoo¡l the-schdulc gf
Request:
Modiñ¡ wording in the two objectives that discuss the "ratio" of_deveropment expected to occur in the ,,rnfi!r,, and"Growth Areas"' The objectivås, as drafted, both indicate that'Rough ry Harf,otitre Jeveropment is expected to occur íneach of the geographical areas during the life of the plan. rnã staff arso prov¡oeo sonne ,commentary,, to crarífo the twoobjectives' The proposal would be tJmove the "commentarviànguage into the text of the objective. Both of thecommentary sections are similar, and by moving one sentenc" or ıom-me^"t il;ì;e two objectives, the ranguage
T,i :ff iï:i::ffiillflïff: ,:T.:,1,l",i.JiffiffifrHi[*"":oî;;;il;ïi'äi,"'*n,,.y was prepared by srarr and
Objective No. UF_12 (Current wording before modification )
of futurr rc¡iderrtial developm ín ünff¡lg wfuhfn the Çity or¡ Deçe¡nl¡er , Agt?-
rnixed.pse ccntenß a oodç'
cor¡ido¡s,.rrd oth." BRT
Ønrrßrby Tke Fhnning Ðiæçto¡ wiil povûlc an annual ,uport:
' næessaDr to meet this gæl by ZtSg. Thc
this g:oal is op!
-aevelopa¿eu
,n an uneven pdttem. depending upon ¡lp
at tho_Ee rehtcd to
the Çiy expects ¡o
tot:zard all the Saats aad obiectivæ anda¿ttcÞa¡ce ,=ry - the close o[ General plan i- torizo!,
in AAJS. See the Element for addftíonalímphtnentation stra
Move the foilowing sentence from the ,,commentary,, into the text of objective No. uF_12
-.,* ,'.rtwct at Inarßet tolcg.
Objectíve No. 13 (Current wording before modification )
Locate rougùþ
Growth Area¡-J
zotz S0l_rryhich
that lnclude hous
along ftture BßT
Comtwøry The
descríbing the
meeting the goals
p,Eparc an upda
apprcprhte
strategíet
to-one" pattern. Development in infrll areas ve¡sus grov4h dreas lpyyprogress ín an. uneven pattem, depending upon the schcdule sj[relevant LeI íncentive proprdms
the impact plf
€lead! prcgress
meeting them at or
See the lmphmen
stÌâtryies fot thís
Move the foilowing sentence from the "commentary,, into the text of objective No. uF_13
e
lË+Å crt E
Objective No. UF-L2 ( Froposed wording after rnodification)
Fres the infi, areasand and surroundrat€ ther non-corriinlIl. ,ÞåGma¡¡ occu¡ in a linearçr "one toincen*veprcsrâms(*.n","1ïil."i#i:f,ixi?i:î:lî:nii'jï."Hi*#r,':
Commentary (After Modification )
Obj_ectíve No. 13 ( proposed Wording after modification )
- _ "Locate rour-.s.hry one harf of future residentlar deveropment ¡n the Growthof December 31s, 2012 SOl, which a
and recreation; mixed use centers; or
expectêd to occur in a linear or,one
an uneven pattern, depending upon
the impact of market brGGs"
Commentary ( After Modification )
NORTHWEST
lËå åË å å-BSI¡E
(,
T,
a
É
.J
NORTHEAST
N€sa
å¡I
l-lsm
bd
Erd
Eãbr
s
Aeflan
È¡É
ìle
CT
Belmonl
l.rEr
Hlìlhr Brl
¡
E
t
I{
tå-
C¡
Mc
Of$
B oùt
1úfr
Klngr C
Br¡t
c
Ch¡rfr
Jaman
H-
¡-! ISOUTHEAST
:oDper River Ranch
zla1,D6 )utlot M 20.52 lsh Urban Neighborhood {ich27a2D6lutlot P 77.63 Vledium Hish Portion Urban Neishborhood 7 +/- ocres of Urbon Neiqhborhood Vledium High21a3hD6/illase I 30.09 Vledium Low Low Vled¡um Low2!a3c D6 0utlot LL 2.95 Vledium High Medium Low Medium High27a4D6Outlot Y 10.08 Medium Hieh Medium Medium Hish2Ia5D6Outlot X 12.85 Medium Hieh Medium Low Medium Hieh2la6D6Cpen Space 5.27 Open Space \4ed um Cpen Space27a7D6Cutlot OO 26.82 Medium Hish Vledium Elementary Schl2!a8 D6 f,utlot NN 6.66 Medium High and Community
Commercial
Medium and Street Realignment 3ommercial
27a9 D6 f,utlot PP t2.oo Commercial lommercial (10 acres) Medium H¡sh to the North f 12 acresl Motrix ¡ncorrcctlv rearesents chonoes reouested 3ommercial2LatLD6Port¡on Outlot JJ 3s0 Commercial Vledium Low 3ommercial
Fowler/Shlelds
2LbTA D4 rortion 310-041-38 100 Business Park lommercial :ieht lndustrial
2LbTB D4 lort¡on 310-041--38 3.56 Business Park Medium Residential -isht lndustrial21b3AD4portion 310-740-07 100 Business Park Commercial -isht lndustrial2tb2D4portion 310-041-39 3ommercial/UN Commercial Q2+/-acl GP not Clear on Aïeoqe -isht lndustrial27b4D4310-740-08& 310-740-09 t4.o2 Business Park Urban Neighborhood -ight lndustrial
