Conceptual Routing Report FINAL.pdf - City of Kelowna

SouthGordon 

SanitarySewerTrunk 

Pre-Design 

Conceptual 

Routing 

Report 

CityReference:5340-07 

USLReference:0467.0384.01.R 

ThisreportispreparedforthesoleuseoftheCityof 

Kelowna.Norepresentationsofanykindaremadeby 

UrbanSystemsLtd.oritsemployeestoanypartywith 

whom UrbanSystemsLtd.doesnothaveacontract.

City of Kelowna 

South Gordon Sanitary Sewer Trunk Pre-design 

Conceptual Routing Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 

2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA .............................................................................................................. 2 

2.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................ 2 

2.2 UNIT HYDRAULIC LOADING ........................................................................................................ 2 

2.2.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2 

2.2.2 Future Conditions ............................................................................................................ 6 

2.3 SEWER SIZING ........................................................................................................................ 7 

2.3.1 Minimum Pipe Diameter .................................................................................................. 7 

2.3.2 Maximum Flow Depths .................................................................................................... 7 

2.3.3 Minimum Fluid Velocity .................................................................................................... 7 

2.3.4 Minimum Pipe Grade ....................................................................................................... 7 

2.3.5 Depth and Cover ............................................................................................................. 7 

2.3.6 Manholes ........................................................................................................................ 7 

3.0 BASIN BOUNDARIES .......................................................................................................... 8 

4.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................10 

4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 10 

4.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 11 

5.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING ...................................................................................................13 

5.1 CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................. 13 

5.2 ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 14 

5.3 ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 14 

5.4 ANALYSIS – FUTURE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 16 

5.5 ANALYSIS – SENSITIVITY ......................................................................................................... 18 

5.6 CONCEPTUAL ROUTING ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................ 19 

5.6.1 General Routing Considerations ..................................................................................... 20 

5.6.2 Option #1: Lakeshore – Gyro Lift Station ........................................................................ 21 

5.6.3 Option #2: Gordon – Gyro Lift Station ............................................................................ 23 

5.6.4 Option #3: Gordon – Waste Water Treatment Plant ........................................................ 24 

Page (i) 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 

U:\Projects_KEL\0467\0384\01\R-Reports-Studies-Documents\Final\Conceptual Routing Report\2009-10-14 Conceptual Routing Report FINAL.doc




6.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................26 

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................29 

8.0 CLOSURE ...........................................................................................................................30 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

Appendix C 

Digital Information 

Construction Cost Estimates 

Memorandum – Future Land Use Projections 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.1 

Figure 3.2 

Figure 4.1 

Figure 4.2 

Figure 5.1 

Figure 5.2 

Sector Boundaries 

Basin Boundaries 

2020 Land Use Scenario 

Future Urban Reserve Potential Growth 

Hydraulic Model Existing System 

Existing Residual Capacities 

Figure 5.3 Routing Option 1 

Figure 5.4 Hydraulic Model Ultimate Flows Option 1 


Figure 5.6 Hydraulic Model Ultimate Flows Option 3 


LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1 

Table 2.2 

Table 2.3 

Table 2.4 

Table 4.1 

Table 4.2 

Table 5.1 

Table 5.2 

Table 5.3 

Table 5.4 

Table 5.5 

Table 6.1 

Population Criteria 

Flow Monitoring Data Summary 

Sanitary Lift Station Data 

Unit Infiltration Rates – Existing Conditions 

Existing Population 

Future Serviced Population 

Pipe Capacity Summary (Critical Trunkmain Sections) 

Future Conditions 

Reduced Lift Station Discharge Rates to Reflect Future Trunk Storage Attenuation 

Future Conditions with Reduced Hydraulic Load Assumptions 

Riparian Management Area Setbacks 

Option Evaluation 

Page (ii) 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The South Gordon Drive Sanitary Trunk Sewer has been identified for some time as an important element 

of the City of Kelowna‟s future sanitary sewer infrastructure. This trunk will allow for a „splitting‟ of 

sewage flow from the southern end of the City, effectively creating a conduit parallel to the existing 

Lakeshore Road Sanitary Trunk Sewer. Development within the South Slopes area of Kelowna – recent 

and future – will ultimately overload the Lakeshore Road trunk sewer unless a relief trunk is in place. 

In January of 2009, the City‟s Design and Construction Services Division initiated a proposal call to 

investigate the preferred route, alignment and size of the noted sanitary trunk sewer. The City was 

specifically interested in determining whether or not a section of the sanitary trunk sewer could be 

constructed in conjunction with planned road widening improvements along Gordon Drive, should it be 

determined that Gordon Drive is the preferred route for the new trunk main. In March of 2009, the City 

of Kelowna commissioned Urban Systems Ltd to undertake the South Gordon Sanitary Sewer Trunk Pre- 

Design assignment. This infrastructure planning and pre-design assignment includes an initial assessment 

of viable trunk main routing alternatives. This „Conceptual Routing Report‟ summarizes the key findings 

and conclusions of the routing assessment. 

The primary objectives of the Conceptual Routing Report are described as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provide a brief synopsis of applicable design criteria; 

Summarize preliminary hydraulic analyses and associated assumptions; 

Identify viable routing options and associated pipe diameters for the gravity trunk main; 

Develop a list of potential issues and considerations for each routing option; 

Prepare preliminary construction cost estimates, and; 

Recommend a preferred trunk main route. 

P a g e | 1 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA 

2.1 Population Projections 

For the purpose of the Conceptual Routing evaluation, existing and future populations were estimated 

using the unit criteria summarized in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1– Population Criteria 

Land Use DU DU/acre Capita/DU Comments 

Single/Two-Unit Residential DU 6 2.8 

Multi Unit Low Density DU 15 2.8 

Multi Unit Medium Density DU 35 1.5 

Multi Unit High Density DU 55 1.5 

Multi Unit Cluster Housing DU 6 2.8 

Institutional Sq.m. Per Zoning Bylaw 

Commercial Sq.m. Per Zoning Bylaw 

Industrial Sq.m. Per Zoning Bylaw 

The current version of the City of Kelowna Official Community Plan (OCP) was the source of these unit 

population criteria. These criteria are consistent with the City‟s 2030 OCP update, which is currently 

underway. 

2.2 Unit Hydraulic Loading 

For the purposes of this report, a mixture of unit hydraulic loads was incorporated into the capacity 

analyses and trunk sizing exercises. Development of distinct unit rates was necessary because the unit 

hydraulic loads specified in the City of Kelowna Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw (SDS) are 

somewhat conservative, thereby ensuring that new sanitary sewers have somewhat of a margin in terms 

of available capacity. Applying bylaw criteria to the existing service population results in “theoretical” 

peak flow rates which typically exceed measured flows. This conservatism may ultimately trigger an 

upgrade – a new trunk in this case – sooner than is likely necessary. It also demands that hydraulic 

capacity for the proposed upgrade be even greater than what might be required. 

2.2.1 Existing Conditions 

The hydraulic behaviour of flows within the existing Lakeshore and Old Meadows Road trunks is 

influenced by a number of factors as it turns out: 

 

Off/on discharges from several lift stations 

P a g e | 2 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry weather domestic flows 

Inflow 

Infiltration 

Seasonal variations in tributary populations 

Seasonal variations in lake levels, and 

Attenuation within the mains 

Our initial efforts were focused on examining the hydraulics of the existing trunk system and, to some 

degree, the interplay between the various factors affecting these hydraulics. The ultimate objective, of 

course, was to determine residual capacity within the existing Lakeshore trunk - and by extension - the 

„trigger‟ point flows dictating the need for a relief main. 

The route to this objective included derivation of specific unit rate rates for: 

 

 

Average Daily Unit Loads (dry weather flow), and 

Average Daily Infiltration/Inflow 

that apply solely to the existing, serviced population. 

The City of Kelowna recently installed temporary flow monitoring equipment at four locations within the 

study area. Table 2.2 summarizes the key information gleaned from the recorded data. 

Table 2.2 – Flow Monitoring Data Summary 

Location 

Date 

Daily Flow Rates (L/s) 

Installed Removed Peak Avg Low 

MH 109107 – Lakeshore (between Barrera & Cook) 18-Sep-08 10-Oct-08 108.6 42.8 14.7 

MH 109574 – Lakeshore (At Old Meadows) 01-Apr-09 07-Apr-09 29.6 9.5 0.6 

MH 109571 – Lakeshore (South of Old Meadows) 04-Mar-09 09-Mar-09 32.0 12.4 1.0 

MH 109584 – Old Meadows ( Gordon to Lakeshore) 04-Mar-09 30-Apr-09 26.8 9.1 2.1 

Each monitoring site provided both flow level and velocity data, from which flow rates were derived. A 

review of each data set reveals that the information gathered at MH 109574 (Lakeshore at Old Meadows) 

might not be reliable for the following reasons: 

 

The manhole forms the junction of the Lakeshore and Old Meadows trunks. Hence laminar flow 

conditions necessary for reliable water measurements might not be present. 

P a g e | 3 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





 

The recorded flows are lower than those measured at MH 109571, which is located just 

upstream, on Lakeshore Road. 

