The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979-10-10 Boyle... .·- ... Isl • - 1501 Ouail Street P.O. Box! 3030 ,, ' Newport Beach. California 92663 consutttnQ enQtneers / archttects M'Mi9MMM&i44P&495i#¥#¥i& ?141 752-0505 Telex 68-5561 ±¥'#!tk4t4§PW ·Mr .. Ray·£. lewis, Chief EDgineer COUNTY SANITATION Dl:STRICT NO. 7· OF OltANGE COUNTY P'. 0 .• , Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 -Peters. Canyon· Study March 30, l979 Enclosed is our report of the Peters Canyon Study, which has been prepared in accor- dance with our proposal dafed November 6, 1979·., The land~~se plans and other information used in projecting sewage flows wer~ obtained from The Irvine Compa~y, . . The primary obfective of this study was fo identify those portions of the district's trunk sewer· system that indicate surplus capacity based on present district service commit-! menfs and then develop, on a conceptual basis, the additional trunk sewer facilities req"1ired to extend the district's servfce area to include the Peters Cc:iyon study area. We should caution that while tne in.formation presented in this report rel.ative to the additi.onaf .. (aciliti8$ required can be used as a guideline in the development of the district•·s strategy,. further study wiff be required for final facility design. Also, since fhe st~dy plans are conceptual and have not been approved· by any regulatory agency, it is probabl.e that final pf ans for development of the study area will differ · somewhat from the conceptual" plans. Unless the differences are. great, the impact OB t~e findings of this cep·ort should not be too significant. Should the Board of Directors or any of the staff wish to.review this report in detail with os, we ofe available at your convenience. · IOVLE ENGlNEERING CORPORATION (].ni~v/), Conrad Hohener1 _Jr-,. PE Regional Vice President s-C07-129-50 ... ' I I I btJ. bJ t:J l , I "l.J I J ·U. I I , I ~ ' j W· I ! i •L;J J -'-. I -~. DRAFT --.... -~ ... ...,, PETERS CANYON STUDY . COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY . .. - TABLE OF CONTENTS '-* PETERS CANYON STUDY --SECTION PAGE I Introduction 1-1 w II· Purpose and Scope Il-1 .. III Summary and Conclusions lll-1 IV Existing Trunk System--Deternrination of '9 Excess Capacity IV-1 v Projected Flows From Peters Canyon Development Areas· and Other Areas South -of Irvine Boulevard V-1 A. Peters Canyon Study Area V-1 -i3. Backside Areas of Lemon Heights and· Cowan Heights V-6 .... c. Possible Inclusion in Study Area of Area East of Irvine Company Developments and . West of Santiago County Water District V-7 -D. Other Areas South of Irvine Boulevard V-7 -VI ·Analysis of Exi~ting Trunk System to Receive . Flows From Proposed Development Areas and ·Layout of Peters Canyon Trunk VI-1 ~ A. Upper Peters Canyon -Handy Creek Flow VI-1 B. Layout of Peters Canyon Trunk and -Connection to Existing Trunk System VI-2 c. Irvine Boulevard Trunk Vl-3 -D. Santa Ana Freeway Tr.unk Vl-3 ~ ~. Moulton Parkway Trunk VI-4 F. Barranca Road Trunk VI-4 lad a·. McGaw Avenue Trunk VI-5 H. Main Street Trunk VI-8 -' 1. Additional Facilities and Trunk Required Along Sunflower Avenue VI-9 ~ - i .... ., r '-' Table of Contents -Continued .. SECTION PAGE ---VII Construction Cost Estimates VII-1 VIII Construction Phasing of Peters Canyon .. Trunk and Facilities VIII-1 -TABLES NO. PAGE -IV-1 Excess Capacity in District Truriks IV-4 V-1 Unit Flow Coefficients for Various Land Uses V-2 ., V-2 Projected Wa.stewater Flows for Upper Peters Canyon Study Area--Flow to Handy Creek V-4 ._ V-3 Projected Wastewater Flows for Lower Peters Canyon Study Area--Flow to Peters Canyon V-5 .... V-4 Flows From Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights Backside Areas V-6 ml V-5 Projected Flows ·From the Area Between Santa Ana Freeway and Irvine Blvd. and. Between Browning Ave. and Myford Rd. V-8 ._, V-6 Projected Additional Flows for East Tustin Industrial Complex (Village Ten Study ._. Area -Concept Plan A) V-9 V-7 Summary of Projected Flows to Peters Canyon Trunk · V-10 .._ VII-1 Cost Comparison Between McGaw Avenue Trunk Alternative and Main Street Trunk ., Alternative (From South of McGaw Avenue Only) VII-3 '-; VII-2 Cost Estimates. for Elimination of Existing Pumping Stations and Connection to P~ters Canyon Trunk VII-4 '-' VII-3 Cost Estimate for Peters Canyon Trunk and Additional Parallel Trunks and Facilities VII-5 ... ii I INTRODUCTION The IrVine Company is considering development of the Peters Canyon area. consisting of the area north of the· Santa Ana Freeway between Browning Avenue and Myford Road and extending up through Peters Canyon to the area north and northea.st of Peters Canyon Reservoir. Also, they are considering further development of the Tustin Indus- trial Complex to the east betw.een the Santa Ana Freeway and Moulton Parkway. The Irvine Company staff has made inquiries to County Sanitation District (CSD) staff on the possibility of sewering all or part of the proposed developments through the CSD No. 7 system • . Approximately 4-, 100 acres are involved ~n planning studies for the . . proposed developments which are delineated on various planning study m_aps prepared by The Irvine Company. Ab~ut 700 acres north of Peters Canyon Reservior are already within the district's Master Plan service ·area. However. The Irvine Company is proposing some land-.. use changes within this a~ea to those shown in the Master Plan. The . .. study area and properties involved are shown in Figure 1 at the back , of this report. I-1 ..... II ... .... . '-..i PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study is (a) to analyze the proposed Irvine develop- ments for wastewater flow and determine what, if any,, accommodations can be made for sewering through the existing CSD No. 7 system; and (b) to develop a preliminary layout and prepare construction cost esti- mates for Peters Canyon Trunk and alternative connecting trunks to the existing system. Areas currently within and adjacent to the dis- trict which drain by gravity into Peters Canyon are also included in the study. The following items are included in the study: 2. Review of the Sunflower Avenue,, Gisler Avenue,, Red Hill A venue,, Tustin-Orange, North and Lemon Heights trunk systems to deter- mine excess capacity. Excess capacity is defined as that amount of conveyance capability in any of the trunk systems flowing at a depth-to-diameter ratio of 0 .92 (maximum capacity} after all service commitments presently included within the district Master Plan have been exercised or reserved • Calculation and tabulation of flows for proposed Irvine Company developments as shown on Peters Canyon schematic land-use plan and for the East Tustin Industrial Complex as shown on the Village Ten Study -Conceptual Plan A,, which have been furnished to the district., Land use for property north of Santa Ana Freeway up to Irvine Boulevard was furnished by The Irvine Company and the city of Tustin. Tabling includes distinctions between Peters Canyon and Handy Creek drainage basins. Also,, comparisons are made between·Master Plan land uses and proposed land use nows • Il-1 3. 