Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-12-13COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) December 7, 1979 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DIST'RICT NO. 5 rHURSDAY., DECEMBER 13., 1979· -3:00 P~·M. NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE RooM 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH., CALIFORNIA The Board of Directors will adjourn their regular meeting on December 12, 1979, to the above time and place to consider matters relative to service for the Big Canyon Drainage area. . . I I . Secr_e/· ,.tary v· / JWS:jc TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0 . BO X 8127. F O UNTAIN VAL L EY. C ALIFORNIA 92708 108 44 E L L I S AVE NU E (EUCLID O FF-R A M P. S A N DIEG O FR EEWAY ) December 7, 1 979 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISrRlCT NO. 5 rHURSDAYJ DECEMBER 13J 1979 -3:00 P ~·M. ( 2 NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE RooM 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACHJ CALIFORNIA The Board of Directors will adjourn their regular meeting on December 12, 197 9, to the above time and place to consider matters relative to service for the Big Canyon Drainage area. I . Secre,~ary / / J WS: jc TE LE P HO NE S: AREA CODE 7 14 540-2 91 o 962-241 1 II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County San itation Districts Post Office Box 8 127 of Orange County, California 10844 Elli s Avenue Foun t a in Vo ll ey, Ca li f ., 92708 Te lephone s : ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) ( 6). DISTRICT No. 5 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DECE MBER 13, 1979 -3:00 P.M. NEWPORT BEACH CIT Y HALL Ro ll cal l Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-24 11 AGENDA Di scuss i on of Report o n Al terna te Facilities for Se rving the Big Canyon Dr a inag e Area Di s cu ss ion re fin a n c ing of fac i lities to serve Big Canyon d rainage area Considera t ion of motion d irecting s t a ff to prepar e a listing and timetable of activities necessary to accom- p l ish o n e of the a lte rna t i ves for s~rving the Bi g Canyon \- drai nage area ~ ~ G>v ,...,. LI ..... c;;h.rr l.:, ve1. '-'-' ~ / (p,,..J~. \ .l. ~ \?.:-l. q 4tu-vu+a ( A-l~ HA-~ fA-..v.l, ~u..-.."(1 ~~ '·../Gb-..-4..t) Report of the General Couns e l re spec i a l connect i on charge for n ew deve l opme n t s co nnect i ng to Bi g Canyon d r ainage a rea s e werage system Discussion re necessity for enactment of an ordinance to establish a moritor i um on new sewer connections and increasing c onnect ton fees f or futu re developments .c o n necting to the Bi g Canyon drainage a r ea sewe r age system (7) Ot her b us i ne s s and commu n icati ons , i f any I (8) Consideration of mot i o n to adjourn ·-\A...., II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Califomi1 DISTRICT No. 5 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13J 1979 -3:00 P.M. NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ( 1) Roll call Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA (2) Discussion of Report on. Alternate Facilities fo~ Serv~ng the Big Canyon Drainage Area · (3). Discussion re financing of facilities to serve Big Canyon drainage area (4) Consideration of motion directing staff to prep~re a listing and timetable of activities necessary to accom- plish one of the alternatives for.serving the Big Canyon· arainage area (5) Report of the General Counsel re special connection charge for new developments connecting to Big Canyon drainage area sewerage system (6} Discussion re necessity for enactment of an ordinance to establish a moritorium on new sewer connections and increasing connection fees for future developments ... connecting to the Big Canyon drainage area sewerage system (7) Other business and communications, if any (8) Consideration of motion to adjourn - II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT NO. ,.... ) Adjourned Regular Meeting Thursday, December 13, 1979 -3:00 p .m. Newport Beach City Hall Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Teleprones: Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 Chairman Ryckoff has scheduled an adjourned meeting of the Board for 3:00 p .m., Thursday, December 13th, at the Newport Beach City Hall for the purpose of discussing the Report on Alternate Facilities -Big Canyon Drainage Area, which was taken under advisement by the Directors November 14th. During the last month's meeting, the Board directed the General Manager to advise the Department of Community Develop- ment in Newport Beach that no additional projects should be undertaken which require sewer service on land tributary to the existing Jamboree Pump Station until such time as the District has determined when sewer facilities can be made available . Following receipt of the District's letter, Mr. Jim Hewicker, Director of the Department of Community development, requested additional specifics concerning the District's services as there are some pending projects for the area which need immediate attention. The District's staff is gathering information which will be available by Thursday's meeting. The Districts' General Counsel is reviewing the staff conclusions and recommendations which appear in the Report on Alternate Facilities -Big Canyon Drainage Area dated November 7, 1979, with particular emphasis on possible additional connection fees to offset the capital costs for the required improvements . Fred A. Harper General Manager ORDINANCE NO. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE.OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 508 IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER CONNECTION PER- MITS; ESTABLISHING SEPARATE ZONES FOR DRAINAGE AREAS WITHIN THE DIS- TRICT AND ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR ISSUANCE OF SEWER CONNEC- TION PERMITS WHEREAS, the use of District sewerage facilities are generally regulated by the provisions of Ordinance No. 508; and, WHEREAS, in recent years, great amounts of residential, commercial, office and industrial development have occurred within the District; and, WHEREAS, the District's Chief Engineer has prepared a report establishing that existing trunk sewer facilities in certain areas of the District are operating at maximum capacity; and, WHEREAS, the District has determined that the area designated as the Big Canyon -Jamboree Road Drainage Area presently has approximately 400+ acres of undeveloped land, for which plans are being formulated and considered for development; and, WHEREAS, the District has completed a study of necessary facilities in the Big Canyon -Jamboree Road Drainage Area, in order to provide sewer service to the lands to be developed in the future; and, WHEREAS, the District determines that the sewer service needs through- out the District vary considerably; and, WHEREAS, the creation of separate zones within the District will allow for better planning and development of the sewerage facilities; and WHEREAS, the District determines that until such time as necessary 1 additional sewerage facilities are constructed within the Big Canyon -Jamboree Road Drainage Area, no further permits shall be issued for sewer connections in order to prevent sewerage overflows that could endanger the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1: Ordinance No. 508 is hereby amended by adding Section 103 thereto to read: "103. The District is divided into three (3) separate zones for purposes of development and regulation of sewerage facility use. Said zones are established as follows: Zone 1: All that territory within the District exclusive of that territory within Zones 2 and 3; Zone 2: All that certain territory described as the Big Canyon Jamboree Road Drainage Area; Zone 3: All that certain territory described as the Newport South Coastal Area. The precise boundaries of each of the above zones are set forth and shown on Exibit "A", incorporated herein by this reference." Section 2: Section 402 of Ordinance No~ 508, as amended by Ordinance No. 509, is hereby amended to read: "402. DISTRICT NO. 5 CONNECTION CHARGES 1. District Connection Charges Before any connection permit shall be issued, the applicant shall pay to the District, or its agent, the charges specified. herein. (a) For each new family dwelling building constructed, the 2 (b) connection charges shall be: Zones 1 and 3 -$250.00 Zone 2 -$ per gross acre of land. For all other new construction, including but not limited to commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the connection charges shall be: Zones 1 and 3 -$130.00 per 1,000 square feet of floor area contained within such construction, provided that the minimum connection charge for such new con- . struction shall be $130.00. Zone 2 -$ per 1,000 square feet of floor area contained within such construction, provided that the minimum connection charge for such new construction ~. shall be$ --- (c) For new construction replacing former buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) above. If such replacement construction is commenced within two years after demolition or destruction of the former building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed, calculated on the basis of the current con- nection charge applicable for the new construction of the building demolished or destroyed. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charge. (d) In the case of ·structures where further new con- struction or alteration is made to increase the occu- 3 ... f~ pancy of family dwelling buildings or the area of buildings to be use~ for other than family dwelling buildings, the conn~ction charge shall be: Zones I and 3 -$250.00 for each dwelling unit added or created. Zone 2 -$ per dwelling unit. ---- In the case of new construction other than family dwelling buildings, it shall be: Zones 1 and 3 -$130.00 per 1,000 square feet of additional floor area contained within such new con- struction provided that new construction shall contain additional fixture units. Zone 2 -$ per 1,000 square feet of additional --- floor area contained within such new construction provided that new construction shall contain additional fixture uni ts. (e) Payment of connection charges shall be required at the time of issuance of the building permit for all construction within the District, excepting in the case of a building permit in the City of Newport Beach. The payment of the sewer connection charge for such buildings will be required at the time of and prior to the issuing of a plumbing connection permit for any construction within the territorial limits of the Dis- trict. (f) A schedule of charges specified herein will be on file in the office of the Secretary of the District and in 4 the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach." Section 3: Ordinance No. 508 is hereby amended to adding Section 403 thereto to read: "403. SUSPENSION OF ISSUANCE OF CONNECTION PERMITS-ZONE 2 Notwithstanding any provisions of this Ordinance or Ordinance No. 508 to the contrary, no connection permit for connection to the District 5 facilities shall be issued for any building located within Zone 2 after the effective date of this Ordinance. Exception I: For any proposed building within Zone 2 which has received final planning and zoning approvals of the City of Newport Beach and for which application for a building permit and a sewer connection permit has been made but not issued as of the effective date of this Ordinance, the connection permit may be issued subject to the payment of connection charges as prescribed in Section 402." Section 4: Ordinance No. 509 is hereby repealed. Sectio·n 5: This Ordinance is adopted as an urgency measure and shall take effect immediately upon its adoption as a measure necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. The facts constituting the urgency are that the existing trunk sewer facilities are operating at maximum capacity and the connection of any additional buildings will most certainly cause overflows of raw sewerage into the public domain. During the rainy season of winter 1979, certain limited overflows did occur and with the pending wet weather, it is necessary to take all available measures to insure that no overflows occur that could injure the health of humans. The Secretary of the Board is directed to certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in a newspaper of general circulation 5 within the County. \.,,,,) PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Board of Directors ·this 13th day of December, 1979. Chairman Secretary 6 ·~ DAON SOUTHWEST A division of Doon Corporation 4041 MacARTHUR BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 2770 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE (714) 752·7855 December 7, 1979 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board Sanitation District No. 5 County of Orange Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Re: Alternative Projects to Serve the Big Canyon Drainage Area in Newport Beach Gentlemen: The Irvine Company and Daon Corporation are the princi- pal owners of the remaining unimproved land located tributary to the Sanitation District No. 5 trunk sewer and pump station facilities in Jamboree Road (Big Canyon Drainage Area). We have learned that the Sanitation District has advised the City of Newport Beach that the existing Jamboree Pump Station has insufficient capacity to provide sewer service to this property when it is developed some time in the future. It is our understanding that the District has under considera- tion various alternative proposals to alleviate this poten- tial problem. We further understand that a major concern lies with the funding of any new capital improvements in connection with these proposals. Under an existing contract with the District, The Irvine Company has agreed to advance the sum of $600,000 for construction of the Back Bay Drive Trunk Sewer. By this letter Daon Corporation is indicating a desire to consider advancing additional financial assistance to the District for the construction of new facilities for the conveyance of wastewaters in the Big Canyon Drainage Area. We trust that this support will encourage the Board to proceed with making , Sanitation District No. 5 December 7, 1979 Page Two the necessary decision to improve the sewage transmission facilities in this area. Daon Corporation would like to suggest that the Board reconsider construction of the Back Bay Drive Trunk Sewer gravity line as the primary solution. Construction of a new Jamboree Road pump station could be considered as an al- ternative at the same time. We are hopeful that such a decision could be made at this time, and that you will instruct your staff to proceed with the preparation of all the required environmental documentation and permit