Therefore, the data recorded at the Old Meadows Road monitoring location (MH 109584) were used to 

determine the existing unit loads, since this location does not have lift stations discharging into the 

upstream sewer system. Unfortunately, the data summarized in Table 2.2 are insufficient to determine 

how much of the low flow, if any, is attributable to infiltration. For the purposes of this study, we have 

assumed that approximately 50% of the low flow rates are a result of infiltration. This yields the following 

average daily flow rates, based on an average monitored flow rate of 9.1 L/s: 

 

 

Average dry weather flow – 8.05 L/s 

Infiltration – 1.05 L/s 

We also examined selected operational 

data, which included design discharge 

rates, daily pump run times, and 

continuous pump run times for the 

Eldorado, Bluebird, and Gyro lift stations. 

These data, combined with flow 

monitoring and historical lake level data, 

suggests that daily sanitary flow volumes 

increase during the summer months. This 

is illustrated by the adjacent figure 

showing the Bluebird lift station data and 

Okanagan Lake levels. Note that the 

patterns are similar for both the Eldorado and Gyro lift stations. 

We have insufficient data to determine if the increased flow volumes are due to increased summertime 

population, to increased infiltration caused by a higher groundwater level, or both. For the purposes of 

this study, however, we have assumed that the increases are due to infiltration since there is a very close 

correlation with the lake water level, which influences local groundwater levels. 

Table 2.3 summarizes key data obtained for each of the lift stations contributing to the Lakeshore trunk 

sewer. 

P a g e | 4 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Table 2.3 – Sanitary Lift Station Data 

Lift 

Station 

Pump 

Discharge 

Rate (L/s) 

Average Daily Pump Run 

Time (min) 

Summer (S) 

Winter (W) 

S/W Ratio 

Lakeshore 81 109 79 1.38 

Farris 12 76 51 1.49 

Eldorado 27 227 164 1.38 

Bluebird 40 206 136 1.51 

Average 1.45 

The lift station and monitored flow data also indicate that flows discharged from force mains into the 

gravity trunk sewer are attenuated significantly as they travel downstream. 

The City also provided us with rainfall data from several local weather monitoring stations. Timing of the 

rainfall events was coincident with some of the flow monitoring data generated from the Lakeshore 

Sanitary Trunk. Unfortunately, no significant rainfall occurred during these monitoring periods, so it was 

not possible to confirm if inflow is of significance. It could be assumed, however, that little inflow occurs 

because the sewer systems in the basins are relatively new and hence few (or no connections) from 

drainage catch basins are likely. 

Therefore, as shown in Table 2.3 above, it appears that infiltration during the summer months (peaking 

in June) is typically higher than that inferred from the monitoring data. For the purposes of this report, 

we have adjusted the inferred infiltration flow as follows: 

Increase daily volume by the summer/winter (S/W) ratio of 1.45 

 

 

Subtract the portion of daily volume attributed to dry weather flow (domestic loads) 

Net result is the adjusted infiltration volume 

Applying the above rational, our derivation of the „adjusted infiltration flow rate‟ is described as follows: 

 

 

 

Adjusted Infiltration Flow Rate = (Average Monitored Flow Rate)(S/W ratio) – (Average Dry 

Weather Flow Rate) 

Adjusted Infiltration Flow Rate = (9.1 L/s)(1.45) – (8.05L/s) 

Adjusted Infiltration Flow Rate = 5.15 L/s 

Typically, unit infiltration rates are expressed in terms of litres per day per hectare. We have also 

calculated unit infiltration in terms of litres per day per km of pipe for existing conditions in other 

jurisdictions. This alternative approach more accurately reflects the fact that the amount of infiltration is 

P a g e | 5 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





correlated more to the number of joints, manholes, and service connections than it is to serviced area. 

Table 2.4 summarizes the calculated unit infiltration rates for existing conditions using the flow 

monitoring data from Old Meadows Road (MH 109584) and the adjusted infiltration flow rate of 5.15 L/s 

(309 L/min). 

Table 2.4 – Unit Infiltration Rates – Existing Conditions 

Land Use 

Assumed 

Infiltration 

(Lpm) 

Serviced 

Area 

(ha) 

Length 

of Sewer 

(km) 

Unit Infiltration 

Rate 

Lpd/ha 

Lpd/km 

MH 109584 – Old Meadows ( Gordon to Lakeshore) 309 241 30.8 1846 14,450 

Based on an upstream existing, serviced population of 4812 (i.e. upstream of MH 109584), and the 

adjusted unit flow rates summarized in Table 2.4, the derived unit flow rates for existing conditions are: 

 

 

Average Daily Unit Load (dry weather flow) = 145 Lpd/capita 

Average Daily Infiltration = 1,850 Lpd/ha or 14,450 Lpd/km of pipe 

The peaking factor derived from the Old Meadows Road monitoring station data is approximately 2.1, for 

a service population of 4812. For the same population, the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw 

dictates a peaking factor (75% of the Harmon PF) of 2.4. Hence, the more conservative Bylaw peaking 

factor equation was applied throughout this study when calculating peak flows for a service area, given 

the closeness of these two values. 

2.2.2 Future Conditions 

Preceding Section 2.2.1 addresses unit hydraulic loading values as they apply to existing populations 

within the study area. For future development – including future homes on serviced but currently vacant 

lots - the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw criteria would apply as follows: 

 

 

 

Domestic Flow Rate (dry weather flow) = 300 litres/capita/day 

Infiltration rate for pipes not in water table = 5,000 l/ha/d 

Infiltration rate for pipes in water table = 8,000 l/ha/d 

The peaking factor applied to the average flow is calculated as follows: 

Peaking Factor = f (1+14/(4+P 0.5 )) 

where: P = Population in Thousands 

f = Reduction factor, applied as follows 

New residential areas = 0.75 

P a g e | 6 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Commercial and Industrial area = 1.00 

2.3 Sewer Sizing 

The City‟s SDS Bylaw specifies the following criteria for the design of sanitary sewer mains: 

2.3.1 Minimum Pipe Diameter 

 

For residential development – 200 mm minimum diameter 

 

For non-residential development – 250 mm minimum diameter 

2.3.2 Maximum Flow Depths 

At peak design flow, sewers shall be designed so that they flow: 

 

 

2/3 full for pipes 250 mm diameter and less; or 

3/4 full for pipes greater than 250 mm diameter 

2.3.3 Minimum Fluid Velocity 

Minimum fluid velocity is 0.6 m/s. 

2.3.4 Minimum Pipe Grade 

The grade of any sewer main is governed by the minimum velocity. If the calculated design flow is not 

expected to produce a velocity of at least 0.6 m/sec., then the minimum grade shall be calculated on the 

basis of the pipe flowing 35% full at a theoretical velocity of 0.6 m/sec. 

2.3.5 Depth and Cover 

The absolute minimum cover over a pipe must be 1.0 m, measured from the surface to the top of the 

pipe. However, in practise preferred minimums range between 1.2 m and 1.5 m, according to the City‟s 

Design and Construction Services Division. 

2.3.6 Manholes 

Manholes are required at: 

 

 

 

 

 

All changes in grade; 

All changes in direction; 

All changes in pipe sizes; 

All terminal sections; and 

Downstream end of curvilinear sewer 

P a g e | 7 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





3.0 BASIN BOUNDARIES 

Clearly, definition of the existing and future catchment areas for the South Gordon Trunk is a key 

element of the Conceptual Routing exercise. To this end, we relied upon previous work completed for the 

City by others, and complemented that work with our own observations and analysis. 

Stanley Consulting Group Ltd (Stanley) completed a Wastewater Master Plan for the City of Kelowna in 

June of 1997. This Plan provided a blueprint for ongoing development and expansion of Kelowna‟s 

sanitary sewer utility past the year 1997. 

The Stanley report identifies six sectors within and external to the City‟s existing sanitary sewer system, 

as shown in Figure 3.1. These sectors were developed on the basis of historical development and future 

land use projections. The three sectors relevant to this Conceptual Routing evaluation are the Central 

Kelowna, Southeast Kelowna and Okanagan Mission sectors. It should be noted that extensive areas of 

agricultural land within the City are protected by Provincial legislation and cannot be readily developed. 

Consequently, agricultural land uses were excluded from the tributary basins within each sector. Our 

Conceptual Routing evaluation relied on the earlier Stanley work, allowing us to determine which sectors, 

and basins within each sector, could potentially contribute to the South Gordon Trunk sewer. 

Any new sanitary sewer trunk main infrastructure servicing these three sectors would potentially begin at 

Old Meadows Road, within the Okanagan Mission sector, and end at either the Kelowna Pollution Control 

Centre (KPCC) or at Gyro lift station. Both of these latter facilities are within the Central Kelowna sector. 

The Stanley servicing strategy for the Southeast Kelowna sector was examined to determine whether or 

not this sector would contribute to the South Gordon Trunk. 

