Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Sewer Master Plan 1978
W-WA6 NA f up -v 119 :. .�... I +� U CITY OR HUNTINGTON. BEACH WNW(ntM w , R - 9 • Cum =M FINAL Mt.- ,.�•�� 3 t ILA. iaN,1' JUL.1 21979 IMACKINe II y R - I i Y • r—:� 3 RRe�Yc190N - cVfY I w«n• waN � • '`1=�7" n mM Y 1wraN �_ _I I el - emu- *AV AlAVe I ,.IAnCMf O r D .• 1 .✓I W ISIfr l N �` - /IL AV a �..• r t - WA MASTER. PLAN Prnw:eH `r .'-�1 I_•••' r I i I f/Mllb Ilfa� - •L�l('�MIYA L 4f10Yw4A#i K i'.r _ tt'u. yr •�}Ci'1 MW �rN�l'•'", (.III��� IA.._ . 1; ' A.. _ ' , "C� NOVEMBER 1978 �... V - r •� �LFa.r Fir f.u� - N a,•rr i�� r' ,.•IIf �'.. N4fiN /'� N r •C ir.'IM rlvr � VI IBAIa • AN 4 •: W - a .�lYI,•7P[ "r(u" or ' INY;•p� ...nC.�a NP e :� II'YI 51JK•aC.'.I-311�M�pf�! C C J/�,//•,//// v C . •r `\ 'n,li/^__ .2' OLL �'I� �L f 9RI� V V OV igt e . .. IIA ft" ii!. • 5 rraFaJ'Or .•r A �•,y� • Y'"''"'=+:I j� - _ FINAL JUL 12 109 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title . Page No.. I. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS I-1 Summary :and Conclusions I-1 Recommendations. I-3 II . .INTRODUCTION Background II-1 Study Area Objectives I I-6 Background of Sewer Design and Analysis II-7 Acknowledgments II-ll Project Staff II-11 III . FLOW GENERATION AND PEAKING ILI-1 Land Use III-1 Present Land Use III-1 Future Land Use III-4 Industrial Waste III-12 +�- Infiltration/Inflow III-13 Available Field Measurements III-15 Recommended Unit Flow Generators III-18 Comparison with Other Areas III-22 Peaking III-22 IV. EXISTING CITY/COUNTY COLLECTION SYSTEMS IV-1 Basis of Analysis iv-1 System Trunk Facilities IV-1 Local Collector Facilities IV-5 Unidentified Flow Sources IV-7 Possible Trouble Spots in System Trunk Facilities IV-10 Possible Trouble Spots in Local Collector Facilities IV-10 Pump Stations IV-51 V. RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS V-1 Proposed Orange County Sanitation District Master Plan Facilities V-1 Alternatives to Proposed CSDOC Master Plan m Facilities V-4 Proposed City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvements V-4 Detection and Control of Unidentified Flow Sources V-4 Guidelines for Design of Future Sewer Facilities V-10 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) i Chapter Title Page. No. VI . PHASING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS VI-1 Analysis of Improvements Currently in Progress VI-1 CSDOC No. 11 Capital Improvement Programs VI-2 Recommended City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Program VI-5 VII . . CAPITAL COST CONSIDERATIONS VII-1 Basis of Costs VII-1 Capital Cost Estimate VII-2 Methods of Financing VII-2 Payment from City of Huntington Beach Sewer Fund VI.I-5 Construction of Facilities by Developers VII-6 Funding by County Sanitation Districts of Orange. County VII-6 . I i I i.. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS L LIST OF TABLE ��. (.Continued) Number Title Page No. a -IV-7 Table of Contents . - _Sewer Trunk System • Analyses I V--1.4 =. IV-8 Possible Trouble Spots i.n Local Collector Facilities IV-49. „ IV-9 Summary of Existing Pump Stations IV-52 V-1 Potential Trouble .Spots, to be Eliminated. by -Proposed CSDOC No.: 11 Master .Plan V-3 V 21 .. Additional Potential Troubl.e .Spots to be Eliminated. by. Modified CSDOC No. 11 Master .Plan V-6 V73 Recommended City. of .Huntington Beach Capital ;. Improvements V 7 V-4 Recommended Sewer Pipeline Design' Criteria V-11 • V-5. Minimum Slopes for Gravity Sewers V-11 V-6. Guidelines for Estimating Sizes of Loca-1 Collector Sewers V-1.3 • ° VI=1 CSDOC No. 11 Capital Improvement Programs VI 3 ' V.II-1 Estimated Cost .of S.ewer. Pipes VII73 VII.-2 January 1W9 Capital Cost Estimates for Recommended City of. Huntington Beach Capital Improvements VI 4 .: ` r iv t::: TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page No. I-1 Recommended Design Criteria " I-6 I-2 Minimum Slopes for Gravity Sewers I-6 II-1 Population Statistics for City of Huntington Beach II-4 III-1 Land Use Category Definitions III-2 III-2 Population Generation Rates III-3 III-3 Existing Land Use by System Tributary Areas III-5 III-4 Vacant Land Distribution by System Tributary Areas III-8 _ III-5 Future Land Use by System Tributary Areas III-11 �.. III-6 Point Sources of Industrial Flows III-14 III-7 Estimated Infiltration/Inflow or Other Unidentified Flows in Harbor Area Based on Existing Flow Measurements III-17 III-8 Available Field Measurements of Flow in Sewers III-19 III-9 Recommended Unit Flow Generators for �. Average Dry Weather Flows III-21 III-10 Unit Flow Generators Observed in Neighboring Areas for Average Dry Weather Flows III-23 IV-1 Huntington Beach Sewer Trunk Systems IV-2 IV-2 County Sanitation District of Orange County Sewer Trunk Systems IV-4 IV-3 Relative Classes for Sewer Analysis : . System" Trunk Facilities IV-6 L, IV-4 Relative Classes for Sewer Analysis : Local Collector Facilities IV-8 IV-5 Classificat.ion of System Trunk Facilities "— (President Condition) IV-12 IV-6 Classification of System Trunk Facilities -- (Ultimate Condition) IV-13 . • iii O: TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF. FIGURES Number Title Page No. 2 I-1 Expected Trouble Spots in Sewers Due " to Present Land Use I-4 I-2 Expected Trouble. Spots in Sewers at Ultimate Development I-5 II-1 Location Map II-2 II-2 County Sanitation District of Orange County . • in Study Area II-5 II-3 Sewer Loading .Conditions II4 III'=1 Predominant Existing Land. Use Within City of Huntington Beach (November 1978) III4 � III-2 Vacant Areas Within City of Huntington. Beach (November 1978) ' III-9 III-3 Predominant Ultimate Land Use Within City of Huntington Beach III-10. ' II,I-4 Areas Where Infiltration is Most Probable I I I`-16 III-5 Locations of Available Field Measurements of Flow in Sewers III-20. ILI-6 Peak to Average Relationships for Sewage Flow III-25 IV-1 Existing City of Huntington Beach System Trunk Facilities IV-3 IV-2 Existing County Sanitation District of . Orange County System Trunk Facilities IV-11 IV-3 Locations of Possible Trouble Spots in Local Collector Facilities IV-50 r . V-1 CSDOC No. 11 Ultimate Facilities Plan V-2 V=2 Suggested Modifications to CSDOC No. 11 Ultimate Facilities Plan V-5 VI-1 Recommended City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvements VI-4 n.. L e • tow • J� summary, conclusions • and recommendations CHAPTER I y SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The City of Huntington Beach retained Lowry &. Associates to prepare an . updated Sewer Master Plan, including recommendations concerning the • present and ultimate sewer systems, determination .of sewage generation rates and peaking factors, identification of possible trouble spots in the present and . anticipated future sewer system, preparation of cost estimates of .additional improvements required to provide ,the present and. ultimate facilities, and examination of the financial alternatives of financing capital improvements for immediate .and future construction. In determining present and ultimate sewage generation rates, the present. and anticipated ultimate land use pattern of the City was studied to identify possible future changes. Twenty-four . metering records . were then examined and compared with ' .known land uses to determine present sewer generation factors and peaking factors The .• results of these metering studies are as follows : . Average dry weather per capita sewage generation 70 gpcd Peaking Factor Q peak= 1.70 0.392 (Q average) (Q measured in mgd) Other land use duty factor generators are listed in Table .III-9 herein. Use of these generator factors results in calculated design flows I-1 approximately 10 percent nigher than the actual flows presently being experienced. The peaking formulation above is. very close to that used by the Sanitation Districts of Orange County and is valid for values of flow less than or equal to 35 mgd. Drainage areas were identified by determining . areas tributary to i1, common loading points on the individual systems. Sewer trunk systems were defined by separating the overall system into areas which could easily be studied. Each area and trunk sewer system was then modeled on a digital computer, using the flow generation factors to determine depth to diameter rati.os. in sewers, and identify possible present and future trouble areas (See Tables IV-5 and IV-6) . Recommended remedies were then identified, and estimated capital improvement costs determined. The sewer trunk system operated by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) was also studied, and it was determined which additional District facilities would be required to .handle present and future sewage flows. The overall recommended 'sewer irtprovement .proaram • is expected to rely primarily upon capital improvements by the District, with some local improvements by the City. ' A number of potentially overloaded sewers within the Huntington Beach City Sewer System have been identified. It is possible that some �`. of these may be caused by an inordinant amount of infiltration/inflow of the. system. Other types of discharges introduced into the sewer system may be occuring, such as surface water inflow . and unidentified point loading discharges (oil processing, industrial plants, etc. ) This report also recommends that several local sewers and trunk systems be relieved or replaced. These are listed in Table V-3. I-2 y • It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works has at this time initiated several sewer projects to .remedy known deficiencies within the system. An analysis of these projects is • included in , Chapter VI of this report. This Master Plan confirms the need for these improvements. Figures. I-1 and I-2, respectively,. show the location of all identified sources .of trouble in trunk sewers both presently, and as anticipated at ultimate development. ;. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City adopt the design criteria listed in Table I=1 and I-2 for development of sewer facilities within the system. In order to reduce and/or remedy present high sewage .flow conditions. in the Harbour Area, it is recommended that a program be initiated to determine. the source of the unidentified flows in Huntington Harbour. • �.. These unknown sources could beefrom seawater intrusion ( infiltration), groundwater inflow, or unknown industrial point loadings A subsequent study may determine the best way to mitigate the condition, such as main • replacement, T-V screening. and grouting, lining, or by-passing. The investigation could include chemical analysis of samples or conductivity tests within the Harbour Area to determine chloride contents, as an • indication of the presence of seawater infiltration. A chemical analysis of the flows in these areas would also aid in determining if oil field wastes are being. discharged into the system. Plastic 40— diaphragms could be installed on all manholes within the Harbour area that fall within the drainageway of the roadway cross section to • intercept and measure inflow through manholes. It is uneconomical to • 1-3 R . V O j UTY O/ wtsm NSTLTL i�r � ICIE� i O C/11' OF 4FA/. REACH vrc•NI e. I j N \ aa. .♦♦ •v""• 1 I I I iS •::.. 1 � � ♦ � - j - ,�. j C/TY OF FO(JNTA/N l'AL I.EY. W WIMP _ SI '.I.NII IY III II '\ �� t`t ADAIIS I \ I � INIIIAIAMI I.,. i % ATIL41A / - IIANII IpM % - LEGEND SATISFACTORY SEWERS ��'•. ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEWERS REQUIRING OBSERVATION CSDOC SEWERS REQUIRING OBSERVATION i r I EXPECTED TROUBLE SPOTS IN SEWERS DUE TO PRESENT LAND USE FIGURE I-1 ../ 1-4 N M y i orY OF wisrAfiNSrrR - i. b i y 0 - - lilanllclnl u;RimR is � - ` V. �•�:\:� ` - � 1 IAIPIRI . . e CITY OF'GUNWIV VALLEY- IF Go lb Mum II Illlvl "IIIII 4'N!I 1 i• ,,� �.` � . '.1 All IN III I - •� •; __ ADAA!, f, �Y ' INNI ANAI'III I'. I IYW R1. i i AIIANIA LEGEND i e SATISFACTORY SEWERS I°' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEWERS REQUIRING OBSERVATION CSDOC SEWERS REQUIRING OBSERVATION e t EXPECTED TROUBLE SPOTS IN SEWERS AT ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE I-2 I-5 TABLE I- 1 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA Criteria Size D/d n n Vmin �.. (Inches) (in/in) p v (fps) • Peak Flow 18 or less 0..50 0.009 0.013. 2.0 Peak Flow Over 18 0.75 0.009 0.013 2.0 D/d = Depth to Diameter Ratio nn = Mannings Coefficient of Roughness for PVC nV = Mannings Coefficient of Roughness for VCP Vmin= Minimum Design Velocity TABLE I-2 y- MINIMUM SLOPES FOR GRAVITY SEWERS Inches D/d Minimum Slope (%) Vmin = 1 .6 fps Vmin = 2_.0 fps n=0.013 n=0.009. n=0.013 n=0.009 6 0.5 .312 .150 .488 .234 8 0.5. .213 .102 .332 ..159 10 0. 5 ..158 .076 .247 .118 12 0.5 .124 .059 .194 .093 .14 0..5 .101 .048 .158 .076 15 0.5 .092 .044 .144 .069 16 0.5 .084 .040 . 132 .063 18 0. 5 . 072 .035 .113 .054 I-6 •: intercept, transmit, pump, and treat the extra flows which appear to be coming from the Huntington Harbour area. Other types of pipeline material should be considered in future installations within the Harbour • Area; (PVC, ductile iron) to reduce inflow problems. Other surveillance. operations should be undertaken to determine -.0ether. unidentified sources are placing an excessively high load on the system. This can be done by periodically metering locations of industrial land use. to determine short. duration peaking, and by periodically sampling the flows to determine .whether the discharge . is of an acceptable chemical nature. It is recommended that the City negotiate with CSDOC No. 11 to relocate the proposed Edinger Avenue Interceptor Sewer (between Goldenwest and Gothard) to a location approximately. one half mile . South.. in Heil Avenue. This relocation would allow the proposed interceptor to be of considerably greater value to the City. It is also recommended • ..that the City consider relocating the proposed Springdale Street Trunk Sewer extension to a location. as shown on Figure V.-2. The revised location could enable the City to. eliminate one or more pump stations in this area. The CSDOC capital improvement program appears to eliminate most of • the potential trouble areas identified in this study.. A short term City of Huntington Beach sewer improvement . program is recommended in Table VII-2. This program should be implemented by the City if field measurements verify that flow conditions in suspected' trouble areas constitute a significant problem. The total cost of the recommended short term sewer improvement program excluding _ the 'darner I-7 �- Avenue Relief Sewer Extension which is to be funded by District No. 11 is $211,396. A long term sewer improvement program for the City of Huntington Beach has also been recommended in this study and appears in Table VII-2. The. need for the. long term improvements is dependent to .a large extent upon the type and degree of future development within .the • City. Future projections of development used in this report are based. . upon the best estimates of the City planning department staff, and these projections should be periodically reviewed. It is recommended that the potential trouble spots in areas where long term capital improvements have been recommended be monitored by the City to determine if and when these long term capital improvements should be implemented. It is .also' recommended _that proposed development within the City be -r closely monitored in regard to sewer system capacity. The computer programs and basic source data developed in this master plan will enable the City staff to quickly -assess the potential affect of any proposed development on the sewer system. If any development has a serious unforeseen impact on the system, additional facilities and/or remedial measures could be required as a condition of approval of that development prior to the actual: creation of .the problem. i r... 1-8 CHAPTER II • INTRODUCTION • BACKGROUND During recent years , the City of Huntington Beach has experienced a . .,�. period of very rapid development . and growth. Since the 1970 census , the population of the City has increased by nearly 50,000 people. During these . years much industrial. development has also taken place within the City.. Recognizing the need for additional planning to ensure an orderly expansion of the City' s sewage collection system, the City has initiated a program to update. existing information sources, and to determine the. best planning/design tools for the sewer system. :.. STUDY AREA • The City of Huntington Beach is located in the western coastal area of Orange County. The City is bounded by the Cities of Newport Beach , and Costa Mesa to the East , Fountain Valley and Westminster to the • North , Seal Beach to the .Northwest , and by the Pacific Ocean to the 'Nest and South. . The general location of the City of Huntington . Beach is shown on Figure II-1. Although not within the City limits of :�!untington Beach, --he unincorporated areas of Sunset Beach .and Bolsa Chica have been included within the study area as any sewage generated within these areas is. tributary to the City' s se:verage system. The Sunset Beach area • I I-1 f t f E E LOS ANGELES N • 1, dt E W LOS ANGELES COUNTY S ` ``'" RIVERSIDE COUNTY SEAL ORANGE COUNTY .. BEACH SANTA ANA N _ - SUNSET BEACH BOLSA CHICA COSTA HESA CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH STUDY AREA NEWPORT BEACH SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCATION MAP m an Associates - Lowry d Asso tes currently sewers through the Huntington Harbour .collection 'system into the ;Darner Avenue Sewer. The Bolsa Chica area is a 2 1/2 .square mile undeveloped marshland area surrounded completely by the. City of • Huntington Beach. Elevations within the study area range from sea level to 150 feet. The older sections of the City are situated on a coastal plateau lying about 50 feet above sea level . Most of the remainder of the City lies below an elevation of 25 feet. The City has a mild. climate _and an average rainfall of .10 to 12 inches. Prior to the 1950 ' s, the City of Huntington Beach was a small . coastline community having a population of about. 