5. '. 6. . ' Review of the area lying east and nol"th of proposed Irvine devel- opments and west of the Santiago CountY,. Water District boundary for possible inclusion in the study area.. The natural topographic area which drains into Peters Canyon Wash and Santiago Creek is the determining factor of the easterly boundary, while the natural topographic area which drains into Handy Creek and San- tiago Creek is the determining factor of the northerly boundary. Analysis· of the existing ~SD No. 7 trunk syste·m to receive projected flows from the study areas • Layout of Peters Canyon Trunk and investigation of alternative connecting trunks to the existing system. Connecting alterna- tives ·considered included trunks along Irvine Boulevard, Santa Ana Freeway, Moulton Parkway, Barr-anca Road, McGaw Avenue, and Main Street. Investigation of feasibility of elimination of existing Overhill Drive, Cowan Heights, Bent Tree Lane, Derby Drive No. 1 • Derby Drive No. ~. Lower Lake Drive, Covey La~ne. Racquet Hills. and Red Hill Ridge District pumping stations in Lemon and Cowan Heights area; and Navy Way and Dow Avenue pumping stations in the East Tustin Industrial Complex area. P.reparation of construction cost estimates for Peters Canyon Trunk, by reaches. and connecting trunk alternatives. Also, cost ~stimates for connecting sewerlines to existing pumping stations and for elimination of the pumping stations. II-2 ..... .'!:Ill' . 'tW ·~ III SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The following is a summary of significant conclusions and facilities pro- posed in the study: The total additional projected flow from all new development areas in Peters Canyon and below Irvine Boulevard, and from those areas currently served by pumping· stations, is 8. 6 cfs (5. 6 mgd). Total study area is approximately 4, 100 acres. The flow consists of 1. 5 cfs (1. 0 mgd) from the upper Peters Canyon development area (520 additional acres) which drains north into Handy Creek, and 7 .1 cfs (4.6 mgd) generated from the southerly draining lower Peters Canyon development area, which consists of 1,400 acres below Peters Canyon Reservoir, 575 acres on the backside of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights currently served by pumping stations and septic tanks, additional development of 890 acres south of Irvine Boulevard, and the proposed elimination of the Navy Way a~d Dow Avenue pumping stations. 2. The projected flow from the upper Peters Canyon development area which would flow north and enter the Tustin-Orange Trunk by way of Handy Creek can be handled by the existing trunk system with the addition of a 1, 100-foot length of 12-inch-diameter parallel trunk along Orange Park Boulevard (Reach 18) of the Tustin-Orange Trunk. This trunk would provide additional capacity along the only reach of the existing trunk system which does not have sufficient available excess capacity to handle the flow. 3. There is !!2!_ sufficient excess capacity in the existing trunk system for the combined flow from both the northerly draining upper Peters III-1 ... Canyon area and southerly draining areas of the study. The pro- posed Peters Canyon Trunk-would convey flows from the southerly draining lowe~ Peters Ca(lyon.area and areas south of Irvine . -· Boulevard • In addition to the parallel trunk described in Item 2 above for th~ upper Peters Canyon flow, the following facilities are required to provide additional capacity along those r~aches of the existing sys- tem that do not have sufficient available excess capacity to handle the combined flow: 4,200 feet·of 33-inch pipe along Red Hill Avenue which will parallel the existing Red Hill Avenue Trunk-f~om Reynolds Avenue to Main Street. 7 ,300 feet·of 39-inch pipe along. Sunflower Avenue ~hich will parallel the existing Sunflower Avenue Trunk from Main Street to Bear Street. Lift station at Raitt Street and Alton Avenue to divert flow from the Raitt Street Trunk into the Santa Ana Trunk (CSD No. 1). This would create sufficient capac~ty in the downstream reach of the Sunflower Avenue Trunk where there is presently not sufficient excess capacity. The lift station would divert an average flow of 5 .6· cfs through a lift of 7 to 8 feet. .· 4. The proposed route of the Peters Canyon Trunk follows Peters Canyon south to Irvine Boulevard, then follows Myford Road through the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) (Helicopter) -Tustin via the proposed Jamboree Road/Myford Road extension to McGaw Avenue. The trunk extends west along McGaw Avenue and connects III-2 . .., . .,., 1 t .... to the larger 54-inch Red Hill Trunk to avoid pumping of any of the fiows by the proposed Master Planned South Irvine Lift Station. Total length of the Peters Canyon Trunk is 52, 000 feet or about 9. 9 miles. The trunk size varies from 8-to 3 6-inch-diameter pipe • 5. Construction cost for the Peters Canyon Trunk is estimated to be $3, 498, 000. Construction cost for elimination of existing p~mping stations is $542, 000. Construction cost for the parallel trunks and lift station to provide necessary additional capacity in the existing trunk system is $1, 549, 000. The total estimated cost, including an allowance of 25 percent for engineering, surveying, inspection, legal, administrative, and contingencies, of all the proposed facilities, is $6,986,000. III-3 IV EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM--DETERMINATION OF EXCESS CAPACITY The district's existing sewage collection system naturally flows south- erly and westerly toward the joint districts' existing treatment plant No. 1, located at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Buclid Street. Certain sections of Cowan Heights and Lemon Heights are located along the backside of the district and. drain easterly into Peters Canyon. These areas are currently served by nine small pumping stations. The existing trunk system is shown in Figure 1, at the back of this report. All major trunks· within the district's system were analyzed for excess capacity. Excess capacity is defined as that amount of conveyance capability in any trunk system flowing at a depth-to-diameter ratio of 0.92 (maximum hydraulic capacity) after all service commitments presently included within the Master Plan have been exercised or reserved~ Master Plan flows are those flows considered to be the projected flows from the various drainage areas as outlined in the district Master Plan fo~ Trunk Sewer Facilities, May, 1969. Since the Master Plan was written, several of the flows have been updated ~o reflect new revised land uses. The latest flows were considered in this study. In determining excess capacity along a r.each of sewer trunk, both average flow and peak flow must be consi.dered. The relationship be- tween average flow and peak flow for distri~t flows was developed in the Master Plan and is as follows: 0.92 Q peak = 1.84 (Q ave~age) IV-1 , .... .... : 'Cltf :\:cl ..... The excess capacity of a given reach of trunk must actually be deter- mined in terms of average fiow. This is because the peak flow is the peak of the combined average nows after they reach the trunk. This is illustrated as follows: L Q 1 (average) L Q2 (average) Qcap (peak) Qexcess = peak capacity of sewer trunk = average Master Plan incoming nows Qexcess = excess average fiow capacity' in sewer trunk Setting the peak capacity of the trunk equal to the peak of the combined average flows or Qcap = 1.84 (Q 1 + Q 2 + Qexcess>0 •92 . . (Qcap) 1.09 Rearranging. Ql + Q2 + Qexcess = - . 