The Wastewater Master Plan identified that the Southeast Kelowna sector is largely rural in nature, with 

the gradient of the land generally sloping towards the northwest. The Stanley servicing strategy proposed 

a twin trunk collection system for the Southeast Kelowna sector, with the two trunks converging near Hall 

Road, where the existing trunk is now terminated. Presently, the Hall Road trunk is routed west along 

KLO Road to Benvoulin Road, then heads north along Benvoulin Road, then west again through a number 

of private land parcels, eventually entering the KPCC site from Raymer Avenue. This routing arrangement 

tells us that the Southeast Kelowna sector will not contribute sewage flows to the South Gordon Trunk. If 

and when the McCulloch/Gallagher‟s Canyon area is connected to the sanitary sewer system, the flows 

emanating from this area could be routed along Gulley and Spiers Roads, ultimately connecting to the 

Hall Road trunk at the intersection of Hall Road and Spiers Road. This suggested routing is in keeping 

with the City‟s 20 year Major Road Network Plan, which sees Spiers and Gulley Roads being upgraded to 

a two lane arterial status. However, the City would need to consider the potential ramifications of 

implementing a sanitary trunk sewer - in conjunction with the proposed future roadway improvements - 

through what is predominantly agricultural land. A portion of any trunk main along the northern leg of 

Spiers Road may need to incorporate an inverted siphon, given the ground profile along that section of 

road. There may also be a need for flow attenuation from the Gallagher‟ Canyon service area to 

P a g e | 8 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


FIGURE 3.1 

SECTOR BOUNDARIES 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 

SOUTH GORDON SANITARY SEWER TRUNK PRE-DESIGN 

Conceptual Routing Report




accommodate the expected flows within the capacity of the existing Hall Road and Benvoulin Road 

trunks. 

Those portions of the Central Kelowna and Okanagan Mission sectors contributing to the South Gordon 

Trunk were subdivided into a number of basins as shown in Figure 3.2. The basin boundaries reflect 

both the individual areas tributary to a number of lift stations within the noted sectors, as well as sub 

areas within the sector drained by gravity flow to either an existing or future trunk main. The Central 

Kelowna sector has only one contributing basin - Gyro lift station. The Okanagan Mission sector is divided 

into seven distinct basins: Uplands lift station, South Mission, Farris lift station, Eldorado lift station, Old 

Meadows, Bluebird lift station and Mission Waterpark lift station. 

The Old Meadows, South Mission and Gyro lift station basins all flow directly by gravity to the existing 

Lakeshore Trunk. The majority flows discharged from the of Gyro lift station basin enter the existing 

Lakeshore trunk at the intersection of Swordy Road and Lakeshore Road, influencing only a small portion 

of the Lakeshore trunk prior to discharging to the Gyro lift station facility. 

P a g e | 9 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


FIGURE 3.2 

BASIN BOUNDARIES 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 






4.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 

This section of the report outlines assumptions regarding both existing and future land use, within the 

lands tributary to the sanitary trunk system under study. 

4.1 Existing Conditions 

Existing development within the study area is divided into two categories – serviced and not serviced. 

This distinction is important since one of the study objectives is to establish unit load criteria for existing 

conditions (this was completed using monitored flow data as outlined in Section 2.0). In order to 

accomplish this objective, the following assumptions were made to ensure that only the development 

units contributing sanitary loads to the system were considered: 

 

 

 

Parcels which have a sanitary service connection and which are not classified as vacant, were 

considered as “existing serviced”. 

Parcels which have a sanitary service connection, but which are classified as vacant, were 

considered as “existing not serviced”. 

Parcels which do not have a sanitary service connection, but which are classified as not vacant, 

were considered as “existing not serviced”. 

All parcels deemed “existing not serviced” were not included in the existing conditions model. These 

parcels will, however, contribute sanitary loading in the future conditions model based upon their existing 

or ultimate land use designation. 

The study area was also divided into several catchments, based on locations of interest. These include: 

 

 

 

Service areas contributing to a lift station 

Gravity service areas tributary (by gravity flow) to flow monitoring sites (manholes) 

Service areas tributary (by gravity flow) to the Lakeshore Trunk sewer 

Table 4.1 summarizes the overall existing populations (serviced and not serviced) within each 

catchment. 

P a g e | 10 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Table 4.1 – Existing Population 

Catchment 

Existing Population 

Serviced Not Serviced Total 

Comments 

Gyro LS-North 6,888 101 6,989 North of MH 109107 

Gyro LS-South 1,694 14 1,708 Flow monitoring site – MH 109107 

Mission Water Park 0 0 0 

MH 107520 (institutional point 

load) 

Bluebird LS 1,569 112 1,681 

South Mission 1,915 172 2,087 Flow monitoring site – MH 109571 

Old Meadows 4,812 1,358 6,170 Flow monitoring site – MH 109584 

Eldorado LS 1,418 23 1,441 

Farris LS 180 11 191 

Upland LS 2,125 1,434 3,559 

Totals 20,601 3,225 23,826 

The populations for existing conditions were determined as follows: 

Parcels were classified by their primary use (SF, MF, ICI). See Table 2.1. 

 

 

BC Assessment Authority (BCAA) counts of units were allocated to each parcel. 

The population associated with each parcel was calculated using the BCAA unit count and the 

unit criteria outlined in Table 2.1. 

4.2 Future Conditions 

The City of Kelowna is currently undertaking a review of its Official Community Plan (OCP), which is 

scheduled for completion by early 2010. The OCP review involves preparation of several future land use 

scenarios, comparison of key measures, and the ultimate selection of a preferred growth scenario (or 

combination of scenarios) to be incorporated into the OCP. As noted in the Terms of Reference for the 

South Gordon Trunk assignment, the City‟s preferred growth scenario, and by extension the 2030 land 

use projections, will not be available until June 30, 2009. It was assumed at the outset of this routing 

evaluation that the City‟s current 2020 land use information would be used to support recommendations 

included in this study. 

However, Urban Systems Ltd. is currently the prime consultant for the City‟s OCP review initiative. As 

such, we are familiar with potential growth scenarios being considered beyond the current 2020 OCP land 

use plan, and, more specifically, within designated Future Urban Reserve Areas in the South Slopes 

areas. Consideration of these potential growth areas as an “upper limit” condition is certainly relevant in 

the context of this study, although the OCP review process is not complete, and remains subject to 

change. 

P a g e | 11 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Consequently, we took advantage of the preliminary 2030 land use projection information to allow for 

development of two future condition scenarios, as follows: 

 

 

2020 Scenario - in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the assignment, future population 

is based on the 2020 OCP full capacity build-out (i.e. not including Future Urban Reserve Areas), 

as shown in Figure 4.1. 

2030 Scenario - as an “upper limit” condition, future population is based on full capacity build-out 

based upon the most current planning information available related to the 2030 OCP update, plus 

the potential growth associated with expressions of interest from the development community 

within designated Future Urban Reserve Areas as shown in Figure 4.2. A memorandum 

summarizing the future land use projections associated with the 2030 Scenario is provided in 

Appendix C. 

Table 4.2 – Future Serviced Population 

Catchment 

Future Serviced Population 

2020 Scenario 2030 Scenario 

Gyro LS-North 10,058 10,660 

Gyro LS-South 2,314 2,424 

Mission Water Park 8 145 

Bluebird LS 2,231 2,297 

South Mission 5,299 6,332 

Old Meadows 16,883 20,749 

Eldorado LS 2,756 2,954 

Farris LS 528 570 

Upland LS 8,679 11,739 

Totals 48,756 57,870 

We assumed that the majority of future development would be residential in nature. Further we assumed 

that 60% of the development would be multi-family, with the remaining 40% single family in nature – 

these assumptions are consistent with the City‟s 2030 OCP update, which, as noted above, is currently 

underway. 

As noted early, the populations for future conditions were determined as follows: 

 

 

Parcels were classified by their primary use (SF, MF, ICI). 

The population associated with each parcel was calculated using the unit criteria outlined in 

Table 2.1. 

Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this report examine how these future populations impact things from a 

hydraulic perspective. 

P a g e | 12 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


FIGURE 4.1 

2020 Land Use 

Scenario 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 



FIGURE 4.2 

Future Urban 

Reserve Potential 

Growth 

AREA 3 

AREA 2 

AREA 1 

POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS 

SOUTH GORDON SANITARY SEWER TRUNK PRE-DESIGN Conceptual Routing Report 

Project No. 0467.0384.01




5.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING 

A computer-based hydraulic model was developed as a tool to assist the team with the hydraulic 

analyses: 

 

 

 

To identify existing capacity issues; 

To determine the conditions which would trigger need for additional trunk capacity; and 

To optimize the proposed trunk size and operational configuration 

The City of Kelowna provided Urban Systems with data from an InfoSewer model developed by City Staff. 

These data were imported into a PCSWMM.NET model which formed the basis of the model used for the 

Conceptual Routing evaluation. 

5.1 Considerations 

The set of computer model data we received from the City is highly detailed and includes all sanitary 

sewers within the service area. It also includes average load allocations from existing, serviced parcels to 

specific manholes. Since we are interested only in a small portion of the modeled system, this level of 

detail can become a liability for the following reasons: 

 

 

Rather than simply adding lumped loads, which reflect future development conditions, additional 

effort is required to properly allocate them throughout each service catchment. 

Future development might trigger upgrades to sewers and lift stations upstream of the Lakeshore 

trunk sewer. These would have to be modeled to ensure future flows adequately reach the 

subject trunks, even though this is not an objective within the scope of this assignment. 