5,000 people. The area contained a number of oil wells , and outlying areas were used for agricultural purposes. The western and .southeastern portions of the .: study area at one time consisted of marshlands Beginning in the late 1950 's , the City experienced a period of rapid development and expansion which continues to the present time. it is anticipated that the remaining agricultural and oil producing areas will gradually convert to urban use. Although some development has -- occurred in the marshland areas , such as. the Huntington Harbour Development , it. is uncertain whether there will be further development in these areas. The rapid growth of the City in recent years is reflected by the population statistics presented in Table iI-1. The City is served by County Sanitation Districts of Orange County: No. 3 (CSDOC 3) and No. 11 (CSDOC 11 ) located as shown on Figure :.-2. The CSOOC are responsible for the financing , construction and operation of a system of large trunk sewers which convey sewage to treatment OL plants jointly operated by these Districts. CSDOC 11 includes most of the area in the City. LSDOC general policy . is to provide sewer II-3 TABLE II-1 POPULATION STATISTICS FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Year Population 1910 815 • 1920 1 ,687. 1930 3,690 1940 3,738 1950 . 5,237 1960 11 ,492 1962 24,700 . �. 1964 57,104 1966 79,400 1968 99,000 1970 115,960 o.. 1972 137,000 1974 143,325 1976 151 ,500 1978 .161 ,301 Source: City of Huntington Beach' Planning Department II-4 • N r.N N O .,. N :rt ir.•. 1. „ N ::1 C/TY OF X�FAO Q \\ t !NV 3/ +•F:p N 0 6/TY OF SEAL BEACH J ................. a ::a: ... :s .al,. _ 1 TREATMENT ............................. • :::::::......... ti. :li ,;;TY OF FOUNTA/N.7ALLEY t[1�: J L N,1vk PLANT ................ ......... 1................:::::.::::::::: :::NY< ...................................... ................................ I. ............................. ................................ .... .. .�. .4.: -.....................�. ....... :.. - . 1-:".OG.-:'NMI eX'7iJ110 ........ .. ...... .......... / .............................. ............�' .... ......... :::: VM ...........�. ......... .... ::::: .. ;GL[;7 rEET .. .�..: ii u.: .. :�.. ... ................................... rG,1 LEGEND ................ .. ic:iiiiici:iici :i:. CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH u;•� a . ..................... ............ ............... COUNTY 5ANITAT-ION DISTRICT 43 OF ORANGE COUNTY - c`�-:.: .ccccii s.. ..................................Ya.:. .. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 411 OF ORANGE COUNTY :::�:. ::::::::::::: 1' ici iti: `<:w; ici:i: TREATMENT .�L,NT ....................... .. COUNTY SEWER FACILITIES .... •'"`::;;; ;;; Nc. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT .OF ORANGE COUNTY IN STUDY AREA FIGURLE II-2 Ii-5 facilities on a one half mile interval in the East and West direction �- and on a one mile interval in the North South direction. The Districts are financed through taxation of those properties being sewered; CSOOC 11 is entirely in the City, thus it is wholly financed by the City. Location of CSDOC lines serving the City of Huntington Beach are : shown on .Figure II-2. In this study, the sewage flows .which would result . from planned development within the City have been determined throughout the study area. Based upon projected flows, the City sewerage system, as well . as portions of the CSDOC .system have been analyzed to determine existing and potential problem areas. Although every effort has been made to la"' provide flexibility to allow for variations from the flow projections, there are areas where the magnitude and timing of future development remains uncertain. Among these areas are the Bols a Chica marshlands, a and the "Limited Use Districts" in the southeastern corner of. the City. As planning for. these areas becomes more certain, it may be necessary to .. update portions of this plan accordingly. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study as outlined in the City' s Request for :.. Proposals for Professional Services. .are as follows: I. To prepare indexed maps of the sewer facilities of the City ( 1" 200 'Scale) ; 2. To determine a set of present and future condition sewage flow generators and peaking criteria for use in accordance with land uses and zoning, as specified by the departments of Plannir.a and II-6 ��.. Public Works of the.City,- to identify factors distinctive to sewage generation within the City of Huntington Beach, and to compare these factors with those used by the various County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and other neighboring agencies; 3. To analyze the existing City sewerage system,. including gravity lines, pump stations, and force mains so as to determine the existing trouble spots,. and remaining capacities in the components of the existing system, to recommend, alternate interim routings to take advantage of unused capacities in other existing sewers thereby deferring major capital improvement expenditures, and to develop a short term capital improvement program, including cost f- estimates for relieving .existing trouble spots; 4.. To develop alternative plans for meeting the needs of the City at. . ultimate. development, to identify -areas where . existing sewer capacities will be exceeded. as development advances, to recommend an ultimate sewer system plan based on maximum use of the existing. system, flexibility in meeting future adjustments _: to flow projections, and an economic analysis considering cost of construction, operation and maintenance, and elimination of pump stations where possible, and to prepare cost estimates for the recommended ultimate facilities. 3ACKGROUND OF SEWER DESIGN AND -ANALYSIS :. In analyzing a sewer system, it is necessary to determine standards regarding the amount of flow that may be safely carried by a given II-7 sewer. A cross-section of such a sewer is shown on Figure II-3. The area of the pipe has been divided into four sections, by lines, indicating. the ratio of the depth of flow to the diameter of the . pipe (D/d) at various locations. In general , the design and analysis of sewers is based upon providing .an adequate depth to diameter ratio for safely and efficiently carrying .wastewater from .its points of origin to the treatment facilities. i At the time of sewer design, there is usually some . uncertainty as i to future development patterns within the area to be sewered. In order to deal with this uncertainty, provision is usually, made for some extra pipeline capacity to allow for the possibility of actual sewer flows being slightly higher. than the flows anticipated at the time of design. Consequently, most municipalities., including. the City of .Huntington Beach, specify that smaller sewers be designed to flow at levels.. not i .exceeding half-full .(D/d=0.50) , .as shown in Zone I on Figure II-3. . For larger sewers having an internal diameter greater. than .18 inches, the s.ewered area . is larger. Local deviations from design sewer flows .tend i to balance one another for larger areas---resulting in closer agreement between actual and design sewer flows. Consequently, these larger i sewers are designed so that the depth .-to diameter ratio will not exceed 0.75, • W In analyzing existing sewers, it is .not necessary to allow for as large a factor of safety. Most of the areas being sewered are largely built out, and development patterns are relatively certain.- Further; uncertainties _ in the flow rates in existing sewers .may be eliminated. by metering these facilities. Therefore, the sewers may be flowing at levels above a design depth to. diameter ratio of 0.50 and still be II-8 • a=l.00 AREA OF HYDRAULIC 77S\ . . . . f . INSTABILITY a=0.82 AREA NEEDED FOR.VENTILLATION D=' AND FOR EMERGENCY.CAPACITY d 0,6T a=0.50 SAFE LOADING CAPACITY ~ FOR SEWERS< 18"DIAM. �. ,y I NORMAL DESIGN CAPACITY FOR SEWERS 18 DIAM. SEWER LOAD I NG. CONDITIONS C rn FOR SEIIERS'_:18" DIAM A D/d AS LARGE AS 0.75 IS CONSIDERED SAFE. Lowry and Associates -� operating quite satisfactorily. Consequently, in analyzing sewers, a i safe loading capacity depth to diameter ratio of 0.67 for sewers of 18 i inches diameter, or less, has been assumed (Zones I and II on Figure II-3) . For larger sewers, a safe D/d is considered to be 0.75. A small portion of pipe cross section, designated as Zone III on Figure II-3, has been reserved to handle emergency flows, . such as storm water inflow and infiltration. This area will. also provide for ventilation within the pipe. Zone IV on Figure .II-3 is interesting hydraulically.,. but should not be considered as part of the capacity . of the . pipe. At a depth to diameter ratio of 0.82, the sewer capacity is the same as it would be if it were flowing full (D/d=1.00) , because the additional area of .flow is counteracted by the added friction between the top or soffit of. the sewer pipe and the fluid. . In analyzing' sewers in this report, some sections of sewer pipelines have been classified as "overloaded" . The "overloaded" category Has been defined- to include all sewers with internal diameters of 18 inches, or less, having a calculated D/d greater .than 0.67 and all . sewers with internal diameters greater_ than 18 inches having a. calculated D/d greater than 0.75. Where sewers calculated to be sd "overloaded", it is recommended that these calculations be checked by actual field observations of flows as the techniques used in this study can only approximate actual field conditions. ... . II-10 4 .. - CHAPTER III FLOW GENERATION AND PEAKING LAND USE Present :Land Use. Land use. statistics used in this report are based upon the most recent information available from the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning. For purposes of estimating local sewage flows generated within the study area, the 15 land use categories :defined in Table II1-1 have been used. These land use category definitions were reviewed and approved by the Planning Department of the City. . Six separate residential land use categories were defined based upon the occupancies per , dwelling unit fisted in Table 11I-2 It .is i assumed that the population within the developed. areas defined as R1, R2, R3 and R4 wi.11 remain .rel,at-ively constant throughout the year in any given year. However, some seasonal. variation in population may be expected in those areas defined as mixed density residential RSi and mobile homes (MI i .e. higher population densities may occur during summer months when people are drawn to the -beach areas. Nine non-residential land us2 categories have been used. T;^,es2 are listed in Table III-1. Using the six residential and nine non-residential and use categories . defined in Table III-1 ) a detailed inventory of both present III-1 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS �- The completion of this study was made possible : by the assistance and data furnished by many individuals and organizations whose patient and valuable assistance is gratefully acknowledged. We 'especially wish to . thank Mr. H.E. Hartge, Mr. Mike Zambory, Mr. Ron Lacher,. Mr. Jeff .Renna, Mr. Bill Patapoff and Mr. Ed Welborn of . the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works, Mr. Rich Barnard of the. City of. Huntington Beach Department of Planning, and Mr. Ray Lewis, Mr. William Clarke, Mr. Dennis Reid and .. Mr. James Wybenga of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County for their close involvement and assistance in. the preparation of this 4.. report. 6W. PROJECT. STAFF Those individuals of the Lowry & Associates staff who contributed w, to this report . are Mr. Donald J. Martinson, Princioal , Project Manager and. Principal in Charge; Mr. John M. Kenney, Principal Engineer; Mr. W.H. (Wil ) Wilson, Project Engineer; , Mr. Henry Kluka, Project Director of Computer Services; Mr. Donald. I. McClure, Manager of 'rapping and Plan Production Miss Nena Menl.ove, and Mr. Dennis Phi.nney, Design engineers. for the project; Mr.s. . Joan Loughran and Ms. Karen Blankenship, .coordinators of Typing .and Word Processing. II-11 TABLE III-1 ' LAND USE CATEGORY DEFINIT-IONS Designation Description • R1 Low Density Residential District 0-7;Du/Acre` R2 .Medium Density Residential District 7-15 Du/Acre R3 High Density Residential District '15-35 Du/Acre • R4 . High Density Residential District 35 or more Du/Acre R5 Office-Professional Districtl RS Mixed Density Residential District? MH Mobile .Home District C Commercial District3 CFE Community Facilities (Education) District CFR Community Facilities (Recreation) District CFS Community Facilities (Recreation with Community Center) Y- District • M1 Light Industrial District M2 Industrial District RS4 High Rise Development X Non-Sewage_ Generating Areas (Edison easements, flood control channels, reservoir) Z A designation of "Z." has been used to allow for sewage gener- ation not related to any local land use. category. NOTES: 1 ) Includes Civic Center and other areas zoned as CFC 2) Includes Town .Lot and Old Town sections , and surrounding areas in beach vicinity. 3) Includes areas zoned as Cl ,. C2, C3, and C4. • III-2 TABLE III-2 POPULATION GENERATION RATES Residential Land Housing Density Use Catecory Range 1978 Avg. Value Population/Dwelling Unit Rl 0 to 7 Du/Ac 4.60 Du/Ac 3.25 R2 7 to 15 Du/Ac 10.21 Du/Ac 2.30 R3 15 to 35 Du/Ac 18.56 Du/Ac 1 .85 R4. 35 Above Du/Ac - 1 .85 MH - 8.37 Du/Ac 1 .70 RS - 10.08 Du/Ac 2.30 RS4 Varies Varies Varies III-3 and ultimate land use within the City was prepared. Over 180 local �~ sewer drainage areas (referred to as subareas) , were first identified by • inspection. Subareas were considered as all that area common to a local collection system which discharges into a major trunk system. These major trunk systems. are identified in Tables IV-1 and IV-2. The land • use within each of these subareas was then tabulated according to the 15 land use ,category definitions . to..facilitate systematic calculation of subarea flows. • The. land use within the tributary area of each of the major sewer systems within the .City is summarized in Table III-3. Predominant existing land use patterns are shown grapically on Figure III-l. Vacant lands within the major sewer system boundaries are identified in Table III-4. Figure III-2 shows the locations of these vacant areas. Future Land Use • In approximating future land use patterns, it has been assumed that vacant areas will _ultimately develop, ' and that residential areas 'r�i.11 ultimately be occupied to 100 percent saturation as shown on • Figure III-3. It land use patterns as anticipated by the City °- Planning Department at this time (November 1978) are tabulated according to the major sewer systems in Table III-5. It should 5e noted that the • Planning Department has indicated a number of locations where `uture. land use is not expected to coincide with the present General Plan of Zoning. . In all cases where such differences were noted, t.ne indications • '' of. the Planning Department were assumed to take precedence over the present General Plan of Zoning. • ' III-4 4. U E t t t TABLE 111-3 EXISTING LAND USE BY SYSTEM TRIBUTARY AREAS (November 1978) System Serving R5 1_S4 C CFE CFR-CFS -MI-M_2 X Total Tributary Area DU At _ DU AC. OU AC DU AC illl 7tf. 71C AT A. AC AC AC [u► AC Bolsa Chica Trunk 444 )00 - - - - - - - - II 88 - 444 149 .(CSDOC No. II) Graham St. Trunk - 'Sewer (City) 443 90 76 6 - - - - 69 14 359 5 519 543 Edinger Ave. Trunk Sewer- (CSDOC No. 11) 1165 255 - 88 6 665 94 - - 1 - - 15 . 2tl - - - 1918 399 Springdale Trunk Sewer (CSDOC No. 11) 4048 898 134 7 713 33 224 23 - 4 83 132. 27 14 - 5119 1221 Heil Ave. Relief Sewer (City) 139- 31 248. 