rST
lrllssion Ranch
2Li3 D3 Mission Ranch 492 -ow Medium Low Medium Low2ti4D3Mission Ranch !6 42 _ow Medium Low Medium Low
2L¡5a D3 Mission Ranch 3.45 -ow Medium Low Medium Low21isbD3Mission Ranch 3.61 :ondine Basin Medium Low Medium Low
2]-i5c D3 Mission Ranch 7.64 -ow Medium Low Medium Low2!i6a D3 Mission Ranch 14 09 _ow Vledium Low Medium Low21i6bD3\4ission Ranch 5.20 )ondine Basin Vledium Low Medium Low277D3Vlission Ranch 9.75 -ow (on matrix)
)ondine Basin (on Mao)
Vedium Low Medium Low
21i8 D3 Vlission Ranch 4.95 Low Medium Low Medium Low2ti9D3Vlission Ranch !4.37 Low Medium Low Medium Low27it0D3Vliss¡on Ranch 981 Low Medium Low Medium Low27itLD3Mission Ranch 17.95 Low Medium Low Medium Low27i13D3Mission Ranch 18.96 Low Medium Low Medium Low27i14D3Mission Ranch 77.65 Low Medium Low Medium Low2ti75D3Mission Ranch 7.O7 Low Medium Low \4edium Low27i16D3Mission Ranch 19.5s Low Medium Low \4edium Low
D3 uV Kearnev Blvd. & S Hushes Ave.18.00 Medium Low
[orthwest
21,c D2 i04-080-16s (Bullard/Brva n I 9.51 Vledium Medium Low 9ullord/Bryan Vledium Hish27p1,D1 & Countv Artisan Square (Ashlan/Brvan/Haves)4.00 Medium/Pa rk/Commercia I Medium Vlotr¡x ¡ncorrectly represents chonses requested Vledium
21s.2 D1 Artisan Souare lAshlan/Brvan/Havesl 1.00 Medium/Park/Commercial Vledium Low Matr¡x ¡ncorrectlv rcDresents chonoes reouested Medium27e3D1Artisan Square (Ashlan/Brvan/Havesl t2.00 Medi um/Park/Commercial Vledium High Motr¡x incorrectlv reDresents chonoes reouestpd Medium2le4D1Artisan Souare lAshlan/Brvan/Havesì 2'J,.O0 Medium/Pa rklCommercia I lommercial Motrix incorrectlv represents chonaes reauested Medium2tdCounW312-06L-L8 19.51 Medium Vledium Low Clinton/Between Polk ond Hoves Medium2rfD2505-281-L6. 17. 18 lGrantland/Barstowì 3.93 Urban Neishborhood lommercial Citv orisinollv hod opproved chonqe Neishborhood Commercial
z1,e Countv 5!2-t4t-33 19.56 Urban Neishborhood Vledium G to ntl a n d/South of Do koto Ali o n m e nt Medium Hish2thCounWs12-050-89 t7.54 Urban Neighborhood Vledium 9rvon/Between Ashlon ond Dakoto Medium
Herndon/Riverside
D2 5O4-O9!-37 a nd 504-09 1-35 13 89 High Density Jrban Neishborhood Medium
General Plan Update
City Council Public Hesring
Jennifer Clark
Director of Deuelopment and Resource Management
DECEMBER 11, zot4
. Summary of Documents
. CEQA Analysis
. Public Input and Changes to the Plan
. Staff Recommendation
Summary of Documents
. E>rhibit A: Land Use Change
Requests, Map and Table
. Exhibit B: Staff Recommended
Land Use and Circulation Map
. Exùribit C: City Council
Resolution 2o12-15o Initiation of
the General Plan Update
. Exhibit D: Draft Master
Environmental Impact Report
(DMEIR SCH NO. zorzrnor5)
. Exhibit E: Final Master
Environmental Impact Report
(FMETR)
. Exhibit F: Revised General Plan,
December 2ot4
Exhibit G: Redline General Plan
Exhibit H: Errata Sheet for
Redline General Plan
Exhibit I: General Plan
Comment Letters
Exhibit J: Frequently Asked
Questions
Exhibit K: Planning Commission
StaffReport
Exhibit L: Errata Sheet for
December 2or4 General PIan
Summ"y"il}focuments
Exhibit M: Planning Commission
Resolution 13313
Exhibit N: Planning Commission
Resolution 13312
Exhil¡it O: RESOLUTION - Certifying
Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) No. SCH zorzrrror5 prepared
for the General Plan Update and the
Development Code Update
Exhibit P: RESOLUTION - Adopting
the proposed Fresno General Plan as
an update to the zoz5 General Plan,
including all text, policies, maps,
tables, and exhibits and contained in
the Fresno General Plan document
dated December, zo14
Exhibit Q: RESOLUTION - Adopting
plan modifications recommended by
staff and identified as "City of Fresno
Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Lancl