We therefore proposed - and were subsequently given permission from City Staff to - simplify the model 

as follows: 

 

 

Lift stations and force mains would be replaced with constant flow inputs to the model. 

Existing and future loads would be grouped and allocated to manholes immediately upstream of 

the subject trunk sewers, using appropriate peaking factors. 

Several assumptions were necessary in order to simplify the model. These and other assumptions about 

the required analyses are outlined in Section 5.2. 

P a g e | 13 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





5.2 Assumptions 

The following assumptions govern the hydraulic analyses conducted for the purposes of this study, in 

addition to the design and analysis criteria outlined in Section 2.0. 

 

 

Developing steady-state peak flows is sufficient for evaluation purposes, since the analytical 

objective is to provide design peak flows for sizing the proposed sanitary trunk sewer. Timebased 

flow patterns will be used for reference purposes only. 

Loads from all of the service areas south of Old Meadows Road can be lumped and allocated to 

two locations: 

a. Manhole 109574 on Lakeshore Road at Old Meadows Road, and 

b. Manhole 108383 on Gordon Drive at Old Meadows Road 

 

 

 

 

Currently, lift station flows are significantly attenuated downstream of the forcemain discharge 

location. This appears to be a result of very short pump run-times. As additional development 

occurs, however, the lift station pumps will run for a longer period of time, thereby reducing the 

attenuation effect in the downstream trunks. Hence, the lift station discharge rates have been 

input as steady state flows within the model, without any reduction factor. Generally this is a 

conservative, but realistic, approach and represents the upper-limit of the potential design load. 

We assumed that each lift station discharge rate will remain unchanged unless the peak flows 

generated by the future population within each lift station service area exceed the lift station 

discharge rate. 

The City‟s computer model contains allocated loads at select manholes (model nodes). It was 

assumed that the allocated loads can be used as the basis for distributing loads within the 

portion of the model served directly by the subject trunk sewers. 

The simplified computer model will be used to establish the “trigger” peak flow rate, for purposes 

of the routing analysis. Sizing the proposed trunk and determining the design peak flow rate was 

completed manually since it was assumed that the trunk diameter and slope would be uniform 

along the entire length of the trunk. 

5.3 Analysis – Existing Conditions 

The Conceptual Routing evaluation included an analysis of existing hydraulic conditions throughout the 

reach of the Lakeshore Trunk. The purpose of the analysis was to determine: 

 

 

 

Existing peak flows; 

Residual capacity; and 

The peak flow rate which would trigger construction of additional trunk capacity 

P a g e | 14 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Figure 5.1 illustrates the peak flow rates along the length of the existing Lakeshore trunk sewer. Note 

that flows rates in Figure 5.1 are higher than those derived from the monitoring program, since the 

monitoring rates were subsequently adjusted to reflect higher summertime flow rates, as discussed in 

Section 2.2. Also note that the projected flow rates through the north end of the system are 

significantly higher than those expected through the southern reach. 

The existing siphon crossing Mission Creek was analysed to determine its maximum flow capacity. The 

siphon is comprised of two 500 mm diameter pipes and one 315 mm diameter pipe. These pipes have an 

inside diameter of 463.5 mm and 284.5 mm respectively. The total length of each pipe is 35.4 m. The 

available head loss for each pipe barrel is 0.273 m. 

The equation 

 

Q / A 

h m 

K 

2g 

 

2 

was used to determine the minor head losses for each barrel in the 

siphon, where Q represents the flow rate, A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe and g is the force of 

gravity. The pipe entrance for each barrel was assumed to be flush with the manhole wall yielding a “K” 

value of 0.5. The major losses through each siphon barrel were calculated using the Hazen-Williams 

equation - 

Q 0.278xCxD 

2.63 

h 

f 

 

L 

 

 

 

0.54 

, where D is the diameter of the pipe, L is the length of the 

pipe, h f is the friction loss, Q is the flow rate and C is the roughness coefficient. Assuming a roughness 

coefficient of 120, the major losses (h f ) through each barrel were determined. The total head loss 

through each pipe was determined by summing the major and minor losses. 

We were able to determine the ultimate flow capacity of the siphon by manipulating the flow rate (Q) 

until the actual head loss was equal to the allowable head loss of 0.273 m. Each 500mm diameter barrel 

has an ultimate capacity of 0.274 m 3 /s. The 315mm diameter barrel has an ultimate capacity of 0.081 

m 3 /s. Hence, the ultimate capacity of the siphon is 0.629 m 3 /s or 629 L/s. 

Figure 5.2 identifies several pipe segments of the Lakeshore Trunk that are nearing their design 

capacity based on the maximum liquid depth criteria defined in Section 2.0. Details of the more critical 

trunkmain sections are summarized in Table 5.1. 

P a g e | 15 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


FIGURE 5.1 

Hydraulic Model 

Existing System 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 



FIGURE 5.2 

Existing Residual 

Capacities 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 






Table 5.1 – Pipe Capacity Summary (Critical Trunkmain Sections) 

Section 

Existing Lakeshore Trunk Section 

Slope 

(m/m) 

Flows (L/s) 

Existing Capacity Residual 

A 

B 

C 

MH 107488 to 107489: between Cook & 

Barrera Roads 0.0003 132 133 1 

MH 109107 to 109105: between Cook & 

Barrera Roads 0.0004 132 153 21 

MH 112299 to 106836: south of Lexington 

Drive 0.0037 124 147 23 

The capacity of Section A could be increased somewhat (±20 L/s) by allowing a slight surcharge in MH 

107488, thereby raising the overall additional capacity in Sections A through C by about 20 L/s. A key 

question though, is “Where might any additional 20 L/s of load come from?” If it is generated within the 

catchment area north of Old Meadows Road, then the „trigger flow‟ would be 70 L/s (existing peak flow 

on Lakeshore at Old Meadows Road). However, if the future flows are generated south of Old Meadows 

Road, then the trigger flow would be 90 L/s (70 L/s + 20 L/s), the minimum residual capacity on 

Lakeshore Road. 

We determined that the increase in future peak flow rates generated within the catchment north of Old 

Meadows Road would be about 10 L/s. Based on the future development scenario outlined in Section 

4.2, this means that the maximum allowable flow into the existing Lakeshore trunk at Old Meadows Road 

would be 80 L/s (70 + 20 – 10). 

5.4 Analysis – Future Conditions 

This aspect of the conceptual routing evaluation examined the impacts of additional flows generated by 

future development within the tributary basins. The objectives were to determine: 

 

 

 

Future peak flow rates; 

Allocation of flows between existing and proposed trunks; and 

Proposed trunk sizing. 

We suggest that the assumptions governing this particular analysis are conservative, yielding “upper 

limit” values. They are based on the following assumptions: 

The future population is based upon the 2030 growth projection scenario, per Table 4.2. 

Specifically, future population projections assume full capacity build-out applying the most 

current planning information available for the 2030 OCP update, plus the potential growth areas 

within designated Future Urban Reserve Areas (refer to Appendix C). 

P a g e | 16 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





 

 

Hydraulic loads for all development units currently not serviced or constructed (future) are 

calculated by applying the Bylaw unit load criteria, per Section 2.2.2. 

Existing lift stations discharge at their full rate. 

The resulting peak flow rates at three key locations within the study area are: 

 

 

 

Lakeshore Road, south of Old Meadows Road – 185 L/s 

Gordon Drive, south of Old Meadows Road – 206 L/s 

Lakeshore Road, north of Cook Road – 465 L/s (existing trunk capacity limit location) 

Based on these flow rates, Table 5.2 summarizes the theoretical peak flow rates and minimum main 

diameters required for the potential future trunk sewers along two primary routes; Lakeshore Road and 

Gordon Drive. 

Table 5.2 – Future Conditions 

Potential Future Trunk Section 

Lakeshore Road Route 

Peak Flow 

Rate 1 

(L/s) 

Minimum Pipe 

Diameter 2 

(mm) 

Old Meadows Road: Gordon to Lakeshore 206 675 3 

Lakeshore Road: Twin Trunk 332 4 900 5 

Lakeshore Road: Replacement Trunk 6 465 900 7 

Gordon Drive Route 

Old Meadows Road: Lakeshore to Gordon 185 750 

Gordon Drive: Relief Trunk 411 1050 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Peak Flow Rate = (Contributing Population)(Unit Domestic Loading)(Peaking Factor) + (Contributing Area)(Unit Infiltration 

Loading) 

Minimum pipe diameters were calculated based on preliminary trunk main design grades, the maximum flow depth criteria 

described in Section 2.3.2, and the associated peak flow rates. 

The capacity of the existing 675mm main along Old Meadows Road is sufficient to carry the ultimate flows from this basin. 

332 L/s is the difference between the theoretical peak flow rate (465 L/s) and the critical pipe capacity along the existing 

Lakeshore trunk, as described in Section 5.3 (133 L/s). 

The capacity of a 750mm diameter pipe, flowing ¾ full, at the estimated design grade of 0.066% is 309 L/s which is less than 

the 332 L/s peak flow rate (see note 4), thus, a 900mm diameter pipe is required to satisfy the SDS bylaw design criteria. 

