HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session - Department of Public Works Water Master Plan MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available to members of our
community who require special assistance to participate in City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings. If you
require, American sign language interpreters, a reader during the meeting, and/or large print agendas,to make
arrangements, please call: Office of the City Clerk(714)536-5227. To make arrangements for an assisted listening
system(ALD)for the hearing impaired, please call: Building Maintenance Department(714)536-5534.
72 hours prior notification will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to a meeting.
ACTION
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2001
5:00 P.M. - Room B-8
7:00 P.M. - Council Chamber
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
5:00 P.M. - Room B-8
Call City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting To Order
Roll Call Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer
[Present]
[City Clerk announced Late Communications from Public Works Dept.
(slide show presentation)
Public Comments
(1) Speaker opposed to spending funds on Springdale Reservoir as
unnecessary and requesting further study of matter. Communication
containing his public comments submitted to City Clerk.
(City Council Study Session) Department of Public Works Water Master Plan Update
Orange County Sanitation District/Orange County Water District Groundwater
Reclamation Project— Reports by Tetra Tech ASL (1000.50)
Presentation by Tom Rulla, Principal Engineer, Public Works Department on the Updated Water � J"
Master Plan & Financing Plan. Documents were prepared by Steve Tedesco, P.E., of Tetra
Tech ASL. Mr. Tedesco will be available for questions. Presentation to be given by Orange
County Water District on the joint OCSD/OCWD Groundwater Reclamation Project.
**Two Communications from the Department of Public Works prepared by Tetra Tech ASL were
submitted to the City Clerk's Office on February 15, 2001 and are on file for public review:
(1) Report on Water System Financial Plan— City of Huntington Beach
(2) Water Master Plan— City of Huntington Beach
[Principal Engineer Tom Rulla presented and OCSD Representative Tom
Dawes presented slide report titled Groundwater Replenishment System.]
COMPUTER INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDAS/S AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
http://www.cL huntington-beach.ca.us
wo, 50
Water Funds
Water Operating
and
Water Master Plan
>
Water Bill Distribution
Water Bill
Water Usage and Meter Charge Water Master Plan Surcharge]
Water Fund Capital Operations and Maintenance Master Plan Projects
- ---F— I I
E:Existing System Personnel Capacity Enhancements
Repl
acements and Upgrades Routine/Preventive Tasks
OCWD and MWID Costs
Equipment Replacement
2
2/21/00
TvAD u> ')S� 0 NJ
1
Water Capital Improvements
10 Water Operating • Master Plan
— Replace/Upgrade — Additional Capacity
Existing Facilities • Reservoirs
• Aging Water Mains • Booster Stations
• Redrill Wells • Transmission Mains
• Monitoring Systems
— Deficiency
• Water Treatment Corrections
• Line Upgrades
• Leak Detection
• Corrosion Control
3
Water Operating Fund
I
• Revenue source is water rates
• Operating expenses
— Salaries
— Daily operations
— Water purchases
—Water production Costs (energy, treatment)
— Routine distribution system maintenance
— Meter reading, repairs & replacement
4
2/21/00
2
Water Operating Fund Reserves
• It is recommended that prudent
reserves be maintained
• Reserves are required for emergency
repairs or increased operating costs
• Designated capital replacement funds
are necessary for vehicle, equipment &
facility replacements
I 5
I
Water Master Plan Fund
• Revenue source is monthly
surcharge & capital facility fees
• Designated for projects identified in
the Water Master Plan
• Projects developed to increase
capacity and correct deficiencies in
the system
• Estimated revenues & expenses are
balanced
i 6
2/21/00
3
i
Water Master Plan Update
Public Works Department
Report prepared by Tetra Tech ASL
i
Purpose of Master Plan Update
• Update Water Demand Projections through 2020
• Update Demand Peaking Factors
• Analyze Supply and Storage Capacities
• Simulate Distribution Hydraulics with H20NET
• Review & Identify Needed Facility Improvements
8
2/21/00
4
i
Master Plan Objectives
• Plan through year 2020
• Sufficient groundwater facilities
• Sufficient import water connections
• Ample storage and booster pumps
• Reliable distribution facilities
g
Water Demand
i, mpacted by many factors including:
— Land Use and Zoning
— Development Buildout
— Population
— Climate
10
2/21/00
5
i
Land Use and Population
• City area of 17,200 acres is near full
development with only 670 acres
vacant.
•:Population is expected to increase
;about 11 % in next 20 years
• 4.7 % increase is projected to occur
in next five years
Water Demand Increase
•Overall 7.9 % increase from 21,500 gpm
to 23,200 gpm by year 2020
— Residential demand expected to
increase 5 % from today with increased
density
— Mixed Use, Commercial, and other
demand will increase slightly
12
2/21/00
6
Fire Flow Protection
• Water supply available for fire fighting
• Fire flows and duration depend on
building types and availability of sprinkler
systems
• Fires are assumed to occur during
Maximum Day demand periods
13
Water Supply
• Groundwater =-75 %
7 active wells
— 3 new wells in design & construction
• Imported Water = 25 %
— 3 MWD connections
14
2/21/00
7
Storage Facilities
Storage Reservoirs & Booster Pump Stations
Overmyer 24 MG
Peck 16 MG
Edwards Hill 9 MG
Total Existing Storage = 49 MG
• MG Springdale Reservoir
Total Expanded Storage = 58 MG
15
Analysis Criteria
• Operational Storage 25 % of Maximum
Day demand
• Fire Storage = 2- 5000 gpm fireflows for 5
hours
• Emergency Storage
— One average day demand
— 7 day outage of imported water
— 7 day outage of imported water & loss of
electric power
16
2/21/00
8
System Analysis
• Supply and storage components
were analyzed for existing and
.ultimate demands
• Present Demand is the same as 1988
• Ultimate Maximum Day and Peak
Hour Demands are 40 % lower than
projected in 1988
17
i
j Storage Analysis
• 9 MG Springdale Reservoir is
sufficient for ultimate demands and
emergencies
i
• Overmyer Reservoirs are vital to
system operation and need structural
rehabilitation
• 10 MG Southeast Reservoir will
jprovide coastal protection seaward
of the Newport-Inglewood fault 18
2/21/00
9
i
Peaking Factors
1988 Master Plan estimates
• .Maximum Day = 2.43 x Average Annual
• Peak Hour = 4.00 x Average Annual
2000 Master Plan estimates
• Maximum Day = 1.6 x Average Annual
I
• Peak Hour = 2.5 x Average Annual
19
i
I
Major Findings
• Added well capacity reduces storage
'requirements
• Edwards Hill & Springdale Reservoir
add 18 MG Storage and satisfy
ultimate storage needs
• 10 MG Southeast Reservoir is
:desirable for coastal protection
20
2/21/00
10
i
Recommendations
• Construct Springdale Reservoir
Design/Build Project
• Rehabilitate Overmyer Reservoirs
including Booster Pumping Station
• Construct a Southeast Reservoir
for coastal protection and distributed
'storage
21
Recommendations
•!Construct piping improvements &
implement corrosion control
• Complete Wells 3A , 12, and 13
i
• Chlorine Room Modifications - Use
secondary containment vessels
•:Energy backup storage or trailer
.mounted mobile LPG tanks
22
2/21/00
11
i
i
i
WMP Financing Plan
Report prepared by Tetra Tech
in association with Bartle Wells Associates
23
Adopted Financing Plan
• Water Task Force developed an 11
year "pay-as-you-go" plan in 1995
• Surcharge for all customers started
,at $3.00 per month per %" meter
+ equivalent
• Surcharge increased 50 cents per
;year to $5.50 maximum
• Surcharge reduces to a maintenance
level of $2.00 after Dec. 1 , 2006
24
2/21/00
12
New Development Charge
• New residential development
.charged $2,400 per 3/4 inch service
connection
• Charges for larger meters are based
on capacity
• Developer agreements established
for certain projects in-lieu of paying
new connection surcharge
25
[ Project Costs and Schedule
• Master Plan Projects estimated to
cost $51 .3 million
• 3 % inflation increases total project
cost to $54.1 million
• Incremental O & M costs increase
reaching $1 .3 million by year
2007/2008
26
2/21/00
13
i
Cash Flow Projections
• Revenues include new connection,
monthly surcharge, and 5 % interest
• Expenditures include right-of-way,
engineering, construction management,
administration, O & M and General Fund
transfer
• Balance will be drawn down as capital
projects are constructed
27
Conclusions
*!:Master Plan projects can be financed
using current pay-as-you-go
schedule
•iRevenue and expenditures are on
target
•Cash flow indicates no annual deficit
28
2/21/00
14
i
Recommendations
• Continue with projects as outlined in
the Updated Master Plan
• Examine revenue and expenditures
every two years and report findings
• Maintain at least $1 million in the
:capital fund for facility replacement
29
Proposed Next Steps
• Approve the Financing Plan Report
• Authorize processing of Water
Master Plan for adoption
30
2/21/00
15
�E1 � S'-/u�G-� S'c ss i m
PUBLIC COMMENTS
City Council Study Session —20 February 2001
Water Master Plan
Good evening. My name is Chuck Scheid. I am a resident of Huntington Beach.
Before you tonight for review is the Updated Water Master Plan. This plan,
originally set up in 1995 to meet the City's needs over the next 20 years, has
turned into a program to meet not only "needs," but also "desires."
In the 1995 plan we required 43M gallons of new water storage, at an initial cost
in 1995 dollars of $22M and with ongoing O&M requirements of $600K per year.
Because recent analysis of the water system has resulted in a huge reduction in
the total amount of water storage needed, none of this new capacity is now
required. Nice to have maybe, but not required. Yet the updated plan
recommends 20M gallons of new water storage.
The critical design parameter is to have 24 hours of emergency water available,
city wide, after operational storage has been depleted on a maximum-demand
day, and after we have fought two major fires simultaneously, each of which
requires 5000 gallons of water per minute for 5 hours.
Our existing water storage of 49M gallons provides 23 hours and 15 minutes of
that 24 hour need, which essentially satisfies the requirement — see Page 5-7 of
the report. But the updated plan recommends that we add a new 9M gallon
Springdale reservoir at a cost of $7.5M plus ongoing 0&M of $100K each year.
This increases our emergency capability by 6 hours and 30 minutes. Does this
represent our best use of$7.5M of our citizens' money?
The revised plan also recommends a new 11 M gallon reservoir in the southeast
part of the City south of the Newport-Inglewood fault. A Corps of Engineers Study
in 1999 recommended such storage to provide capability in the event of an
earthquake along the fault. But is it really "necessary" to provide earthquake
protection at an initial cost of $14M plus continuing O&M costs of $350K per
year? Plus $2.2M for an additional two miles of water transmission mains.
This represents a "desire," as opposed to a "need." It was not a necessity in
1995; it is not a necessity now. We should not be spending our citizens money
on "desires" just because the current water surcharge structure now gets us
enough money to do that.
Agenda Item F-3 this evening authorizes going forward with the Springdale
Reservoir for $7.5M. Something is wrong here, if we are spending millions of
dollars on projects which are not "necessary." I recommend that you reschedule
that item and give this whole subject more thought.
Thank you for the time, Madame Mayor.
RECENED FROM S
AND MADE A PART OF T�1E A 434 words
COUML MEETWI OF v
OFRMOFTWOMMM
CONNIE 8MCK(WAY,CITY CLERK
ITEM
Water is the essence of life The future is now Benefits of the Groundwater Rer-
Fresh water is one of Orange County's most precious natural A new era has dawned in the water industry. No longer can
g Y� P r3'• g � The Groundwater Replenishment System will provide a new �
resources and an integral part of our lives. It makes this semi- we simply look to large dams and vast canal systems to redirect supply of purified eater, enough for up to 200,000 north and N
and desert region one of the most envied places in the world the natural water flow of the earth. central Orange County families annually. c
to live. Whether it's for maintaining world-class golf courses,
cultivating lush landscaping, washing cars, eating fresh fruits Societies today must look to new, creative and environmental- Groundwater Replenishment System water will be available
and vegetables from local irrigated crops, enjoying a backyard ly friendly methods to provide our future water. These methods regardless of rainfall levels or drought.
spa, taking a bath or shower, or quenching your thirst with an include being much more efficient with the water that is
ice cold drink — water is the essence of life. available, storing water in underground basins to prevent The Groundwater Replenishment System will improve the
evaporation, transferring water from areas where there is quality of Orange County's groundwater by adding purified water E
Within the next 20 years, Orange County's population is excess to where there are shortages, and purifying and to the natural underground storage basin. `
forecast to increase by more than 20 percent. As our population reusing our limited water supplies. ,
grows, so will our demand for safe, reliable drinking water. If
Orange County does not take steps now, we will have a water The Groundwater Replenishment System is a landmark Safety
crisis. We must look at innovative ways to secure a safe, reliable water project for the future. Environmentally sound, it will serve
alternative source of water for the years ahead. as a model to coastal, arid regions throughout the world, where Public health and safety will be the primary focus of the GroundR
fresh water is at a premium. monitoring water from this process for several years. The water, treate
The Orange County Water District and the Orange County be continuously monitored by computerized equipment, with oversig
Sanitation District are developing a cost-effective solution to ! regulatory agencies. If the water does not meet the highest quality st,
diversify Orange County's water supply by providing a Purified drinking water
supplemental source of high quality water. R
The water we drink today is essentially the same water that a. i Steps to pure, clean water
The two agencies are sponsoring a proposed water purification was here thousands of years ago—not a drop has been lost or
project, known as the Groundwater Replenishment System. gained. The population on earth, however, continues to grow �� After having gone through three purification processes at c
the Orange County Sanitation District, the highly treated r
The System will take highly treated wastewater from the Orange rapidly—creating a significant increase in demand for water. -
�;
County Sanitation District and purify it far beyond required wastewater is clear. It is now ready to undergo an additional e
drinking water standards using microfiltration, reverse osmosis For decades, Orange County and other communities have three-step, high-tech purification process of microfiltration,
and ultraviolet disinfection. The water will be percolated been injecting purified water into seawater intrusion barriers reverse osmosis and ultraviolet disinfection at the Orange County E
through the ground into Orange County's underground aquifers and into the ground, where it blends with groundwater. From Water District. Once purified, it will be sent to percolation
or storage basins where it will blend with groundwater from Los Angeles to the suburbs of our nation's capital and through- facilities or recharge injection wells for a final natural filtering
other sources, improving the overall quality of existing out the world, purified water has been used to recharge ground- process through the ground. a
groundwater. water basins. Additionally, many people already drink purified a
wastewater that has been discharged into lakes and rivers. About Microfiltration (MF) s
This water will also help to maintain an underground } - Microfiltration is a low-pressure membrane process that
freshwater barrier to keep ocean water out of the underground Drinking water supplies are limited, so we must diversify _ ' takes small suspended particles and other materials out of the E
storage basin and, ultimately, our drinking water. our water supply through reuse and reduce demand through f water. MF provides the most efficient preparation of water for
conservation. With the Groundwater Replenishment System reverse osmosis. MF is used in commercial industries to process f
and more efficient water practices, we can help ensure a safe, food, fruit juices and soda beverages; in computer chip manufac- t
reliable, high quality drinking water supply for future genera- turing; and to sterilize medicines that cannot be heated. t
tions. The Groundwater Replenishment System is just one part About Reverse Osmosis (RO) C
of the overall water plan for Orange County. `7- _��%`- Reverse osmosis is ahigh-pressure membrane process that r.
forces neater through a thin membrane to filter out minerals and d
v?
pater Replenishment System will be more Groundwater
produce than future imported water from w Replenishment System
Colorado River. 7.
vent System water will be safe and of higher
es of water currently available. �O
iishment System will have no adverse impacts
y use, marine environment, endangered A safe,
66
nent System water will actually improve the
groundwater.
u,t
will be used to build or operate the herg l�GL�L[�Zfi p 4
t System. hi ,y, .
er District and the Orange County Sanitation
'st water quality laboratories in the state, per-
nds of analyses a year on thousands of water ,
of our water. purifiedsource
earth's water is salt water. Only three percent
i is ice and snow at polar caps, leaving less
water for human use. ,
my Grand Jury issued a report entitled
of water for
ity Purified Water," which endorsed the ;err
ed wastewater.
ter Replenishment System was recognized
Association's "Planned Project of the Year"
ized the System as one of the best planned Orange County. '
:he benefits it will provide in large-scale water
the further development of water purification
d r7
.R
� 4
7}�
ication in the world is membrane technology. � `�,�,,� �s"`•�''Ct �. '`' +r°�� �'� y;
Benefits of the Groundwater Replenishment System I support the Groundwater
-iger can ok The Groundwater Replenishment System will provide a new 4 Purified water from the Groundwater Replenishment System Replenishment System.
> redirect supply of purified water, enough for up to 200,000 north and will help soften Orange County's drinking water, reducing
central Orange County families annually. corrosion and scaling of plumbing fixtures and appliances. _I want to ensure a safe, reliable water supply for
Orange County, and I want the sponsoring agencies to
'onmental- ok Groundwater Replenishment System water will be available The Groundwater Replenishment System will diversify our know that I support the Groundwater Replenishment
methods regardless of rainfall levels or drought. water supply and lessen our future dependence on imported System.
is water from the Colorado River and Northern California.
,nt 46 The Groundwater Replenishment System will improve the Please add me to your mailing list to keep me
is
quality of Orange County's groundwater by adding purified water 06 Producing Groundwater Replenishment System water requires informed about the Groundwater Replenishment
to the natural underground storage basin. 50 percent less energy than importing water to Orange County. System and other Orange County water issues.
will
Safety
will serves z
Name
d, where {!4 Public health and safety will be the primary focus of the Groundwater Replenishment System. Testing facilities have already been
monitoring water from this process for several years. The water, treated far beyond state and national drinking water standards, will
be continuously monitored by computerized equipment, with oversight by district and local laboratories and outside health and be
regulatory agencies. If the water does not meet the highest quality standards, the System simply shuts down.
Address
.ter that i �. ' �r�� Steps to pure, clean water city
ost or 6
i grow After having gone through three purification processes at contaminants, including salts, viruses, pesticides and other
water. the Orange County Sanitation District, the highly treated materials. The RO membrane is like a microscopic strainer that State zip Code
wastewater is clear. It is now ready to undergo an additional essentially allows only the water molecules to pass through.
have e three-step, high-tech purification process of microfiltration,
� Phone Fax
irriers reverse osmosis and ultraviolet disinfection at the Orange County About Ultraviolet(UV) Disinfection
From Water District. Once purified, it will be sent to percolation During ultraviolet disinfection, water is exposed to ultraviolet
facilities or recharge injection wells for a final natural filtering (UV) light, which acts as concentrated sunlight to provide an E-mail
hrough- g 1 g g g
ground- process through the ground. additional barrier of protection. This step provides extra assur-
:)urified s4 ance that no unwanted contaminants will pass through the
rs. About Microfiltration(MF) system and that the water will be the highest quality possible. Please tear off and mail to the Groundwater
Microfiltration is a low-pressure membrane process that Replenishment System or fax to (714) 963-0291.
,ersify j__ takes small suspended particles and other materials out of the About Natural Filtering
ough - water. MF provides the most efficient preparation of water for The final phase of the purification process for water destined
ystem `i reverse osmosis. MF is used in commercial industries to process for the groundwater basin occurs as the water is filtered through Groundwater Replenishment System
safe, food, fruit juices and soda beverages; in computer chip manufac- the ground en route to deep aquifers in our underground basin— 10500 Ellis Avenue
genera- - turing; and to sterilize medicines that cannot be heated. the same natural filtering path taken by rainwater. The water Fountain Valley, CA 92708
one part
} blends with groundwater from other sources, including Northern
About Reverse Osmosis(RO) California and Colorado River water, for at least one year—and in
Reverse osmosis is a high-pressure membrane process that most cases longer—before being extracted by wells into the
forces water through a thin membrane to filter out minerals and drinking water supply. Groundwater
*5
• i
Replenishment System
cc) Did you know
F w
Groundwater
= Water from the Groundwater Replenishment System will be more
reliable and less expensive to produce than future imported water from w Replenishment System
r* ' Al Northern California and the Colorado River.
x �r4DGroundwater Replenishment System water will be safe and of higher
/ quality than any other sources of water currently available.
% The Groundwater Replenishment System will have no adverse impacts
y energy use marine environment, endangered
Oquality,
A �y��'� C � � i � on air q uaht , land or ener , vL
T
cn species or native habitat.
< x z D n
F O N Groundwater Replenishment System water will actually improve the
�Z M Cn quality of Orange County's groundwater.
9 K �.
No new taxpayer dollars will be used to build or operate the q,,y
D N Groundwater Replenishment System. �llgrler G�1LG�lZty, w
a W m u
cc c m 16 The Orange County Water District and the Orange County Sanitation a
� District have two of the finest water quality laboratories in the state, per-
] 0 p M forming hundreds of thousands of analyses a year on thousands of water to samples to ensure the safety of our water. purifiedsource
�D
D Cn Nearly 97 percent of the earth's water is salt roarer. Only three percent
Zis fresh water, most of which is ice and snow at polar caps, leaving less
p D than one percent of all fresh water for human use.
MZ �y /�'/
Cn D In 1995 the Orange County Grand Jury issued a report entitled Of water for
m D "Wider Use of Orange County Purified Water," which endorsed the
m search for new uses of purified wastewater.
The proposed Groundwater Replenishment System was recognized
as the California WateReuse Association's "Planned Project of the Year"
Groundwater in 1998. The Award recognized the System as one of the best planned Orange County.
Replenishment System projects in the state due to the benefits it will provide in large-scale water
purification research and in the further development of eater purification
A joint effort of the Orange Count-
Vlater District and the Orange membrane technology.
Counry Sanitation District
The future of water purification in the world is membrane technology.
_ 10500 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Vallee,CA 92708
C (714)37!8-3200
Z T Z O .gwrsystetn.com
M Z 3 n -
o = y N p
D Mm D D
N < rn
IlE
o
Yr, �l' .1A�.te} B•F�.
1 :'r"' " , r`h, M
.._., r xnx i '
� }s'S' i k'�y rt=E!•-y •c 1•*r ^c f Y t ��7�Arif��A Ms �
4 � w
`•S.yk4��'41' "�kL-
1�4�d,��. -.-..,r. .ti• :_t-���49�"+t'v �' 'JiGr` -�� �l �za- ti. N. t '�'r..'r.:,..���F.a:�??a ula-.-tt'?5 '�`•u�ya'�"j•'��-:x�: s:..,' F y �®�� r'.
t"' •- ,--�� b �+sA s "`'r�.FJ<�"'h�� H.y �. .-? r, r - < � x.ts x*y.?'a 'C �• �� iil
�������k �Y����, +�+ i� � ra r y, r*' S; z G�a'"� � 3 t• w F P'3'a� rr c,.ft "� � - "`` s
ttllw'•.en ,,� .-:� v �-.s 2`u�,.? 3 r:. 3 ,� _.�,s Y � 1 Y d -.� c 1.� 1"�,t 1 V '��5.,,.T �' ? ,. !: s
?x .�
-• Y.'� n of
-q�oon� F b ,I �� ski ^}n}t � � r+•• �r � t o �-:
k fr 1f - rt;
i z ( S :i`, � 41 S( Shic'ft �1 1 f,r. ii _ ,,J k�,' !.` l-j? •j_ ' r
----" • i r „Ir' x �F u�t� �I i 1 of i11 t 1 r S ({ e.
rll i
_ _-:r -4 i rf.����.}.ryttf� )�11.�. pia tr� !�7! ��t t,,:.i_o,.!•,fj Ir�� '€ } �'
r.
, p
7) :, ate "• *,� t $,�;
r -}• a v.�.: � �.� 1 J. '.;v ,,"yy x is `•m17 f + Y.'i2-? u,��,,,arp�'" ek,°
- Aw E xs v". � r�•t � �`�aa'- [y �� k 7��' � ern' �r`�-�•_
3 •t -�"' ��� .Tv.=, � P ,µ��ry �<,� Y�tie''1� Ysfiv .. r'� yyr� tiA
+.•�+....«- «.w-c z ) .rJ� t. .r x�` 4 w y�''.rSGrr, ti 'o'"rCr.Yi.
.. w - > � I Fr P � }4 f` -`t'�`�r�"..����'"� W�• d,C�°M",� r (+5 'r �-h�i}KT 'S,yf'�"�'^,�id �.��i'^�,f.��
• "�.! 19 ..�i.-41:r r i F4'�;'��i�'w�s�'�'d�y„ �y�' ��:!t,r�°v '4'_S_,t hS`��. .b5fi,,}��,R3`'�'
�t/ t I i.�l. V t•'f ,"y +u � �.a"��,)F ; , ',� rj ;�
,
-t}
;t,��1t i�`11 } � ii n 't �•, -� - l�'�`5��'�' y° ��.���t�7�+4��",�-�,i��*�5 i 1fj,,'r ' 4tlot
�x&
S.••!, a�N�li 1 i}t f•'r(�I,.r,k�h0 : .r; y�/i' es 'n. "y.� .v; r'"'�•- 1'1.� u
.r.`•2�.t, -:�� ,;itt sl i!. i... c Nhl 1!'��j r 7P �.�.. k -- r✓,�'" : °�,tr•L-,a.', r 7k)e �✓2JFw v�?
1111
Fes'
1-: ?i "'iJ.`S. `wC
z.� e r.- •J rii� r'3 :SiiZt 4(lt; `lXa + «t ax_ r as .t,' "" "^'
'L,., S.t a .i ✓+�F+ IS t` yl.2{ I ;t y x1 .,>f.. t yr"�'\ `ti- •;,(•- �-., +-^ �
�` K��-�s it => d.•-c Sg'-r`"
.�„��. .., _r �x n, '_„J }0 K; tt '' �} t�'"�,�.� ..�: � t �s r,A _y's yk '.• +.9
...J...s.:.,;, _----�Y=--" j!p (� '1 }�Sli7lt)}T s„ "r't' "sw,�.,,:,• 7 -•, ,.,,T _',,,,y
ry .�••�' r .., . . ;''•�4-JZ'�lrl t r 1 t '� ''� � { .fit -''•� D������I r j�t�:y "• �j �e.a :-� z
D2,
r _y s 7 a r, a �- ] kzt T Y#7 ,�" .. _ _._..._. �. _� �.,�; �, � � 1F�, t ~ .a�``1..�i�„• �:
4lh
v
J�-
. 5
7.1
y- " .. ``«IT�►�t `FrHI,UTl�t �T r, tV �'EaCH
February.,
T1ETvR`A TE1C H�'AS L�,
4 xi In association with
4-
, Bar deWellsAssociates
r �
TMW TETRATECH ASL, INC.
OM
February 14, 2001
Mr. Robert-F. Beardsley, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Reference: Updating of Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan
Dear Mr. Beardsley:
Tetra Tech ASL, in association with Bartle Wells Associates, is pleased to submit our report
titled, "Water System Financing Plan, City of Huntington Beach." The report incorporates
the capital improvement program recommendations from the "Water Master Plan" completed
in December 2000.
The Financing Plan indicates that the adopted capital charges, along with the current fund
balance, appear to be sufficient to finance the recommended projects on a pay-as-you-go
basis. Our projections indicate that the City should be able to maintain a balance in the
capital fund of at least $1 million through the 11-year construction period.
If you have any questions of if we can be of any further service please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
/�Stev Tedesco, P.E.
Project Manager
SDT/cg
J:\0600\010\1007sdt.doc
Attachment
16241 Laguna Canyon Road,Suite 200.Irvine,CA 92618
Tel 949.727.7099 Fax 949.727.7097
www.aslce.com
Table of Contents
Page
ExecutiveSummary...............................................................................................................I
CapitalRevenues..................................................................................................:. 1
ProjectCosts...............................................................................................................2
ProjectFinancing.............................................................................:..........................2
Proposition218...........................................................................................................3
Recommendations.......................................................................................................3
Introduction .......................................................................................................................4
CapitalCharges...........................................................................................................4
CapitalRevenue..........................................................................................................5
Master Plan Project Costs and Schedule.....................................................................5
Cash Flow Projections ................................................................................................6
Proposition218...........................................................................................................6
Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................7
Conclusions.................................................................................................................7
Recommendations.......................................................................................................7
APPENDIX A—Tables
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan TOC-1
Executive Summary
In 1995 the City Council adopted an engineering master plan and financing plan for improvements to
its water system. The plan called for financing the improvements on a pay-as-you-go (cash)basis with
funds generated by two capital charges: a Capital Surcharge added to all water bills and a Capital
Facilities Charge applied to new residential development.
After operating on a pay-as-you-go basis for several years the City requested Tetra Tech ASL to
update the Water Master Plan and review and update the Financing Plan. In December 2000, Tetra
Tech ASL completed a new Water Master Plan.
The new Water Master Plan determined that while total population in the City was expected to
increase over the values contained in the previous Master Plan the projected water demand was
estimated to be approximately 8% less than the previous plan. This lower projected demand is due in
part to water conservation efforts initiated in the 1990's. Also, ultimate demand upon build out of the
City is estimated to increase to 8%over present day demand.
More significant, peak water demands were determined to be approximately 40% less than the peak
demands projected in the previous Water Master Plan. The lower peaking factors used in the Water
Master Plan are consistent with a trend toward lower peaking factors in the region caused in part by
water conservation efforts and more accurate monitoring of daily and hourly water demands.
New hydraulic modeling resulted in changes to the recommended system improvements and the
revised demand projections in the new Water Master Plan eliminated the need for several capital
improvement projects recommended in the previous Water Master Plan. Additionally, the method
used to calculate Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) was revised to more accurately reflect the City's
current and projected EDUs. The surcharge is now calculated on a per unit basis or by EDU based on
meter size, whichever is greater.
Capital Revenues
The Capital Surcharge became effective in December 1995, at a flat rate of$3 per month per dwelling
unit or equivalent. The charge increased $0.50 per month each December 1 until December 1, 2000,
when it reached $5.50. It will remain at this level until December 1, 2006, when it drops to $2 per
month. This charge is paid by all water customers.
The Capital Facilities Charge (CFC) is a charge on new residential development connecting to the
water system. The charge is $2,400 for a 3/4-inch meter. Higher charges apply to larger meters, based
on their higher capacity. City has entered into development agreements with respect to certain
developments in the City under which the developers provide water facilities in lieu of paying CFCs.