18 569 33 65 5 - - - A - - 1021 95 Warner Ave. Trunk r--r Sewer (City) 1072 243 1130 118 1639 97 - - - 2" - 45 3 - 3841 - 50R r--r Edwards Ave. Trunk - -- t Sewer (City) 1337 281 166 12 1326 58 - - - - - - - - 14 5 - - 281..9 370 Slater Ave.. Trunk Sewer (CSDOC No. 11) 3714 795 62 .8 141 7 125 17 - - 15 - 5 55 238 50 5 .4042 1195 Goldenwest Trunk Sewer' (CSDOC No. 11) 876 197 148 11 750 44 81 5 - 1 - 95 187 26 14 - IB55 St3O Gothard St. Trunk South (City) 4 1 69 _ 4 70 - - - - - - -. - - - - - Miliev-Holder Trunk Sewer - Hoover Reach (CSDOC No. 3) 648 160 142 17 999 50 - - - - - 110 14 3 1 19 1789 365 Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer - Warner Reach (CSDOC No. 3) 1322 326 458 60 2354 141 - - - - 13 - 115 51 48 21 4134 775 Knott Interceptor Trunk Sewer (CSDUC No. 3) - - 276 16 - - --. - - - - 276 16 Guthard Trunk Sewer (City) - - 150 10 - - - - 2 - 27 - - 51 - 150 90 Beach Blvd. Trunk Sewer (City) .369 86 539 64 661 49 - - - - 5 - 80 36 1569. 320 DU = Uwe]liuq UnIts AC. = Acrrti TABLE III-s EXISTING LAUD USE BY SYSTFit IRIPUTARY AREAS. -----------N0YE118FR 1910_- - --. --- System Serving Rl R2 R3 6 R4 Mil RS R5 RS4 C CFC CFR-CFS Ml-M2 R. TGtal Tributary Area DU—AC _-CIl)--AC �- �� -Dlf----AC*- - DU Kc AC- AC- At' AC - AG AC_ AC Miller-Holder TrcucK Sewer - Mdgnulid Reach (CSD(SC'No, 3) 4,113. 864. 51 . 10 120 4 - - - - - - 45 108 25 - 60 4,264 1.116 0ushdrd Trunk Sewer (CSDOC No. 3) 150 38 - - - - - - - - 2 - - . 150 46 Brooklm.'sL St. Sewer (City)' 1.671 341 179 16 763 36: - - - 1. 29 34 6 - 37 2,613 5(10 Bushard.St. Sewer (City) 1,524 s2ts 291 - 34 - - - - -- - . 2 14 6 - 16 1,815 4(K ,-a Yorktown Ave. Sewer - -r (Pity) 11901 418 - 120 4 456 58 - - - 14. 49 - 82 21357 621 r Addms Ave. Sewer (City) 1,354 293 817 68 64 2 - - - - - 55 37 7 - 29. 2,235 491 Newland Deldwdre Trunk Sewer (Esbor.. No. 11) 2.524 493 1.,241 103 1,449 68 - - 208 28 6 13 93 16 2 42 26 5,422 895 Newland St. Sewer (City) 404 92 - - - - - - _ _ _ 10 _ - 404 102 Ldke Ave. Inter- Ceptor Sewer (CSDOC No. 11) 179. 38 81 7 40 7 - 777 67 31. - 40 5 - - 1,077 195 Atldntd Interceptor• Sewer (CSDOC No. 11) 224 53. .330 36 138 4 304 41 1,316 151 - = 13 - - - . - 2,312 296 Orange-22nd St. Sewer (City) 459 94 - - _ _ _ . _ _ 3 - - - 100 - 459' 197. Ocean Ave. lruuk Sewer (CSDOC No. 11) 300 52 - 106 5 505 -63 3,102 290 6 - 53 23- 7 4,013 499 Ndmiltun Ave. Force Main (CSDOC No. 11) 74 15. - - 447 33 - = -- - - - 10 - 107 472 6di 1 ield Ave. Sewer (Lily) 388 109 285 23 232 10 259 35 - - - 10 - r 8 5 1,164 2130 Ldycrwtcr kiln: S.:wei - - - - - - - - (City) 1,891 418 156 1: 372 18 - ---..A- --- - 14' 18. . 6 - _2,419 489_ 1111A1 32,137 7,109 13,026 704 2684 788 5436 536 90 13 913 910 380 B90 296 60,314 13,261 IOb,315 24,098 4563 12,503 163.061 OU =.Owe IIing Units AC ' Acres O O ' y \ CITY 'cvESfAUN57ER +UFFD I . Q ••. L �\ 3WA - E •cFADDEI . ' 3 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 1 ♦ - J 1 ♦ - r2 E3 AE!. �1 f� - \ i s F. 3 � / w , •. �o °oB i 7T C.7Y OF FO(WWW VALLEY D la i:r - :^.o:ox -.ern s.^D \•,�.;,\ •R` •ecT01s ... I1�1 .:PALE!N FEET , :,.1�� P7 MON 1 r7nj / r77 % Im / LEGEND > . • CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH of , Q =.ES I OENTIAL ��•, 36 _ INDUSTRIAL' Zx. ''�.• ;' ® COMMERCIAL •� ' PARKS " PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ♦ COLLEGES & HIGH SCHOOLS r GOLF COURSES PRE'DOM I NANT EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (NOVEMBER 1578) FIGURE III-1 Lr III-7 i TABLE III-4 VACANT LAND DISTRIBUTION BY SYSTEM TRIBUTARY AREAS (NOVEMBER 1978) System Name Developed Acres Vacant Acres Total Acres • Bolsa Chica Avenue Trunk 199 95 294 Graham Street Trunk 543 203 746 Edinger Avenue Trunk (CSDOC No. 11 ) 399 11 410 Springdale Street Trunk (CSDOC No. 11 ) 1 ,221 19 1;240 Heil. Avenue Trunk 95 18 . 113 Warner Avenue Trunk 508 133 641 Edwards Street Trunk 370 4 374 Slater Avenue Trunk (CSDOC No. 11 ) 1 ,195 63 1 ,258 Goldenwest Trunk .(CSDOC No. 11 ) . 580 26 606 Gothard Street South Trunk 70 18 88 Miller-Holder (Hoover) System (CSDOC No. .3) 365 22. 387 . Miller-Holder (Warner) System (CSDOC No. 3) . 775 30 . 805 Knott Interceptor Trunk (CSDOC No.. 3) 16 0 16 Gothard Street Trunk 90 82 172 Beach Boulevard Trunk 320 . 121 441 Miller-Holder (Magnolia) System (CSDOC -No. 3) 1 ,116 1 1 ,117 Bushar.d Street Trunk (CSDOC No. 3) 40 0 40 Brookhurst Street Trunk 500 5 505 Bushard Street Trunk 400 1 401 • Yorktown Avenue Trunk 621 4 625 Adams Avenue Trunk 491 4 495 Newland Delaware Trunk (CSDOC No. 11 ) 895 419 1 ,314 Newland Street Sewer 102 0 102 Lake Avenue Interceptor Sewer 195 60 255 .- "' Atlanta Avenue Interceptor (CSDOC No. 1.1 ) . 298 65 363 Orange - 22nd Street Trunk 197 409 606 �- Ocean Avenue Trunk (CSDOC No. 11.) 499 198 ..697 Hamilton Avenue Force Plain (CSDOC No. 11 ) 472 394 78 Garfield Avenue Sewer 20.0 2 202 Edgewater Lane Sewer . 489 11 500 Unsewered 0 510 510 TOTAL 13,261 2,140 15,401 0 _. III-8 N O . r� N C/TY QF N£57M/NST£R .n1•RD Q � o :::Tv OF SEAL 3£ACN J am �♦•nUX IXGf:.7 A.:RenP,_ [,L �_ I 3 �I Y I\\ � -� -� . ti ♦_ yr •�'. � II I i N ` w d ,♦'♦,, '.'Ty OP FOUNTA/N VALLEY ♦ Y •:ARFI E�.•. V _ / ol 5 ♦ 3 i i[uL:n oELt ♦�♦. ;l a0u6 i t' I r /. w LEGEND - i CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH _ : :rta i ♦ VACANT AREAS WITHIN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (.VOVE;IBER 1978) FIGURE III-2 .« III-9 two H .._._.., to - i - C/rY pF WESrA//NS7FA . .AM I - Q r F a tFA7. Cirr Or SEAL BEACN - • , J ::'ILEA mi o i :I e e i o ee `•�_, pee O , '•;•.�_ _ -- ' - Clrr pr RMWrA/N VAL"Y Fla ` ✓ �.a 2999 iLAE:,FEET I � I A :., LEGEND - a, / •M: a • CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH Q RESIDENTIAL • Ilq I INDUSTRIAL ® CO3IMERC.AL PARKS PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ..COLLEGES S.HIGH SCHOOLS r GOLF COURSES PREDOMINANT .ULTIMATE LAND USE �y WITHIN CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH • FIGURE III-3 III-10 TABLE I11-5 FUTURE LAND USE BY- SYSTEM TfUBUTARY AP.EAS ----•--- -- -- - ----- --- ------ --------------- ----- ----- --- - CFR M18 System Name Rl R2 R3 6 R4 MH_ RS R5 RS4 C CFS C_FS M_2 X. Total Total DU AC Di) AC DU AC DU- AC DlJ . AC. AC AC AC AC AC AC DU AC Balsa Chica Avenue Trunk 444 100 - - - - - - - - - - 11 - 183 .444 294 Graham Street frunk 443 90 - - 76 6 - - - - - 8 69 14 554 5 519 746 Edinger Avenue Trunk (CSDOC 11) 1,165 . 255 77 1 88 6 665 94 - 1 - 16 Z8 3 - 1,995 110 Springdale Street _Trunk (CSDOC 11) 4063 901 134 7 713 . 33 224 23 - 4. - 88 132 27 ?5 - 51.34 1240 Ileil Avenue Trunk Z14 46 281 21- 569 33 65 5 - - - - 8 - - - - 1129 113 Warner Avenue Trunk 1352 299 1680 168 1999 115 - - - 6 - 50 - 3 - - 5031 641 Edwards Street Trunk 1357 285 166 12 1326 58 - - - - - - - 14. 5 - - 2849 374 Slater Avenue Trunk (CSDOC 11) 4019 856 62 8 .141 7 125 17 - 15 - 5 55 238 52. 5. 4347 1258 Goldenwest Trunk (CSDOC 11) 816 192. 269 22 750 44 81 5 - - 1 - 103 187 31 16 - 1976 606 Gothard Street S. Trunk 4 1 33 3 - - - - - - - - - 84 - 37 88 Miller-11older (Hoover) System (CSDOC 3) 658 162 164 19 1039 52 - - - - 126- 14 3 1 10 1861 387 Miller-Bolder (Warner) System (CSDOC 3) 1322 326 612. 74 2354 141 - - - - 18 - 118 51 56 21 4288 805 Knott Interceptor Trunk (CSDOC 3) - - - 276 16 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 276 16 Gothard Street Trunk - - - 150 10 - - - - 2 - 33 2- - 125 - 150 172 Beach Blvd. Trunk 544 121 825 90. 721 51 - - - - 7 - 93 - 5. 73 2090 441 r Miller-Holder (Magnolia) J J System (CSDOC 3) 4118 865 51 10 120 4 - - - - - 45 108 _ 25 - .60 4289 1117 Bushard Street Trunk (CSDOC 3) 150 38 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 150 40 Brookhurst Street Trunk 1691 345 .179 16. 763 36 - - 1 - 30 34 6• - 37 2633 505 Bushard Street.Trunk 1524 328 291 34 - - - - - - - .3 14 6 - 16 1815 401 Yorktown Avenue Trunk 1901 418 - - - .456- 58 - - - 18 49 - 82 2357 625 Adams Avenue Trunk .1354 293 817 68 64 2 - - - - - 59 37 7 - 29 2235 495 Newland Delaware Trunk (CSDOC 11) 3527 636 3245 298 1526 75 - - 219 29 7 19 128 16 2 54 50 8517 1314 Newland Street Trunk Sewer 404 92 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 - - 404 102 Lake Avenue Interceptor Sewer 284 59 158 15 40 7 - 971 84 31 - - 40 19 - 1453 255 Atlanta Avenue Interceptor (CSDOC 11) 224 53 858 84 278 1.1 304 41 1371. 155 - - 18 - - 3035 363 Orange - 22r.d Street Trunk 2184 439 - - - - - - - 3 - - 10 154 - 2184 606 Ocean Avenue Trunk (CSOOC 11) 300 52 440 40 106 5 505 63 4235 393 6 168 23 7 - 5586 697 Hamilton Avenue Force Main (CSDOC 11) 74 15 - - - - . 447 33 - - - - - = - 30 521 78 Garfield Avenue Sewer 393 110 285 23 232 10 259 35 - - - - 11 - - 8 5 1169 202 Edgewater Lane Sewer 1991 418 167 16 372 18 - - - 24 18 6 - - 2430 500 .Unsewered _1800 360 _ _ = J _ _ 76 22 52 1800 _510 TOTALS 38,280 816014794 1035 .11703 MO 3131 374 6196 662. 102 19 1087 919 493 1437 372 72,704 15,401 TOTAL POPl11A]ION 124,410 24,8?6 25,351 5323 15,631 195,541 The number of dwelling units in future residential areas now vacant . has been estimated by. multiplying future residential acreages by the A= . following factors. Rl: 5 Dwelling Units/Acre �.. R2: 11. Dwelling Units/Acre R3: 20 Dwelling Units/Acre R4: 35 Dwelling Units/Acre : MH: 11 Dwelling Units/Acre 10 RS: 11 Dwelling Units/Acre These factors have been determined by calculating the total number of dwelling units within the study area for each residential 1and use category, and dividing the total number of housing units by the. total _ acreage for each category. This results in roughly ten percent more units than the . actual present conditions to account for the. possibility of higher. density developments in future years, and. to. lessen possibilities for overloading sewers in the future. Using sthe ultimate land use projections, it is possible to anticipate future flow conditions in order to determine the most effective means of. serving undeveloped areas. without . overloading the System. I N DU STM AL WASTE In most instances, .industrial waste flows can be quantiystivel modeled in terms of a duty factor, such as an assigned flow per acre per day. There are certain industries, nowever, that discharge large. III-12 • amounts of process water, and consequently produce inordinately nigh a.. sewage flows. Such industries include oil producers, plating shops, cleaning establishments, paper manufacturers, certain chemical r- manufacturers, and building material manufacturers. Toxic or saline type wastes are normally not allowed to be introduced into the sewer system. Within the City of Huntington Beach, there are several high water use industries. The most notable of these is the oil industry which uses a steam or .water injection process to increase oil production. After the oil has been separated, using condensed steam, a skimmer, and a filter, the resulting water is discharged into the sewer system. .,. The known dischargers of industrial waste are listed in Table 11I-6. These industrial. flows have been .modeled in the sewer analyses as point sources of wastewater flow occurring within their respective. subareas. It should be noted that not all of the sources of industrial flows, �- particularly those related to oil production, are known. Consequently, some of the sewer overloading in oil producing areas may be caused by . discharges from the oil/water separation process. 0 INFILTRATION/INFLOW Unidentified sewer discharges are a common occurrence in most sewer systems. Infiltration is an unidentified discharge, and occurs :.jhe.n groundwater seeps into a sewer .system through loose ;pints, �r3C.<s, and the porous pipe material . Inflow is another unidentified discharge, and occurs when storm ;eater or other surface run-off enters the system through openings in manhole covers, manhole ring joints, and through III-13 TABLE III-6 POINT OF INDUSTRIAL FLOWS Average Point of Entry Subarea Source of Flow DaiU Flow into . Location Z9Pm mg System Reference ,. Chevron Oil Company 1720 2.477 Golden West & Ernest 145 Chevron Oil Company 44 .064 Atlanta near Schooner 174. .(Thompson Lease) • Jacat Oil: Company 4 .006 22nd &. Palm 181 McDonnell Douglas 153 .221 Bolsa & Graham St. 12 C. Edward Miller Oil Co.. 1 .001 Between 6th & 7th St. 184 Petroprize 3 .004 Between Orange &-Olive 184 Production Plating 35 .051 Gothard S. of Edinger 106 Teburg Oil Company - - 8th St. Between Walnut .. and Olive Termo Oil Company 15 .022 Between 20th & 21st St. 181 Union Oil Company 71 .102 On- Heil W. of Bolsa Chica 38 • James White Oil Company - - Between 9th & 10th St Weiser Lock Company* 2.97 .427 McFadden at Graham " 15 �- Chevron Oil Company 2 .003 Atlanta at Huntington Avenue 172 TOTAL OIL COMPANY 1860 2.679 TOTAL OTHERS 485 .699 . GRAND TOTAL 2345 3.378 * Starting October 2, 1.978 • III-14 unknown or undesirable connections to the sewer system, such as roof drains and low area drains on private lands. Certain low lying areas of the city, such as the Huntington Harbour area and a small section in the southeasternmost portion of the City were originally tidal marshlands with high soil permeability and with nigh groundwater_ levels, and therefore are directly affected by tidal �. variations.. Consequently, infiltration may be expected to occur in these low lying areas wherever pipeline conditions permit -seepage of seawater. The known areas of potential infiltration are below sea level in the coastal areas, as shown on Figure III-4. An attempt has been made to estimate the amount of infiltration and �- inflow in the Harbour Area by studying existing meter records, and extrapolating "expected" flows of "known sources; thus infiltration can be evaluated relative to expected. conditions. The results are. listed in Table III-7. . The indicated flows have been extrapolated, assuming a flow generation duty factor of 70 gpcd, the average per capita duty factor found to fit present conditions, for each area studied. The actual amount of infiltration will tend to vary in accordance with the pipeline conditions. AVAILABLE FIELD MEASUREMENTS Three sources of field flow meas.urments within the. Huntington Beach system have been. used in this study. These measurements were taken b;/ the City of Huntington Beach, the County Sanitation Districts, and several additional special flow measurements taken by the County . Sanitation Districts in conjunction with the preparation of this report. All measurements used in this study are based upon water le,/el depth III-15 . 41 �i O H - C/7Y CF WRIS7M/NVER W y +crACCEY , 0 c/TY CF 9E44 s.-AcH r ■■� �+ 3 10 fi "IR - P •A iT W '♦ 1 Vrl OF FOUNTAIN VAU--Y - - - ;CALF it rEET - �� � ,1 ::AIR i • _ � L i LEGEND I-T--1 i im-• CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH aunr. � I L i i i AREAS WHERE INFILTRATION IS MOST PROBABLE r � FIGURE III-4 :. III-16 r c r c r r r c I r r TABLE I1I-7 ESTIMATED INFILTRATION/INFLOW OR OTHER UNIDENTIFIED FLOWS IN HARBOR AREA BASED OP! EXISTING FLOW MEASUREMENTS Average Calculated Meter Measured Average Flow Remaining Tributary Excess Record Location Flow Based on Land Use Difference Area Flow (mgd) (m9d) . (mgd) (acres) (9Pad) HB 14 Pearce at Sims .144 .033 .111 19 . 5842 HB 15 Pacific Coast Hwy. 2nd Manhole West of Pump Station B .347 .245 .102 159 641 CSDOC 23 Pearce West of Bolsa Chica .398 .106 .292 54 5407 CSDOC 24 Warner West of Bolsa Chica 2.083 1 .429 .654 805 812 Q.: recorder measurements, using a Stevens recorder over one week periods, .. at the locations listed in Table III-8, and located as shown on Figure III-5. The resultant flows calculated from these. water depth measurements are presented in Table III-8. The information available from these measurements has been ! thoroughly studied and analyzed in order to arrive at a set of unit flow �- generators and peaking criteria representative of actual present conditions. experienced within the City of Huntington Beach. ;r. i RECOMMENDED UNIT FLOW GENERATORS The recommended set of unit flow generators is listed in Table III-9. These duty factors have been derived from a series of successive �- -approximations in which actual field flow measurements at 24 metering locations were compared with calculated. flows based on. land use upstream from the metering location and a set of assumed unit flow generators. Upon comparison of the calculated values with the measured values, a new set of adjusted unit flow generators was derived, and a revised set of resultant flows was calculated. The process was continued until an acceptable set of generators was found to match existing . flow conditions. In. selecting measurements for use in this study of unit flow generators, no flow measurements taken prior to January 1974 were considered because considerable development has since occurred. :n .k cases where more . than one recent measurement had been taken at a s'nale : 4 location, the larger recorded flow was used. A comparison of recorded flow measurements and the corresponding flows calculated from the unit flow generators is shown in Tab"le iII-3. � + III-13 �:i • TABLE III-8 AVAILABLE FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF FLOW IN SEWERS Meter Date of Q Avg. Q Avg. Q Peak Q Peak Record Record Location Measured Calculated Measured Calculated a., (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) IIB 1 June 1977 Beach Blvd. S. of Talbert .1146 .1601 .2086 .332 HB 2 July 1977 Delaware N. of Garfield .0665 .1703 .1481 .351. HB 3 July 1977 Beach Blvd. S. of Slater .343 .2982 .544 .579. *11B 6 July 1977 Warner W. of Springdale 1.000* 2.3671 1.179* 3.675 . HB 11 Nov. 1977 Garfield E. .of Newland .286 .1957 .5066 .398 HB 12 Nov. 1977 Alley Between 22nd & '23rd N. of Walnut .173 .4141 .246 .776 HB i3 Nov. 1977 Alley Between 18th & 19th N. of Walnut .132 .0998 .207 .218 118 14 Dec. 1977 Pearce at Sims .144 .0331 .244 .081 HB 15 Dec. 1977 Pacific Coast Hwy. d.., 2nd Manhole %I. of Pump Station B .347 .4097 .566 .769 I18 18 May 1977 Warner - 2nd Manhole W. of Syphon 1.52 2.3078 3.51 3.593 HB 19 May 1978 Heil - 2nd Manhole E. of Goldenwest .26 .4563 .41 .846 118 24 Mar. 1978 Gothard N. of Heil .22 .2235 .30 .448 CSDOC 2 Sept.1976 Newland Delaware Trunk E. of Crystal on Garfield 2.856 2.6532 3.435 4.069 CSDOC 3 June 1974 Atlanta Trunk - 2nd Manhole W. of Beach Blvd. .461 .5851 .793 1..059 CSDOC 5 Apr. 1978 Goldenwest S. of Warner .826 1:0856 1.312 1.834 CSDOC 6 Apr. 1978 Goldenwest S. of Heil .491 .7803 .826 1.366 CSDOC 11 Feb. .1976 Springdale N. of Edinger .563, .7549 1.006 1.326 �.. CSDOC 16 Feb. 1978 Lake Ave. at Orange .298 .3097 .624 .599 CSDOC 17 Sept.1976 Ocean between l9th & 20 .230 .4351 .608 .811 CSDOC 20 Sept.1976 Ocean between 2nd & 3rd .687 1.2935 1.701 2.144 CSDOC 21 Feb. 1975 Alley between 15th & 16th St. N. of Walnut .192 .0429 .281 .103 CSDOC 22 Feb. 1975 Edinger W. of Bolsa Chica .674 .6F46 .892 1.184 CSDOC 23 Feb. 1975 Pearce W. of Bolsa Chica .398 .1062 .471 .231 CSDOC 24 Feb. 1975 Warner W. of Bolsa Chica 2.083 2.0943 3.016 3.7.95 f.SDOC 25 June 1978 Goldenwest N. of Heil .15 .3230 .22 .623 LRA 1 Oct. 1978 Graham St. - 2nd Manhole S. of USN RR .143 .1154 245 .248 L&A 2 Oct. 1978 Graham St. S. of Research .214 1.4684 2.277• 2.400 L&A. 3 Oct. 1978 Huntington Ave. at Baltimore .213 .1620 .317 .336 * The accuracy of these measurements is questiunable, as measurements upstream have indicated larger quantities of flow. • III-19 i H - -•, I C/TY OFcl :Yf57M/N57fA �A - sx irr j � I �cN^7EN ,:I Y OF SEAL BEACH 2 11 25A 24 4 �_ 2 3 6 1_9 14. li1 8 a 3If xarEA 5 2 4 6. , 'LA;E- W3 it •\�i I=^..,��` 7 .