The replacement trunk option is intended to provide the City with some perspective as it relates to incremental pipe diameter 

required to accommodate peak flows in a dedicated trunk main. In this scenario, the existing trunk main could be abandoned if 

it were deemed necessary as a function of age, condition, etc. 

The capacity of a 900mm diameter pipe, flowing ¾ full, at the estimated design grade of 0.066% is 503 L/s which exceeds the 

465 L/s peak flow rate. 

P a g e | 17 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





5.5 Analysis – Sensitivity 

We completed a second analysis of future conditions using less conservative assumptions regarding 

design flows and population projections. These revised assumptions are: 

 

 

The unit loads inferred from the flow monitoring data, rather than the Bylaw unit loads, were 

applied to future development (vacant lots as well as new development). This applies to both dry 

weather and infiltration unit loads as described in Section 2.2.1. 

Rather than using the lift station discharge capacities as steady state flows, assumed reduction 

factors were applied. The resulting steady state discharge rates, inferred from the flow 

monitoring data and used in this analysis, are summarized in Table 5.3. 

The future population is based on the 2020 growth scenario, as described in Section 4.2. 

Specifically, future population assumes full capacity build-out of the 2020 OCP (i.e. not including 

Future Urban Reserve Areas). 

Table 5.3 – Reduced Lift Station Discharge Rates to Reflect 

Future Trunk Storage Attenuation 

Lift 

Station 

Design 

Pump Discharge Rates (L/s) 

Recorded 

(2008-05-19) 

Assumed 

Attenuate 

d 

Lakeshore 81 81 12 

Farris 12 12 2 

Eldorado 27 27 4 

Bluebird 40 38 40 

This analysis was completed to determine how sensitive the required trunk main diameters are to peak 

flow rates. Table 5.4 summarizes the resulting peak flow rates and required trunk diameters under these 

reduced load assumptions. 

P a g e | 18 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Table 5.4 – Future Conditions with Reduced Hydraulic Load Assumptions 

Potential Future Trunk Section 

Lakeshore Road Route 

Peak Flow 

Rate 1 

(L/s) 

Minimum Pipe 

Diameter 2 

(mm) 

Old Meadows Road: Gordon to Lakeshore 95 675 3 

Lakeshore Road: Twin Trunk 80 4 450 

Lakeshore Road: Replacement Trunk 213 675 

Gordon Drive Route 

Old Meadows Road: Lakeshore to Gordon 50 450 

Gordon Drive: Relief Trunk 162 675 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Peak Flow Rate = (Contributing Population)(Unit Domestic Loading)(Peaking Factor) + (Contributing Area)(Unit Infiltration 

Loading) 

Minimum pipe diameters were calculated based on preliminary trunk main design grades, the maximum flow depth criteria 

described in Section 2.3.2, and the associated peak flow rates. 

The capacity of the existing 675 mm main along Old Meadows Road is sufficient for ultimate flows from this basin. 

80 L/s is the difference between the peak flow rate (213 L/s) and the critical pipe capacity along the existing Lakeshore trunk, 

as described in Section 5.3 (133 L/s). 

The minimum trunk main diameters listed in Table 5.2 and Table 5.4 vary significantly for each 

particular trunk section. This is to be expected when you consider the underlying assumptions related to 

land use, unit loading, and system hydraulics. Consequently, the City can have greater confidence that 

the proposed works will have sufficient capacity to compensate for uncertainties associated with the land 

use plan (ultimate build-out) and design criteria (unit loads), based on these analyses. 

5.6 Conceptual Routing Alternatives 

We identified three potential routing options for the proposed South Gordon Trunk, in accordance with 

our proposal commitments. The scope here entailed evaluating the feasibility of each route, determining 

preliminary construction costs for the individual options and identifying any unique issues and/or 

constraints as they related to the three routes. 

P a g e | 19 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





5.6.1 General Routing Considerations 

The City of Kelowna provided us with a considerable amount of project-related resource material in the 

early stages of this assignment, as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Legal Base for study area 

Gordon Drive 2010 Roadway Improvements – Detailed Design 

Mission Creek Bridge Designs (Gordon Drive and Lakeshore Road) 

Tie-in Location and Invert Elevation at WWTP (to satisfy gravity flow) 

Hydraulic Modeling information as per the Terms of Reference 

Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Data 

2020 Land Use Plan 

Lakeshore Road Multi-Use Corridor - Design Cross Section 

Lakeshore Road Ground Survey 

Geotechnical reporting within the study area 

Lift Station Operational Data 

Rain Gauge Information 

Utility Composite Information 

As-Built Information (via Remote Drawing Viewer) 

To complement this material, we initiated a planning/design request via BC 1Call in order to reconcile the 

extent and location of all private utilities within the study area. Existing utility base information for 

Terasen Gas, Fortis BC, Telus and Shaw infrastructure was compiled and considered in the context of the 

Conceptual Routing analysis. 

Key members of our design team conducted a site reconnaissance to identify any anomalies between the 

record information provided to us and existing field conditions. We also catalogued any obstacles and/or 

surface features that may impact the proposed routing options. 

We do not anticipate subsurface conditions along Gordon Drive and along Lakeshore Road to be 

significantly different. We base this conclusion on our general experience in the area, along with limited 

record and anecdotal information. High groundwater levels will be encountered along both routes. The 

prevalent native silty soils are not expected to be suitable for re-use as trench backfill. Accordingly, 

construction will likely entail both dewatering and significant volumes of imported granular trench backfill, 

regardless of the selected route. 

P a g e | 20 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





From an environmental perspective, construction related impacts are primarily limited to potential stream 

undercrossings. There are three streams within the study area - Wilson Creek, Mission Creek and 

Thomson Creek. Table 5.5 summarizes the Riparian Management Area (RMA) Setbacks for each of the 

noted streams, as defined by the City‟s OCP. 

Stream 

Table 5.5 – Riparian Management Area Setbacks 

Stream Reach 

Riparian 

Management 

Area (m) 

Wilson Creek All 10 

Mission Creek Downstream of Gordon Drive 15 

Mission Creek Upstream of Gordon Drive 50 

Thomson Creek Downstream of Gordon Drive 15 

Thomson Creek Upstream of Gordon Drive 10 

Any sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements proposed within the RMA would be subject to the 

appropriate Municipal, Provincial and Federal regulatory requirements, which may include: 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Impact Assessments; 

A Riparian Area Regulations assessment; 

Provisions under the Federal Fisheries Act; and 

Best Management Practices for work within a stream 

Appendix A contains a digital version of a design drawing for each routing option. The drawings 

illustrate the preliminary trunk main alignments and profiles and any conflicts with existing infrastructure 

within the study area. 

An individual summary for each proposed routing option is provided in the next few pages. 

5.6.2 Option #1: Lakeshore – Gyro Lift Station 

Basin Boundaries - Figure 3.2 outlines the basin boundaries within the study area. Routing Option #1 

would convey gravity flows from the South Mission, Old Meadows and Gyro basins as well as any pumped 

sewage from the Uplands, Farris, Eldorado, Bluebird and Mission Water Park lift stations. 

Alignment – Routing Option #1 would be aligned within the Lakeshore Road right-of-way, between Old 

Meadows Road and the Gyro lift station, as shown in Figure 5.3 (note that in the figure, the alignment is 

shown schematically only). This proposed route is approximately 2,600 m long. The trunk main ultimately 

connects to the existing gravity sewer system within the City of Kelowna parking lot at Gyro Beach, 

P a g e | 21 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


FIGURE 5.3 

Routing Option 1 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 






located immediately south of the Gyro lift station facility. The proposed trunk sewer would run parallel to 

and west of the existing 675 mm diameter Lakeshore Road trunk sewer. The limited elevation difference 

between the upstream and downstream tie in points for the new trunk precludes it from crossing under 

the existing 675 mm trunk sewer at any point. 

The proposed trunk main would not align along a fixed offset from the boundary of the road right-of-way, 

given the extent and location of existing utilities within the right-of-way. The proposed main alignment 

would trigger relocation of a section of an existing 200 mm AC water main, between Barrera Road and 

the north side of Wilson Creek (about 280 m in length). This section of water main would be relocated 

further west in order to provide a minimum 3.0 m horizontal separation from the new trunk sewer. Fire 

hydrant leads and existing water services would be re-established, as required. 

The proposed trunk sewer alignment lies within the limits of the existing asphalt carriageway along 

Lakeshore Road - with the exception of some 400 m between Old Meadows and Lequime Road. For 

preliminary costing purposes, the extent of road restoration was determined in accordance with Workers 

Compensation Board regulations, as they relate to trench excavation slopes. Road restoration between 

Old Meadows Road and Lequime Road would be focused more towards the west side of the road right-ofway. 

Here, restoration revolves around existing asphalt and gravel driveways, grassed areas and about 

half of the asphalt road surface along Lakeshore Road. 

Design Criteria – Refer to Section 2.0 for relevant design criteria. 

