My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
65B - PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER RATE ADJ
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
12/02/2014
>
65B - PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER RATE ADJ
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2014 8:46:02 AM
Creation date
11/26/2014 3:35:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Public Works
Item #
65B
Date
12/2/2014
Destruction Year
2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
290
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
100 <br />SEWER RATE STUDY I City of Santa Ana, CA <br />Figure B- 26: Pipeline Length by Number of Upstream Customer Laterals <br />Proximity to Critical Customers <br />The concern here is for increased risk due to possible environmental and inconvenience to nearby <br />critical customers. The City provided tabular lists of critical customer locations, including hospitals, <br />government facilities, and schools. Locations were geocoded by address data (if actual street addresses <br />were available) to identify the customer's location on a map. Using GIS spatial processes, all mains <br />within a 300 foot radius of each critical site was tagged. A count of nearby sites was then tabulated for <br />each main segment. The resulting values ranged between 0 and 2 occurrences. These values were then <br />multiplied by 5 to get the desired 0 — 10 range. Only approximately 10 percent of main segments were <br />within 300 feet of a critical customer. Note, other methods could be used to identify the impact of <br />nearby critical customers. However, based on the source data available, this approach was the most <br />logical. <br />Other CoF Criteria <br />Other CoF criteria have been used in assessments like this: such as proximity to major roads, water <br />intake sources, industry / business; public health and safety concerns; reputational damage; or other <br />financial impacts. Several of these were discussed at a risk workshop with the City. However, due to <br />limited source data available and /or schedule, these additional considerations were outside the scope of <br />this assessment. <br />Overall CoF Calculation <br />To produce an overall CoF score for individual pipe segments, weighted scores for each of the <br />contributing CoF criteria were added together. The resulting CoF scores are, by design, within the range <br />of 0 to 10. Because the Proximity to Critical Customers criteria was considered to be less important than <br />the other two criteria, it received a lower weighting. Therefore, the Pipe Diameter and Customer Impact <br />criteria were weighted at 42% each and the Critical Customer count was weighted at 16 %. By adjusting <br />these weights other assessment scenarios could be created. Table B 3 provides a summary of the CoF <br />criteria used in this analysis. <br />65B -259 <br />IM01TAI ,JIT— aw. 6m <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.