The capital charges are dedicated to the design and construction of Master Plan projects for the first 11
years. After that time, the surcharge is to be used for funding of increased operating and maintenance
expenses related to the additional master plan facilities.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan 1
Executive Summary
Project Costs
The Water Master Plan (December 2000) recommended a total of 18 capital improvement projects of
which seventeen projects will be funded using Capital Revenues. The eighteenth project (Cast Iron
Replacement Program) will be funded from the City's Water Operations Fund as an operation and
maintenance cost. Table E-1 lists the descriptions and costs of each of these projects. Additional
descriptions, locations and explanations can be found in the Water Master Plan Report.
Operation and Maintenance costs on new facilities are estimated to be approximately$1.1 million per
year. These costs are estimated to begin in the year after construction for each project.
Table E-1
Capital Improvement List
Project Project Description Estimated Cost(1)
No.
1 Beach Boulevard Crossings $446,000
2 Chlorination Upgrades $508,000
3 Overmeyer Reservoir Facilities $6,950,000
4 Springdale Reservoir $7,452,000
5 Energy Backup Systems $1,656,000
6 OC-9 Transmission Main Stage 1 $2,484,000
7 OC-9 Transmission Main Stage 2 $1,840,000
8 Pipeline Corrosion Control Stage 1 $226,000 _
9 Pipeline Corrosion Control Stage 2 $1,406,000
10 Pipeline Corrosion Control Stage 3 $1,819,000
11 Pipeline Corrosion Control Stage 4 $1,386,000
12 Conjunctive Use Wells $6,900,000
13 Southeast Reservoir $13,936,000
14 Southeast Transmission Main $2,253,000
15 Downtown Transmission Main $83,000
16 Fire Protection Improvements $534,000
17 PLC Development Improvements Reimbursement $1,468,000
TOTAL $51,347,000
Costs are estimated in Year 2000 Dollars.
Project Financing
The adopted capital charges, along with the current capital fund balance of$22 million as of October
1, 2000, appears to be sufficient to finance the projects and increased O&M costs on a pay-as-you-go
basis. Our projections also indicate that the City should be able to maintain a balance in the capital
fund of at least$1 million.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan 2
Executive Summary
Proposition 218
The effects of Proposition 218 were researched and a meeting was held with the City Attorney. It was
concluded that Proposition 218 should have no effect on the"pay-as-you-go"financing plan.
Recommendations
We recommend that the City carefully review the project scheduling, project descriptions and
financing projections. If the City concurs with each of these we recommend the following:
• Proceed with project implementation as outlined in the December 2000 Water Master Plan and
continue with the pay-as-you go financing plan.
• Continue to carefully evaluate both the revenue collected and the funds expended throughout
the financing period to determine if the financing plan is being met. Evaluate the financing
plan every two years to ensure that adequate revenues are being generated to complete the
recommended projects.
• Maintain a balance of at least $1 million in the capital fund to allow for potential increases in
project costs.
In conclusion, we have found that the recommended Master Plan improvements can still be financed
using the adopted pay-as-you-go financing approach.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan 3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan
Introduction
In 1995, the City of Huntington Beach adopted an engineering Master Plan for improvements to its
water system. The City appointed a Water Task Force to consider options for financing the Water
Master Plan improvements. The Master Plan and Financing Plan were adopted by the City Council in
September 1995.
The Water Task Force developed three alternative financing approaches. The selected financing
method consists of a capital surcharge plus a capital facilities charge(CFC)to finance the projects on a
cash (pay-as-you-go) basis over an 11-year period. The City has been receiving revenues from the
surcharge and capital facilities charge for five years.
The City engaged the consultant team of Tetra Tech ASL and Bartle Wells Associates to update the
Water Master Plan and review and update the Financing Plan. This Financing Plan update reviews
and updates the original revenue projections, and combines the revised capital revenue projections
with revised project costs and scheduling.
Capital Charges
The City Council adopted the capital charges, both the capital surcharge and the CFC in September
1995. The capital surcharge is a flat monthly charge to each water customer, regardless of water
consumption. The charges became effective December 1, 1995. It was initially established at $3 per
month per equivalent dwelling unit. It increases $0.50 per year on each December 1 until it reaches
$5.50 per month (December 1, 2000). It remains at $5.50 per month until December 1, 2006, then
drops to $2.00 per equivalent dwelling unit. Table 1 shows the adopted rates by year.
Table 2 calculates the total revenue per equivalent dwelling unit for each year at the adopted rates.
Because the City's fiscal year begins on October I while the capital surcharge increases each
December 1, the City receives two months of revenue at one rate and ten months at the increased rate
each fiscal year through Fiscal Year 2000/01 when it reaches a maximum rate of$5.50 per month.
The CFC is a charge on new residential development connecting to the water system. The charge is
$2,400 for a 3/4-inch meter. Higher charges apply to larger size meters, based on their higher
capacity. This charge has not changed since its adoption in 1995. The City has entered into
development agreements with respect to certain developments in the City under which the developers
provide water facilities in lieu of paying CFCs.
The capital surcharge is dedicated to the design and construction of Master Plan Capital Improvement
projects for the first 11 years, then to operating and maintenance expenses related to the Master Plan
Projects beyond that time. Under the adopted financing plan, CFCs paid by new residential
development is also applied to the Master Plan Improvements.
Both of the capital charges are based on equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). An EDU is a measurement
of demand on a utility system equivalent to that of a typical single family dwelling. In the City's rates,
an EDU is defined as the flow capacity in gallons per minute of a 3/4-inch meter—the standard
residential meter. EDUs are assigned to larger meters based on the ratio of the flow capacity of each
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan 4
meter to the 30 gallons per minute flow capacity of the 3/4-inch meter. Thus a 1-inch meter with a
flow capacity of 50 gallons per minute is 2 EDUs, and so forth. The capital surcharge for each
account is based on the greater of the number of dwelling units served by a meter or the EDUs based
on meter size.
In 1999,the City reviewed the EDU calculation methodology from the 1995 Water Financing Plan and
updated it to better reflect the actual conditions in the City. Effective October 1, 1999,the City's water
rate structure was revised and the additional dwelling unit charge and calculation were eliminated.
This substantially decreased the original estimated revenue from monthly surcharge calculations. The
surcharge is now calculated on a per unit basis or by EDU based on meter size, whichever is greater.
Previously, the customer was charged based on the total EDU based on meter size and for each
additional dwelling unit over one connected to the meter.
Capital Revenue
Table 3 calculates capital surcharge revenue for 2000/01, based on information on water customers
provided by the City. At the current rates, each EDU will pay.total surcharges of$65 this year, for a
total of$6.2 million. The revenues from the current EDUs will increase to $6.27 million in 2001/02
when the$5.50 monthly charge is in place for the entire year.
Table 4 projects capital revenue both from the capital surcharge and the CFC for the years 2000/01
through 2006/07. The projections are based on estimates of new EDUs provided by the City. All
water customers pay the capital surcharge, while City projections are based on current information
available on housing starts and appear to be fairly conservative. The CFC is paid by new customers.
In lieu of CFC charges some developments, such as PLC, have elected to construct Master Plan
Improvements directly.
Fifteen percent of water revenues, including the capital surcharge, are transferred to the general fund
as payment for services from general fund departments and allocation of City overhead. The general
fund transfer is not applied to CFC revenues.
Table 4 also shows that the capital fund balance as of October 1, 2000, the beginning of the current
fiscal year, was $22.1 million. Projected capital revenues for the years 2000/01 through 2007/08 total
$39.3 million. The projected revenues available for the Master Plan projects and related O&M totals
$61.4 million, including the October 1, 2000 fund balance.
Master Plan Project Costs and Schedule
Table 5 summarizes the Master Plan projects and their scheduled construction through 2006/07. The
projects have an estimated total cost of$51.3 million. Inflation at 3 percent per year was added to the
total annual construction costs. This increases total project costs to $54.1 million.
Table 6 shows estimated operating and maintenance costs on the Master Plan projects. The projects
are expected to add about $1.1 million per year in current dollars to the total O&M costs. When the
incremental O&M costs are escalated at 3 percent per year, the total increase by 2007/08 is $1.3
million. The capital surcharge revenue will be used for this incremental O&M and funding of a capital
replacement fund.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan 5
Cash Flow Projection
Table 7 projects the revenues and expenses of the capital project fund through December 2007 (Fiscal
Year 2007/2008), and construction of the projects on the schedule shown in Table 5. Sources of funds
include the beginning balance, the capital surcharge and CFC revenues, and interest estimated at 5
percent on the beginning balance in the fund each year. Expenditures are Right-of-Way Acquisition,
Design Engineering, Construction Management and Contract Administration and construction of the
projects, the incremental O&M from Table 6, and the General Fund transfer.
Table 7 indicates that the entire Master Plan Improvements can be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis
with the adopted surcharges. Annual expenditures are expected to exceed annual revenues for the five
year period of 2000/01 through 2004/05, and the City will gradually draw down the current $22
million balance, which was built up to fund the forthcoming large capital projects in a pay-as-you-go
basis.
We believe that the City should maintain a balance of not less than $1 million in the water capital fund
as it commits funds to the master plan projects. This balance will protect the City from potential
increases in project costs as construction proceeds. The balance shown in Table 7 consistently
exceeds this recommended level. If costs increase or revenue decreases during the construction
period, the City may need to consider adjustments to the project schedule or alternate financing
methods. Such alternate financing methods could be the use of some debt financing for certain
projects or increases in the capital surcharge.
Proposition 218
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, "The Right to Vote on Taxes
Act," an initiative amendment to the California constitution. The amendment establishes both
substantive and procedural requirements on "fees imposed as an incident of property ownership."
There is considerable difference in opinion among attorneys about whether service charges for water
are subject to these provisions. These questions will ultimately be settled by the courts, and the
answers may not be available for a number of years.
Questions have been raised about the use of pay-as-you-go financing for Master Plan projects,
specifically with respect to the requirement in Proposition 218 that service be immediately available in
order for a fee to be charged. The master plan projects are essentially upgrade and replacement
projects that are expansions to the level of service provided to existing customers. The improvements
will bring the existing system up to a reasonable standard and improve reliability for emergency and
outage situations. The projects do not create new services,but are integral to the City's existing water
system in accordance with the General Plan. Service from the water system is and will continue to be
immediately available to water customers. Thus, we conclude that pay-as-you-go financing of the
Master Plan through the capital surcharge constitutes payment for services not available or constitutes
any-violation of the provisions of Proposition 218. O
G�
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
Tetra Tech ASL and Bartle Wells Associates have reviewed the Water Master Plan (December 2000),
revised EDU calculations, Water Master Plan fund balance, and schedule of project construction. We
offer the following conclusions and recommendations:
Conclusions
• The recommended Water Master Plan (December 2000) Improvements can be financed using pay-
as-you-go financing.
• Cash flow projections indicate that the projects can be financed without any deficit through the
year 2007/08.
• Adequate funds are available to allow for increased O&M and revenue transfers to the General
Fund.
• The program complies with Proposition 218.
Recommendations
• Proceed with project implementation as outlined in the Master Plan and Financing Plan.
• Continue to carefully evaluate both the revenue collected and the funds expended throughout the
financing periods to determine if the Financing Plan is being met. Evaluate the financing plan
every two years to ensure that adequate revenues are being generated to complete the
recommended projects.
• Maintain a balance of at least $1 million in the capital fund to allow for potential increases in
project costs.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water System Financing Plan 7
APPENDIX
Tables
Table 1
City of Huntington Beach
Monthly Capital Surcharge
December 1 Charge
1995 $3.00
1996 3.50
1997 4.00
1998 4.50
1999 5.00
2000 5.50
2001 5.50
2002 5.50
2003 5.50
2004 5.50
2005 5.50
2006 and beyond 2.00
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
F:\Jobs\370\B\Wkp\Revised tables 12-00.xls,capchg(T1),1/24/01,8:35 AM
Table 2
City of Huntington Beach
Capital Surcharge Revenue per EDU
Fiscal Year Revenue/EDU`
1995/96 $30
1996/97 41
1997/98 47
1998/99 53
1999/00 59
2000/01 65
2001/02 66
2002/03 66
2003/04 66
2004/05 66
2005/06 66
2006/07 31
2007/08 and beyond 24
*Rate changes each December 1;
fiscal year is October 1 to September 30.
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
F:\Jobs\370\B\Wkp\Revised tables 12-00.xls,REVperEDU(T2),1/24/01,8:37 AM
Table 3
City of Huntington Beach
2000/01 Surcharge Revenue Calculation
Annual
Meter Size Meters. Units Total EDUs* Revenue**
3/4" 41,025 42,238 42,238. $2,745,470
1" 6,457 13,297 17,077 1,110,005
11/2" 1,414 6,888 7,439 483,535
2" 1,667 12,871 15,461 1,004,965
3" 122 2,487 3,029 196,885
4"compound 76 3,938 4,162 270,530
4"fire meter 2 77 109 7,085
6"compound 15 1,359 1,419 92,235
6"fire meter 17 1,130 1,592 103,480
8" 15 339 1,755 114,075
10" 4 5 732 47,580
Total 50,814 84,629 95,013 6,175,845
*Greater of number of dwelling units or EDUs based on meter size.
**At$65 per EDU.
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
F:\Jobs\370\l3\Wkp\Revised tables 12-00.xls,SrCgRev(T3),1/24/01,8:37 AM
Table 4
City of Huntington Beach
Capital Revenue Projection
Capital Facilities
Capital Surcharge Charge
Beginning New Charge General Balance New Charge CFC Total Capital
Fiscal Year EDUs4 EDUs' /EDU Revenue Fund available EDUs3 /EDU Revenue Revenue
Beginning fund balance, 1011/00 $22,116,000
2000/01 95,000 423 $65 $6,175,000 $926,000 $5,249,000 170 $2,400 $408,000 5,657,000
2001/02 95,400 554 66 6,296,000 944,000 5,352,000 320 2,400 768,000 6,120,000
2002/03 96,000 335 66 6,336,000 950,000 5,386,000 200 2,400 480,000 5,866,000
2003/04 96,300 200 66 6,356,000 953,000 5,403,000 200 2,400 480,000 5,883,000
2004/05 96,500 40 66 6,369,000 955,000 5,414,000 40 2,400 96,000 5,510,000
2005/06 96,500 50 66 6,369,000 955,000 5,414,000 50 2,400 120,000 5,534,000
2006/07 96,600 50 31 2,995,000 449,000 2,546,000 50 2,400 120,000 2,666,000
2007/08 96,700 51 24 2,321,000 348,000 1,973,000 50 2,400 120,000 2,093,000
Total revenue 36,737,000 2,592,000 39,329,000
Total funds available 61,445,000
1 -Total new EDUs.
2-General fund charge of 15 percent of water revenue.
3-New EDUs subject to Capital Facilities Charge(CFC)
4- Beginning EDUs have been rounded
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
F:Wobs\370\B\Wkp\Revised tables 12-00.)ds,RevProj(T4),1/24/01,11:29 AM
Table 5
City of Huntington Beach Water Task Force
Capital Improvement Projects Consruction Schedule and Costs (000)
FISCAL YEARS
Pre-
Project 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total
Beach Boulevard crossing $46 $400 $446
Chlorination upgrades 80 372 56 508
Overmeyer reservoir facilities 200 1,000 3,000 2,750 6,950
Springdale reservoir 40 4,000 3,412 7,452
Energy backup systems 100 1,000 556 1,656
OC-9 transmission main stage 1 200 1,500 784 2,484
OC-9 transmission main stage 2 100 500 1,240 1,840
Pipeline corrosion control stage 1 226 226
Pipeline corrosion control stage 2 150 600 656 1,406
Pipeline corrosion control stage 3 200 800 819 1,819
Pipeline corrosion control stage 4 100 400 886 1,386
Conjunctive use wells 2,000 2,900 2,000 6,900
Southeast reservoir 500 5,000 1,000 4,000 3,436 13,936
Southeast transmission main 300 1,000 953 2,253
Downtown transmission main 40 43 83
Fire protection improvements 50 484 534
PLC improvements reimbursement 1,468 1,468
Total 320 9,576 17,021 9,056 6,837 5,632 1,200 1,705 51,347
Costs escalated at 3 percent per year 320 9,576 17,532 9,608 7,471 6,339 1,391 2,036 54,272
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
F:\Jobs\370\B\Wkp\Revised tables 12-00.)ds,Proj(T5),2/14/01,1:38 PM
Table 6
City of Huntington Beach Water Task Force
Operation and Maintenance Costs on New Projects (000)
FISCAL YEARS
Project 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total
Beach Boulevard crossings $2 $2
Springdale reservoir 100 100
Pipeline corrosion control stage 1 1 1
Pipeline corrosion control stage 2 8 8
Pipeline corrosion control stage 3 8 8
Pipeline corrosion control stage 4 8 8
Conjunctive use wells 200 200 220 620
Southeast reservoir 350 350
Total 0 200 303 220 0 358 0 16 1,097
Cumulative incremental O&M 0 200 503 723 723 1,081 1,081 1,097
Costs escalated at 3 percent per year 0 200 518 767 790 1,217 1,253 1,310
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
F:\Jobs\370\B\Wkp\Revised tables 12-00.)ds,OM(T6),1/24/01,8:43 AM
`\
Table 7
City of Huntington Beach
Capital Project Cash Flow ($000)
FISCAL YEARS
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 ' 2006/07 2007/08
Customers(equivalent dwelling units)
Total, beginning of year(rounded) 95,000 95,400 96,000 96,300 96,500 96,500 96,600 96,700
Added during year 423 554 335 200 40 . 50 50 50
Subject to capital facilities charge 170 320 200 200 40 50 50 50
Charges
Capital surcharge $65 $66 $66 $66 $66 $66 $31 $24
Capital facilities charge 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
Beginning balance 22,116 19,303 8,656 4,829 2,715 1,231 4,219 3,806
Revenues
Capital surcharge 6,175 6,296 6,336 6,356 6,369 6,369 2,995 2,321
Capital facilities charge 408 768 480 480 96 120 120 120
Interest earnings @ 5% 1,106 965 433 241 136 62 211 190
Total revenue 7,689 8,030 7,249 7,077 6,601 6,551 3,326 2,631
Total available funds 29,805 27,332 15,905 11,906 9,315 7,782 7,544 6,437
Expenditures
Capital project costs 9,576 17,532 9,608 7,471 6,339 1,391 2,036 0
General fund charge 926 944 950 953 955 955 449 348
Additional O&M costs 0 200 518 767 790 1,217 1,253 1,310
Total expenses 10,502 18,676 11,076 9,191 8,084 3,563 3,738 1,658
Annual revenues less expenses (2,813) (10,647) (3,827) (2,114) (1,484) 2,987 (413) 973
Ending balance 19,303 8,656 4,829 2,715 1,231 4,219 3,806 4,779
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
F:Uobs1370181Wkp1Revisedtables 12-00.xls,CashFlow(T7),1/24/01,11:30AM
,i -p..,, -•'�sa,'. .. ,,er. -..., _.,i., �J i., r.{':.: ,.: ..,,;. <.`� �;..,. , :,, .•:" ur„ .e'""•k .Lk ar. x r f:r' ,�3� dui e'; ,.�',,
a „,«., <Y. ,...�. ,•. .?. .._._.. _ ,,... t'": ..b•.. ...y^. ...... .,.,.yn.',w _. }t- � � .-, ,.-# .'Gr,.o. hp }cx '.aat +•§F'�k ��.
.. - ,_ : �2! _.,,.., ,. -,♦N... t :Ti,. .mot .,'?. .n. ...-... -.. ,a� 1 t. .1 ..:. ..-�i R.a 1: `•dt•• �1 �r`�' 3 ,�
t. „ -.3. ,sF..,.. �£ .. +a,J"*c... _,�L',. .,„ r` -- -x. ..µ -.. ,:, .s',.r.Si'`: >n ... �i .. .s• ���•- G r �'� f•'.?`
s
t ,.. ,:,. c e.,,..r-, .¢ '.. .. -... •�.....„i,�e .- ,,ra.. t:�- .,. .e m, ,,,' , ,...f7 ,_ r.., .c+:-;t. �s tt 2 r�. ;a. s
`w,, ga.-s., -a ,... --,�, :>,. . . <:�., ., . , ,, .,, .- •, �• :",. , y[ �. n' 4.. n ',4
m Y,>. ,r.,. �. �, ,.c _ -•-.-. R"._-...-,., .s-R "-�.Yt,{v ..Sy Y:j?e'L.:x. !�. ... .:,y t1 . ;L ,; :t� ��'•. 3k'� t t '�@r.' ,+'' .^"}
.. ;-: ,.' �,a•Y_ ra,r ..> ,e., ,�� z ... .. ., .,,- .,, 'c, �'���, .. .> �.._ '. . . r ..�`. 4 6't•.:;. 3 0� ..r.`;,� E °-fit
.. ... 'e= - j}'xaf:.- �;'•.e�/r - a' ,.yT t:L �� ,T
..:. {, r�.: n-t",t i "R.C: ,..rn fs'��it': .'/.' '�' ,rv't J, 'C•�' f JJ 3 T;,l
, .. r.,., a.N ,$. ,....,. -..F S. •�_ :d .:�,.., L ,e<. YY. .: r �
..,: _, vk'
:. �. ....,:, • ,e..tt'-'. � k, .. 2-..r ,<,r, .,, ., s i ,,., .-.., :. a:. Ca
�E� 'P:... vy, .. f .;„.,. .;.r...-.t Ii Ems. - .-• , k. c...r iS' ti ,.,. � � .. -»
':,c,.,. .. ;,' - =.2. r,...-_.. .,.s,-,,r`��.ri.,•l-,. '. .,.. ,: ...f ..'�s. � iCi! .,C� va
u,7f,a- .x ~Y�4:s I. �::?i �.t ¢� lt2" / � #' •.•�i, '.r' .y* .^
y
i�.. ,�SYe •fix, `� s r:,}y�' �'"'<' .,rs .�:r k. �+r,VI
d
..rr.(( �b; .c^n 9 .'.*_..Y� qF:` an,11 is s�',i '.{. \ � ft'�•
, ,<.,,,,.. TL ( ,.x,..., c^a ,."'1 ... t B ,, {,;, i .i �'S .::t,'t8! � Jx.., ,.�, �''•,� -<4'+
,,¢ .',. : ;+:y.. 4,. ,,. .; , ...-..h, r¢, \z.txt#. v �i. '1$z i ''.k > +•:af T
r'Ye's�
.t .�;• -.,'xs s �:. }+,.:,,-;:hZ--.'�Z-. ,,. .- -, w ,,_,. . ,7i,��inc ;t=` �� 'v., ,•�+ a,-° Q
{
�.��, ...'H,'s..R ��{�l• :t,� �Y+��.sCT� '.�T�� ��{?t Ja"a x xk 1, ... ,: ..., �.. r- , +� , ..F . .. ti�,r, :✓s+.�r'F.+.�..r. -,}�,_v4 :�F', -; d� Y �tj51 ��-•..
,.� ,; � .- ..-.;-" ,. t,'y._as :, .... y1�..e ,. F- .,'-•' Si`.-:. •. '.. ... ?'13'a lF 'Y t%-� ,G r,.1 i �.. $$ .,�., �• r_I•x.,i� •,' ,�„ -
a-- ..;,.... .•x-- :':,� �,w'�.::•'1 t- .s,,,hr, ..<a,., J.: ,,..,�{' .. - .-^; ,:Y, 'trc' ,!�� .2K` ,., �ti*;-•;. S :'".5.,fi> ;'-c �,. -
M Prs,,,:� .> :.4: ,•a,-.,. ., ... - �' .. :Sc`.�i Y. :'r _,. ,. .. x ::. f r.TY Y� �q .�.
.z+,. ..,:_fa. ...:w-.�� »r.•.: a ..... , .. i r_ >wa b'4 .... .r rM t�3n. .- ' ? ., .Yh'' -.d 'i U., _ �•at '•:"�fK, ` �, r..,,.,
,. ,x... .. .._ t. .:.. .. n vfi. -...-,..: tf� „ .. .: .; kr ..r. `. �• `?.. .k -�
. '.e. .. .....,,:-L�. .,_. .: .. ,�.. �.� §.-..a. - wa„ -S,c{. �,: s,= 't k •T - ,fie, "+y
,sK. r a.. <, .[' �`.+�:y:. ........ .. .. .S? ,. 1 -..t :-`, '' ,f,`•'�T:?1'' tfv'lY� -•�
... ,•.. 1. ..x:;,,,. 1 f" :.,. a. F�Lr`e?A-.z.5' -_.n' .,_#. ..-:.•- -, ..a-: nta ! :�. '�K,Y <h",;. r 1 , ..!- 4: b
„'. r11rYY
�,:• -. rV.: -. ._ ... ,... .,,. ,, ,,.. -« <
`�
,
}b
,.f'
.. ...... .... . ...,,,.:,,.... +.+,• ,_ 3-:.._,. ..: ,.� ..t. ., � Cc,4y , 30 ,-1.s. `�+i"',. +a•-a' 1� , ..
r •"
-.>,..
kr #,d„xs..e ..�-r N .......:k.. ,,.,,,,k ::.:._ ,.,.<.trf - '�-��-.-.. � :.. ...,f t e.•; ,.,, �5.,. ',.. b,x:.'. ;d. �,' t d..�, -('y f � {w �s
s 'a•t..ac. ;F..}((ix. .,fit,,,,""teh'.•.+,�,,.,. Y,i....�>b,<..?.x�'sS,P..,5.t�.]..r.,3,..:,
w4 t ::r,.,._.�,,..r-:.... ".r::-,:..r..,,,_,.,,s.,.,yVi,.q�,z..4,„t.... ,+,,,.a,.......: �.® s,N"''ir>'+...:, '..,Y,..=e�!, .Q..r�:. t i�,.-,;.�+.1�.r G y 1'F•.a*t, € w .`=Y,e�'. 'tt T' �.>x S 53L8' J
r. �.$. ..�. $..._ ..zr ..:}. ,. .. .,1 �.,. ,. n{',.. ,„.- I .._ �• F`, .. -t•o,_ ..:l,• ..1 ,- .4v ,?'^tv«"+,•.. 'J%o.s. .,:,. .;5�, � ,_ HSJS ... :�..a ,.. ,. .. ..-Y.. s � � r ...: 3 t: s:`• :,,'YI-a"o 't; -3
-
..
•. +i� v .'>'„ X r m.y.' < ,s$,' .k •X }r" ":fi Sv ,f�i t
.,
'�'..< 4 •.�7ek,.,::e. x.r.....•. .. t,, ., tr' r . u. t r , �...',• '5.,',r h`....
�• 1`r ,.^in. .ro>.�P,G. +. 5, � F. � :.�. .�,_4�r:. 'Sr �.. r
�; 311;,., .G: k... �., �«„°, b,F sr,.' .a:-. P •4. •.,. .y,r-' -..e: ��..y. �{. h R •.' •.�-.... .: ,.$, �. 1 •!' ,�:.��:
...SY -.,b w.v t. .. •. o H. , ,., .>, 4f •,_:.n J
.♦. :.,:.Y -4 .`. .t, . {, r .y. i� t -.:_.,.:. ,. s': t i£$ : k d .r .- •Sr, ,f a ', :��'
>.... Ra..,v.«..a. , _ :,,.n v ... .. ,`*x .- -. .. :. .'£' .}. #, ui. �/ ,_.• _Wf,S. a.. t.. '€. x,.r
r
"
,...>• i e :., < . .� ». .., ,ry „v.�. .,..,...:.m i ve,x„w .r..::.; Mr.,. Y. i,}T.. „ e n, '�'.`-,�„ r r�..,.. S:.•e. # �',°/, � sJty' '4
,fib,_ rp �<, w , �,. f .r,._., �.;r - ._ .. �, _
"' ..#.'��
f~,, ,...�. -s.r:"y. ..:.. .:. ,..�ay :r. , ..s ,.'M.dr,.... ••, J [,.":� i. .. ., a: '.<� rn,.- 9... ':�-.f t x.�.
",. < .. err. r. .,.,, § e, s. , Y .{: a• a �
--' r✓ to �.;� 'e,:,:;
..-.t?.
x � c
�... ..,.. _< ,a...,...s� ,. :a.. ..... .. ,:,., .. .: . ,,. ,. .. .:3s s.+ rz a r •>ti,: � ram;=t..
{•., �1.. .�r±. .°'4. „�.t �: .d 1.. hns:. { '�. v.$. nT: ftY;,_ ° �' .��.a. l r 1 y.. :'✓f'' fir. i
,.1. ., k3oc"' �.. � rs r. .. .. _. .{ '}` i.. ti'• ar.., „- .- :P,:c. .N
_ s•.`�•r r'#,'K' .�,{�'ts, ': ,}- p .. , ..
,-:h r ,<..o..._.s: •,_ ,,,.,_,,,, : r.:, '�A,Y'�r.'�}ra. e� ,.. ,.. , ..,, ,
.a• ,• :.c_y" .. Fh. . , ... 4* R. .. ,h:x .. .,n. ..:.. .^W,:$. .,,e .� .{i. i L i,, (; "'.Y, Fk "Y" ,4,,. -
, i: -o rY..L... .eM.: .•, .. -..-.
^Y X
� � ,. �-.. ;gym, •.,. -�
r'fw_.,
.,-�`... .�.,. ..,.• �,.: fl ,y'>r-... a E�, ,.. t,. >? ,. 'a.,d,�'.�,,,a�'E z ... r,. ..�� .a - _. v,l. . n..
..�� .. ,r ., :».> :µ.., , a..,. • .: ,...., ...... � , �rt#. ,�.r �. .
, .i, , :.��' ru�',� s.,• +r ,t.
Y.
y „,. •v :,,x,7<-.:7,✓.. ,, - ,�r ... . ,,: , ..._:5, � „:, ,., ;. .,d • :.. .:Y..i"�, ,..r.-. t '� „fir A;
:Lr.,+,
£trm,
h q... s .f+"C+.. '°,�r.. ..m:,. ,:,A ....ems:....,}.-y',t .,. n i. ....: �..n , ,3�,, v1 •ic A.�,p. ....' t t a,:..