applica- tions. Very truly yours, MKR:mh December 11, 1979 Paul Ryckoff, Chairman Orange County Sanitation District #5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Subject: Jamboree Trunk Sewer Dear Mr. Chairman: 11-£ IRVINE COtVIPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 In view of recent developments, I wish to clarify the position of The Irvine Company regarding the subject project. First, it is increasingly evident that the project originally proposed, the Back Bay Trunk Sewer is the best technical and economic solution. The "tunnel solution" now estimated to cost $2.5 million is clarly unacceptable. The Jamboree force main/pump station, although feasible, is certainly questionable considering the projected $40,000/yr. operating and maintenance costs and disregards current energy conditions. We believe that it is in the public interest that every effort be made to implement the Back Bay alignment alternative. With respect to financing, The Irvine Company is still prepared to provide up to $600,000 subject to a reimbursement. As a method of reimbursement, it has been proposed by OCSD staff that a surcharge be imposed upon remaining undev- eloped lands in the tributary service area in order to finance the Jamboree Trunk Sewer, as an alternative to the traditional means of leveeing district wide connection charges. As noted in the project report, approximately 80% of the area upstream of the pump station has been developed without such a sur- charge. Recognizing financing limitations imposed by Propositions 13 and 4, we would support the concept of· a special benefit area and surcharge to finance the Jamboree Trunk facility. However, we consider it essential that such benefits be determined based upon permitted land use, sewage flow generation and proportionate costs of the downstream facilities, not a blanket fee per acre. In conclusion, The Irvine Company continues to support and urge an early resolu- tion to this problem and reaffirms its willingness to cooperate in a solution. Senior Vice Community Development cc: Tom Riley Don Strauss Fred Harper Ray Lewis Mike Ryan -Daon Corp. STATUS OF CURRENT DEVELO PMENT BIG CANYON DRA INA GE AREA COUNTY SANITATION D IS TRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0 . BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71 4) 540-2910 (714) 962-24 11 The fo l lowing is a summary of the status of current development within the Jamboree Pump Station Service Area: l. Harbor Ridge Residential Development: 344 p lanned dwellings. 245 are complete or under construction, including payment of building and sewer connection. The remaining 99 have not paid bui ld i ng or sewer connect ion fees. 2. Harbor Hill (Tl015l ): 41 S.F. dwellings. (Th is development includes 17 units originally planned for Harbor Ridge). The final tract map has been approved. The building or sewer connection fees have not been paid. 3. Tentative Map 10391: 300 dwell ing units. In planning stage. Tract to contain conditions that OCSD #5 can accept sewage . No building or sewage connection charges paid . 4. Area 10 : In planning stages. 80 dwelling unit l imit on area proposed by City. No fees paid . 5. T368l & 8682: Under construction. Seven dwelling units each. Fees paid. 6 . Baywood: 68 dwelling un its. No fees paid yet. 7. Sea Inland: 132 dwellings. Grading in progress . No f ees paid yet . 8. Civic Plaza: Irvi ne Co. office development consisting of approximately 100,000 square feet of space. Now -in plan check. No fees paid yet. 9. Area West of Jamboree Road and South of San Joaquin Hills Road: This area is in a very preliminary planning state. Io . ?'.en..> r- .i 1 ~ ~ (G v~ 4,/cc.,~ ./u~ ' I I L I , • ' •l . ._-· \J ....... ...., "'~ - f1v -' • i /"',l..l...:.. ·-------- MEETING DATE December 13, 1979 TIME 3:00 p.m. DISTRICTS 5 -Newport· Beach City Hall DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS !SCHUSTER) ••••• SHARP ••••••• _____ _ YAMAMOTO) ••• •• WARD ••••• • •• RILEY) •••••••• ANTHONY.·····======= CRANK).······· HUTCHISON-···--___ _ DISTRICT 2 FRIED).·.····· WEDAA ••••••• RASHFORO) ••••• HOLT ••••.•••• :===:==:==== GAMB INA) •••••• FOX , •••••• ~IELLS) • • •••••• HOUSTON •••• : :------ ANTHONY).····· MILLER ••••••• ------ CULVER) ••••••• PERRY········======:==:= GRAHAM) ••• • • • • ROGET •••••••• SEYMOUR) ••• ••• ROTH •••••••• ------ HOYT) •••••••• SMITH· ••.•••• ------ SVA LSTAD) ••••• STANTON •••••• ------ WINTERS) •••••• VELASQUEZ· ••• ------ (WARD) •.••••••• YAMAMOTO .••• :==:=:==:==== DISTRICT 3 NYBORG) ••••••• FRESE •••••••• EVANS)········ ROWAN·······.------ SVALSTAD) ·····ADLER·······.------ MACALLISTER)· ·BAILEY··.· ••• ------ PERRY)······· ·CULVER· •••••• ------ COLLACOTT) ···-FINLAYSON· ••• ------ (CORBETT) • • • • • ·GRAHAM ••••••• ------ ~ GAMB I NA) • • • • • ·LE BARON ••••• ------ } GR I FF IN)····· ·REESE· ••••••• ------ & SEYMOUR)· • • • • ·ROTH· •••••••• ------ LASZLO)······ ·SEITZ· ••••.•• ------OMMICK.~ •••••• SYLVIA .· •••••• ------ (WH EELER •.•.•• WEISHAUPT •..• ------ ~ANTHONY •.•••• WIEDER •••••.• ------ VELASQUEZ) •••• WINTERS ••••.• ------ WARD) ••• · •••••• YAMAMOTO ••••• ------ DISTRICT 5 (HUMMEL)\ •••••• RYCKOFF. . • • • • v"' ___ _ (RYCKO FFJ •••••• STRAUSs •••••• =:iZ,_ (AN THONY) •••••• RILEY········~ :==:= :==:= DISTRICT 6 (RYCKOfF) ••.••• MC INNIS····· (CRANK) • • •••• • ·HUTCH I SON· • • • ----- (RI LEY) •••••••• ANTHONY······======:::== DISTRICT 7 HOYT) • ·······SMITH········----·-- RYCKOFF) ······WILLIAMS·····--___ _ \·/AHNER) ••••••• GLOCKNER •.••• ------ ANTHONY) .••••• MILLER •••• ,.,------ SILLS).···· ••• VARDOUL!S •• ··----__ YAMAt'.CTO). ····WAR D· .•••••• ~------ SC HUSTER )····. WELSH •••••••• ------ DISTRICT 11 (MACALLlS TER) •• PATTINSON.... . (MAND IC) .•••••• MACALLISTER •• ------ (ANTHONY) ..•••• WIEDER .••••.• ==::==== 9/12/79 (SVALSTAD)·····ADLER······ (RILEY).······ ·ANTHONY ···.---- (MA CAL(..ISTER )· ·BAILEY····· ---- (P ERR Y)··.····· ·CULVER····.---- lCOLLACOTT) ····F INLAYSON ·.---- GAMB INA)····· ·FOX········====== NYBORG) ·······FRESE ······---- WAHNER)· ······GLOCKNER···---- CORBETT)····· ·GRAHAM····· (RASHFORD)·····HOLT·······== == (WELLS)······· ·HOUSTON ····---- (CRANK)······· ·HUTCHISON ··---- (GAMI3INA) ······LE BARON··· ----!MAND IC)······ ·MACALLISTER---- RYC KO FF ······MC INNIS···----.ANTHONY~····· ·MILLER -····----r~CA LL ISTER ) ·-PATTINSON ·· (CULVER)······· PERRY·····.---- (G RIFFIN)····· ·REESE ·····.---- iAMTHONY) • • • • • ·RI LEY·· • • • .---- GRAHAM)······· ROGET·····.---- SEYMOUR)····· ·ROTH······.---- EVANS)······· ·ROWAN ·····.---- HUMMEL) • • • • • • • RYCKOFF • • • • == == LASZLO) • • • • • • • SEITZ· • • • • • (SCHUSTER)·····SHARP.······=== === (HOYT)·· • • • • • • ·SM ITH·· • • • • ( SVALSTAO) • • •· • ·STANTON· • • • == === (RYCKOFF)······STRAUSS···· (ZOMMICK) ······SYLVIA····.---- (S!LLS) •••••••• VARDOU LIS· ·---- ~WINTERS) ••••• ·VELASQUEZ·.---- YAMAMOTO)···· ·WARD······.---- FRIED)······· ·WEDAA· • • • • .---- SHEELEP.) ······WEI SHAUPT··===== SCHUSTER)···· ·WELSH ··.···--__ ANTHONY) •••••• WI EDER ••••• RYCKOFF) ······WILLIAMS··.---- VELASQUEZ) •••• WINTERS •••• ---- WARD) ••••••••• YAMAMOTO ••• ==:::::== OTHERS HARPEP. ••••• ___ _ SYLVESTER .• ___ _ LEWIS •••••• ___ _ CLARKE • • • • • ___ _ BROWN •••••• __ . __ WOODRUFF • • • ___ _ HOHENER ••• • ___ _ HOWARD·.··· ___ _ HUNT •••••••• ___ _ KEITH· ••• •• ___ _ KENNEY ••••• _. __ _ LYNCH···.··--·--MADDOX ••••• ___ _ MARTINSON •• ___ _ PI ER SALL •.• ___ _ STEVENS •••• _. __ _ TRAVERS •••• ___ _ -------·-··-·--- MEETING DATE December 13, 1979 TIME 3:00 p.m. DISTRICTS 5 -Newport-Beach City Hall DISTRICT l JOINT BOAR DS (SCHUSTER) ••••• SHARP •••.••• (YAMAMOTO) ••• •• WARD .•••.••. ------ (RI LEY). • ••• • • • AN THONY •••••• ------ (CRANK).······· HUTCHISON-·.·==== == DISTRICT 2 (FRIED).·.····· WEDAA •••• • •• (RASHFORp) ••• ··HOLT·.··· •••• ------ (GAMBINA) •••••• FCX , ••.••••. ------ (l'IELLS). ·.·····HOUSTON •••••• ------ !ANTnONY). ·····MILLER ••••••• ------ CULVER) •.••••• PERRY········====== GRAHAM) •• ••••• ROGET •••••••• SEYMOUR) ••• • • • ROTH • • • • •••• ------ (HOYT) ••.•..•• SMITH ••..••.. ------ ( SVALSTAD ) ••••• ST ANTON •••••. ------ (WINTERS) •••••• VELASQUEZ· ••• ------ (WARD) ••••••••• YAMAMOTO ····============ DISTRICT 3 ~NYBORG) ••••••• FRESE •••••••. EVANS)······· ·ROWAN·······.------ SVALSTAD) ·····ADLER·······.------ (MACALl-ISTER) ··BAILEY··· •••. ------ (PERRY)······· ·CULVER· •••••. ------ (COLLACOTT) ····FINLAYSON· ••. ------ (CORB ETT) • • • • • ·GRAHAM· • • •••. ------ ~ GAMB I NA) • • • • • ·LE BARON ••••• ------7 GRIFFIN)····· ·REESE .••••••• ------ & SEYMOUR) • • • • • ·ROTH· • • • • •••• ------ LASZLO)····· •• SEITZ· ••••••• ------ OMMICK .) .••••• SYLV I A.· •.•••• ------ !WHEELER) •••.•. WEISHAUPT •.•. ------ ANTHONY). .•••• WIEDER ••••.•• ------ VELASQUEZ). ••• WINTERS •••.•. ------ WARDL •• · •••••• YAMAMOTO •.•• ·==== ==== ==== DISTRICT 5 c.ttuMMEL)\ •••••• RYCKOFF •••••• I (RYCKOFfJ •••••• STRAUSS······ ~' ==== ==== ,(ANTHONY) •••••• RILEY········ DISTRICT 6 (RYCKOFF) •••••• MC I NNIS ····· (CRANK) ••.••• --HUTCHISON-••• ------ (RILEY) •••••••• ANTHONY······============ DISTRICT 7 (HOYT) ········SMITH········ · (RYCKOFF)······WILLIAMS·····== == == ()·/AHNER) .•••••• GLOCKNER... _____ _ ~(AN THONY) •.•••• MILLER., •• ,::------ SILLS)··· ••••• VARDOUL!S •••• ------ YAMAtt,OTO) ·····WARD ·· •••••• ; __ ---- SCH USTER)····· WELSH •••••••• ------ DISTRICT 11 (MACALLISTER) •• PATTINSON •.•• (MAND IC) .•••••• MACALLISTER •• ------ (ANTHONY) .••••• WIEDER .•••••. ====:======== 9/12179 (SVALSTAD)·····ADLER······ (RILEY).······ ·AN THONY ···.---- MACALl-I$TER)· ·BA ILEY·····==== PERRY)········CULVER····· COLLACOTT) ····FINLAYSON·.---- GAMBINA) ······FOX········==== NYBORG) ·······FRESE······---- WAHNER)······ ·GLOCKNER···---- CORBETT)····· ·GRAHAM····· RASHFORD)·····HOLT·······== == !WELLS)······· ·HOUSTON ····---- CRANK)······· ·HUTCH I SON··---- GAMI3 INA) ······LE BARON ··· ---- MAND IC)······ ·MACA LLISTER----~RYCKOFF) ······MC INNIS ···---- ANTHONY)····· ·MILLER······---- MACALLISTER) •• PATTINSON·· !CULVER)······· PERRY·····.---- GRIFFIN)······ REESE······---- ANTHONY)· • • • • ·RI LE Y· • • • • • ---- GRAHAM) • • • • • • ·ROGET· • • • • .---- lSEYMOUR) ······ROTH······.---- EVANS)······· ·ROWAN·····.---- HUMMEL)·· • • • • • RYCKOFF • • • .---- LASZLO)······· SE!TZ· • • • • • ==== == (SCHUSTER)····· SHARP······--__ (HOYT)········· SMfTH· • • • • • (SVALSTAO)·····STANTON····==== ==== (RYCKOFF)······STRAUSS···· (ZOMMICK) ······SYLVIA····.---- (SILLS)········ VARDOULI S •• ---- ~WINTERS)····· ·VELASQUEZ·.---- YAMAMOTO).··· ·WARD ······.---- FRIED)······· ·WEDAA· • • • • .---- SHEELER)· -····W EISHAUPT··==== SCHUSTER)·····WELSH ······ ANTHONY) •••••• WI EDER ••••• ---- RYCKOFF) ······WILLIAMS··.---- VELASQ UEZ) •••• WINTERS •••. ---- WARD) ••••••••• YAMAMOTO ••• ::::== OTHERS HARPE?. • • • • • / SYLVESTER .• + == LEWIS •••• ·._. __ _ CLARKE • • • • • BROWN •••••• _L_. == WOODRUFF • • • _L __ HOHENER • • • • ___ _ HOWARD •••• • ___ _ HUNT. •••••.• ___ _ KEITH • ••• · • KENNEY · •••• __:_ ==== LYNCH •••.•• MADDOX ••••. == == MARTINSON •• ___ _ PIERSALL • • • ___ _ STEVENS •••• _. __ _ TRAVERS •••• ___ _ ... Dr) ~; a-J j"""~' J U ~ -D,/{,,v< ,., nll_J"-' <_ tv f/..A.-'-11 "'°'"""'-.L2 Tuy~e. $f; ( e, ~ ::G ~ ;J/ ch' f I :-i /l (. t /2 7 ,f1..l r ~.e~r1A s 1), () A}e'\ / December 11, 1979 Paul Ryckoff, Chairman Orange County Sanitation District HS 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Subject: Jamboree Trunk Sewer Dear Mr. Chairman: T'nE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 In view of recent developments, I wish to clarify the position of The Irvine Company regarding the subject project. First, it is increasingly evident that the project originally proposed, the Back Bay Trunk Sewer is the best technical and economic solution. The "tunnel solution" now estimated to cost $2.5 million is clarly unacceptable. The Jamboree force main/pump station, although feasible, is certainly questionable considering the projected $40,000/yr. operating and maintenance costs and disregards current energy conditions. We believe that it is in the public interest that every effort be made to implement the Back Bay alignment alternative. With respect to financing, The Irvine Company is still prepared to provide up to $600,000 subject to a reimbursement. As a method of reimbursement, it has been proposed by OCSD staff that a surcharge be imposed upon remaining undev- eloped lands in the tributary service area in order to finance the Jamboree Trunk Sewer, as an alternative to the traditional means of leveeing district wide connection charges. As noted in the project report, approximately 80% of the area upstream of the pump station has been developed without such a sur- charge. Recognizing financing limitations imposed by Propositions 13 and 4, we would support the concept of a special benefit area and surcharge to finance the Jamboree Trunk facility. However, we consider it essential that such benefits be determined based upon permitted land use, sewage flow generation and proportionate costs of the downstream facilities, not a blanket fee per acre. In conclusion, The Irvine Company continues to support and urge an early resolu- tion to this problem and reaffirms its willingness to cooperate in a solution. Senior Vice President ~ Community Development Divisio~ cc: Tom Riley Don Strauss Fred Harper Ray Lewis Mike Ryan -Daon Corp. , . .. - (2) DISTRICT 5 ADJOURNED MTG . 12/13/79 FAH advised that at the last Board rreeting in November , the Board cx:msidered an a l ternate facilities report . In letter dated November 7th in report discussed Jarnl:::Dree Pump Station area . Discussed tv.D alternatives . See staff transmittal . Because of the difference of cost, staff recorrrrended the purrp station . Staff further concl uded that if there was additional developrrent , a new purrp station w::>uld be required . The existing facilities could take care of what was there now but anything additional 'M:>uld require additional expenditures . Also recornrended to Board that we notify City of NewfX)rt Beach that no pennits be issued until we could determine '\A!he.l! additional facilities could be constructed . At that time the Board authorized mailing of a l ett er to the Planning Dept . of N.B. whic h was done Nov . 