1.84 ( Qcap) 1.09 Where is actually the average capacity of the trunk or 1.84 Qaverage cap. Then Ql + Q2 + Qexcess = Qaverage cap Or Qexcess = Qaverage cap. -Ql -Q2• Thus. the exc.tess capacity of the trunk. Qexcess• must be expressed in terms of average flows. Knowing the Master Plan flows and the hydraulic capacity of the sewer trunk. the excess flow capacity of each major trunk in the district IV-2 system was determined by reaches •. Manning's equation using.an "n" value of 0 .013; flowing at a depth-to-diameter ratio of 0 .92, was used - to determine hydraulic capacity. Sewer pipe is built in 3-inch incremental pipe diameters. As the pipe dian}.eter increases and as the slope (grade) of the pipe increases, the· hydraulic capacity of the pipe increases, and thus the potential for excess capacity in the pipe increases. Ar:, shown earlie.r, the excess capacity in a sewer trunk depends on the hydraulic capacity of the pipe and the incoming Master Plan wastewater flows. The excess capacity for each trunk analyzed varies along the trunk as the hydraulic capacity and the Master Plan flows vary along the trunk. In determining excess capacity for a singl~ trunk, the reach with the minimum excess capacity and of substantial trunk len~h (usually at least 1, 000 feet) was used as a measure of the excess capacity of the entire trunk. IV-3 . . - The analysis for excess capacity shows that the Tustin-Orange Trunk has about 1.2-cfs (0.8-mgd) excess capacity.along the entire trunk. No excess capacity exists in the North Trunk and Lemon Heights Trunk. The combined Red Hill Avenue Trunks have excess capacity along the the entire trunk length varying from 1. 0 to 14 .1 cfs (0 .6 to 6 .6 mgd). The Sunflower Avenue Trunk has an excess capacity . . of 2. 5 cfs ( 1 • 6 mgd) in the downstream reach, and a deficiency of 2. 3 cfs ( 1. 5 mgd) in the upstream reach. This deficiency is due pri- marily to the addition of the area tributary to the Dow Street pumping station to the district's system subsequent to the Master Plan and con- struction of this reach. The Gisler Avenue Trunk has about 3. 5-cfs (2. 3-mgd) ·excess capacity in the upstream reach only. It· was also necessary to analyze the Santa Ana Trunk; located i~ District No. 1,. . . for excess capacity. This trunk has excess capacity varying from 4.3 to 9.0 cfs (2.8 to 5.8 mgd) in the downstream reach·and very little. or no excess capacity in the upstream reach. Determination of excess capacity in this trunk is b'ased on flows developed for the CSD No. 1 Master Plan, 1965. The Santa Ana Trunk will b~ discussed further in following sections. IV-5 ~·. v PROJECTED FLOWS FROM PETERS CANYON DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND OTHER AREAS SOUTH OF IRVINE BOULEY ARD The overall study area from which additional future wastewater nows are projected is shown in Figure 1. This consists of the Peters Can- yon area extending from north of Peters Canyon Reservoir south to Irvine Boulevard; the proposed residential area between Santa Ana Freeway and Irvine Boulevard; the East Tustin Industrial Complex be- tween Moulton Parkway and Santa Ana Freeway; and the backside areas . of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights which drain easterly into Peters Canyon. To determine wastewater flows. flow coefficients developed for the district in the Master Plan (1969) are used. These coefficients were based upon field investigations and flow monitoring and are summarized in Table V-1. A. Peters Canyon Study Area The Irvine Company has developed land-use plans for the Peters Canyon area. This development area extends from above Peters Canyon Reservoir. south to Irvine Boulevard. and from the exist- ing district boundary on the west to approximately a northerly extension of Myford Road on the east. The total area comprises about 2. 600 acres. This area is divided into the upper area gen- erally north of Peters Canyon Reservoir which drains northerly to. Handy Creek. and the lower area south of Peters Canyon Reservoir which drains south into Peters Canyon. as shown in Figure 1 • V-1 .... TABLE V-1 .. UNIT FLOW COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS LAND USES ~ Density Average Unit Average Unit (Dwelling Flow Coefficients Flow Coefficients Land Use Unit/ Acre). (cfs/ acre) (gpd/acre) ~ Low-Density · Residential 1-6 .0024 1.550 tm Low-Density . Residential W!I (lots above 1 0 ' 0 0 0 sq • ft • ) 1-4 •. 0018 1,,160 eel Low-Density Residential (hillside) 1-3 .0010 650 ~ Medium-Density Residential 7-17 .0060 3,,880 ... High-Density Residential 17. or more .0090 5,,8·20 ·-Commercial .0050 3,,230 Industrial .0060 3,,880 .. Recreational or Open Space .0003 190 ems ,• V-2 - ... Table V-2 lists the nows for the upper Peters Canyon area which drains north to Handy Creek, determined from The Irvine Company's proposed land-use plan. Total acreage for this area is about 1, 232 acres. About 700 acres of this area is within the district planning area boundaries and is included in the Master Plan (Drainage Area S-5) • Table V-2 shows the comparison between The Irvine Company and Master Plan projected flows. A total flow of 3. 7 cfs (2 .4 mgd) is projected from The Irvine Company's proposed land use while the Master Plan projects a flow of 2 • 2 cfs ( 1 • 4 mgd) , resulting in an additional flow of 1.5 cfs (1.0 mgd) to the district's system • V-3 ... " l • ( < I ~ ( I ·-l { I I l I ( l ' l I I I ( I TABLE V-2 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS FOR UPPER PETERS CANYON STUDY AREA-- FLOW TO HANDY CREEK Land Use Area {acres} Flow Average Flow {cfs} (Irvine Co, Irvine Master Coefficient Irvine Master Designations) Co. Plan (cfs/acre) Co. Plan Low Density-- Estate 335 165 0.0010. 0.34 0,17 Low Density (2-6 DU/ acre). 595 320 0,0024 1.43 0.77 Medium Density (6-15 DU/ 0 •. 