....-L. ,....: 3.
'-f` ...,...�,`S' sue ,., >-t,u.b ,r,.Y.'�yi.�".. r. ,'ty, ,.. n.. .: r�`'• .'�f i;. >1 L. {',1tF 11' .1 '� 'r,.y _
A�x: 'st. ,.?- :,.�,.. _�..,._ ,.. a tL".
rx.'> ^� :, � ,� <. ... .,......j.�"h .f4,*....- � _,.,...,.s V. .';t ,. .�. 1 tl.. .< ,. +, <,. v"k',. r •r iu,r.,. ;yz,r
s ,•'C:. ..c.<'z4.- «.. -�*x� ,�,-.._..+, ..Yaf,. *',§?.: .^„ +i§. .,,.rr:.s. .. xX"",,. .. '..,. i. 4 ,.. , a. ! �,��.:.�`...
,.,.�,., .rrt: .r.*..,f:. ..& ... -.yf. _..rce ar< ... *, � ::;e_ #':. . . S„kr :. ,. �. •e. ,•,. ,' ...'�'-x '!' t�:�`. -,k- s .,�- fi
, � �.,.. 7�:.. ...',�. a . k5. a .�. ,,. ,. �T'•..- a.»' .. ,' ,,..Yr».... M4, �� .. v„ ". .i ,� ,.',.7 ;�,'u y :';.,;,
;..�.tia,,. ,.»•:h,.. , 3?�i. ,r,. :,, d .. .x..q. ,., t.... .y: , ,_r+. •.,. .- -. .3 ,. xt. ,(. P.:- a � Y-' :;v :� e.
'l.... ,,,, z` .; .,tt ,, r.. ,> z r:,�.. f .,� .t.,.., .:• {,+. .,.,-. '� ,�.„�,o.�i,._.•..; .w=. ... ^�' .,,., c.y �S-:
;,.-.,.an ,.: ,.e.,,_ '�f�:,k".t3'�...�.�N�,.• aY, _,.y ,r...,,.. ,.. ... :r .`.- :.'ti-�`d
+,. .ay [ ., „_+ ,,. ., .-r.+......,. .Dcd .. ',..r' ' e�,, , , ..,. , <.,, ....:, .,.�C •s�r "v�i,C U.. -.� k- ."1'e� :"�'� '` tK 4k,
<:,c^'. e�.+?` P_Y'f•'i,,. �. ,. Y., ..,.,A N ,,. ..._ ryy i.:. .�,.., ... »�',+ e.- :,, n t �•�".: :-j+ y+'
,a -. ...<..t+ z.� �,, i •�..Y.W .,,.. ..-�.1"•.vd���.. ® ., > S n, . a ,r a .Ij' 'S 'c a•Y. n� .�V .9•
.�.
,s_..<,.,r. Po�� ,.:•. i„ .,.,,.,..�., r rW. r , .. .._,. -, h_-- "� ,, r .., ., .. :i:, � v" a. �. ,-a� .�c v.r. k
,.r- m.; .. • . .{�3,a_.y si,'�:,,. ,, gym,. x .;» .... ,; ,Y.. ,:- ,. :
.,r„,d>3.� ...„.. �..F < < i .x'.✓"'<... ;, .n :„> �' + '. e *? ,.. -.
a.-k.r.-. ,-..s: sN.-,?1+� .. a .k,-,,,,.7 .,.., ...,. ^.. , , , ,. +' :,� .,,.a.. , �.. h �* 1 „c. 4'. is,sl J� .':'.Zti,. :#, t .d,�p:-F- � �..t.. .�t •,S '.h� ..tS.,
i.r,,.... pp... .. ....t•#• ,;h.re t>v' .. sca >.�¢2 ,� b: s. ,` '�*�•
_.:{
s :...,may,=• !:'>" -rs x�.='a; ,- i,.:..>, y :,, .; ..
., 7. ..,. .,, .✓.1v4. .•u .:... ,. ..?.., ... .. .. , _ ,. , ,n ,.. ..... .^r.t n.x�,. w.... ^'F..� yAT.Yr *35-au"` «:F;.'.:... .k:t S
.
_ ,.„ ,..V ..-..rBx. ,. :.- +.,s .a. ,(.4 .:.. .. .7,- ...: ,: ..... ,,, {r,n.,b2.- ..x,A Rv' 't':•.' ,>a '"T'>'a 2 ,.? t
,� ,r ..�r.�*;. 'hb x..: •a. s:,r ,. 1 �a.x:'-"'a
r~.; �vr rn. r.aF•ca ,.45mT.Gn,J1- .'P .x>.. _ry ,.+", :..i.._.. ...i �., - -
.,, rv. .,. ,{elt .. � n_ >kI ..t.'_,.Y ..'L a.•... ., a '>:,, lJ n..tF..r $:}`a.'.J,, ..F^- 47�P �ip,
r ... .�. _ _,:,. �'. .. „ „"a--.. ., c� ..,, .. ,;w. >'c..J.2 ..' .2.:zcff2..-q2�-.: '�. .. _J.^; .;r ��.rQ TF '•r
j�, ,o'y.,M"'. ...c.L _ r:.i�>•,.{ _nVIE,
u. .P R x .c ` ..'•- I _ _ �+ X
4,i a.. a{ .
-'+ 2, f - '. 4-. . .' 4. ,}+.r .1: .,fi .. i�.a ;.ii
Sj.'4 .t'V... ,.,,., ..i ,.M., _r. .,.+ .i.F�; r5„ '.... t,a. x. .,.,+ r.C�'. ,. «�,,.
...� a.... ..k., ..rt>�*. M.:.<. ., 3,. ,7, ".. .r• .-n_, z <-., , ., 5. ;.9�- ... - :, :� ae:. •% -� � 4a�3 e "+�'#+
... _. .bk...v f, ., .. ., ...,.. ....... 3,!.. .... 4' "•'�' n m, r=, Y': ,"..?}" ..: ... >.,
z.. E '`'t, s.'�1. .'1,. ,.
?T.+•'++�•••.'. -,�,c,�.f- ,.:.. ,. ..1. : ..... .. ;iTS •;J..3, ... ,- '�i 7 F±� ,. ...�i �
1..0. c .r.. yi:' ,..,a v.Tf.a.d..4,.. t s...---,.r -,,... .. ..•># ,' ,.- .,w w ,18i ,. x:•^ >�
'n: R.,i;. =s.. r.: ,a .,. m, , ..a� s. ,. -ax ,:., �-��r.. ><�, ... �. s, ..t•.,� s, +.:r � u �,,�
: ,.k. 1`, .,-.. _,..�..,.'3♦ , ., �, !'• ,.r+„' ��__�fr •,Mi 3# $ Y {-.,KK,,,.xu ,r. .) l i§", i!'e. a :.. ,.�-. �.i....,L v.,, ay`:� Y'#t. .. .,.1. .,. , x� "e.. , „+.„ Y.L. ..` §• wi:.s � £
t X v
2 ;n,t _ 55, ,.,.„h^ R Y' ..G ,., ..'i..:.e• ,_n.' .{.. _r4 .s. '. .r::f�. fir.,� ,.... ..=1 ,iw a,..
`i#Y. rii#'.6`,'y.-1`,i „„i.... ,.; ,w. r..:.„'' ,.. ...°�- .,�;.. x , u..�{..-. ...., ;, .>.' ,.''" ,..•; "� '",�`•,t i T�' ,.� w ,';;;.,
` "'}� NY - F '+." c.'rF,.. ✓ , e.. mit -a.. ,., e F Y, ' ,.'�a �fL,.Ca+, ..., O. lkn.( i,.�.` ?r...�,,- ,o- ! Y
.-.; ,...0 fM. w"C '1K c, „•.tR•-.
� :. �. :, .'s-r;r:,�>€.�,.. .•.,,, �:�.:r.:,. 't,.>rs�.. >, 1 m. ,.. �`� .rk ,?v +��� e':3' �'e �,�� �y....,, 4,,�,$ e. �9.• `rr,�'Me. � � .,1�,. ,..o- , ,. .._, .,•,. ..,-...,�i.�&:,,,sr,>,..,.,:L'�.. s �ty J.W�' -.;c :2� :alloy ;7. �. .�:. x -,;<:.
`�
t,, j -u t
'"%,k''xri.� �Q� yyr �
,-YP` 't .•.s ,+'Y i;��kxYiE. - 3!' ...._/ ,>�5',w4Y m�. iA, , y,`,,. ,iy`a., y
r�,k s # 5 �j; Ka C rim z�'-r ° ; 4 k 4 ® A(��' k..,'�d > L }a Tax; xa,
e m�
�."�-r,a#,r >.
_}, �a .. v,e•' e.�'� %� �+. 'E..'; - ;�->,v...,_... :�...:. , a. ::>z'�*rr �,•� r,:'V a� .�f Sri,_ b* r-�',x W '
�' lrPsrit *.�*" .: s?^' ..:'>• F" ..'<o.,,r -,'sr,+ s> •. �,ei - .:Y.'-` '•. S, ,,.r,.i-`� :_aly i wx>u i�A w �.
:...',k� art,>r`iyr z pyw y.}#` _:>.'�.�.:sl�x_.^r�i �,4�_ ...: ._..tX"• .k'�.._ t � :,'.1>. „is-'t s.,t,"F �, ::i"vy ,r
d w v v:2� a,� ,.>7# � 'r+ � '>+'� .� +s �:^�;..far?: ,-• 'cac�'-:;+"'�'+ = a `•�'M'ry� x .,r-.' �3a 's�"'.`��.i f i ..s�'i„s�
`�'� �^'t' 3 T,}."'Fr^c i "�'ik.u,Y� ?!' 6.x 18, k'•' µ K,��.1:...• _ ;_. � � ___.,..r-.=.`.."�.^�°..�^'+.,�r".' '�"t- ,�� 'u+rro a ,;b a e 5
�.3?�•`
�
-'S}„2. �u nK:� �tTtK•,4�u(^ }�� ,t, �!>,t a"".-.,:.. -. : .,.. � - � 'ti 4 y > y �. ,§�� Y F,>q.
*'eX: .� -. as"`°z•=°h?"'"''.,= t,, r.. :',.:�,.i., .. h ':+3X?'w^«'.:.-�... .. , � µ.«�,� .".C..,....,,;A,^.....«w.,.,.� ^a3'" `ts�t y ..'a; .,�.:0 .b 'E +„
u �..&�,„s�'ir 4..:.n•,.-.a �A >� x�^ '�.<;'a'r .,,�.s"a a:,,' a'�°�"^,�. �.. :rt m_._....r-,..�.'. .'�iviu"', ^'qua-ems '�,.•u a" �.1 �,•r~n-. z c d a��`z •''§w--L
`¢:> K �F�,�'7 y��zy`.. h s'. <'> .,. ^�..'m-.,.s».r. __ _ �? �+ �c.-• •...,��:,._, rz���•s. ;•� t �", t, �''' ,�:" a : "�,tic. �,,.,�,
�� h'�,,5�_`�sf5;l�a +�''�q:^"g�s�x, a-a+xa =t«"""`��,��„�.,r: � " 4� � ,�•.. ,:� r e ,;. ,.� ,. m1 �t z ,T t �q4 �s k�r,
•a3F',�.t; yG 4V'=L�'"ak.J,r*i.f'La'" aC"--'-s` � -_.,. _ �...SEI, 4}.e �X r F?��C •,a. [�'��"'1 a'• `J !'k':m• C 3 4 l�k. ;3",.,: 4� •"r'c
,Y" a. `u`ci„tiu $xi�,i:P`j tt}a ... r- „Y"..+:L"'�""r"af'�l�`fE� '• _ ''4"G:,'�5 ,k
ra.r
>:f:.-,,. � a"`.yy*,: ty r<:r Tr. ,. ,Y'„�t„h „v..»:.... .d.t.--•..,.,,�.•,•, ::, -,,,-.,--';.-r`=`-.-.-ei•.••„-•..»-, �..�.,..r.^ .�t ,�'P' r`�.. ,rh: '2 �:M. :;i �e
.,:. ,)��_ "�k}.. ,'''� 7!.•:2: ,"j{k,j�". ..:e±S^.-ti.t=,`.,ri.. vT....,-. ++:5£7�::. '�?i �A.'.�. .'",we-b �: '-'H"T.,� _Z ,'h,.nr'r:.••.€ i-". k �.t'�i Yr 1"4{,+ Y A:I "y fr°t��f;"��
Y-x, . ._o Ys'+� ,t; �. 6' '�d...,>"'s d..e��..,.,,'•,�,',:,�"-""`:.�'�'�T. ,.-;a-:.,.... �...,,-,-�, �-'.4::,.- ,,..rY::-,. < R. b.�c �: 45,=;Y��.
Ua. I
'� t;a, ,.. '�t�.� L... ,rk� '..d,, ,�'*x:.�. .::.�.,•;" vx.:�r..� r^as•�"---`-"xc-'-raz::.:c,.-- �.:m�a .�;. _,---.�vd-...-...,k e > .� 's ^z H` ,•.` ?- '4� ...� ;?
.:-.,,a',. ,r<r§:"_':'-.,'� � kg'rr5' i,.;. .�.='.dye aP�'..,-... :..-.;.< .. • .. :,..,.,. :,° , :, a r 7„ Y ..�3T.. �',3 ,a x?- w,..:' � v�v-,i>'x,�,,k.,
.y'�.?• '"sf� ... � ,�,sT,�",� .:a �>, s=-•=.•�"F�'a�:-a.,,> ��., .-,,..,..:� .ti:,�F �.w :. �• tit �3 k., a''�. ,�,,.,rn
.... a.,,�.. Y rtir,,, ,, .n•� 9.�c'."u,'.c:T`Y7'-:`�'EA._ c .u: _.,T "2., � - ... Y ,c. .:ro�< a.'x-t�- E`
a+.33 '.... •„:,,re ,.:.`,. ,�.,.rx C> ,N �J.'... _ :.-,,,•-_:•.<'n p ,, ... ,. -. ;_...r.._. .. n,,,r, ... e �r •,,'2Y. e. ,a.Y+"., 'a. ,°a '�;``s'..
.>Pn..
F crbsZ �j.,,.x,.ra .xXx c.c �,�rz ..r._,.< K..,,, �.. z ,#•
"T.. ... *..�,.,,-,.. .-;;•'. .,. ® u^ � _> `'c y-.-"."��, �St .>N _�. � +�:.
. ''`•..fi-, �.`� .,>��n,....�'�-a-r�.., .''gyapp--��,- ,.. -» ,a_..r,:,- `�.,'+�ts-� 4'r: • :. _. .....x..,...c '.' :.�.� ..t ��` t.'., � -r/ �`.,e'�s ..t:
J. .},vi Ya 1:-+' ,{3'.+:,L. -w a, rq',-.. V�Y s, �.C,. v,,:,,,. r,e.,<.•,.,..•,y ..u.-. ,....,..- ...F..,e
r-M< iv .b .�. 'r '�1. se .r. 'sr._,:.s::�'�'':.::�-,,. ': 7....,w..+.. .:�, �.• ..._.w.,,,. ._ x.-Z.^sw: ,xt' .�„ _•a,t.' `k" r# r t r,.
e
t3 .�"'� „.. .>,,;,� ., ,y,. ,,e: 'a�..x..,T,. ,-b,..w ,• :.Y- . ter. .. ., - .- _;.,,.:..
.: „a'n�V`,t.f.,_„8,. �,x,c�-.,. '� ';�a ....- wr a,t'_: .-.. :.-. ,...,, •--,. .,.--•,.-�.. : ...•,-.ram'; ...3,:: .s-a ,✓"x.+`t.> :a .'€ -"�,_'. •,yk ,�..
,� .:< ,,,..v.7 ,b.,. ::. »,.. �..J.a ,''"::trD,�r-.�i:",,.r-..5::,.t,F,... � ,.-.,, --•".y'�': X.�::.. .;R: a �.:e a "'. .l,.x s ",.F;,T ':�'s 1s".- fir<tt
'�'d?�,n,A�-Yrt`r�a,,..-4u s+.1. ,- ..,,,, 3' .: ,....: �..,.� . -.�,r- .. ,•.,---,.+r-. �»-.-
""' . ,'.'.:;'
?Y,•� , =,,. t,:.-5S,r" $. k .. '', a>M,.. .. ,.�.-,},;:,� .:....., ... „�,..,�-.
, K_ „7 a,.€� r,. - r d.. "•r xr, ,v- r'' F
E ,. ,�:,. v-�;- ,.' .. .r•1,,.. •,,.�. ,.-.,_,,. :C rµ.-.-.'*,a'^--,.,.., ,.>.._ .--.-•�>a.. .,,.__, .�.• a �,..'.', ,,,f L. .f'.0,
_...�• .._..�.w:-"cm.:�:.:���...�,.: , ..m:-b'j .>e .+�.a.,,a, ., ,.., ..s;.:"T�rij"':,,.. .-t•':"::. .;.^�: ±"�. ,. >^�: -,mY:..,_3^,�:::;r -,-. .....,. d�":.:_-t ? ,? � ,.0 :�, -aY s E�•"-
t.._.skyx, e.,.m sYr�_.rL-'''- e ",. ^:r .>.}± .._.,-�. p.�,.h .��.•�., ., ;..>P"-,Ga-,,:�R:F�- ,�3:ti,.. : -. -mt€`: a � '�� �;v .�.> s d .�?`4i�
._., , fi'. ,t, .,- -r, '- e r...€4 .."i ,.T � ,wy�.55 ...y�., � .,. .-... ---,- .,,. ,a ,�,�`A 'h� ,n Y� +, -� 1•$ �':,+c -rt•z b u r�=. a4
.,: u. ,p r. ,;F s�$, '-.1r ,.a.„2 ..... '.3?,3.+e�•{Y. t x.. "`T+:,a.faA"�..^_5.,... a: -,: ..���„,,., �1 'T"i .il�. ,'.;'4.. k C hl :4�kfi Sb^+. ,,L'., 9pi �q 'j;. '>
G«r:...,. >.3 .... -,.-. �.. "...;.- a 'S.5•., ..�:..nxh..r.-.--t_ +w�y�--.�^,e,,.^>, _ ':', +..+:... N �� bx. C ,s r�: +, s,p: ,s", fir-'' �,.,s''yy `s,,,... a..'.,:_.,: .:, .,,. y a. .. .. e;- x,�•.i `��, t w ,,,.> -_.,F-' x .,:i' .�"< 'v`;, br .,m>= ,g s,Y .�# ,`�' ''« �
,.x.-, ,,a .. „��,+ i •...a . w . n - � °:. .5. IV
,:f t- , Y,. v,-.., �,- ?4. „f .,�.R... '4 fP• -.it F:t., 4- i_',.^,
5 y v
,r ,. .,. Z} ,., -.. �,.:.-. '•Y!�s:•. , k. ,., 4i. a/`..,, r•. c,.x. .Mir .(i.+:'d 4 „-"�
'-,, .-. ...:l.x .y --^.; ,•�'., r_,,:::. r .:, ark. � ?. _.�.y. ,,,- :..,. i.- .�' a.. ! "� w •,x,-'t. °`k.� ;z.f
a.
, ,..,. ,,�,t. ,,.. ,. .:• , t. ... ,.. .. :'- •.. .., ,,. i,. .1 , ,._.,.: r.,=' ..r,.k �r 'rz- > ..>s k.•-:z '+tip^,"
i k
if
., ' lC,. .. ,. 5... •' .• >. .i ;:_. r :•i�;4.. :. av .. ',::�.. ,#.-r. a _ <;. , .,.:. :� ,r�. :i s . _e eruR
. .§ t.,•"ro.: ., x,,=. .; .., ':...a a .. v �, '..,t t.,.x5 1. `.•,6 4. 1� i_ w3 ,xa.:' - `�.. u1 •rc
t ;.,7F� ..,. a • �, ,. '. •._. s:_.-, r+,,�.t4m a+''Jr..<. ,, ..W 'or g:_ 4x �y + L- t+':J.
'� ,..� r y-yt,y s ,, ! '. ,.. ,r, ., '. ,- � ,-... r.. ,"•. #'z-..'fk � 2's w! i. .3 ,f t 4 +9 ,,,."tY.. > a, :a.
e ,....+: ,,..; ,.,,�(. -f A .. : .. .. {{C€r'i•'{"x 4,.. ,;:s. - .S» s
„ '. §inr c�*° .. .;� 4 J c5a ?° } +r e� '1'4. ;xft Jr.a *„ '5• rs -
;..:, 6 r,'.. ., ..„t 9:- .:. ,.i , ,.. - ?, .:-,, '-c':.;. •�r a..: ,.,... i. ; s { .,SY �:,' d a ,2 z, r M.r
, r
,� xsr 't2 i ��'��< � � ,�'° .tsr^, a`t r(>.• -c r S !t�.
a :'�r: .,r !i• :'�:�... .:;-,`� .:.:: ', %. k �: - .:. - k _;,"`.� �A..`4:.:yt nyr�,,,- � T'.5 �
,a'Ea:- d* ysxas 7� ;� ,{ sue+•. t vA=s}F �n t 2''� � r-� �.:.} �.' °�, a A
A , ,
,:, k a •,.Av ♦'.,. 4 , , -. .�.. ,: , ,,.i., >n .k,._ :t} a ,.5.., y 0. i. i1.:;i+. i 5 Yr 3 As '-U'
.P: eg.- .:Y ,r '�,'�°,}.#i• S':. ve Z. .<F' Via' .+:. p ..y.
,•, �%:u.- ?_. .r .. ,. __:. ..• t.1- ,t .�'. ..,, 7 ,:,:,r c S:k.c.<: �..t„�.z ,2k.,: ., a�.,. i .:, .�` A•r•' }�^,_•r,§;{v ek sa .a'-,r #q,r y -•;.c .�_' ."�. -r�;-.
.,.:.- _,; -r,.CI. '.; �, e,:r.... _ ,A., -.. - - f .a...•. ..n,i'c'>J.. - ,'. 1 y. L�a.�J. � -,...�h; :f �",;, �� � ---y_�t,N`�.
_,, •,,,,,., e..+ It..,:.'r - .. .r t,..-:.'h.. .. .,..:. �}>. 3.,.r.g. 4''ki..,. .,,.<,.... a�.. ..sk.. ^' .- .+., '•7
.x, tfl. .., ,.,--.,., •..:,..: ..:; ,, <,., ,lK,. ..,.. f .:. rk).,t Y'r..x. ..p., ,.: __ 1*. ,'� ,.r' i� �'� r d,a„ �• s
-v
Mai si?
Po&n
Halo%'=
CITY OF HUNTUMN Blivof
Q�pFESS/pN
ca o0
� -oa
J
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
December, 2000
�' TETRATECH ASL
Table of Contents
Page
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................ES-1
Overview..........................................................................................................ES-1
Sourcesof Supply ............................................................................................ES-1
Storage/Booster Pump Stations........................................................................ES-2
Water Transmission and Distribution System .................................................ES-3
Recommendations. .ES-4
Chapter1 - Introduction...........................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background......................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose of Master Plan....................................................................................1-3
1.3 Master Plan Objectives ............................................................... ....................1-4
Chapter2 —Demand..................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Overview..........................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Land Use ..........................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Population........................................................................................................2-1
2.4 Historical Potable Water Production................................................................2-4
2.5 Historical Potable Water Consumption/Unaccounted-For Water....................2-4
2.5.1 Leak Detection Survey................................................................. 2-4
2.6 Project Water Demands....................................................................................2-4
2.6.1 Peaking Factors................................................................................................2-12
i- 2.7 Fire Flow Demands..........................................................................................2-13
' Chapter 3 - Supply.....................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Overview..........................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Groundwater versus Imported Water Supply...................................................3-1
3.2 Groundwater Supply........................................................................................3-2
3.2.1 Groundwater Quality........................................................................................3-4
3.2.2 Allowable Clear Groundwater Production.......................................................3-4
3.2.3 Clear Groundwater Well Facilities...................................................................3-5
3.3 Imported Water Supply....................................................................................3-5
3.4 Emergency Connections...................................................................................3-8
3.5 Supply Under Various Operating Conditions..................................................3-8
3.5.1 Average Day Demand......................................................................................3-8
3.5.2 Monthly Demand .............................................................................................3-8
3.5.3 Maximum Day Demand...................................................................................3-8
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan TOC- I
r
rTable of Contents
Page
Chapter 4—Water System Facilities and Operation..............................................4-1
4.1 Overview..........................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Storage Reservoirs and Booster Pump Stations...............................................4-2
4.2.1 Overmyer Reservoirs 4-2
4.2.2 Overmyer Booster Pump Station.....................................................................4-5
4.2.3 Peck Reservoir and Proposed Springdale Reservoir........................................4-5
r 4.2.4 Peck Booster Pump Station..............................................................................4-6
4.2.5 Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station...............................................................4-6
4.3 Transmission and Distribution Piping......................... .........4-6
4.3.1 Corrosion Protection........................................................................................4-6
4.4 Distribution System Treatment........................................................................4-10
_ Chapter 5—System Analysis.....................................................................................5-1
5.1 Overview..........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Storage/Supply System Analysis.....................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Operational Storage/Supply.............................................................................5-3
5.2.2 Fire Storage/Supply..........................................................................................5-3
5.2.3 Emergency Storage/Supply..............................................................................5-3
5.2.4 Water System Storage/Supply Analysis...........................................................5-5
5.3 Distribution System Analysis...........................................................................5-13
5.3.1 Existing System Analysis.................................................................................5-13
5.3.2 Ultimate System Analysis without Bolsa Chica..............................................5-16
5.3.3 Ultimate System Analysis with Bolsa Chica...................................................5-23
5.3.4 Ultimate System Analysis with Recommended Improvements.......................5-24
r
r
r
r
TETRA TECH ASL
1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan TOC-2
Executive Summary
i
Overview
The Water Division of the City of Huntington Beach's Department of Public Works (City)
provides potable water to a City service area of approximately 27 square miles with an
existing population of just over 200,000 people. The current water system demand is
approximately 31 million gallons per day (mgd) via 50,100 water services.
Although the City is close to full development, some vacant land remains with development
and redevelopment projects planned for the future. Approximately 670 acres of vacant land
within the City is planned for development per the City's 1998 vacant land survey.
Additionally, an area within the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, which is outside the City limits, is
planned for development by a local developer. If approved, the City could consider annexing
and providing water service to the development.
Consistent with this planned development, the Center for Demographic Research at California
State University, Fullerton (CSUF) has projected a 4% increase in total dwelling units and an
11% increase in the City's population over the next 20 years. The number of people per
dwelling unit is also projected to increase by 7%.
As a result of the projected increase in population, ultimate average water demand is projected
to increase by 8% over the next 20 years. However, this projected demand of 33.4 mgd is
�. still 8% less than the demand projected in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan due in part to
water conservation efforts initiated in the 1990's and expected to continue.
More significant, peak water demands were determined to be approximately 40% less than the
peak demands projected in the 1988 Water Master Plan. The lower peaking factors used in
this Water Master Plan are consistent with a trend toward lower peaking factors in this region
caused in part to water conservation efforts and the utilization of telemetry systems that more
accurately monitor daily and hourly water demands.
As a consequence of the lower demands, some of the supply, storage, booster pump, and
distribution system improvements recommended in the 1988 Water Master Plan were
determined not to be required in this Water Master Plan.
Sources of Supply
The City's existing sources of water supply consist of seven active untreated (other than
disinfection and fluoridation) or"clear" groundwater wells that pump directly into the system,
r three imported water connections, and three emergency connections with neighboring cities.
`. All existing City water supplies meet or exceed all State and federal potable water quality
standards.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTI-NGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan ES- 1
Executive Summary
Three additional clear groundwater wells are planned as part of the Orange County Water
District's (OCWD) Conjunctive Use Program. Two of the wells are scheduled for start-up in
' 2001 and the third well is scheduled for start-up in 2002. With the construction of these
wells, there will be sufficient well capacity to supply approximately 150% of the ultimate
grounndwater production limit (basin production percentage) as set by OCWD and projected
for the City.
Also, the City will have sufficient groundwater capacity to supply 115% of the projected
ultimate average-day demand and 71% of the projected ultimate maximum-day demand.
Through the City's three existing imported water connections, sufficient imported water is
available to provide the balance of the projected maximum-day demand and to also
independently supply 95% of the projected average-day demand. Based on these projections,
no additional supply capacity is necessary.
' It has been recommended in previous City planning studies and it is also recommended in this
Water Master Plan that propane gas backup be provided for Well Site Nos. 6, 9, and 10.
Permanent backup systems could be constructed at each of the aforementioned well sites or
portable trailer-mounted vessels could be stored in the City's Water Division Yard for use at
the well sites when required.
Storage/Booster Primp Stations
Storage is required in a water system to balance variations in demand (Operational Storage),
to provide water for fighting fires (Fire Storage), and to provide water when normal supplies
are reduced or unavailable due to unusual circumstances (Emergency Storage).
tThe City's existing storage system consists of four reservoirs (Overmyer No.1, Overmyer No.
2, Overmyer No. 3 and Peck) with a combined storage capacity of 40.0 million gallons (MG).
Booster stations are located at the Overmyer and Peck sites to pump water from the reservoirs
into the distribution system. The Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station boosts water from
Zone 1 into Zone 2.
Earlier this year, the Overmyer reservoirs and booster pump station were evaluated for
general condition and structural integrity and the booster pumps and motors were evaluated
mechanically. Based on the study's recommendations, which are also recommended in this
' Water Master Plan, the reservoirs will undergo structural rehabilitation and a new booster
pump station will be constructed at the same site.
The City recently finished construction on the 9.0-MG Edwards Hill Reservoir. The Edwards
Hill Booster Pump Station that will pump water from the reservoir into the distribution system
is currently under construction. The new booster pump station will have both dedicated Zone
1 and dedicated Zone 2 pumps. Also, a new 9.0-MG reservoir, which would be called the
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan ES-2
Executive Summary
Springdale Reservoir, has been proposed at the Peck Reservoir site that would increase
storage at the site to 25.0 MG.