14th . Several days after l etter was sent out , Mr. Hewicker , Dept . of Cornnunity Developrrent , call ed and discussed several aspects of the l e t ter. Hi s main concern was what to do with some p l ans for devel oprrent requests that -were before his departrrent. We discussed this concern with our Chairman and we decided we should have a rreeting today to discuss this whole thing and corre to sorre c oncl usions as to what should be done concerning some pending devel oprrent in the area . Chief Engineer should be hear soon to go over tv.D alternatives in report . Said tv.D different engineering f i rms looked at this situati on. Jaill::x)ree Pump Station a l ternate -$974 ,000 and other project is $2 .4 million . District 's staff w::>uld recorrrnend that we proceed with the purrp station because we don 't think the additional cost could be arrrrortized to the benefi t of the District on the tunnel . Ryckoff -With respect to alternative facilities , do you know specifically about Civic Plaza , whether it is covered in the yello.v area? FAH said our Chief Engineer has large drawing and will be here later t o answer that . Strauss -Questioned letter of Noverrber 20th re date of original project , third alternate . Asked if this was based on 10 years ago. (typing error) REL arrived and answered Rycko f f re Civic Plaza and Pacific Mutual if they w::>uld be affected by TIDritoriurn. Said Area 8 would be affected by any surcharge which includes both of them . Referred to area shown in yellow on rrap , 212 net acres . Approxirrately 40 acres are cornrercial. Said those are the acreages that w::>uld be subjected to any surcharge . Harbor Ridge is excluded because they have been issued their sewer connection permits already. 'IWo srraller areas exempt also . 'Ihe balance of the area would de finitely fal l into the category of the surcharge or rroritorium. In the ordinance we have broken the city into three zones . Zone 2 , Bi g Canyon/Ja.rrboree Drive drainage area; Balance of city, zone l ; Area that is in District 5 but outside city l imits at the present time is Zone3 . said Pacific Mutual was not on status r e port . Didn 't have inforrration ------when this was typed but it is included . Dayne Stiles asked re Ford property , do they have additional devel oprrent that 'IM)uld be permitted such as industrial expansion of 368 ,000 s q . f t . Was answered, yes, this would be affected. (3) Re financing , FAH reported that at the present time there is a connection charge that is applicable throughout the District on new construction for resident ial property -$250 per r esidence. Corrmercial or industrial based on square foo tage of flCXJr space . $130 per 1000 sq . ft. UnforttL"1atel y , doesn 't generate very much rro ney . Said what we are suggesting is a charge , by zone . Zo ne 2 would have a higher .. connection charge to reimburse the District or soneone we borrow from to build the facilities to take care of Zone 2. Riley asked, do we have any problem with this fee business with Proposition 4? TLW answered, I don't believe we do. Inpl errentation o f the fee and use o f it is principally covered by Prop. 13. Prop . 4 is how we spend it or can we spend wha t we have. If you are collecting a service-type charge, can spend all that you raise, provided services and expenses are equal. Ryckoff asked if we had authority to up those charges. 'Ibm said yes , under Sanitation District Act have authority to l evy service charges. FAH stated that in the past there have been discussions with The Irvine Conpany as to the possibility of advancing funds for this project. Referred to letter of Decerrber 11. 'Ihey are still willing to advance rroney . If this can be accorrp lished , can save public a lot of rroney . · Question asked, is the staff's recomrendation to proceed with pump station or go back to the Back Bay? FAH said report submitted to Baord has to do with pump station or tunnel. With regard to gravity line down Big Canyon, the District lost out at the Coastal Conmission . Of those two alternatives, we selected the pump station. REL added when this report was prepared, the gravity line was not considered a viable alternative because of the Coastal Cornnission. Director asked, are we totally ruling out resurection of the Back Bay gravity l ine and rraybe a nBV pump station considered along with that? Ryckoff stated that the purpose of the rreeting is to establish the direction to go. Said he thought we should aim at Back Bay line that was turned down a a:::>uple years ago. Ixm' t think it will be turned down again if we get our house in order. Riley questioned difference in a:::>st of two alternatives and making decision based on Coastal Cornnission might change their mind . Ryckoff said part of the $250,000 is for hauling away stockpile material. Is worth $200 -300,000 to get that out of there. Is a matter of mitigating things to rrove this along . Riley said what we don't want to do is to go down the line and then project wouldn't be approved . Asked if this material there is a result of the Sanitation Districts? FAH answered , no , is a result of dredging operation in the Bay by the County . Rycko f f said if County a:::>uld get it out of there, possibly wouldn 't need the extra funds . FAH said the Districts Plant No. 2 has use for the material i f we a:::>uld get it there. REL stated when staff prepared this report, we didn't feel gravity Back Bay line was viable alternative. With any future developrrent , will have to do sorrething. Pump station is the best alternate based on the two with energy prob lerrs, etc . Think we have to decide on the project and then how we ge t the rroney . ReviBV surcharge figures. Said they were rough, predicted basically on information from city. Used acreages that are undeveloped. 212 acres residential and 40 acres corrrnercial . Additional surcharge of $500 per unit for residential ($250 + $500). Is a r easonable oonnection charge. 'Ihat arrount, based upon what we feel would be allCMTed for developrrent of 212 acres, would raise about $336,000 for 1272 units . The 40 OOITITErcial acres , estimating the square footage, carre up with $280 per $1000 square feet. With those levies and based on the information from the City on the type of deve loprrent that WJuld be allCMTed, the additional charges would raise approximately $1 million. Re Ford, ass\.llre there will be additional capacity for them ; v.Dul d that be included? REL said camrercial and industrial is the sane. 40 acre s comrercial includes Ford 's 368 sq. ft. o f industrial expansion. Said b e fore Eloard consi d ers these nurrbers a s finite, would have to be verified with City staff. -2- -· It was then stated that Daon and 'Ihe Irvine Company are taking a position that their first choice would be to see the Board go forth with the Ba c k Bay grav ity line. IX:m ' t know whether the off er from The Irvine Cornpany is contingent with going with the gravity line because engineering is such that i t could be acrorrplished in a much quicker t..irre frarre . Daon encouraged the Board to go in that direction. Ryckoff stated that the l ast ti.Ire that i t was tried to build the Back Bay Sever , in his judgrrent , the approach was totally mishandled . Don 't think the groun&-.Drk was done . Think the object here is to get this thing ready so it won't be protested and possibly might not even need an EIR . Is hoping we are working for that. Friends of the Bay are the people whose support we want, not opposition, and it is their support that he is endeavoring to get. Said we will get it but it will take a couple things. Have discussed it all with The Irvine Company in the last 3-5 days. Besides the financing, the thing that is absolutely essential is the dedication of the Big Canyon property to the preserve. Assurre it can 't be accorrplished by the t..irre we want to get going on thi s project. Can make a comnibrent anyway . Would be 99 % on the way then in ITrf mind . Dayne Stiles said we do support the Back Bay gravity line as being the best solution. Said Fred hit the nail on the head; where does the rroney corre from and what is the equitable rrethod of allocating it to the parties who pay the loan back? Need to take that step . Riley said he wished the Friends of the Bay and The Irvine Cornpany could get together and keep that out of the sewer system. If Irvine Company feels they can allow them to go forward , is fine but don 't want any part of it. Ryckof f stated we seem to be going nowhere . Felt sorrebody better step in and do sorreth.ing so he did. Re financing, must be a way of allocating interest on that. FAH said the plans that we are v..iorking on is for so ffi3.I1Y residential units and so rruch comrercial floor space . Need to run that by the City staff to see if it fits that area based on the current zoning s i tuation. Then we could give it to interested parties and let them allocate it. We could calculate this and adopt the numbers but rray be other developrrents that we are not aware of. Stiles said they v.ould appreciate a table of project-by-project cost allocations . FAH said we could let out for potential lenders sorre potential programs and repayrrent . As we have done in any other reirrbursement agreerrent such as the one we have now with The Irvine Company, we are dependent on revenues from developrrent . However, v..iould discuss if there were an interest payrrent that might corre out of the general funds of the District so would speed up repayrrent of the project . REL added capital irrprovements v.uuld be corrpletely subsidized by undeveloped property . Ryckoff said we could perhaps start on rerroval of soil. for Bay Bridge. Cal Trans wants sorre of it Mike Ryan said he thought we are going to have to determine imrediate and future benefiting parties and burden them with payrrent of the cost . Agree with Irvine Co . in that they are sornswhat hesitant with surcharge philosophy and increased fees . When you corre up with obligations of different people, what happens if they do not feel urgency to participate? FAH answered that if District has assurances that they can get rroney to build facilities, then we can release rroritorium. As to other property o.vne>.rs, will be concern of reimbursement only . If four contributors to capital and two are only willing, would get reirrbursed when other two decieded to corre in. Seitz added if we go to gravity line, will result in savings re IXJWer costs . TLW indicated that if staff's recc:mrended rroritorim is passed, Pa cific Mutual will probably be s hut davn. -3- -· Ryan asked if adoption of ordinance and rroritorium could be postJ:X>sed for a rronth or so as it might hamper sorre negotiating efforts that are going to take place . Would like to keep the doors open for a rronth or tv..D. Rckoff said they would discuss that under i tern # 6 . (4) Ryckoff stated Board needed to decide which alternative to pursue . Hoped they would chcx:>s Back Bay line. Riley sai d he supJ:X>rted it but don 't want to not get approval on it. Strauss said he discussed with Ms. Rosner a couple days ago . Asked if it would be a long process to get approval if it carre up again and she s aid no. REL stated we are not really sure if we have to do an EIR . Wondered if staff could have t.iJre between nCM and January Board rreeting to cover this with Regional Coastal CorrtT1ission staff and find out how they viev.1 our docurrents, with direction that we would pursue the gravity line and see what we have to do. IT WAS SO MJVED AND SECO.~ED 'IO 00 THAT -PURSUE BACK BAY SE'WER LINE. (See also next paragraph) Riley asked if we can drop alternative #2 totally? FAH answered , probably not, in our discussion with Coastal Commission staff , we probably should discuss also the pumping situation. Will discuss both a l ternatives with them . It was then requested to ffi3.ke this part of the notion -TO DISCUSS :ocYI'H AL'I'E™ATIVES WI'IH COASTAL CCMMISSICN. (5) TLW stated he had prepared a draft of an ordinance that accomplishes tv..D or three things, one or all of which can be considered and adopted by the Board. District presently has a connection fee of $250 per residence and $130 per 1000 sq . ft . The cost of this nev.1 major capital outlay should be borne by the benefiting property o.Nners . Said he saw no legal difficulties with utilizing the connection fees . Are designed for funding capital improverrents . Don 't see where we could run into a problem. Sanitation District Act errpowers us to divide District into various zones for different purposes and differing needs. Also decided that the territorial boundaries of Big canyon/Jamboree drainage area would be a logical segregated area from the rest of the District. Also in need of special financial considerations and, therefore , the boundary has been created accordingly . The remainder of the District remains untouched. With the exception of the coastal area , is within the boundaries of the District. Said REL has calculated starting with base line of $1 million. Is a big question in his mind . (Said sorrething about 400 acres??) Are really dividing 250 acres into $1 million. Said he thought if we are going to create special zones and special charges within District, we need to establish factual reasons for doing so . Think we can do this as there are distinct differences . When Zone 3 gets active , will have to look at sorre ffi3.jor improverrents and will look at issue again. Ryckoff asked if this fails and have to look at pump approach, would whole District pay increased power charges . Was answered yes . Asked, could you assess the nei.v users for this cost? TLW said it could be done but think we IM)uld have a little bit rrore of a factual problem to establish basis on which we are going to levy it . Difficult to supJ:X>rt this . Question asked , are we talking in terms of increased connection charges or are we talking about what has appeared in prior staff reports? TLW said the way the ordinance was drafted this afternoon was simply as the single connection charge and drop any surcharge and tax or l evy . Entire District w·ill have connection charges; Zones 1 and 3 -$250, Zone 2 -$ There is reasonable basis to supJ:X>rt differences in connection charges . Dennis O'Neil said as stated by Mr . Ryan , we don 't knCM of any errergency that is facing the City right nCM for large developrrents and new permits . M3.ybe there is going to be requests for building pennits by M3.cLain or Pacific Mutual sooner than anticipated. We would sugge st that perhaps this whole matter of the rroritorium ordinance be continued at least to January 2 . Don 't think there is an errergency . -4- -· .. FAH asked Mr . Hewicker what the prospect of new projects was. Said only ongoing construction is in Harbor Ridge . Have request by Irvine Corrpany for expansion of Baywood , routing on Newport 's north side. Have tentative tract nap on Sea Island side . Have little in Big canyon. Area covered by reservoir has tentative nap. No building. Question asked re Section 403, don't understand. Fead section and exception. With regard to Harlx>r Ridge , have received final permits but there rray be lots for which permits have not been requested. TLW said permit for Harlx>r Ridge was approved in 19 7 6 . They are okay. Added if you don 't have a building permit , can't