Conflicts - Existing sanitary services originating from properties on the west side of Lakeshore Road 

would likely need to be connected to the new trunk sewer, given the proposed grade and alignment of 

the new main. Similarly, lateral mains from Bluebird, Radant, Truswell and Cook Roads would need to be 

connected to the new trunk main. The existing force main from the Bluebird lift station will conflict with 

the new trunk alignment, but the force main could be reconfigured so as to connect to either the existing 

or new trunk main. 

The proposed trunk main would cross existing gas mains and water mains at several locations. Those gas 

mains that are impacted are of a diameter of less than 88 mm, all are classified as distribution pressure 

mains and are all typically buried at a depth of approximately 1.2 m. Any water main conflicts will require 

new PVC u-bend connections. We have assumed that any asbestos (AC) water mains that are exposed 

during the trunk sewer excavation would be removed and replaced with PVC pipe for the width of the 

trench section. 

As noted in Section 5.3, the capacity of the existing Mission Creek siphon is not exceeded relative to the 

theoretical flows generated by the 2020 and 2030 planning horizons. 

However, some modifications to 

the inlet and outlet structures would be required in order to connect the proposed trunk main to the 

existing siphon. The inlet structure, in its current state, is prone to sediment accumulation and requires 

flushing on a regular basis. Improved inlet hydraulics would be considered as part of the pre-design 

phase of this assignment, should the Lakeshore option be selected as the preferred route. From an 

P a g e | 22 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





environmental perspective, this work would occur outside of the Riparian Management Area for Mission 

Creek. Both Thomson Creek and Wilson Creek are not impacted by the proposed trunk main design. 

Connection details at the upstream end of the new trunk will vary depending on whether or not the new 

trunk supplements or replaces the existing trunk sewer. A direct connection can be made to the existing 

sanitary sewer mains at the intersection of Lakeshore Road and Old Meadows Road if the new trunk 

sewer replaces the existing trunk. If the new trunk sewer supplements the existing trunk, then a 

diversion structure would be required at the intersection of Lakeshore Road and Old Meadows Road. 

Details of this connection will be developed, once a preferred routing option has been selected by the 

City of Kelowna. 

Trunk Sizing - The results of our hydraulic analyses, along with the associated pipe diameters, are 

shown in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5. Refer to Figure 5.4 for a graphical representation of the 

modeled flows for Routing Option #1. 

Construction Cost – The hydraulic analyses, associated trunk main diameter and construction cost 

estimate are based on the City‟s future land use projections as described in Appendix C. 

A preliminary estimate for Routing Option #1 is provided in Appendix B. This Class „C‟ estimate sets the 

cost for this option at $7,844,000. 

5.6.3 Option #2: Gordon – Gyro Lift Station 

Basin Boundaries – Again, Figure 3.3 outlines the basin boundaries within the study area. Routing 

Option #2 would convey gravity flows from the South Mission, Old Meadows and Gyro basins as well as 

any pumped sewage from the Uplands, Farris and Eldorado lift stations. The Bluebird and Mission Water 

Park lift stations would continue to discharge to the existing trunk sewer along Lakeshore Road. 

A diversion structure would be required at the intersection of Old Meadows Road and Lakeshore Road to 

maximize the allowable flow into the existing 675 mm diameter Lakeshore Trunk. Details of this 

connection will be developed, once a preferred routing option has been selected by the City of Kelowna. 

Alignment – Routing Option #2 would be aligned within the Old Meadow, Gordon, Casorso and Swordy 

road right-of-ways, as shown in Figure 5.5 (again, note that in the figure, the alignment is shown 

schematically only). This proposed route is approximately 3,800 meters long. Similar to Routing Option 

#1, the limited elevation difference between the upstream and downstream tie in points for the new 

trunk precludes it from crossing under the existing 675 mm trunk sewer at any point. 

New manholes would be constructed on top of the existing Lakeshore trunk at both Swordy Road and Old 

Meadows Road. The proposed trunk main would generally align along the middle of the Swordy, Casorso 

and Gordon road right-of-ways, given the absence of existing utilities along these corridors. The new 

trunk sewer would be constructed along the south side of Old Meadows Road, between Gordon Drive and 

P a g e | 23 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


FIGURE 5.4 


Ultimate Flows 

Option 1 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 



FIGURE 5.5 


Project No. 0467.0384.01 






Lakeshore Road. The existing 675 mm sewer flowing east to west along Old Meadows would either be 

abandoned or removed. 

The proposed trunk sewer alignment lies within the limits of the existing asphalt carriageway along 

Swordy, Casorso, Gordon and Old Meadows - with the exception of the new Mission Creek siphon 

undercrossing. 

Design Criteria – Refer to Section 2.0 for relevant design criteria. 

Conflicts - Similar to Routing Option #1, the proposed trunk main would cross existing gas mains and 

water mains at several locations. Those gas mains that are impacted are larger diameter, all are classified 

as distribution pressure mains and are all typically buried at a depth of approximately 1.2 m. Any water 

main conflicts will require new PVC u-bend connections. We have assumed that any asbestos (AC) water 

mains that are exposed during the trunk sewer excavation would be removed and replaced with PVC pipe 

for the width of the trench section. In addition, sanitary sewer lateral mains from Landie and Scott Roads 

currently connected to the existing 450 mm diameter trunk sewer along Swordy Road would need to be 

connected to the new trunk main. 

At least two siphons would be required for the new trunk main – the first at Mission Creek and the 

second under an existing 1200 mm diameter culvert near the intersection of Gordon Drive and Lequime 

Road. Detailed ground survey of the existing culvert crossing of Thomson Creek (across Gordon Drive) 

would be undertaken at the pre-design stage to confirm that there is no conflict with the proposed trunk. 

Trunk Sizing - The results of our hydraulic analyses, along with the associated pipe diameters, are 

shown in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5. Refer to Figure 5.6 for a graphical representation of the 

modeled flows for Routing Option #2. 

Construction Cost – The hydraulic analyses, associated trunk main diameter and construction cost 

estimate are based on the City‟s future land use projections as described in Appendix C. 

A preliminary estimate for Routing Option #2 is provided in Appendix B. This Class „C‟ estimate sets the 

cost for this option at $14,646,000. 

5.6.4 Option #3: Gordon – Waste Water Treatment Plant 

Alignment – The Terms of Reference for the assignment include examination of a potential new gravity 

trunk main connecting Old Meadows Road to KPCC (Kelowna Pollution Control Centre). This option is 

depicted in Figure 5.7. 

We observe that the lowest invert elevation at the tie-in point to the existing sanitary sewer system 

nearest the KPCC site (on Raymer Avenue), is approximately 341.40 m. The tie-in point elevation at the 

intersection of Old Meadows Road and Lakeshore Road is 341.50 m. 

Hence, the overall available 

elevation difference between the two ends of any such trunk is 0.1 m, over a length of some 4.85 km. 

P a g e | 24 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


FIGURE 5.6 


Ultimate Flows 

Option 2 

Project No. 0467.0384.01 



FIGURE 5.7 


Project No. 0467.0384.01 






This route will require at least two siphons (similar to Option #2), each requiring in the order of 0.2 m to 

0.3 m of operational head (elevation). This would be over and above the elevation difference needed to 

convey the design flows through a new trunk gravity main. We can safely conclude, therefore, that there 

is insufficient elevation difference for this routing option. 

P a g e | 25 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





6.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Section 5.0 of this report identifies that two viable routing options have emerged from the analytical work, namely a Lakeshore Road and a South 

Gordon Drive trunk. These two routing options are illustrated in Figures 5.3 and 5.5 respectively. 

Table 6.1 provides a summary of the key criteria being considered in our evaluation of the two routes, along with specific comments for each routing 

option. 

Table 6.1 – Option Evaluation 

Evaluation Criteria Option #1: Lakeshore – Gyro Lift Station Option #2: Gordon – Gyro Lift Station 

Capital Cost The estimated construction cost is $7,844,000. The estimated construction cost is $14,646,000. 

Future Improvements Lakeshore Road is identified as a future 4-lane arterial road in The 4-laning of Gordon Drive is currently under construction between 

Traffic Management 

And 

Business Impacts 

the City‟s current Major Road Network Plan. Further, the City 

is currently advancing detailed design of the Lakeshore Road 

Multi-Use Corridor between Mission Creek and Gyro Beach. 

Coordination of the sanitary trunk sewer improvements with 

other planned transportation improvements could conceivably 

reduce construction related costs and impacts (trench asphalt 

restoration, road base gravels, traffic management and 

business impacts). 

Lakeshore Road is currently a 2-lane arterial road within the 

study area, and traffic volumes along this section of Lakeshore 

Road are considerable. At minimum, we expect alternating 

one-way traffic would be available during construction. The 

recent 4-laning of Gordon Drive could provide a desirable 

north-south construction detour route - serving the South 

Slopes area for the duration of construction along Lakeshore 

Road. In addition, Cook Road (via Gordon Drive) could be 

promoted as a primary east-west access for businesses within 

the study area. 

P a g e | 26 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 

U:\Projects_KEL\0467\0384\01\R-Reports-Studies-Documents\Final\Conceptual Routing Report\2009-10-14 Conceptual Routing Report FINAL.doc 

Cook Road and Lanfranco Road. Upon completion (scheduled for 

November 2009), the majority of the Gordon Drive will be 

constructed to a full 4 lane standard within the study area - in 

accordance with the City‟s Major Road Network Plan. The opportunity 

to coordinate sanitary trunk sewer improvements with future 

roadway improvements along Gordon Drive would be limited to the 

Mission Creek bridge improvement project. 