The 1988 CityWater Master Plan calculated an ultimate storage deficiency of 52.0 MG and
g Y
61.0 MG without and with a Bolsa Chica annexation, respectively. However, water demands
projected for this Water Master Plan are significantly lower than the demands projected in
1988 and the City's storage requirements were re-analyzed to re-assess storage requirements
based on the lower projected demands and other factors that have changed since 1988.
The results of the analysis determined that with the start-up the Edwards Hill Reservoir and
construction of the Springdale Reservoir, which is recommended, the City would have
sufficient storage capacity to satisfy the storage capacity requirements set forth in this Water
Master Plan.
iHowever, there is currently no storage or supply located south of the Newport-Inglewood
fault that cuts through the City and an earthquake on this fault could leave this area without a
1 source of supply. Therefore, an additional 10.0 MG-reservoir and 11,000-gpm booster pump
station are recommended to be located-in the southeast, possibly at the Edison property, to
provide emergency storage and supply to this area. No other additional storage or booster
pump improvements are recommended.
Approximately 10,400 l.f. of 16 to 24-inch transmission main is recommended to convey
1 water from the proposed booster pump station at the Edison site to the Downtown
transmission loop and to the southeast area of the City.
Water Transmission and Distribution System
There are approximately 577 miles of transmission and distribution piping in the water system
with sizes ranging from 4 to 42 inches in diameter. The majority of the piping in the system is
made of asbestos cement and should have a long remaining service life.
However, thirteen of the City's trunk water mains were evaluated for exterior soil-related
corrosion in a 1990 study (updated in 1997) and based on the cost estimates and
recommendations made in the study, the City prioritized pipelines for future corrosion-related
rehabilitation, with some pipelines scheduled for replacement.
The pipelines scheduled for corrosion-related rehabilitation include the 42-inch pipeline from
Springdale Avenue/Warner Avenue to Clay Avenue/Huntington Street, the 36-inch pipeline
on Springdale Avenue from OC-35 to Warner Avenue, and the 30-inch pipeline from Clay
Avenue/Huntington Street to Yorktown Avenue/Newland Street.
Pipelines scheduled for replacement include the 22/21-inch transmission main that currently
conveys water from OC-9 to the Overmyer facilities. It is recommended that the new
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan ES -3
Executive Summary
transmission main be routed on Newland Street from OC-9 to a connection with the existing
30-inch OC-44 transmission main on Yorktown Avenue (18,600 linear feet)
' Although only 1% of the piping in the distributions stem is made of cast iron 35,000 l.f.
g Y P P g Y ( ),
this is significant because unlined and uncoated cast iron pipe is prone to severe interior and
exterior corrosion. It is recommended that the City undergo a cast iron pipe replacement
program starting with the downtown area to ensure system reliability in these areas.
rThe City contracted in 1997 to have a leak detection survey of the water distribution system
performed to locate and quantify water loss due to leakage. A total of 498 miles of pipeline
was surveyed, with a water loss of approximately 67,000 gallons per day (gpd) quantified
from 17 identified leaks. The City has since repaired all of the leaks identified in the survey
and the City has implemented an on-going leak investigation and repair program as a measure
to keep water losses to a minimum while facilitating cost savings. The leak survey and repair
program has been successful with total unaccounted-for water decreasing from 7% in 1997/98
to an average 5% in 1998/99 through 1999/00.
' The City's existing HZONET hydraulic network model was used to simulate and analyze
distribution system performance and to recommend improvements. System performance was
determined to be good in all of the simulations run with the exception of five simulations
r. (four locations) where the available fire flow did not meet the requirements set forth in the
Water Master Plan. The improvements that are recommended to satisfy fire-flow
requirements at these locations are listed at the end of this chapter.
The recommended fire flow improvements include connecting pipeline dead-ends and
constructing a cross-tie at one location on Beach Boulevard. Similar improvements at other
locations on Beach Boulevard were recommended in the 1988 Water Master Plan and are also
recommended in this Water Master Plan.
Also recommended (in previous City planning studies and also in this Water Master Plan) are
upgrades to the chlorination facilities at Well Site Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10.
Recommendations
The following projects were recommended in previous City planning studies and are
subsequently recommended in this Water Master Plan:
Beach Boulevard Pipeline Improvements
To increase flow capacity and fire protection on Beach Blvd, the 1988 Water Master
Plan recommended connecting missing segments at OCFCD C-6 to Warner Avenue,
Spear Avenue to Liberty Avenue, and Ronald Road to Talbert Avenue (1,700 11 total)
and constructing 12-inch cross-ties at Slater Avenue, Indianapolis Avenue, and
Atlanta Avenue (500 l.f.). The cross-tie at Atlanta Avenue has already been
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan ES-4
Executive Summary
constructed as well as an additional cross-tie at Yorktown Avenue. It is recommended
that the remaining improvements on Beach Boulevard recommended in the 1988
Water Master Plan be implemented to increase flow capacity and fire protection on
Beach Boulevard.
Chlorine Room Modifications
Upgrades to the chlorination facilities at Well Site Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 that include
room modifications, some building construction, installation of crane rail, and the
construction of secondary chlorine containment vessels.
Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements and New Overmyer Booster Pump
Station
Structural rehabilitation for Overmyer Reservoirs Nos. 1, 2 and'3 and the construction
of a new Overmyer Booster Pump Station at the same site to house Pump Nos. 1 and
2.
Springdale Reservoir —
A new 9.0-MG reservoir to be located at the Peck Reservoir site that would increase
storage at the site to 25.0 MG. The storage analysis conducted for this Water Master
Plan determined that this reservoir helps satisfy one day of emergency storage at
average demand and is recommended.
Energy Backup System at Existing Well Sites
Permanent propane backup systems at Well Site Nos. 6, 9, and 10 or portable trailer-
mounted vessels stored in the City's Water Division Yard for use at the well sites
when required.
' OC-9 Transmission Main Replacement
A new OC-9 transmission main (18,600 Lf. total) routed on Newland Street from OC-
9 to a connection with the existing 30-inch OC-44 transmission main on Yorktown
Avenue. This transmission main will replace the existing OC-9 transmission main that
will be abandoned because of age and corrosion problems.
Pipeline Corrosion Control- Stage I
Corrosion control for the 42-inch pipeline from Warner Avenue and Springdale
Avenue to Clay Avenue and Huntington Street.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan ES-5
' Executive Summary
Pipeline Corrosion Control-Stage 11
Corrosion control for the 36-inch pipeline on Springdale Avenue from OC-35 to
Warner Avenue.
Pipeline Corrosion Control-Stage III
Corrosion control for the 30-inch pipelines from Clay Avenue and Huntington Street
1 to Newland Street and Yorktown Avenue.
Pipeline Corrosion Control-Stage IV
Corrosion control for various mains from 8 inches to 16 inches in diameter.
These projects are shown on Figure ES-1:
The following projects are recommended in this Water Master Plan:
1 Reservoir and Booster Pump Station at Southeast Site
' A 10.0 MG reservoir and 11,000 gpm booster pump station to be located at a southeast
site to provide emergency storage and supply for the area south of the Newport-
Inglewood Fault and east of Bolsa Chica.
Transmission Mains to Downtown Loop
Approximately 10,400 11 of 16 to 24-inch transmission main to convey water from
the proposed booster pump station at the southeast site to the Downtown transmission
main loop and to the southeast area of the City.
Cast Iron Main Replacement Program
P g
rTo increase distribution system capacity and reliability, a cast iron water main
replacement program to replace approximately 35,000 11 of cast iron pipe with the
' program beginning in the Downtown area.
Fire-Protection Improvements
Approximately 100 l.f. of 8-inch and 320 11 of 12-inch pipe in Anderson Street to
increase fire service capacity and reliability to Peters Landing in Huntington Harbor.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan ES-6
2 4
_- CITY OF
FUTURE —_.... �.-_..
WELL #12 3
PECK ES .
HUNTINGTON BEACH
FACILITI
FUTURE WELL #13 9, -
(BOEING) ! BOLSA
{...t_.t..;.r. :. WELL #1.. I -
i
._._L... ...... ......._._..1 ...... ..
_ o .F:: ....[ f
_.
:-
�� _T )....F
rLl
• t
LIU
I'
i ((,,
t..LL.,_.. Lin, i ! , L.., ..._ _ �I� ` _�-T-t .�:;�_' •A�IE L 14��
j�
ice/
t"F
r
: .. -
r { - L
.. .....:.....
i....�
11 rr
_ Tti..__._G:_=1
1
.._.. 1 _1....1._... _.._. :m ......; _....._..._� ; - t_ �: rF I I I WELL 5
�.... jl i �...a WELL A 1::::
r.,
.
_, Ll
_ j
i G
BOLSA �_jl�.`_.
_.. ......1_ 7 b.... 1......_..I.....:. . 4....57.
i
CHICA
y7�Y' I
ELLIS,.:r
EDWARDS HILL ✓:
FACILITIES will _� I
_...S -[-
. „r I r 'I
ZONE 2 � .� '
�
at �, �F;�D ..
� -
- _.
,
' WN
\t...
( ? I II
li I
1
17§
S
if
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
i
1 . BEACH BLVD IMPROVEMENTS - CONNECT MISSING �,f �: ;� .� __ } - U !
_ _....
SEGMENTS OF 8" MAINS ALONG BEACH BLVD
i ! r -�
(1700 LF) AND CONSTRUCT 12" CROSS CONNECTIONS �,� � , ��„�/
. III
AT 300 LATER AVE 100 LF AND AT INDIANAPOLIS AVE -, ---i
( ) _ �=
LF). r
2. CHLORINATION FACILITY UPGRADE AT WELLS _' ',� : I = - .._.._.. ) L
6, 7, 9, AND 10.
..� "f.�i:
3. STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION FOR OVERMYER RESERVOIR NOS. 1 , �
..1 ,
i419 N
2, & 3 AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OVERMYER BPS. 1
4. 9.0 MG SPRINGDALE RESERVOIR AT PECK RESERVOIR SITE.
J I_
5. ENERGY BACKUP SYSTEM FOR WELLS 6, 9, AND 10. J f-TQ- --IT-1_.
I 6. NEW OC-9 TRANSMISSION MAIN:
5,300 LF OF 20" PIPELINE ON NEWLAND ST FROM OC-9 TO
WARNER AVE, 8,000 LF OF 24" PIPELINE FROM WARNER AVE TO
ELLIS AVE, AND 5,300 LF OF 20" PIPELINE FROM ELLIS AVE TO
YORKTOWN AVE.
7. STAGE I CORROSION CONTROL ON 42" PIPELINE FROM WARNER &
SPRINGDALE TO CLAY & HUNTINGTON.
8. STAGE II CORROSION CONTROL ON 36" PIPELINE ON SPRINGDALE FROM
OC-35 TO WARNER.
9. STAGE III CORROSION CONTROL ON 30" PIPELINE FROM CLAY &
HUNTINGTON TO NEWLAND & YORKTOWN.
10. STAGE IV CORROSION CONTROL ON VARIOUS PIPELINES
(8" TO 16" DIAMETER).
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH AL RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
16491 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200 FROM PREVIOUS PLANNING STUDIES FIGURE ES-1
Irvine, California 92618
(949) 727-7099
(949) 727-7097 FAX
Executive Summary
Approximately 1,200 11 of 8-inch pipe routed across OCFCD DO-1, then on Foxhall
Drive, Chesterfield Lane, Longmeadow Drive, and Weatherfield Drive to Creedmor
Drive to increase fire flow to a high density residential area in the southeast.
A 6-inch cross-tie (approximately 8011.) to tie together the 6-inch mains on each side
of Bolsa Chica Street in the commercial area just north of Warner Avenue.
Approximately 501.f. of 8-inch pipeline on the west side of Beach Boulevard (to fill in
missing pipe segments) and a 12-inch cross-tie at Owen Avenue (100 l.f.) to connect
the west main with the parallel 12-inch east main to improve fire service on Beach
Boulevard.
' Approximately 100 l.f. of 12-inch pipe in Los Patos Avenue to connect dead-end 12-
inch pipelines at the Lynn Street intersection to improve fire service in this area and to
improve delivery to a possible Bolsa Chica development.
Downtown Loop Transmission Main Improvements
' To better supply flow to the Downtown area from the proposed southeast reservoir and
booster pump station, replace the existing 6-inch cross connections on the 20-inch
Downtown Loop Transmission Main at Lake Street/PaIm Avenue and at Lake Street/
Orange Avenue with 12-inch cross connections. Also construct new 8-inch cross
connections on the 20-inch main at Olive Street between: 51h and 61h Streets, 6`h and 71h
Streets, 8`h and 9th Streets, and 10`h and 11 th Streets.
These projects are shown on Figure ES-2.
The recommended projects and the estimated project costs are shown in Table ES-1.
i
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan ES- 8
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
FUTURE
- 3
00 WELL #12 —
II PECK FACILITIES EL FUT WELL #13
.f
I Ii]
IN #1`
_ J
t r N
111 ttt —'
jj
_ 1............._ GE" ...._T.._
L.
_...
/1 C ,t
Jt' I1 ai
tL-..
._.L.. T , —Er" f -- —
1 ,_ ....
.
7� ` u E7
ALL 3
_j F::,:1 j
._.._..._... _.............
..7 ......._......
r..L
BOLSA .....-TALBERT _ ._......._.L
CHICA L. .... -�_'f�^
� Ifs
l _U—
� �
r.,
EDW/iRD VAP* 3S
IES H S T {
1
ZONE 2 0M
I
�..
� f'7
WIN
ORtj
KT
,
4.
/ ;r�
1 ,f
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ' , ,%f; - I�� [ `
�_.�. - ,
1 . 10.0 MG RESERVOIR AND 11 ,000 GPM BPS ATI -
SOUTHEAST SITE. ` 5� _ I
;....1 i
2. 10,400 LF 1 6" TO 24" TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM SOUTHEAST ...,^ I r.. [-- "_..� �.1...1
_....._ I f L
SITE TO DOWNTOWN LOOP AND TO SOUTHEAST AREA.
3. CAST IRON WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
THROUGHOUT THE CITY BEGINNING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
4. 8 PARALLEL PIPE (100 LF) AND 12 PIPE (300 LF) ON / — -==- ll_.__...._.-
ANDERSON ST AT PETER'S LANDING.
5. 8" PIPE (1 ,200 LF) ACROSS OCFCD DO-1 , AND ON Q, -'
FOXHILL DR, CHESTERFIELD LN, LONGMEADOW DR, AND
WFATHFRFLEI_D__n_R_ TQ__CREFpM R-=D.R.-
6. 6" CROSS CONNECTION (80 LF) ON BOLSA CHICA ST.
7. 8" PIPE (500 LF) ON BEACH BLVD AND 12" CROSS CONNECTION
(100 LF) AT OWEN AVE.
8. 12" PIPE (100 LF) ON LOS PATOS AVE AT LYNN ST INTERSECTION.
9. UPGRADE CROSS CONNECTIONS ON 20" DOWNTOWN TRANSMISSION
LOOP TO 12" AT LAKE ST / PALM AVE & LAKE ST / ORANGE AVE
INTERSECTIONS. FOUR NEW 8" CROSS CONNECTIONS ON 20"
DOWNTOWN LOOP ON OLIVE ST BETWEEN 5TH ST AND 11TH ST.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH ASL WATER MASTER PLAN FIGURE ES-2
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92616
949 727-7099 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
—709
949 727-7097 FAX
Table ES-1.Recommended Projects and Estimated Project Costs(l)
Technical City Prol.
Project Description Construction Contingen-V2) I Serv,CeS(3) I Mgmt."' Total
Project 1-Beach Boulevard Improvements
' Two Boulevard
crossings(400 Improvements
G$170/I.f.) 68,000 13,500 10,000 2,000 93,500
Missing 8-inch mains(1,700 Lf.®$150/I.f.) 255.000 51,000 38,000 7.500 351,500
323,000 84,500 48,000 9,500 445,000
Project 2-Chlorination Upgrades®Wells 6,7,9&10
(Technical Services=$90,000 340,000 68,000 90,000 10,000 508,000
Project 3-Overmeyer Facilities Improvements
Reservoir No.1&2 Rehab(Contingency=250/6) 595,000 149,000 89,000 18,000 851,000
Reservoir No.3 Rehab(Contingency=25%) 3,300,000 825,000 495,000 99,000 4,719,000
Booster Pump Station Upgrades 1,000,000 200,000 150.000 30,000 1,380,000
4,895,000 1,174,000 734,000 147,000 6,950,000
Project 4- 9.0 MG Springdale Reservoir S0.60/ al 5,400,OWI 1,080,0001 810,OWI 162,0001 7,452,000
Project 5-Energy Backup Systems for Wells 6,9&10 1,200,OWI 240,0001 180,DWI 36,0001 1,656,000
' Project 6-OC-9 Transmission Main Replacement-Stage 1
10,0001.f.24-inch main($180/L 1,800,000 360,000 270,000 54,000 2,484,000
Project 7-OC-9 Transmission Mein Replacement-Stage II
8,6001.f.-20-inch main($155/fl 1,333,000 266,500 200,000 40,0 00 1,839,500
Project 8-Pipeline Corrosion Control-Stage It')
42-inch main-Wamer/S rin ale to Clay/Huntington 1 140,000 28,000 54,000 4,000 226,000
Project 9-Pipeline Corrosion Control-Stage Ilh'h
36-inch main on Springdale(OC-35 to Warner) 1,019,000 204,000 153,000 30,500 1,406,500
Project 10-Pipeline Corrosion Control Stage-III(0)
30-inch main-Clay/Huntington to Newland/Yorktown 1,318,000 283,500 198,000 39,500 1,819,000
Project 11-Pipeline Corrosion Control Stage-IVt'h
Miscellaneous mains 16-inch to 8-inch) 1,004,000 201,000 150,500 30,000 1,385,600
Project 12-Conjunctive-Use Wells
Well No.3A 1,000,000 200,000 150,000 30,000 1.380,000
Well No.12 2,000,000 400,000 300,000 60,000 2,760,000
Well No.13 2,000,000 400,000 300,000 60,000 2,760,000
5,000,000 1,000,000 750,000 150,000 6,900,000
Project 13-Southeast Site Facilities
Land 4,000,000 0 0 0 4,000,000
10-MG Reservoir($0.60/gal) 6,000,000 1,200,000 900,000 180,000 8,280,000
25 cis Booster Pump Station 1,200,000 240,000 180.000 36.000 1,656,000
11,200,000 1,440,000 1,080,000 216,000 13,936,000
Project 14-Southeast Site Transmission Main
10,4001.f.16 to 24-inch main($150/L 1,560,000 312,000 234,000 47, 000 2,153,000
Project 15-Downtown Transmission Main Connections
Replace two exist.6'with 12"valved connections 20,000 4,000 3,000 500 27,500
Four new 8'valved connections 40,000 A= 6.000 .1 0�00 55,000
60,000 12,000 9,000 1,500 82,500
Project 16-Fire Protection Improvements
1001.f.(8-)&300 Lf.(12')®Peters Landing 60.000 12,000 9,000 2,000 83.000
1,2001.f.(8')®southeast high-density residential 210,000 42,000 31,500 6,500 290,000
6'cross-tie on Boise Chica St.in northwest(80 Lf.) 12,000 2,500 2,000 500 17,000
5001.f.(8')&1001.f.(12")on Beach Blvd. 90,000 18,000 13,500 2,500 124.000
100 I.f.(8')on Los Palos just north of Boise Chica 15,000 3.000 2.000 ,SQQ 20,500
387,0001 77,500 58,0001 12,0001 534,500
Project 17-Cast Iron Main Replacement Program'
34,700 Lf.®sloon.f. 1 3,470,000 694,000 520,500 104,000 4,788,500
Total 1 40,449,000 7,485,000 5,539,000 1,093,000 54,566,000
(1) All construction costs are in year 2000 dollars.
(2) Contingencies are calculated at 20%of construction unless otherwise shown.
(3) Technical Services are calculated at 15%of construction unless otherwise shown.
(4) City Project Management is calculated at 3%of construction.
(5) Construction and technical services costs taken from 1997 Corrosion Study with costs increased to year 2000 dollars.
(6) Construction cost taken from 1997 Corrosion Study with costs increased to year 2000 dollars.
(7) Cast iron main replacement program would be funded as an annual operation and maintenance cost.
' ES-10
1
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Background
The City provides potable water to an existing population of just over 200,000 people via
50,100 water services. The City's service area, which encompasses approximately 17,200
acres, is relatively flat for the most part with ground elevations ranging from 0 to 80 feet in
Pressure Zone 1 and rising to an elevation of 127 feet in Pressure Zone 2, which is the 800-
acre Reservoir Hill area. The existing water system demand is approximately 31 million
gallons per day (mgd). The City's existing water system is shown on Figure 1-1.
' Potable water is currently produced from seven active groundwater wells with capacities
ranging between 500 gallons per minute (gpm) and 3,800 gpm. Total production from the
seven wells is approximately 29 mgd (20,100 gpm). Groundwater from the seven active wells
meet or exceed all State and federal potable water quality standards without requiring
treatment other than disinfection.
1 Three additional wells are planned as part of the Orange County Water District's (OCWD)
Conjunctive Use Program. Two of these wells have been drilled. After these wells are put on
line in 2001 and 2002, the total groundwater production will be approximately 38 mgd
(26,600 gpm). Based on recent test pumping at the two sites, it is anticipated that
groundwater from these new wells will also meet or exceed all State and federal potable water
quality standards without requiring treatment other than disinfection.
' In addition to groundwater production, the City also purchases treated, imported water from
the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which is a member agency of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Imported water is supplied to
the City via three service connections: OC 9, OC 35, and OC 44. The City's allocated
' -capacities from these connections total 32 mgd (22,000 gpm).
The City participates in the In-Lieu or Cyclic Storage Program offered by OCWD and MWD,
' when available. In this groundwater replenishment program, the City takes water through its
imported water connections in lieu of pumping from the groundwater basin. OCWD
purchases the water from MWD (through MWDOC) at a reduced rate, and then bills the City
the amount it would have had to pay for pumping energy and replenishment assessment if it
had produced the water from its wells.
' For the fiscal year 1999/00, City supply deliveries were approximately 41% from imported
water and 59% from groundwater and over the past five years, imported water has accounted
for 36% of City supply deliveries. However, after subtracting out in-lieu imported water, City
imported water supply deliveries were only 26% for 1999/00, which is also the five-year
average.
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 1 - 1
I
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
0
O 1
I
FUTURE ......
(
`- WELL #12 I�� ,a_rB .. 3
1__#4 . ."I...-._..
PECK FACILITI S
FUTURE WELL #13 -
77
Atc.: L i I r BOLSA
' It ...
Pi
rc,
EN_..
q.. j
fi T
\7 __/} 1 ;Y. :_�_h I i 1 TT
1 _
r — - -
—9
t
r ) ; I t IT �—...� _ ry VµEk #1..0=
y FT1 LLLI
+ f
.. _ i..�
6
it i err1 rrt .��t.f ��.�._L..�
ILL
,.. �. •�� � ,� 1 1;... I� r-I ; , �, � � -`� r ELL #9
13
[ r ..... .__
_...... l I14 --, F Tt1�2�
....... - - ..._....
- I 'r
IFTrT , i�l_ ...
-
--�
1 T.... (1...
:
: I
BOLSA �..._.._...
r...... ; I �... IALBERT
l
CHICA v ILL_... L.r.
EDW RD t 1
{ i[ i
FCILISS� IR
ZONE 2 _.
°bw. � I-...........
1, Y
i � -- —
t� g r
i r w >ry
1.
It x p ..... T r....... ..._
J j,.,...:.. ...._ i
/ V /' t .... I_...... ..
1 _ ......._ ...._. ........._
-
- Iiz ..( 1
j1 a
�.� - ... ` `1 ; I. .......,... c�..._.._.7 L ink71
777 ,
.............
Thl
NOTES ",
I,r
iI L.....T.... r (Y
•
{y _.._�:71...:.::q ''
1 . WELL PLANNED AS PART OF OCWD'S CONJUNCTIVE
USE PROGRAM. WELL NOS. 12 AND 3A HAVE BEEN
DRILLED AND ARE SCHEDULED FOR START-UP IN Y.0 r __ _..
2001 . WELL NO 13, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN �' -,A !
DRILLED TO DATE, IS SCHEDULED FOR START-UP m ------I < TQN
I N 2002. E r fir
_ IT._
- '- - --- --- - - - - - - - _ \ z r-fit._,_, ;'` r
rY fr
2. EDWARDS HILL RESERVOIR HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED
AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION IS CURRENTLY
UNDER CONSTRUCTION. FACILITIES SCHEDULED FOR
START-UP IN SPRING 2001 .
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRATECH ASL CITY SERVICE AREA AND
,v Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200 FIGURE 1-1
Irvine, California 92818 949 WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES
949� 727-7099 727-7097 FAX
Chapter 1—Introduction
The City's existing storage system consists of four reservoirs (Overmyer No.1, Overmyer No.
2, Overmyer No. 3, and Peck), all located in Zone 1, with a combined storage capacity of 40.0
million gallons (MG). The three Overmyer reservoirs are located at the same site, with No. 1
and No. 2 sharing a common dividing wall.
Booster stations are located at the Peck and Overmyer reservoir sites to pump water from the
reservoirs into the distribution system(pumped storage). The pumping capacity from the four
' existing reservoirs into the system is approximately 39,000 gpm. A third booster station
boosts water from Zone 1 into the Reservoir Hill area (Zone 2), which does not have a storage
reservoir.
' The 9.0-MG Edwards Hill Reservoir was recently completed with the associated booster
pump station currently under construction. Both facilities are scheduled for start-up in the
summer of 2001.
Earlier this year, the Overmyer reservoirs were evaluated for general condition and structural
integrity and the Overmyer booster pumps and motors were evaluated mechanically. Based
on the findings, it has been recommended that these facilities undergo upgrades as part of the
Water Capital Improvement Program(CIP).
A storage analysis conducted as part of the City's 1988 Water Master Plan, calculated a
significant storage deficiency for the City at ultimate-buildout. The City's water system
' storage requirements are re-assessed and updated in this Water Master Plan.
The water system has 577 miles of piping ranging in size from 4 inches to 42 inches in
diameter. Gaseous chlorine (CL2) is injected at all of the well sites. Imported water
connections deliver chloraminated MWD water into the system. Disinfection levels maintain
a chlorine or chloramine residual of 1.0 milligram per liter (mg/1) in the distribution system.
' Additionally, as an aid in the development of healthy teeth, fluoride at a concentration of 0.7
to 1.0 mg/l is provided in the water supply via injection stations located at the well sites and
the imported water connections.
1.2 Purpose of Master Plan
The purpose of the Water Master Plan is to:
• Update water demand projections based on current population and water usage
information.
• Update system demand peaking factors based on historical production and consumption
data and factors used by other area water purveyors.
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 1 -3
Chapter 1—Introduction
Document system water loss through an analysts of production and consumption records
that will also demonstrate how effective the City's on-going leak investigation and repair
program has been.
• Analyze existing supply capacities and compare existing and projected supply capacities
with projected demands under average, peak, and emergency operating conditions.
• Analyze the sufficiency of storage/supply facilities to satisfy operational (maximum-day
demand), fire, and emergency conditions in the existing (year 2000) system and in the
ultimate (year 2020) system.
' • Analyze the conditions, capacities, and operations of the existing distribution system
including booster pump stations and distribution piping.
• Develop ultimate demands from the 1999 General Plan of projected land use and
population projections made by the Center for Demographic Research, California State
' University, Fullerton (CSUF), and allocate the demands into a hydraulic model of the
ultimate water system that is based on the City's H2ONET model of the existing water
system. Run simulations with the existing and ultimate water system models to analyze
' performance under various operating scenarios.
• Based on system research and analysis documented in this Water Master Plan including
' the results of the model simulations, recommend system improvements and evaluate and
confirm system improvements recommended in other City planning studies.
1.3 Master Plan Objectives
The objectives set forth in the Water Master Plan are:
' • Ensure waters stem performance to meet all regulatory and capacity requirements for a
Y P g Y P Y 9
planning period of 20 years, 2000 through 2020.
• Ensure that groundwater supply facilities are sufficient to supply the OCWD Basin
�' PP Y PP Y
Production Percentage (BPP), currently set at 75% of applicable demands, and 100% of
the projected ultimate average-day demand.
• Ensure that imported water connections provide sufficient backup under primary source
(groundwater)outage conditions.
' • Ensure that groundwater and imported water supply facilities are sufficient to supply
100% of the projected maximum-day demand and that system reservoirs and booster
pump stations are sufficient to supply all demands over the maximum-day demand
including fire flow demands and the projected ultimate peak-hour demand.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 1 -4
Chapter 1—Introduction
' • Develop sufficient reliable storage and booster pumping facilities such that the minimum
operational, fire, and emergency storage requirements are met or exceeded during the
planning period.
' • Develop distribution facilities including booster pump stations and distribution mains such
that the system is reliable and can meet the service and fire pressure requirements set forth
in this Water Master Plan.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 1 -5
Chapter 2 - Demand
1
' 2.1 Overview
Land use, development, population, climate, the economy, and demographic characteristics all
affect area water usage. The City has been near full development for the past decade and
water usage for the City's service area has been relatively flat over this period. However, the
City's future water usage is projected to increase by 8% over the planning period 2000
' through 2020 because of a projected 7% increase in population density (people per dwelling
unit) and a projected 11% increase in the general population.
' The projected population increase is fueled in part by the planned development of 670 acres
(as of 1998) within the City. A possible future annexation of a proposed development in
Bolsa Chica could increase water demand further.
2.2 Land Use
' The City, which encompasses approximately 17,200 acres, is near full development with
approximately 70% of the land devoted to single and multi-family residential land use. Land
use is not expected to change significantly in the next 20 years. However, some development
' and redevelopment projects are planned for the future. Approximately 670 acres of vacant
land is planned for future development based on the City's 1998 Vacant Land Survey.
' The 800-acre Reservoir Hill area that constitutes Zone 2 has had significant development over
the past several years and 240 acres of vacant land (as of 1998) is planned for future
development. The City's General Plan adopted in 1996 designates future land use for the
City. The General Plan map as amended through 1999 has been used to estimate ultimate
(year 2020) demands.