get one unless you have approval . Is another category; those that have received plarming approval but have not asked for a building permit . In Big Canyon, may be 3 or 4 of these. In Harbor Ridge, probably dozens of lots, Hewicker advised. O'Neil stated he didn 't think the problem lies with single family units that might come in one at a time. Problem is with large subdivisions. Hewicker added that in Harlx>r Ridge they are required to start construction with specified pericxl of time. TLW said we can write that into the ordinance, exerrpting Harbor Ridge . Ryckoff said if we are going to greater connection fees , should get that into the works before applications rorre in. Also if we are approaching capacity in the sewer system , seems quite obvious that we should be addressing this. Riley agreed. Have to irrpress on people that we have to get approval for this sewer. Think rroritorium would irrpress sorrebody that we do need this. Ryan said he recently heard alx>ut purrp station . Would l ike to recomrended that since there probably isn't going to be much done this rronth, should rorre back the first of the year. Think we have the rrajority interests sitting right here. Ryckoff asked re capacity situation, v.ould it permit a delay? REL said couldn't envision a tremendous increase in our connected f l ow to cause a problem. FAH added we have submitted a lette r to the Plarming Departrrent saying no rrore connections. D:m ' t know how that would af feet Mr. Hewicker. Hewicker said he wrote to the City Attorney asking what authority he had rot to issue building permits . City Manager said he thought authority would have to corre from Regional Quality Control Board . Strauss said his personal view and recomrendation was not to act until January 9th rreeting. Ryckoff questioned loss of connection fees if we postponed ordinance . TI.W said if there is anything that is to receive planning approval for tract or large office building, under terms of ordinance they will have right to get their connection . hbuld probably catch them at a l ater date. Asked Hewicker alx>ut projects . Said have no projects. Are two points in Civic Plaza that are in plan check. Have received zoning and planning approval by City. Only have to receive checks to confirm. TLW said under this ordinance then they are permitted to connect but would have to pay the higher fees. O'Neil asked couldn't the Board adopt a separate ordinance re fees .iJmediately? TLW said there are three separate sections in this ordinance . Could be possible. Fees could be set today and when they finalize f igures, could be changed at any tirre. Ryckof f asked if anyone would have any objection if we took that kind of action adopting a new fee schedule and deferring rroritorium situation? TLW stated he didn 't like errergency ordinances, especially for just setting fees. Feel comfortable alx>ut rroritorium in ordinance . Is as valid an errergency as he has ever had to write . DJn't think there is an errergency to set fees . Said he would feel a little bit less comfortable trying to defend errergency for fees. -5- •• - O'Ne il said in talking to his client, they wo uld not fee comfortable in f urthe r negotiating t o f und p roject with noritorium. Ryan a dd ed he just thinks nor itoriurn create s an awkward situa tion and draws in a degree o f panic . Daon is l~ y ears away from pulling permits. Just thinks it would be best if we would not enter into a noritoriurn situa tion. Ryckoff said he thought a noritoriurn is going to be necessary in January . Asked if it would be helpful if it is not done until January. Said we are garrbling in an area where he didn 't think we should be gambling. O'Neil asked, how long does it take for an ordinance to go into effect? 'I'I..W said 30 days after two readings. Stiles said he shared Mr. Ryan 's aversion to a rroritoriurn . Asked what steps must be taken to avoild noritoriurn? Ryckoff said it seems to him that we w::mld want to have sorre idea that progress was occurring on the approach to the Back Bay line. Maybe in one non th rray not need it; don 1 t know. Strauss added that it seemed to him that fees that we are looking it here might turn out not to be right. Maybe they s)1ould be higher . Will know nore when we get a chance to look at them. Hewicker said he rret with 'Ibrn Dawes on Tuesday so infonnation was right off the press . Riley said didn't we corre here because there was a need for a noritoriurn? Said seems to rre the noritorium would help nove the approval of the system. If REL says we don't have a problem, are willing to wait but not if there is a n eed for a noritoril.Iln. REL stated he didn't see that there is that much of a problem within 30 days for a rroritoriurn but there is still a need. TLW indicated if we have a second reading January 9th , ordinance will become effective February , or can adopt as errergency ordinance on Jan . 9th. REL suggested we take a look at deferral and can adopt errergency ordinance on Jan . 9th if we need to. Ryckoff stated that there wa s no t action necessary at this time then. FAH said he was concerned about letter to Planning Depart:rrent that City Manag e r says takes an act of Re g ional Board . TLW advised that we have a rroritoriurn set forth in ordinance foDTI but he was of the opinion tha t it does not require an ordinance to shut off permits. City of NE.WpOrt Beach is acting as our a gent . We issue the permit and decide who can connect . The City can allCJH connect ion into their sewrr but not into our sewers . We have authority to d e termine wh e ther or not permits can be issued . Have agreement with City and District for collection of fees . With respect to com.rent of Bob Wynn re Regional Board , have never heard of that. Riley added h e thought Regional Board could tell everybody in their region not to issue permits but not just us . TLW said he would attempt to talk to Hugh (?) in the rrorning and s ee what input he has from City Manager. Will contact Directors if there is a problem. Hewicker referred to Mr . Harper 's letter and read part of it. Ha ven 't taken any action on this letter other than to discuss it very briefly with City Manager and read to City Attorney. Didn 't think the word "should" rreant he h a d to do it. Ryckoff said we should perhaps dele te Harbor Ridge and possibly singl e family units . TLW a dvised we can do that by renoving 20 or so words f rom sectio n. R-1 zoned lots are exempt unde r n ew ordinance. Hewicker asked if Harbor Hill approval was included in exemption and is Harl::xJr Ridge? TLW said no , not as staff envis ions it as of today . TLW said Directors n eed f inite l ist of parcels . FAH advised they would discuss this further at the end of the January 9th rreeting agenda . MEETING ADJOURNED . -6- -\ ( .... ·~ I <) -~ (~ ~ I <) -~ ( ~ -~ ~ ( ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ - -< Ii \ -~ - - - - - ..... -- ( \~ ( ~ ' ,. ( (~ REPORT ON ALTERNATE FACILITIES BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA COUNTY SANITATION D ISTRI CT NO . 5 OF ORANGE COUN T Y, CALIFORNIA 19 7 9 ... ... November 7, 1979 S T A F F R E P 0 R T BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962·2411 The enclosed reports, prepared by outside consultants, analyze alternate facilities for conveyance of wastewaters in the Big Canyon Drainage area as shown on the enclosed map. Staff's conunents regarding these two independent reports are as follows: JAMBOREE PUMP STATION ALTERNATE Staff has carefully reviewed the engineer's report and has noted two major areas which must be considered if this alternate is selected. First, the pump station, as proposed by Shaller & Lohr, does not have a wet well for storage and modulation of incoming flows. The basic design could be modified to accommodate this with minor additional cost. Secondly, the existing electrical service is inadequate to handle increased demands. It is also the staff's opinion that the estimated annual power costs of $20,000 may be low in light of recent power rates granted the Edison Company by the Public Utilities Cormnission for fuel adjustments. It is safe to estimate that energy costs will con- tinue to increase in the next few years. The staff estimates that the capital costs for this facility will be approximately $1 million with an annual operating cost of approximately $40,000. JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL ALTERNATE The report prepared by Butier Engineering Inc. is quite conclusive inasmuch as it contains detailed estimates from two independent contracting firms familiar with the type of tunnel work required for this alternate. For purposes of estimating, the staff feels that a cost of $2.5 million for this alternate should be established. STAFF CONCLUSIONS After careful review of the reports contained herein, in addition to the previous reports prepared for this drainage area, staff feels that the Directors should consider the following: 1. It is felt that the present development in the drainage area can be adequately served by the existing pump station. However, any additional development will over burden the existing facilities, necessitating the implementation of alternate methods of collection. 2. There are approximately 400 .cacres of undeveloped land in the drainage area. 3. Because of the large differential between the pump station alternate.and the tunnel alternate, the staff feels that the pump station alternate is the most viable alternate at this time for implementation to serve the drainage area. 4. Since the 400 acres of undeveloped land will require the implementation of new facilities, the entire capital cost could be borne by the undeveloped lands. If the pump station alternate is implemented, this equates to approximately $2,500 per acre which should be a surtax added to the existing connection charges of the District. 5. The District should notify the City that no permits should be issued for any new development until a reso- lution of financing of the additional facilities has been established. 2. I ' I l ~ \ i I i ~ I I w I I ' ! I I : .... ! I I ' I I I.I I I i j I.I l I I : '-1 \ I ' I ~ l I I I '-' i ,! ; ) -- I j w I 1 I , ~ I J ~ • Trunk Line '-' Service Area - .. ... .. \ " .. • • : ·. '• :, '.' ·.· • • • I: •;: I ·, t /:ord . ~ . : .. r •• •• • • • lld. \ '-Pump Station Service Area Pump Station . . -f : . ·.~ Pump Station & Trunk Line Service Areas -5-Figure 111 . - DES I GN REPORT FOR .JAMBOREE PUMP STATION ALTERNATE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 ORANGE COUNTY SEPTEMBER I 1979 PREPARED BY: $HALLER & LOHR INC. COSTA MESA,CA.92626 PREPARED FOR: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ... - DESIGtl REPORT FOR JAMBOREE PUMP STATION ALTERNATE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 ORANGE COUNTY PREPARED FOR: ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California PREPARED BY: SHALLER & LOHR, INC. 1503 South Coast Drive, Suite 203 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714-754-5714 SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV SECTION V SECTION VI SECTION VII SECTION VIII SECTION IX SECTION X - TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Tables History of Project and Purpose of Report Existing Facilities & Site Photo~raphs Discussion of Existing and Ultimate Flow Projections Flow Metering Design Criteria Construction Considerations Economic Analysis and Cost Considerations Summary of Recommendations Bibliography _, '-I \Cl ts:t FIGURES VI-1 VI-2 VI-3 TABLES IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 VI-1 VIII-1 VIII-2 VIII-3 VIII-4 VIII-5 VIII-6 SECTION I LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Plan and Profile of Pumping System Pump System Characteristics Pump Details Pump Station Ultimate Service Area Acreage Coefficient Analysis Pump Station Service Area Dwelling Unit Analysis Gravity Line Ultimate Service Area Acreage Coefficient Analysis Gravity Line Ultimate Service Area Dwelling Unit Analysis Gravity System Flow Analysis Review of Capital Cost Replacement Cost Considerations Operation and Maintenance Costs Present Worth Analysis Present Worth Summary Annual Worth Summary SECTION II HISTORY OF PROJECT AND PURPOSE OF REPORT 2.1 HISTORY & BACKGROUND In 1964, a Sewa~e System Study and Report for Sanitation District No. 5 Orange County was prepared by Donald C. Simpson. This report was updated by the Interim Master Plan Report prepared by Shuirman-Simpson in 1969. These reports considered the subject pump station a temporary facility until a proposed gravity line (referred to as the Back Bay Sewer) to be constructed along the easterly shore of Upper Newport Bay was completed. Upon comple- tion of the Back Bay Sewer, the "temporary" pump station was scheduled for abandonment. However, alternatives. are now being considered due to the fact that a permit for con- struction of the Back Bay Sewer facility has been denied by the State Coastal Connnission. Subsequently, on-going growth in the drainage basin trib- utary to the pump station has resulted in sewage flows which periodically exceed the design capacity of existing facilities. The facility's low reliability is a source of concern to District No. 5 personnel and has necessitated the investigation of alternate solutions on a priority basis. 2.