` 1 i VrY OF FOUNTAIN '"ALLEY IE it - �:.d ,�'� �/ r -•- - CRUNN 6. r i i :ioo:,no -oco :n+o ;cUE:1 FEET 12 - '� <, 13 z i 2 1 ' LEGEND 17 16 { CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH F j 3I 3 20��: A .. i METER LOCATIONS •� ♦ ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT RECORDS 7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECORDS O LOWRY .ASSOCIATES SUPPLEMENTAL MEASUREMENTS 6- FOR THIS STUDY • - . LOCATIONS OF AVAILABLE FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF FLOW IN SEWERS FIGURE III-5 . III-20 TABLE III-9 RECOMMENDED UNIT FLOW GENERATORS FOR AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS Land Use Description Unit Flow Factor, ) Rl Low Density Residential 230 gpd/Dwelling Unit R2 Medium Density Residential 160 gpd/Dwelling Unit -- R3 High Density Residential 130 gpd/Dwellling Unit R4 Very High Density Residential 130 gpd/Dwelling Unit R5 Office-Professional 2000 gpd/Acre RS Mixed Density Residential 160 gpd/Dwelling Unit RS4. Pacifica Community 3000 gpd/Acre C Commercial 2500 gpd/Acre CFE Schools 1500 gpd/Acre CFS ' Community Centers (Parks) 800 gpd/Acre CFR Parks 100 gpd/Acre M1 Light Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre M2 Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre MH Mobile Homes 120 gpd/Dwelling Unit 1 ) All Residential Flows are based on 70 gpcd III-21 • Residential unit flow generators have been calculated based upon a uniform per capita sewage generation rate of 70 gpcd. In certain cases, allowance has also been made for large point sources of industrial waste y- (Table III-6.) , and for infiltration (Table ..III-7) ' COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS Unit flow factors used in this study are compared with those used in studies of neighbor..ing areas in Table III-10 It should be noted that the land use category definitions used in developing unit flow �- factors in these areas were similar, although not identical , with :those used in this study. PEAKING • In a study of. .peaking conditions within the C.i..ty, forty-six separate flow measurements in both CSOOC and the City of Huntington -- Beach sewer lines were analyzed, and the relationship between average and peak flows extrapolated using the method of least squares. The . . resultant. peaking formula may be expressed mathematically as follows: Q peak = 1.704 x (Q average) 0.392 r.. where Q is expressed in million gallons per day and is less .than 35mgd. This equation is very similar to the relationship , found oy t^e Orange County Sanitation Districts in a previous study of..peak to III-22 r r r r r r r t t t r TABLE III-10 . UNIT FLOW GENERATORS OBSERVED I N. NEIGHBORING AREAS FOR AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS Low Density Med. Density High Density community Location Residential Residential Residential Cormierc.ial Industrial Parks (9pad)* (9pad). (9pad) (9Pad) (9Pad) (9Pad) City of Los Angeles 1680 6463 11 ,633 3880 51-70 -_ Orange County San.Dist. 6 1650 3250 4850 2500 3000 200 Orange County San.Dist. 3 1550 3880 5820 3230 3880' 194 Orange County San.Dist. 11 1550 3880 3230 3880 160 City of Huntington Beach 1040 1650 2390 2500 3000 100/800 . (existing) City of Huntington Beach 1140 1770 2590. 2500 3000 .100/800 w (future) County of Los Angeles 1030 .2070 3620 3880 5430 - City_of Santa- Ana 970 1940`- 4520 3230 3880 194 Irvine Ranch Water Dist. 735 1050 3920 2500 2700 100 Orange County San.Dist. 7 650 3880 5820 3230 3880 . 190 Orange County San.Dist.- 2 650 1550 3880 3230 3880 . 190 gpad = gallons per acre per day average relationships in sewers. The CSDOC relationship and the relationship determined in this study are compared on Figure III-6. The comparison shows a very close correlation between the two studies. In computing peak flows in sewers for this study, the above recommended formula has been used as it was developed exclusively from data collected within the boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach. a i III-24 • M ca S� V w.. Q 1000 y 500 Colo. w .... i00 J •� 50 , o i Y 10 TT W � d i 5 • ; I ... • III 1.0 I I � `+ 0.5 I 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.0 5 10 50 100 -00 1000 AVERAGE FLOW (MGO) LEGEND Q PEAK = 1.704 x Q AVG. M92 FOR 9 IN MGD . . .. TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES O.C.S.D. .NO. 3 JUNE 1968 TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH D<35 MGD PEAK TO AVERAGE RELATIONSHIPS FOR SEWAGE FLOW FIGURE III-6 III-25 !. CHAPTER IV EXISTING CITY/COUNTY COLLECTION SYSTEMS BASIS OF ANALYSIS System Trunk. Facilities • For the purposes of this analysis, the City of Huntington Beach Sewer . System has been divided into sewer drainage areas and subareas, and system trunk facilities. The existing City system trunk facilities are listed in Table IV=1, and a breakdown of land use by system is listed in Table III-3. The locations, of these City trunk facilities are . shown on Figure IV-1. Table IV-2 lists the existing CSDOC. trunk sewers. Locations of existing CSOOC trunk sewers are shown on Figure IV-2. In addition to the existing facilities, Reaches I and II of the proposed CSDOC. No. 11 -� Coast Trunk Sewer, have .been included in this analysis as 'they are currently under design, and are expected to be constructed within the. near future. Sewers designated as "system facilities" were modeled on a digital computer using equivalent pipes, where necessary, to model parallel pipe configurations, such as found in portions of the Springdale and Slater Avenue Trunk Sewers . Existing flows were computed based upon the criteria established in Chapter III , "Flow Generation and Peaking" . . .1he study area has . been divided into system trunk areas, and .in turn, divided into. 130 local drainage areas ( subareas) . The computed flow IV-1 .r • TABLE IV-1 HUNTINGTON BEACH SEWER TRUNK SYSTEMS Number System Name 1 . Adams Avenue Sewer 2. Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer 3. Brookhurst Street Sewer 4. Bushard Street Sewer �-- 5. Edgewater Lane Sewer (Harbor) 6. Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer 7. Gothard Street Trunk Sewer (South of Slater Avenue) 8. Gothard Trunk Sewer (North of Slater Avenue) 9. Graham Street Trunk Sewer .10. Heil Avenue Relief Sewer 11 . Newland Street Sewer 1.2. Orange 22nd Street Sewer 13. Warner Avenue Trunk Sewer 14. Yorktown Avenue Sewer IV-2 v • aU �• \ C/TY OF NESTM/NSTER -4AWD 1 Q IN N C r 3 �• i i - 1 S/Ty OF SEAL 3£ACN 1 IXER N - ;E � .> Ell ll . \ UNTiMGTE/I MRWR70 n hl - 13 , 2 TER -EERY 1 • .`�,. ^7Y OF FOUN7A'N vALcEY. • - w /� r / t.%. wr 12 i I A IDIANAPrl': LEGEND i CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CITY SYSTEM TRUNK FACILITIES r - i i •ir •;,. EXISTING CITY CF NTINGTON BEACH SYSTEM TRUNK FACILITIES • FIGURE I` - IV-3 • TABLE IV-2 r COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY SEWER TRUNK SYSTEMS .� Number System Name 1 . Atlanta Interceptor Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) 2. Bolsa Chica Avenue Trunk Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) -r 3. Bushard Trunk Sewer (CSDOC 3) 4. Coast Trunk Sewer Reach 1 and 2 -(Proposed) (CSDOC 11 ) 5. Edinger Avenue Trunk Sewer (East of Bolsa Chica Street) (CSDOC 11 ) 6. Goldenwest Trunk Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) 7. Hamilton Avenue Pump Station and Force Plain (CSDOC 11 ) 8. , Lake Avenue Interceptor Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) �- 9. Newland Delaware Trunk Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) j 10. Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) 11 . Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) 12. Springdale Trunk Sewer (CSDOC 11 ) 6.0 • • �. 1V-4 contribution of each of the subareas was applied in the computer model to the respective trunk system. Average flows were accumulated for each pipe section within the respective system, then peak flows determined for . each section of the system analyzed, utilizing the peaking - formulation discussed in Chapter III . the depth to diameter ratios . (D/d) at peak flow conditions were then determined for each section of the sewer analyzed. A Mannings "n" of 0.013 was used in all flow calculations. S`. Each section of the trunk sewer system was then rated according to the calculated depth to diameter ratio at peak flow conditions according to the criteria presented in Table IV-3. �-� It should be noted that the procedure involved in computerized calculation of flows in sewers involved approximating the slopes in some L.. sections of trunk. sewers by using the minimum slope within a given reach. Because it has been necessary to make , such simplifying .assumptions in tabulating the flow data for computer analysis, it is important to realize that the computer analysis contained herein is only 0 an approximation of actual conditions. The computer calculations are a valuable tool for identifying those reaches of City sewers where problems may be expected. However, where calculations indicate that problems may be expected due to high flow conditions, a field inspection is recommended to verify this condition. If accurate flow information is required, a field measurement should be made. Local Collector Facilities For purposes of this study, "local collector facilities" have been defined . as including all sewer facilities within the City of Huntington • IV-5 TABLE IV-3 RELATIVE CLASSES FOR SEWER ANALYSIS.: .. SYSTEM TRUNK FACILITIES Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Low Flow� Normal Flow ver oaded Critical .., Diameter Condition Condition Condition Condition (inches) (D/d) (D/d) (D/d) (D/d) i- 6 - 18 0,35 .35,67 .67-1 .00 1 .00 18 0-.35 . .35,75 .75-1 .00 =1 .00 r �r �r ism I IV-6 3each .not defined previously as "system trunk facilities" . These facilities are found entirely within local subareas and carry relatively • high flows. Each subarea was examined separately in this study to identify any possible trouble spots. As most areas within the City consist of flat terrain, .the minimum allowable slopes and corresponding • design capacities .(based on a minimum velocity of 1.6 fps) was assumed, as shown in Table IV-4. All local sewer facilities having a computed 0/d greater than 0.67 were classified as possible trouble spots. UNIDENTIFIED FLOW SOURCES After determining the amount of sewage generation normally expected in the system (See Table III-9) , existing flow measurements from within the individual sewer systems were studied to detect the existence of any 'unidentified sources of flow. Flow generators were applied to the land uses of the system, and the differences between measured and computed flows were extrapolated to detect significant variations. While this extrapolation may not be totally accurate-, it does indicate that several areas are experiencing inordinantly high flows. These unexpectedly high flows could be the result of unknown sources, such as infiltration from seawater, inflow from the storm drain system, waste- from oil production stripping, or any combination thereof. Seawater intrusion into the general land mass along the ocean causes infiltration . •`" to occur when sewer mains are present. Sewer mains can be porous, sometimes having non-watertight joints. Inflow occurs when surface L water flows over and through the openings in the sewer manhole covers.. While this occurrence is usually rare, there are locations in flat .areas vhere the top of the manhole .is in the hydraulic cross-section of the • IV-7 1 • TABLE IV-4 RELATIVE CLASSES FOR SEWER ANALYSIS: LOCAL COLLECTOR FACILITIES Satisfactory Marginal Possible o. Minimum Minimum Trouble Spot Diameter Velocity Slope Q Average Q Average . 'Q Average (Inches). (fps) (s) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 6 1 .6 .312 0-.042 .042-.066 .066 .and above 8 1 .6 .213 0-.081 .081-.128 .128 and above 10 1 .6 .158 0-.133 .133-.210 .210 and above 12 1 .6 .124 0-.200 .200-.316 .316 and above 14 1 .6 .101 0-.283 .283-.446 .446 and above 16. 15 1 .6 .092 0-.330 .330-.521 .521 and above 16 1 .6 .084 0-.381 .381-.601 .601 and above 18 1 .6 .072 0-.496 .496-.782 .782 and above W.. • • z.. • IV-8 • street. Wastewater discharges from oil production and industries are called point loading which cause great difficulty when the system is not • designed to carry these concentrated loads. Such loadings must be r indentified and controlled, or problems may occur. Remedies recommended for the detection and control of unindentified sources are discussed in • Chapter V. In analyzing existing and ultimate flow conditions within the individual sewers, the known flows from unidentified sources have been. included in the analysis of system trunk facilities where the general location of the origin of these flows is. known. . However,. since the exact locations of ,these loadings are not known, inclusion has not been •�. possible When analyzing -local collector facilities even though the impact from these point loadings can be great. Consequently, only those possible trouble spots resulting from sewage generated by exisiting known land uses can be identified using the analytical methods lncorpiorate.d in this report _ Therefore, it is. possible, if not probable, that there may be several major trouble spots in certain • sewers which are directly attributable to various unidentified sources of flow. In this respect, an analysis of existing field measurements Within the Huntington Harbour area, as well as the heavy oil production • areas of the Town Lot area northwest of 14th Street shows these two areas to be particularly suspect. It is important to note that where local trouble spots in these two areas are known to exist, but are not caused by land use conditions, it is likely that the local deficiency can be corrected by identification and control of the special point loadings sources. It is also possible that local trouble soots may occur due to manhole settlement, faulty construction, or other local site conditions. IV-9 POSSIBLE TROUBLE SPOTS IN SYSTEM TRUNK FACILITIES A complete detailed computer analysis of. each of the existing trunk systems has been performed. Based upon this analysis, the major system trunk facilities within the study area have-been—identified in Tables IV-5 and IV-6 as either satisfactory, or unsatisfactory for both the present and ultimate land use conditions, respectively. Peak depth ' to -r diameter ratios as well as excess flows and remaining capacities within each reach of each system have been determined in order to identify which sewers can be used to relieve existing trouble spots in neighboring facilities without creating problems. This information is tabulated by system on the attached system maps. An index to these maps appears in Table. IV-7. As mentioned previously, unidentified sources of sewage are prevalent in several sections of various trunk systems, and have been :- included in their analysis. System . trunk facilities which were found to be presently unsatisfactory are listed in Table IV-5. Recommended facility improvements to alleviate these existing trouble areas in trunk sewers are presented in Chapter V, "Recommended .Capital Improvements", and a short term plan for their systematic relief is presented in Chapter VI . .a. POSSIBLE TROUBLE SPOTS IN LOCAL COLLECTOR FACILITIES Possible trouble spots in the local collector facilities within the City are summarized in Table IV-8. These areas have been identi;4ed according to criteria discussed previously in this Chapter. Recommendations for the relief . of these trouble spots in local collector IV-10 w t� O N._..._..