2.3 Population
Population projections made by the Center for Demographic Research at California State
University, Fullerton (CSUF) were used to estimate the City's population for the planning
period, 2000 through 2020. As shown in Table -1-I and on Fi,Ture 2-I, the City's population is
projected to increase by 11.1% through 2020. The largest increase in population is projected
to occur in the next five years (4.7%).
Future development and redevelopment projects are projected to result in a 4.0% increase in
total dwelling units over the next 20 years. Population density is also projected to increase.
The existing population per dwelling unit of 2.63 is projected to increase 6.8% to 2.81 by
2020.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 2- 1
Table 2-1. City Population and Dwelling Unit Projections (2000 - 2020)
Year
' Dwelling Units Population 2000 2005 2010 2015 20-70
Population 201,975 211,412 216,020 220,554 224,410
Cumulative Increase , �� - 4.7% 7.0% 9.2% 11.1%
IncremeritalIncrease 4.7% 2.2% 2.1% 1.7%
To Dwelhns U►uts r' ' 76,730 78,376 78,937 79,664 79,819
"�> e
Cumulative Increase} - 2.1% 2.9% 3.8% 4.0%
Incremental Increase 2.1% 0.7% 0.9% 0.2%
Sin le, Umts 47,060 48,380 48,916 49,372 49,493
'
Cumu u ` - 2.8% 3.9% 4.9% 5.2%
lative Increase. .. "
IncrementalIncrease .`.� s._,. .. - 2.8% 1.1% 0.9% 0.2%
Multi Family D �welling Umts" < 29,670 29,996 30,021 30,292 30,326
0 � �.
Cumulative Increase '�� 1.1% 1.2% 2.1% 2.2%
' Incremental Increase y - 1.1% 0.1% 0.9% 0.1%
Population PerDwelLnQ Umt 2.63 2.70 2.74 2.77 2.81
+ -
Cumulative Increase r i� 2.5% 4.0% 5.2% 6.8%
Incremental Increase `�' x - 2.5% 1.5% 1.2% 1.6%
2-2
Figure 2-1. City Population Projections
(2000- 2020)
—•—Population -- --Population Per Dwelling Unit
230,000 4
3.8
220,000
3.6
3.4
210,000
3.2
c
C „'7
O �
C
a
a° C
L
....---•-• 2.8 a
._.. .--• ----- ---•-- • • -- c
190,000 ..•_-..._ - ' . ..... ._...._..._ .........._.....
__
_ . 2.6 a
a.
2.4
180,000
2.2
J170,000 2
1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
2-3
Chapter 2-Demand
2.4 Historical Potable Water Production
1 Historical potable water production by month for the 10 fiscal years 1990/91 through 1999/00
is shown in Table 2-2 and on Figure 2-2. Goldenwest #3, Goldenwest #4, and Meadowlark #
2 are City wells that produce non-potable water (high color) for irrigation. This non-potable
water production has been subtracted from the potable water production in Table 2-2. Test
pumping for proposed Well No. 12 that went to waste in 1999 is also subtracted from potable
water production in Table 2-2 as is a small volume of water wasted from Well No. 8 in 1990
' and 1999.
As shown in Table 2-2, water production increased slightly from 1990/91 through 1997/98.
This is attributable to growth and to an increase in water conservation following the drought
that ended in 1991. Water usage dipped slightly in 1998/99 and this is attributable to the
unusually wet weather experienced in 1998 caused by the El Nino weather condition. As
shown in Table 2-2, the average water usage for the first six months of 1998 was less than the
same six months of the previous year.
2.5 Historical Potable Water Consumption/Unaccounted-For Water
Historical City water consumption and unaccounted-for water for the five fiscal years 1995/96
through 1999/00 is shown in Table 2-3 and on Figure 2-3. As shown, total unaccounted-for
water has decreased from 9.9% in 1995/96 to 5.8% in 1999/00. The decrease in unaccounted-
for water can be in part attributed to the City's repair of system leaks.
2.5.1 Leak Detection Survey
The City contracted with Utility Services Associates in 1997 to perform a leak detection
survey of the water distribution system to locate and quantify water loss due to leakage. A
total of 498 miles of pipeline was surveyed, with a water loss of approximately 67,000 gpd
' quantified from 17 identified leaks. The annual water loss from these links was quantified as
approximately 24.4 million gallons. A summary of the survey results is shown in Table 2-4.
A number of smaller leaks (less than 0.25 gpm each) were also identified and listed in the
leakage reports. The City's Leak Repair Crews have since repaired all of the leaks identified
in the survey. The City has implemented an on-going leak investigation and repair program
as a measure to keep water losses to a minimum while facilitating cost savings.
2.6 Projected Water Demands
City water billing and production data, population data from CSUF, and land use areas from
the City Planning Department were used to develop existing (Year 2000) and ultimate (Year
2020) unit water use factors and demands. The City Water Billing Department provided five
years of meter data (1995/96 through 1999/00) for eight billing categories. The eight billing
categories, which constitute the total water consumption for the City, are similar to the land
use categories used in the City's General Plan.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 2-4
s� Im No riffsNOWar4 rl r �s a�
Table 2-2. Historical City Potable Water Production (1990/91 - 1999/00)
ProductionHistorical City Potable Water
Month • 00 Average
Water Production_ ,
' 3,987 3,191 3,545 3,374 3,522 3,473 3,682 3,771 3,910 3,593 3,605
August' , 3,996 3,166 3,634 3,428 3,709 3,613 3,764 3,717 4,195 3,532 3,675
r
Septembers 3,433 2,898 3,236 3,127 3,323 3,289 3,320 3,377 3,743 3,224 3,297
OctoberAn,ems, 3,117 2,762 2,817 2,947 3,097 3,116 3,088 3,215 3,651 3,180 3,099
November` ;Y 2,754 2,554 2,718 2,625 2,566 2,673 2,555 2,489 2,723 2,599 2,626
Deceu�ber �' 2,634 2,278 2,384 2,404 2,472 2,397 2,332 2,243 2,372 2,748 2,426
s fi ? vas
January 2,412 2,126 2,058 2,450 2,152 2,447 2,176 2,203 2,298 2,454 2,278
February 2,292 1,987 1,855`" 1,946 2,011 2,031 2,211 1,913= 2,059 2,010 2,031
Marcb �� k. 2,068 2,116 2,313 2,349 2,215 2,300 3,003 .2,351 2,435 2,377 2,353
2,502 2,560 2,660 2,558 2,758 2,831 3,180 2,507 2,523 2,863 2,694
3,015 3,094 3,206 2,927 3,068 3,406 3,447 2,915 3,034 3,295 3,141
e rr:
3,031 1 3,291 1 3,169 1 3,381 1 3,170 3,522 3,527 3,357 1 3,201 3,522 3,317
Total 35,241 32,023 33,595 33,515 34,064 35,099 36,286 34,057 36,143 35,397 34,542
Non Potable=Irrigation( 347 262 306 309 327 326 400 269 233 299 308
Well ToWaste 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,706 0 199
TotalPotatileProduction 34,613 31,761 33,289 33,207 33,737 34,773 35,885 33,788 34,204 35,098 34,035
Rataoto..10;Yr.Ayer a 1.02 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.05 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.00
(a)Groundwater produced by Goldenwest#3,Goldenwest#4,and Meadowlark#2 is non-potable due to high color and is used for irrigation.
(b)Test pumping fof future Well No. 12 that was wasted. Also water wasted at Well No.8.
2-5
Figure 2-2. Historical City Potable Water Production
(1990/91 - 1999/00)
0 Fiscal-Year Potable Water Production
�10-Year-Average Potable Water
Production
36,000
35,000
34,000
33,000 t,
32,000
31,000
�• a
30,000
a
�s
29,000 _'
28,00027,000
y
s ,
26,000
90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00
Fiscal Year
2-6
low Ow. tm do am m
Table 2-3. Historical City Potable Water Consumption/Unaccounted-For Water (1995/96- 1999/00)
Historical City Water C nsumption (Acre Feet)
Water Consumntlon-
July 3,247 3,897 3,430 3,248 3,104 3,385
August �� � 2,928 2,717 2,861 3,250 2,965 2,944
3,254 3,520 3,889 3,712 3,920 3,659
October �:° � ` ,� � 3,077 3,283 3,086 2,462 2,600 2,902
November, > 2,851 2,439 2,628 3,415 3,222 2,911
`' December 2,1 2,787 2,841 2,426 2,447 2,539 93
January 2,654 2,063 2,089 2,304 2,864 2,395
February >`: 1,845 1,817 1,583 1,781 1,,946 1,794
March.' 2,075 2,427 2,379 2,802 2,419 2,420
April_ _ 1,849 2,545 1,825 1,773 1,756 1,950
2,460 2,639 2,335 2,464 3,356 2,651
2,894 1 3,268 1 2,518 1 2,976 1 2,454 1 2,822
Total� �°" �- '�� _�` "" 31,327 33,402 31,464 32,613 33,053 32,372
TOW-Ntable Production `--: 34,773 35,885 33,788 34,204 35,098 34,750
Total Unaecounted-For Water 3,446 .2,483 2,324 1,591 2,045 2,378
Totai Unaccounted-Foi Water `% 9.9% 6.9% 6.9% 4.7% 5.8% 6.8%
2-7
fm -oft N go t1w to gta �Mw 'no 41�w
Figure 2-3. Historical City Potable Water Consumption/Unaccounted-
For Water (1995/96 - 1999/00)
Unaccounted-For Water
0 Potable Water Consumption
f Unaccounted-For Water%
369000 12.0%
339000 11.0%
309000 10.0%
01
w 27,000 9.0%
249000
8.0% cc
21,000 7.0% o
a� U_
189000 6.0% -6
aD
Q 159000 - 5.0% _
129000 4.0%
o v
a" %000 3.0%
69000 2.0%
39000 1.0%
- - 0.0%
95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00
Fiscal Year
2-8
1
1
Chapter 2—Demand
I
Table 2-4. Summary of 1997 Leak Detection Survey
Number of Total Total
Items Surveyed Quantity Leaks (gpm) gpd
498.2 miles 0 0 0
Valve 9,078 0 0 0
Hydrant a 4,803 6 6.2 9,000
' '
_ Meters NA 2 0.5 720
Curb Stop NA 1 0.2 360
Serv><ce L ne NA 4 12 17,280
151 NA NA NA
Seiwice:Conriechon, 2,260 4 27.5 39,600
Total 17 46.4 66,960
� x
Annual;Water$LosswN ` 24,440,400 gallons
�. As shown in Table 2-5, the billing categories were matched with the land use categories and
corresponding existing land use areas to develop existing unit water use factors and existing
demands based on the five-year water production average of 21,500 gpm. The five-year
production average was taken to represent existing (year 2000) demand.
To develop ultimate demands, the existing residential unit water use factors were increased by
5.0% to account .for the projected 6.8% population per dwelling unit increase. A 5.0%
increase was used instead of 6.8% because it is assumed that residential irrigation water will
not increase proportional to the projected population density increase.
The mixed-use land use category is a combination of medium-high to high residential and
commercial land uses. The ultimate unit water use factor for this category was increased by
3.75% to account for the projected increase in population density. Unit water use factors for
other land use categories were assumed not to change from the existing values.
The unit water use factors were then applied to the projected ultimate land use areas from the
1999 General plan to develop ultimate demands as shown in Table 2-6. The total projected
ultimate demand of 23,200 gpm is 7.9% greater than the existing system demand of 21,500
gpm. The ultimate unit water use factors shown in Table 2-6 were applied to junctions in the
City's H2ONET water distribution system model to develop demands for the ultimate system
model.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
�' Water Master Plan 2-9
Table 2-5. Existing Unit Water Use Factors and Demands
CorrespondingExisting Existing
Gross Unit Water Existing
Meter Billing Area M Use Factor i
CategoryCategory Land Use
Residential Low Density 7,897 1,300 7,129
Public-Residential Low Density 779 1,300 703
Goldenwest College(P-RL) 127 1,200 106
Medium Density 1,243 2,700 2,330
Public-Residential Medium 19 2,700 35
Total 10,064 1,474 10,304
Multi-Residential Medium High&High Density 1,520 4,500 4,750
Public-Res.Medium High 10 4,500 31
Mixed-Use 319 3,950 875
Total 1,849 4,405 5,657
Commercial Commercial General&Mixed-Use 736 2,350 1,202
Commercial Neighborhood 97 2,350 158
Commercial Office 43 2,350 70
Commercial Regional 140 2,350 228
Commercial Visitor 73 2,350 119
Public 452 2,350 737
CSDOC Plant#2(Public) 65 3,700 167
Total 1,605 2,405 2,680
Industrial Industrial 1,008 2,350 1,645
McDonnell-Douglas(1) 216 1,500 225
SCE Power Plant(1) 106 2,600 192
Total 1,330 2,232 2,062
Municipal Open Space-Parks&Public OS-P 260 2,350 424
H.B. Central Park(OS-P) 249 555 96
Seacliff Golf Course(OS-CR) 142 2,400 237
Meadowlark Golf Course(OS-CR) 108 200 15
Total 759 1,466 773
Other Open Space-Wetlands -
Open Space-Shore
Open Space-Water Recreation
Railroad
Other
Public(Flood Control Channels)
Vacant Land 668
Total 1,595 - -
Total 17,203 1,798 21,475
(a) Includes the City's top six water users as special demands in their respective land use category.
J (b)Including street right of ways
(c)Five-Year average City water production is 21,495 gpm.
2- 10
Table 2-6. Ultimate Unit Water Use Factors and Demands
ExistingUltimate Ultimate
Gross Unit Water Unit Water Ultimate
Meter 1Corresponding Area" Use Factor Use Factor"' Demand("
Residential- Low Density 8,081 1,300 1,365 7,660
Public-Residential Low Density 782 1,300 1,365 741
Goldenwest College(P-RL) 127 1,200 1,200 106
Medium Density 1,316 2,700 2,835 2,591
Public-Residential Medium 19 2,700 2,835 37
Total- 10,325 1 - 1,729 11,135
Multi-Residential Medium High&High Density 1,551 4,500 4,725 5,089
_ Public-Res.Medium High 10 4,500 4,725 33
Mixed-Use 368 3,950 4,098 1,047
Total " 1,929 5,016 6,169
Commercial - a Commercial General&Mixed-Use 798 2,350 2,350 1,302
Commercial Neighborhood 97 2,350 2,350 158
Commercial Office 43 2,350 2,350 70
Commercial Regional 140 2,350 2,350 228
- . Commercial Visitor 73 2,350 2,350 119
Public 517 2,350 2,350 844
CSDOC Plant#2(Public) 65 3,700 3,700 167
Total >. 1,732 - 2,401 2,888
Industrial Industrial 1,040 2,350 2,350 1,697
McDonnell-Douglas(1) 216 1,500 1,500 225
SCE Power Plant(1) 106 2,600 2,600 192
Total 1,362 - 2,235 2,114
Municipal Open Space-Parks 313 2,350 2,350 511
H.B. Central Park(OS-P) 365 555 555 141
Seacliff Golf Course(OS-CR) 142 2,400 2,400 237
Meadowlark Golf Course(OS-CR) 108 200 200 15
Tow �� � 928 - 1,402 904
Other Open Space-Wetlands
Open Space-Shore
Open Space-Water Recreation
Railroad
Other
3t
Public(Flood Control Channels)
Vacant Land
Total 927 - - -
Total • _ , L. __ ::. 17,203 - 1,943 23,210
(a)Includes the City's top six water users as special demands in their respective land use category.
(b)Including street right of ways
(c)Existing water use factors for residential land use categories multiplied by 1.05(1.0375 for mixed-use)to account for the projected
increase in population per dwelling unit of 6.8%.
2- 11
Chapter 2—Demand
As shown in Table 2-7, demand in Pressure Zone 2 has increased substantially over the past
four years and this is attributable to development in the Reservoir Hill area. The remaining
240 acres of vacant land (as of 1998) is planned for-=future_develo ment. This projected
development combined with a projected increase in:population per dwelling unit (discussed
earlier in this section) results in a projected year 2020 demand of 1,839 acre feet per year
(AFY) or 1,140 gallons per minute (gpm) for Zone 2, which is an increase of 43.2% above
existing demand.
Table 2-7. Zone 2 (Reservoir Hill) Demands
Demand AF 713 730 968 1,284 1,839
Demand m 442 453 600 796 1,140
% Increase - 2.4 32.5 32.7 43.2
Cumulative % Increase - 2.4 35.8 80.0 157.9
An area within the unincorporated Bolsa Chica Wetlands is planned for development by
Hearthside Homes. However, the planned development is uncertain at this time because it
must first be approved by various environmental and government agencies and because it
currently faces legal challenges.
If approved, the City could consider annexing and supplying water service to the
development. It should be noted that the Public Utilities Commission recently ruled that the
Southern California Water Company could provide water and sewer service to the planned
Bolsa Chica development as a public convenience and necessity.
V The 1998 Plan of Works for Bolsa Chica estimated average and maximum-day water
demands of 816 gpm and 1,632 gpm, respectively, for the proposed development. For
planning purposes, the ultimate water system will be analyzed both without and with a Bolsa
Chica annexation.
2.6.1 Peaking Factors
The City analyzed water production data for the 11 fiscal years 1988/89 through 1998/99 and
determined that the maximum day demand of 29,375 gpm occurred on September 1, 1998 and
the peak hour demand of 46,711 gpm occurred on July 3, 1999. These system-wide demands
are 1.37 (maximum-day demand factor) and 2.17 (peak-hour demand factor) times greater
than the five-year average production (1995/96 - 1999/00) of 21,500, which is taken to be
existing demand for this Water Master Plan.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
? Water Master Plan 2- 12
Chapter 2—Demand
Zone 1 with an averse day demand of 20,704 m, accounts for approximately 96% of the
g Y gpm, PP Y
total system demand. Zone 2 accounts for the remaining demand (796 gpm). For comparison,
average-day demands and maximum-day and peak-hour demand factors for other area water
purveyors are shown in Table 2-8. Peaking factors for a pressure zone generally get larger as
the average-day demand gets smaller as shown in Table 2-8.
For this Water Master Plan, a maximum dayfactor of 1.6 and a peak hour factor of 2.5 will be
used to analyze Zone 1. These factors are consistent with the other area pressure zones with
similar average demands shown in Table 2-8. The selected Zone 1 peaking factors include a
safety factor of 15% relative to the system-wide historical factors. Maximum-day and peak-
hour factors of 2.0 and 3.5, respectively, will be used to analyze Zone 2. These factors are
also consistent with the other area pressure zones with similar average demands shown in
Table 2-8.
The 1998 Plan of Works for Bolsa Chica estimated a maximum-day demand of 1,632 gpm for
the proposed development, which equates to a 2.0 maximum-day factor. A 4.0-MG reservoir,
which would be built by the Developer, is proposed as part of the water system that would
serve the Bolsa Chica development. If the development is built and annexed by the City, the
City's water system would fill the Bolsa Chica Reservoir at rates up to the maximum day
demand of 1,632 gpm. The Bolsa Chica Booster Pump Station that would also be built by the
developer would supply the peak-hour demand within the Bolsa Chica development.
Demands and peaking factors to be used in this Water Master Plan to analyze the existing
water system, and the ultimate water system with and without a Bolsa Chica annexation, are
shown in Tables 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11, respectively.
2.7 Fire Flow Demands
Fire flow is the flow rate of a water supply that is available for fire fighting at a residual
pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (psi). City fire flow requirements are set by the City
Fire Department and are based on the 1997 Uniform Fire Code (UFC). Appendix III-A of the
UFC provides fire flow requirements for buildings. The fire flow requirements are based on
land use, construction materials, and building floor area (fire area).
The minimum fire flow and duration requirements for one- and two-family dwellings having a
fire area less than 3,600 square feet is 1,000 gpm for 2 hours. The UFC allows a reduction in
the fire flow requirement of 50 percent when the residential dwelling is provided with an
approved automatic sprinkler system.
Fire-flow and flow duration requirements from the UFC for non-residential buildings and
residential dwellings with fire areas greater than 3,600 square feet are shown in Table 2-12.
The UFC allows a 75 percent reduction in the fire flow requirements shown in Table 2-12
when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. However, the
resulting fire flow can not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 2- 13
Chapter 2-Demand
Table 2-8. PeakingFactors for Other Area Water Purveyors
Y
Average
Day Maximum Peak
Demand Day Hour
Water Purveyor gpFactor
Irvine Ranch Water`District(as of 2000),,,,
Zone 1 15,314 1.35 1.91
East Irvine/Zone 3. ''� 5,918 2.17 2.94
East Irvine/Zone 4 2,093 2.56 3.68
'Turtle Rockthine 3 = 1,688 1.78 3.41
Turtle Rock/Zone 4 212 2.34 5.55
Portola Hills/Zone 9 468 2.23 4.12
Total or Aver a 25,691 1.69 2.68
City of Westminster(as of 19")
Entire S`stem 8,722 1.53 2.30
City of Oceanside(as of 1998)
'Entire System '= - 16,288 1.71 No Data
City of Monterey Park as of 1994
Entire System 6,370 1.60 3.20
-City of Carlsbad(as of 199�.
-Entire System. 8,331 1.67 2.60
La Canada Im2ahon District(as of 1996)
Entire System 1,502 2.00 4.00
City of Tustin(as of 2000)
Zone 1,.1 7,700 1.50 2.50
Zone 2. 1,283 2.00 3.00
`Zone 3°-�� s . 183 2.00 5.50
Total or-Ave e. 9,166 1.58 2.63
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 2- 14
Chapter 2—Demand
Table 2-9. ExistingDemands and Peaking Factors
g
Existing
Demand
Demand.nd in Overall
Demand Factor •p :p :p
Average Pal Demand 20,704 796 21,500
Maximum Day Factor ,'-:�•- 1.6 2.0 1.61
Maximum Da Demand, 33,126 1,592 34,718
Peak Hour Factor. 2.5 3.5 2.54
Peak Hour Demand 51,760 2,786 54,546
Table 2-10. Ultimate Demands and Peaking Factors
without Bolsa Chica Annexation
DemandUltimate
Demand or Zoneo� 1verall
1 � i � � � gp
Avera eDa`Demand 22,060 1,140 23,200
Maximum Da Y Factor ` ; 1.6 2.0 1.62
Maximum Day.Demand. 35,296 2,280 37,576
Peak Hour Fa
ctor , . �-� 2.5 3.5 2.55
Peak Hour Demand.. 55,150 3,990 59,140
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 2- 15
t
Chapter 2—Demand
Table 2-11. Ultimate Demands and Peaking Factors with Bolsa Chica Annexation
DemandUltimate
Demand on Bolsa Overall
Avera a Da Demand„ ' 22,060 1,140 816 24,016
Maximum Day Factor 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.63
Maximum Da Demand 35,296 2,280 1,632 39,208
-Peak Hour Factor 2.5 3.5 2.O(a) 2.53
,Peak Hour Demand; 55,150 3,990 1,632 a) 60,772
(a) The City's water system would fill the Bolsa Chica Reservoir at rates up to the maximum day demand of
1,632 gpm. The Bolsa Chica Booster Pump Station that would also be built by the developer would supply
the peak-hour demand within the Bolsa Chica development.
General City fire flow requirements were established in the 1999 City of Huntington Beach
Infrastructure Restoration Study (Special Study Report on the Water and Drainage System
Infrastructure) prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers based on information provided
by the City Fire Marshal and approved by the City Water staff for that report. These general
fire flow requirements shown in Table 2-13 will be used to analyze City fire flows in this
Water Master Plan.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 2- 16
Table 2-12.Minimum UFC Fire Flow Requirements
Fir Area(s(luare reet)
Flow
pe IV-1 IT. Type II-N, Fire Flow Duration
Type II-FR Type III • •
<=22,700 <=12,700 <=8,200 <=5,900 <=3,600 <=1,500
30,200 17,000 10,900 7,900 4,800 1,750
38,700 21,800 12,900 9,800 6,200 2,000 2
48,300 24,200 17,400 12,600 7,700 2,250
59,000 33,200 21,300 15,400 9,400 2.500
70,900 39,700 25,500 18,400 11,300 2,750
83,700 47,100 30,100 21,800 13,400 3,000
97,700 54,900 35,200 25.900 15,600 3,250 3
112,700 63,400 40,600 29,300 18,000 3,500
128.700 72,400 46,400 33,500 20,600 3,750
\� 145,900 82,100 52,500 37,900 23,300 4,000
164,200 92,400 59,100 42,700 26,300 4,250
183,400 103,100 66,000 47,700 29,300 4,500
203,700 114,600 73,300 53,000 32,600 4,750
225,200 126,700 81,100 58,600 36,000 5,000
247,700 139,400 89,200 65,400 39,600 5,250
271,200 152,600 97,700 70,600 43,400 5,500
295,900 166,500 106,500 77,000 47,400 5,750
>295,900 >166,500 115,800 83,700 51,500 6,000 4
125,500 90,600 55,700 6,250
135,500 97,900 60,200 6,500
145,800 106,800 64,800 6,750
156,700 113,200 69,600 7,000
I 167,900 121,300 74,600 7,250
" 179,400 129,600 79,800 7,500
191,400 138,300 85,100 7,750
>191,400 >138,300 >85,100 8.000
From Uniform Fire Code(Appendix III-A,Table A-I11-A-1). Applies to non-residential buildings and
residential dwellings with fire areas greater than 3.600 square feet.
Building Construction Types I through V,pursuant to the Uniform Building Code.
Types I and II:Non-Combustible construction materials(e.g.concrete structions).
Types 111,IV,and V:Combusttble construction materials(e.g.wooden structures).
FR-Fire Resistant
HT- Heavy Timber
Fire flow measured at 20 psi residual pressure.
2- 17
Chapter 2—Demand
Table 2-13. Water Master Plan Fire Flow Requirements
(a)
Flow
Fire Flow Duration
Land Use Designations
gp
;I:owDensiResident><al a 2,000 2
w
Maki
HiDens><t Resident><al 4,000 4
EN Flit,
a Mobile Park � ,, 3,000 3
f �
CommerdaLWdfisth4 `_, ' 5,000 5
All� "
Hos ><tal ,� ,: 6,000 5
- (a) The data in this table provides general City fire flow criteria to be used in this Water Master Plan. Actual
fire flow requirements should be determined according to the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
Uniform Fire Code. The fire flows shown could be reduced if the building in question is provided with an
approved automatic sprinkler system. However,the resulting fire flow can not be less than 1,500 gpm.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 2- 18
Chapter 3 - Supply
3.1 Overview
The City's existing sources of water supply consist of seven active untreated (other than
disinfection) or "clear" groundwater wells that pump directly into the system, three imported
water connections, and three emergency connections with neighboring cities. Three
additional clear groundwater wells are planned as part of the Orange County Water District's
(OCWD) Conjunctive Use Program.
The City has historically utilized groundwater more than imported water to satisfy water
system demands. OCWD currently allows the City to produce clear groundwater up to 75%
of their applicable water demands, which is called the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). It
is advantageous for the City to fully utilize their BPP because groundwater is less expensive
and generally considered more reliable than imported water. However, imported water is
required to meet high City demands including maximum-day demand during the summer
months. Imported water also provides the City with supply reliability.
3.1.1 Groundwater versus Imported Water Supply
The Orange County Groundwater Basin is unajudicated but managed by OCWD. As a
member agency of OCWD, the City is entitled to groundwater from the Orange County
Groundwater Basin subject to the BPP fee. The City also purchases supplemental, treated,
imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which is a
member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).
Historically, the City has utilized groundwater more than imported water to satisfy water
system demands. City groundwater production compared with the purchase of imported
water for the 5-year period 1995/96 through 1999/00 is presented in Table 3-1 and on Figure
3-1.
The City participates in the In-Lieu or Cyclic Storage Program offered by OCWD and MWD,
I when available. It is a groundwater replenishment program that refills the groundwater basin
by avoiding pumping, and is usually offered in the lower demand period of October through
April. In the program, OCWD requests the City to leave a number of its wells turned off.
The City then takes replacement water through its imported water connections which is
purchased by OCWD from MWD through MWDOC. OCWD purchases the water at a
reduced rate, and then bills the City the amount it would have had to pay for pumping energy
and replenishment assessment if it had produced the water from its wells. The percentage of
imported water purchased has been adjusted (lowered) in Table 3-1 and on Figure 3-1 to
reflect the City's In-Lieu imported water purchases.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3- 1
Chapter 3-Supply
Table 3-1. Groundwater Production vs. Imported Water Purchases
(1995/96- 1999/00)
Fiscal Year
Supply
Groundwater ti 26,370 26,104 20,001 19,584 20,381
I " rted'Water; u 8,729 10,181 14,056 16,559 14,433
Total 35,099 36,285 34,057 36,143 34,814
% Ln rted 25% 28% 1 41% 1 46% 1 41%
.p�
In.Lieu Imorted 0 0 6,121 7,105 5,286
Ad'usted %, I'ted- 25% 28% 23% 26% 26%
Clear groundwater production is less expensive than the purchase of imported water. City
groundwater production is projected to cost $150/acre feet (AF) in 1999/00 including
OCWD's replenishment assessment charge of $100/AF, while the MWDOC charge for
imported potable water (imported water) is currently $460/AF.
OCWD is planning to increase groundwater recharge projects to increase the basin yield.
OCWD also has projects proposed and underway to increase coastal protection from seawater
intrusion as pumping levels increase in the future. Although these projects are intended to
increase the groundwater supply capacity and reliability, it is also anticipated that OCWD's
replenishment assessment will increase in the future as a result.
In addition to being more cost effective, local groundwater is generally considered more
reliable than imported water. MWD facilities are periodically taken out of service for
maintenance and inspection, which generally require a minimum shutdown of 7 days. If
emergency or scheduled repairs are required, a shutdown greater than 7 days is realistic.
Also, many of the MWD pipelines cross active earthquake faults that may make the imported
water supply system susceptible to damage in a seismic event.