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to carry out the intent of the District's Master Plan to provide sewer se~vice to a II-1 developing area in the most cost effective manner: specifically, to determine the most feasible method of providing adequate capacity for present and ultimate needs of the service area. Other alternatives pr~sent­ ly being studied by the District will be compared to the findings of this report. II-2 SECTION III EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES 3.1 EXISTING & FUTURE FACILITIES The following outlines review of Improvement Plans and prior reports prepared for County Sanitation Dis- trict No. 5 of Orange County, a list of which are found in Section X hereinafter. The original system was jointly constructed in 1958 by the County of Orange and The Irvine Company. In 1959, County Sanitation Dis- trict No. 5 acquired the system from The Irvine Company utilizing ad valorem taxes. The original pump station consisted of a pneumatic ejec- tor pump which had a capacity of 0.3 MGD. The control system consisted of float switches in a 4 foot circular wet well. The trunkline portion, measured. from the pump station to the Pacific Coast Highway Trunkline, consisted of 1,050 L.F. of 8" force main, 2,006 L.F. of 18" gravity line, 1,443 L.F. of 15" gravity line and 1,094 L.F. of 18" gravity line. Subsequently, a second ejector pump was in- stalled to increase the pump station capacity to 0.6 MGD. In 1966 the ejector pumps were replaced with two 60 H.P. Centrifugal Wemco Pumps having a capacity of 1.22 MGD and the original 1,050 L.F. of 8" force main was replaced with a 14" force main. In 1969, the pumps were again replaced with two 100 H.P. Centrifugal Fairbank-Morse Pumps each having a capacity of 2.15 MGD for a combined capacity of 4.3 MGD. III-1 3.1 (CONTINUED) The existing pumping facility has to date accommodated existing flows; however, when storm inflow projections and non-existence of standby capacity are considered the ability of the system to meet the increasing demands resulting from development of the tributary areas is ques- tionable. The force main capacity is also meeting the demands of existing flows, but will be considered under- sized for the recommended initial design flow of 6.0 MGD. Thus, assuming development of the undeveloped portions of the drainage area will continue, alternative solutions must be found immediately for providing service to the area. The capacity of the Pacific Coast Highway gravity sewer and pumping facilities were considered adequate for the purposes of this report. III-2 ------------- ------------- --.. . . .. . . ----- ~ - ~ ~ "" \ Q) "" ' "" " " g. .. . . . . . . ,. . . -------- SECTION IV DISCUSSION OF EXISTING AND ULTIMATE FLOW PROJECTIONS 4.1 EXISTING FACILITIES The existing facilities serving the subject drainage area consist of a pump system and gravity system. The pump system includes the Jamboree Pump Station located West of Jamboree Road and North of San Joaquin Hills Road, and a force main along Jamboree Road to a point South of San Joaquin Hills Road, where flows are dis- charged into Manhole 20. Through lines of various diam- eter flows are then transported by gravity to the 24" Pacific Coast Highway Trunk Sewer at Back Bay Drive. 4.2 DRAINAGE AREA The drainage areas established by the November 1969 In- terim Master Plan Report for County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, prepared by Shuirman-Simpson, were analyzed in relation to existing and expected ulti- mate development. Portions of the drainage are~s are not tributary to the subject facilities which consist of the Jamboree Pump Station, force main and gravity line outlet- ting into the existing Pacific Coast Highway sewer trunk- line. Therefore, the February 14, 1977 Tributary Drainage Area Map, prepared by Simpson-Steppat for analysis of the abandoned Back Bay Trunk Sewer concept was checked against City of Newport Beach Sewer Index Maps and utilized to de- fine the tributary drainage areas. IV-1 Vehicular traffic studies by the City of Newport Beach include a breakdown of the population, acreage and land use of the applicable drainage area into Traffic Analy- sis Zones. The majority of acreages for the various existing land uses in each Zone were furnished by the City of Newport Beach. However, where required, land use acreages were calculated by planimeter. To analyze undeveloped zones, the land use acreages projected by the Residential Growth and Land Use elements of the Gene- ral Plan were compiled also with the cooperation of the City of Newport Beach. These acreages and land uses are tabulated in Tables IV-1, 2, 3 and 4. In sununary, the sub-areas draining to the pump station have continued to be developed since the previous re- ports were published; consequently, the present study areas were derived as a result and in combination with the previous reports and additional study. Thus, the present and ultimate sub-areas determined by this report are a composite. 4.3 LAND USE AND PROJECTED FLOWS 4.3.1 ACREAGE COEFFICIENT METHOD: The 1975 Ultimate Land Use Plan, prepared by the County Sanitation Districts, County of Orange, suggests the following flow coefficients in gallons per acre per day (gad). LAND USE Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Industrial Recreational & Open Space IV-2 FLOW COEFFICIENTS (gad) 1550 3880 5820 3230 3880 5 gcd or 200 gad Application of these Ultimate Land Use Plan coefficients to the acreages derived, as described in paragraph 4.2 above, results in an ultimate Pump Station theoretical design flow of approximately 8.74 MGD, as tabulated in Table IV-1. Utilizing the same procedure, calculations indicate an additional ultimate flow of 1.17 MGD will reach the gravity system, downstream of the pump system as also tabulated in Table IV-3. 4.3.2 CAPITAL POPULATION METHOD: As a cross-check, dwell- ing units existing or projected were compiled using the limitations of the "R~sidential Growth" and "Land Use Ele- ments" of the General Plan, as amended, and furnished by the City of Newport Beach for each Traffic Analysis Zone. These figures are listed in Table IV-2. Analysis of the computer printout of the Newport Beach 1976 Census, modified to reflect recent Amendments, indicates the occupied persons per household averages 2.4. Using this density factor and a 90 gcd (considered conservative- ly high, but based on metering studies) discharge factor, results in a theoretical ultimate design flow of 5.47 MGD, also tabulated in Table IV-2. Similarly~ cal·culations in- dicate an additional flow of about 0.97 MGD will reach the downstream gravity Trunkline (see Table IV-4). IV-3 4.3.3 ELECTRICAL RECORD CONVERSION: It is possible to estimate flow information at a pump station utilizing electrical power ~eter records. While the electrical meter record does not necessarily indicate peaking in- formation, it is a relatively good information source for overall pumpage and bimonthly activity. The following table lists the two month electrical meter totals for the Jamboree Pump Station during the year 1978: 1978 ELECTRICAL METER RECORD TWO MONTH METER FLOW AVERAGE PEAK PERIOD 2546 FLOW/DAY FLOW ENDING KW"H . KWH (MGD) (MGD) 1/9/78 55800 142.1 2.33 4.19 3/9/78 65400 166.5 2.78 5.00 5/8/78 56920 167.8 2.75 4.95 7/7/78 64000 163.0 2.67 4.81 9/6/78 65880 167.8 2.75 4.95 11/7/78 67080 170.8 2.80 5.04 This electrical demand information was converted to fluid flow information using Table No. 78 of the "Handbook of Water Control" for a lift of 100' (including losses). The conversion factor is 3183 gallons per KWH (see page X-2) for an efficiency of 100%. Modifying this capacity to an assumed station efficiency of 80%, the factor becomes 2546 gal/KWH. A peaking factor of 1.8 was used to ob- tain peak daily flow. IV-4 ... 4.4 EXISTING FLOWS AND SUMMARY OF ULTIMATE FLOW PROJECTIONS The area tributary to the Jamboree Pump Station totals approximately 2022 acres, of which 1469 acres are de- veloped, and 373 acres are undeveloped. The area tribu- tary to the trunkline downstream of the pump station totals approximately 244 acres, of which 115 acres are developed, and 129 acres undeveloped. To determine the theoretical present day conditions based on the above procedures the undeveloped acreages and projected dwell- ing units tabulated in Tables IV-1, 2, 3 and 4 were de- leted and the projected flows recalculated. PRESENT ULTIMATE I. ACREAGE COEFFICIENT METHOD a. Jamboree Pump Station 7.44 MGD 8. 74 MGD b. Trunk line 0.60 MGD 1.17 MGD II. CAPITA Dw"ELLING UNIT METHOD a. Jamboree Pump Station 4.86 MGD 5.47 MGD b. Trunk line 0.60 MGD 0.97 MGD III. ELECTRICAL RECORD GONVERSION 5.04 MGD In .summary, the acreage tributary to the Jamboree Pump Station is 82% developed and the acreage coefficient to the trunkline is 47% developed. Under the acreage coef- ficient reethod, existing flow estimates approximate 857o of the projected ultimate flows from the area tributary to the Pump System and 51% of the projected ultimate flows from the area tributary to the downstream Gravity System. Furthermore, the results of the above alternate means of calculating the theoretical Ultimate Design Flow for the Pump.System differ by 3.27 MGD and for the trunk- line they differ by .20 MGD. IV-5 The average of the results of the two alternate methods of calculation of theoretical Ultimate Flows reaching the Pump Station and Gravity Systems is 7.11 MGD and 1.07 MGD, respectively. The Peaking factor indicated on the various tables was derived by multiplying the projected Ultimate dwelling unit count of 7620 by a unit factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling (as indicated by Newport Beach Census figures) to obtain an ultimate population projection of 18,288. Figure 4 of the November 1969 Interim Master Plan Report was then referred to in deriving a Peak to average flow ratio of 1.8. Recommended design flows are summarized in Section VI. IV-6 I l i I I ( I ( ( [ I ( l l [ l I TABLE IV-1 JAMBOREE PUMP STATION ULTIMATE SERVICE AREA ACREAGE COEFFICIENT l~!ETHOD ULTIMATE LAND USE 1RAFFIC LG1 MEDIUM HIGH CXM1ER-RECREA-INDUS-'IUfAL AVERAGE STORM INFIDW ANALYSIS DENSI'IY DENSI'IY DENSI'IY CIAL TION 1RIAL ACRE-DRY WEATHER 600 GAL. PER ZONE 1550 3880 5820 INCUJDING PARKS & 3880 AGE FLOW GAL. DAY PER ACRE G/D/A G/D/A G/D/A SCHOOLS & OPEN G/D/A PER llt\.Y CHURQIES SPACE PER ACRE 3200 G/D/A 200 G/D/A 59 ·O 0 49.3 0 0 0 49.3 286,926 29,580 60 42 183.9 15.4 62.1 13.9 0 317.3 1,071,623 190,380 61 83.1 0 0 7.1 7.6 0 97.8 153,258 58,680 62 164 0 0 0 1. 6 0 165.6 254,520 99,360 70 0 18.9 0 0 0 0 18.9 73,332 11,340 71 94.6 2 0 1.0 165.6 0 263.20 190,740 157,920 72 86.3 12 0 0 0 0 98.3 180,325 58,980 73 0 12.3 0 0 0 0 12.3 47,724 7,380 74 114.3 0 0 0 0 100.9 215.2 568,657 129,120 87 0 0 30.9 0 8 0 38.9 181,438 23,340 90 290.8 0 0 7.7 14.6 0 313.10 478,531 187,860 91 63 0 0 0 11. 25 0 74.25 99,900 44,550 92 295.7 0 0 0 2.5 0 298.20 458,835 178,920 93 L~O 10.7 0 9.3 0 0 60.0 133,555 36,000 TOTAL 1273.8 239.8 95.6 87.20 225.05 100.9 2022. 35 4,179,364 1,213,410 l ( I I I ( [ I ( ( ( ( TABLE IV-2 JAMBOREE TRUNK LINE ULTit1ATE SERVICE AREA CAPITAL POPULATION METHOD ULTIMATE lAND USE TRAFFIC I1JN MEDIUM HIGH CDl+1ERCIAL RECRFA-INDUSTRIAL 1UfAL AVERAGE STORM Al.~YSIS DENSITY DENSITY DENSTIY ACS.INCLUDING TION 3880 GAL UNITS DRY IlIFIDW ZONE UNITS UNITS UNITS SCHOOL & PARKS PER DAY WEATHER 600 GAL/ CHURCHES 3230 OPEN PER ACRE FlDW DAY/ACRES GAL/DAY/ACRE SPACE GAL/ 200 DAY/ PER DA.Y PER ACRE 59 0 0 1302 0 0 0 1302 281,232 29,580 60 50 856 220 62.1 13.9 0 1126 446,579 190,380 61 487 0 0 7.1 7.6 0 487 129,645 58,680 62 460 0 0 0 1. 6 0 460 99,680 99,360 70 0 160 0 0 0 0 160 34,560 11,340 71 260 20 0 1.0 165.6 0 280 96,830 157,920 72 240 120 0 0 0 0 360 77,760 58,980 73 0 144 0 0 0 0 144 31,104 7,380 74 610 0 0 0 0 100.9 610 523,252 129,120 87 0 0 460 0 8 0 460 100,960 23,340 90 1146 0 0 7.7 14.6 0 1146 275,327 187,860 91 205 0 0 0 11. 25 0 205 45,530 44,550 92 675 0 0 0 2.5 0 675 146,300 178,920 93 119 86 0 9.3 0 0 205 74,319 36,000 TOTAL Li252 1386 1982 87.20 225.05 100.9 7620 2,364,078 1,213,410 I ( ·1 l l I I I ULTIMATE LAND USE TRAFFIC IDW MEDIUM HIGH ANALYSIS DENSI1Y DENSITY DENSITY 1550 3880 5820 G/D/A G/D/A G/D/A 58 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 9ll 0 22 0 TOTAL 0 22 0 I I I I TABLE IV-3 JAMBOREE TRUNK LINE ULTIMATE SERVICE AREA ACREAGE COEFFICIENT METHOD OOMvlER-PARKS nmus- CIAL BEACHES 'IRIAL 3230 & OPEN 3880 GAL. PER SPACE GAL.PER DAY PER 200 GAL DAY PER ACRE PER DAY ACRE PER ACRE 76 77.6 0 68.3 0 0 0 0 144.3 77.6 0 [ l l I 'IUfAL AVERAGE ACREAGE DRY WEAnIER FLGl GAL. PER DAY PER ACRE 153.6 261,000 68.3 220,609 22 85,360 243.9 566,969 l I S10PJ1 INFLOW 600 GAL. PER DAY PER ACRE 92,160 40,980 13,200 146,340 ( I I ( I ULTIMATE LAND USE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 58 64 94 TOTAL I..G1 DEUSITY D.U.S. 0 0 0 0 I I MEDIUM DENSI'IY D.U.S. 440 0 226 666 ( HIGH DENSITY D.U.S. 0 0 0 0 I I « l I I TABLE IV-4 JAMBOREE TRUNK LINE ULTIMATE SERVICE AREA CAPITAL POPULATION METHOD OOM1ER- CIAL 3230 GAL/ DAY/AC 25.7 68.3 0 94.0 RECREA- TION PARKS & OPEN SPACE 200 DAY/ PER ACRE 39.6 0 39.6 INDUS- TRIAL 3880 GAL/ DAY/ ACRE 0 0 0 0 ( ( I IDrAL AVERAGE UNITS DRY WF.AWER FIJJW/GAL DAY/ACRE 440 185,971 0 226 666 220,609 48,816 455,396 I [ STORM INFI.DW 600 GAL/DAY/ ACRE 92,160 40 '980 13,200 146,340 « - - 5.1 PRIOR GAUGING SECTION·V FLOW METERING During preparation of the 1964 Donald C. Simpson Report, Sewage System charts for meters located at County Sani- tation District Treatment Plant No. 2, Newport Newport Boulevard Trunkline, Dover Drive Trunkline and the Bay Bridge Pump Station supplemented by data gathered through the use of portable field gauging stations were analyzed. The accuracy of the Bay Bridge Pump Station meter was veri- fied by comparison of recorded flow against the manufac- turer's pump curve. Average dry weather flow measurements were divided by the estimated permanent population. As the flow measurements included flows from connnercial, industrial, schools, parks, etc., in addition to that generated by residential develop- ment, the approximate result of 135 gallons per capita per day was referred to as "equivalent per capita flow". 5.2 PER-CAPITA FLOWS For purposes of the preparation of the November 1969 Inter- im Master Plan Report by Shuirman-Simpson, the Dover Drive Trunk was selected as the most representative of Newport Beach development. Average dry weather flows were again analyzed utilizing updated population, existing land use and acreage data obtained from the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. V-1 - The total commercial, industrial and recreational acreage was multiplied by the coefficient of 2,500 gallons per acre per day (gad) and deducted from the average dry weather flow and divided by the estimated population to obtain a 90 gcd flow. 5. 3 PRESENT CAPITA FLOWS AND NEW INFORMATION · ·For purposes of this report, the 90 gcd. was utilized for capita flow estimates and respective duty factors were utilized for commercial, industrial and recreational uses. It is our 'recommendation that Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 initiate a meter analysis and gauging pro- gram which will be used as a cross-check during the design phase of the project. If adjustments in design are indi- cated by the metering program, the information will be available before the design is completed. Suggested locations for ~auging are: a. Bluffs Manhole in Jamboree Road approximately 185 feet northerly of Ford Road to determine single family flows. b. Harbor View Rills Manhole in OCSD between Harbor View Hills and Big Canyon Area to dete~ine single family flows. c. Big Canyon Manhole in OCSD line at the east side of Jamboree Road near subject facility site. d. Park Newport Manhole in OCSD line west of the subject facility to determine multiple zoning flows. V-2 - I '-' . t=;I , ... 