HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-14 BI . ~
·-:i
1501 Quail Street
P. 0. Box 3030
/ "
Newport Beach. California 92663
-Ntr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer·
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7
OF ORANGE COUNTY
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley / CA 92708
·Peters Canyon Stucly
consutttnQ enQlneers / architects
'*'* j
-. 714 I 752-0505
Telex 68-5561
W ?!EE 'HS
March 30, 1979
Enclosed is our report of the Peters Canyon Study, which has been prepared in accor-
dance with our proposal dated November 6, 1978. The land-use plans and other
information l!sed in proiecting sewage flows were obtained from The Irvine Company.
The primary obiective of this study was to identify those portions of the district's trunk
. sewer system that indicate·surplus capacity based on ·present district service· commit-
ments and then develop, on a conceptual basis, the additional trunk sewer·facilities
required· to extend the district's service area to .include the Peters Ccnyon study area.
We should caution that while the information presented in this report relative to the
additional facilities required can be used as a guideline in the development of the
district's strategy, further study will be require~ for final facility design. Also,
·since the study plans are conceptual and have not been approved by any regulatory
agency 1 it is probable that final plans for development of the study area will differ
· . somewhat from the conceptual plans. Unless the differences are great, ,-he impact
on t~e findings of this r~port should not be too significant.
·Should the Board of Directors or any of the. staff wish to review this report in detail
with us, we ore available at your convenience. ·
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
{/ni~M1t0~,
Conrad· Hohener, Jr. , PE
Regiontd Vice President
B·C07-129-50
.·
" ..... ---, .. ,...
I J·
I
~·
\a;)
I
i
\.;:)
-· :
\sJ
~·
i
laJ
---I
\;)
-
i
i..J
; -
j
\a;f
-
I
I
\;)
j
~
I
.Ji . ;
I
I
~
•i .......
..
'.
'• . '.
COUNTY SANITATION l>IS.TRI'C"'l' :No,. ~-
UF ORANGE COUN~~ .
.....
. I
\
. . ... . ' . ~
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1111:1
PETERS CANYON STUDY
\Isl SECTION PAGE
I Introduction 1-1
'* ..
II Purpose and Scope II-1
'-' III Summary and Conclusions 111-1
IV Existing Trunk System--Determination of
'-' Excess Capacity IV-1
v Projected Flows From Peters Canyon
Development Areas and Other Areas South
mi of Irvine Boulevard V-1
A. Peters Canyon Study Area V-1 ..
B. Backside Areas o~ 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 Existing Trunk System to· Receive
Flows From Proposed Development Are~s and
Layout of Peters Canyon Trunk Vl-1
~ A. Upper Peters Canyon -Handy Creek Flow Vl-1
• B. Layout of Peters Canyon Trunk and -Connection to Existing Tru~ System Vl-2
c. Irvine Boulevard 'rrunk . VI-3
'=-'
D. Santa Ana Freeway Trunk VI-3 -E· Moulton Parkway Trunk VI-4 .
F. Barranca Road Trunk VI-4
lllld G. McGaw Avenue Trunk VI-5
H. Main Street Trunk VI-8 -1. Additional Facilities and Trunk Required
Along Sunflower Avenue VI-9
lcFI
---·~
i.
-'.
"T'f"
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 are~ north and northeast of Peters Canyon Reservoir.
Also~ they are considering further development of the Tustin Indus-
trial Complex to the east between 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 c;levelopments through the CSD No. 7 system •
. Approximately 4, 100 acres are involved iz:i planning studies for the
proposed developments which are delineated on various planning study
maps prepared by The Irvine Company. About 700 acres north of
Peters Canyon Reservior are already within the district's Master Plan
service ·area. However, The Irvine Company is p~oposing some land-.. .
use changes within this area to those shown in the Master Plan. The
study. area and properties involved are shown in Fl.gure 1 at the back
of this report.
1-1
.. '
i.
..
l ,.
._..
--r• I
'111::1
-
!·
~
. -
:-
II PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study is (a) to analyze the proposed Irvine develop-
ments for wastewater flew 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 Pet~rs 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:
1. Review of the Sunflower Avenue" Gisler Avenue" Red Hill Avenue"
2.
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 ~d 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 •
II-1
3.
5.
6.
7.
a.I.
Review of the area lying east and north of proposed Irvine devel.:.
opments and west of the Santiago County \Va ter Di strict 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 ..
~atural topographic area which drains into Handy Creek and· San-
tia~o Creek is the determining factor of the .nor~erly boundary.
Analysis. of the existing CSD No. 7 trunk system to receive
projected flows from the study areas • .
Layout of P~ters Canyon Trunk and investigation of alternative
connecting trunks to the existing system. Connecting alterna-
tives cons.idered included trunks. along Irvine Boulevard, Santa
Ana Freeway, Moulton Parkway, Barranca 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. 2, Lower Lake Drive, Covey Lane, 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.
Preparation of construction ~ost e~tima tes for Peters Canyon
Trunk, by reaches, and connecting trunk alternatives. Also,
cost estimates for connecting sewerlines to existing pumping
stations and for elimination of the pumping stations.
II-2
I ...
'
i
'
: ..
III SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summary of significant conclusions and facilities pro-
posed in the study:
1. The total additional projected fiow from all new development areas
2 •.
in Peters Canyon and below Irvine Boulevard, and from those areas
curre.ntly 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
and Dow Avenue pumping stations.
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 not sufficient excess capacity in the existing trunk system
,.._ for the combined flow from both the northerly draining upper Peters
' ·~
IIl-1
...