3.2 Groundwater Supply
The City produces groundwater via seven existing domestic water wells that meets or exceeds
i� all water quality standards at a capacity that is within the OCWD Basin Production
■ Percentage (BPP). As part of the OCWD Conjunctive Use Program, three wells are currently
being developed that will expand the City's groundwater capacity.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
�. Water Master Plan 3-2
Figure 3-1. Groundwater Production vs. Imported Water
Purchases (1995/96 - 1999/00) ❑Imported Water
®In-Lieu Imported
®Groundwater
40,000
35,000
_-
30,000
�+ 25 000
.� 20,000
c�
0 15,000
a
10,000
5,000
0
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00
Fiscal Year
3 - 3
Chapter 3-Supply
3.2.1 Groundwater Quality
Y
Potable water quality standards are set by the State of California Department of Health
Services and are enforceable under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The potable water quality
standards listed in the Title 22 California Code of Regulations include primary and secondary
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
Primary MCLs are established for a number of organic and inorganic chemicals,
trihalomethanes, and radioactivity as they relate to public health. Secondary. MCLs are
established for chemicals or characteristics as they relate to taste, odor, or appearance of
drinking water. City groundwater used for domestic drinking water meets or exceeds all State
and federal potable water quality standards.
3.2.2 Allowable Clear Groundwater Production
The amount of clear groundwater that can be produced from the Orange County Groundwater
Basin is managed by OCWD. Clear groundwater is raw groundwater that meets potable water
standards without treatment, e.g. treatment for nitrates, total dissolved solids, color, etc.
The City and other basin producers are allowed to produce clear groundwater up to a
percentage of their applicable water demands as set by OCWD each year. This is called the
Basin Production Percentage (BPP). The BPP is uniform for all members and is currently set
at 75%.
Production in excess of the BPP is assessed under the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) with a
q Y
production penalty, raising the cost of this supply to the imported water rate. However,
colored water pumped from the basin and treated is exempted from the BEA because the
removal of colored water helps prevent its migration into the clear production zones of the
basin.
All City Potable water demands projected for the planning period are applicable for
calculating the allowable groundwater productions at a 75% BPP. City clear groundwater
supplies can be utilized up to the allowable clear groundwater productions shown in Table 3-
Table 3-2. Allowable Clear Groundwater Production at 75% BPP
Ultimate w/o Ultimate w/
1Production Bolsa Chica to
YTotal Demand ~ = 34,670 37,420 38,740
A ` licable Demand 34,670 37,420 38,740
=Allowable GW Produt'hon� 'f
at 75%BPP<' F ,'- = 26,000 28,070 29,050
(a) Existing demand is taken to be a five-year average from 1995/96 to 1999/2000.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3-4
1
Chapter 3—Supply
3.2.3 Clear Groundwater Well Facilities
The existing operating capacities for the City's-;seven active-clear groundwater-wells .are
shown in Table 3-3. Well No. 4 currently has an-operating capacity of,3,000 gallons per
minute (gpm), but the supply from this well will be reduced to 500 gpm in the future in order
to eliminate sanding. Goldenwest No. 3, Goldenwest No. 4, and Meadowlark No. 2 are used
only for irrigation due to high color.
Well No. 2 is currently inactive and will be abandoned due to high color and poor condition
of the gravel pack. The Dyke Well was recently removed from active service after the
detection of NDMA. This well might be converted to a monitoring well in the future.
�. As part of the Conjunctive Use Program, OCWD provided the subsurface construction of
future Well Nos. 3A, 12, and 13. To date, Well No. 12 has been drilled with wellhead
facilities under design. Well No. 3A has been drilled with the construction of wellhead
�. facilities underway. These two wells are scheduled for startup in 20G1. Well No. 13, which
has not been drilled yet, is scheduled for startup in 2002.
The existing operating capacities of the seven active wells total 32,400 acre feet per year
(AFY), which is 25% greater than the current 75% BPP of 26,000 AFY. With the start-up of
future Well Nos. 3A, 12, and 13, the operating capacities of the existing and proposed wells
will total 42,900 AFY, which is 53% greater than the projected ultimate 75% BPP of 28,070
AFY without a Bolsa Chica annexation; 48% greater with a Bolsa Chica annexation.
Propane gas backup is recommended for Well Site Nos. 6, 9, and 10. Permanent backup
systems including propane tanks, vaporizers, and equipment to provide an automatic
switchover and run for 72 hours at full capacity could be constructed at each of the
aforementioned well sites. However, the well sites are in close proximity to residential areas
and this could restrict the amount of propane that could be permanently stored. As an
alternative, portable trailer-mounted vessels could be stored in the City's Water Division Yard
for use at the well sites when required.
3.3 Imported Water Supply
' The City purchases supplemental, treated, imported water from MWDOC, which is a member
agency of MWD. MWD imports raw water from northern California and the Colorado River,
then treats the majority of this water to potable standards at filtration plants located in
Southern California.
MAID water imported from northern California as part of the State Water Project (SWP) is
stored at Castaic Lake on the western side of the MWD service area and at Silverwood Lake
near San Bernardino. MWD water imported from the Colorado River is stored at Lake
Mathews in Riverside County. MWD is currently filling the Diamond Valley Reservoir in
Hemet, California, for regional seasonal and emergency storage of SWP water and Colorado
River water.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3-5
Chapter 3—Supply
Table 3-3. City Potable Water Well Capacities
Assumed
Existing Normal Year 2020
CapacityOperating Operating Operating
ppCapacity
Well Status g, g, gp
No.-L Active 500 500 500
To Be Abandoned 0 0 0
No.3" - Abandoned 0 0 0
No.'3a(b)'. Future(2001) 0 0 2,500
No`~,4t`1 v z' Active 3,000 2,300 500
No.'S" ` �`' Active 3,000 2,100 3,000
No.6 Active 3,000 2,900 3,000
No 7: `< Active 3,800 3,500 3,800
No.$te� �� Inactive 0 0 0
No.9 Active 3,000 2,300 3,000
NoA0 Active 3,800 2,600 3,800
Abandoned 0 0 0
No. 12(d) Future(2001) 0 0 3,000
No:l3tet µ Future(2002) 0 0 3,500
Inactive 0 0 0
Goldenwest#3� mm '_ Irrigation Only 0 0 0
Goldenwest#4 " ` Irrigation Only 0 0 0
1Vleadowlark k(c)'� Irrigation Only 0 0 0
20,100 16,200 26,600
Total(AFC = 32,400 26,100 42,900
(a) Well not used due to high color.
(b) Part of Conjunctive Use Program. Scheduled for 2001.
(c) Well production will be reduced to 500 gpm in the future to eliminate sanding.
(d) Part of Conjunctive Use Program. Scheduled for 2001.
(e) Part of Conjunctive Use Program. Well scheduled for 2002.
(f) NDMA detected. Well might be converted to a monitoring well.
(g) Well used for irrigation only due to high color.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3-6
Chapter 3-Supply
Imported potable water delivered to MWDOC comes from a single source, the Diemer
Filtration Plant, located north of Yorba Linda. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives
a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the MWD lower feeder and
SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. At this time, the blend is approximately a 50150.
split between the two sources.
Imported water is supplied to the City via three service connections: OC-9, OC-35, and OC-
P PP Y
44. All three connections supply water directly to Zone 1. The City's allocated capacities
from these connections are shown in -Table 3-4. OC-9 and OC-35 are both under the
jurisdiction of the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB), which requires 24-hours
advance notice in order to change the flow settings.
1
Both service connections are located at the intersection of Dale and Katella Streets in the City
of Stanton. Water from OC-9 and OC-35 enters Huntington Beach at the intersection of
Newland and Edinger Streets and at the intersection of Springdale -and Glenwood Streets,
respectively.
Table 3-4. Imported Water Connections
I
Allocated
Capacity Zone
Connection (gpm) Supply Location
Dale and Katella Streets
OC 9 T V" 6,300 Zone 1 (City of Stanton)
Dale and Katella Streets
OC-35 9,000 Zone 1 (City of Stanton)
Adams Ave. & Santa Ana River
6,700 Zone 1 (East Orange County Feeder No. 2)
{Totals. 'h 22,000
OC-44 is located on MWD's East Orange County Feeder No. 2. MWD, which owns the
primary meter, allows the City to take water from OC-44 on a demand basis, and does not
require advance notice in order to change the flow setting. Water is supplied to the City from
OC-44 via a 24-inch to 42-inch transmission main that is jointly owned by the City and Mesa
Consolidated Water District. A secondary metering station, owned by the City, is located on
Adams Avenue at the Santa Ana River.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3-7
Chapter 3-Supply
3.4 Emergency Connections
The City has emergency mutual-aid water connections with the- Cities of Fountain Valley,
Seal Beach, and Westminister. These Cities could provide Huntington Beach with limited
water supply in an emergency condition.3.5 Supply Under Various Operating Conditions
Commonly, supply sources other than reservoirs, e.g. groundwater wells, imported water
connections, satisfy demand conditions up to maximum-day demand and system reservoirs
supply demands above maximum-day demand including maximum-day demand plus fire-
flow demand and peak-hour demand. All of the City's reservoirs are pumped storage, e.g. a
booster station pumps water into the system from the reservoir.
3.5.1 Average-Day Demand
The projected average-day demand and available supply capacities for the planning period are
shown in Table 3-5. The existing well capacity of 20,100 gpm is sufficient to supply 93% of
the existing average-day demand. With the construction of Well Nos. 3A, 12, and 13,
sufficient groundwater capacity will be available to supply 115% of the projected ultimate
average-day demand of 23,200 gpm.
The capacity of the imported water connections is sufficient to supply 102% of the existing
average-day demand and 95% of the projected ultimate average-day demand of 23,200 gpm.
The 100% groundwater and 95% imported water supply operating scenarios were run with the
ultimate system hydraulic model and the results are discussed in Chapter 5.
3.5.1 Monthly Demand
' Average monthly demand factors were determined from water production records for the 5-
year period 1995/96 through 1999/00. Projected ultimate monthly supply and demand not
including demand for a possible Bolsa Chica annexation (1,316 AFY) is shown in Table 3-6
and on Figure 3-2.
Groundwater is typically the base supply used to satisfy monthly demands year round with
imported water or pumped storage required to meet demands in the summer months.
However, available programs such as the MWD/OCWD In-Lieu program can alter the
theoretical monthly supply shown in Table 3-6 and on Figure 3-2.
3.5.2 Maximum Day Demand
The projected maximum day demand and available supply capacities for the planning period
are shown in Table 3-7. The maximum-day demand factor used for planning purposes is 1.61
as discussed in Chapter 2. The existing well capacity of 20,100 gpm is sufficient to supply
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3-8
Chapter 3—Supply
58% of the existing Y maximum day demand. With the construction of Well Nos. 3a, 12, and
13, sufficient groundwater capacity will be available to supply 71% of the projected ultimate
maximum-day demand of 37,576 gpm.
The capacities of the imported water connections will be sufficient to supply the remainder of
the maximum-day demand throughout the planning period. Pumped storage will be available
on the maximum-demand day to satisfy peak demands (operational storage), as well as fire
and emergency supply requirements as discussed in Chapter 5.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3-9
1 Table 3-5.Projected Ultimate Average Day Demand(') & Supply Capacities
Planning i
Period
Ave 5�'a Da-Demand( 'm) 21,500 21,925 22,350 22,775 23,200
Su I Ca acitiesY( m)-
Clear`Groundwater Wells
N fir, 500 500 500 500 500
No..3a t 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
3,000 500 500 500 500
3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
.No.6 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
No 7 * :� �� s- 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800
' No..9 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
No.10 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800
No:=12,-4miz 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
No.13 . .~: 0 3,500 3,500 3,5001 3,500
Subtotal 5u 20,100 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600
olo of'Avera aDa Demand, 93% 121% 119% 117% 115%
z n a
Impoirted Water Coniiectibns
O %9 r t '3 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300
OC 35 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
OC 44 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700
Subtotal SUP l 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
% of Ave iDay Demand,,. 102% 100% 98% 97% 95%
Total Supply 42,100 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600
% of giver a Da `Demand R. 196% 222% 217% 213% 209%
(a)Not including average-day demand(816 gpm)for a possible Bolsa Chica annexation.
3- 10
Chapter 3-Supply
Table 3-6. Projected Ultimate Monthly Supply and Demand(')
Pumped
Monthly Storage or
Demand Clear Imported
i i
July 1.25 3,901 2,339 1,562 3,901
1 Augus�_, 1.28 3,995 2,528 1,467 3,995
September; 1.15 3,589 2,339 1,250 3,589
A
�7
October 1.10 3,433 2,339 1,094 3,433
Novemr 0.89 2,778 2,339 439 2,778
Dece_mtier�' 0.82 2,560 2,339 221 2,560
January.", 0.79 2,467 2,339 128 2,467
February •, 0.69 2,155 2,155 0 2,155
0.85 2,654 2,339 315 2,654
�3i _ -
April 0.94 2,934 2,339 595 2,934
May 1.08 3,368 2,339 1,029 3,368
Ju`ne� r 1.15 1 3,586 1 2,339 1 1,247 1 3,586
37,420 28,073 9,347 37,420
(a)Not including demand for a possible Bolsa Chica annexation(1,316 AFY).
(b)Ultimate average monthly projected demand=3,118 AF/month.
(c)Clear groundwater production limited to 27,300 AFY in accordance with the 75%BPP
Groundwater usage shown is theoretical. Actual usage might vary on available programs,
e.g.MWD/OCWD In-Lieu program.
r
r
TETRA TECH ASL
I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 3- 11
Figure 3-2. Projected Ultimate Monthly Supply and Demand
4,500
4,000
" Demand
3,500
:-- Average Demand _ 3
3,000
•%, Pumped Storage or
2 500 ft .;az Imported Water
v e#
A 2,000
a
1,500
1,000 Clear Groundwater
500
0
July August September October November December January February March April May June
Month
3 - 12
Table 3-7. Projected Ultimate Maximum Day Demand') & Supply Capacities
i
Period
1
Average Day Demand( m) 1 34,718 35,433 36,147 36,862 37,576
Supply Capacities( m)
' Clear Groundwater Wells
No.1 500 500 500 500 500
jNo.3a 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
No.4 3,000 500 500 500 500
No.5 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
No.6 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
' No.7 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800
No.9 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
No.10 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800
No.12 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
No.13 0 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Subtotal Supply 20,100 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600
%of Maximum Day Demand 58% 75% 74% 72% 71%
i
Imported Water Connections
OC-9 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300
OC-35 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
OC-44 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700
Subtotal.Supply 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
%of Maximum Daj
Demand 63% 62% 61% 60% 59%
Total Supply 42,100 48,600 48,600 48,600 48,600
% of Maximum Day Demand 121% 137% 134%r 132% 129%
(a)Not including maximum-day demand(1,632 gpm)for a possible Bolsa Chica annexation.
3- 13
Chapter 4 — Water System Facilities and Operation
4.1 Overview
The City's existing storage system consists of four reservoirs (Overmyer No.1, Overmyer No.
2, Overmyer No. 3 and Peck), all located in the lower pressure zone (Zone 1), with a
combined storage capacity of 40.0 million gallons (MG). Booster stations are located at the
Overmyer and Peck sites to pump water from the reservoirs into the distribution system
' (pumped storage).
The City's service area is composed of two pressure zones. Ground elevations in Zone 1 vary
' between 10 and 80 feet. Zone 2 is the 800-acre Reservoir Hill area that rises to an elevation
of 127 feet. The Reservoir Hill Booster Pump station boosts water from Zone 1 into the
Reservoir Hill area. Zone 2 does not have a storage reservoir.
In addition to the three booster pump stations, the City's existing distribution system includes
seven well pumps that pump directly into the system, three imported water connections, three
' emergency water connections with neighboring public water systems, and 577 miles of
transmission and distribution piping ranging in size from 4 inches to 42 inches in diameter.
' Typically, the seven wells pump into the distribution system to directly satisfy system
demands during the day and to fill the three system reservoirs at night when system demands
are lower. The wells have a combined supply capacity of 20,600 gallons per minute (gpm), as
discussed in Chapter 3. The engine-driven well pumps can be operated at variable speeds and
are generally operated to maintain constant flow.
The Peck, Overmyer, and Reservoir Hill booster pump stations are controlled by system
pressure at the respective complex. The lead pump at a station is activated to start when the
' system pressure drops to a specified level. Pumps are added or removed as necessary based
on increased or decreased demand as sensed by percent of current operating capacity.
All of the engine-driven pumps at the three booster pump stations can be operated at variable
speeds. The Overmyer, Peck, and Reservoir Hill booster pump stations are operated to
maintain constant discharge pressures of approximately 52, 72, and 75 pounds per square inch
(psi), respectively. The lead pump at a station is shut off when at its minimum speed and
decreasing demand causes the pump discharge pressure to rise to the specified stop pressure
and system pressure remains above this set point for a specified time. When the respective
' booster pump station is off-line, a control valve on the reservoir inlet pipeline automatically
throttles to maintain system pressures.
Earlier this year, the Overmyer reservoirs and booster pump station were evaluated for
general condition and structural integrity and the booster pumps and motors were evaluated
mechanically (Overmyer Rehabilitation Study). Based on the study's findings and
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4- 1
Chapter 4-Water System Facilities and Operation
recommendations, which are summarized in this chapter, these facilities will under reco p o g
upgrades as part of the Water Capital:Improvement Program.
' The City Y recentl finished construction on the 9.0-MG Edwards Hill Reservoir. The Edwards
Hill Booster Pump Station that will pump water from the reservoir into the distribution system
is currently under construction. These facilities are scheduled for start-up in the spring of
2001. The new booster pump station will have both dedicated Zone 1 and dedicated Zone 2
pumps. The Zone 1 and Zone 2 pumps will be operated to maintain constant discharge
pressures, respectively.
' Imported water is supplied to the City via three service connections: OC-9, OC-35, and OC-
44. The City's allocated capacities from these connections are 6,300 gpm, 9,000 gpm, and
6,700 gpm, respectively. OC-9 and OC-35 are operated on a fixed-flow basis and OC-44 is
set to operate on demand. All three connections supply water directly to Zone 1.
System pressures are generally maintained between 47 and 80 psi during normal operation.
' The tight range is attributable to the flat terrain of the City and to the utilization of variable
speed pump drives at the booster pump stations to maintain system pressures.
4.2 Storage Reservoirs and Booster Pump Stations
The characteristics of the existing storage reservoirs are shown in Table 4-1. The storage
capacity of the four existing reservoirs is 40.0 MG. The characteristics of the existing booster
pump stations are shown in Table 4-2. The new 9.0-MG Edwards Hill Reservoir and Booster
Pump Station are scheduled for start-up in the spring of 2001. The characteristics of the
' Edwards Hill Reservoir and Booster Pump Station are also shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2,
respectively.
' 4.2.1 Overmyer Reservoirs
Overmyer Reservoirs No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 and the associated booster pump station are
located at the same site at the corner of Garfield Avenue and Huntington Street at the City's
Water Division Yard.
Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2, which were built in 1960 and 1963, respectively, share a common
dividing wall. The bottom hopper of both reservoirs was constructed by excavating into
natural soils and straight walls were cast close to existing grade. The bottom and sloping
sides of the reservoir are lined with a 4-inch-thick layer of cast-in-place reinforced concrete.
The vertical walls are 9.5 feet high and the 2:1 sloping sides are 10 feet high. The common
dividing wall is 19.5 feet high. A water proofing membrane was installed before placing the
concrete floor slab. The reservoirs have an underdrain system.
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4-2
Chapter 4—Water System Facilities and Operation
Table 4-1. Characteristics of Existing Storage Reservoirs
Maximum High
Water Water
Dimensions 1 pth � i kity
Reservoir �Location (FL)
Overmyer No.1 Zone 1 101.5 x 97.5 16.5 69.5 1.0
Overmyer No.2 Zone 1 160.5 x 97.5 16.5 69.5 1.5
' Overmyer No.3 Zone 1 441 x 198 48.5 71.83 21.5
Peck Zone 1 541 x 210 23.5 33.67 16.0
Subtotal - - - - 40.0
Edwards Hill(a) Zone 1 213 Dia. 34.0 84.0 9.0
Total - - - - 49.0
' (a) The Edwards Hill Reservoir is currently under construction and is scheduled for start up later this year
(2000). This facility will be analyzed as existing for this Water Master Plan.
1 Reservoir No. 3, which was constructed in 1971, was formed by excavating into natural soils
and constructing an embankment of the excavated material. The vertical walls are 25 feet
high and the 1.5:1 sloping sides are 22 feet high. The bottom and sloping sides of the reservoir
' are lined with a 4-inch-thick layer of cast-in-place reinforced concrete. The concrete floor
rests directly on compacted soil and there is no underdrain system beneath the reservoir. The
reservoir has experienced leakage problems since it began service.
' The reservoirs were evaluated earlier this year for general condition and structural integrity as
part of the Overmyer Rehabilitation Study. In regard to Overmyer Reservoir No. 1 and No. 2,
the study concluded that there were no visually evident overriding structural or safety issues
that could not be addressed through rehabilitation. Structural calculations determined that the
existing walls and columns in both reservoirs met the current seismic design requirements of
the 1997 uniform Building Code (1997 UBC).
However, shear transfer between roof structural members and walls and between precast
' double tees failed to meet the code requirements of the 1997 UBC. The study recommended
that the existing double tees and girders be replaced with a new concrete beam and slab
system. The study also recommended that defective items such as exposed reinforcing,
bearing plate corrosion, and shear cracks be repaired to avoid further deterioration.
Rehabilitation work for Overmyer Reservoir No. 1 and No. 2 will be completed as part of the
' Water Capital Improvement Program.
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4-3
Chapter 4-Water System Facilities and Operation
Table 4-2. Characteristics of Existing Booster Pump Stations
Drive Pump Design Point
Horse 1; Flow TDH
RPM
Station Pump Zone Speed Power Type (gpm) (ft)
Peck- 1 thru 4 Zone 1 Variable 300 Natural Gas 4,500 200 1,200
' 18,000
Overmyer(a) 1 Zone 1 Variable 400 Natural Gas 6,500 110 1,180
' 2 Zone 1 Variable 400 Natural Gas 6,500 170 1,180
13,000
Reservoir Hill 3cb> Zone 1 Variable 150 Natural Gas 3;500 116 1,160
4(b) Zone 1 Variable 150 Natural Gas 3,500 130 1,160
' 7,000
Reservoir Hill(') 1 Zone Variable 10 Electric 400 52 1,770
2 Zone 2 Variable 25 Natural Gas 1,080 51 1,770
3 Zone 2 Variable 25 Natural Gas 1,080 51 1,770
4 Zone 2 Variable 75 Natural Gas 3,500 50 1,160
5 Zone 2 Variable 75 Natural Gas 3,500 51 1,160
9,560
Edwards Hill(c) 1 Zone 1 Variable 75 Dual1d) 1,500 130 1,760
2 Zone 1 Variable 75 Dual(d) 1,500 130 1,760
' 3 Zone 1 Variable 75 Dual(d1 1,500 130 1,760
4 Zone 1 Variable 75 Dual(d) 1,500 130 1,760
6,000
Edwards Dill(`) 5 Zone 2 Variable 25 Dual(d) 1,250 51 1,760
6 Zone 2 Variable 25 Dual 1,250 51 1,760
7 Zone 2 Variable 25 Dual(d) 1,250 51 1,760
3,750
(a) The Overmyer Zone 1 Pumps can also be used to pump to Zone 2 in an emergency.
(b) Overmyer Pumps 3&4,once located in the Overmyer Station,are now located at Reservoir Hill.
(c) The Edwards Hill Booster Pump Station is currently under construction and is scheduled for start up in the
spring of 2001.
(d) The pumps will be driven both by natural gas combustion engines with right angle gear drives and variable
frequency motors.
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4-4
Chapter 4—Water System Facilities and Operation
' In regard to Overmyer Reservoir No. 3, the stud concluded that there were no overriding
g
structural or safety issues that could not be addressed through rehabilitation. The analysis
' found that the concrete walls and footings were structurally inadequate for a maximum
credible earthquake with the reservoir full or with the water level below the wall.footing.
The analysis also found that the diaphragm roof is not properly anchored and is not adequate
' to resist current seismic design forces.
Rehabilitation recommended for Overmyer Reservoir No. 3 included strengthening the wall
' footing, installation of a new concrete wall liner, construction of a new roof structure with
new roof support columns and column base plates, and installation of a new membrane liner
' system on the reservoir floor and a portion of the vertical wall. Rehabilitation work for
Overmyer Reservoir No. 3 will be completed as part of the Water Capital Improvement
Program.
4.2.2 Overmyer Booster Pump Station
The pumping capacity of the Overmyer Booster Pump Station is 20,000 gpm with all four
pumps in operation and 13,500 gpm with the largest pump (6,500 gpm) acting as a backup.
All of the pumps (Pump Nos. 1 through 4) have variable speed drives. The pump station is
' operated to maintain a constant discharge pressure of 52 psi. All of the pumps have natural
gas internal combustion engines. The booster pump station can also supply water to the
Reservoir Hill area (Zone 2) when the Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station is out of service.
' Earlier this year, the Overmyer booster pump station was evaluated for general condition and
structural integrity and the booster pumps and motors were evaluated mechanically as part of
the Overmyer Rehabilitation Study. The study recommended that the entire pump station
superstructure be replaced because the critical structural elements -of the existing building
including the exterior masonry walls, roof diaphragm system, and roof connection to the
masonry walls did not meet current building codes. The study also recommended that new
natural gas engine drives be installed for the two existing pumps. This work will be completed
as part of the Water Capital improvement Program.
4.2.3 Peck Reservoir and Proposed Springdale Reservoir
The 16.0-MG Peck Reservoir and the associated booster pump station are located at the
corner of Springdale Street and Glenwood Street. As a result of the storage deficiency
calculated in the 1988 Water Master Plan, a new 9.0-MG reservoir has been proposed at the
site. The new reservoir, which would be called the Springdale reservoir, would increase
storage at the site to 25.0 MG. The City's water system storage requirements including the
need for the proposed Springdale Reservoir are updated and re-assessed in Chapter 5.
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4-5
Chapter 4—Water System Facilities and Operation
P Y Pe
' 4.2.4 Peck Booster Pump Station
' The pumping capacity of the Peck Booster Pump Station is 18,000 gpm with all four pumps
in operation.and 13,500 gpm with three.pumps in operation and one pump acting as a backup.
Pump Nos. 1 through 4, each rated at 4,500 gpm, have variable-speed drives and natural gas
engines. The pump station is operated to maintain a constant discharge pressure of 72 psi.
4.2.5 Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station
The Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station boosts water from Zone 1 to Zone 2, which is the
800-acre Reservoir Hill. Zone 2 has a high ground elevation of 127 feet. The booster pump
' station has a pumping capacity of 9,560 gpm with all five pumps in operation and 6,060 gpm
with the largest pump (3,500 gpm) out of service. Pump No. 1 has an electric motor. The
other four pumps (Pump Nos. 2 through 5) have dual drives and can be operated with natural
gas combustion engines or with electric motors.
' 4.3 Transmission and Distribution Piping
As shown in Table 4-3, there are approximately 577 miles of transmission and distribution
' piping in the water system with sizes ranging from 4 to 42 inches in diameter. The majority
of the piping in the system is 6 to 8 inches in diameter (76%) and is made of asbestos cement
pipe (87%).
' Only 1% of the piping in the system is made of cast iron (35,000 linear feet). However, this is
significant because unlined and uncoated cast iron pipe is prone to severe interior and exterior
corrosion, respectively. Unlined cast iron pipe loses much of its original carrying capacity
with age due to interior pipeline tuberculosis. This is especially true for cast iron pipe in small
diameters. The majority of the cast iron pipe in the City's distribution system is 8 inches or
' smaller in diameter. A large percentage of this pipe is located Downtown. It is
recommended that the City undergo a cast iron pipe replacement program starting with the
Downtown area.
4.3.1 Corrosion Protection
' Thirteen of the City's trunk water mains were evaluated for exterior soil-related corrosion by
PSG Corrosion Engineering (PSG) in 1990. Based on the cost estimates and
recommendations made in the study, which was updated in 1997, the City prioritized eight
pipelines for future corrosion-related rehabilitation, with five pipelines scheduled for
replacement.
1
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4-6
Chapter 4-Water System Facilities and Operation
' Table 4-3. Water Mains in Distribution System
Long
Spiral Seam
Asbestos Cast Ductile Welded Welde Not
Cement Iron CYL Iron PVC Steel Steel known
rr� ,
38,884 2,172 0 148 4,391 0 161 76 45,836
yyy
1,089,749 12,799 0 46 29,888 349 2,924 648 1,136,414
a8 1,035,670 14,316 0 2,145 118,808 261 1,323 1,260 1 1,173,783
WE
�10 48,975 0 0 0 12,372 0 0 1,772 63,119
' w ;F 12 369,516 5,422 0 0 48,229 280 2,924 0 426,371
11,796 0 0 0. 0 0 2,278 0 14,074
MAW
0 0 0 0 0 0 3,493 0 3,493
�16 37,819 0 6,151 0 5,492 0 0 0 49,462
18 0 0 0 1 0 5,666 0 311 0 5,977
t 377 0 0 0 7,507 0 24,116 0 32,000
m
337 0 1,146 0 0 12,055 2,705 0 16,243
22 42 0 0 0 0 4,946 0 0 4,988
24 20 0 0 0 4,186 1,930 1,494 0 7,630
30 2,591 0 0 0 0 0 13,188 0 15,779
. ..3,6 19 0 0 0 0 13,488 7,986 0 21,493
� < 0 0 0 0 0 10,629 9,799 0 20,428
Tota1�W
2,642,275 34,709 7,297 2,339 236,539 43,938 73,033 3,756 3,043,896
s�Total `
,(Myles 500.4 6.6 1.4 0.4 44.8 8.3 13.8 0.7 576.5
°la 86.8 1.1 0.3 0.1 7.8 1.4 2.4 0.1 100
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4-7
Chapter 4—Water System Facilities and Operation
' Fieldwork associated with the corrosion protection study included investigations of the
following:
i
• Soil corrosivity
• Passivity of existing mortar coatings
• Effectiveness of existing dielectric coatings
• Electrical continuity of water mains
• Cathodic protection requirements
• Effectiveness of existing cathodic protection systems
• Sources of possible alternating current (AC) corrosion
• Sources of possible direct current (DC) corrosion
• Electrical isolation requirements
The 13 trunk mains evaluated included the 42-inch main from Clay/Huntington to
Warner/Springdale, the 36-inch main from Warner/Springdale to Springdale/Glenwood, the
30-inch main from Clay/Huntington to Adams/Ranger, the 24-inch main on Goldenwest south
' of Clay, and the 22/21-inch main from Edinger/Newland to Huntington/Garfield.