�_•• 1, OTY:F:YESTM/NS7PR. 14 iy r._... _ ow 1 E ••Fa-"EY 3 C/fY OF SfAL BEACH �:.vEER • ;,^. _ .'.l:�_ .rl` it � I: ' 1 • �;�• - 1 CITY OF FOUNTAIN ✓ALLEY lip `L1 :GLE a FEET - i � '"'m I / 3 'r"I�NaML: I i .� LEGEND O �• CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH Q ■�� CSOOC SYSTEM TRUNK .FACILITIES '�.." 10 o i i / EXISTING COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY SYSTEM TRUNK FACILITIES FIGURE IV-2 ;., I`1-I I TABLE IV-5 �- CLASSIFICATION OF SYSTEM TRUNK FACILITIES (PRESENT CONDITION) i Satisfactory Systems (Overflow Highly Unlikely) City Systems Graham Street Trunk Sewer Heil Avenue Relief Sewer „ Newland Street Trunk Sewer i CSDOC No. 11 System Lake Avenue Interceptor. Sewer. Marginally Satisfactory. Systems (Overflow Unlikely) City Systems Adams Avenue Trunk Sewer Brookhurst Street Trunk Sewer Bushard Street Sewer Gothard Street Trunk Sewer . Gothard Street South Sewer Yorktown Avenue Trunk Sewer CSDOC. No. 11 Systems Bolsa Chica Street Trunk Sewer Hamilton Avenue Force Main Newland Delaware Trunk Sewer Springdale Trunk Sewer r Sewers Requiring Observation at possible Trouble Spots City Systems . Beach Boulevard Trunk Edgewater Lane Sewer Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer Orange 22nd Street Sewer Warner Avenue Trunk Sewer CSDOC No. 11 Systems r Atlanta Avenue Interceptor Sewer Edinger Avenue Trunk Sewer Goldenwest Trunk Sewer Newland Avenue Relief Sewer Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer L IV-12 TABLE IV-6 CLASSIFICATION OF SYSTEM TRUNK FACILITIES • (ULTIMATE CONDITION) Satisfactory Systems (Overflow Highly Unlikely) City Systems Graham Street Trunk Sewer Heil Avenue Relief Sewer �- Newland Street Sewer Marginally Satisfactory Systems (Overflow.Unlikely) • City Systems Adams Avenue Trunk Sewer Brookhurst Street Trunk Sewer Bushard Street Sewer Gothard Street South Sewer • Yorktown Avenue Trunk Sewer CSDOC No. 11 Systems Hamilton Avenue Force' Main Springdale Trunk Sewer Newland Delaware Trunk Sewer • Sewers Requiring Observation at possible Trouble Spots - City Systems Beach Boulevard Trunk Edgewater Lane Sewer Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer Orange 22nd Street Sewer Warner Avenue Trunk Sewer CSDOC No. 11 Systems • Atlanta Avenue Interceptor Sewer Bolsa Chica Street Trunk Sewer `- Edinger Avenue Trunk Sewer Goldenwest Trunk Sewer Gothard Trunk Sewer �. Newland Avenue Relief Sewer Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer • IV-13 TABLE IV-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS SEWER TRUNK SYSTEM ANALYSES �- City Owned Sewer System Page No. Adams Avenue Trunk Sewer IV-15 Beach Boulevard Sewer (Existing) IV-16 Brookhurst Street Trunk Sewer IV-17 Bushard Street Trunk Sewer IV-18 Edgewater Lane Sewer IV-19 Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer IV-21 Gothard Trunk Sewer IV-22 Gothard Street Trunk Sewer (South of Slater Avenue) IV-23 Graham Street Trunk Sewer IV-24 Heil Avenue Relief Sewer IV-25 Newland Street Trunk Sewer IV-26 Orange-22nd Street Trunk Sewer IV-27 Warner Avenue Trunk Sewer 1V-28 .w Yorktown Avenue Trunk Sewer IV-30 CSDOC No. . 11 Sewer Systems Page No. Atlanta Avenue Interceptor Sewer IV-31 Bolsa Chica Street Trunk Sewer IV-32 „- Coast Trunk Sewer (Proposed) IV-33 Edinger Avenue Trunk Sewer IV-35 Goldenwest Trunk Sewer IV-36 Hamilton Avenue Force Main IV-37 Lake Avenue Interceptor Sewer IV-38 Newland Avenue Relief Sewer IV-39 Newland Delaware Trunk Sewer IV-40 Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer IV-43 Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer IV-45 Springdale Trunk Sewer IV-47 IV-14 ADAMS AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) y O O PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING MIN. D/d N SUB AREAS & SYSTEMS REACH . INV. ;., NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION ,a BROOKHURST .ST . I 1 ) D/D=0.45 O 1138 138 I 3. 14 .15" 2600'. 0.0010 L ) D/D=0.45 3 O • BUSHARD ST. I11 ) D/0=0.58 1639, 1.139 ---♦ 13 -0.38 15 1200' 0.001 I I� D/D=o.58 13 2 i I MARINA .LN ./CHESAPEAKE LN > I 1140 --0-0 14 Q -1 .74 18�� 400' 0.0010 '1 )D/D=0.47 N 2)D/D=0.47 g a 140 ¢ 3 HARBOR ISLE LN . / LOTUS. L• 1 )D/D=0.48 1640 10640 -2. 15 18 1100' 0.0012 I2)D/D=0.48 --� 4 (640 MAGNOLIA ST. 1141 00141 I -3.52 JOIN EXIST. M I LLER-HOLDER J j TRUNK SEWER MAGNOLIA STREET SECTION (COUNTY) j I LEG-'-ND 1 ) PRESENT 2 ) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHCL-E W/NO. 1001 — SUB--AREA NO. ... P-S.--PUMP STATION �2 —SE'NER LINE '.y/NO. I . FM--FORCE MAIN IV-15 EXISTING BEACH BOULEVAPD SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) H PIPE CHARACTERISTICS CONTRIBUTING I O SUB AREAS & SYSTEMS iREACH INV. MIN. I D/d NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE I CONDITION Q ' i I Ila ELLIS AV. I C 1092 300 I 45.49I 8 3000 I 0.0020 1 ) D/D=0.70 2) D/10.87 15 f . TALBERT AV . 1095 301 1 34.181 10 874 0.0020 11) D%D=O.57 12) D/D=0.68 1 2 302 1 i 32.43 8" i 428' 0.0168 P) D/o=0.43 12) D/D=0.50 3 I, •. NEWMAN AV. Q 1097 303 W I 20.63 10'� 660' 0.0080 1) D/D=O.46 co 2) D/D=0.65 303 1 4 304 1 15= 18 12 370' 1 0..003211 ) D/D=0.45 ' I i I i 12) D/D=0.63 304 i 5 SLATER AV. 10.41 JOIN EXIST. SLATER AVE. it j TRUNK SEWER (COUNTY) 1 , I i L`GEEN` 1 ) PRESENT 2 ) ULTIMATE 3 MANHCLE 'N/NO. 1001 — SUB-.AREA NO. P.S.— PUNS STATION 02 -- ScNER LINE W/NO. FM — FORCE MAIN BROOKHURST STREET TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) � 4) v PIPE CHARACTERISTICS w CONTRIBUTING • SLS AREAS & SYSTEMS • PEACH INV. MIN. D/d ul NO. ELEV., SIZE LENGTH ; SLOPE CONDITION Q INDIANAPOLIS AV . i 1 ) D/D=0.61 1119 119 I -6.33 1211 1300° 0.0008 C ) D/D=0.62 �h 1 ) D/D=o.39 120 i -7..37 15" 900' 0.0011 2) D/D=0.40 izo 2 ENDEVER C I R/EL CAP I TAN D 1 ) D/0=o.44 1121--0 121 cn -8.39 15° 1700° 0.0017 12) D/D=0.45 12 0: I 3 1 ' BROOKHURST P . S . 913 p -11.30 6"FA 25' F.M. O • m 913 4 I EFF I NGHAM DR . I 1 ) D/D=0.44 `-° 1122 122 -2.361 18" 1500' 0.0009 i 12) D/D=o.4.5 5 I I i HAMILTON AV. �� , 1 ) D/D=0.5 0 i• 1123—i 12 -3.75 18 1320 0.0014 • 2 ) D/D=0.5.1 12 6 1 I 1 ) D/D=o .38 124 -5.541 21" 1320' 0.0012 I I 2) D/D=0.38 ; 124 7 BUSHARD ST . i 1125--� 125 5 I -7.0911 JOIN EXIST. BUSHARD ST. I I • TRUNK SEWER (CITY) i 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE W/NO. . iCO: — SUE-AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION (� -- SE:1ER L:NF_ 'q/NO. • FM--FORCE MAIN IV-17 BUSHARD STREET TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) as t� PIPE CHARACTERISTICS w CONTRIEUTING SUB AREAS i SYSTEMS i REACH INV. I MIN.. D/d a NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION (A - Q 3 INDIANAPOLIS . AV. +� 1 ) D/D=0. 13 G 1116 116 w 0. 17 15 3500' u 0.0011 Q W I 2) D/D=0. 13 U U. W i 7. NLq ATLANTA A V. I 1 ) D/moo.20 1117 ---1 11.7 —3.60 18�+ 1500' 0.0011 2) D/D=o.20 i "'• G I 2 1 PANACEA DR . 1118----i118 I —5.24 18+ 1400' 0.0008 1 ) D/D=0.24 i `2) O/D_0.24. 18 I . 3 �- i i HAMILTON AV. 1 I „ 1 ) D/D=o :51 1323, 1125 125 �) —6.23 18 800 0.0018 — BROOKHURST ST. TRUNK SEWER (CITY) N 125 ! 4 a ' L ANDFALL DR . cn ;I u I , 1 ) D/0-0. 33 1126 -- 126 m �1 7.76 27 1000 0.001 R) D/D=O. 33 126 I 5 I � .— RAMBLER DR . I 1127 27 i —8.94 I 27" 800' I 0.001 Il ) D/D=O. 35 �L) D/D=0. 36 127 iI 6 ! ! BANNING ST. 1627 -- 0 627 I TO O.C.S.D. j �•- TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2 I I I i LEGEND ; 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE �. 3 MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUR—AREA NO. I I P.S.--PUMP STATION `2 �� SEWER LINE 'r!/N0. FM--FORCE MAIN I iii I T�/_1R EDGEWATER LANE SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) a A PIPE CHARACTERISTICS CONTRIBUTING I C SUB AREAS & SYSTF24S I REACH INV. MIN. D/d MO u . ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDIT?ON q j � t G EDINGER AV. !1 )D/D=0.75 cc ,�. 1401 401 -7.25 10" 400' .002 a ! 2)D/D--0.81 SANTA BARBARA P . S. 910 Q -5.38 6"FM 100' F.M. a I o co2 91 a m i a 402 Z 1 -3.75 10 � 2000' 0.0025 1 )0/0=0.69 D/0=0.73 j . 3 AD o , j ,r HUMBOLDT DR. 1 )D/0= 0.66 1403 ---00403 -2. 17 12" 1300' 0.0025 �)D/D= 0.6.9 40 3 4 I i LIFT STATION H 911 -5.25 6"FM 100' IIF,M. Z 1. j I1)D/D=0. 66 m 404 }¢ 3.95 12� 550' 0.0025 cn I )D/D=0. 69 I ! r -- I ! 6 !� 1 )D/D=O. =53 +- 405 y 1 2.21 15 I 800 1;0.00 15 j 2)D/D=O. s5 CONTINUEED 405 it 7LEGaJD j 1 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MAtiH^Lc '4/NC. 100 1 — SUB.-AREA NO. P.S.--PUP- STATION C SE;vER LINE W/NC. FM—FORCE MAIN l EDGEWATER LANE SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) PIPE CHARACTERISTICS V CONTRIBUTING SUB AREAS 6 SYSTEMS REACH INV. I MIN. O/d NSA NO. . ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION i •- MORNING STAR DR. 405 j 7 I _ 1)C/D=0.70 W 1404 —. 06 . 4i 0.90 is 12.S0 0.001S v D/D=o.71 3 O406 8 i I LIFT STATION H 912 ;I -0.96 6"FM I 75' F.M. IN 9.75 91 !I I OUT j Z 9 DAVENPORT DR . 1407 � „ 111 D/D=0.66 0407 w j 3.25 i 5 Q j ( 2800 o.002s Iv D/D=o.67 LIFT STA . GLu 3 " 407 i0 ... w �I COURTNEY LN . ', 1408 --._i408 I -3.47 15" 50' 0.0025 uD/D=0.68 Iv0/D=0.69 40 11i i � LIFT STATION D 904 i -5. I5 I f� JOIN EXIST. WARNER AVE. TRUVK SEWER SYSTEM I I I I I I I i i I i i i I j ``C-=-ND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE �- 3 ! - MANHCLE W/NC. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION — SE:'1cR LINE ,9/NO. FMF--FORCE MAIN Tv 00 EDWARDS AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) CONTRIBUTING PIPE CHARACTERISTICS w REACH INV.. SUB AREAS & SYSTEMS MIN . D/d NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE _CONDITION_ HEIL Av. 1 647 47 I 0 . 36 10 � 1200 ' 0 . 0020 1 ) D/D=O. 68 H 2) D/D=0. 6 8 w 47 1 3 0 11 ) D/D=0. 4 9 48 -2 . 18 12" 600 ' 0 . 0020' 4 2) D/D=0. 49 48 2 I SHIELDS DR/MARY I YN DR . i 1 ) D/D=O. 53 1049 49 -3 . 50 12" 400 0 . 0020 2) D/D=0. 5 3 3 1 ) D/D=0. 4 9 50 -4 . 17 15 500 ' 0 . 0008 I2)D/0=0. 49 4 > WARNER AV. ¢ I ) D/D=0.58 1051 51 N -4 . 62 15 " 1000 ' 0 . 000 2)D/D=0.58 51. ¢ 5 ._.... v. 3 WRENFIELD DR. w 1 )p/D=0.65 1052 52 -5 . 42 15 " 300 ' 0 . 00081 2)D/D=0.6 5 52 6 FREEBORN DR . i ll )D/0=0.69 1053 00053 1 -5 . 56 15" 1000 ' 0 . 000 12)D/0=0.69 53 7 SHENIYN DR . 1 )D/D=0,70 1054 54 -6 . 34 15" 400 ' 0 . 0008I 12 )D/D=0. 7 E ' SLATER AV , i 1055 --_*55 i 1-6 . 71 JOIN EXIST . SLATER AVE . -/ TRUNK SEWER ( COUNTY ) I I LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. P.S.—PUMP STATION • — SEWER LINE %J/NO. FM--FORCE MA I N 7.': c.y IV-21 GOTHARD TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) y PIPE CHARACTERISTICS j CONTRIBUTING SUB AREAS & SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN . O/d NO. ELEV. SIZE . LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION (4 , C cc GOTHARO ST . 1106 -1 106 5.68 12 1400' 0.002 1 ) D/D=0. 5 2 3 I2) D/D=0. 7 5 0 106 � ( 1 . w GOLDEN WEST AV. " 1058 --� 58 1.40 JOIN EXIST. GOLDENWEST AVE. TRUNK SEWER (COUNTY) i I ` I I I .r LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE • I 3 - MANHOI.r W/NO. 1001 - SUa-AREA NO. ` P.S.--PUMP STATION U2 F SEWER LINE W/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN IV-22 GOTHARD STREET TRUNK SEWER (SOUTH OF SLATER AVENUE) a. w PIPE CHARACTERISTICS V CONTRIBUTING O SUB AREAS E SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN . o/d. f . NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION Q TALBERT. AV. 11 ) D/D=0:62 1564 ---�56 36 . 90 10 " 1500 ' 0 .005 TALBERT P .S . I2) D/D=0.65 3 C 0 6 = ►- 1 .. r V) GOTHARD ST. 1064 64 3. 00, 12 ° 2800 ' 0 . 00161 1.)D/o=0.46 2.)D/D=0.52 z � J O64 Z � YI 2 . I- Z Q Z U CL 65 -12 . 04 JOIN EXIST. SLATER AVE . TRUNK SEWER ( COUNTY ) • i r. LEGEND 1.)_ PRESENT. 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION Q�-- SEWER LINE ',V/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN IV-23 GRAHAM STREET TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) � O O CONTRIBUTING PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v SL8 AREASa� 5 STEMS i 0-1 INV. MIN. D/d o NO ELEV. ta SIZE LENGTH• SLOPE CONDITION -- SI - -- 4 'o SPA D R . 1) D/0=0.39 C 1011 -- 011 13 . 64 12 " 3700 ' 0 . 0010 �. (n .i 2) D/D=0.39 © cc 1 O -- BOLSA Av. 1 1 ) D/D=0.28 1012 ---� 12 S . 74 24 " 600 '. 0 ,00111 2) D/p=0 35 2 ENGINEER DR , 11) 'D/0=0.2e 10.1 3 — 1� 13 S . 00 24 " 900 0 . 00 11' 2) D/D=0.37 3 1 ) D/D=0.23 14 I 4 . 28 27 " 1100 'I 0 . 0012•� 2) D/o=o.31 4 MCFADDEN Av. i ) D/0=0.32 `- 1015 r----0, 15 2 . 72 2 7 " 1100, 0 . 0016i i2) D/D=0.38 N i I Q S I 1 D/D=o.31 RESEARCH DR . � 1016 16 i 0 . 69 30 " 900 ' 0 .001812) D/D=o.36 ® ----rt 1 ; 6 i1 ) D/D=o.32 i PRODUCTION DR. 1017 17 1 . 4 0 30 � 6 0 0 ' 0 . 0018 12) D/D=0.36 • - 1 t I 7 9 . 50 ( JOIN EXIST . EDINGER AVE . �.. TRUNK• ..SEWER ( 0 .C .5 . D . ) { LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT .2 ) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE 'N/NO. 100; — SUB-AREA NO. ; P.S.—PUMP STATION -- SEWER L:NE '.VINO. F-14--FORCE MAIN IV-24 ` HEIL AVENUE RELIEF SERER SYSTEM (CITY) cc PIPE CHARACTERISTICS V CONTRIBUTING. o/d a SUB AREAS b SYSTEMS REACH INV. . MIN. NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH- SLOPE CONDITION Q G RnLSA CHICA ST. 1 )D/D=0.47 1028 28 5.33 1S" 1900' 0.001 3 2)D/D=0..49 .0 1 )D/c)=0.47 J ' ., 29. w j 2.34 15�� 2700' 0.001 2)D/0=0.4.9 a•- 29 2 SPRINDALE AV . 1530, 1030 30 , 71.07 JOINT EXIST. SPRINGDALE ST. TRUNK SEINER (COUNTY) - - LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2 ) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION SE7lER LINE W/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN IV-25 NEWLAND STREET TRUNK SEWER SYST94 (CITY) PIPE CHARACTERISTICS w CONTRIBUTING O SUB AREAS F, SYSTEMS - REACH INV. MIN. o/d .. NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION Q Y., YORK TOWN AV . � 1 ) D/D=0.41 A 1159 _.� 159 i 5.20 10° 2600' 0.0020 I 3 o i i 2) D/D=0.41 Z j 0: Q •a 3 (n W Z 1 ) D/D=o.32 �_. 160 1.43 12 1300' 0.0020 2 ) D/D=0 32 N 11 160 ¢ > 2 i ¢ ai i • 1161 . 1.25. JOIN EXIST. NEWLAND II DELAWARE TRUNK SEWER (COUNTY) j I i i i s f I i LEGeZ 1 ) . PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE W/NO. 1 C01 — SUB-AREA N10. ^ P.S.--PUMP STATION `2 -- =cHER LINE ?:/NC. FM--FORCE MAIN IV-26 ORANGE 22ND TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM ( CITY ) a� PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING `. SUB AREAS .SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. D/d NO ELEV. SIZE_ LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION Q GOLDEN WEST AV.. i) i 1178 , 1 D/o=o.76 678' 178 26. 13 12" 500 , 0 . 0012 3 2) D/D--1.0o• O � I v w Z 1 . • a I 0 179 25.84 8 �� 1000 ' 0 . 0041 , . (2).D/0=1.00 G " cn 79 2 Z N. OCEAN AV. 180 27 . 87 JOIN EXIST. OCEAN AVE . TRUNK SEWE.R SYSTEM ( COUNTY) r I i � I i i I i i `. .` LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 — MANHOLE W/NO. . 1001 — SUB—AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION �— SEWER LINE W/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN i IV-27 WARNER AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) a� 4� PIPE .CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING SUB AREAS & SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. D/d .� NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION 49 EDGEWATER LN . HARBOR TRUNK SEWER G I- 12 FM N 15 n C SYSTEM 904 900 F.M.-C1 1036 6, 40 PUMP STA. D 904 OUT 10 3 O 37 33.79.15" 1300 0 . 0069 1 )D/0=0.66 3 7 2 )D/D=0.67 ., I 11 ALGONQUIN ST. 1 )D/D= 1 .00 1538 . 1038 ----No 38 24 . 45 18" 2700 '. 0 . 0016 ALGONQUIN P .S. 2)0/0=1.00 38 12 BOLSA CH•I CA AV . 20.58 1 )D/D= .77 1039 -i 39. 18" 1500 ' 0 . 0026 > I2)D/D= .83 39 13 a: 1 )D/D=0.68 40 w 16 . 47 12" 500 ' 0 . 0311 Z a 2) Dip=o.71 4 0 3 14 1 ) D/D=0.73 41 i 0 . 70 21" . 800.' 0 . 0013 41 15 GRAHAM ST . 11 ) D/D=0.52 1042 , 1. 542 42 0 .60 26 15001' 0 . 0013 42 EU 12 ) D/D=0.55 16 LARK LN .. 1043 43 2 . 47 31" 1200 ', 0 . 0004 1 ) D/D=0.56 4 3 17 EG 2) D/D=0.5 g SPRINGDALE 1 044 15.44 44 i - 3 . 38 31 EC i JO I.N . EXIST SPRINGDALE I - STREET TRUNK SEWER ( COUNTY) I LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2 ) ULTIMATE 3>: - MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 - SUB-AREA NO. SEWER LINE W/NO. P•S.--PUMP STATION I FM--FORCE MAIN � IV-28 WARNER AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) y PIPE CHARACTERISTICS � CONTRIBUTING REACHINV. MIN. D/d SUB AREAS SYSTEMS NO.. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH- SLOPE . CONDITION. Q ADMIRALTY DR . -6 . 03 1902 — 0902 -1N50 all FM 2200 ' F.M. J. OUT PUMP STATION A 90 V j 1 a 1 )D/b=o.so 32 ��j 3.10 1.0" 8 0 0 ' 0.004 U 2)D/0=0.51 32 " SHARK FIN LN. : 2 1033 33 a 0 . 7410" 700 ' 0.004 1 69 . I2)D/D=0.69 . -2 . 84 PUMP STATION 8 907 IN 10.° 25 ' F.M. -3 . 13 .� DUT 07 4 WARNER AV. 1 ) 0/0=0.67 1534 , 1034 --♦ 34 0 . 5412„ 900 , 0.004. 2) D/D=0.68 34 5 -1 . 50 PUMP STATION C 903 IN 5 . 33 8" FM 600 , F.M. OUT 903 � 6 . . I1 ) D/D-o.67 1 35 5. 841211 900 , 0.004 �.. cy. i ' ) D/D=0.68 O W 35 cr 7 3 ( „ 1 ) D/D=0.69. " 1409 2 . 