00'60. acre) 140 128. 0,84 0.77 High Density (15-24 DU/ acre) 102 o~ooeo 0.92 Commercial 34 98 0,0050 0.17 ' 0,49 Schools : 12 0.0024 0.03 Parks 14 0.0003 0.004 . ~ . • TOTALS 1,232 711 3. 7·3 (2 .40 mgd) 2 .20 (1.42 mgd) - Table V-3 lists the flows for the lower Peters Canyon study area which drains southerly into Peters Canyon. This area extends south from approximately Peters Canyon Reservoir to Irvine Boulevard. Total acreage for this area is about 1 , 3 94 acres. A flow of 2 • 8 cfs ( 1 • 8 mgd) is projected, based upon The Irvine Company's proposed land-use plan for this area. TABLE V-3 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS FOR LOWER PETERS CANYON STUDY AREA -- FLOW TO PETERS CANYON ·. Land Use (Irvine Co. Designations) Area (acres) Irvine Co. Flow Cofficient (cfs/acre) Average Flow (cfs) Irvine Co. Low Density-- Estate (0.1-2 DU/ acre) Low Density (2-6 DU/ acre) Medium Density (6-15 DU/ acre) High Density (15-24 DU/ acre) Commercial Water Filtration Plant Parks TOTALS 603 515 101 12 41 6 116 1,394 0.0010 0.60 0.0024 1.24 0.0060 0.6l 0.0090 0.11 0.0050 0.21 0.0024 0.01 0.0003 0.03 2 .81 (1 .82 mgd) V-5 B • .. - - Backside Areas of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights Also dr~ining into Peters Canyon are approximately 574 acres of low-density hillside residential area lying along the backside of the Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights areas. which naturally drain east into Pet~rs Canyon. Approximately 201 acres presently in the district are served by nine small pumping stations which pump wastewater back over into the district trunk sy~tem. and 374 acres are either undeveloped or are on individual septic ta:nk systems. The economical feasibility of connecting these areas to the pro-. . posed Peters Canyon Trunk is discussed in Section VII~ Total average flow from these areas is determined to be 0. 57 cfs and is listed ip Table V -4 • TABLE V-4 FLOWS FROM LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS BACKSIDE AREAS Land Use Low Density -- Hillside; area seryed by pumping stations Low Density -- Hillside; area presently on individual s ept~c tanks Low Density -- Hillside; area presently undeveloped TOTALS Area (acres) 201 290 83 574 Flow Coefficient (cfs/acre) 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 *Total flow included in Master Plan = 0. 26 cfs. V-6 . ~verage Flow (cfs) 0.20 0.29 o.oa 0 .57* (0 .37 mgd) - - c. Possible Inclusion in Study Area of Area East of Irvine Company Developments and West of Santiago County Water District An investigation was made as to the possible inclusion in the study area of the area east of the proposed Irvine Company developments (original study area) and west of the Santiago County Water District boundaries. The natural topographic ridge which separates drain- age into Peters Canyon and Santiago Creek is to be the eastern boundary of such an area. The eastern boundary of The Irvine Company development area coincides with the western boundary of the Santiago County ·water District, which is also the topographic ridge line. Thus, the area west of the Santiago County Water District is already in- cluded within the original study area. D • Other Areas South of Irvine Boulevard Another area included· in the study is the area south of Irvine Boulevard and north of the Santa Ana Freeway, and between Browning Avenue and Myford Road. The city of Tustin land-use plan has designated this area as Planned Commuriity-Single Family Residential (7, 200 square feet). The Irvine Company staff has indicated that a mix of single and multiple family residential with a certain amount of commercial; institutional, parks, etc •• would be more appropriate for the area. The Irvine Company has not done any definitive studies as yet, but stated a mix as shown in Table V-5 would probably be proposed when the area is to be developed. Since this approach would genera~e larger wastewater flows and our approach in this study is to be conservative, we have tabled flows accordingly. This area comprises about V-7 1 1 - . -- - 575 acres. Flows for this area are listed in Table V-5 with a total average flow of 3. 3 cfs projected. -. TABLE V..;5 PROJECTED FLOWS FROM .T.HE AREA BETWEEN SANTA ANA FREEWAY AND IRVINE BLVD. AND BET\VEEN BROWNING A VE. AND MYFORD RD • Flow Average Area Coefficient Flow Land .Use (acres) (cfs/acre) (cfs) Low Density Residential (1-6 DU/ acr.e) 375 0.0024 0.90 lViedium Density Residential (7-16 DU/acre) 100 0.0060 0.60 Commercial 10 ·O .0050 0.05 Institutional 70 0.0050 0.35 Parks 20 0.0003 0.006 TOTALS 575 1.91 (1.23 mgd) The area south of the Santa Ana Freeway, north .of Moulton Parkway,. and bounded by Browning Ave~ue and Myford Road is known as the East Tustin Industrial Complex. .It is proposed that the industrial and institutional land use in this area be ex- panded as shown in the ·Village .Ten Study -Concept Plan A. The expansion involves an additional 311 acres, and an additional average flow of 1. 9 cfs is projected. Flows for this area are shown in Table V-6 below. The Irvine Company is not certain whether this additional 311 acres will be developed as industrial land use or as residential land use •. If it is developed as indus- trial, The Irvine Company would prefer that_ flow generated go to V-8 - the CSD' s treatment plant rather than to their .Michelson water reclamation plant. However, if it is developed as residential land use, they purpose to sewer the flow to the Michelson water reclamation plant. TABLE V-6 PROJECTED ADDITIONAL FLOWS FOR EAST TUSTIN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (VILLAGE TEN STUDY AREA -CONCEPT PLAN A) Flow Average Area Coefficient Flow Land Use (acres) · (cfs/acre) (cfs) Industrial 299 0.0060 1.79 Institutional 12 0.0050 0.06 TOTALS 311 1.85 (1.20 mgd) The existing Navy Way and Dow Street pumping stations and force main located adjacent to Moulton Parkway can be eliminated and the wastewater conveyed by gravity flow easterly to the Peters Canyon Trunk. The Navy \Vay pumping station presently pumps wastewater collected from the Browning Avenue subtrunk west into the Lemon-Heights Trunk. The Dow Street pumping station, which pumps into the Navy Way pumping station, presently pumps wastewater from existing industrial sources in the East Tustin Industrial Complex, between Moulton Parkway and Santa Ana Freeway. The economical feasibility of this plan is evaluated in Section VII. Average flow from the Browning Avenue subtrunk is 2.5 cfs and average now from the Dow pumping station is 1.6 cfs, V-9 .... ... , ~ .. .., - A. Si Dal B. .. c . D. ... E . '-' - as projected by the Master Plan, for a total average flow of 4.1 cfs from the Navy Way pumping station. A summary of the total projected.flows which would drain to the Peters Canyon Trunk is given in Table V-7. The total pro- jected flow from the Peters Canyon Trunk is 11.2 cfs (7.2.mgd) • TABLE V-7 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FLOWS TO PETERS CANYON TRUNK Area Average Flow (acres) (cfs) Peters Canyon area -Peters Canyon Reservoir to Irvine Blvd. (Irvine Company) • 1,394 2.81 Backside areas of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights 574 0.57 SUBTOTAL, ABOVE IRVINE BLVD. 1,968 3.38 Residential area between Irvine Blvd. and Santa Ana Freeway 575 1.91 Industrial area between Moulton Parkway and Irvine Blvd. (T:ustin Indus.trial Complex) 311 1.85 Navy \Vay pumping station (including Dow St. pumping station) 4.01 TOTAL 2,854 tl .15 (7 .2 mgd) V-10 VI. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM TO RECEIVE FLOWS FROM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND LAYOUT OF PETERS CANYON TRUNK A. Upper Peters Canyon -Handy Creek Flow The projected additional flow from the upper Peters Canyon de- velopment area which drains northerly to Handy Creek is 1 • 5 cfs (1.0 mgd). This flow would enter the upper end of the Tustin- Orange Trunk along Handy Creek. There is sufficient excess capacity along most of the Tustin-Orange Trunk to handle this flow. The Tustin-Orange Trunk has an available excess capacity of approximately 1.2 cfs, with a-minimum excess cap8:city of 0.9 cfs (0.6 mgd), for about 1,000 feet of reach, and maximum excess capacity of up to 9. 6 cfs ( 6. 2 mgd) in some reaches. To fully handle the 1.5-cfs flow from the upper Peters Canyon area, a parallel 12-inch-diameter trunk is required to add ad- ditional capacity along the reach of minimum excess capacity 9f 0. 9 cfs. This trunk would parallel the existing 21-inch- diameter trunk along Orange Park Boulevard from Santiago Canyon Road to Clark Street. Length of the parallel trunk is approximately 1 , 100 feet. Location of the trunk is shown in Figure 1. In addition, a 27-inch trunk, 7, 300 feet in length, paralleling the Sunflower Avenue Trunk between Bear Street and Main Street would be required to provide an additional peak capacity of 6.3 cfs (4.1 mgd) to handle the existing deficiency plus new flow. Within the accuracy of this study, there is sufficient excess ca- pacity in the remaining reaches of the Tustin-Orange Trunk to VI-1 - ... -. ..i.. adequately handle the projected upper. Peters Canyon flow. There is also sufficient excess capacity in the remaining downstream Red Hill Avenue and Sunflower Avenue Trunks, with a minimum excess capacity of 1.0 cfs in one downstream reach of the Red Hill Avenue Trunk. This is not considering • additional flows from the Peters Canyon Trunk, but only those from the upper Peters Canyon northerly draining area. As will be. discussed in following sections' there does not aepear to b~ sufficient excess capacity along all downstream trunks to accept flows from both the northerly draining area and Peters Canyon Trunk. B. Layout of Peters Canyon Trunk and Connection to Existing Trunk System The Peters Canyon Trunk would start just south of Peters Canyon Reservoir and follow Peters Canyon southerly to Irvine Boulevard. This· reach would pick up flow from the backside areas of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights through approximately seven subtrunks from the various areas, as shown in Figure 1 • It would then run east 1, 300 feet in Irvine Boulevard, and then south in Myford . Road to Moulton Parkway. There are several alternatives at this point by which the Peters Canyon Tru~k could connect to the existing trunk uystem. These include a connection trunk along Moulton Parkway, Barranca Road, M~Gaw Avenue·, or Main Street. Also, connecting trunks along Irvine Boulevard and Santa Ana Freeway, both above Moulton Parkway, were investigated. These trunks would convey a portion of the Peters Canyon Trunk flow and make use of any available excess capacity in this part of the trunk system. These various alternatives are discussed in Section C. VI-2 The recommended alternative is to extend the Peters Canyon Trunk south along Jamboree Road to McGaw Avenue and west along McGaw Avenue. This recommendation is based upon both engi- neering and economic factors. The economic analysis is discussed in Section VII. The layout of the Peters Canyon Trunk is shown in Figure 1 • The pipe size would vary from 8-inch-diameter pipe at the begin- ning below Peters Canyon Reservoir and increase to 36-inch- diameter pipe along the last reach in McGaw Avenue. The pipe sizes by reach are also shown in Figure 1. C. Irvine Boulevard Trunk D. A connecting trunk westerly on Irvine Boulevard a:nd connecting to the Lemon Heights Trunk. which would convey all or a portion of the flow from the Peters Canyon Trunk to the existing system at this point, was investigated. This plan, however, is not feasi- ble since there is no available excess capacity in the Lemon Heights Trunk (see ~ection IV), according to Master Plan pro- . jected nows_. Santa Ana Freeway Trunk A connecting trunk which would follow the Santa Ana Freeway westerly and then go south for approximately 1 , 00 O feet and con- nect to the Red Hill Trunks at Mitchell Avenue was investigated. This is not feasible since the Red Hill Trunk invert elevation at Mitchell Ave1:1ue (81 feet) is greater than the ground elevation at Myford Road and Santa Ana Freeway (78 feet). VI-3 .... ·- E. Moulton Parkway Trunk A conne~ting trunk westerly along Moulton Parkway connecting with the Redh.ill Trunks at Edinger Avenue was investigated. This alternative is also not feasible since the Red Hill Avenue Trunk invert.elevation at Edinger Avenue (72 feet) is greater than the ground elevation at Moulton Parkway and Jamboree· Road/Myford Road (54 feet). F. Barranca Road Trunk In this alternative, the Peters Canyon Trunk would continue south . on Myford ~oad to Walnut Avenue, and the.n continue south along the proposed Jamboree Road/Myford Road extension through the MCAS, th~n along the existing Jamboree Road to Barranca Road, and finally west along Barranca Road and connect to the existing Red Hill Avenue Trunks. Due to the existing elevation of the Red Hill·Avenue Trunks and the ground elevation at Barranca and Jamboree Roads, only about 2.4 feet of cover is .available at Barranca and Jamboree Roads for a 36-inch connecting trunk along Barranca Road. To provide more cover at this upstream· end, the trunk would.have to be routed diagonally through the • southeastern corner of the MCAS. Because of the minimum available cover, and the unlikelih9od of securing an easement across the MCAS, this trunk alternative is not recommended. Another consideration regarding this alternative is the insuffi- cient excess capacity in all reaches of the combined Red Hill Avenue Trunks below Barranca Road for the projected additional Peters Canyon Trunk flow (7 .1 ~fs or 4 .6 .mgd). After including VI-4 "'T' ,. . '-' :..