Use Change Requests" and "Land Use
and Circulation Map," and denying the
remaining plan modifications
EXhibit R: RESOLUTION -
Authorizing the Development and
Resource Management Director or her
designee to update the text, policies,
maps, tables, and exhibits contained in
the Fresno General Plan document to
reflect the final action taken by
Conncil, to the extent that such
updates afe necessary to maintain
consistency
Environmental
Evaluation
Overview of Environmental
Evaluation Process
NOVEMBER 6,2012
Notice of
Preparation
NOVEMBER 6_
DECEMBER 6,2A12
Public Review
Period
NOVEMBER 27,2012
Scoping
Meeting
Ovenriew of Environmental
Evaluation Process
JULY 22,2t14
Draft EIR
JULY 22_
ocToBER 8,2014
Public Review
Period
DECEMBER 8,2A14
Planning
Comrnission
Public Hearing
DECEMBER 11,2T14
City Council
Public Hearing
City of Fresno Planning Area
. Areas withfn City Limits
.Areas oufside City Limits
and usithin Sphere-of-Influence
. Area north of City and
north of Sphere - of- Influence
The Planning Area
General Plan and
Development Code Update
. Comprehensive lJpdate of the
Approved 2o2S General Plan
. Comprehensive update of City's
Regulation of Land Use and
Development Throu gh Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance
. Streamlines Entitlement Process
Master EIR
Project Description
. Future Buildout Development
Within The Planning Area
. Existing Development vs.
Buildout Under General Plan
Update
. Incremental Increase in
Development
Master EIR Document
Master EIR
One of the T¡les of EIRs Allowed in CEQA
Allowed for a General Plan Update
Fresno Currently has a Master EIR for the zoz5
General Plan
Allows Streamlining Later Environmental Review of
Projects
Streamlining Can Only Occur if Potential
Environmental Effects of Later Projects Were
Addressed in the Master EIR
Master EIR Document
Master EIR
-, If Potential Environmental Effects of Later Projects
Were Not Addressed, a MND, Subsequent EIR,
Supplemental EIR, or Revision of the Master EIR
would be Required
, Adequacy of the Master EIR Findings Need to be Re-
Evaluated at Least Once Every Five Years
Master EIR
Environmental Issues
. Issues Found to be
Signifi.cont and Unou oidqble
. fssues Found to be Less Than
Sig nificant With Mitig ation M essur es
. Issues Found to have No Impact or
Less than Signífrcant Wíthout
Mitigation Measures
Issues Found to be
Sig nificant nnd (Jnau oido"ble
Aesthetics
. Visual Character
" Illumination of the Dark Sþ
Agricultural Resources
o Loss of Farmland
o Removal of Williamson Act Contract Land
Air Quality
" Criteria Pollutant Emissions
" Toxic Air Contaminant Pollutant Concentrations
Issues Found to be
Sig nificant ond Unsu oida.ble
Cultural Resources
. Potential Removal of Historic Resources
Greenhouse Gases
" Increase in Emissions Beyond the Year 2o2o
Noise
" Exceed Noise Standards
,, Substantial Permanent Increases in Noise Levels
Issues Found to be
Significnnt snd Unau oido,ble
Transportation and Traffic
.. Potentially Exceed Levels of Service Thresholds for
Roadways (under the jurisdictions of the County of
Fresno, City of Clovis, and Caltrans)
Utility and Service Systems
Construction of Facilities Could Cause Substantial
Impacts to Agriculture and Air Qualþ
Issues Found to be Less Thqn
Sig nificont utith Mitig ation M easure s
Biological Resources
. Habitat
, Plant and Wildlife Species
Wetlands
Cultural Resources
,- Archaeology
Paleontology
, Hurnan Remains
Issues Found to be Less Thqn
Sig nifi"cant usith Mitig ation M eosur e s
Hazards
Airport
, Emergency Response Plan
Hydrology
Groundwater Supplies
, Polltrted Runoff
Public Services
, Construction of Facilities
Issues Found to be Less Thon
S_ign frrort usith Mitigatíon Measures
Utilities and Service Systems
. Capacities for Water, Sewer, Drainage, and Landfill
Facilities
Issues Found to have Àtro Impacf or Less thqn