7412 200 ' 0.004 4 i ) D/D=0.69 09 8 „ � ) D/0=0.4 7 36 -0 . 0215 500 0.004 ' ( CONTINUED ) LEC'rE 1 ) PRESENT . 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE `N/NO. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION SEVER LINE ',9/NO. FM—FORCE MAIN f YORKTOWN AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (CITY) y PIPE CHARACTERISTICS �V CONTRIBUTING SUB AREAS & SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. O/d NO NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH .SLOPE CONDITION BROOKHURST ST . 1 ) D/0=0.44 _ 1134 0.134 i . 2.62 15 2680' 0.0010 . O ) D/D=0.44 3• •i BUSHARD ST. �� 1 ) D/D=0.54 1135 —� 135 -1 .00 15 1300' 0.0010 2) D/D=0.54 I 13 ¢ 2 j-- WATERBURY LN . Z , 1 136 —'--- 0 136 p -2.74 18 1100' 0.0010 1 ) D/D=0.44 Y 2) D/D=0.45 �.. 0 13 }. 3 • LOLAIN/HONEYWOOD LN. 1 ) D/1=0.50 1637 C637 -3.04 . 18" 500' 0.0010 2) D/D=0.50 .:. JOIN .EXIST. MILLER-HOLDER TRUNK 4 �- SEWER, MAGNOLIA STREET 637 SECTION (COUNTY) 1137 --0137 -6.87 I I "" I i I 1 • I i I j � I LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2 ) ULTIMATE ' 3 MANHO W/N0. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. LE P.S.--PUMP STATION Q2 .4-SegFR L:NE W/NO. FM--FORCE MA I N IV-30 ATLANTA INTERCEPTOR SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY ) y '- -. PIPE CHARACTERISTICS V CONTRIBUTING •: SUB AREAS 6 SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. o/d N NO. ELEV. :'SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION! ;4 LAKE AV. 1 )D/D=0.31 �0 -- 1326 1 7 1 I 11 . 01 is" goo , 0 . 0016 LAKE AVE . TRUNK 2)0/0=0.35 • SEWER ( COUNTY ) 3 O .d HUNTINGTON ST. 44 -- 1172. . -0 . 17 9 .90 181, 1900 , 0 . 00121 1- DyD=O. l D/D=0.49 17 2 fY .. BEACH BLVD. I 1) D/D=0.46 1173 17 Q i -2 . 90 1.81, 300.' 0 .0012_�. i D/0=0.52 . 17 ¢ I 3 : J F- ` 53. 1174 , 1674 , 1174 17 I —3 . 50 18" 1000 ' 0.. 0o.]2i__._ l)DiD=o.60 17 4 i. i FARNSWORTH LN . 17 —4 ._51 TO NEWLAND DELAWARE — j TRUNK .SEWER ( COUNTY ) i • "" i i I . 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 — MANHOLE WINO. 1001 — SUB—AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION 0�-- SE14ER LINE W/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN i • BOLSA CHICA STREET TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM : (COUNTY) PIPE CHARACTERISTICS too CONTRIBUTING SUB AREAS F, SYSTE14S REACH INV. MIN. Did W'S NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH. SLOPE CONDITION BOLSA AV. 1) D/D=0.43 C 1001 --Bpi 6 . 10 12" 1200 ' 0 . 0018 2) D/D=0.56 • , L ARGOSY AV. L) D/D=0. 50 1002 ---♦2 3 .98 12" 60 ' 0 . 0018 —. 0 2) D/D=O.80 O2 TASMAN DR. ' 1003 --b3 cn 3 . 23 12" 1650 ' 0 . 00 18I1 ) D/D=.0.53 c 12) D/D=0.84 u O 3 v DOVEWOOD DR, Q 1004 . —_♦41- 1 .28 15". 1000 ' 0 . 0018 1.) D/0=0. 41 J +r. O m 2) D/D=0. 56 O 4. " ROBINWOOD DR, '1 ) D/0=0.46 1005 ----iS —2 . 03 15" 800 '. 0 . 00141 I2) D/D=0.63. (' O 5 i EDINGER AV. —3 : 18 I .� JOIN EXIST. EDINGER .AVE :' TRUNK SEWER ( O .C .S . D . ) i ' LEGEND 1) PRESENT 2 ) ULTIMATE' 3 MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB—AREA NO. ... P.S.—PUMP STATION SEWER LINE W/NO. FM—FORCE MAIN COAST TRUNK SE'dER- - C.S.O. No. 11 . (From Lake Street to Treatment Plant) a " PIPE CtiARACTERISTICS ` CO NTRIBUTZNG o •� SUB AREAS F. SYSTEM REACH INV. MIN. I 0/d CJ4 � NO.. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH- SLCPE DITION 4 .COAST TRUNK SEWER .(ABOVE LAKE ) LAKE AVE . RELIEF a SEWER . 420 -1 . 00 54 " 843 ' . 0014 v 1340 , 13260 1342 , ULTIMATE 0.41 . 3. .1420 I O `r 42.1 -1 . 7. .2 54" 917 ' 0 . 001,4S1 • ULTIMATE 0.41 . 421 422 3 . 44 54 9.15 0 . 00145� . j i ULTI MATE-o.4 42 i 3 ' I 3 _ 423 . -4 .25 54" 1000 ' 0 . 0O1 4�ULTIMATE 0.4 cn a 42 U 4 424 U I —6 . 00 54" 490' O . 0014 < ULT I MATE 0.41. a. 42 i 5 • j 425 j —6 . 92 54" 1100 ' 0 , 00145�ULTI.MATE 0.4 j 42 j 6 i 426 I —8 . 67 54 " ' 1101 ' 0 . 00146 I I ULTIMATE 0.41 426 j 7 10 i. ( CONTINUED ) L-GENO 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOL= '+v/NO. 1001.— SU3-AREA NO.. I' P.S. — PUMP STATION • (gi— SE'NER LINE 'H/NO. FM - FORCE MAIN IV-33 COAST TRUNK SEWER C.S.D. No. 11 (From Lake Street to Treatment Plant) (Continued) .. PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING O SLB AREAS L SYSTEM REACH INV. MIN. o/d ip NO. . ELEV. SIZE LENGTH- SLOPE CCNOITICN 426 7 -9.90 _�427 IN 1 13.04 84." 459' 0.0016 CUT LTIMATE 0.25 .� 1344, 1341 0 427 I 8 •a 0 428 13. 11 84° 175' 0.0016 LTIMATE 0.25 (SIPHON) 9 429 13.13 84" 975' 0.0016 ULTIMATE 0.25 429 10 3 .•. 430 13.27 , 84." 1100' 0.0016 ULTIMATE 0.25 a 430 v 111 u 431 u I 13.47 84" 1100' 0.0016 ULTIMATE 0.25 a a.. 431 112 j i 432 I 13 66 84 � I 1100' 0.0016 ULTIMATE 0.25 432 13 i. o43433 3 I 13.84 84�1 I 0.0016. IULTIMATE 0.251 14 1100' i I (CONTINUED) LrGEND 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE W/NC1. I do 1 — SUS-AREA NO. P.S. - PUMP STATIChJ �2 SEVER LI NE W/NO. FM - FCRCE MA IN EDINGER AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) � PIPE CHARACTERISTICS Q CONTRIBUTING Q SUB AREAS E SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. o/d Q �.. NO. EL_ EV.. . S I ZE LENGTH SLOPE =_CND I TI ON 0 ED I NGER- AVE . TRUNK 1 ) D/D= 0.83 SEWER ( CITY ) 1302 C — . 2) D/D=1.00 Q BOLSA a AVE. TRUNK 7001-3 .0015 0 . 001.6 SEWER (COUNTY) . 1301 3 i O . O 1 J WARREN LN . 1 ) D/D=1 .OG 1509., 1609 —.♦ 9 -400 .15." 2.1.50 ' 0 . 0016 2) D/D=1 .00` 2 1 ) D/0=0. 64 10 -8 . 13 18° 504 0 .001.6 2) D/D=0. 74 1 ) GRAHAM ST . TRUNK w 0/0=0:34" 44 ' 0 '. 0016 SEWER ( CITY ) 13n . ♦18 -9, 6 3.6 Z 2) D/0=0..38- 18 w 4 -9 . 7 i 901. -IN61 PUMP STATION OUT 18" 901 5 F : M . 25 ' F.M. S 1 ) O/D=0.63 19 5 ..5 6 24" 2600 ' 0 . 0016 .. . 2) D/0=0.76. SPRINGDALE AV. 19 6 '... 152.6 . 1026__� 0 .-.9 i I i•. JObN `EXIST. SPRINGDALE ST : TRUNK' SEWER ( COUNTY ) LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 '= ::MANHOLE W/NO. 1001..— SUfl-AREA 1%40 P.S.--PUMP STATION SEWER LINE W/NO. Ff,--FORCE MAIN :.. :,-- GOLDENWEST TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) I� 4) ._ PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING A� INV. P•11N. D/d N SUB AREAS E SYSTEMS 140 NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION Q a E D I N GE R AV. 1 ) D/D=0.53 C 1057 , 1557 57 7. 10 12 " 2600 ' 0 . 0022 2) D/D=0.53 L 57 1 O J HEIL AV . i lose sa 1 ) D/D=o.04 -1 0 . 82 1 5 " 1 500 ' 0 .0018. GOTHARD ST. TRUNK 2) O/D=0.77 SEWER NORTH ( CITY ) 1309 2 LYDIA DR . 1 ) D/D=0.70 . 1559 59 -1 . 56 15'.' 1200 ' 0 . 0018 2)D/D=o.85 59 3 WARNER AV. ¢ 1 )D/D=o.61 1060 ----1060 -3 .,94 15" 1500 ' 0 .0018 2)D/D=1 oo w. 3 60 Z 4 w � ..: Q 1 )DiD=o.92 BETTY DR: O. 1061 - 1 . 0 -6 . 32 15' 600.' 0 . 0018 2)O/O=1,.00 O � 5 1)D/D=1.00 FORD DR 1062 7 .69 15" 600 ' 0 .0018 2)D/D=1.00 6� 6 .-- SLATER. A V . I 1063 ��..3 -8 . 75 JOIN EXIST. SLATER AVE . TRUNK'.-SEWER ( COUNTY) I �. LEGEND i 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 MANHOLE W/NO- 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. P-S.--PUMP STATION O2 —:;SEWER LINE W/NO- FM--FORCE MA I N ... ;4; IV-36 —" HAMILTON AVENUE F.M. (COUNTY) PIPE CHARACTERISTICS � CONTRI2UTING I p SUB AREAS SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. . 0/d of • NO - ELEV. SIZE LENGTH- SLOPE CONDITION is 1956 , .1906 ---P 906 —2 . 52 4°FM 2600 ' F.M. .� NEWLAND . AVE RELIEF SEWER ( COUNTY ) 1332 z o _. NEWLAND DELA'WARE . � • TRUNK SEWER 1331 90 M I 1 z ¢ a x 1 19 1 — -0 19 1 I -7 . 3 0 I: '• JOIN EXIST. MILLER HOLDER TRUNK SEWER : MAGNOLIA STREET SECTION ( COUNTY ) I LEc=_N0 ' y" 1) PRESENT 2). ULTIMATE. 3 NHOLE d/N0. 1001 — SUE—AREA NO. P.S.--PUNP STATION 0 SEWER LINE d/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN • IV-37 '— LAKE AVENUE INTERCEPTOR SEWER (COUNTY.) as PIPE CHARACTERISTICS .� CONTRIBUTING O SUB AREAS SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. D/d NO. -ELEV. SIZE. LENGTH- SLOPE CONDITION . G .p ADAMS AV. 1 )D/D=0.37 3 1869 , 16.69 , 116 169 6 .06 15 1200.' 0 . 0020 p .r 2)D/D=0.41 .I TWELFTH ST.. ¢ I1 )D/0=0.38 r.. 1170 0,170 Y 3 . 79 15 " 4000 , 10 .0020 h=.-- a I 2)D/0=0.42 J T70 2 f ATLANTA AV. 171 10 .01 OIN EXIST. ATLANTA .AVE INTERCEPTOR SEWER (COUNTY) Y.. i i LEGEND 1-11.-MANHOLE 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE3 'N./NO. 1001 — SUB—AREA, NO. _ P.S.--PUMP STATION 'SE'NER LINE W/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN IV-38 NEWLAND AVENUE RELIEF SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING p • SUB AREAS t SYSTEMS REACH INV.- MIN. .D/d NO. ELEV. SIZE . LENGTH SLOPE.: CONO2T. ._ION - -- - . ._:. 1 )D/D= 1 :00 p ■4 I -3 ..30 12° 6W 0 .0024 1329 b.189 l 2)D/D=1.m OCEAN AVE . TRUNK T Y- SEWER ( COUNTY) Z a 1.8 3 I 1 W Z - - - . ' 1956 . 1906---. 906 -8 35 •- HAMILTON P .S . JOIN EXIST. HAMILTON AVE . FM ( COUNTY) . • i LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 - MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. �— SEWER LINE W/NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION FN--FORCE MAIN • ,.. - IV-39 NENLAND DELAWARE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) � " p I (WITH EXISTING TRIBUTARY AREAS OF OCTOBER 1978) q _ PIPE 'C-iARACTERISTI CS CONTRIBUTING, p SUB AREAS b SYSTEMS REACH INV. M N. D/d � • NO. -Av. . S I ZE L 04GTH I SLC PE I C 40I TI CN. GOLDEN WEST AV. Zi 1145 ----. N 4 56 .66 24". 1300 ' 0 .0. 02 1 ) D/D=0.53 p 2) .D/D=0 53 p , 14 Z a: ¢ p.. 14 S3 ..8.2 24' 1000 ' 0 .0.022.11 ) D/0=0.53 J I 2) D/D=0.-53 ¢ I 2 �. GARFIELD AV U 1647 , 1147 4 51 . 52 24" 600 ' 0 . 0022 1 ) D/D=0. 54' . . i 2) D/0=0.56' 14 3 I I HOLLY. ST. I I 1148 jol 4 50 . 06 21 " 1400 ' 0 . 00461 ) 0/0=0.54 2) D/D=o.97 i 4 ¢ a GOTHARD .AV. O 1090. 1089. 1144 . . 4 W 45 . 66 24" 700 ' 0.. 0024' 1 ). D/D=O.s4 2) D/D=o.s9 i 49 ¢ I 5 I I I DE.LAWARE AV. 1o91 , _ 11.50 5 42. 34 24° 1600 0 . 0024.I .1 ) D/D=.0.5.7 12) D/D=0.63. CLAY AV . M 1 ) D/D=O 1151 --�151 3 38 . 40 24 " 400_' 0 .00241 . 58 ¢ > 2) D/D=o.64 J Q �. 15 W I 7 ' —1 I I I 1 152 5 ; 37 . 58 24 " 700 ' I .O . Oo 24,1 ) v/D=O. �8 ! 1 12) D/D=o.64 CONTINUED 19 8 I I ; .1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 — MAt�8-0L� W/NO. 1001 — SUB—AREA NO. . STAT:CN I` Sc hER LINE bY/NC. FM--FORCE MAIN ! I , ..NEWLAND DELAWARE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) m (WITH EXISTING TRIBUTARY AREAS OF OCTOBER 1978) PIPE *lARACI ISTICS v CONTRIBUTING MIN. 0/d SLB AREAS & SYSTEMN REACH INV. N(3. aEV. SIZE LENGTH- SL =- CCND I TI ON to - - 4 i � 11g3. -� 153. j 8 36 .00 18'' 600 ' 0 : 0 1101 1) D/D=0.59 Q, 2). D/D=0.66 i 15 9 O i.. .YORKTOWN AV. 04 1154 . 154 w i 28 . 30 2.4" 600 ' .0 .0024 1 ) D/D=0.50 3 2.) D/D=0:66 1 s W Q 10 UTICA AV. o 1 155 155 26 .06 24" 1 30.0 ' ' 0 .0024 4 1 D D/D=0:61 i2) D/D=0 67 ADAMS AV. - . 1 156 ..-� 156 23 . 54 24 550 ' 0 . 0026 1 ) D/D=0.60 2.) D/D=o.66 i FLORIDA ST: 1157 -o157 I 20 .90 15" 80.0 ' 0 . 046 1) D/D=O.53 2) D/D=0 59 15 13 BEACH BLVD. j 1658 . 1158 158 0 8 . 16 . 4 " 1300 ' 0 . 00941 1 ) D/D=0.62 _ i. 2). D/D=o.70 14 i ROTHERT ST. �� I t. 1161 o161 i -1 . 25. . 30 1400 0 . 0024 1 ) D/D=0.44 12) D/0=0:49 NEWLAND STREET TRUNK - EWER . c.:C ITO 1325 16 Z ; 15 W SOUTHPORT p �. 1162 -�-�162 3 . 22 30 " 1200 ' 0 . 0009 j 1 ). D/p_q. 60 2) D/0=0.67 CONTINUEDLEGEND I I - 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIR1ATE . I i 3 'AANHCLE W/NO. 1 o01.- SUB-AREA NO. ` P.S.--PUMP STAT=CN �2 - SEVER LINE W/NC. FM--FORCE MAIN _. IV-41 NEWLAND OELAWARE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) Ir (WITH EXISTING TRIBUTARY AREAS OF OCTOBER 1978) +• - PIPE CHARACTERISTICS CCNTRIBUTING SUB .AREAS & SYSTEMS REACH -INV. MIN. o/d Itz NO a-EV. SIZE LENGTH SLCFW CCNDITION. INDI ANAPOLIS AV. 16 16 . 1 ) 0/0w 0.59 1163 ---P163 I -3 . 87 30" 300 ' 0 . 0006 � i 2) 0/D--- 0.65 16 I 17 REILLY DR. I `1 ) D/D= 0.59 a . 1164 - , 164 I -3 .97 33" �1000 . 0 .0006 0.65 16 .p I 18 . 3 KINGFISHER DR. Z J 1 ) D/D= 0.59 1665 , 1165 1.65 a -4 . 67 33" 1100 ' .0.. 0006 L- 2) D/C= 0..66 . 16 19 Ir. SNOWS I Ro DR. I 1 ) D/D= 0.59 1166. 1,166 -5 . 29 33" 300 ' 0 .00061 2)0/0= 0. 66 20 ` ATLANTA AV. 1 )D/0=. 0.63 1327 ----OP175 ( -5 . 49 33" 1400 ' 0 . 0007 ATLANTA AVE . INTERCEPTOR SEWER Z 2)Dio= 0.71. ( COUNTY ) G a I 21 ►- NEWLAND ST. a 1176 ---�176 I 1-6 . 39 36 " 1 )0/0= 0.55 1500 ' 0 . 0007I 2)0/0- 0.62 a i 22. ST . AUGUSTINE DR. J �- 1 177 ._0,177 w � =7 .33 36 " 12 . 50 0 . 0007 1 ) D/0= 0.56 Z 2) D/0= 0.63 177 i 23 HAMILTON AV . 1.956 , 1906 -0906 -8 . 35 NEWLAND STREET RELIEF SEWER ( COUNTY ) HAMILTON P . S. - J_ OIN HAMILTpN AVE . M . (.COUNTY ). ). ; � i I , i ) PRESENT 21ULTIMATE 3 - HaNHCL-= W/r00. 1001 - 5','6-AREA NO. l P.S.--PUMP STATICN I - ScHER LINE I, /NO. Fi4--FORCE MAIN IV-42 •..: OCEAN AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) y PIPE CHARACTERISTICS V CONTRIBUTING p SUB AREAS .6 SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. D/d •A NO. ELEV. : SIZE LENGTH SLOPE CONDITION Q 2.2ND ST . 1) Dio=o.os a p 1 19 8 0098 8 .0 6 16 " 1.001 0 . 0016 2) D/0=0. 15 OR 22ND R.UNK SEWER (CITY ) p I . 1 ) D/o=0.42 .132 —0 180 7 . 87 116' I 1300 , 10.".-0016 "•" I F �2) D/D=0.70 18 ( 2 1,9 T H "ST . I I ) D/D=0.51 . . 1 181- ---♦ 181 5 . 63 16 1300 0 . 0016 ' 2) D/D=o.84 3 . ISTH " ST. 1 ) D/o=o. se 1182 3 ..50 16"' 600 ' 0 .00162) D%0=1'.00 Q 4 13TH ST.. Z �.. 1183 1 63 w 2 . 39 16' 2000 '. 0 : 00 16 o I p) D/o`1 00 � � 83 5 7TH S T . �1 ) D/d=0:71 i 1184:—.♦ 184 17 . 47 16" 600 ' 0 .0016 :. I ) D/D=1.00. r I ` 18 . 6 STH ST . �1 D/D=O. 79 - 1185—No 185 16 . 01 16 " 300 ' 0.0016 1 2) D/0=1 :00 7 I 1 C0N.T I NUED .:.. LEGEND 1) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE 3 --',-MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUE-AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION CD SE'NER LINE W/N0. FM--FORCE MAIN I V-43 —" OCEAN AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) 41 cc PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING SUB AREAS b SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. D/d NO. ELEV.- _SIZE LENGTH. SLOPE CONOITION. 4 185 7 C 3RD ST. 1 ) .0/0=0.72 1186 --♦ 1..86 I. 18" 800 , 0.0012 : D/D=1. 00 186 8 1 ) D/D=0.30 187. 13 . 60 .24' S00 ' 0.0049 2) D/D=0.38. 187 9 1.) D/D=0.47 1199 --0199 v 4" 1500 ' 0.0010 12)._D/0=0.62 199 10 1--)--0/0=0.45 1188 —r 188 I 1 " 4800 0.0026 2).D/D=0:59 188 11 r.. 190 , 189 —2 . 56 TO NEWLAND STREET RELIEF SEWER ( COUNTY) LECS10 f 1 ) PRESENT 2 ) ULTIMATE 3 -'::'MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB—AREA NO. I P.S.--PUMP STATION �.. �2 SEVlER LINE W/NO. FM—FORCE MAIN y I V-44 SLATER AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) y WITH EXISTING TRIBUTARY AREA AS OF OCTOBER 1978, +: PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING p SUB AREAS SYSTEMS REACH INV.. MIN. D/d �A �. NO. : , ELEV.. SIZE LENGTH SLGPE CONOITIGN Q 3 C SPRINGDALE ST. 1 ) D/D=0.54 154'6 1046 ----1 46. 6. . 22 27 " 2600.. ' 0 . 0006 SPR I NGOALE ST . TRUNK 3611 2) D/D=0.59. p SEWER ( CITY ) 1309 46 1 -EDW ARDS ST. 1 )D/D=0..47 lots —i 5 7 . 8 27 " 13001 0 . 0012 EDWARDS ST. TRUNK 36.'1 SEWER ( CITY ) 1308, ©5 12 2)0/D=0.51 MAYOR LN . 1 )D/D=1.00 1056 ---1056 i —9. 45 27 " 1400 ' 0 ..0.002 36 2)D/D=l.00 3 GOLDEN WEST AV. 1 063 63 - 9-70 33" 700 ' . 0 . 00053 1 ).D/D=0..48 GOLDENWEST TRUNK SEWER ( COUNTY ) 1 31 0 .2)D/D=0.52 63 > 4 . .1 3.1.1 --� I -i 3. 41 33 " 300 ' 0 . 0061, 1 )D/o=0.47 GOTHARD ST . TRUNK - - SEWER ( CITY.) 2)D/D=o.51 65 J 5 5 .25 SLATER P . S .. IN 190S . --jo 905 — 5 . 61 24" F 1400 ' 0.0136 OUT 90 6 i 1066 1066 24 . 62 30" 900 ' 0 . 0060 1 ) D/D=0.37 3 " (2 ) D/D=0.40.. 55 7 i NI-:CHOLS ST . I I 1 ) D/D=O. ,8 BYPA'S`5 SEWER 1 85 I 1 9 . ? 36" 1000 , �0 . 0079 ' ( CO:U Y ) ( C7NT I NUED ) fir: LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE j 3 MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB—AREA. NO. P.S.—PUMP STATION �— SEVER LINE W/NO. FM--FORCE MA I N �- ` Y IV-45. SLATER AVENUE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) 1 CONTIiIUED WITH EXISTING TRIBUTARY AREA AS OF OCTOBER 1978 b 4 PIPE CHARACTERISTICS t� CONTRIBUTING SL6 AREAa 6. SYSTEMS REACH IN V. ` MIN. D/d NO ELEV. S I',.=- LENGTH SLC;=- TI Ot�i r. 85 i 8 i 1 ) D/D-o.58 m .- 86 19 . 20 ` 36" 1000 ' 0, 0071 I_ 2) D/D=0.64 . 86 9 1) D/D=0.61 1087 7 10 .94 42" 8.00 ' 0 . 000 _ �2) D/D=0.67. 10 i 1 ) 0/C= 0.50 BEACH BLVO . TRUNK 98 i 10.. 41 42 300 ' 0 . 001 SEWER (CI TY ) 1345 I 2) 0io= 0.55 l . �. D/o= o.7-1 99 W 10 . 0.0 42° 800 ' 0 .'000 2) 0/0= 0.8,1 a iJ V VAN BUREN ST . 0.60 1100. 10 i 9 . 62 ' 2 " 1700 ' 0 . 000 2) 0.67 t 10 I 13 - 104 8 . 34 KNOTT AVE . INTERCEPTOR TRUNK SEWER ( COUNTY) i i i � . 71 r i 1 t i � 1.) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE . 3 - MANHC = 'N/NO. i 001.-- SUB-AREA NO. . P.S.--PUMP STATION 2 S.^_NER LINE 1Y/NO. FM--=CRCE MAIN ' ` IV-46 SPRINGDALE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) � PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v CONTRIBUTING SUB AREAS F, SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. D/d • NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH SLOPE . CONDITION ,Q GLENWOOD '. OR . C . 1020 —i.20 14 . 93 10" 1280 ' 0 .0017 1 )D/0=o.31 2)O/D=.0.31, N. • 0 1 3 o 1 )0AD=0.27 Q. " 21 13 . 11 12�� 320 ' 0 . 0011 2 1 2 12-)D/D--o.2 7 CORTEZ DR. • 1022 --i.22 I 12 . 76 12 " -2400 ' : 0.. 