- . '-' : ,... --. 1w=i the projected additional now from the northerly draining upper Peters Canyon area ( 1 • 5 cfs or 1 • 0 mgd) • an additional trunk paralleling the Red Hill Avenue Trunks from Barranca Road to McGaw Avenue would be required. Available excess capacity along this reach is presently only about 0. 7 cfs after including the upper Peters Canyon flow. Also. additional parallel trunks along Red Hill Avenue from Reynolds Avenue to Main Street, and along Sunflower Avenue, would be required. These are discussed in the following section on the IVIcGaw Avenue Trunk alternative. The Santa Ana Trunk. owned by CSD No. 1. was analyzed to de- termine if additional excess capacity in the Red Hill Avenue Trunks could be created by diverting ~dditional flows into the Santa Ana Trunk upstream at Bell Avenue. However. this is not feasible, since there is no excess capacity in the upstream reach of the Santa Ana Trunk above Raitt Street. G. McGaw Avenue Trunk In this alternative. Peters Canyon Trunk would continue south from Barranca Road along Jamboree Road to McGaw Avenue. then west along McGaw Avenue, and connect to the Red Hill Avenue Trunks. This connecting trunk alternative is feasible. since the ground elevation at McGaw Avenue and Jamboree Road is suffi- ciently higher than the Red Hill Avenue Trunk elevation at McGaw Avenue and adequately provides approximately 7 feet of cover at McGaw Avenue and Jamboree Road for a 36-inch trunk along McGaw Avenue. This is valid only if the Peters Canyon Trunk Vl-5 . '-' follows the alignment along the proposed Myford Road/ Jamboree Road shown in Figure 1. A trunk alignment further east would reduce pipe cover because of decreasing ground elevation and may make this alternative . unfeasible. Sufficient excess capacitY exists in the· Red Hill Avenue Trunks below McGaw Avenue to the connection with the Sunflower Avenue and Gisler Avenue Trunks. if both Red Hill Avenue Trunks are considered. The Master Planned South Irvine Lift Station will, when constructed. divert and pump flow from the smaller 27-inch Red Hill Avenue Trunk into the larger 68-inch Red Hill Avenue Trunk at the downstream end near Main Street~ Presently. the smaller Red Hill Trunk goes into the Gisler Avenue, Trunk. which was determined to have no excess capacity in its downstream reach. Sinc·e costs for pumping wastewater are high due to energy and maintenance. and energy costs will no doubt significantly increase in the future. pumping of any portion of the new additional flows should be avoided except where absolutely necess~ry. To avoid pumping. all of the new flow from the Peters Canyon Trut?-k should be routed into the larger. Red Hill Avenue Trunk at McGaw Avenue (54-inches) and no portion routed into the smaller 27-inch Red Hill Avenue Trunk. The upper Peters Canyon flow coming down the Tustin-Orange Trunk would automatically enter the larger trunk at McGaw Avenue since a cross connection at this point diverts all upstream flow. into the larger trunk from the VI-6 ...... ... ... : '1:lel ·• . .... J smaller trunk. There .is not. however. sufficient excess capacity available along the larger Red Hill Avenue Trunk. in the reach from Reynolds Avenue to Main Street (approximately 4. 200 feet). to handle the combined total additional now of 8 • 6 cfs ( 5 • 6 mgd) from both the upper Peters Canyon fiow ( 1. 5 cfs) and the Peters Canyon Trunk (7.1 cfs). While about 14.1-cfs (9.1-mgd) excess capacity exists in the combined Red Hill Avenue Trunks. only about 1. 2-cfs (0. 8-mgd) excess capacity exists in the larger trunk. As pointed out under the discussion of the Barranca Road Trunk alternative. the possibility was investigated of routing upstream nows into the Santa Ana Trunk to create more excess capacity in the Red Hill A venue Trunks • However. this is not feasible. as no excess capacity is available in upstream reaches of the Santa Ana Trunk. Another possibility investigated would be to put tl~e Peters Canyon Trunk fiow into both Red Hill Avenue Trunks at McGaw Avenue and utilize excess capacity in the. smaller trunk _from Reynolds Avenue to Main Street. then construct a connecting trunk from the smaller 27-inch trunk to the 63-inch trunk along Main Street. It is doubtful that this is feasible. however. since the top of pipe elevations of the 27 -inch and 6 3-inch trunks are ihe same (23 feet). requiring a connection trunk which would flow surcharged at the downstream end. Further detailed engineering analysis beyond the scope of this study may show this alternative is feasible. Vl-7 ... .\at - A 33-inch-diameter trunk paralleling the larger Red Hill Avenue Trunk for 4, 200 feet, from Reynolds Avenue t~ Main Street, is proposed to provide an additional 7 .4-cfs (4 .8-mgd) average flow capacity. This additional capacity, combined with the 1.2-cfs (0 .8-mgd) ex.cess capacity in the existing Red Hill Avenue 63-inch trunk would provide an additional capacity of 8. 6 cfs (5 .6 mgd) from M<;:Gaw Avenue to the connection with the Sunflower Avenue Trunk. .. Sufficient excess capacity exists in the remaining reaches of the R~d Hill Avenue Trunk below McGaw Avenue_, varying from 14.1 to 20.7 cfs (9.1to13.4 mgd). - H. Main Street Trunk This plan. would extend Pet~rs Canyon Trunk south along Jamboree Road to Main Street and then west along Main Street, cross over the existing 30-inch-diameter trunk, and connect to the 66-inch trunk at Red Hill Avenue. The trunk size would be 30 inch diameter·along Jamboree Road, from McGaw Avenue to Main Street, and 36 inch diameter along Main Street. Summa_rizing, two alternatives are f~asible for connecting the Peters Canyon Trunk to the existing district trunk system. One alternative is a connection trunk along McGaw Avenue with a parallel trunk along a 4, 200-foot reach of Red Hill Avenue, the other is a connection trunk along Main Street. Since there are no additional flows within the scope of this report below McGa w Avenue which would be intercepted by the Main Street alternative. the choice between the two alt~rnatives is largely based on cost. VI-8 - - 1. . ·'-' The cost comparison between the two alternative routes is found in the next section. As shown in Section VII. construction costs of the two alternatives are essentially the same. Based upon engineering factors, the McGaw Street connection trunk is recommended. Additional Facilities and Trunk Reguired Along Sunflower Avenue The analysis of excess capacity in the Sunflower Avenue and Gis- ler Avenue Trunks, downstream of the Red Hill Avenue Trunk. shows there is not sufficient excess capacity in both trunks along their entire length, from the treatment plant to Main Street, to handle the additional projected flows. The total projected addi- tional flow is 8 .6-cfs average flow (5.6 mgd) which consists of 1. 5 cfs ( 1. 