By the end of 2009, Gordon Drive will be a 4-lane arterial road within 

the study area. The increased road width provides greater flexibility 

in terms of minimizing the impact to daily traffic patterns along 

Gordon Drive. In addition, the level of effort associated with traffic 

management would be reduced in comparison to Option #1. The 

number and type of existing businesses along this route, and by 

extension the associated construction related impacts, are minimal by 

comparison.

Service Area 

Conflicts 


The proposed grade for the Lakeshore Road trunk main would 

be very similar to that of the existing 750mmø trunk main. 

Accordingly, the number of adjacent properties currently 

serviced by gravity sewer will not increase. 

The proposed trunk main conflicts with a number of existing 

service connections and lateral sanitary sewer mains along the 

west side of Lakeshore Road. In addition, a section of existing 

watermain parallel to the proposed trunk main would require 

relocation. Construction within the Lakeshore Road corridor 

will present greater challenges in terms of maintaining existing 

services (water, sanitary, gas). 

Environmental Impact The existing Mission Creek siphon is capable of 

Project Phasing 

accommodating the theoretical flows generated by both the 

2020 or 2030 planning horizons. From an environmental 

perspective, connections to the siphon inlet and outlet 

structures would occur outside of the Riparian Management 

Area for Mission Creek. Neither Thomson Creek nor Wilson 

Creek are impacted by the proposed trunk main design. 

As noted in Figure 5.2, the capacity of the existing 750mmø 

Lakeshore Road trunk main varies greatly between Old 

Meadows Road and the Gyro lift station. Consequently, the 

City could consider a phased implementation strategy for the 

Lakeshore Road trunk main - addressing system capacity 

issues as development occurs in the South Slopes area. 



Gordon Drive is currently the western boundary of the Agricultural 

Land Reserve (ALR) within the study area. The City‟s current 2030 

OCP update does not envision future development within the ALR. As 

such, the adjacent ALR lands have not been considered in the 

context of future development in our routing analyses. Existing lateral 

trunk mains radiating from the present Lakeshore Road trunk 

(Lexington Drive, Cook Road, Mission Springs Crescent, and Casorso 

Road) could potentially accommodate some future development 

within the ALR lands beyond the City‟s current planning horizon. 

The scope of utility conflicts associated with this option are 

significantly less than Option #1. However, at least two new siphons 

would be required for the proposed trunk main - at Mission Creek, 

and near the intersection of Gordon Drive and Lequime Road. In 

addition, the length of „deep‟ trunk main installation associated with 

this alternative is greater than Option #1 - which has a significant 

impact on construction costs (refer to Appendix B). 

Two new siphons will be required to achieve the crossings of Mission 

Creek and Thomson Creek. The extent of environmental impacts 

could be minimized if trenchless methods were employed. However, 

the feasibility of trenchless methods vary as a function of 

geotechnical conditions, pipe diameter and design grade tolerances 

for siphons. It is unlikely that environmental impacts associated with 

the siphon installations can be avoided. 

In order to provide relief to the existing Lakeshore Road trunk main, 

construction of Option #2 would be required in its entirety between 

Lakeshore Road and the Gyro lift station – providing no opportunity 

for project phasing. 

P a g e | 27 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Based on our hydraulic analyses, the bulk of the increased hydraulic load from development within the 

study area will flow down Lakeshore Road to Old Meadows Road, rather than down Gordon Drive and Old 

Meadows Road to Lakeshore Road. Options #1 and #2 assume gravity flow from Old Meadows Road to 

the Gyro lift station. Under this condition, we understand the capacity of the Gyro lift station will be 

exceeded and an expansion would be required to convey peak flow rates to the WWTP. Conceivably, 

adding a new lift station to the City‟s sewer collection system (elsewhere in the study area) could obviate 

future upgrades to the Gyro lift station. The advantages and disadvantages of incorporating non-gravity 

solutions into the Conceptual Routing Report were discussed with City staff. Ultimately, the City elected 

to defer the investigation of non-gravity solutions until a later date. 

P a g e | 28 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 

This Conceptual Routing Report is the first phase of a pre-design assignment that examines the details of 

a relief sewer trunk that will divert future sanitary sewer flows away from the existing Lakeshore Trunk 

main. Based on our conclusions identified in Section 6.0 of this report, it is our recommendation that 

the City of Kelowna select „Option #1 Lakeshore - Gyro lift station‟ given that this option: 

Represents the most cost effective approach (~$6,800,000 less than Option #2); 

 

 

 

Provides the City with an opportunity to coordinate sanitary trunk sewer improvements with 

future road network improvements planned within the study area; 

Minimizes the environmental impacts associated with construction, and; 

Provides greater flexibility in terms of implementation (project phasing). 

As noted in Section 6.0, the viability of and potential for non-gravity solutions have not been examined 

within the Conceptual Routing Report. Our technical recommendations are based exclusively on the 

provision of gravity sanitary trunk sewer solutions. 

Finally, we recommend that the City of Kelowna consider a summer period flow monitoring program for 

the Lakeshore trunk. There appears to be less residual capacity in the existing trunk than might be 

expected, as noted earlier in this report. Obviously, this matter is of some significance, given the lead 

time that might be required for design, tendering and construction of a relief trunk. We suggest the City 

continue to collect flow data in locations previously identified by City staff within the study area. In this 

way, the City can confirm if there is a predictable difference between the summer and winter flows. The 

critical trunk main sections summarized in Table 5.1 could also be included in the City‟s flow monitoring 

program. 

P a g e | 29 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





8.0 CLOSURE 

We trust that this submission meets with your expectations. We look forward to meeting with the City to 

review the Conceptual Routing Report, address any staff comments and concerns, and confirm the 

preferred trunk routing for the assignment. 

P a g e | 30 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





APPENDIX A 

DIGITAL INFORMATION 

DESIGN DRAWINGS 

POPULATION PROJECTIONS 

CATCHMENTS 

COST ESTIMATES 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 





Please refer to hard copy submission for compact disc of Appendix A 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 

U:\Projects_KEL\0467\0384\01\R-Reports-Studies-Documents\Final\Conceptual Routing Report\2009-10-14 Conceptual Routing Report FINAL(appendix A).doc




APPENDIX B 

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


South Gordon Sanitary Trunk Pre-Design 

CONCEPTUAL ROUTING REPORT - ROUTING OPTION #1 

Class 'C' Construction Cost Estimate 

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT 

UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT 

Section 01535 - Temporary Facilities 

1535.1 Dewatering for excavations lin.m. $ 150.00 2,600 $ 390,000 

Section 01561 - Environmental Protection 

1561.1 Environmental protection and compensation L.S. n/a 

Section 01570 - Traffic Regulation 

1570.1 Traffic management week $ 5,000.00 36 $ 180,000 

Section 02070 - Sitework Demolition and Removal 

2070.1 

Remove and dispose of watermain pipe and appurtenances, regardless of 

diameter or depth 

lin.m. $ 80.00 283 $ 22,600 

Section 02223 - Excavating, Trenching and Backfilling 

2223.1 Common excavation, offsite disposal cu. m $ 14.00 37,600 $ 526,400 

2223.2 

Removal and replacement of unsuitable trench backfill with import 

material 

cu. m $ 30.00 18,900 $ 567,000 

Section 02233 - Granular Base 

2233.1 Granular base, 25 mm minus crushed gravel 

75mm thickness (roadway) sq. m $ 6.00 18,149 $ 108,900 

Section 02234 - Granular Subbase 

2234.1 Granular subbase, 75mm minus crushed gravel 

535mm thickness sq. m $ 25.00 18,149 $ 453,700 

Section 02512 - Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Paving 

2512.1 Asphalt lower course, 60 mm sq. m $ 13.00 19,709 $ 256,200 

2512.2 Asphalt surface course, 40mm sq. m $ 9.00 19,709 $ 177,400 

Section 02550 - Asphalt Removal 

2550.1 Sawcut, remove and dispose asphalt paving (all thicknesses) sq.m $ 4.00 19,709 $ 78,800 

Section 02666 - Waterworks 

2666.1 200 mm diameter pipe, C900 PVC Class 100 lin.m. $ 200.00 283 $ 56,600 

2666.2 Connection to existing watermain each $ 2,000.00 2 $ 4,000 

2666.3 U-Bend connection each $ 2,500.00 3 $ 7,500 

2666.4 Remove and replace perpendicular AC watermain each $ 1,000.00 5 $ 5,000 

U:\Projects_KEL\0467\0384\01\D-Drafting-Design-Analysis\D3-Models-Spreadsheets\Spreadsheets\2009-10-09 South Gordon Conceptual Routing Report Schedule of Quantities.xls