6.1 GENERAL VI DESIGN CRITERIA Derivation of design flows are discussed in Sections IV and V herein. The estimated flow reaching the pump sta- tion was determined utilizing the "acreage coefficient", "capita flow" and "electrical meter" methods based on existing developed acreage and undeveloped acreage. The results of this analysis can be summarized as foll~ws: PUMP STATION SUMMARY METHOD Acreage Coefficient Capita/Population Electrical Meter Record Conversion Recommended Design Capacity-Pump Station *To be confirmed by metering PEAK FLOW (MGD) PRESENT ULTIMATE 7.44 4.86 5.04 6.0* 8.74 5.47 (9.0)* Design flows for the gravity system between San Joaquin Hills Road and the Pacific Coast Highway Trunkline were also studied in Section IV herein. SUmma.tion of the estimated gravity and pump system flows are as follows: GRAVITY SYSTEM DESIGN FLOW SUMMARY METHOD Acreage Coefficient Capita/Population VI-1 PEAK FLOW (MGD) PRESENT 8.04 5.46 ULTIMATE 9.9 6.44 __. t9ll ~ ! .... i e-1 - : .., 6.2 PUMP STATION LOCATION AND DESIGU CRITERIA It is recommended that the proposed pump station be de- signed to provide for existing and future (ultimate) flow discharges. Present facilities have been determined· to be inadequate. Figure IV-1 indicates the relative lo- cation of the Lift station and force main. Figure VI-2 indicates the relative location of the proposed new pump station, wet well and accessories. Following is the recom- mended design criteria for the pump system. PUMP SYSTEM EXISTING INITIAL ULTIMATE Pumps 2 Operational 2 Operational 3 Operational (No Standby) (1 Standby) (1 Standby) Horse Power (H.P. 200 200+100 Standby 300+100 Standby Type Pumps Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Self-Priming Self-Priming Station Capacity (MGD) 4.3 6.0 9.0 Lift including 106 losses (FT.) 100 96 Force Main 14" Existing 14" Existing & 14" (exist) & Parallel 14" Parallel 14" Wet Well (gal) 400 2000 2000 VI-3 '. l:!J ;_, - The installation of electrical.motors and self-priming centrifugal pumps is recommended. as indicated by Figure VI-3 modified for a 3-pump initial design and a 4-pump ultimate design. It is also recommended that three 3.0 MGD pumps be in- stalled, initially, to provide for the design flow of 6.0 MGD. The pump station will provide .for future installa- tion of an additional pump, ._if required, to meet ultimate capacity requirements. Initially, only two pumps will be available for service at any one time. The third pump would be on standby. Ultimately, a third pump would be on-line and available for service with the fourth pump on standby. VI-4 .. tml 6.3 DISCHARGE HEAD The existing discharge head for the present pump capacity is estimated at 100 feet which includes station losses, lift requirements and a reserve to insure against unfore- seen losses. Figure VI-1 approximates the proposed and existing hydraulic profile of the pump system inc.luding discharge facilities. The elevation of existing facili- ties was obtained from plans furnished by the District as listed in Section 10 .. The following table sunnnarizes the lift and losses expected in the force main: FORCE MAIN TOTAL DYN&~IC HEAD ANALYSIS HEAD LOSSES CONDITION (UNITS) FLOW (11GD) VELOCITY (FPS) LIFT TFTT PIPE TFTT P.S. TFTT TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD Existing Design 4.3 3.0 82 Proposed* Initial Phase 6.0 4.1 82 Ultimate Phase 9.0 6.2 82 *ASSUMES TW0-14" MAINS FOR INITIAL & ULTIMATE 6.4 FORCE MAIN DESIGN 12:t 6:t 9 5 19 5 CONDITION (FT) 100 96 106 The existing 14" force main can provide for an approxima~e flow of 4.5 MGD at a velocity of 3.1 fps with a 12 foot head loss. It is recommended that a paralleling force main be constructed along with the initial phase of the pumping station in order to accommodate the design flow of 6.0 MGD. Construction of a new 14" force main would provide, in combination with the exist~ng force main, for a flow of 9.0 MGD at a velocity of 6.2 fps and a 19 foot head loss. This would accommodate the ultimate design flow for the pump station of 9.0 MGD. VI-5 - : tm:t 6.5 GRAVITY SYSTEM As discussed in Section III, the gravity line extending from the discharge point of the force main to the Pacific Coast Highway Trunk Line is composed of three segments of varying size and slope. The calculated flows under exist- ing and ultimate conditions were analyzed using the exist- ing pipe characteristics. Ultimate pipe size recommenda- tions are also based on theoretical application of the respective flows. Table IV-1 shows the results of this analysis, and, indicates that surcharging of the two existing 18" segments of the gravity line is imminent. Under ultimate conditions the existing 15" segment will also be surcharged. Therefore, a relief sewer parallel- ing the 18" segments will be required in conjunction with the pump system alterations. Construction of a relief sewer paralleling the 15" segment can be deferred until conditions warrant. VI-6 I I ( I I I I I -I i l I l I I ! I I I TABLE VI-1 GRAVITY SYSTEM FLOW ANALYSIS EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS & CONDITIONS ULTIMATE CHAR. & COND. PIPE SIZE LENGTH SLOPE FLOW VELOCITY D/d DIAM. FLOW VELOCITY D/d NO. QN.) (LF) (MGD) (FPS) (IN) (MGD) (FPS) A 18 1094 0.004 6.47 5.7 (+5. 47)* 18 4.0 4.3 .75 21 6.0 4.7 .75 -10.0 B 15 1443 0.036 5.30 10.0 .59 2-15 9.8 5.0 .57 c 18 2006 0.004 4.56 LL3 .98 2-18 9.6 lL4 .92 'i'c-SURCHARGE CONDITION I I I I I l l I PUMP SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS I INITIAL CAPACITY: a M.G.D. ULTIMATE CAPACITY : !J M.G.O. MOTORS : 100 11.P. f.3) Al PU11IPS : 3 M.G . .IJ. ce /OG T .D. H (3) STAA'.IJB Y : 1 PUMP-.3 MG. .D. WET WELL : ZOOO GAL. FORC£M41N: 2-14" LINES : 4. 5 M. G.D. EACH POWER : 200 11.P. INITIALLY .300 II. P LJLTIM.4TE ~o He -3 w -480 / c40 Y. A,,.,~ tJ;-+v-.>P. I ·. I ...... t' I ~ . ,'l'i L _ '! l ( o:. '":J~i 11(·~ l r 1 \~~ ;1 \ I 1, .• -0 II /· I I '1 I I .. /.. t·i 1· I II '.· 'I ij !l r I "~ ;' Ill . ~ r I if .•.. i1 I Ii 11 F 11 11 r;H ,J I I . i I i;i I .· I l [ NEW PUMPS ·F.'fT.WG'S ,r.; ~ -. ---.. . ·-1 R£4~R ... uti~O ( \f;;l·J ~=(A~ '/ r" I f · _"'_) w I I L ..... ·----·----__J EXIST. PUMPS I I ( I l --\-\. ·y\-.---·'r--!. -\ __ - \ -\ -----.Po..;_, ....._, ..-·'\ \ ·:--.\ . -\ . . ,_,.,...\ I · ... °''{.> JA ' \ ' l '·· ... \. I I I I ._-. I I i I \ •,/ ,.\ \ I [ I // ti z - a:: :c 0 .J I 1 • I \ '\ \ I I \ ! \ . \ f I \ • ', \ ' P.'?l1.'? f-'!.'1W' STATION crfJ \\ \ \ I \. ••. ·. w-··-_.\,, \ . '11 1 1~· {!UB \ '. \ \_ '.· ·. -{ \ \ ,,, . I --1U~c.P.\ ~~--11-:P . ··t~ _ _..:..3~.J ' I I ~ I I 1\. . ~ Cl. ~·STUB ' I ~ \ \L '..~~~-/4"FhKCl M.4A H·-- lt)f . \i I ,1 ·:~ =-,! .E.~i.:~!.. ·t.rl:Jl cv.1c tu.t. PL1.tlP 8LOG lX 15 .. V.CP 5£11~ J\ . ~ ASANO. 8" fV/i'C£ _M!t!f_. t . ~ -;.;..;o.--·---· .. ·--· ---.. ---·-0:-~~--~ -~--~ ~ JAMBOR££ _.fi'Q!Ul-zo··w'\,J -+- 2o"w-- " (lJ .J ..J < :c Cl) -'--1-1---· ~ SITE PLAN fl.'0 SCAL£ FIGURE lll-Z • <: t-t I v.> .. .. ·r ...... _ ·-r ~ I ! :: I I I I I l. I I I I ! j i ::- .L.L.l. 4 :a::1 :rP<::,·:~z:,~::::::I! --1 j I . .. . . I' ' . i: . ,\., .. ··:· . ·,, ,, .. · . . ;,-. i :.~ .... ,, t' • ·\ .. ... .... I 11 ' !· . . '.. I' .... ,,. (11 •I . (: :...:.r-·-=-·-- .. .. . ,. ' • .. I' .. , •• ,, .• ·~ :>--~l\ . ' \l •' ; . \\ ;: I i r.~ :·1 ;.j c.u + ·.-.(: ~ >-L .. , ~.:.~t t\"·: ... ,, \' ,. .... ..._.., . .. ... I I . '· :·~: :./ J_:', .. "'j : .. ..-· . .... l ., ... . .. :.... ·~· I . ·~ I J I·:~ '1! ·:,t·-.... • f I •• . U _-:u ... . r ·--L '· \ ·: ... ·-·--· .. ·:· . jl ... -~---,-,,/ ;';. , __ ..... I - ~!-· ~ ~:::> ,;~:~ ~ c;-- ; / 1~ .~:i .... "' L.• i ;\:•S> I ~· ". :'t·~ :i~ "' .1 ·~ .... 7.1 GENERAL SECTION·VII CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS In preparing this report, it was anticipated that the District would prefer to equip the proposed pump sta- tion with equipment of a type similar to that utilized in several existing stations. Construction of the facili- ty would be planned to· maintain the existing station in a state of continuous operation. ·Facilities that could be commonly used at the new station would be modified while in use. The only disruption contemplated is the connection at Manhole "An of the existing facility. Ac- commodation has already been provided for a future paral- leling force main but the existing wye fitting would be used differently than previously anticipated: No shut down on the discharge side of the existing station is anticipated. 7.2 LOCAL DISRUPTIONS Some minor disruptions will occur during construction while equipment and material is delivered and installed. At times at least one westerly lane of Jamboree Road will be obstructed. 7.3 SITE ACQUISITION A larger site may be required to provide adequate room for installation of the new pump station since contin- uous usage of the existing station is necessary. VII-1 ·- - Figure VI-2 indicates the various existing and new components. An easement will be required as indicated. 7.4 POTENTIAL SALVAGE Potential salvage of pump station equip~ent and use in the new station or other location may include the fol- lowing: Existing Power Service Sump Pump/Motor and Electrical Accessories Air Blower System Additional equipment and apparatus may have potential for reuse elsewnere at a later date. 7.5 ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION When the· future 15" gravity line is constructed, the actual location of tie-in to the existing facilities will require adjustment to acconnnodate the different diameters of the other line segments. When the fourth pump is installed, consideration of re- pairing the existing pumps and motors should be made. It is estimated that 10 to 15 years may pass before the fourth pump/motor is require~. VII-2 SECTION VIII ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & COST CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 REVIEW OF INITIAL FACILITY DEVELOPMENT In previous sections the facilities required to adequately provide for sewage flows under present conditions were dis- cussed. These facilities are summarized as follows: INITIAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Pump Station Force Main Downstream Gravity Mains 3 Pumps Building and accessoreis Wet ~ell and accessories Discharge piping/header By-Pass 14" line paralleling the existing 14" line 1094 L. F. of 21" line · paralleling the existing 18" line 2006 L. F. of 18" line paralleling the existing 18" line 8.2 REVIEW OF ULTIMATE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT The facilities tha~ can be deferred until the ultimate der.iand warrants are summarized as follows: Ultimate Pump Station Downstream Gravity Mains 1 Pump Additional Electrical Capacity 1443 L. F. of 15" line paralleling the existing 15" line VIII-1 8.3 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Table VIII-1 estimates the present day cost of the initial and ultimate construction. The costs indicated were derived from discussions with manufacturers, suppliers and experience with similar types of construction. The total costs are summarized as follows: Total Capital Cost -Initial Facilities $751,800 Total Capital Cost -Ultimate Facilities $192,243 Grand Total -Estimated Capital Cost $944,043 8.4 PROJECTED REPLACEMENT COSTS Replacement costs are based on the estimated life cycle of a specific item. Table VIII-2 lists the items with a "wear and tear" potential. Assuming a SO year life cycle, the present day replacement cost is estimated.to be $56,950. These figures refle~t replacement of the fourth pump and motor, 30 years and 45 years from ini- tial construction. 8.5 PROJECTED 0 & M COSTS Table VIII-3 lists the estimated 0 & M costs and reflects the subsequent installation of ultimate facilities. The total annual present day estimated cost is $30,000 per year. Information provided by Orange County Sanitation District representatives indicates that the annual power cost to operate the lift station in 1978 was approximately $15,000. Taking into consideration new power rates and an increased power requirements for the new motors the annual estimated cost based on present worth is $20,000 per year. VIII-2 .... . .. . tal .... . • I lmi 8.6 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS As.indicated in Table VIII-4, assuming an 8% interest rate and a 50 year life, the present worth of the pro- posed initial and ultimate facilities totals $812,395. 8.7 PRESENT WORTH SUMMARY As indicated in Table VIII-5, assuming an 8% interest and a 50 year life, the present worth of the initial and ultimate facilities, replacements and annual opera- tion and maintenance totals $1,187,434. 8.8 ANNUAL WORTH SUMMARY As indicated in Table VIII-6, assuming an 8% interest and a 50 year life, the annual worth of the initial and ultimate facilities, replacements and annual operation and maintenance is $97,063 . VIII-3 TABLE VIII-1 REVIEW OF.CAPITAL COST, INITIAL & ULTI¥.ATE CONSTRUCTION I. INITIAL FACILITIES A. PUMP STATION $259,000 1. Motors, Pumps, 3 EA. @ $60.000 $100,000 Bubbler Discharge and Electrical Panel 2. Building and 800 S.F. @ $ 55.00 44,000 Accessories 3. Wet Well LUMP SUM 1.0, 000 4. Site Modifications LUMP SUM 25,000 B. FORCE MAIN $ 99,000 1. 14" Force Main 1200 L.F. @ $ 45.00 $ 54,000 : --2. 27" Casing ·LUMP SUM $ 45,000 c. GRAVITY SYSTEM $243,440 1. 21" Trunkline 1094 L.F. @ $ 85.00 $ 92,990 2. 18" Trunkline 2006 L.F. @ $ 75.00 $150,450 D. SUBTOTAL $601,440 E. CONTINGENCIES, 25% of Item D $150,360 ENGI?~EERING , SUR- ~YING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL COST -INITIAL FACILITIES $.7."Sl, 800 II. ULTIMATE FACILITIES .., A. PU11P STATION 1. Motor & Pump 1 EA. @ $60,000.00 $ 60,000 ... B. GRAVITY SYSTEM 1. 15" Trunkline 1443 L.F.@ $ 65.00 $ 93,795 c. SUBTOTAL $153 '7.9 5 D. CONTINGENCIES, 25% of Item C $ .3E, 448 ENGINEERING, SUR~YING & ADMINISTRATION TOTAL COST ULTIMATE FACILITIES ~192,243 GRAND TOTAL $944,043 TABLE VIII-2 ._. REPLACEMENT COST CONSIDERATIONS FACILITY QTY. PRESENT DURATION PRESENT WORTH ._. COST LEA. (YRS. 2 COST-TOTAL R-1 MOTORS: PHASE I 3 EA. 1,000 15 $10,000 PHASE II 1 EA. 1,000 15 2,333 R-2 PUMPS: PHASE I 3 EA. 800 15 8,000 PHASE II 1 EA. 800 15 1,867 .. R-3 BUBBLER 1 EA . 