Canyon area and southerly draining areas of the study. The pro-
posed Peters Canyon Trunk would convey flows from the southerly
draining lower Peters Canyon area and areas south of Irvine
Boulevard.
In. addition to the parallel trunk de.scribed in Item 2 above for the
upper Peters Canyon flow, ~he following f~cilities are required to
provide additional capacity along those .reaches ~f t}?-e 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 Aven.ue Trunk from Reynolds . .
Avenue to Main Street.
7, 300 feet of 39-inch pipe along Sunf~ower Avenue which 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 capacity 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 pro·posed 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
(-'
I l._i
t
r
l ,._
I
~-
:
l ·-
'-'
...
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 5 2, 000 feet or about
9.9 miles. The trunk size varies from 8-to 36-inch-diameter pipe.
5. Construction cost for the Peters Canyon Trunk is estimated to be
$3, 498, 000. Construction cost for elimination of existing pumping
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.
'
IIl-3
IV
. ai:d •
.....
EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM--DETERMINATION OF EXCESS
CAPACITY
The district's existing sewage collection system naturally nows 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 locateq 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 (ma~imum 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.r Trunk Sewer Facilities, May, 1969. ~ince the Master Plan was
written, several of the nows have been-updated to reflect new revised
land uses. The latest flows were considered in this study.
In determining excess capacity along a reach of sewer trunk, both
average flow and peak flow must be considered. The relationship be-.
tween average flow and peak flow for district flows was developed in
the Master Plan and is as follows:
0.92
Q peak= 1.84 (Q average)
IV-1
·-
i
(\el
I
.~.
i ,.,
...
The excess capacity of a given reach of trunk must actually be deter-
. mined in terms of average flow. This is because the peak flow is the
peak of the combined average flows after they reach the trunk.
This is illustrated as follows:
. / Q 1 (average) I Q2 (average)
Qcap (peak) Qexcess
= peak capacity of sewer trunk
= average Master Plan incoming flows
Qexcess = excess average fl.ow capacity' in sewer trunk
Setting the peak capacity of the trunk equal to the peak ~f the combined
average flows or Qcap = 1.84 (Q 1 + Q 2 + Qexcess>0 •92
Rearranging, Ql + Q2 + Qexces.s = (Qcap) 1.09
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 ex.c.,.ess capaci\y of the trunk, Qexcess• must be expressed
in terms of average flows •
. Knowing the Maste:r 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'' .
vaiue of 0 .013, flowing at a depth-to-diameter ·ratio of O .92, was used
to determine hydraulic capacity.
Sewer pipe is built in 3-inch incremental pipe diameters. As the pipe
diameter increase•s and as the f!lop·e (grade) of the pipe increases, the
hydraulic capacity of the pipe increases, and thus the potential for
excess capacity in the pipe increases. As shown _earlier~ the excess
capacity in a sewer trunk depends on the hydraulic capacity of the
pipe arrd the incoming Master Plan wastewater flows.
The excess capacity for each trunk analyzed varies along tl~e trunk as
the hydraulic capacity and the Master Plan nows vary along the trunk.
In determining excess capacity for a single trunk, the reach with the
minimum excess capacity and of substantial trunk length (usually at
least 1, 0.00 feet) was used as a measure of the excess capacity of the
entire trunk.
IV-3
. .
i:m.
The analysis for excess capacity shows that the Tustin-Orange Trunk .
ha·s about 1.2-cfs (0.8-mgd) excess capacity along ~he 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 enth;e 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 c_fs (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 Pl~n and con-
struction of this reach. The Gisler Avenue Trunk has about 3.5-cfs
(2. 3-mgd) exce.ss capacity in the upstream reach only. It· was also
necessary to analyze the Santa Ana Trunk, located in 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 based on flows developed .for the CSD No. 1
Master Plan, 1965. The Santa Ana Trunk will be discussed further
in following se.ctions •
IV-5
· i·r
...
..,.
V PROJECTED FLOWS FROM PETERS CANYON DEVELOPMENT
AREAS AND OTHER AREAS SOUTH OF IRVINE BOULEVARD
The overall study area from which additional future wastewater fiows
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
Low-Density
Residential
(lots above
1 0 ' 0 0 0 sq • ft • ) 1-4 .0018 1,160
~
Low-Density
Residential
(hillside) 1-3 .0010 650 .. Medium-Density ·
Residential 7-17 .0060 3,880
l:::si. a:igh-Densi ty
Residential 17 or more .0090 5,820
. ..., Commercial .0050 3,230
Industrial .0060 3,880
md Recreational <;>r
Open Space .0003 .. 190
'-'
V-2
... r
I ·-
.· ..
!mil
I
;
. '9Q
Table V-2 lists the flo~s 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 Ir~ne 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
I I l I ... ( l [ [ I l L [ [ 1,-I I l I l
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. Pian (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
I (6-15 DU/ ~ acre) 140 128 o.oaao· 0.84 0.77
High
Density
(15-2~ 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. 73 (2 .40 mgd) 2 .20 (1.42 mgd)
.....
.....
..
·.•
I
' l:mi
;~
, am
\ tml
".mi
.....
....
i.:I
....
:.-.
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, 394 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 Flow
(Irvine Co. Area (acres) Cofficient Average Flow (cfs)
Designations) Irvine Co. (cfs/ acre) Irvine Co.
Low Density--
Estate
(0.1-2 DU/
acre) 603 0.0010 0.60
Low Density
(2-6 DU/
acre) 515 0.0024 1.24
Medium
Density
(6-15 DU/
acre) 101 0.0060 o.6l
High
Density
(15-24 DU/
acre) 12 0.0090 0.11
Commercial 41 0.0050 0.21
Water
Filtration Plant 6 0.0024 0.01
Parks 116 0.0003 0.03
TOTALS 1,394 2 .81 (1.82 mgd)
V-5
B.