0024 � 1 )D/D=0.40 1.2). 0/0=0.40 _ .. 22 . 3 11 ) D/D=0 32 23 7 . 09 15" Boo . 0 . 001.6i F. 12) D/D=0.33 4 M ;FADDEN AV . 1 ) D/D=0.42 1024 24 -j 5 . 79 15 " 1000,. 0. 00. a 1E •� 2) D/D--0.45 Z L. . .PR-I SC I.LLA DR a 1 )D/D=0.58' 10.25 25 4 . 35 15" 1650 ' 0-. 0021 ' 42)D/D=o.60 6 i EDINGER AVE. -TRUNK I1 )D/D=o 62 SEWER ( COUNTY ) -i'3b� 26 0 . 92 27 �� 1700 ' 0 . 001 0 ... 1526 26 7 PAR CIR . 1027 ---.10 27 -0 .77 27 " 900 ' 0 . 0017 1)D/D=0.46 21 � ( CONTINUED ) L, • LEGEND : 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE �. 3. - MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. � P.S.--PUMP STATION-SEVER LINE �9/NO. FM=-FORCE MA I N �, IV-47 SPRINGDALE TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (COUNTY) c PIPE CHARACTERISTICS v SIACOAREASB SYSTEMS REACH INV. MIN. o/d NO. ELEV. SIZE LENGTH- SLOPE CONDITION 27 8 C HEIL AV : 1 ) D/D=0.63 I 1030 --1030 -2 . 31 27 17004 0 . 0007 24 � 2)D/D=0.72 . HEIL AVE. RELIEF TRUN SEWER ( CITY ) 1305 , 9 . SHIELDS DR. 1530 1 )D/D=0.43 . 1031 ---110.31 -3_ 5 24" .900 ' . 0 . 0007 ._ J 3611 2 )D/I=0.48 31 0 10 WARNER AV. �1 )D/D=0.49 1044 , 1 544 44 a. -4 . 23 24 " 1200 ' 0 . 0007 2 )D/D=0.54 WARNER AVE . TRUNK N 36�� SEWER ( CITY ) 1306 RQSEMONT DR. 1 )O/D=0.48 1045 --o45 -5 . 1C 24 " 1475 ' 0 . 0008 3611 2 )O/D=0.52 45 12 r.. SLATER AV. 1546 , 1046 - 046 -6 . 2 r. JOIN EXIST. SLATER AVE.-/ TRUNK SEWER ( COUNTY ) i I LEGEND 1 ) PRESENT 2) ULTIMATE ` 3 �- MANHOLE W/NO. 1001 — SUB-AREA NO. P.S.--PUMP STATION SEWER LINE W/NO. FM--FORCE MAIN ;,= I V-48 r ( r r c r r TABLE IV-8 POSSIBLE TROUBLE SPOTS I1110 AL COLLECTOR FACILITIES _ -- - --_ --- --- _Existing Condition Ultimate Condition _ Subarea �erage Peale Safe Loading Average Peak Design Sewer Location Flow Flow Capacity D/d Flow Flow Capacity D/d (mgd). (mgd) (0/d=.67) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 1. Warren Lane Sewer 1009 .169 .349 .286 .79 .169 .349 .286 .79 2. OakmonL/Edgenont/ ' (lowland Sewer 1047 .160 .332 .286 .76 160 .33.2 .286 ..76. 3. Delaware Street Sewer 1150 .171 .353 .327. .71 .211 .425 .327 .85-1.00 4. Garfield Avenue Sewer 1150 .136 .286 .270 .70 .171 .353 .270 .86-1.00 i 5. McFadden Avenue k ko Sewer 10.25 .355 .673 .640 .70 .357 680 .640 .71 6. Monroe Lane/Brush Avenue Sewer 1081 .138 .291 286 .68 ..138, .291 .286 68 7. Newland Street Sewer (12") 1081. . .325 .625 .640 .66 .325 .6.25 .640 .66 8. Utica Avenue/ Reach Boulevard. 1155 .123 .263 .286 .64 - .147 .308 286 .71- Sewer 9. Gothard Street . Neil Avenue Sewer 1106 .296 .575 . .640 .63 .536. .977 .640 -1.00 10. Ellis Avenue Sewer _ 1092 .100. .219 .286 .57 .141. .297 .286 .70 i I i H • ti 1 arr Jr WirS MANSMW H — •.Fa^AE.r � � C1TY OF SEAL-BEACH � �,�,•Y � O 911 �` .. lu ' •,WMfIWi•:71URlpAI � � E j \M� < \ r 1 . _ �J _ \�N\ R'•� - q I' :•TY,9F•rw uw /aLLEY W E J .iFiE' • 1 ■ .. :CUE IN FEET _ ! :;«v$' I i J i i LEGEND 1 r i �•+ CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH ' i •�•�, iawcr i LOCATIONS OF POSSIBLE TROUBLE SPOTS IN LOCAL COLLECTOR FACILITIES FIGURE I'1 IV-50 facilities are considered in Chapter V, and a short term plan for their .systematic relief is. presented in Chapter VI . ... PUMP STATIONS w, -The existing and future flows at. all pump stations in the City Sewage Collection System have been calculated and are compared with -the r. capacities of these pump stations in Table IV-9.. The percentage of time during which each pump station would be in operation based on average flows has. al so been tabulated in Table IV-9. It. is undesireable for the peak flow. at a pump station to exceed the , capacity of that station with one unit out of. service. Should a 41— unit fail Burin g peak loading conditions where flows. exc:eed the capacity . of the remaining . pump, i.t is possible for sewage to overflow the wet well . An examination of Table IV-9 indicates that there are only six locations where such an overflow could .occur. These. pump stations are: 1. Pump Station A : 2. Pump Station G 3. Pump Station B 4. Pump. Station D 5 . Atlanta Avenue ..Pump Station cast of Highway 39 • 6. New Britain Pumo Station at Adams. It should also be noted that during . average loading conditions, these six pump stations will be in .operation more than 40 percent of the time. It is therefore recommended . that these pump stations be carefully monitored in order to orevent future overflows due to oumo failures. ;t • IV-51 l TABLE 1 -9 ;UMMARv 0= EXISTING PUMP STATIONS Ezistinc Load Future Load Pump Station Capacity Description of 7acll'ty.. Average Peak Average Peak Peak 15: Unit 2na Unit Head of Time (m9d) (9Pm) (mqd} (9Pm) (mad) (m9d) (9Pm) (9pm) (9Pm' (ft) Pumping Used Graharr St. S. of warner 8 n9rnlworth .119 83 .255 177 .175 .360 249 58.0 580 55 14 _. Humooldt 0r. at Wayfarer _ , :072 54 i15 121 .070 .175 121 155 155 22 35 G41her: Ln. _ .022. 15 .057 39 .022 ...057 39 65 65 -19 23 Pac`fic CoaSt.Highway A .138 96 :291 202 .143 ..301 208 200 200 20 4E _. Finisterre Dr... .052. 36 .122 84 .052 122 84 .106 106 .19 34 6. Davenport Dr. G- .442 307 .823 571 .492 .905 628. 450 450 12 68 hac'fic Coast Hignway.at warner Ave. _ ..245 170 ..486 337 .250 .495 343 330 330 8' i:. Warre• Ave. W. of Weatherly Ln. .517 359 . .946 656 .522 .954 662 1400 1400 19 . 26 i. Warne• Ave. at Edgewater C 1.750 1215 . 2..810 1951 1.780 2.850 1979 . 900 900 50 100 ;1. Algonquin St. at Pearce .303 210 .587 407 . .356 .678 470 750 750 5C 2E ... ;r. Lark Ln. at Warner ^.leaaowlark" .642 29 .101 69 .042. .101 69 125 125 12 23. 1 Heil Ave. at M cy rof; .043 30 .103 .. 71 .043 .103 71. 90. 90 . 10.6 33 13. Slater Ave-at Springdale. 317 290 .781 542 .417 .781 542 1070 1070 34 ?7 Gothard St. at.Ellis .097 67 .213 147 .133 .282. 195 .750 750 34 9 1E. Delaware St. at'Franklin .)65 45 .149 103. .094 . .207 143• 325 325 37 14 if. Adams Ave. E. of Brooknurst .136. 94 .287 199 .136 .287 194 270 270 13 35 1 trookhurst St. S. of Atlanta T . ingham ,I169 48 .157 108 .069. .157 108 1280 1280 28 4 L.. 18. Atlanta Ave. E. of .Hwv. 39 .179. 12a .367 .255 .216 .434 301 300 300 25.5 41• ,�. Pier 0 and 02 .114 79 .246 170 .114 .246 170 - - - - r- 20. Edwards St. 8 Balmoral .261 181 .514 357 .381 .721 500 800 800 38 23 McFadden at Dawson .061 42 .141 97 O61 .141 97 160 160 22 ?E Savbrony.. Ln. ' .265 184 .521 361 .3.15 . .608 422 470 470 23. 39 Ave. at Crabb '010 7 02R 19 .010 .028 19 500 500 14 . 24. 6ushard N. of Adams .054 37 .126 87 .054 .126 87 338 33E. 10 1' :.. 25. New Britain at Adams .110 76 .238 165 .121 .259 179 179 179 42 C. Edinger at Santa.8erbara 1�5 115 342 237 .1.92 .391 27' 300 300 13 38 2T. B•'iohton at Shoreham ;,�2 50 .163 113 .084 . .187 129 250 250 16 2C 28. Sharr. Fin Lane .029 20 .072 50 .029 .072 50 80 80 14.5 29. Taloert at Redondo .063 44 .145 100 .072. .163 113 360 360 25 _ Trinidad at .Aruarius .C79 55 .177 122 .079 .177 12? 250 . 250 _. 'XTE:; Citv Sewer Maintenande Department indicates that Atlanta Avenue. Sewer is goerating 98. of the time. 1V-52 is also recommended that as pumps at these stations wear out, they be replaced with new pumps having additional capacity to meet future flow •: conditions shown in Table IV-9. r.. IV-53 CHAPTER V RECOMMENDED CAPITAL . IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION:DfSTRICT MASTER PLAN FACILITIES In 1977 , the Ultimate Facilities Plan , shown . on Figure V-1 , was adopted by County Sanitation District No.11 which serves. the majority of the City of Huntington .Beach. This master plan included . provision for the construction of the following additions to the County .sewage collection system: �. 1. Coast Trunk Sewer 2. Warner ,Avenue Rel i of Trunk Seaver 3._ Newland Street Interceptor 4. Edwards Avenue Trunk 5. Golden West Street Interceptor Sewer 6. McFadden Avenue .Rel1ef Sewer 7. Edinger Avenue Interceptor 8. Heil Avenue Relief .Sewer 9. Springdale Street Trunk Sewer It is anticipated that the construction of these facilities will serve to ,relieve many of the existing problem areas identified in the previous chapter.. Table V-1 lists the-existing trouble spots which are expected to be eliminated upon completion of each of the various additions to the County Sanitation District System. The current budget of CSDOC . No. 11 includes a schedule fcr "e completion of -these. proposed capital iprovements by 9 c1. Tnese improvements. will remedy the : problems i n the_ areas ieenti f i ed: in Table V-1. V-1 N v N •; - y .aTY OF:YE57M/NSTEft y 1 o �;rr JF iEal 3£,uCH !' -------_— .JI ')I' n J. IER •/ � ' P16 .� * ♦. • �.♦ I! ' •'LEE:* \ .. .. •- - ♦•�icj•. -_�:- 1 1 "Y OF FOUNUIN ✓ALLEY . W �' E j ... .iARF!Eg _ :E U!R REi - '♦ ''rJ %BARS ■ . LEGEND IARAA • CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH ��• EXISTING FACILITIES O ' PROPOSED FACILITIES ; PUMP STATION Ge Nil CSDOC N01 11 ULTIMATE FACILITIES PLAN FIGURE V-1 V-2 TABLE V-1 POTENTIAL TROUBLE SPOTS TO BE ELIMINATED '- BY PROPOSED .CSDOC NO. 11 MASTER PLAN System Trunk Facilities (OSDOC 11 ) Atlanta Interceptor Sewer Bol.sa'Chica Street .Trunk Sewer. from McFadden to Edinger Goldenwest Trunk ,w Hamilton Avenue Pump Station Newland Street Interceptor Sewer Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer �. Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer System Trunk Facilities (City) Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer Orange 22nd Street Sewer Warner Avenue Trunk Sewer from Algonquin to 800' West of.Warner Local Collector Facil.ities (City) Oakmont/Edgemont/Howland Sewer -Subarea. 1046 McFadden Avenue Sewer Subarea 1025 V.. W- V-3 ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED CSDOC MASTER PLAN FACILITIES ` Alternate alignments :-Of the proposed CSDOC master- plan facil ities :.r . have been considered as a. part of this study, and an alternate District facility plan., shown on Figure V-2 , is suggested The. . suggested plan would have the benefits of eliminating the trouble spots and. pump stations listed in Table V-2 , in addition. - to' providing` all of the benefits listed in Table V-1. PROPOSED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPI-TAL IMPROVEMENTS The recommended capital improvements to : the existing City sewer: system are ..listed in Table V-3.. The recommended facilities were selected in order-to eliminate potential trouble spots at d. minimum expense to. the City.. Existing pumpi ng facilities were el im-i nated. wherever possible.. . DETECTION AND CONTROL OF UNIDENTIFIED FLOW SOURCES As mentioned previously, flow measurements in certain areas of the City indicate the presence of unidentified sources: of flov; causing .he actual flows in sewers to be as much as 100. percent higher than flows expected as a result of sewage generation from known land use. conditions. It is therefore recommended that the City institute a systematic effort to identify the source, or sources , of these =1 ws . Three possible sources .of these unidentified rlo%-is. are: 1. seawater infiltration storm water ; nflow 3. oil brine ( or industrial ) wastes ti. . V-4 i H •�•�._ .. C/7Y OF:YESTM/NS7EA - AIM \• \ 'OLS. ,y rY OF SEAL 3£ACN \ 'G [v r J ALEUT AV _ I • %a. E .. _ s.. - C/T■Y OF FOUNrA/N ✓ALLEY I si 1 -1, .. .. t� ADAM ; r - LEGEND ; -a- CITY BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH `��/rI ' "��"`" ; ..�� EXISTING FACILITIES ' ' A�� ■�� PROPOSED FACILITIES �NNN SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO. PROPOSED FACILITIES PUMP STATION SUGGESTED -MODIFICATIONS TO CSDOC N0 , 11 ULTIMATE .FACILITIES PLAN i FIGURc V:-2 �- TABLE V-2 i ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL TROUBLE SPOTS TO BE ELIMINATED BY .MODIFIED CSDOC NO: 11 MASTER PLAN I . Realign Edinger Avenue Relief Sewer Additional Deficiencies Eliminated: 1 . Gothard Street Heil Avenue Sewer II.. Realign- Springdale Avenue Trunk Sewer Additional Pump Stations .Eliminated: 1 Shoreham - Brighton Pump Station - 2. Slaster: Avenue at Spri ngdal e. Pump Station i. �" V-6 TABLE V-3 RECOMMENDED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Potential Trouble Area Proposed Improvement .- Beach Boulevard Trunk Parallel. Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer Ellis Avenue Sewer East �- of Beach Boulevard Delaware Street Sewer Eliminate Delaware Street Pump Station and Construct Ellis Avenue Sewer from Delaware Street to Carnaby Lane Sewer Garfield. Avenue Sewer Parallel Garfield Avenue Sewer Harbor Area Sewers Edgewater Lane Sewer Study of infiltration, inflow, and oil waste sources. Warner Avenue Relief Sewer (in. progress) Warner Avenue-Trunk Sewer Parall.el Pacific Coast Highway Trunk Sewer. Davenport Drive Sewer and Pump .Station to Warner Avenue Relief Sewer Bolsa Chica Street Sewer CSDOC No. 11 proposed McFadden Avenue Relief . Sewer parallel Bolsa Chica Street Sewer north of McFadden Edwards Avenu.e Trunk Sewer CSDOC No. 11 proposed Edwards Avenue Trunk Oakmont/Edgemont/Howland Sewer Sewer McFadden Avenue Sewer. _ Orange-22nd Street Trunk Parallel sewer to be installed by Huntington_ . Seacliff Developer Warren Lane Sewer Parallel Warren Lane Sewer Utica Avenue Beach Boulevard Beach Boulevard Relief Sewer from Garfield Sewer to Newland Delaware Trunk Monroe Lane/Brush. Avenue Parallel P1onroe Lane/Brush Avenue Sewer con '�- Sewer necting to Knott Interceptor Newland Street Sewer 12" Gothard Street/Heil Avenue Relocate proposed CSDOC No. 11 Edinger Avenue Sewer Interceptor to Heil Avenue Undeveloped Areas West Boundary Trunk Ellis .Avenue . Interceptor and Pump Station Talbert Bypass .Sewer `� V-7 Indications. of seawater infiltration can be detected by chemically measuring the chloride content of sewage samples taken at. various points wi th.i n the system. Ordinary sanitary sewage has a. chl on de content. of about 150-500 ppm. Seawater has a chloride content of. about 20,000 ppm. Samples 't.aken from sewers where seawater i.nfi l trati on is present will show inordinately high chloride contents between these two limits Oith a Nigher chloride content being experienced in those areas with higher levels of infiltration. The amount of infiltrated . seawat.er will vary daily due. to both. the relative height of the tide above .the .pipe, and the- diurnal variations in pipeline capacities not taken up by sanitary flows.. It is therefore difficult to accurately measure the amount of'. seawater infiltration in sewers. Mitigation of seawater or groundwater infiltration may. be accomplished by replacement o-f portions of pipeline (found to be leaky) , T-V pressure grouting util.izing a gel -type substance, or installing a 1`iner . within the existing main ( including lateral connections.).. Where . . mains are replaced, plastic pipelines. may be the best replacement since pipe lengths are 15. . feet to 20 feet long (fewer joints to leak) , the walls of the pipe are essentially leakproof and roughness factors are sr advantageous in flat terrain and maintenance is ..relativel.y easy. . This type of material should NOT .be- used in industrial. or commercial areas where ketones or other plastic solvents could be discharged. Ductile iron pipe is sometimes used for sewer mains where infiltration s expected , but may .not be advisable in seawater intrusion areas because of the high corrosion potential . T.-`/ inspection of see,-ier 71ains is common practice, and �is often combined with a pressure grouting program r.. . .This type of operation can be successful in leaky sewer mains . ii he pipelines can be "put out of service" long enough to clean , observe, and :.. V-8 grout the pipeline segments. This type of. remedial work may be the most ~ cost effective solution for the Huntington Harbour area.. Inflow may occur anywhere manholes are located in low lying areas, or within proximity of the wetted cross-sectional area of storm vat6r i runoff gutters. Inflow through manhole covers may be detected and , reduced by inserting plastic liners (See Appendix E for brochure) ~ underneath manhole covers to catch any entering, water. These devices allow . gas to escape, but prevent water from entering.. The liners must then be inspected regularly. Inflow may also occur through unidentified ` or undesirable connections whereby storm water and other runoff is introduced directly into the sanitary sewer system. Certain areas within the City are now used solely for oil �,. production. The area of oil production includes offshore drilling rigs, as well as numerous wells in the. Town lot and Huntington Harbour area. .