500 25 1,000 R-4 BLOVJER 1 EA. 100 5 1,000 -R-5 R-6 BUILDING & ACCESSORIES 1 EA. 2,500 20 6,250 R-7 PO~"ER _, a PANEL 1 EA. 3,000 20 7,500 b STARTERS 1 EA. 400 10 2,000 ... BREAKERS 1 EA. 400 10 2,000 c R-8 ASPHALT/SITE LUMP SUM 2,000 10 10,000 R-9 MISCELLANEOUS LUMP SUM l,000 10 5,000 $56,950 TABLE VIII-3 ANNUAL 0 & M COST ?AA~ HR. OR FACILITY MAN HOURS mnTs UNIT COST TOTALS PUMP SYSTEM -A. :tAATERIALS Power LUMP $20,000 Water LUMP $ 200 !ml Paint/Misc. Ltn1P $ 800 SUB-TOTAL $21,000 ... B. LABOR Supervision 25 HOURS $16 $ 400 Electrician 100 HOURS $14 $ 1,400 Mechanical 300 HOURS $12 $ 3,600 Maintenance 80 HOURS $10 $ 800 -Miscellaneous 100 HOURS $ 8 $ 800 ~ SUB-TOTAL $ 7,000 -GRAVITY SYSTEM: A. LA.BC~ ~1aintenance 200 HOURS $10 $ 2,000 SUB-TOTAL $ 2,000 TOTAL OPERATION & ?1AINTENANCE COST/YEA.fl $30,000 tsl - IS .. TABLE VIII-4 PRESENT WORTH Al'!ALYSIS (1980) PHASE I. INITIAL FACILITIES (1980) A. PUMP STATION A-1 MOTORS,PUMPS, BUBBLER DISCHARGE AND ELECTRICAL PANEL A-2 BUILDING & ACCESSORIES A-3 WET w"ELL A-4 SITE MODIFICATIONS SUB-TOTAL B. FORCE MAIN 3 EA. @ $60,000 800 S.F. @ 55 LUMP SUM LUMP SUM B-1 14" FORCE !K..AIN 1,200 L.F. @ 45 B-2 27" CASING LUMP SUM SUB-TOTAL c . GRAVITY SYSTEM C-1 21" TRUNKLINE 1,094 L.F. @ 85 C-2 18'' TRUNKLINE 2,006 L.F. @ 75 SUB-TOTAL D. 25% of A, B, C SUB-TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $180,000 44,000 10,000 25,000 $259,000 $ 54,000 45,000 $ 99,000 $ 92,990 150,450 $243,440 $150,360 $150,360 $751,800 - .. t:sl : ... ... ... . -.:I . .., TABLE VIII-4 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (1980) PHASE II. ULTIMATE FACILITIES (1995) A. PUMP STATION A-1 MOTOR & PUMP $ 18,912 B. GRAVITY SYSTEM B-1 15" TRUNJ.a..INE 1443 L.F. @ 65 $ 29,564 c. 25% of A, B $ 12,119 TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $ 18,912 $ 29,564 $ 12,119 $ 60,595 $812,395 ... INITIAL FACILITIES A PUMP STATION B FORCE MAIN C GRAVITY SYSTEM E 25% OF A, B, C SUB-TOTAL ULTIMATE FACILITIES A PUMP STATION B GRAVITY SYSTEM D 25% OF A, B SUB-TOTAL REPLACEHENTS SUB-TOTAL ANNUAL 0 & M SUB-TOTAL GRAND TOTAL TABLE VII.I-5 PRESENT WORTH SUMMARY (1980) $259,000 99,000 243,440 150,360 18,912 29,564 12,119 $751,800 $ 60,595 $ 8,049 $366,990 $1,187,434 - ... - TABLE VIII-6 ANNUAL WORTH SUMUARY INITIAL FACILITIES ULTIMATE FACILITIES REPLACEMENTS ANNUAL 0 & M TOTAL $6J.,452 $ 4,953 $ 658 $30,000 $97,063 SECTION IX Sillf!'1ARY OF RECOMf'AENDATIONS In summary, inflow to the existing pump station exceeds the capacity when storm inflow is considered. Further- more, the lack of standby pumping capabilities endangers the reliability of the system. Ass~ing that continued development within the drainage basin will be allowed by the City of Newport Beach and other jurisdictional agencies, the capacity of the exist- ing pump station will be exceeded. Implementation of the initial recommendations contained herein will provide the desired pump station reliability. To the extent economically feasible, flexibility in the final design and installation of the ultimate facilities is also provided. This approach is advisable to reduce initial costs and accommodate revisions in capacity re- .quirements resulting from anticipated fluctuations in development philosophy by the various jurisdictional agencies. SECTION X BIBLIOGRAPHY The source of information provided for this report was the Orange County Sanitation District staff, Ray E. Lewis, Thomas M. Dawes and William Clark. The following reports are referenced: 1. Sewage System Study and Report, Donald C. Simpson 1964 2. Interim Master Plan Report, Shuirman-Simpson 1964 3. Land Use Element, Newport Beach General Plan, as amended 4. Residential Growth Element, Newport Beach General Plan, as amended 5. Draft Environmental Impact Report Jamboree Inter- ceptor Pump Station, Ecos Management, Criteria, October 1978 6. Project Report for the ·Bi8 Canyon Drainage area, L. D. King, September 1978 The following Improvement Plans are referenced: 1. Jamboree Road Trunk Sewer, Force Main and Pumping Station Sheets 1 to 10, Boyle Engineering, June 1978 2. Sewer Index Haps, City of Newport Beach 3. Jamboree Road Sewer Force Main, Sheets 1 and 2, Donald C. Simpson, June 1966 4. Jamboree Road Sheets 1 to 18 Boyle Engineering, May 1966 5. Jamboree Road Widening Sheets 1 and 2 City of Newport Beach, May 1973 VIII-8 ... ·• . _, BuTIER ENGINEERING INc. Construction l\lanagement CPM -PERT Scheduling Cost Controls Constuction Engineering Construction Claims Contract Administration October 14, 1979 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post f)ff ice Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Ray E. Lewis Chief Engineer Subject: Preliminary Construction Estimate for Proposed Jamboree Ro~d Sewer Ttmnel Dear Sir: Enclosed is the report on the est:imated construction costs of proposed "Jamboree 'Road Sewer Tunnel" located north of Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California. The reports sets forth pro~osed method of construction, costs and contin?encies to consider, should the tunnel alternate be selected. The preliminary constniction costs were fonnulated utilizing the following: (A). Geoteclmical feasibility investigation proposed Jamboree Road Sewer Tunnel -Au~ust 24, 1979 prepared by Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Geotechnical Consflltants, Anahe:im, California • (B). Two indenendent cost est:imates solicited from two contracting finns in Southenl CalifoTil.ia.area whose primary construction activities are centered uoon hard and soft rock ttmneling. The geotechnical report fanned the basis for prel:iminary recommendations for tunnel driving methods, suuport loads, support systems, drainage requirements and observations during constniction. The report was made available for the constniction estimates. The est:imates were revie~~d and revised by Butier Engineering, Inc. to insure that comparable scopes of work were included ., to compare est:imated construction costs. These modifications are set forth in the report. 22311 Brookhur~t. Suit~ H • Huntington B~a~h. CA 9264-6 • (714) 963-3636 October 14, 1979 Countv Sanitation Districts a.i o{ Orange County Page t'WO ·-• - '· '- The investigations ha"terevealed that the proposed tunnel geoteclmically, may be constructed as planned. The cost estimates as sul:mitted should en~ble you to fonnulate viable cost alternatives for the proposed Back Bay Sewer. ·Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions. ~MB:cs enclosure Very truly yours, BUTTER ENG INEER.INr,, INC. Mark \1. Butier President BUTIER ENGINEERING. INC. INDEX COST EST!MJ\TES FOR PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER 'IDNNEL Section I Introduction II Summary and Recommendations III Estimate Ntmtber 1 IV Estimate Number 2 v Appendix Geotechnical Report on Feasibility Study of Proposed Jamboree Road Sewer Ttmnel by Converse Ward Davis and Dixon, Anaheim, California - - - -- ·-1. INTRODUCTION . ·- - -- ·~ -- - - - - - .. .,. ·- BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. INTRODUCTIO~~: The purpose of this report is to establish prelDninary estimate of Constniction Costs for the proposed Jamboree 'Road Sewer Tunnel, Newport Beach, California for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County in order that the Districts may be apprised of the costs of this alternate construction for the Back Bay gra\iity sewerage system. A Geote chni.cal Feasibility Study was perfonned by Converse Ward Davis Dixon ~eotechnical Consultants. A copy of this ret>Qrt is attached herewith in A!'Pendix "A". The report basically concludes that the proi;>osed. tunnel may be constn.icted as nlanned. The subsurface conditions encountered in a limited exploration program indicates that the majority of the tunnel will penetrate soft to moderately hard siltstone and claystone. The remaining portions at north and south tunnel portals are expected to pass through fills or terrace deposits. The rerort contains recO!lDllendations for tunnel driving methods, suuport loads, supnort systems, drainage requirements and observations during construction. With this report, Butier Engineering solicited two independent construction costs est:imates fran two Southern California Construction f inns whose primary construction activity consists of hard and soft grotmd tunneling. These two estnnates were compared by Butier Engineerinc; Inc., and an eval- uation between the two set forth in SUY'lmary and Recommendations portion of this report. Essentially, the t.mnel alternate work was classified into an open ait portion, tunnel shield soft ~round and conventional drill and shoot or tl.Dlnel boring 'lllachine operations. Reconcilation for contingencies and recommendations by Butier Engineerin~, Inc. are contained for your infontiation in selecting alternate construction routes for Back Ray sewerage system. - - '• ~- ·-=-- -· -~ .,... -"' .. -·.r_· _,.. TI SUMMARY AND .RECOMMENDATJONS ·,.,· ........ · .. ,·· .· .. -;" ~-·, • .... /> .. ~ . . • BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. . 1:!19 . mt - :~ - ... SUMMARY AND RECO~TIONS Surmnary Estimate Number 1 and Number 2 differed by $37,272.00. Estimate 1 total is $2,404,426 and estimate 2 is $2,442,218. Estimate Ntnnber 1 is based on using conventional drill and shoct construction period of 16 months . tunneling method with a single shift Estimate Number Z is based on using a ttmnel boring machine or tunnel shield with a construction period of approximately 12 months. Th.is illustrates the fact that regardless of the construction method selected in driving the tunnel, the estimated costs are comparable. A reasonable estimated construction cost is $2,450,000. The contractors estimates do not reflect the cost or following contingencies that should be considered and llicluded in the potential costs of the alternate: 1. 2. 3. California Division of Industrial Safety could possibly classify the tunnel as gassy. In this event, the added costs could be equal to $200,000. If owner or DIS require full-time safety engineer, the added costs for this contingency would be equal to $50,000. Possible requirement forseismalogical study or crack survey; added costs would equal $ 50,000. Total Contingencies $300.000 -.. BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. ·- ... ... .. ~ Summary Presence of apartments, condominums and other existing developments along Jamboree Road would most likely preclude the use of ''Drill and Shoot" conventional method of tunnelling. The grotmd shocks and motion inherent in this method ususlly increases the liability for damage claims resulting from these disturbmces and has a very detrimental effect on commtmity relations. Specifying a Tunnel Boring Machine would mitigate this problem and shorten the construction period. Recommendations: 1. 2. 3 • 4. For purposes of construction cost alternate use $2,450,000 for a Tunnel Boring Machine operation . Provide a contingency ftmd over and above the costs in 1 above in the arnotmt of $300,000 as set forth for contingencies for gassy tunnel classification and seismologist or crack sUTVeys. Work should conunence by Jtme, 1980 or escalation in costs will be incurred. Additional in depth geotechnical reports should be completed prior to detailed design to determine if the contin~encies for gassy tunnel classification are in fact a reality. '!his will properly define the upper· ·. cost limits. I. l I I I ( •• I ( [ I I { I I RECONCILILATION OF ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 and 2 DescriEtion 1. Total Costs 2. Escalations 3. Total Costs 4. Profit and Contingencies 20% s. Total Cost Adjustments for Furnish Pipe as District Furnished 6. Total Cost 7. Contingencies Not Accounted For (a) D.I.S. Classification of gassy "Add: (h) Crack Survey or Seismology (c) Safety Engineer on Site Suhtotal Contingencies BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. Estimate Ntunber 1 $ 1,969,026 39,400 $ 2,008,426 412,000 $ 2,420,426 (15,480) $ 2,404,426 in Estimates 1 and 2 $ 200,000 50,000 50,000 $ 300,000 Estimate Ntnnber 2 $1,972,592 62,590 $2,035,182 407,036 $2,442,218 $2,442,218 ( l I I Remarks ··-··--·--·-····---··---··----·-·----·--------------------------·--------------------J - - - - - ·- -- - - - -' - - -.. III . ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 ... ,_, ··-' BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. INDEX TO ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 PRELNINAP.Y CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR JA:\.ffiOREE ROAD SEWER 1UNNF.L Im1 DESCRIPTION I II III IV v \TI VII VIII IX x Various Assumptions Made for Esti'Tlating Purposes Classification of Proposed Method of Constniction Total Costs Est:imate Summary Sheet Tunnel Back-up Estimate Sheet Tunnel Drivin~ Schedule Tunnel Back-up Est:imate Sheet Indirect Costs Ttmnel Back-up Est:imate Sheet Equipnent Costs Escalation Costs Used in Tunnel Estimate Tunnel Back-up Est:imate-Labor; Supplies; Tunnel Supports Tunnel Back-up Est:imate-Q..lantity Est:imates Tunnel Back-up Est:imate-1\.lnnel Crews; Miscellaneous Constniction Items; Pipe Line and Manholes Paving Note: For ~ofile See Appendix A, Drawing 79-2223-01. For Crossection, See Plate A, Sununary & Recommendations _, BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. mt JA'4BOREE ROAD SEWER nJNNEL . -- . qid i ... . t.- :.- .... PRELIMINA..~Y CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NlNBER 1 I. Various .l\ssumptions (1) Work to Camnence June 1, 1980 (2) 'I\lnnel Classification -Potentiall11 Gassy (3) 'IUnnel Cross Section -4 X 6.5 (4) 'I\lnnel ~pport -!\14" x 13 on Approximately 4' to 5' Center to Center Soft Ground -w/Coer de Alene Lagging (5) Grout -Surface eights along Jamboree to pennit down holes (6) Drive tunnel £rem downstream end -conventional drill and shoot. Alternate driYing method would be twmel boring machine. Costs should be comparable. (7) Soft ground tunnel to be shield driven • _, BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. JA\ffiQP.EE ROAD SEW.ER 1UNNEL PRELIMINARY CONSTPlJCTION cosrs -ESTIMATE NU'·IBER 1 .-II. Classification of Proposed f\1ethod of Construction I 'a.I, I 1., I •• '. i .~ (A) Station 30 + 00 to 34 + 50 = 450 lf Cltt and Cover. (B) Station 34 + 50 to 38 + 10 = 360 lf Soft Ground Tunnel. (C) Station 38 + 10 to 75 + 80 = 3,770 1£ Sedimentary Rock Tunnel Summary: Tunnel -Soft ~ Rock = 4,130 lf CUt and CoveT = 450 lf [ I I ~. I l I (_ l l [ l l ( l I I l . . . ~. . -. . ---------·· ·----· ---·-·--·--. ----, ' III. ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TIJNNEL -PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS I I I ITG1 DESCRIJYflQN QUANfITY LABOR SUPPLY PERMANENT SUB-CONTRACT TOTAL DIRECT ' AND UNIT MATERIAL COSTS \ I Mobilization L.S. Included in Cost of Equipment Below --------- 2 24" Diam. Pipe Line 450 If 12,600 3,100 12,900 6,633 35,233 3. Soft Ground Tunnel 360 lf 57' 714 34,628 16,554 1,512 110,408 4. Hard Rock Tunnel 3,770 lf 435,566 261,340 121,285 30,160 848,351 s. Load and Grout 24" Line 4,130 lf 165,760 49,728 257,236 40,000 512,724 6. Manholes 2 ea. 1,200 600 1,200 3,00.0 7. Corutections to Existing at each end. L.S. 6,000 3,000 6,000 15,000 SUBTOTALS 678,840 352,396 415,175 78,305 1,524,716 8. Indirect Expense 109,760 133,550 243,310 9. Tunneling Equipment 13,000 188,000 ZOl,000 TOf AL COSTS 801,600 673,946 415,175 78,305 1,969,026 ESCAl.ATIONS 21,400 18,000 39,400 TOTJ\l, COSTS 823,000 691,946 415,175 2,008,426 PROFIT AND CONTINGENCY 20% 412,000 TOf AL ESTIMATED COST 2,420,426 UU f IEfl ENGINEERING, INC. -B UTI ER ENGIN EERING, INC . JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER 1UNNEL PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 - nr. Ttmnel Driving Schedule -Mobilize 30 Work Days -Drive TUIIDel 213 Work Days (16 to 17 ft per shift Grout Tunnel 71 Work Dars -Subtotal 314 Work Days Miscellaneous 6 Work Dars -Total Estimated Project Construction Period 16 Months - v. Indirect Expense Schedule of Expenses -Project Manager 18 Months @ $2,800 $ 50,400 = Cl erk 16 Months @ 1,750 = 28,000 -Subtotal $ 78,400 -Taxes & Insurance 31,360 (1) Total $ 109,760 ,-Other Costs: Home Off ice 18 mo . 