The recommended corrosion-protection improvements were prioritized by the City and are
included in the Water CIP in three phases. The corrosion improvements include:
' • Continuity joint bonds installed across non-welded bell and spigot joints and all
mechanical joints for those pipelines with insufficient electrical continuity.
• Insulating flange kits installed to electrically isolate water mains from other metallic
piping systems for some of the pipelines.
' • Corrosion-protection test stations installed along six pipelines to monitor electrical
continuity.
The 22/21-inch transmission main, which conveys water from OC-9 at Edinger Avenue and
Newland Street to the Overmyer facilities at Huntington Street and Garfield Avenue, is a
mortar coated and lined steel cylinder pipe that was constructed in 1956. Based on the
corrosion evaluation results, this main will be abandoned and replaced with a new
transmission main as part of the Water Capital Improvement Program.
Based on the results of the hydraulic model analysis discussed in Chapter 5, it is
recommended that the new OC-9 transmission main connect to the existing 30-inch
transmission main on Yorktown Avenue. The proposed routing for the new OC-9
' transmission main is shown on Figure 4-1.
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HuJNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4-8
DEN RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
1 EXISTING 22"/21 " OC-9 TRANSMISSION MAIN TO
BE ABANDONED AND REPLACED WITH 5,300 LF OF
20" PIPELINE ON NEWLAND ST FROM OC-9 TO
a. I WARNER AVE, 8,000 OF 24" PIPELINE FROM
9
WARNER AVE TO ELLIS AVE, AND 5,300 LF OF
# 20" PIPELINE FROM ELLIS AVE TO EXISTING 30"
Lw
4
Wq, #6 6 TRANSMISSION MAIN ON YORKTOWN AVE.
c'1
,
-w
L---Li
P
IT
ELL #9
IWELL #5
A-
WE .3
L
JOLI
11D ET
EMW lyf I
BOLSA
CHICA
ws
w
EDW LL
S.
ZONE 2 L
—1=1 I Ed 4i H
E�WER.
iF
,UI
z OC-44
K=77
N ITE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRATECH ASL
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200 NEW OC-9 TRANSMISSION MAIN FIGURE 4-1
Irvine, California 92618
949) 727-7099
949) 727-7097 FAX
Chapter 4—Water System Facilities and Operation
' 4.4 Distribution System Treatment
' Gaseous chlorine (CL2) is injected at all of the well sites. Imported.water connections deliver
chloraminated MWD water into the system. Disinfection levels maintain a chlorine or
' chloramine residual of 1.0 milligram per liter (mg/1) in the distribution system. As part of the
Water Capital Improvement Program, the chlorination facilities at Well Site Nos. 6, 7, 9 and
10 will be upgraded. The upgrades will include room modifications, some building
' construction, and the installation of secondary containment vessels.
As an aid in the development of healthy teeth, fluoride at a concentration of 0.7 to 1.0 mg/1 is
provided in the water supply via injection stations located at the well sites and the imported
water connections.
1
1
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 4- 10
1
Chapter 5 — System Analysis
1
5.1 Overview
Supply sources and booster pump stations were analyzed in conjunction with storage
1 reservoirs to determine how effectively supply and storage components work together to meet
all water system operating conditions. This storage/supply analysis updates and re-assesses
the storage analysis conducted as part of the 1988 City Water Master Plan (updated in 1990)
' that calculated a significant storage deficiency for the City's water system at ultimate build-
out.
' The City's H2ONET hydraulic network model was used to simulate and analyze distribution
system performance and to recommend improvements. Demands in the model were updated
as part of this Water Master Plan to represent existing (year 2000) demands (existing system
model). Ultimate (year 2020) demands were developed as part of this Water Master Plan to
develop an ultimate system model.
The models of the existing and ultimate water systems were then used to simulate various
operating scenarios including peak-hour demand, fire flow at strategic locations throughout
the system, and a Bolsa Chica annexation.
5.2 Storage/Supply System Analysis
Storage is required in a water system to balance variations in demand (Operational Storage),
to provide water for fighting fires (Fire Storage), and to provide water when normal supplies
are reduced or unavailable due to unusual circumstances (Emergency Storage).
The 1988 City Water Master Plan, which was updated to 1990, calculated an ultimate storage
deficiency of 52.0 million gallons (MG) and 61.0 MG without and with a Bolsa Chica
annexation, respectively. However, water demand has not increased as rapidly as estimated in
1988 due to many factors including the recession, slow growth in housing in the 1990's, and
t actual demand reduction due to increased conservation efforts such as shower flow restrictors
and low flush toilets.
In retrospect, system demand in 2000 is essentially the same as it was in 1988. The ultimate
water system demand without a Bolsa Chica annexation that has been projected for this Water
Master Plan is 7.5% less than projected in the 1988 Water Master Plan (23,200 gallons per
' minute (gpm) compared with 25,062 gpm); and 8.0% less assuming a Bolsa Chica annexation
(24,016 gpm compared with 26,082 gpm).
Also, the maximum-day and peak-hour demand factors developed for this Water Master Plan
are lower than the factors developed in 1988 (1.6 and 2.5 compared with 2.43 and 4.0,
respectively). Accordingly, the ultimate maximum-day and peak-hour demands projected for
' this Water Master Plan are approximately 40% lower than the corresponding demands
TETRA TECH ASL
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5- 1
Chapter 5—System Analysis
projected in the 1988 Water Master Plan. The 1988 storage requirements uirements have been re-
assessed and updated based on the current demand projections and other factors that have
Mchanged since 1988.
Existing storage for the City consists of the three Overmyer reservoirs and the Peck Reservoir,
with a combined capacity of 40.0 million gallons (MG). Booster stations are located at both
the Overmyer and Peck reservoir sites to pump water from the reservoirs into the distribution
system. The Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station boosts water from Zone 1 into the
Reservoir Hill area (Zone 2), which does not have a storage reservoir.
The new 9.0-MG Edwards Hill Reservoir and Booster Pump Station is scheduled for start-up
in the spring of 2001. The existing reservoir capacities are shown in Tables 5-1.
Table 54, Existing Reservoir Capacities
Capacity
Reservoir Location (MG)
[QviriiiyerrvNo 1` Zone 1 1.0
Overm erNo.-2 '.,.4: Zone 1 1.5
Overm er`No.13. ',"•fc: Zone 1 21.5
PeC07 Zone 1 16.0
Subtotal- - 40.0
1
Edwards Hilt ` Zone 1 9.0
Total—.1--:-:., 49.0
r
(a) The Edwards Hill Reservoir is currently under construction and is scheduled for start up in the
spring of 2001.
Commonly, supply sources other than reservoirs, e.g. groundwater wells, imported water
connections, are sized to collectively satisfy maximum-day demand and system reservoirs
supply demands above maximum day demand. Storage reservoirs and supply sources with
emergency power must supply system demand when other normal sources of supply are
unavailable and/or a local electric-power outage occurs. This emergency supply must be
available on the maximum-demand day after operational and fire storage have been depleted.
1
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -2
Chapter 5—System Analysis
Because Zone 2 does not have a storage reservoir, operational, fire, and emergency storage for
Zone 2 must be made available from the Zone 1 system and reservoirs. The Zone 1 supply
sources must then produce the maximum.day demand for the entire system plus the Zone 2
operational volume. Also, the Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station must have sufficient
pumping capacity to convey the required storage volume into Zone 2 from Zone 1 and must
be reliable.
The storage/supply analysis was conducted with projected ultimate system demands with and
without a Bolsa Chica annexation.
5.2.1 Operational Storage/Supply
Typically, supply sources in a water system are designed to supply maximum day demand and
storage reservoirs are sized to supply the hourly demands in excess of maximum day demand.
This storage volume is termed operational storage. Operational storage is often determined
from hourly diurnal flow data, which is currently not available for the City. When this data is
unavailable, water agencies often reserve 25% of maximum day demand for operational
storage.
The City in being located along the Pacific Ocean has a moderate climate that helps to
dampen demand variation. As a result, the City's actual operational storage may be slightly
less than the 25% of maximum day rule-of-thumb. However, to be conservative, 25% of
' maximum day demand was used as the operational storage requirement for the City's water
system for this Water Master Plan.
5.2.2 Fire Storage/Supply
Because a fire can occur on any day and at any time, the adequacy of fire storage and supply
was analyzed on the maximum demand day after operational storage had been depleted. In
the City's 1988 Water Master Plan, the City Fire Department identified a maximum fire flow
storage requirement for the City of two simultaneous 5,000-gpm fire flows for a 5-hour
' duration occurring on the maximum-demand day. This will be used as the fire-flow
requirement for this Water Master Plan.
Booster pump stations utilized to satisfy the fire flow requirements must be reliable with
redundant sources available for back up. For this reason, the largest pump at the Reservoir
Hill Booster Pump Station was assumed out of service in analyzing the adequacy of Zone 2
fire-flow supply.
5.2.3 Emergency Storage/Supply
Three different emergency storage/supply conditions were analyzed:
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -3
Chapter 5—System Analysis
Emergency Condition No. 1:
The availability of emergency storage to supply one day of average demand for the
entire water system.
Emergency Condition No. 2:
The availability of emergency storage/supply to supply 80% of average demand
during a seven-day outage of the City's imported water supply.
Emergency Condition No. 3:
The availabilityof emergency storage/supplyto su 1 80% of average demand
g Y supply g
during a seven-day outage of the City's imported water supply combined with the
complete loss of electric power.
All three emergency conditions were assumed to occur after operational and fire storage had
been depleted on the maximum-demand day.
In regards to Emergency Condition No. 1, area water purveyors have adopted emergency
storage requirements as low as 0.33 and as high as five days of average system demand. The
five-day requirement is based on an MWD imported water outage, which is covered under
Emergency Condition Nos. 2 and 3 for this Water Master Plan. An emergency storage
requirement of one day of average demand was recommended in the City's 1988 Water
Master Plan and will be used as Emergency Condition No. 1 in this Water Master Plan.
Emergency Condition No. 2 is based on MWD's recommendation that member agencies have
an emergency or backup supply sufficient to cover a 7-day imported water supply outage.
MWD pipelines are well designed, with most of the pipelines constructed of welded steel
pipe. However, MWD pipelines traverse hundreds of miles in areas with high seismic
potential and this makes the imported water supply system susceptible to damage in a seismic
event. Water contamination could be another reason for a possible shutdown of the imported
water delivery system.
Emergency Condition No. 3 considers the same 7-day imported water outage as in Emergency
Condition No. 2, but also assumes a concurrent loss of electric power. This condition could
be the result of a remote earthquake that decommissions a portion of the area electric power
grid in addition to the City's imported water supply.
In Emergency Condition Nos. 2 and 3 it was assumed that the City would go to public
notification and that water demand would be reduced to 80% of average-day demand. To
ensure system reliability and redundancy, one 6,500-gpm, gas-driven pump (Zone 1) at the
Overmyer Booster Pump Station, one 3,500-gpm, gas-driven pump (Zone 2) at the Reservoir
Hill Booster Pump Station, and Well No. 7, which is the largest capacity well at 3,800 gpm
and also gas-driven, were assumed out of service for maintenance or repair.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -4
M
Chapter 5—System Analysis
A fourth Emergency Condition is a local earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault that runs
underneath the City. This emergency scenario was analyzed in detail in the 1999 City of
Huntington Beach Infrastructure Restoration Study (Special Study Report on the Water and
Drainage System Infrastructure) prepared by the U.S. Army Corp (1999 Army Corps Study).
The estimated consequences to the distribution system immediately following the earthquake
includes a complete loss of electrical power, a partial loss of gas service, a 50% loss in
reservoir capacity, a 40% loss in well capacity, and major distribution pipeline ruptures in
conjunction with a required 27 fire flows.
The water system improvements required to satisfy this catastrophic emergency condition are
beyond the City's current available funding and will not be considered the overriding
emergency condition for this Water Master Plan. It should be noted that the probability of a
remote earthquake decommissioning the City's imported water supply and/or the area electric
power grid is deemed greater than a local earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault.
However, the 1999 Army Corps Study recommendation for pumped storage south of the
Newport-Inglewood fault, in the southeast area of the City, will be considered in this Water
Master Plan.
5.2.4 Water System Storage/Supply Analysis
Storage and supply facilities were evaluated under maximum day, fire, and emergency
demand conditions to identify storage and/or supply deficiencies. Analysis of Zone 2
determined how much water was required from Zone 1.
Pressure Zone 2
The ultimate maximum day demand projected for Zone 2 is 3.28 million gallons per day
(mgd) or 2,280 gpm. At 25% of the maximum day demand, the operational storage
requirement for Zone 2 is 0.82 MG. A 5,000-gpm fire flow for five hours is taken to be the
Zone 2 fire-flow requirement because of industrial and commercial land use in Zone 2. This
equates to a required fire storage of 1.50 MG. The combined storage requirement of 2.32 MG
must be available in Zone 1 reservoirs since Zone 2 does not have a reservoir.
' The Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station has a Zone 2 pumping capacity of 6,060 gpm with
the largest pump (3,500 gpm) out of service. The Edwards Hill Booster Pump Station will
have a pumping capacity of 3,750 gpm with all three Zone 2 pumps in operation. The
combined Zone 2 pumping capacity of 9,810 gpm is sufficient to supply the maximum day
demand plus fire flow requirement of 7,280 gpm.
All of the Reservoir Hill and Edwards Hill Zone 2 booster pumps have or will have,
respectively, natural gas drives with the exception of one 400-gpm electric-driven pump at the
Reservoir Hill Booster Pump Station. Available natural gas-driven pumps and emergency
backup LPG at the existing booster pump stations (including proposed LPG backup at
Edwards Hill) is shown in Table 5-2. In the event of an electric-power outage, 9,410 gpm of
Zone 2 pumping capacity would be available to supply all Zone 2 projected ultimate demands
assuming one of the 3,500 gpm pumps at Reservoir Hill to be out of service.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5-5
Chapter 5—System Analysis
Table 5-2. Available Gas-Driven Pumps and Emergency Backup LPG at EAstin
g
Booster Pump Stations
Backup Motor Pump Available 1
LPG Tank Rated 11P/ Design Emergency
(gal) Station Pump Zone Design Drive Type (gpm) (days)
10,000tD} Peck 1 thru 4 Zone 1 300/290 Natural Gas 4,500
18,000 3.6
Overmyer(0 1 Zone 1 400/350 Natural Gas 6,500
2 Zone 1 400/350 Natural Gas 6,500
800/700 13,000 2.8
y Reservoir Hill(` 3(d) Zone 1 150/140 Natural Gas 3,500
3,900 x 2 4(d) Zone 1 150/140 Natural Gas 3,500
7,800
300/280 7,000 2.8
------------------ --------- -------- ------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
Reservoir Hill(`) 2 Zone 2 25/21 Natural Gas 1,080
3 Zone 2 25/21 Natural Gas 1,080
4 Zone 2 75/65 Natural Gas 3,500
t;
5 Zone 2 75/65 Natural Gas 3,500
200/172 9,160 2.8
Edwards Hill(`) 1 Zone 1 75/65 Dual") 1,500
2 Zone 1 75/65 Dual( 1,500
~ 3 Zone 1 75/65 Dual(') 1,500
4 Zone 1 75/65 Dual(O 1,500
1400 300/260 6,000 1.9
x Edwards Hill(`) 5 Zone 2 25/21 Dual(o 1,250
6 Zone 2 25/21 Dual(o 1,250
` � ± 7 Zone 2 25/21 Dual" 1,250
75/63 3,750 1.9
(a) Based on using all available pumps @ design performance. Based on the rule-of-thumb of 1/10 gallon of
LPG per each operating engine horsepower for one hour of operation.
(b) Well Nos. 4 and 7 are located at the Peck site and can also be powered by the 10,000 gal. LPG tank in an
emergency. However,the available 3.6 days shown does not include supply to Well Nos. 4 and 7.
(c) The Zone 1 Pumps can also be used to pump to Zone 2 in an emergency.
(d) Pumps 3 and 4,once located in the Overmyer Station,are now located in the Reservoir Hill Station.
(e) The Edwards Hill Booster Pump Station is currently under construction and is scheduled for start up in the
spring of 2001.
(f) The pumps will be driven both by natural gas combustion engines with right angle gear drives and variable
frequency motors.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -6
Chapter 5—System Analysis
Entire Water System
Zone 1 must provide the storage/supply requirements for the entire water system (Zone 1 and
Zone 2) because Zone 2 does not have any storage reservoirs or supply sources. The ultimate
maximum day demand for the entire system without a Bolsa Chica annexation is projected to
be 54.1 MG (37,576 gpm) using maximum day peak factors of 1.6 for Zone 1 and 2.0 for
Zone 2.
At 25% of the maximum day demand, the operational storage requirement is 13.5 MG. The
two simultaneous 5,000-gpm fire flows for five hours equates to a required fire storage of 3.0
MG. The available existing storage of 49.0 MG including Edwards Hill is sufficient to supply
the 16.5-MG storage requirement, leaving 32.5 MG available for emergency conditions.
Emergency Condition No. 1 is emergency storage equivalent to one day of average system
demand. Average system demand for the ultimate system without a Bolsa Chica annexation
is 33.4 MG (23,200 gpm). After operational and fire storage have been depleted, the available
system storage is 32.5 MG, which is sufficient to provide 0.97 days of average system
demand, which essentially satisfies Emergency Condition No. 1.
Construction of the proposed 9.0-MG Peck Reservoir expansion (Springdale Reservoir)
would provide an additional 0.27 days for a total of 1.24 days of average system demand. A
summary of the system storage analysis without a Bolsa Chica annexation that includes
Emergency Condition No. 1 is shown in Table 5-3.
Emergency Condition No. 2 is emergency storage/supplysufficient to cover a seven-day
g Y g Y Y
outage of the imported water supply. After operational and fire storage have been depleted,
the available system storage is 32.5 MG. Available groundwater well capacity in combination
with available storage is then required to provide for seven days of 80% of average system
demand, which calculates to 187.0 MG.
Under Emergency Condition No. 2 and 3 it is assumed that Well No. 7, which is the largest
g Y
capacity well at 3,800 gpm and also gas-driven, would be out of service for maintenance or
repair. Under this assumption, the available well capacity under Emergency Condition No. 2
would be 32.8 mgd as shown in Table 5-3, which would total 229.6 MG for 7 days.
Propane gas backup is recommended for Well Site Nos. 6, 9, and 10. Permanent backup
systems could be constructed at each of the aforementioned well sites or portable trailer-
mounted vessels could be stored in the City's Water Division Yard for use at the well sites
when required.
Under Emergency Condition No. 2 and 3 it is also assumed that one 6,500-gpm, gas-driven
pump (Zone 1) at the Overmyer Booster Pump Station would be out of service for repair or
maintenance. For both emergency conditions, the available Zone 1 booster capacity would be
56.0 mgd, which would be sufficient to cover all anticipated demands.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -7
Chapter 5-System Analysis
Table 5-3. Summary of Storage/Supply Analysis (Without Bolsa Chica)
Emergency Emergency
ConditionStorage or Supply Condition Condition
Entire Water System(MG) No. I(a) No.2(b' No.NO
Aa
13.5 13.5 13.5.
� x
F �� 3.0 3.0 3.0
enc 33.4 187.0 187.0
Total Re u 49.9 203.5 203.5
Available
Storages ti A F 49.0 49.0 49.0
Well Su 1 - NA 229.6 164.5
SubtotalAva>dable 49.0 278.6 213.5
Op
Subtotal Sur lus or efeit (0.9) 75.1 10.0
S r daleReservoi%s� 9.0 9.0 9.0
Total Available 58.0 287.6 222.5
Total Sur hii§ r eficit 8.1 84.1 19.0
(a) Emergency Storage equivalent to one day of average system demand.
(b) Emergency storage/supply sufficient to cover a seven-day outage of the imported water supply.
(c) Emergency storage/supply sufficient to cover a seven-day outage of the imported water supply
combined with complete loss of electric power.
A summary of the system storage analysis without a Bolsa Chica annexation that includes
Emergency Condition No. 2 is shown in Table 5-3. The available storage/supply is sufficient
to provide for all of the storage/supply requirements with a 75.1-MG surplus. Construction of
the proposed 9.0-MG Springdale Reservoir would increase this surplus to 84.1 MG.
Emergency Condition No. 3 is emergency storage/supply sufficient to cover a seven-day
outage of the imported water supply combined with a complete loss of electric power. As
shown in Table 5-4, 23.5 mgd of gas-driven well supply would be available assuming Well
No. 7 to be out of service for repair or supply. This well supply equates to 164.5 MG over 7
days.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5-8
Chapter 5—System Analysis
Table 5-4. Available Well Supply Under Emergency Condition Nos. 2 and 3
Emergency Ernergency
Condition No. 2 Condition
Proposed
Capacity Capacity Pump Capacity
1 500 500 Electric 0
38t8} 2,500 2,500 Electric 0
500 500 Electric 0
x
3,000 3,000 Electric(a) 0
u :
6 3,000 3,000 Gas 3,000
? 3,800 Ocb> Gas 0(b)
9 3,000 3,000 Gas 3,000
f
10 x r 3,800 3,800 Gas 3,800
12ta?ft 3,000 3,000 Gas 3,000
13Cs? 3,500 3,500 Gas 3,500
26,600 22,800 - 16,300
Total
39.0 32.8 - 23.5
(a) Proposed
(b) Well 7 is assumed to be out of service due to repairs or maintenance
A summary of the system storage analysis without a Bolsa Chica annexation that includes
Emergency Condition No. 3 is shown in Table 5-3. The available storage/supply is sufficient
to provide for all of the storage/supply requirements with a 10.0 MG surplus. Construction of
the proposed 9.0-MG Springdale Reservoir would increase this surplus to 19.0.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -9
Chapter 5—System Analysis
The results of the storage/supply analysis with a Bolsa Chica annexation are summarized in
Table 5-5. Average and maximum-day water demands of 816 gpm and 1,632 gpm were
estimated for the proposed 220-acre development in the 1998 Plan of Works for Bolsa Chica.
A 4.0-MG reservoir, which would be built by the Developer, is proposed as part of the water
system that would serve the Bolsa Chica development.
With a Bolsa Chica annexation, average-day system demand for the ultimate system would be
34.6 MG (24,016 gpm) and the total system maximum-day demand would be 56.5 MG
' (39,208 gpm). At 25% of the maximum day demand, the operational storage requirement
would be 14.1 MG.- With the fire storage requirement of 3.0 MG, the combined storage
requirement would be 17.1 MG, which could be met with available existing storage of 49.0
MG (including Edwards Hill) with 31.9 MG left for emergency conditions.
The available existing storage could provide 0.92 days of average-day demand, which would
be insufficient in meeting the one-day requirement of Emergency Condition No. 1. However,
a 4.0-MG reservoir in Bolsa Chica would increase emergency storage to 1.04 days.
Construction of the proposed 9.0-MG Springdale Reservoir would provide an additional 0.27
days for a total of 1.30 days of average system demand. System storage requirements
associated with Emergency Conditions Nos. 2 and 3 are satisfied with the surpluses shown in
Table 5-5.
Based on the results of the g anal sis, the Cit 's storage and supplysystem stem with the
Y Y
construction of the Springdale Reservoir and Booster Pump Station is sufficient to cover the
requirements set forth in this Water Master Plan. No additional storage or supply facilities are
required.
However, pumped storage in the southern part of the City, south of the Newport-Inglewood
fault, is recommended based on the findings in the 1999 Army Corps Study. Currently there
is no storage in this area. The 1999 study concluded that water transmission supply pipelines
crossing the fault would be ruptured by a design-basis earthquake on this fault, leaving the
area south of the fault without a water supply. The study anticipated that a portion of the
major water mains crossing the fault could be repaired within 5 hours after the earthquake to
provide partial service to the southern areas isolated by the fault. The locations of the
Newport-Inglewood fault and of the City's existing and proposed pumped storage reservoirs
is shown on Figure 5-1.
The City is in preliminary negotiations to purchase property. at the Edison Company
generating plant site as the location for a potential pumped-storage reservoir. It is
recommended that a pumped storage reservoir be located at this site or another site in the
southeast to provide fire plus emergency storage for the area south of the fault and east of
Bolsa Chica. The area to be served by the pumped storage reservoir is shown on Figure 5-1.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5- 10
Chapter 5-System Analysis
Table 5-5. Summary of Storage/Supply Analysis (With Bolsa Chica).
Emergency Emergency Emergency
Storage or Supply i
Entire Water System(MG) No. I(a) No. 2(h) No.3('* m
Regwred
O rationale ' s= 14.1 14.1 14.1
Fuew �x 3.0 3.0 3.0
Erg"'` enc ,-, 34.6 193.6 193.6
mw-
Total Re ui ,n 51.7 210.7 210.7
"Available
V MV, m
Storage 49.0 49.0 49.0
WellSu 1 '� g NA 229.6 164.5
. .
SubtotalAvaable _ 49.0 278.6 213.5
Subtotal S. lus or:(Defic )r �: (2.7) 67.9 2.8
PrOPOSed$0 , Cm `
4.0 4.0 4.0
Zg
Subtotal Available 53.0 282.6 217.5
Subtotal-,S,ur Iuswor;(Defict)R. 1.3 71.9 6.8
100
Prosed S "' dale Reservoir 9.0 9.0 9.0
Total Available 62.0 291.6 226.5
TotalaSui`lus orw eficrt. 10.3 80.9 15.8
(a) Emergency Storage equivalent to one day of average system demand.
(b) Emergency storage/supply sufficient to cover a seven-day outage of the imported water supply.
(c) Emergency storagetsupply sufficient to cover a seven-day outage.of the imported water supply
combined with complete loss of electric power.
(d) A 4.0-MG reservoir is proposed as part of the water system that would serve the Bolsa Chica
development.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 - 11
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
0
0
0
II FUTURE i...
WELL #12j
3511
at..44.......,
PECK FACILITIES. WELL'
FUI E WELL #13
_ Bo LSA
ELL..#1
�1
EN
t.
I
�,...1 _....._., ... L.... .... . ...........
— r T ....... ..:...........
._ ..._ _[r ..�...
=A _._iiFI Li... Ica
�.. r ,..
N
1
r ........... ;
r _ f _ � ,,f
-
a _.
;
:_,tf ( —
� � 8' 1
� :'�` � I l._..Lll L.J.::_ :=- .i.... � I - =�W' I #6i Ems........:_ _
,
_ r ..........
ppLL
Lu
LLI
JT(
12
I i...� 1 wAttt`R' W1 L--r -WELL #9
.�� J �- � TI... ufi E r
�T #
I
/ L L... tS LL .L.; E
_....... -- .....
j T
FL _r.. ER.... __�.__._. .1_.._
w
,
,
BALSA [I" r 11 1_.,,.I....;ALBERT ...........a-IL ........
I�
Y�: I
Y i
CHICA _ i. ( E 2
m,i 1
__..... .
4�"`
y
> > sr
7 a
`„, Fs . i �,1 I-1 :li._ - pKTOWN
.� r
m �F
I
i
.. _..
1
SERVICE AREA FOR PROPOSED SOUTHEAST
,, FACILITIES AND TRANSMISSION MAINS - _
�O�Eb�
ISS10p. NS
SEE FIGURE 5-2 FOR x hz
ENLARGED VIEW
x �I
>�
PROPOSED 10.0 MG RESERVOIR, x h ,
11,000 GPM BPS AT SOUTHEAST SITE y ;
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH ASS SERVICE AREA FOR
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92618 PROPOSED RESERVOIR AND BPS FIGURE 5-1
(949) 727-7099(949) 727-7097 FAX AT SOUTHEAST SITE
Chapter 5—System Analysis
The ultimate average-day demand for this area is projected to be 5,900 gpm. The emergency
storage requirement for this area is recommended to be one day of average demand, which is
calculated to be 8.5 MG. With a fire storage requirement of one 5,000-gpm fire for 5 hours
(1.5 MG), the total required storage volume is calculated to be 10.0 MG. It is recommended
that that associated booster pumps be sized to supply 11,000 gpm, which is approximately the
average-day demand plus fire-flow for this area.
To adequately supply water from the proposed reservoir site in the southeast, it is
recommended that approximately 10,400 linear-feet of 16-inch to 24-inch transmission main
be constructed in parallel with existing 12-inch water main. The proposed routing as shown
on Figure 5-2 is north on Newland Street, then west on Atlanta Avenue to a tie-in with the 20-
inch Downtown transmission main at Lake Street.
Construction of a 10.0 MG reservoir at a southeast site, in addition to the proposed 9.0 MG
Springdale Reservoir, would provide a total of 1.54 days of emergency storage at average
system demand without a Bolsa Chica annexation and 1.60 days with a Bolsa Chica
annexation that assumes a 4.0 MG Bolsa Chica Reservoir.
5.3 Distribution System Analysis
The City's existing H20NET hydraulic network model was used to simulate and analyze
distribution system performance and to recommend improvements as part of this Water
Master Plan. The City's model was developed in 1999 from a geographical information
system database (GIS). The majority of the pipe in the system is made of asbestos-cement
�. pipe (87%), which was assigned a Hazen-Williams friction factor of 130 in the model.
Demands in the model were updated as part of this Water Master Plan to represent existing
(year 2000) demands (existing system model). Eleven fire flow tests were conducted
throughout the City to re-calibrate the model. The model results were very close to the
hydrant test results as shown in Table 5-6. Based on these results, the existing system model
was deemed calibrated
City water billing and production data, population data from CSUF, and land use from the
City's Planning Department were used to develop ultimate demands for an ultimate system
model (year 2020) as part of this Water Master Plan.
The distribution models were used to simulate various operating scenarios including peak-
hour demand, fire flow at strategic locations throughout the system, and a Bolsa Chica
annexation.
1 5.3.1 Existing System Analysis
1 Average-Day Demand
A normal average-day demand simulation was run and pressures in the system were found to
be good with a low pressure of 47 psi. The pressures below 50 psi occurred in Zone 1 in the
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 - 13
cb
ET .