Section 02725 - Manholes and Catchbasins 

2725.1 Manhole base, lid and casting 

1500mm ø each $ 4,500.00 37 $ 166,500 

2725.2 Manhole riser section 

1500mm ø v.m $ 1,100.00 120 $ 132,000 

Section 02731 - Sanitary Sewer 

2731.1 Pipe - 0.0m to 3.0m Depth 

900mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 670.00 815 $ 546,100 


900mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 750.00 385 $ 288,800 


900mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 880.00 435 $ 382,800 


900mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 900.00 275 $ 247,500 


900mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 920.00 690 $ 634,800 

2731.6 Tie in to existing lateral sewer main each $ 1,000.00 4 $ 4,000 

2731.7 Re-connect existing sewer service each $ 1,500.00 50 $ 75,000 

Section 03300 - Precast and Cast-in-Place Concrete 

3300.1 Adjustment to Mission Creek Siphon Inlet/Outlet Manholes each $ 12,000.00 2 $ 24,000 

SUBTOTAL $ 5,335,600 

ENGINEERING & CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE (40%) $ 2,134,300 

SUBTOTAL $ 7,469,900 

GST (5%) $ 373,500 

TOTAL $ 7,844,000 







Section 01535 - Temporary Facilities 

1535.1 Dewatering for excavations lin.m. $ 150.00 3,750 $ 562,500 

Section 01561 - Environmental Protection 

1561.1 Environmental protection and compensation L.S. $ 50,000 

Section 01570 - Traffic Regulation 

1570.1 Traffic management week $ 3,500.00 60 $ 210,000 

Section 02070 - Sitework Demolition and Removal 

2070.1 

Remove and dispose of sanitary sewer pipe, regardless of diameter or 

depth 

lin.m. $ 100.00 293 $ 29,300 

2070.2 Remove and dispose of manholes each $ 900.00 2 $ 1,800 

Section 02223 - Excavating, Trenching and Backfilling 

2223.1 Common excavation, offsite disposal cu. m $ 14.00 78,250 $ 1,095,500 

2223.2 

Removal and replacement of unsuitable trench backfill with import 

material 

cu. m $ 30.00 47,400 $ 1,422,000 

Section 02233 - Granular Base 

2233.1 Granular base, 25 mm minus crushed gravel 

75mm thickness (roadway) sq. m $ 6.00 31,786 $ 190,700 

Section 02234 - Granular Subbase 

2234.1 Granular subbase, 75mm minus crushed gravel 

535mm thickness sq. m $ 25.00 31,786 $ 794,700 

Section 02512 - Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Paving 

2512.1 Asphalt lower course, 60 mm sq. m $ 13.00 34,036 $ 442,500 

2512.2 Asphalt surface course, 40mm sq. m $ 9.00 34,036 $ 306,300 

Section 02550 - Asphalt Removal 

2550.1 Sawcut, remove and dispose asphalt paving (all thicknesses) sq.m $ 4.00 34,036 $ 136,100 

Section 02666 - Waterworks 

2666.1 Remove and replace perpendicular AC watermain each $ 1,000.00 5 $ 5,000 





ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT 

Section 02725 - Manholes and Catchbasins 

2725.1 Manhole base, lid and casting 

1350mm ø each $ 3,400.00 1 $ 3,400 

1800mm ø each $ 5,400.00 35 $ 189,000 

2725.2 Manhole riser section 

1350mm ø v.m $ 650.00 3 $ 1,950 

1800mm ø v.m $ 1,500.00 124 $ 186,000 

Section 02731 - Sanitary Sewer 


750mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 475.00 160 $ 76,000 

1050mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 1,000.00 610 $ 610,000 


750mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 510.00 160 $ 81,600 

1050mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 1,060.00 270 $ 286,200 


1050mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 1,120.00 510 $ 571,200 


1050mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 1,180.00 340 $ 401,200 


1050mm ø - DR 35 lin.m $ 1,250.00 1,700 $ 2,125,000 

2731.6 Siphon Construction 

Mission Creek LS $ 100,000 

1200mm ø Culvert LS $ 50,000 

2731.7 Tie in to existing lateral sewer main each $ 1,000.00 2 $ 2,000 

2731.8 Re-connect existing sewer service each $ 1,500.00 22 $ 33,000 

SUBTOTAL $ 9,963,000 

ENGINEERING & CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE (40%) $ 3,985,200 

SUBTOTAL $ 13,948,200 

GST (5%) $ 697,500 

TOTAL $ 14,646,000 





APPENDIX C 

MEMORANDUM – FUTURE LAND USE PROJECTIONS 

0467.0384.01-R / October 14, 2009 


#500 - 1708 Dolphin Avenue, Kelowna, BC V1Y 9S4 

Telephone: 250-762-2517 Fax: 250-763-5266 

MEMORANDUM 

date: July 30, 2009 

to: Kevin Wahl 

cc: Joel Shaw, Gary Stephen, Ken Oliver, Joel Short 

from: Clayton Drewlo 

file #: 0467.0384.01 C-1 

subject: 'FUTURE' LAND USE PROJECTIONS 

The following memorandum summarizes the ‘future’ land use projections to be incorporated into the 

Conceptual Routing Report and Pre-Design Report for the South Gordon Drive Sanitary Sewer Trunk Pre- 

Design (South Gordon) assignment. 

BACKGROUND 

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the South Gordon assignment had assumed future land use projections 

associated with the 2030 Official Community Plan (OCP) update would be available on June 30, 2009. 

However, we understand formal Council adoption of the 2030 OCP Update (and by extension the 2030 

land use projections) will not occur until sometime in early 2010. 

The City has elected to define ‘future’ land use projections in advance of the formal Council adoption of 

the 2030 OCP Update which will ensure the South Gordon assignment is completed in accordance with 

the original schedule listed in the ToR. 

FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 

The City intends to take a conservative approach with respect to identifying the potential number of units 

that will contribute to flows in the South Gordon sanitary trunk main. Using the most current land use 

planning information available (sector plans, expression of interest, etc.), we will calculate the number of 

units possible beyond the 2030 timeframe of the current OCP update. The primary growth areas beyond 

the 2030 timeframe are those areas that are currently designated as Urban Reserve, as well as one area 

that is outside the Permanent Growth Boundary being considered in the OCP update. Figure 1.0 

illustrates the location of these areas within the South Gordon study area. 

Figure 1.0: Primary Growth Areas Beyond 2030 

www.urban-systems.com 

CALGARY | EDMONTON | FORT ST. JOHN | KAMLOOPS | KELOWNA | NELSON | QUESNEL | RICHMOND

MEMORANDUM 

Kevin Wahl 

0467.0384.01 C-1 

July 30, 2009 

Page 2 of 3 

Specific comments related to each growth area are set out below. 

Area 1 

• Current status: Designated for Single / Two Unit Residential use in the current OCP, but outside 

the contemplated Permanent Growth Boundary in OCP update. 

• Type of units: Single unit residential 

• Number of units: 210 units as per June 26 email to Signe Bagh and Gary Stephen. These units 

were deleted from SW Mission Neighbourhood 1 area units because they were outside of the 

Permanent Growth Boundary, but are being included for the purposes of the South Gordon 

sanitary sewer trunk main analyses. 

Area 2 

• Current status: Designated as Future Urban Reserve in the current OCP, and not identified for 

development in the OCP update. 

• Type of units: Single unit residential and some multi unit residential 

• Number of Units: 1450 units as per the 1994 Southwest Okanagan Mission Sector Plan. This 

includes area 2d, 3d and part of area 3c. The sector plan anticipates 30% multi unit and 70% 

single unit forms of development for the sector, which would result in 435 multi unit and 1015 

single unit. 

Area 3 

• Current status: Designated as Future Urban Reserve in the current OCP, and not identified for 

development in the OCP update. 

• Type of units: Single unit residential and some multi unit residential 

• Number of Units: An expression of interest for development of the area dated December 16, 

2008, identified a potential for 1000 to 1250 units in this area. As per the June 17 email to Gary 

Stephen and Signe Bagh (before Council eliminated this area from consideration), we will include 

the following units: 1000 single unit residential and 250 multi unit residential. 

In addition to the anticipated development within Urban Reserve areas, we will also calculate the capacity 

for additional development in areas already designated in the current 2020 OCP. Specifically, we will 

calculate the number of units beyond those permitted under the current 2020 OCP land use designations, 

as contemplated in the most recent version of the 2030 OCP update. This will include areas such as: 

• Proposed Residential Intensification Corridors 

• Proposed Mixed Use areas 

• Proposed Village Centres 



MEMORANDUM 

Kevin Wahl 

0467.0384.01 C-1 

July 30, 2009 

Page 3 of 3 

CLOSURE 

This concludes our assessment of ‘future’ land use projections associated with the South Gordon 

assignment. Following City review/endorsement of the approach described herein, we will incorporate the 

defined land use projections into our supporting analyses for the Conceptual Routing Report and 

subsequently, the Pre-Design Report. 

We trust that this information meets with your expectations, if you have any questions please do not 

hesitate to contact the undersigned at anytime. 

URBAN SYSTEMS LTD. 

Clayton Drewlo 

Project Engineer 

/cd 

U:\Projects_KEL\0467\0384\01\C-Correspondence\C1-Client\2009-07-30-MEM-KWahl-Future Land Use Projections.doc

Conceptual Routing Report FINAL.pdf - City of Kelowna

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?