...
-
..
Backside Areas of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights
Also draining into Peters Canyon are approximately 574 acres of
low-density hillside residential area lying along the ~ackside o_f
the Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights areas, which naturally drain
east into Peters Canyon. Approximately 201 acres presently in the
district are served by nine small pumping stations which pump
wastewater back over into the district trunk .system, and 3 7 4 acres
are either undeveloped or are on individual septic tank 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 in Table V-4.
TABLE V-4
. FLOWS FROM LEMON HEIGHTS AND
COWAN HEIGHTS BACKSIDE AREAS
Flow
Area Coefficient
Land Use (acres) (cfs/acre)
Low Density --
Hillside;
area served
by pumping
stations 201 0.0010
Low Density --
Hillside;
area presently
on individual
s ept~c tanks 290 o .otno
Low Density --
Hillside; area
presently
undeveloped 83 0.0010
TOTALS 574
*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)
"1•r
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. Th us , 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 Plann~d Community-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 generate larger wastewater
nows ~nd our approach in this study is to be conservative, we
have tabled flows accordingly. This area comprises about
V-7
i1
·tmi
'"-!
... . : ':'.
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 THE AREA BETWEEN
SANTA ANA FREEWAY AND IRVINE BLVD. AND
BETWEEN BROWNING A VE. AND MYFORD RD.
Flow Average
Area Coefficient Flow
Land Use (acres) (cfs/acre) (cfs)
Low Density
Residential
(1-6 DU/acre) 375 0.0024 0.90
Medium Density
Residential
(7-16 DU/acre) 100 0.0060 0.60
Commercial 10 0.0050 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 Avenue and Myford Road is
known as the East Tustin Industrial Complex. It is proposed
that the industrial and institutional land us~ 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
.· .. '·Y~l~'i\. -
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 now 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 now 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
'1m1
as projected by the Maste~ Plan, for a total average flow of
4 .1 cfs from the Navy Way pumping station.
A summary of the t9t~l pr~jec.ted flows which wouldCirain 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 m~d).
TABLE V-7
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FLOWS
TO PETERS CANYON TRUNK
A. Peters Canyon area -Peters
Canyon Reservoir to Irvine Blvd.
(Irvine Company) •
B. Backside areas ·of Lemon Heights
and Cowan Heights
SUBTOTAL, ABOVE IRVINE BLVD.
C. Residential area between Irvine
Blvd. and Santa Ana Freeway
D. Industrial area between Moulton
Parkway and Irvine Blvd.
(Tustin Industrial Complex)
E. Navy \Vay pumping station (including
Dow St. pumping·station)
TOTAL .·
V-10
Area
(acres) .
1.394
574
1.968
575
311
2.854
Average Flow
(cfs)
2.81
0.57
3.38
1.91
1.85
4.01
11.15 (7 .2 mgd)
. .,
....
....
. llSt
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 capacity 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
of 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 pa~allel 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
. .._
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 nows from the Peters Canyon· Trunk, but only those
from the upper Peters Canyon northerly ~raining area. As will
be discussed in following sections, there does not appear to be . .
suffic"ient 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. t9 Existing Trunk
System
The Peters 9anyon 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 ba~kside 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 Trunk could connect to the
existing trunk system. These include a connection trunk along
Moulton Parkway, Barranca Road, Mc;Gaw Avenue, or Main
Stree.t. Also, conne.cting 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
.·
-'
..... -r·r
The recommended alternative is to extend the Peters-.¢aD::r.o~·.
Trunk south along Jamboree Road to l\'IcGaw Avenue and west along
McGaw A:venue. 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
A connecting trunk westerly on Irvine Boulevard and connecting
to the Lemon Heights Trunk. which would convey all or a portion
of the now from the Peters Canyon Trunk to the existing system
at this point. was investigated. This plan. however. is not feasi-
. ble eince there is no available excess capacity in the Lemon
Heights Trunk (see ~ection IV). according to Master Plan pro-
-jected nows.
D. Santa Ana Freeway Trunk
A connecting trunk which would follow the Santa Ana Freeway
westerly and then go south for approximately 1 • 00 0 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 Avenue (81 feet) is greater than the ground elevation at
Myford Road and Santa Ana Freeway (78 feet).
VI-3
E. Moulton Parkway Trunk
A connecting trunk westerly along Moulton Parkway connecting
with the Redhill 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 Road to Walnut Avenue, and then continue south along
the proposed Jamboree Road/Myford Road extension through the
MCAS, then along the existing Jamboree Road to Barranca Road,
and finally west along Barranca R~ad and conriect to U;te 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 unlikelihood 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 oft.he combined Red Hill
Avenue Trunks below Barranca Road for the projected additional
Peters Canyon Trunk flow (7 .1 cfs or 4. 6 mgd) .• After including
VI-4
G.
.,_.
'\i=d
the projected additional now from the northerly draining upper
Peters Canyon area ( 1 • 5 cfs or 1. O 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 O. 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 McGaw 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 additional 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.
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
VI-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.
S~fficient excess capacity exists in the Red Hil~ Avenue Trunks
below McGaw Avenue to the connection with the Sunflower Avenue
a~d 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.
-Since costs for pumping wastewater are high due to energy and.
maintenance, and energy costs will no doubt significantly increase
f
in the future, pumping of any portion of the new additional flows
should be avoided except where absolutely necessary.