0 mgd) from the upper Peters Canyon area via the Tustin-Orange Trunk, and 7 .1 cfs (4. 6 mgd) fro~ the Peters Canyon Trunk entering the system at McGaw Avenue. In the upstream reach of the Sunflower Avenue Trunk, from Bear Street to Main Street, a deficiency of 2 • 3 cf s ( 1 • 5 mgd) exists • In the downstream reach from the treatment plant to approxi- mately Bear Street, about 2 .5-cfs (1.6-mgd) excess capacity exists. Analysis of the Gisler Avenue Trunk shows that it cannot handle additional flows since there is no excess capacity in the down- stream reach, below Bear Street. Also, Gisler Avenue Trunk flows require pumping at the College Avenue pumping station, which should be avoided because of energy costs • Vl-9 t I .... - An analysis of the Santa Ana Trunk (CSD No. 1) shows no availa• ble excess capacity in the· upstream reach ·above Raitt Street and about 5. 6-cfs (3. 6-mgd) excess capacity in the downstream reach from the treatment plant to Raitt Street • Since a defici,..ency of 2. 3 cfs ( 1 • 5 mgd) exists along the upstream reach of the Sunflower Avenue Trunk from Bear Street to Main Street, an additional 11.0-cfs (7 .1-mgd) average flow capacity or 16. 7-cfs (10 .8-mgd) peak flow capacity is needed. . . To provide sufficient capacity along this reach, an additional . . . 39-inch parallel trunk along Sunflower Avenue from Be.ar Street to Main Street is required. This would provide an additional 17 .8-cfs (11.5-mgd) peak capacity. Length of the trunk is ap- proximately 7, 300 feet. In the downstream reach of the Sunflower Avenue Trunk from the treatment plant to the intersection with the Raitt Street Trunk, west of Bear Street, only 2 .5-cfs (1.6-mgd) excess capacity is available, and an additional 6.3-cfs (4.1-mgd) average flow · capacity is needed. In. this reach, advantage can be taken of the approximately 5. 6-cfs (3 • 6-mgd) excess capacity which exists in the dOWI)Stream reach of the Santa Ana Trunk, below Raitt Street. By diverting 5 .6 cfs of the 6.5-cfs (4.2-mgd) Master Plan flow, which presently flows down the Raitt Street Trunk and into the Sunflower Trunk, into the Santa Ana Trunk, an additional 5.6-cfs (3.6-mgd) excess ca- paci ty can be obtained in the downstr.eam r·each of the Sunflower VI-10 !' r ·'WI Avenue Trunk. To divert this flow, a small lift station is re- quired at Raitt Street and Alton Avenue since the Raitt Street Trunk passes under the Santa Ana Trunk. A total lift of 7 to 8 feet is required. The addition of this lift station would give a total available excess capacity in the downstream reach of the Sunflower Avenue Trunk of only 8 .1 cfs (5 .2 mgd) to handle the total projected additional flow of 8. 6 cfs (5. 6 mgd). Although there is still a deficiency in capacity of 0 .5-cfs average now., the amount is small in rela- tion to the capacity of the existing Sunflower Avenue Trunk in this reach (132-cfs capacity). Within the accuracy of this study, it can be assumed that this amount is insignificant and that there is sufficient capacity to handle the total projected additional now with this fl<?w plan. This plan would also eliminate the need to construct a costly parallel trunk along the reach of the Sunflower . Avenue Trunk from the treatment plant to Bear Street. VI-11 VII - CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES - To accommodate the upper Peters Canyon area flow, an additional 12-inch parallel tr"unk is required along an upper reach of the Tustin- Orange Trunk along Orange Park Boulevard, as discussed in Sec- tion V. Length of4f:he trunk is approximately 1, 100 feet. The con- struction cost for this trunk is estimated at $36 per foot, or an esti- mated total of $39, 600, not including engineering, legal, administra- · tive, and other miscellaneous costs and contingencies. This cost is shown in Table VII-3, which shows the total cost, .including fees, for all proposed trunks and facilities. A comparison of construction cost estimates for a McGaw Avenue connection trunk alternative and a Main Street connection trunk al- ternative, for the last reach of the Peters Canyon Trunk, is shown in Table VII:-1 • Within the accuracy of this report, the two alternatives can be considered to have the same construction cost. Since Main Street has considerably heavier traffic than McGaw Avenue and also has a large number of existing utilities in it, the McGaw Avenue Trunk alternative is recommended, although a parallel trunk.along Red Hill is required. The construction cost for eliminating the nine existing pumping sta- tions in the Lemon and Cowan Heights areas, as well as the Navy \Vay and Dow Avenue pumping stations, and connecting to the Peters Canyon. Trunk is estimated to be $542, 040, as shown in Table VII-2. In analyzing the situations for eliminating the Covey Lane, Racquet Hill, and Red Hill Ridge pumping stations .• it was concluded the most cost-effective solutions would be to connect to gravity sewer systems· VII-1 in future adjacent developments. Constructing connecting lines to the Peters Canyon Trunk would require pipelines over 3, 000 feet in length in each case. Pipe costs shown in Table VII-2 for these three pumping stations are figured on this basis. T~e estimated construction cost for the Peters Canyon Trunk only is $3, 497, 800 and is shown in Table VII-3. The total cost of the Peters Canyon Trunk, including elimination and connection of the existing pumping stations; construction of additional parallel trunks and lift station for additional capacity in the existing trunk system; and fees, including preliminary engineering, design surveying, design engi- neering, construction staking, construction inspection, administra- tion, legal, and miscellaneous, is $6, 893, 500 arid is shown in Table VII-3. The unit pipe costs shown include appurtenances, a construction con- tingency of 10 percent, and take into account construction along heavily traveled streets (Main Street, Red Hill Avenue, and Sunflower Avenue). Engineering, surveying, legal, administrative, and inspection costs were estimated at 25 percent of construction cost. Right-of-way costs are not included, since proposed alignments currently outside of public right-of-way are either in Irvine Company property or within the pro- posed extension of Jamboree Road through the MCAS. It is assumed there would not be any charges for right-of-way through these properties. VII-2 '-' TABLE VII-1 -COST COMPARISON BETWEEN McGAW AVENUE TRUNK ALTERNATIVE a.; AND MAIN STREET TRUNK ALTERNATIVE -. (FROM SOUTH OF lVIcGAW AVENUE ONLY) . ._ Pipe Length Dia •. Faciliti (feet) {inches~ Cost/Foot Cost . t9I McGaw Avenue Trunk Al terna ti ve -McGaw Avenue Trunk 6,400 . 36 $126 $ 806,400 .., Parallel Trunk Along Red Hill Avenue 4,200 33 $120 504,000 _. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,310,400 '91 .Pipe Length Dia. Facilitx (feet) {inches~ Cost/Foot Cost ... Main Street Trunk Alternative ~ Trunk from McGaw Avenue to Main Street 2,000 33 $115 $ 230,000 a.I . Main Street Trunk 8,300 36 $.131 1,087,300 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,317,300 .· VII-3 '"t"I" .., TABLE VII-2 COST ESTIMATES FOR Ii-' ELIMINATION OF EXISTING PUMPING STATIONS AND CONNECTION TO PETERS CANYON TRUNK _. 1. Overhill Drive pump station Gravity trunk to PCT 600 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. $14,400 Elimination of pump station 3,000 &=I 2. Cowan Heights pump station Gravity trunk to PCT 500 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 12,000 -Elimination of pump station 10,000 3. Bent Tree Lane pump station Gravity trunk to PCT 500 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 12,000 Elimination of pump station 2,000 4. Derby Dr. No. 1 pump station a.-Gravity trunk to Lower Lake Drive pump station 800 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 19,200 Elimination of pump station 3,000 -5. Derby Dr. No. 2 pump station Gravity trunk to existing gravity trunk 60 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 1,440 _, Elimination of pump station 3,000 6. Lower Lake Dr. pump station Gravity trunk to PCT 1, 500 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 36,000 Elimination of pump station 3,000 ; .. 7. Covey Lane pump station Gravity trunk to PCT 500 ft. of 8 i'n·. pipe @ $24/ft. 12,000 Elimination of pump-station 3,000 wet a. Racquet Hill pump station (Racquet Hill Drive) Gravity trunk to PCT 500 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 12,000 Elimination of pump station 2,000 9. Red Hill Ridge pump station Gravity trunk to PCT 500 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 12,000 Elimination of pump station 5,000 -10. Navy Way and Dow Avenue pump stations 6,000 ft. of 18 in. pipe@ $60/ft. Gravity trunk to PCT 360,000 ... Elimination of .Navy \Vay 15,000 pump station Elimination of Dow Street pump station 5,000 _, TOTAL $542,040 ·-Vll-4 ·' .. • .J tm 1 I .J .. "'! f J.; 1 · -·. j ~-· .. . j j ... '1 i .. -'. i "a. .. 1 :1 J .... i J~ blllf. . . ·. ., TABLE VII-3 COST ESTIMATE FOR PETERS CANYON TRUNK AND ADDITIONAL PARALLEL TRUNKS AND F AClLlTIES ........ Length Pipe Dia. Cost/ Reach From To (F.eet) • {Inches} ~ Cost Peters Canion Trunk 1. Below Peters Canyon Lower Peters . . Reservoir Canyon s.soo 8 $ 24/ft. $ 228.000 .i. Lower Peters Canyon Lower Peters · Canyon 2.100 10 . $ ~0/ft. 63,000 .. 3. Lower Pe~ers Canyon Irvine Blvd. 8,800 12 $ 36/ft. 309,800 ·"· Irvine Blvd. Bryan Ave. 4.200 ...... 18 $ 60/ft. 252,000 5. Bryan Ave. WalmJt s.200 . ,. 21 $ 69/ft. 358,800 a. Walnut Barranca Rd. 12.000 30 . $ 85/ft. 1.020.000 'l. Barranca Rd. McGaw Ave. 4.ooo .·.: 33 $i15./ft. 460.000 -~ .. a. J~boree Rd. Red H111 Ave. G ,:40~ : ·35 $126/.ft. 806£400 .. .. .. . . . ·.· "Total Construction Cost - Peters Canyon Trunk Only . $3 ,497. 800 Orange Park Blvd. Parallel Trunk (Tustin•Orange Trunk Parallel) Sanilago Canyon Blvd. Clark St. 1.100 . 12 $ 36/ft •. · . 39,600. Red Hlll Ave. Parallel Trunk .. .. . ... . . . . . Re111olds Ave. Mab:l St. _4.200 .. 33 $120/ft •. Sunnower Ave. Parallel Trunk Main St. Bear St. ?.300 . 39 $135/ft. Lift Station at Alton Ave. and Raitt St. (Lifts wastewater Crom Raitt St. Trunk into Santa Ana Trunk) Average capacity= 5.6 c!s, peak capacity• a.s cfs, lilt a 7 to 8 ft. Total Construction Cost - Parallel Trunks & Lift Station Only Total Construction Cost - Elimination of Existing Pump Stations (From Table VI-3) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST(l) Preliminary engineering, design surveying, design engineering, construction staking, construction inspection, administration, legal, and miscellaneous @ 25% · · TOTAL COST(2) . 504 .. 000 985,500 20,000 $1.549,100 542,040 $5,588,940 1,397.235 $6.986,175 U>construction costs are indexed to the fourth quarter 1978 EPA urban sewer system cost index !or the Los Angeles Metropolitan area. (2)Excludlng any right-of-way costs. VII-5 .,. I 1t.t VIII CONSTRUCTION PHASING OF PETERS CANYON TRUNK AND FACILITIES Significant points regarding phasing of construction of the proposed facilities are the flow from the northerly draining upper Peters Can- yon development area and excess capacity in the existing trunk system. Additional average flow from this upper Peters Canyon area is pro- jected to be 1.5 cfs (1.0 mgd). This flow would run north into the northern end of the Tustin-Orange Trunk and then into the Red Hill Avenue and Sunflower Avenue Trunks. Presently, there is sufficient available excess capacity in the existing trunk system, with the excep- tion of an 1, 100-foot reach in the upper reach of the Tustin-Orange Trunk, and a 7, 300-foot reach of the Sunflower Avenue Trunk to re- ceive this additional flow, not including the Peters Canyon Trunk flow. Therefore, this upper area can be sewered with two additional trunks to the existing trunk system, consisting of a 1, 100-foot, 12-inch- diameter and a 7, 300-foot, minimum 27-inch-diameter parallel trunk as described in Section VI. The 2 7 inch is indicated as a mini- mum size since it will handle only the additional flow of the upper Peters Canyon area, and a 39-inch relief trunk is required to include the additional Peters Canyon Trunk flow. This assumes that the un- completed section of Reach 18 of the Tustin-Orange Trunk along Orange Park Boulevard will be constructed. Presently, flow is routed along a 12-inch trunk owned by the city of Orange. Another significant point affecting construction phasing is the devel- opment of flows from the MCAS. A total average flow of 9.3 cfs (6 .o mgd) is projected in the Master Plan for the area presently con- taining the MCAS, between Barranca Road and Navy Way. This Master VIII-1 - ·~ Plan flow assumes the MCAS will eventually be phased out and the area developed as an industrial/ commercial ax_:ea. Current flows from the MCAS are estimated at about 0. 56 cfs (4, 0.00 personnel at 90 gpcd). Thus, there is an extra allowance of excess capacity in the existing · system of about 8. 7 cfs (13 .5 mgd) for the eventual development of this area. If the proposed industrial/ commercial area does not develop, the excess capacity from this extra allowance· is sufficient for all of the projected flows from the upper Peters Canyon area and from Peters Canyon Trunk to be handled by the existing trunk system. with only the construction of the 12-inch-diameter parallel trunk along the Tustin-Orange Trunk. Therefore, the proposed additional parallel trunk alon·g Red Hill Ave- nue and the lift station at the Raitt Street Trunk would not be necessary until the flows actually develop from the conversion of ihe'MCAS area to industrial/ commercial use. Construction of these additional facili- ties can be delayed until t~is occurs. VIII-2 ·-·.,·r