� Known wastewater flows .from oil producers are. summarized in Table III-6. However, it is likel-y that much of the unidentified water` discharged into the sewage system is from other.. unknown. connecti.ons, and may be significant. Oil brine wastes could possibly be detected by chemical analysis of sewage samples taken at selected locations, . as well as a systematic metering at .other suspicious locations. An inspection of existing meter records indicates that 3 ' significant portion of flows in the. entire area west of 3olsa mica �. Street cannot be 'accounted for in terms of ordinary land use. It " -is therefore . suspected that additional flows are being introduced into the sewer system at. various locations in this . area. possible sources of. these flows include. seawater infiltration, storm ' water. inflow, "�. industrial: production process water, or some combination thereof. A V-9 chloride analysis of sewage flows in these areas would be of value in �.; determining the possible sources of these unexplained flows. It. is recommended that. the source of the unidentified flows be investigated, more fully so that knowledge of their source will enable the City to. reduce or eliminate them. GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF FUTURE SEWER FACILITIES Recommended sewer pipeline design criteria 'are shown in Table :V-4. , • The depth to diameter . ratios have been selected to allow sufficient allowance for storm -water i of low, as well as `to al.l ow for adequate a-i r fIow. through the sewer .pipes for ventilation. A minimum flow velocity of 1.6 feet per second is currently used by the City. _ It should. be noted. that self-cleaning velocities are generally considered to be between 2.0 and 2.5 feet per second. . However, due to the flat topography of many areas within the City; it may not always be economically feasible to construct sewers with self-cleaning velocities, as the greater slopes would result in deeper sewers and greater pumping requirements. In flat areas where sewers are not designed with sufficient self-cleaning velocities, a routine program of regular periodic sewer inspection and maintenance, including flushing, or balling of collectors is essential in order to ensure that sewers remain unobstructed. Wherever possible, a minimum flow velocity of 2..0 feet per second . is recommended. Table V-5 shows the minimum slopes needed to ensure velocities of 1..0 fps and 2.0 fps for various pipeline sizes. Based upon these minimum slopes, the maximum allowable flows for various sizes of sewer pipelines •are presented in Table V-6. In addition. to the tabulation of V-1.0 i i TABLE V-4 RECOMMENDED SEWER PIPELINE DESIGN CRITERIA: Size Design Manning' s Minimum Inches Criteria "n" Flow -Velocity Up through 18 Use Peak Flow w/depth, n 0.013 2.0 fps of one-half full . Larger than 18 ..Use Peak .Flow. w/depth n 0.013 2.0 fps of three-fourths full . �- TABLE V-5 MINIMUM SLOPES. FOR GRAVITY SEWERS Minimum Slope Inches (Feet per 100 Feet) Vmin 1 .6 fps Vmin 2.0 .fps 6 .312 .488. 8 .. _ ..213 .332 10 .158 . .247 12 .124 .194 14 .101 .158: 15 .092 .144. 16 .084 .132 18 .072 .113 .; 21 .059 0. 92. i Based on Planning 's Equation for flow one-half full with n = .013 �: V-11 these maximum flows, the maximum recommended sewer loading in terms of housing units,. as well as industrial/commercial acres has also been tabulated.. Thus, according to. Table V-6; an 8-,inch sewer could safely �- handle- a neighborhood of homes including other uses, such as schools, parks,. and . neighbdrhood commercial establishments, without overloading. �. problems. V-12 TABLE V-6 GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING SIZES OF LOCAL COLLECTOR SEWERS Number of Number of Industrial Dwelling Units . & Commercial Acres Pipe .Diameter 0-125 0-12,. 6" 126-250 13-25 8" 251-400 26-40 1011 401 -600 40-60 12 601 -1000 .60-100 15�. 1001-1500 100-150 18'1 1501 -2500 150-250 2111 Based on minimum design'.velocity of 1 .6.fps. V-13 CHAPTER VI PHASING OF .CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • ANALYSIS. OF IMPROVEMENTS ,C.URRENTLY IN PROGRESS Several capital improvements of. system trunk facilities have been proposed by the City of. Huntington Beach Department. of Public Works _prior to the preparation of this report. These improvements .include the Warner Avenue Relief Sewer. Extens_ion and` a new line .in Orange-Street and_ 22nd. Street.. The Warner Avenue Relief. Sewer extension is currently proposed to extend from 300 feet west of. Graham Street westerly to Bolsa Chica. " Street, and from there southerly to Los Patos Avenue. From this point, the sewer .will extend westerly in Los ` Patos to Marina View Place. Pump Station' "D" may also be upgraded at this time. It should be noted that • CSDOC No 11 has plans for its Coast. Tr.unk Sewer to extend as far as .the Harbour Area, according to their Ultimate Facilities Plan. The western most leg of this sewer lies in Los Patos Avenue between Algonquin and Bolsa Chica Avenue. This section of the Coast Trunk Sewer alignment is coincident with the proposed alignment of the ',Darner Avenue Relief Sewer extension.. It therefore appears possible that the City - could receive assistance from CSDOC No. 11 in constructing this particular leg. Lf . this is possible, the proposed alignment appears to be the optimum` alignment. The proposed 'garner Avenue Relief Sewer extension also appears to be. necessary at the present time to handle the hi;h flows "III • VI-1 the Harbour Area. However, it may be possible to reduce the size of . this sewer if the unidentified flows in the Harbour Area were to be identified . and eliminated. It is therefore recommended that a_ study of these unidentified. flows. be conducted prior to .the final sizing of. this . I sewer. A new sewer line in Orange Street and 22nd Street is presently scheduled to be constructed by 'the developer of the Huntington Seacliff Subdivision by agreement with the City of Huntington Beach. This. sewer. appears to be a necessary addition to the sewer system in order to . • handle the additional loadings imposed by an expanded residential community in the Huntington Seacliff area. In summ.ary, .both of these proposed sewer improvements would be important additions to the overall. sewage collection` system of the City of. Huntington. Beach. CSDOC NO. 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS A program of systematic capital improvements for the Huntington Beach area has been developed by CSDOC No. 11., This Capital Improvement Program is summarized in Table VI-1. This Capital Improvement Program . is essential to meet. the. trunk sewerage needs of the .City of. Huntington • Beach. It should be noted that the CSDOC Capital . Improvement Program may be subject to change because of funding limitations.. aiso,. the construction of the proposed sewer facilities in the Bolsa. Chica area may be modified because of acquistion by. the State for marsh preservation and park purposes. Should . the CSDOC Capital Improvement VI-2 TABLE V-I-1 CSDOC NO. 11. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Year Description 1979-1980 . Coast Trunk Reaches 1 and 2 Newland Street Interceptor 1980-1981 Coast Trunk Reach 3 Goldenwest Trunk_ Reach' 1 1981-.1982. Coast Trunk Reach 4 Edwards Avenue Trunk Reach 1 Warner. Avenue Relief Sewer. 1982-1983 Coast Trunk Reach 5 and 6 1983-1.984 Edwards Trunk Reach 2 and 3 McFadden Avenue Relief Sewer �. Edinger Avenue Interceptor Heil Avenue Relief Sewer Purchase Graham Street Sewer •; .. Springdale Trunk Extension - VI-3 p R; p -- H 1-• •-� -rfA EN c/7Y 9f A'ESTM/N57D7 ..ZMo Q -... • A �..Y - - Cirr Df SfAC 9EACN , - -ER -�■■ FVIC —. fl 1 •NIWTIIAtCA AJAIDA - _ y 3 - •. - II _\ CiLATEP 12 N •••q\ _ 1.a IF . • - - �Y: 1 p7Y Of f0l/VWW VALLEY ;i ,'Ik -'t • ,'fir - i , 'soil:1•Rf-.^ - .. •v 8 . �� , - LEGEND T /a ,. 7 << ; •�•+ CITY BOUNDARY. HUNTINGTON BEACH SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS 3 .; 1. PARALLEL BEACH BLVD. ,TRUNK SEWER 2. ELLIS AVENUE SEWER - ♦•. !;. 3. STUDY OF INFILTRATION, INFLOW, AND OIL WASTE SOURCES 4. WARNER AVENUE RELIEF SEWER S. PARALLEL GARFIELD AVENUE SEWER Ilk LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS �_• 5. PARALLEL PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SEWER 7. DAVENPORT DRIVE FORCE MAIN 8. PARALLEL ORANGE STREET SEWER 9. PARALLEL WARREN LANE SEWER " 10. BEACH BOULEVARD RELIEF SEWER 11. PARALLEL MONROE LANE/BRUSH AVENUE SEWER 12. WEST BOUNDARY TRUNK A 14. TALBERTVENUE BYPASSySEWERpTOR. RECOMMENDED CITY ..OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE VI-? . U-4 according to present expectations. At the time of any proposed major development, it is recommended that the Public Works Department review , the affect of that development : on` the sewer system in view of- :the engi ne.er i ng . and planning data presented in this'. report Before . ..approving . such development, appropriate measures can be taken to assure° that the required sewer facilities. are constructed to accommodate _ increased. flows and. to miti-gate .any potential problems with the. existing sewer system. • _ VI-6 CHAPTER VII -CAPITAL COST CONSIDERATIONS : - BASIS OF COSTS r Construction costs have been rising in the United States.. for . many. years and it is believed this trend can be expected to continue in the future. To record these trends of rising costs, several . indices have been established for the various. fields of construction, the most common of which is the ENR index. The ENR (Engineering News Record) index, most commonly referred to in conjunction with heavy . construction work.,_ is the result of, the repricing each week.-of a hypothetical block of construction. The cost of this hypothetical block, which is . weighted. in proportion to the total .- supply in the market, is then indexed to the costs which . prevailed . in 1913. In July 1978 the ENR index was 2860 The ENR index has been widely applied as a basis for measuring the changing costs of construction. All costs shown in this study are. based upon the prices adjusted to an ENR index of 2900, which is the approximate. ENR index for January 1979. Cost estimates for future projects may .be obtained by multiplying the costs . by the ratio of the expected ENR index in the vear of construction to the January 1979 ENR index of 2900. Compensation for technical services and contingencies are usually — applied as . a . percentage of total constr.uction. costs : This percentage VII-1 varies inversely with the volume of construction. For the purposes of. this report, a value of 35 percent .of construction costs ` to allow-for engineering, construction services, administration and contingencies has been. assumed The unit prices for pipelines, which are. the basis. for the capital cost estimates- in this .report, have been listed in Tabl.e..VII-1. In some -_ cases, these prices may need to be adjusted upward to allow for the cost of boring under major thoroughfares and due to higher costs expected • with. short pipel ine..:projects. However; . i.t may be possible -to reduce sewer. construction costs for short pipelines by combining 'several such projects under a single contract. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES The estimated capital :costs for the facilities proposed in this report. are summarized in Table VII-2. Thes.e costs may be expected,--to increase by as much as 10 per.cent per year based. upon observations of rising construction cost indices .over the past decade, METHODS OF FINANCING • There are three primary methods of. financing the proposed . improvements. These methods. are as follows : 1. Payment. from City of Huntington Beach Sewer Fund 2. Construction of .faci1it.i.es by developers • : 3. Payment by. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County • VII-2 i I TABLE VII-1 ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER PIPES (ENR .2900 .-. January 1979). Construction Technical. Project Size Unit Cost Services & Unit Cost Inches ($/Foot) Contingencies 35% /Foot) :.. 6 16.56' 5.80 22.36 8 19..20 6.72 25.92 10. 26.30 9.21 35.51 12 30.58 10.70 41 .28 15. 50.34 17.62 67:96 • 18 60.42 21 .15 81.,57. 21 70.48 24.67. 95.15 24 83.91 29.37 113.28 27 91 .56. 32.05. 123.61 30 109.68 38..39 148.07 33 117.13 41 .00 158:13 . 36 ' 127.14 44.50 171 ..64 39 143.93 50.38 194.31 42 164.72 57.65 222.37 Notes : 1 ) Unit construction_ costs include manholes., shoring and normal con struction. The unit costs do not -include cutting. of paving and -- repaving, borings, or right-of-way acquisition. 2) Includes the following: A. Technical Services - 15% 1 ) Non-Controversial EIR preparation 2) Processing of necessary approvals and permits 3) Planning and design report 4) Design 5) Preparation of -As-Builis ,-- 6) Surveying B., Field Engineering - 10% 1 ) Contract Administration 2) Coordination with other agencies .3) Administration of geological , archaeological, and other necessary outside services 4) Inspection of. construction C. Contingencies - 10% � I VIL-3 TABLE VII-2 JANUARY 1979 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR • RECOMMENDED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Est..Cost Est. Jana Description Diameter Length p.er L.F. 1979 Cost (in. ). (ft. ) 0 Short Term Improvements 1 Parallel Beach 'Boulevard Trunk Sewer 12. 2700 41 .28 111 ,456 2. Ellis Avenue Sewer Eliminate Delaware Pump Station 10 - 1650 35.51 - 58,592 .3. Study of. Infiltration, Inflow - and Oil Waste Sources x x x 25,000 4. Warner Avenue Relief, Sewer Extension. 18 5800 81 .57 473,106. 5. Parallel Garfield Avenue Sewer 8 650 25.92 16,848 Total 685,002 Long Term Improvements 6. Parallel Pacific..Coast Highway Sewer 10 2400 35.51 85,224 7. . Davenport Drive Force. Main . 6 2700 22.36 60,372 .. .8. Parallel Orange-22nd Street • Sewer 8 1.300 25.92 33,696 _ -- 9. Parallel Warren Lane Sewer 8 . 900 25:92 .23,328 10. Beach Boulevard Relief Sewer from .Yorktown .to Adams 12 2700 41 .28 1119456 • 11 . Parallel Monroe Lane/Brush Avenue Sewer 8 1400 25.92 36,288. 12. West Boundary Trunk 10 7200 35.51 255,6.72 13a Ellis Avenue Interceptor - Eliminate Gothard Pump Station 10 8000 35.51 284,080 • . 13b Ellis Avenue Pump Station x x x 400,000 14 Talbert Bypass Sewer . Eliminate Talbert Pump Station 10 3500 35.51 124,285 --T Total 1 ,414,401 . •'- GRAND TOTAL 2,099,403. • VII-4 i Payment from City of Huntington Beach Sewer Fund _. A sewer fund for the construction of needed capital improvements within the City of Huntington Beach Sewer System has been established by the City. . This fund is presently funded by City of Huntington Beach . sewer connection fees which now are $60 per residential connection or . 5300 per acre for industrial and commercial connections whichever is greater. In 1978. the total number .of. new sewer connections was estimated to be roughly 1300. If new connections continue at the present rate, approximately $80,000 .to $1001000 would_ be. added to the City Sewer Fund each year. — The total amount of . money presently in this fund is about " $2,500,000. An annual . sum of .$175,000 could be generated from this fund assuming a 7 percent interest rate. Thus, the present sewer fund appears to be capable of supporting a budget of between $250,000 and $270,000 annually, which would allow. the City to provide the following short term .improvements within the next - two-years. 1. Parallel Beach . Boulevard Trunk Sewer $111,456 . I 2. Ellis Avenue Sewer $ 58,592 3. Study of Infiltration, Inflow and . Oi 1. Waste, Sources $ 25,000 4. Parallel Garfield Avenue Sewer S 16,848. TOTAL SZ11,896 • VII-5 The only remaining short term improvement., the Warner Avenue Relief Sewer Extension is proposed to be paid for by CSDOC No.. 11. Additional. long term capi"tal improvements could be -constructed in subsequent years as. needed. Construction. of Faci.l.ities by. Developers Where large areas of new developments remain to be constructed; additional sewers will be needed. These sewers could be constructed by requiring developers. to provide new. sewers. where necessary to sewer presently unsewered areas. The following recommended city improvements lie largely within unsewered areas and may be constructed in whole or in. part by inclusion in future developements. 8, Parallel Orange_ - 22nd Street Sewer 10. Beach Boulevard Relief Sewer (Yorktown to Adams) 12. West. Boundary Trunk 13. Ellis Avenue Interceptor. and Pump Station -- 14. Talbert Bypass Sewer - Eliminates Talbert Pump Station • Funding by Cou.nt.y Santation. Districts of Orange County: In addition to the $oo minimum sewer connection fee charged by the City . of Huntington- Beach for local resi.dential sewer facilities, a separate connection fee of $250 per residential unit is collected for the County Sanitation Districts by the City. The money collected for VII-6 the Sanitation Districts is used to provide trunk sewer facilities for j residents within .the County. Sanitation. Districts. As indicated in Table VI-1, a number of trunk _s.e'wers remain to be '- added to the CSOOC No. 11 System. Capital improvements. paid for by the District should serve to eliminate most problem areas .identified in this study. . A detailed summary of . the cost and method of financing for these proposed-facilities (See Table VI-1) is contained in the 1977 "Master. Plan of Sewer Facilities for .County Sanitation District No. 11. 11 A recent modification to the 1977 Master Plan has been agreed upon by the City and. District. 11. This agreement calls for the City to design, and construct the Warner Avenue Relief Sewer . Extension outlined in this report with the understanding that the District will reimburse the City .from connection fees collected on behalf of the District by the City.. The relief. .line would then be included in the Master Plan of District . 11 as a substitute for the previously proposed purchase..of the existing Warner Avenue Sewer: from Springdale to Algonquin. i VII-7