To avoid pumping, all of the new flow from the Peters Canyon
TrUJ:?.k should be routed into the larger Red Hill A venue 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 tr_unk from the
VI-6
. .,.. r-
'ad.
I .....
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
flows 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 flow into both Red Hill Avenue Trunks at McGaw
Avenue and utilize excess capacity in the smaller trunk from
Reynolds Avenue to l'v1:ain 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 63-inch trunks are
~he same (23 feet), requiring a connection trunk which would now
surcharged at the downstream end. Further detailed engineering
analysis beyond the scope of this study may show this alternative
is feasible.
Vl-7
H.
A 33-inch-diameter trunk paralleling the larger Red Hill Avenue
Trunk for 4, 200 feet, from Reynolds A venue to Main Street, is
proposed to provide an·addi-tional 7 .4-cfs (4 .8-mgd) _Q,verage now
capacity. This additional capacity, combined with the 1. 2-cfs
(0 .8-mgd) excess capacity in the existing Red Hill Avenue 63-inch
trunk would provide an additional capacity of 8. 6 cfs (5. 6 mgd) from
McGaw Avenue to the connection with the ·sunflower Avenue Trunk.
Suffi~ient excess capacity exists in t~e r~maining reaches of the
Red Hill Avenue Trunk below ·McGaw Avenue, varying from 14 .1 to
20.7 cfs (9._1 to 13.4 mgd).
Main Street Trunk
This plan would extend Peters 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 diall).eter along ~amboree Road,
from McGaw Avenue to Main Street, and 36 inch diameter along
Main Street.
Summa_rizing, two alternatives are feasible 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 McGaw
Avenue which would be intercepted by the Main Street alternative,
the choice between the two alternativ:es 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 cfs (1.5 mgd) exists.
In the downstream reach from the tr,~~tment plant to approxi-
mately Bear Street, about 2 .5-cfs ·(l •6•ingd) 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.
VI-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 deficiency 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 ( 1 O • 8-mgd) peak flow capa<?i.tY is needed.
To provide sufficient capacity along this reach, an additional
39-i~ch parailel trunk along Sunflower Avenue from Bear Street
tq 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 A.venue 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 downstream 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-
pacity can be obtained in the downstream reach of the Sunflower
VI-10
,.r
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 flow, 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 flow
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
lmd.
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 of.the 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
connectio·n 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 1arge 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 gravi o/ 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 Vll-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.
Vll-2
-
TABLE VII-1
ems
COST COMPARISON BETWEEN
McGAW AVENUE TRUNK ALTERNATIVE
AND MAIN STREET TRUNK ALTERNATIVE -)lid (FROM SOUTH OF McGAW AVENUE ONLY)
Is:! Pipe
Length Dia •.
FacilitI (feet) !inches} Cost/Foot Cost -McGaw. Avenue Trunk
Alternative
--McGaw Avenue Trunk 6.400 . 36 $126 $ 806.400
Parallel Trunk Along .. Red Hill Avenue 4.200 33 $120 504.000
ell TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1.310,400
.. .Pipe
Length Dia.
Facility (feet) (inches} Cost/Foot Cost -Main Street Trunk
Alternative
~ Trunk from McGaw
Avenue to Main Street 2.000 33 $115 $ 230.000
'-' . Main Street Trunk 8,300 36 $.131 1. 087. 300
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1.317 .300
,·
VII-3
....
TABLE VII-2 ....
COST ESTIMATES FOR
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
.t, 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
t9t Elimination of pump station 2,000
4. Derby Dr. No. 1 pump station
'91!1 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
.l:ICI Gravity trunk to PCT 500 ft. of 8 fn·. pipe @ $24/ft • 12,000
Elimination of pump-station 3,000
·~ a. Racquet Hill pump station
(Racquet Hill Drive)
Gravity trunk to PCT 500 ft. of 8 in. pipe @ $24/ft. 12,000
Jml 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
-=t pump stations
Gravity trunk to PCT 6,000 ft. of 1s· in. pipe@$60/ft. 360,000
Elimination of .Navy Way
~ pump station 15,,000
Elimination of Dow Street
pump station 5,000 ..
TOTAL $542,040
~ ... VII-4
--
... .,
..,
'
J
t:d
"' t
J ..
~
i
I
J .....
] ..
!
i
J ~.;:)
1
t ...
4mi ·.
i' ... .... ..
.....
.. _,,·
. ~-
TABLE Vll-3
COST ESTIMATE FOR
PETERS CANYON TRUNK
AND ADDITIONAL PARALLEL TRUNKS~ FACILITIES -·
Length Pipe Dia. Cost/
Reach From To (Feet) {Inches! f22!. Cost
Peters Canion Trunk
1. Below Peters Canyon Lower Peters ..
Reservoir Canyon 9,500 8 $ 24/ft. $ 228,000
~-Lower Peters Canyon Lower Peters ·
Canyon 2.100 10 . $ '30/ft. 63,000
3. Lower Pe~ers Canyon Irvine Blvd. 8,600· 12 $ 36/ft. 309,600
. 4'. Irvine Blvd • Bryan Ave. 4.,200 . 18 $ 60/ft. 252.000
s. Bryan Ave. Walnut s.200 ,.·21 $ 69/ft. 358,800
s • Walnut Barranca Rd. 120000 30 ·$ 85/ft. 1.020.000 . .
'I. Barranca Rd. McGaw Ave. 4,000 -.. 33 $1i~/ft. 460.000
.: .. a. Ja~boree Rd • Red Hill Ave. s.~o~ : ·3s $126/!t· 806 ,400 ..