Sig nificqnt without Mitigãtíon M e asur e s
Geology and Soils
Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Noise
., Groundborne Vibration
, Construction Noise
. Aircraft Noise
Population and Housing
Issues Found to have Àtro Impacf or Less thon
Si g nifi c,ant w_i;tltout M ttig àti o n M e a sur e s
Transportation and Traffic
.. Roadways Under City Jurisdiction
., EmergencyAccess
Energy Conservation
Mineral Resources
16lr
Project Alternatives
Alternatives Considered But Rejected
Five Alternatives Developed for the General Plan
Citizens Committee in March 2oL2
Alternatives Considered and Evaluated
' No Project/No Development
z No Project/Development In Accordance with the
Existing General Plan
s, Growth Area Expansion
+. Growth Area Reduction
Summary of Comments Received
on Draft Master EIR
38 Comment Letters Received
of Draft Master EIR
-- 5 State Agencies
8 Regional and Local Agencies
z5 Citizens and Organizations
Summary of Comments Received
on Draft Master EIR
Primary Reoccurring Concerns
-- Loss of Farmland
. State Highway System
, Timing of Residential Development Within the City
-' Adequate Water Supply
,, High Speed Rail
. San Joaquin River ParkwayAccess
, Mitigation Measures
Final Master EIR
Draft Master EIR
Response to Comments Document
. Responses to Comments Provided on Draft
Master EIR
. Environmental Evaluation of Requested Land
Use Changes
PUBLIC INPUT:
Continue to support the creation
of community äñd Specific Plans.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
The community and Specific Plans will not
automaticaþ be amended or repealed.
ADDED COMMENTARY TO D-Z-b FOR CLARIFICATION:
The Citywill work with community members in
the preparation of new community, neighborhood,
and/or Specific Plans after the adoption of the
General Plan.
PLIBLIC INPT]T:
Protect established neighborhoods
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
LU-z-e Neighborhood Presen¡ation
CHANGED POLICY FOR CI¿,RIFICATION:
PUBLIC INPUT:
The Citv should focus on
enforcement of existing standards.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICIES:
HC-+-e Code enforcement
IJC- +-f Chronic Violators
Design and implem es to address
chroñic code violati properties.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Provide additional protections for
properties containiñg liquor sales.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICY:
sale liquor stores to help
ore inviting and safe r
The Plan Update focuses on the ouerall uisfon.
The Development Code will address the detsíls
of irnplernentíng ttre vision.
PUBLIC INPUT:
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED NARRATTVE FOR CI-ARIFICATION:
6.6 Disadvantaged. Unincorporated
Communities
SECTION INCLUDES:
In comoliance with identifv
ail DUÖs within the equireð
infrastructure analvsis to next
Housing Element Úpdate.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
Provide alternatives to DfICs
for annexation into the CiW
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
LU-r-e Annexation Requirement
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CI,ARIFICATION:
ate and support the
annexation process.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Strengthen policies related to
incentivizing affordable housing.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
PUBLIC II.{PUT:
Strengthen access to
education and training
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICIES:
rships
partnershins that brine
ê:mployers ihrough intërnships,
s.
PUBLIC INPI]T:
Fiscal Impact Analysis should be
proportional to project size.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
BD-5-e Fiscal Impact Analyses
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CLARIFICATION:
asures for
smaller projects.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Encourage development in activi
centers other th¿ n Downtown.