I LLJ
j ATLAI\T�
i L
...........
p OPOSED1 6 j_P4�fACCE I j
R MAIN
----------------
11 IjR61POSED 20" 'PARALLEL WATER AIN C
`.--PROPOSED 24" PARALLEL WATER AfN
N
0( PK -11O Sol ST STI
I —P IPL STATION,
5Q
ED pr
PROPOSE-D, 10 MG. SO TF ERVOtR
E H'
N P R!
V
i'XY
N DdV
to
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY: PROPOSED SOUTHEAST
TETRATECH ASIL
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Site 200 RESERVOIR, BPS, AND FIGURE 5-2
,mine, California 92618
949 727-7099
949J 727-7097 FAX TRANSMISSION MAINS
low M W M4= m m m m m � m m Mon
Table 5-6. Existing System Model Calibration Results
Hydrant Test Data(9t7/00) Model Results
Hydrant Dynamic Static Model Dynamic % Static %
Test Flow Pressure Pressure Junction
No. Location Time (gpm) (psi) (psi) No. (psi) (psi)
Buskin ham Graham 845 2650 64 72 568 62 -3% 72 0%
g
m � Melody&'Rb soiy ,
8 38 ., 2235 63 . 76 3472 56 -11% 76 0%
Gaurelharst MBr*an _ ., 1 '8 50 2510 71 78 3547 66 -7% 75 -4%
w .�
" 4 Elm&C ress 9 02 2470 58 70 7064 56 -3% 70 0%
'.Nit yi", +,a^ • ' �m';r-p " 4,' ti;;.
Moonfield&Ivorycrest *r,9 27 `;` 2280 65 81 9514 59 -9% 82 1%
r G�
6 Saddleback_&Derby'-Zone.; 9:40` 2580 56 75 10266 50 -11% 77 3%
7 Forelle&Patterson w -b%55 9 55 1920 36 57 9784 43 19% 56 -2%
A 14
.. "1
$ Hess&Uticay -i10 07 1820 44 61 13486 45 2% 60 -2%
9 . Orange&14th r 10 22 2020 59 67 15728 59 0% 67 0%
woF '
Olana&'Yarkto�vp "1U.41 2190 58 73 12732 57 -2% 71 -3%
sm
11� Pinetree&H Waterfront 11 00 2510 60 72 17985 62 3% 73 1%
5 - 15
Chapter 5—System Analysis
1 vicinityof the Zone 2 border just to the east of Main Street between Garfield Avenue and
J
Yorktown and just to the south of Yorktown Avenue between Main Street and Goldenwest
Street (southeast Zone 2 border area). The ground elevations in this area are high relative to
the Zone 1 hydraulic grade (52 psi at Overmyer). Pipe velocities were good throughout the
system with the majority of pipe velocities below 5 feet per second (fps) and only a few
isolated velocities above 5 fps, but below 6 fps.
Peak-Hour Demand
1 A peak-hour simulation was run and pressures in the system were found to be good with a low
P
pressure of 42 pounds per square inch (psi). The pressures below 50 psi again occur in the
southeast Zone 2 border area. The majority of system pipe velocities were below 6 fps.
5.3.2 Ultimate System Analysis Without Bolsa Chica
Some of the low pressure areas identified in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan during high
demand did not occur in this analysis of the City's ultimate water system because ultimate
' maximum-day and peak-hour demands projected for this Water Master Plan are
approximately 40% lower than the corresponding demands projected in the 1988 Water
Master Plan. Also, some of the areas that had deficient fire-flows in the 1988 Water Master
Plan were not found to be deficient in this analysis because of the lower maximum day
demand projected for the ultimate water system.
Average-Day Demand
A normal average-day demand simulation was run and pressures in the system were found to
be good with a low pressure of 47 psi occurring in the southeast Zone 2 border area. Pipe
velocities were good throughout the system with the majority of pipe velocities below 5 fps
and only a few isolated velocities above 5 fps, but below 6 fps.
An average-day demand simulation was run with 100% of supply coming from system wells.
The pressures in the system were found to be good with a low pressure of 46 psi occurring in
the southeast Zone 2 border area.
An average-day demand simulation was run with 95% of supply (22,000 gpm) coming from
the three imported water connections at full capacities. In order to balance, the model
required the following supplies from the three Zone 1 booster pump stations: Peck at 600 gpm
(2.4%), Overmyer at 500 gpm (2.0%) and Edwards Hill at 130 gpm (0.6%). The pressures in
the system were found to be good with a low pressure of 46 psi occurring in the southeast
Zone 2 border area.
Peak-Hour Demand
The pressures in the system were found to be good with a low pressure of 42 psi occurring in
the southeast Zone 2 border area. Pressures in Sunset Heights (in the vicinity of Warner
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 - 16
Chapter 5—System Analysis
Avenue and Marina View Lane and in the southeast which were found to be below 40 psi in
the 1988 Water Master Plan analysis, were above 50 psi in this analysis. The majority of
system pipe velocities were below 6 fps.
Maximum-Day Demand with Fire Flow
General City fire flow requirements were established in the 1999 City of Huntington Beach
' Infrastructure Restoration Study (Special Study Report on the Water and Drainage System
Infrastructure) prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers based on information provided
by the City Fire Marshal and approved by the City Water staff for that report. These general
fire flow requirements, shown in Table 5-7, will be used to analyze City fire flows under
maximum-day demand in this Water Master Plan.
The fire flows shown in Table 5-7 could be reduced if the building in question has been
provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. However, the resulting fire flow can
not be less than 1,500 gpm.
Table 5-7. Water Master Plan Fire Flow Requirements(a)
Flow
Fire Flow Duration
Land Use Designations (gp
I ow Dens>i Res><denti �� 2,000 2
NN
M h Densl Residential 4,000 4
fi. r
Mobile'Park ` `s � ,_ 3,000 3
Commercial Industrial`s 5,000 5
�a
Ho SP
ital 'r 6,000 5
(a) The data in this table provides general City fire flow criteria to be used in this Water Master Plan. Actual
fire flow requirements should be determined according to the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
Uniform Fire Code. The fire flows shown could be reduced if the building in question is provided with an
approved automatic sprinkler system. However,the fire flow cannot be less than 1,500 gpm.
Nineteen fire flow simulations were run for the locations shown on Figure 5-3. The locations
were selected based on perceived weakness of fire flow supply due to high ground elevations,
missing pipe loops or segments, and/or remote distance from supply sources. The results of
the analyses are shown in Table 5-8.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 - 17
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
0
0
0
ICI FUTURE
T'� I
` WELL #12 I - : 35-i
�. ..........
W L 4 . ._ f.....1......G--
,P.ECK FACILITIES.; WELL #
FUTU WELL #13
i
— I ( .i ..! BOLsA
"" '#1 r
717
t
�_.
-t-�. f�f' i INcF BEN
r -...._ _ ......_ -
{ !
ij r
w LL _tW.
.__!_
_ -
„
- a COMM ~., i(_ �' "_„-.
C/�Y/)IL,.ELOI�C 4000 GpM .� i T� �.. I j{ — LLI{L`\ —9
i � I�
NG h r r_..1 1 — J h— 1 _ .... [�.. _..
' l
`•1�=� �`� 4�/ T'."
t 1 ti t �il- y RES 1 I(� A -1. - COM I 1 r I i �.._. .
ti A L�FLOW i520f�.- - �.. _. _!
SUNS G Y 7 1(J — a m. — (r !
VAIL FLOW 7 GPM �1
-fl.'W L -"WELL #9
r
< ( _I!
r
GPM—
!
...a... h v y i....._,..._ L.S!f R..._a I_I1
......_...._....._.t,._......,........1 _........... _-t_ � 1 I T r_.
V: - COMMERCIAL
�_ti.IJ ,..~ - 5000FLOW
TT f PM
y O LMlS ID
� GPM I {l
�. .!...TALBERTBOLSA
I
_.._.. r ... ......
COMMERCIAL
CHICA r
yQ? ...EWS �� -r......; _ y' a
IND IAL
VAI i N GPM
EDW D LLrt ! 2r
AC` IL lES` , E
b-
. �. ESER�pIR � r
ZONE 2 W
g
r
Q YE Ava �._99 _
7
�-jl-r ---
w �T /t >( L_... TNAKTOWN-!-
FF19 - LOW DENSITY R 1 ! ! �) .. i. f
AVAIL FLOW - 2200'GPM_ n r` r' I r__ � �-
Er
J
r _.. �l.�f fi
•-
t 17 I Dp'POLIS_I
HI D .A1' RE$IDENTUIL.....
¢ �L;FLOW 42001 GPM
B PIER:
Y
��ff 1�1155 }7
"¢YOW M
FF14 - COMMERCIAL .` W ; , �_ -=j—
AVAIL FLOW 10000 GPM j �(�. f.I ! j Fri -
2 SIMULTANEOUS FlRES DOWNTOWN / III` „ �j.r-ir -MED/yl'DENSITY �tC
,' -
�� FLOW 5 GP_
....._ ({
2 - NDU ..Y!...
Ill__ �"' TO
!i
r-f r
FF04 - LOW DENSITY ESI, ENTIAL`.
AVAIL FLOW 2800 GPM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH ASL ULTIMATE MODEL FIGURE 5-3
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92616(949) 727-7099 LOCATIONS OF FIREFLOW SIMULATIONS
(949) 727-7097 FAX
i r rr rr rr rr rr +r r� r rr �r rr �r rr �r rr� r r�
Table 5-8.Summary of Fireflow Simulation Results(a)
Fire Flow psi Residual
Hydrants Available Available
Fire Flow Land Use' Used in Without With
Test No. Location/Note Category"' Required(" Simulation' nprovernei Improvements Improvement
FF01 Peter's Landing @ Huntington Harbor Commercial 5,000 4 4,000 4,300 100 LF 8"&320 LF 12"
on Anderson St.
FF08 Northwest Huntington Beach HDR 4,000 1 5,200 NA NA
FFI 1 Northwest Huntington Beach Commercial 5,000 4 4,800 5,700 80 LF 6"Cross-Tie
on Bolsa Chica St.
FF12 Northwest Huntington Beach HDR 4,000 1 5,500 NA NA
FFIO Just West of Huntington Central Park LDR 2,000 1 2,200 NA NA
FF09 Goldenwest St.&Warner Ave.Intersect. Commercial 5,000 1 7,100 NA NA
FF06 Zone 2 Industrial 5;000 1 5,500 NA NA
FF19 Zone 2 LDR 2,000 1 2,200 NA NA
FF15 Zone I in Southeast Zone 2 Border Area Commercial 5,000 1 6,000 NA NA
FF07 Beach Blvd.&Slater Ave.Intersect. Commercial 5,000 1 5,000 NA NA
FF16 Beach Blvd.and Talbert Ave.Intersect. Commercial 5,000 1 5,600 NA NA
FF17 Beach Blvd.and Williams St.Intersect. Commercial 5,000 3 1,900 5,200 530 LF 8"on West Side Beach
&100 LF 12"Cross-Tie @ Owen
FF18 Beach Blvd.and Owen St.Intersect. Commercial 5,000 3 2,500 7,000 Same Improvement as FF 17
FF05 South Central HB near Pier Mixed Use 4,000 1 4,000 NA NA
FF13 South Central HB near Pier HDR 4,000 1 4,200 NA NA
FF14 Two Simultaneous Fires in Downtown Commercial 10,000 7 10,000 NA NA
FF02 Southeast Huntington Beach Industrial 5,000 1 7,600 NA NA
FF03 Southeast Huntington Beach MHDR 4,000 1 2,500 5,100 1,170 LF 8"across OCFD,on
Foxhall&on Weathersfield
FF04 ISoutheast Huntington Beach I LDR 2,000 1 2,800 NA NA
(a) At Ultimate System maximum-day demand.
(b) HDR:High Density Residential; MHDR:Medium High Density Residential; LDR:Low Density Residential.
(c) Required fire flow shown could be less if building in question has an approved automatic sprinkler system,but must be at least 1,500 gpm.
(d) Available flow from a Hydrant is estimated to range from 1,000 gpm to 2,250 gpm. In general,simulations were initially run using one hydrant
regardless of the target flow. If the target flow was not achieved,then additional hydrants were used in the simulation in an attempt
to achieve the total target flow at 20 psi per hydrant.
5- 19
Chapter 5—System Analysis
r
Available fire flow from a fire hydrant is estimated to range from 1,000 gpm to 2,250 gpm. In
conducting a fire flow analysis, the initial simulation was run using one fire hydrant
regardless of the total target fire-flow for that area. If the target fire-flow was not achieved,
then additional hydrants were used in subsequent simulations in an attempt to achieve the
total target fire-flow.
The target fire flow was achieved in all but five simulations: Fire Flow Simulation Nos. 1, 3,
' 11, 17 and 18. Fire Flow Simulation No. 1 was a commercial fire at Peters Landing in
Huntington Harbor. Because it is a commercial area (commercial visitor land use
classification), the target fire flow was set at 5,000 gpm. Using four hydrants, a total fire flow
of 4,000 gpm was available at Peters Landing at a 20 psi residual pressure.
With the addition of 100 linear feet (l.f.) of 8-inch pipe (in parallel with 100 l.f. of existing 6-
inch pipe) and 300 11. of 12-inch pipe on Anderson Street to tie the 8-inch pipeline in Pacific
Coast Highway (PCH) with the 6-inch/10-inch loop just to the west of PCH, the available fire
flow at Peters Landing increased to 4,300 gpm at 20 psi. Although this is only a moderate
' increase, these improvements are recommended to create an additional supply loop and
increase supply reliability in this area.
The City conducted a field evaluation of buildings in.Peters Landing and.it appears that the
buildings in this area are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. Accordingly, the fire
flow requirement in this area could prove to be lower than the target fire flow of 5,000 gpm as
set for this Master Plan. This area should be further evaluated with the assistance of the City
Fire Department to determine if additional improvements are required to further improve fire
flow to Peters Landing.
Fire Flow Simulation No. 3 was a medium high-density residential fire in the southeast, just
to the southeast of the Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue intersection. The available fire
1 flow of 2,500 gpm fell short of the target fire-flow of 4,000 gpm and the deficiency is
attributed to headloss in the 8-inch and 6-inch loop that supplied this area off of a 12-inch
main on Atlanta Avenue.
It is recommended that approximately 1,200 11. of 8-inch (the majority of the pipe would be
parallel to an existing 6-inch pipe) be constructed across OCFD DO-1, then on Foxhall Drive,
Chesterfield Lane, Longmeadow Drive, and Weatherfield Drive, to Creedmor Drive. This
pipeline would supply this deficient area from the south, whereas it is currently only supplied
from the north (from Atlanta Avenue). With this improvement, the available fire flow to this
area increases to 5,100 gpm at 20 psi.
Fire Flow Simulation No. 11 was a commercial fire in the northwest, just north of Warner
Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street. The available fire flow of 4,800 gpm fell short of the
target fire-flow of 5,000 gpm because of headloss in the 6-inch main that supplies this
commercial area on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -20
Chapter 5—System Analysis
Although this is not a large deficiency, the velocities in the 6-inch main are high and it is
' recommended that a 6-inch cross-tie (approximately 80 l.f.) be constructed to tie together the
6-inch mains on each side of Bolsa Chica Street in this commercial area. With this
improvement, the available fire flow at this commercial site increases to 5,700 gpm at 20 psi.
The cross-tie will also increase fire-flow supply to the commercial area on the east side of the
street.
' Fire Flow Simulation No. 14 was two simultaneous 5,000-gpm commercial fires on 5th Street
in Downtown. In the simulation it was found that 10,000 gpm of fire flow was available at
seven fire hydrants at 20 psi without the need for improvements.
' Fire Flow Simulation No. 17 was a commercial fire on the west side of Beach Boulevard at
the Williams Avenue intersection, which is just north of Yorktown Avenue. The 8-inch and
6-inch main on the west side of Beach Boulevard dead ends on each side of Williams Avenue
as shown on Figure 5-4. A parallel 12-inch main is routed on the east side of Beach
Boulevard. Without improvements, the available fire-flow at the Williams Avenue
' intersection on Beach Boulevard was 1,900 gpm. Fire Flow Simulation No. 18 was a
commercial fire on the west side of Beach Boulevard at Owen Avenue, which is just north of
Williams Avenue as shown on Figure 5-4. Without improvements, the available fire-flow at
the Owen Avenue intersection on Beach Boulevard was 2,500 gpm.
It is recommended that an 8-inch pipeline (500 l.f.) be constructed on the west side of Beach
Boulevard to connect the dead end pipes as shown on Figure 5-4. It is also recommended
that a 12-inch cross-tie be constructed at Owen Avenue (100 l.f.) to connect the west main
with the parallel 12-inch east main. With the improvements, the available fire-flows at the
' Williams Avenue intersection (Fire Flow Simulation No. 17) and the Owen Avenue
intersection (Fire Flow Simulation No. 18) on Beach Boulevard were increased to 5,200 gpm
and 7,000 gpm, respectively.
Other dead end segments currently exist on Beach Boulevard. The 1988 Water Master Plan
recommended that the dead end segments on the west side of Beach Boulevard from OCFCD
C-6 to Warner Avenue, from Spear Avenue to Liberty Avenue, and from Ronald Road to
Talbert Avenue (1,700 l.f. total) be connected with new 8-inch main. To date these
connections have not been made.
The 1988 Water Master Plan also recommended constructing 12-inch cross-ties on Beach
Boulevard at Slater Avenue, Indianapolis Avenue, and Atlanta Avenue (500 l.f.). To date,
tonly the cross-tie at Atlanta Avenue has been constructed although an additional 12-inch
cross-tie has been constructed at Yorktown Avenue. It is recommended that the
improvements on Beach Boulevard recommended in the 1988 Water Master Plan be
implemented to increase flow capacity and fire protection on Beach Boulevard.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -21
00
f HYDRANT — FIREFLOW
SIMULATION NO. 18 --"�. PROPOSED 12" PIPE (100 LF)
OWEN AVE
00
1HYDRANT — FIREFLOW
SIMULATION NO. 18
HYDRANT — FIREFLOW �v
SIMULATION NO. 18
PROPOSED 8" PIPE (165 LF)
1
PROPOSED 6" PIPE (43 LF)
J ,
WILLIAMS AVE 6„ co
,
(DHYDRANTS — FIREFLOW U
j SIMULATION NO. 17
m
i
FIREFLOW SIMULATION NO4 18 PROPOSED 8" PIPE (320 LF)
AVAILABLE FLOW WITHOUT -
IMPROVEMENT = 2,500 GPM
AVAILABLE FLOW WITH `," In
IMPROVEMENT = 7,000 GPM
HYDRANT — FIREFLOW ' II
'FIREFLOW SIMULATION N01 17 SIMULATION NO. 17
AVAILABLE FLOW WITHOUT: -
IMPROVEMENT = 1,900 GPM c°
AVAILABLE FLOW WITH
IMPROVEMENT = 5,200 GPM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY: ULTIMATE MODEL
TETRA TECH ASL
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200 FIREFLOW SIMULATION NOS. 17 AND 18 FIGURE 5-4
Irvine, California 92616
�949; 727-7099
727-7097 FAX RESULTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
J
I
Chapter 5—System Analysis
The 1988 Water Master Plan also recommended'a 700 l.f. 12-inch main be constructed from
Lake Avenue to Alabama Street in Downtown. This pipeline has already been constructed.
' 5.3.3 Ultimate System Analysis With Bolsa Chica
' A possible Bolsa Chica development could be located just to the south of Warner Avenue and
Los Patos Avenue and just to the east of Bolsa Chica Street. Average and maximum-day
water demands of 816 gpm and 1,632 gpm were estimated for the proposed development in
' the 1998 Plan of Works for Bolsa Chica. A 4.0-MG reservoir, which would be built by the
Developer, is proposed as part of the water system that would serve the Bolsa Chica
development.
If the development is built and annexed by the City, the City's water system must be capable
of filling the Bolsa Chica Reservoir at the maximum day demand of 1,632 gpm under all
operating conditions including peak hour demand (not including Bolsa Chica) and maximum
day demand plus fire flow demand.
' Peak-Hour Demand
' A simulation was run with peak hour demand and the 1,632 maximum day demand at the
proposed Bolsa Chica Reservoir just off of Los Patos Avenue. The Bolsa Chica Booster
Pump Station that would be built by the developer would supply the peak-hour demand within
' the Bolsa Chica development. The simulation results showed that pressures were good
throughout the system with a low pressure of 41 psi occurring in the southeast Zone 2 border
area. A pressure of 45 psi would be available at the Bolsa Chica Reservoir. It is
recommended that approximately 1001.f. of 12-inch pipe be constructed in Los Patos Avenue
to connect dead-end 12-inch pipelines at the Lynn Street intersection.
Maximum-Day Demand with Fire Flow
Fire Flow Simulation No. 11, which was a commercial fire in the northwest, just north of
Warner Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street, was re-run with maximum day demand
including the 1,632 gpm maximum-day demand at the proposed Bolsa Chica reservoir (Fire-
Flow Simulation No. 11 a). This simulation was run because the required 5,000-gpm fire flow
' is in the same area as the Bolsa Chica demand.
Fire Flow Simulation 11 a incorporated the 6-inch cross-tie (approximately 80 l.f) that was
recommended in Fire Flow Simulation No. 11 to tie together the 6-inch mains on each side of
Bolsa Chica Street in this commercial area. The simulation results showed that a fire flow of
over 5,000 gpm would be available at the fire flow location and that a pressure of 40 psi
' would be available at the Bolsa Chica Reservoir.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -23
Chapter 5—System Analysis
5.3.4 Ultimate System Analysis with Recommended Improvements
' The ultimate system was analyzed without Bolsa Chica and with the following recommended
improvements, which are shown on Figure 5-5:
• A new OC-9 transmission main routed on Newland Street.
• A 10-MG reservoir and 11,000-gpm booster pump station at a southeast site (analyzed
' in this Water Master Plan as the Edison property, which is a possible location).
' 0 Approximately 10,000 linear feet of 16-inch to 24-inch transmission main that would
help convey water from the proposed booster pump station at the southeast site to the
Downtown loop and into the southeast area of the City.
The recommended fire-protection improvements were simulated as part of the analysis
presented in Section 5.3.2. The proposed reservoir and booster station at the southeast site
' were analyzed at a hydraulic grade consistent with the hydraulic grades maintained at the
other Zone 1 reservoirs and booster pump stations.
' Reservoir Fill
Steady-state simulations were run to determine at what rates the reservoirs would fill with the
' inclusion of the proposed 10.0-MG Reservoir at the southeast site, the new transmission
mains from the southeast site, and the new OC-9 transmission main.
OC-9, Well No. 5, and Well No. 9 supply flow to the existing OC-9 transmission main and
would supply flow to the new transmission main. Supply from future Well No. 3A was
routed to the 16-inch main that currently connects to the existing 21-inch OC-9 transmission
' main at Warner Avenue and Nichols Street. To determine the sizing of the new OC-9
transmission main, OC-9, Well No. 5, and Well No. 9 were set at their maximum capacities of
6,300 gpm, 3,000 gpm, and 3,000 gpm, respectively. Also, OC-35 was turned off to prevent
the Peck and Springdale reservoirs from filling too fast.
Pipe velocities in the new OC-9 transmission main were kept to a maximum of 6.5 fps with
' the transmission main diameters shown on Figure 5-6.
The results showed that the Overmyer, Edwards Hill, Peck, and Springdale Reservoirs would
' all fill faster than the proposed reservoir at the southeast site because this reservoir would be
the most southern reservoir and most of the supply sources in the system are located in the
northern part of the City. The results indicate that it might be necessary to lower the
hydraulic grade setting at the proposed southeast-site reservoir relative to the other Zone 1
reservoirs during tank fill in order to fill the southeast-site reservoir at a higher rate. This
lowered setting could be as low as 25 feet relative to the other Zone 1 reservoirs.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5-24
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
p FUTURE (":,__
� WELL #12 _.s0..C: 3 ...,
II PECK FACILITIESV�LL #.
_.._.. ._..... a
FUTURE WELL #13
.. i..�...r...� i
14,
I I '
-
_ R
.i _ `t _ ��� _
—+ II
L..
1
—, 1,.`.. — C 1 — aC
_....__'
'n'...... ' r
��"� 'WC I L '..1.
II _ W L 6
r :...�
__ ....
6
.l._,..—. Lt. 15
"� ,_r.T 1.-.fEl'] E=.4
S\ -4N-V2 j
,....
y; I
i1
71 l._i...T.1.i �:.. ..
\� - ;
t;
BOLSAY--iALBERT E _.1....... .�
CHICA Y' ELLIS
r u
sw I n I I II
ZONE 2 - c�
'1r -
- 1
t��
�k
I YORKTO177
WN',
Ely ✓ �..
f
. i
y ' f
...:41Np.AdnPou
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
1 . 10.0 MG RESERVOIR AND 11 ,000 GPM BPS AT fi ;"""SOUTHEAST SITE. ) _ (� ...::z.-!. r� i.. -; 1;..{I �._-� r....1
4 _..,.
2. 10,400 LF 1 6" TO 24" TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM SOUTHEAST 1
SITE TO DOWNTOWN LOOP AND TO SOUTHEAST AREA. I'� } L ; .-
3. CAST IRON WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ( � I
61 _
THROUGHOUT THE CITY BEGINNING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
4. 8 PARALLEL PIPE 100 LF AND 12 PIPE 300 LF ON \
ANDERSON ST AT PETERS LANDING.
= 11 ,
5. 8" PIPE (1 ,200 LF) ACROSS OCFCD DO-1 , AND ON � j `�<! �-T-I.�-�;,
FOXHILL DR, CHESTERFIELD LN, LONGMEADOW DR, AND -.
-WEATHERFIELD DR TO CREEDMOR DR.
6. 6" CROSS CONNECTION (80 LF) ON BOLSA CHICA ST.
7. 8" PIPE (500 LF) ON BEACH BLVD AND 12" CROSS CONNECTION
(100 LF) AT OWEN AVE.
8. 12" PIPE (100 LF) ON LOS PATOS AVE AT LYNN ST INTERSECTION.
9. UPGRADE CROSS CONNECTIONS ON 20" DOWNTOWN TRANSMISSION
LOOP TO 12" AT LAKE ST / PALM AVE & LAKE ST / ORANGE AVE
INTERSECTIONS. FOUR NEW 8" CROSS CONNECTIONS ON 20"
DOWNTOWN LOOP ON OLIVE ST BETWEEN 5TH ST AND 11TH ST.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRATECH AL WATER MASTER PLAN FIGURE 5-5
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92619 949 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
949) 727-7099 727-7097 FAX
A
0
�� w
CL V)
0 LO
N a)
0
2 —Di
1 L GP L
WELL #9
ER W R
3000 GPM
L� R.
4 a cl A
WELL #5
4,481 r CL (n 3000 GPM
tz
T7,
I CO
t. Li
-J:
U)
Co
00 co
LO
6T
Ln
IL
NE 2
II
(D
ELLIS
�U
ER
AC
a- U)
% tz
0 LO
to
LIT LO
Ui
W
U-
-4
C�l
0
1 3 DIA
6930 LGPM—'
5' FT/ r
—-----. ......
L
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER MASTER PLAN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRATECH ASL PROPOSED SIZING FOR NEW
16241 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 200 FIGURE 5-6
Irvine, California 92618
949� 727:7099 OC-9 TRANSMISSION MAIN
949 727 7097 FAX
Chapter 5—System Analysis
' The Orange County Sanitation District will be replacing a sanitary sewer in Bushard Street in
the near future. This construction project could present an opportunity for the City to replace
' the existing 12-inch water main in Bushard Street with a larger diameter water main at the
same time. This project would be beneficial if it would improve water supply and/or
operating pressures in the southeast.
An additional tank fill simulation was run with the Bushard Street water main increased to 20
inches in diameter between Yorktown Avenue and Banning Avenue. The results showed that
' supply to the southeast would only be marginally improved as evidenced by.almost no
increase in the tank fill rate at the proposed southeast-site reservoir. A possible Bushard
Street improvement was analyzed further under a peak-hour demand simulation discussed
' below.
Peak-Hour Demand
A peak-hour simulation was run with the aforementioned proposed improvements. The wells
and the imported water connections were set to collectively supply 37,140 gpm, which is
' equivalent to the maximum-day demand and is 63% of the peak-hour demand, and the four
Zone 1 booster pump stations were allowed to collectively supply the remaining 22,000 gpm.
OC-35 was turned off to allow the Peck and Springdale reservoirs to supply more flow into
the system during peak hour demand.
It is recommended that the existing 6-inch cross connections on the 20-inch Downtown Loop
' Transmission Main at Lake Street and Palm Avenue and at Lake Street and Orange Avenue
be replaced with 12-inch cross connections and that these connections be kept normally open
to better supply flow to the Downtown area from the southeast reservoir site. It is
recommended that the existing cross connections on Olive Street between 51h Street and Main
Street be kept normally open.
Also, new 8-inch cross connections on the 20-inch main are recommended at Olive Street
between: 5`h and 6`h Streets, 6`h and 7`h Streets, 8`h and SO Streets, and 10"' and I Ph Streets.
These recommended improvements were incorporated into the peak-hour demand simulation.
' The simulation results showed that pressures in the system would be good with a low pressure
of 43 psi in the southeast Zone 2 border area. The results indicate that it might be necessary
' to raise the hydraulic grade setting (discharge pressure setting) at the proposed southeast-site
booster pump station relative to the other Zone 1 booster pump stations during high demand
in order to empty the southeast-site reservoir at a higher rate. This higher setting could be as
' high as 15 to 25 feet relative to the other Zone 1 booster pump stations.
An additional peak-hour demand simulation was run with the Bushard Street main increased
' to 20 inches in diameter between Yorktown Avenue and Banning Avenue. The results
showed that pressures in the southeast would only be marginally improved (approximately 2
psi). Based on these results and the results of the tank fill simulation, replacement of the 12-
' inch diameter water main in Bushard Street with a larger diameter main is not warranted.
TETRA TECH ASL
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Water Master Plan 5 -27