..
· · ·Total Construction Cost -
Peters Canyon Trunk Only . $3.497,800
Orange Park Blvd. Parallel Trunk (Tustin-Orange Trunk Parallel)
Santiago Canyon Blvd. Clark St.· 1.100 . 12 $ 36/tt •. · . 39,600 .
Red Hlll Ave. Parallel Trunk .. . . -... . .· ..
. Reynolds Ave. Main St. _4.200 .. 33 $120/ft.
Sunflower Ave. Parallel Trunk
Main St. Bear St. 1.soo . 39 $135/rt.
Lift Station at Alton Ave. and Raitt St •
(Lifts wastewater from Raitt St. Trunk into Santa Ana Trunk)
Average capacity= 5.6 cfs, peak capacity= 8.6 cfs, llit a 7 to 8 ft.
Total Construction Cost -
Parallel Trunks & Lift Station Only
Total Construction Cost -
Elimination ot Existing
Pump Stations
(From Table VI-3)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST(!)
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 indef !or the Los Angeles Metropolitan area.
(2)Exclud1ng any right-of-way costs.
VII-5
..
' .
. -
....
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 fl.ow.
Therefore, this upper area can be sewered with two additional trunks
to the existing trunk system, consisting of a 1, 1_00-foot, 12-inch-
diameter and a 7, 300-foot, minimum 27-inch-diameter parallel
trunk as described in Section VI. The 27 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 constructe~. 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 ai.:ea. Current nows from
the MCAS are estimated at about 0.56 cfs (4,000 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 the'MCAS area
to industrial/ commercial use. Construction of these additional facili-
ties can be delayed until t~is occurs.
Vlll-2
'T'f
..
II
• _ ~OARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
DISTRICT No. 7 Area Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING -
WEDNESDAY1 ·NOVEMBER 141 1979·-6:00 P.M.
(IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE REGULAR JOINT BOARD MEETING)
(1) Roll call
(2) Report of engineer on Peters Canyon Study mailed to Directors with the
September 12th agenda material and received and filed by the Board on
September 12, .1979 (If a Director would like additional copies, please
contact the staff.)
(3) Discussion
(4) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from The Irvine Company
dated November 5, 1979, requesting initiation of procedures to satisfy
requirements of CEQA re proposed Peters Canyon area annexation. See
page "A"
(5) Consideration of motion declaring intent re annexation of Peters Canyon
area. If Board decides to proceed with annexation, the following actions
will be necessary to initiate procedures in compliance with CEQA:
(a) Receive and file Initial Study and declare that an
Environmental Impact Report re proposed annexation
must be prepared
(b) Order filing of Notice of Preparation
(c) Authorize preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report
(d) Authorize staff to solicit proposals for preparation of
Draft Environmental Impact Report relative to proposed
Peters Canyon Annexation
(6) Consideration of motion to adjourn
r ~~\ 1 1HE IRVINE CONIP;>J\IY
· ·-" "' • J 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I
• Newport Beach, California 92663
(714) 644-3011
"A-1"
November 5, 1979
Fred Harper, General Manager
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Ave.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: Peters Canyon Area Annexation EIR
Dear Mr. Harper:
Recently, the Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 received and
filed an engineering report by Boyle Engineering addressing the f easi-
bility of serving The Irvine Company's Peters Canyon area. It has come
to our attention that in order for the Orange County Sanitation No. 7 to
fully consider the annexation of the Peters Canyon area shown on the
attached map, it will be necessary to prepare an EIR in addition to the
Boyle Engineering Report. The Irvine Company hereby requests that the
District initiate procedures to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. It is
our hope that the.Board of Directors, at its November meeting, will auth-
orize staff to file a Notice of Preparation and proceed with the
preparation of necessary environmental documents. It is our understanding
that initiating the EIR is a part of the District's deliberations to
determine whether the subject area should be annexed.
Since the processing will require approximately three months, it is a key
element to resolving the annexation question. We understand that the
Company will be responsible for reasonable costs of preparing the
envirorunental documentation by a mutually selected consultant.
We look forward to working with you on this matter and would be happy to
provide any other information necessary.
Community Development Division
THN/nb
cc: Art Bruington, IRWD
AGENDA ITEM #4 "A-1"
. ~
.. 1
I:.. I ··,
I
I• ;._J ;,
"·
11:_211 ,-
·I to Orange County
Sanitation District No.7
AGENDA ITEM #4
.. ----.
. .;
(:.; ,.
\
"A-2"
SUPERVISOR, THIRD DISTRICT
EDISON W. MILLER
ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701
PHONE: 834-3330 (AREA CODE 714)
November 9, 1979
Mr. Don Smith, Chairman
County Sanitation Districts
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
De a r Mr • Sm i t h :
I am in receipt of your notice of a special meeting
scheduled for 6:00 PM on Wednesday, November 14th.
Unfortunately, I have a long-standing previous commit-
ment at that time, and will be unable to attend. I
do plan to attend the regular meeting that same evening
at 7:30 P.M. I will be sending a representative fri'"
this office, my Executive Assistant, PatRela Bi~ele~1, to
the special meeting to take notes for me.
I look forward to seeing you at the regular meeting at
7:30 PM.
Sincerely, '
~/ff'~
Edison W. Mil le r
EWM:bw
\\-l"l-11
¥WA.U. ~
~-~
II
MA NAG :::~·r /.C-Et~::>A REP O RT
Co unty Sanit<.tion Dis tricts
of Oran ge Co unty , Cal iforni a
DISTRICT N O.