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
LU-g-c The Primacy of Downtown
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CI,ARIFICATION:
Activiw Centers outsi
but noi be limited to,
Park and the Blackstone
Avenue, and Shaw Ave
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
VT-l-g Complete Streets Concept
Imptementation
PoLIcY .HANGE FoR cLARIFICATIoNtooon
a complete streets
e^of all viable travel modes
PUBLIC INPUT:
The noise level standards are too
restrictive for infill development.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
NS-r-a Desirable and Generally Acceptable
Bxterior Noise Bnvironment
POLICY CIIANGE FOR CI/,RIFICATION:. Updated Policy to clarify the exterior noise levels for
non-stationary sources.
. Noise levels on certain corridors will rise to reflect
urban environments.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
Provide for safe sidewalks.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
MT-5-b Sidewalk Requirements
CHANGED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CITY POLICY:
the Americans with Dis
PUBLIC INPUT:
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
MT-6-g Path and Trail Development
Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose
path and trail development standards and corridor linkages
consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-
by-case determinations as a condition of project approval.
ADDED COMMENTARY FOR CI.AIFICATION:
This should be done pursuant to Figure MT-z: Paths and
Trails, and the adopted BMP, as may amended.
PUBLIC IITIPUT:
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
POSS-B-h
Coordination with School Districts
P OLICY CIIANGE FOR CI/,RIFICATION:
Continue to coordinate with school districts to
explore opportunities for joint use of both outdoor
and indoor recreation facilities, such as
playgrounds, play fields, and gymnasiums, for City
recreation programs.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Do more to protect farmland.
ACTIVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
ADDED POLICY:
RC-g-c Farmland Presen¡ation Program
POLICY INCLUDES:
In coordination with resional partners or
independently, establisñ a Farmland Presewation
Program.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
There should be more
on lJrban Agriculture.
emphasis
ACTWE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
HC-5-f Urban Agriculture
STREAMLINED POLICY:
Amend the FMC to provide clear and concise
permitting procedures regarding Community
Gardens, On-site Garden Produce Market
Stands, and Urban Farms that allow sale of
foods grown locally.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Provide assurances that Infill
investment will be prioritized.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
After adoption. the Administration
will establish ah Infill
Implementation Task Force.
PUBLIC INPIJT:
Reouest to uodate the
Parks Mastei Plan.
ACTTVE RESPONSE & REVISIONS:
RECOMMEND AMENDMENT OF POSS-T-B:
CHANGE FROM:
"Consider updating. .. "
CHANGETO:
"Update the Parks Master Plarr..."
PUBLIC I}TPTIT:
Protect the Forestiere
Underground Gardens.
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION:
The Forestiere Underground Gardens is
included on both the National Register
of Historic Places and is on the list of
California Historical Landmarks.
PUBLIC INPTIT:
Do not repeal community
or Specifið Plans.
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION:
Community or Specific Plans won't
be repealed or amended unless there
is subsequent legislative action.
PUBLIC INPUT:
lot single family
t from m( re intense
es.
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION:
LU-z-e Neighborhood Preservation
Incorporate standards in the Development Code to preserve the
existing residenti al qu alþ of established neighborho ods.
LU-S-g Scale and Character of New Development
Allow new development in or adjacent to established
neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and characterwith the
surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and
architectural character between new buildings and established
neighborhoods
Recommendations
Recommended Actions
a. Approve Resolution - Certifying Final EIR No.
SCH 2oL2\Lro1S prepared for the General Plan
Update and the Development Code Update; and, i.
Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public
Resources Code, section zro8r(a) and CEQA
Guidelines, Section 1So9U and ii. Approving a
Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by
Public Resotrrces Code, section zro8r.6 and CEQA
Gnidelines, section t;og7; and iii. Adopting the
Statement of Overriding Considerations as
requiled by Public Resources Code, Section
zro8r(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 1So93;
b. Approve Resolution - Adopting the proposed
F resno General Plan as an update to the 2o2S
General Plan, including all text, policies, maps,
tables, and exhibits and contained in the Fresno
General Plan document dated Decemb eÍ, 2or4;
c. Approve Resolution - Adopting plan modifications
recommended by staff and identified as "City of
F'resno Staff Preferred Land IJse" in the "Land Use
Change Requests" and "Land Use and Circulation
Mup," and denyng the remaining plan
modifications; and
cl. Approve Resoltrtion - Authorizing the
Development ancl Resource N{anagernent Director
or her cì.esignee to update the tert, policies, maps,
tables, and exhibits contained in the F'resno
General Plan doctrment to reflect the final action
taken b)'Council, to the extent that snch upclates
are necessary to maintain consistency