Specia l Me e ting
7
November 14 , 1979 -6:00 p .m.
Post Office Box 81 2 7
10844 El lis A venu e
Fo untain V o lley, Calif., 927 08
T e le prc ne s:
Areo Code 71 4
540-2910
962-2 4 11
Chairman Don Smith has called a special me e ting of the Dis t r i ct
No. 7 Board f o r 6:00 p.m., immediately precedi n g t h e reg ular Jo int
Board meeting Wednesday, November 14th , for t he purpose o f rev iew -
ing the En g ineer's Report on the Feasibility of Se rving the Peters
Canyon area easterly of the present District b o u ndary. The report
was received a nd filed by the Bo ard on September 1 2 for study p ur -
poses.
Because of the early hour of the meeting, sandwiches an d c o ffee
will be provided for the Board members.
Conrad Hohener , representing Boyle Engin eerin g Co rporatio n , will
review his firm's report concerning the Peters Ca n y on area. This
will be followed by a discussion concerning t h e feasibility of annex-
ing this area .
If any Director wishes an a ddi t ional cop y of th e report, please
call the Di s tricts' office, 540 -2910 .
If the Bo ard d e termines the study is adequate , the Directors may
wish to proc e ed with initiation o f proceedings to sa tisfy the CEQ A
r e quirements f or consideration of an annexa t i o n of the Peters Cany on
ar ea . The a ct i o ns ap pe a ring o n the a genda would i n i t i ate this s tudy.
Included in the ag enda mat e rial _ is a let ter f r om Th e Irvine
Co mp a ny dat e d Novembe r 5, reque s ting that the Boa r d p r o c e ed with
the initiation of proc e edings t o satis f y thes e r e quireme nts. The
Co mp a ny has i n d icated their willing ness to pay f o r the co st s a ss o -
cia ted with t h e prep a ration of an Environmen t al I mpact Re p ort.
Subsequent t o the preparation of the Boyle Eng ineering study,
r e pr esent atives o f The Irv ine Comp any have s ubmitted t o the sta f f
t wo a lt e r nat e pro posa l s , e ach of which would change the size o f t h e
propose d a nnexa t i o n . Re pres e n t a t i v e s o f The Irvine Company will b e
pre s e n t at t he meeting t o discus s the se propos a ls.
·....,_;
INITIAL STUDY
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of Q RANGE COUNTY. CALIFORN!t.
PO.BOX8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 54~2910
(714)962-2411
This form shall be completed to comply with the Guidelines Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 As Amended and as adopted by the
County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County,
California, dated April 25, 1978.
Title and Location of Project Peters Canyon Study prepared by
Boyle Engineering Co~poration, dated March, 1979
Description of Project This Feasibility Report investigates the
possibility of annexing approximately 4100 acres adjacent to and
easterly of the present boundaries of District No. 7. This report
analyzes the impacts on the present District No. 7 sewer system
and the flows which may result from the anticipated development
within the proposed area to be annexed to the District by the
Irvine Company.
GUIDELINES
1. Does the proposed ac~ivity qualify as a project as defined in Section 28.
Yes No x
(If activity does not qualify as project, do not complete remainder of form)
2. Does the project qualify as:
a. Ministerial (Section 6) Yes
b. Emergency (Section 13) Yes
No x
No x
c. A feasibility or planning study (Section 33) Yes No x
d. Categorically exempt pursuant to Article 8 of the State Guidelines
(Section 40) Yes No x
e. Involves another agency which constitutes the lead agency (Section 36)
Yes No~x~ If yes, identify lead agency:
(If yes has been checked for any of the above, an Environmental Impact
Assessment/Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration need not
be prepared. Complete and certify Exhibit A as set forth in Guidelines
~tanual.)
If there is no affirmative action to Items 2.a. through 2.d. above, Items 3
and 4 are not applicable and, therefore, need not be coopleted.
3. Initial study procedures
A. Evaluating Environmental Significance (See Section 34)
1. Will the project have any significant effect on the environment
as per the following:
a. Is it in conflict with environmental plans and goals that
have been adopted by the community where the project is
to be located? Yes No x
b. Does it have a substantial and demonstrable aesthetic
effect? Yes No~
c. Will it substantially effect a rare or endangered species
of animal or plant, or habitat of such a species? Yes
d. Does it cause substantial interference with the movement
of any resid:ent or migratory fish or wildlife species?
Yes No·x
~
e. Does it breach any published national, state or local
standards relating to solid waste or litter control?
Yes No x
f. Will it result in a substantial detrimental effect on air or
water quality, or on ambient noise levels for adjoining
areas? Yes x No
g. Does it involve the possibility of contaminating a public
water supply system or adversely affecting ground water?
Yes No x
h. Could it cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation?
Yes No x
i. Could it expose people or structures to major geologic
hazards? Yes No x
j . Is it likely to generate growth? Yes x No
No x
If the answer is yes to any of the above, describe in detail.
Offering of sewer service to presently undeveloped lands
will aid in development of area.
If there is affirmative action on any of the foregoing, an Environmental Impact
Report may be required.
4. If there is no significant impact as set forth in Item 3, a through j, a
Negative Declaration shall be prepared in accordance with Exhibit "C" as shown
in the "Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 as Amended"
-2-
.--\
5. If an Environmental Impact Report is required, explain below procedures in
causing preparation of same.
'...I District shall select outside consultant to assist in prepar-
ation of Environmental Impact Report. Cost of outside
services to be paid by Irvine Company.
November 14, 1979
Date
...
'\
.-.. -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(71"4) 5"40-2910
(714) 962-2"4 11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Peters Canyon Annexation
Location: Adjacent to County Sanitation District No. 7 easterly boundary
Entity or Person Undertaking Project:
A. District: County Sanitation District No. 7
B. Other:
Staff Determination:
The District's staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of
this project in accordance with Section 37 of the District's Local Guidelines
Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the proposed project might have a significant effect on
the environment, has reached the following conclusion:
x
1. The project could not have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, a Negative Declaration should be prepared.
2. The project could have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, an EIR will be required.
11-14-79
Date General Manager
.... ·,
•
-( Nl(_ ll;-1'{r )f (: <)U __;\,.' -l f A./\
rr \,./"'-• . . l~ .. L I"*\ V "'(' I
~ l. I Vl, 1l~ l
I I
/1·-.-...... u ( tJ~l
/1Cc,~ {tM<.L, ~JC... o•\ If~(< £!.•r~ -..
/ ,,,.1 ,, . "'--t"'.' \". u !--. r/ l ,,.,,,1,, t (; ...
;t1A'i_~/ eL~ o( ~ c lkv, L(-
(.(;-« L, e \ '"", ~ .. ~"' ,J.: c1 ryJ ~·· , ~1;:;-
c" " _,.,. al.. (!/,,.._•( W, { '--f<~ 'C71 · O"'' ?
5k ., : .,_..J, , , .. / ; v. ,,. I ;,,"-"--4 . .:._ l
4<'c J < 1.--1.. (?, L, ~r -;, ~._
ii ,.\c.p
;\I c. ,
(Iv ?' .. ,,_c7 .IJ U<« .£, ~
.£<Ur:. :" ~ t"; l LI
-~ ------. . --?,,:{))_ "J
j// ~!,,, .. n5 . v)I )//f 7 J; 7 YJ-· /, v' 7 /ViS-J j _, !:. f )'rq1
-__ J-y_~1_!~~C) -;~T'/I; ~---,_,, 7J •ii-7-> T/j7
----------
7 v l'J-!/,; 'V O ~ vr; ,: ':) >'1'r ~ . / T >J l,, .,......_,(),__ __
I ) -
•· -~-~~ '1__ ·;~ '·~ ')~/--~'-, ~ l ft/ I'/ r
/''T' _",·o/ ~,7 ; ~, _ a"Jrt__r ·;;!'' Tf;
E-P j ',' L >:,I ;~)-rt ~ . ~ l/V
J . -I ----------
---_ -------~-----~~~-~·_;J~-~~1 --~~r.J~:,~)°O/~~~-
() f"\f_~_Js _..., rv;·7 'M /.'..A fV;/,' '; 2:. t )1 ·...,.'t./.J -_.,, ~h7 ~ .J' "'Y?.S -'1 ~.I '· 'I?~ .,.._ _3J --~
»fno-"'T ;y, j ?;"':P) r--r; ~L ·~; )/ ' '' 11 '1
' '>4 __ , 7-r -~-::_ ,:, rtb
---· ------,L-,, tJ o.J>..,1 -r i1 ~1
-------7 ,,,,_,.,_v-. .,{'¥'1()-/, ~ '!.---I, "'/ ~ -; , ,,~
------/ 11 ,,,,FJ )..,..,_n1; J, L7 1 "Jr 1 ,,, ;
'7 __.. !? 7T (/ -/ -)-ru y-rt ' ,,.,; I ) -
/, • CH""/ y· y >;;(;vr,-<J --. 7 I.~,.,--''----'--~--. --
-. (/".JflZ-• :7;i --;;j/ T ""'--·~ --.."--.,._, ( rr I y >\ .. OJI
-~ !/) d r_----s. 17/ r7 ->·'./d;t FJ~ -~ ,,,. .)
~/ti -7~n1J-_s_Cj ,..,; s _.11 , () 11[
I
--,-g~,~; :> l /\/J r~(r)~ -cu71 ·1
~
<
-,-.
) ,. -!" 1-__ ~ ;"IA:rr--,.. --
. , i • • ----·
I
r 1 J I
)"Vt)i'~ •. l I ~ rr _~a j ~v n·v .. ·y(~ ~.. \~ ~ "1M~ }'rt)i) -
i) .!. ...
'!'..
' ~ ~~~ vu -3 (!,~ c~~J_ 1-~~ h, /~~
tJ C re,~" , ! --;{ii •<<-A/£ •".f' f R'c,, , h" TS""" J,,. j (,~I
1l V V 1 "-._ c r.)
----&-~f. (_ /) ..l~ ~7 "{ _t _C-U2_ __ -
------~ ~' J,;__J,M_. _£ ~·-pbr-z...·"
---~~ ~ -~-------~ ----------
___ 2, _(.;,_~~ .. < ~/.~'!L _r/J1~f_c;e~~· ~~ ~!:'"
I
----------
-----
-----
-----!IL --~-
MEETING DATE November 14, 1979TJME 6:00 p.m . D I S TRI CT S 7 ---------
DISTRICT 1
(SCHUS TE R). · · · · SHARP .. · ....
(YAMAMO TO).···· WARD·.· ...•. ------
(RILEY).· .. ···· ANTHONY· .... ·======
(CRANK).· ... • · · HUTCH I SON· .•. _____ _
DISTRICT 2
(FRIED) •..•.• ·· WEDAA · · .....
(RASHFORp) •.• ··HOLT ··· ..•... ------
~GAMBINA) .•..•• FOX , ....... ·== ----
WELLS).· ....•• HOUSTON ...... __ ====
ANTHONY).····. MILLER ......•
(CU LVER) ••..•.. PERRY········======
(GRAHAM) ••••.. · ROGET· •. • ....
(SEYMOUR) .....• ROTH · · · · •... ------
(HOYT) •...••.. SMITH-.•..•.• ------
(SVALSTAD) •.... STANTON -.•.•• ------
(WINTERS) •..... VELASQUEZ· •.. ------
(WARD) ••.•.••.. YAMAMOTO····======
DISTRICT 3
(NYBORG) .••.•.. FRESE •.......
~EVANS).······ ·ROWAN·······.------
SVALSTAD)· ····ADLER·······.------
MACALt,.ISTER) ··BAILEY ··· ..•. ------
(PERRY).······ ·CULV ER ··· ..•. ------
(CO L LACOTT) ····FINLAYSON· ... ------
(CORBETT) · • · · · ·GRAHAM . · · •... ------
~ GAMB I NA)· • • • · ·LE BARON ..•.. ------
~GR I FF JN) ••.•.. REESE····· ••. ------
&
. S EYM OUR)······ ROTH · .•.•.••. ------
LASZLO) •• •• •• ·SEITZ· .•.•.•. ------
OMM I CK .~ ....•. SY LVIA .••••.• ------
(WHEE LE R •...•• WEISHAUPT •..• ======
(ANTHONY •.•.•. WI EDER •.•..•.
(VELASQUEZ) .... WINTERS ...••. ------
(WARD). .•...... YAMAMOTO ..••. ------------
DISTRICT 5
(HUMMEL)\ ...... RYCK OFF ...••.
(RYCKOFF; •• ·.··STRAUSS.· .... ------
(ANTHONY) ...... RI LE Y········======
DISTRICT 6
(RYCKOfF) •.••.• MC INN I S ...•.
(CRANK) ..•..•.• HUTCHISON •.•. ------
(R ILEY ) ..•..... AN THONY ······======
DISTRICT 7
(HOYT) · ·······SM ITH········ ./
(RYCKO FF )······WI LL IA MS····· tL. == ==
(;·/AHNER) .•••..• GLOCKNER ~
(ANTHONY) ...••• MILLER ~.:::.. == --
(s ILLS)· · · · · · .. VARDOULI S .. : '. ::;, ... __ --;-
( YAMAf",QTO) • · · • ·~ •...•. .-
(scHU STE R) .•... WELSH •.....•• ::::::::z= == ==
DISTRICT 11
(MACALLJSTER) •. PATTINSON .•..
(MANDIC) ....... MACALLISTER •. ------
(ANTHONY) ...... WI EDER ....... ------------
9/12/79
JO INT BOA RDS
SVA LSTAD )· ····ADLER ······
RILEY)······· ·ANTHONY···.----
MACALt,.I~TER)· ·BAILEY·····====
?ERRY)········CULVER ·····
COLLACOTT ) ····F I NLAYSON ·.----
GAMB I NA) · · · · · ·FOX· • • · • · • .----
NYBORG) ·······FRESE ·····.----
WAHNER)······ ·GLOCKNER ··.----
CORBETT)····· ·GRAHAM····.----
RASHFORD) ·····HOLT······.----
WELLS)······· ·HOUSTON···.----
CRANK)······· ·HUTCHISON ·.----
GAMBINA) ······LE BARON ··.----
MANDIC) ·······MACALLISTER-=====
RYCKOFF) ······MC INNIS···
ANTHONY)····· ·MILLER ····.----
MACALL! STER )·· PATT I NSON •• ----
!CULVER)······· PERRY·····.----
GRIFFIN)······ REESE······====
ANTHONY)······R ILEY······
GRAHAM)· · • · • • ·ROGET· · • • · • ----
!SEYMOUR)······ ROTH ······.----
EVANS)······· ·ROWAN·····.----
HUMMEL)······ ·RYCKOFF· • • ·== ==
LASZLO)······· SEITZ·· • · • ·
SCH US TER )····· SHARP·····.----
HOYT)········ ·SMrTH· · • · · .----
SVALSTAO) ·····STANTON···.----
RYCKOFF)· ·····STRAUSS···.----
ZOMMICK) ······SYLVIA····.----
SI LL S)·· · · .. •. VARDOULI S •. ----
WINTER S)······ VE LASQUEZ ·.----
YAMAMOTO) · • • • ·WARD· . · •.. • ----
FR I ED)······· ·WEDAA · · · • · .----
SHEELER)····· ·WEISHAUPT·.----
SCHUSTER)···· ·WELSH ·····.----
AN TH ONY) .••..• WIEDER ·····====
RYCKOFF) · • • • • ·WI LL! AMS· • ·
VELASQ UE Z) ..•. WI NTERS •••• ----
WARD) ......... YAMAMOTO ••. ::=:======
OTH ERS
/ HARPER ...•.
SYLVE S TER .. -1_ ====
LEWIS······+-
CLARKE . · • ·.
BROWN ..••.. ----
WOODRUFF ... /
HOHENER · · · · ~ ====
HOWARD • · · · • ___ _
HUNT ...•.•.• ___ _
KEITH ...••• ___ _
KENNEY . · •.. ___ _
LYNCH ······ ___ _
MADDOX ...•. ___ _
MART I NSON .. ___ _
PI ER SA L L.·.
STEVENS •... == ====
~T ~L~;~-
1'"/l"-l\ /AJ J , • ~
~). (}v ~ 6-)
I (•l11< c_,11~•;. (sc·,.~c (._., ,.
~ th.fM Ctrc. '.. .....(1 . · r.) )(e
r. ,1 1/-
:;.,,(llA ~