400 .00/mo. $ 7 ,200 .. -Field Off ice 17 mo. 300.00 /mo. 5,100 Telephone 17 mo . 200.00/mo. 3,400 Outside Survey 20 days 600 .00 /day 12,000 -Outside Survey 12 mo. 5 dayX300.00 /day 18,000 Safety Supply 15 mo. 150.00/mo. -?,250 Guards 12 mo . 1,000.00/mo. 12,000 -Utilities 12 mo. 100 .00 /mo . 1,20 0 Portacans 12 mo. 150.00/mo. 1,800 Vehicles 30 mo . 30 0.00/mo. 9,000 Power 6 mo. 500.00 /mo. 3 ,000 -10 mo. 1,500.00 /mo. 15,000 Dues Subsly. 15 mo. 10 0.0 0/mo. 1,500 Entertainment 15 mo . 100.00 /mo . 1,500 .... Total Other Costs $ 92,950 - - -BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC . -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TIJNNEL PRELIMI NARY CONS TRUCTION COSTS ·_ ESTIM.A.TE NUMBER 1 - v. Indirect Expense Schedule of Expenses (Continued) -Taxes and Insurance: -Builders Risk 2,000,000 0.25 %/yr . 1.54/M $ 7 ,500 Equipment 500,000 0.80 %/yr . 1.50/M 6 ,000 Autos, Pickups 3 800 .00 /yr . 1. 50/M 3,600 Misc . 1,000 -Property Tax 500,000 1.00 % 1. 50/M 7 ,50 0 -(3 ) Subtotal $ 25,60 0 (4) Bond: $2,400,000 L.S. $ 15,000 - -TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS -Surmnary: V-1 Labor $ 109,760 -V-2 Other Costs· 92,950 V-3 Taxes & Insurance 25,600 V-4 Bond 15,000 -TOTAL $24 3,31 0 - - - - - - - -BUTIER ENGINEERING, I NC. -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TUNNEL PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 - VI. EguiEment Costs Breakdown -Cost per DescriEtion Time Unit Labor Supply Eguip . Total -Shield Allow . $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Air Legs 3xl50xll 4,950 4,950 Loader 12,000 12,000 -966 Loader 15 mo. 3,000 45,000 45,000 Compressor 15 mo. 400 6,000 6,000 Misc. Tools L.S. 10,000 10,000 ·-Off ice Trailer 15 mo. 150 2,250 2,250 Vans 15 mo. 100 1,500 1,500 -Change House 15 mo. 200 3,000 3,000 Set Up 1,500 2,000 3,500 Fencing 300 lf 6 l f 1,800 1,800 Elec trical Up/Down 7,500 7,500 -Light Stringers 4500' 2 lf 9,000 9,000 Fans & Fanline 4500' 2 lf 9,000 9,000 Pumps Allow L.S. 3,000 3,000 -Pick-ups 2@15 mo. 150/mo 4,500 4,500 Elec. Setup 10 man day 250/rnan day 2,500 2,500 Elec . Mai nt. 15 mo. 1,500/mo . 22,500 22,500 -Backhoe 10 days 400 4,000 4,000 Cr ane 10 days 300 3,000 3,000 Shoring Allow L.S. 3,000 3,000 Misc. Tools Allow L.S . 2,000 2,000 - Subtotal 1,500 57,300 121,200 180,000 ·-Move In 2,000 4,000 6,000 Move Out 2,000 4,000 6,000 Final Cl ean-up 50 man day 150/ivID 7 ,500 1,500 9,000 -Total $13,000 $66 .800 $121,200 $201, 000 - - - - - -BUTIER ENGINEERING , INC . -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TIJNNEL PRELil.U NARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 - VII. Detennination of Escalation Costs -LABOR: Labor Rates Estimated at 1980-1981 rates . -ALLOW : One third labor subject to escalation at of Total Labor of $801,600. 8% of 2 .6 7% ·-3.67% x $801,600 = $21,400 SUPPLIES: Use same as Labor -$673,946 X 2.67% = $1 7 ,99 4 , use $18 ~000 PERMANENI' MATERIALS: -Costs asstnned to include escalation. -TOTAL ESCALATION COSTS $ 39.400 VIII. Detailed Tt.mnel Construction Estimate -(A) Labor and Supplies -Tt.mnel Construction Rate Davs -'- No. Men Men Days Rate .Arnot.mt (1) LABOR Setup Portal 5 8 40 -Setup Shield 5 8 40 Drive Softgrot.md 360' 16' 23 15 345 Mixed Face 50' 10' 5 15 75 -Drive Rock 3720' 22' 169 15 2!535 Subtotal 20 7 3,035 160 485 ,60 0 -Rough Cleanup 4430 ' 750' 6 8 48 7 ,680 Total 21 3 3,083 160 $493,280 Cost /ft. 119.44 - (2) SUPPLIES -Use 60 % of Labor $295 ,96 8 -Subtotal $7 89,24 8 - - -BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TIJNNEL - - - ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 VIII. Detailed Construction Estimate (B) Distribution of $789,248 to Item 3 and Item 4, Soft Ground and Hard Ground Tunnels. Labor Supply Perm Mtls . Subc . Total To Item 3 -Soft Ground: 11 .7% 57,714 34,268 $ 92,342 To Item 4 -Rock Tunnel 435,566 261,340 696,906 (C) Tunnel Support Costs Description Quantity Unit Tt.mnel Supports: Soft Ground 75 ea 260# Timber 360' 3x18 BF Off Haul 378 cy Total to Item (3) Estimate Summary $57,714 Rock Tunnel: 760 ea 215# Supports Timber Off Haul 3,970 I 30 BF 7,540 cy --- Total to Item (4) Estimate Summary $435,566 Unit Rate Cost 0.50 $ 9,750 0.35 6,804 4.00 $34,628 $16,554 0.50 81,700 0.35 39,585 4.00 $261,340 $12 1 ,285 Subcontract $ 1,512 $-1,512 30,160 Total Cost $ 9,750 6,804 1,512 $110,408 81,700 39,585 30,160 $30,160 $848,351 -BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. -JAMBOREE RO.AD SEWER TUNNEL PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 - IX. Tunnel Excavation Quantit~ Estimates -(1) Tunnel Excavation Rock -4 x 6.5' Horseshoe Quantity 32.2 sf = 1.20 cy/lf ·-Muck Disposal 2.0 cy/lf x 3,770' 7,540 cy (2) Air Requirements -100'/min 3,230 cfm Call 3,500 cfm (3) Soft Grotmd -6'd 28.3 sf 1.05 cy/lf x 360' 378 = -Muck DisEosal (4) Concrete-Grout 24" I .D. + 6" Void = .182 cy/ft -(5) Grout Backfill -Rock 1.02 3,770' 3,845 cy Common .87 360' 313 cy -Grout 4,158 cy (6) Alternate -Install 36" d. Line ·-Void = 3 + 0.5 Void = 356 cy/ft -Grout Backfill -Rock .844 3, 770' 3,182 cy Common .694 360' 250 cy -Alternate Grout 3,432 cy .- - - - - -B UTIER EN GINEERING, INC. -JAMBOREE ROi\D SEWER TIJNNEL PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE N1JMBER 1 - X. Tt.mnel Operations Crewing and Costs -(A) Crews for Tunneling Operation -Soft Grmmd Rock Exe . Load and Concrete D s ~ Total D s .9:: Total D s .9:: Total ·-Shifter 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Shield Oper. 1 1 1 3 1 1 Labor 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 -Operator 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 Mechani c 1 1 2 2 1 1 Labor 1 1 1 1 2 2 -Cone . Pump 1 1 15 15 16 -Estimated Cost/Man Day: 1980 -1981 $160.00 -(B) Miscellaneous Other Operations Pour Mud Slab 4,130 lf 200' 22 Day 14 308 -Load and Grout Pipe 4,130 lf 100' 42 Day 16 672 Final C.U . 5 Day 10 50 Plug Drop Holes 20 2 Dal 3 m 6 -71 Day 1,036 MD 160.00 $165,760 -Supplies 30% 49' 728 Material: Readimix 4,158 cy 42 .00 /cy $174,636 -Pipe 4,130 lf 20.03/lf 82,600 Total 257,236 -Subcontract: Deep Holes 2,000 lf. 20.00/lf 40z000 -Total $512' 724 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TUNNELS PRELIMINARY OJNSTRUCTIOK COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 1 X. Tunnel 0perations and Other Construction Costs (C) Pipe l ine and Manholes Construction (1) Pipeline Crews and Costs Labor 4 Man 1 Backhoe 1 Labor 4 --6 men 12 .00/day 150.00/MD $10,800 Supplies 25% 2,700 (2) Install Pipeline Labor Supply Perm Mtl Sub Di g-Lay Backfill 10,800 2,700 24" d pipe 20.00 450' 9,000 Sand Bed 6.00 300T 1,800 CRB 7.00 300 2,100 AC 30.00 135T 4,050 Of fhaul 4.00 56 7 2,268 Saw Cut 0.20 900' 180 Stripping 0.15 135 Barricades Allow 400 Flagmen 2rn x 6.00 x 150 1,800 Total 12,600 3,100 12,900 6,633 (3) Manholes: Construction Allow 2 ea. 12 .00 600 1,200 (4) Pipeline Quantities and Production (1) Say Avg . 25 ' cut Pavement Replacement (2) 12' x 450 ' 5,400 sf 411 t 135 ton Sand Bedding (4x4/27-.182 ) 450' 200 C)' 300 ton (3) CRB-18" 5,400 sf 18 11 300 cy (4) Exec. 6.5 cy/ft (S) Of £haul 16 /27x4 50 + 300 56 7 cy (6) Production Move In 1 Da y Dig /Lay BF 450' 60'/D 8 Day Pave & C.U . 3 Day Total 13,500 9,000 1,800 2,100 4,050 2,268 180 135 400 1,800 35,233 78. 30 /lf I 3,000 - - ·- --IV. ESTIMATE NUMBER 2 ~- -- -- - ·- -- -~ - - - - BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC . ... INDEX TO ESTIMATE NUMBER 2 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TUNNEL ... ITEM DESCRIPTION - I Various Assumptions made for Estimating Purposes 1911 II Hourly Work Analyses -Cost per Shift III Total Costs Estmiate SUIIDDary Sheet IV Estimate Back-up sheet -Tunnel Excavation Place Pipe In Tunnel -Backfill Ttmnel with Lean Concrete v Indirect Costs Summary ·. tel VI Equipment to be Used in Tunnel and Move On and Off ~ . es! · .. .., - ·- · ..... ·- _, ... ... BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TIJNNEL PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 2 I. Various Assumptions for Estimating Purposes II. 1. Ttmnel to be driven using 78" ~ Turmel Boring Machine on Shield. 2. Turmel Steel Supports at 4'0" Center to Center. 3. 'Ftnmel Excavation = 5,530 cy 4. Backfill Ttmnel = 3,900 cy Wage Rates for Ttmnel Construction (A) Hourly Work Analyses Cost Per Shift Ttmnel pay scales for 8 hour day based on 8 hours pay for 7 hours work. Work Work @ O.T. 7 hours = 8 hours pay 1 hour = l~ hours pay 9~ hours pay per shift 1:· Basic Hourly Rates Shifter Miner Lokie Opr. Outside Oper. Laborer Oiler Teamster 11.92 x 9.5 11.17 x 9.5 12.16 ·x 9.5 $ 113.29/shift 106.12/shift 120.27/shift 101.12/shift 76.64/shift 92.80/shift 90.88/shift 2. Fringes Ttmnel Laborers & Laborers 4.88/hr 39.04/shift Operators 4.71/hr 37.68/shift Teamsters 4.66/hr 37 .28/shift · 3. Total per Shift including Payroll Taxes, Insurance & Fringes Craft Wages Vacation Total Fringes PR Tax Ins. Grand Total Shifter 113.24 7.60 120.84 31.44 13.09 54.38 $ zzo.oo Miner 106.12 7.60 113.72 31.44 12.32 51.18 209.00 Lokie Op. 120.27 6.80 127.07 30.88 13.77 57.19 229.00 Laborer 76.64 7.60 84.24 31.44 9.13 37.91 163.00 Oiler 92.80 6.80 99.60 30.88 10.79 44.82 186.00 Teamster 90.88 8.80 99.68 28.48 10.80 44.86 184.00 Out.Opr. 101.12 6.80 107.92 30.88 11.69 45.59 199.00 l I « ( I I ( I I « I { { I I I I I I ....... ·-·-·---------·--- III. ESTIMATE Ntnnber 2 -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER 1UNNEL -PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANf IIT OWNED MATERIAL IABOR RENTAL SUBS TOTAL OF ITEM AND UNIT EQUIPMENT 1.. Drive Tunnel & Place District Furnished 24" Pipe 4,130 lf 144,435 410,680 858,249 3,600 84,000 1,500,874 2. Backfill Tunnel with Lean Mix 4,130 lf 3, Cl75 118,339 43,609 24,800 189,823 3. Cut & Cover 24" Pipe Line 450 lf 4,500 12,000 13,500 2,000 4,000 362000 Subtotal 151,920 541,019 915,358 30,400 88,000 1, 726,697 4. Indirect Expense 9,450 89,715 119!660 25,380 1,690 2452895 Costs 161,370 630,734 1,035,018 55,780 89,690 1,972,592 Escalations 31,540 31,050 62,590 Total Costs 161,370 662,274 1,066,068 55,780 89,690 2,035,182 Profit & Contingency 407,036 Tal'AL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCl'ION COSTS ~2,442,218 IU 1 I IEJt ENGINEERING, INC. _______ .. ____ , l I l ( I ( I I l [ ft I ( IV. TIJNNEL EXCAVATION AND DRIVING -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER WNNEL -PRELIMINARY CONSffiUCfION COSTS (A) Construct Access Shaft Description Quantitr EguiEment Material Labor Outside Subcont. Total of Item Rental 1. Drill Rig 3 shifts 2,400 $ 2,400 2. Laborers (2) 6 shifts 978 978 3. Backhoe 2 shifts 900 150 1,155 2,205 4. Dump Truck 3 shifts 150 105 552 807 5. Compressor 3 shifts 60 45 105 6. Shifter 3 shifts 660 660 7. Miners 12 shifts 2,508 2,508 8. Soldier Piles 9.5 tons 1,425 1..425 9. Timber 6/TBM 900 900 Subtotal 3,435 300 5,853 2,400 $ 11,988 (B) Construct Exit Shaft 1. Drill Rig 1.5 shifts 1,200 $ 1,200 2. Laborers (2) 3 shifts 489 489 3. Backhoe 3 shifts 900 150 1,155 2,205 4 . DLDnp Truck 3 shifts 150 105 552 807 5. Compressor 3 shifts 60 45 105 6. Shifter 3 shifts -660 660 7. Miners 12 shifts 2,508 2,508 8. Soldier Piles 1.0.5 tons 1,050 1,050 9. Timber 5 TBM 250 250 Subtotal 2,410 300 5,364 1,200 9,274 nu TIER ENGINEERING. INC. -------------- l I I ( I I H I I I ·-·-----·--------··----------------------------------------- IV. TIJNNEL EXCAVATION AND DRIVING -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TUNNEL -PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS (continued) (C) Pull Beams and Backfill Description Quantity Eguipment Material Labor Outside Subcont. Total of Item Rental 1. Truck Crane 2 shifts 400 100 770 1,270 2. Skip loader 4 shifts 600 200 796 1,596 3. Miners 6 shifts 1,254 1,254 4. Laborers 4 shifts 652 652 5. Water Meters 2 each 200 200 6. Water LS so so Subtotal 1,000 550 3,472 5,022 (D) Drive Ttumel -Tunnel Boring Machine in Shield 1. Shi.f ter 350 shifts 77,000 77,000 2. Locomotive Op. 350 shifts 80,150 80,150 3. Miners 1,400 shifts 292,600 292,600 4. Skiploader Op. 350 shi.f ts 69,650 69,650 5. Teamster 350 shifts 64,400 64,400 6. Laborer 350 shifts 57,050 57,050 7. TBM-Shields 350 shifts 35,000 35,000 8. Locomotive- Muckcars 350 shifts 26,250 26,250 9. Rail 23 tons 4,600 4,600 10. Compressor 350 shifts 7,000 5,250 12,250 11. Skip loader 350 shifts 26,250 14,000 40,250 12. Pea Gravel Pot 350 shifts 350 1,750 2,100 Balance Forward 99,450 21,000 640,850 ?61,300 UU I lfJl ENGINEERING, INC . . -... ..._ .-... ·------····· ·-· ··-----.... -. --··-·····-----------------··----·---·----·-···-·--·---·-··--· --------·· -----·--------- ( I I I ( I I I I I l I IV. TIJNNEL EXCAVATION AND DRIVING -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER WNNEL -PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST (continued) _(D) Drive Tunnel -Tunnel Boring Machine in Shield (continued) Description Quantitr Eguipment Material Labor Outside Subcont. Total of Item Rental Balance Fonmrd 99,450 21.,000 640,850 761,300 13. Ptunps 1,050 shifts 5,250 5,250 14. Fan 350 shifts 8,750 8.750 15. Drag Teeth 18,000 18,000 16. Change House 9 months 2,700 2,700 17. Change House Man 350 shifts 57,400 57,400 18. Steel Supports 350,000 lps 204,250 204,250 19. Lagging 432 TBM 109,900 109,900 20. Fan Line 4,130 lf 9,000 9,000 21. Air Line 4,130 lf 4,500 4,500 22. Light Line 1,800 1,800 23. Water Line 900 900 24. Power Drop 1 each 2,500 2,500 25. Electrician 350 shifts 84,000 84,000 26. Hay 25 bales 600 600 27. Pea Gravel LS 1,500 1,500 28. Power 350 shifts 29,400 29,400 29. Batteries LS 2,000 2,000 Total 132,350 389,150 698,250 84,000· 1,303,750 nu f IER ENGINEERING. INC . .... -······ ... -····---····-··---··-----------------·-·--·-· ·----..-.--·-·····--------· .. --------· I ( [ l { I I ! I I I I I ---···---·--·-·-----·-------------·-----·-----------------------------·--------.. IV. 11JNNEL EXCAVATION AND DRIVING -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER 'IlJNNEL -PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCrION COST (continued) E. Place Pipe in Tunnel -District Furnished Description Quantity Owned Material Labor Rental Subcont. Total of Item and Unit EguiEment 1. Ca rr:ier for pipes 1 ea 12,000 12,000 2. Rough terrain crane 40 shifts 3,000 1,600 7,960 12,560 3. Shifter 40 shifts 8,800 8,800 4. Pipe layer 40 shifts 8,360 8,360 5. Miners 120 shifts 25,080 25,080 6. Laborers 80 shifts 13,120 13,120 7. T.i.e Downs 500 ea 3,180 3,180 8. Blocks 500 ea 2,500 2,500 Set Up Clean-up 9. Shifter 10 shifts 2,200 2,200 10. Lahorers 50 shifts 8,150 8 ,150 11. Rough terrain crane 10 shifts 750 400 1,990 3!140 Subtotal 3,750 19,680 75,660 99,090 F. Backfill Tunnel with Lean Mix Concrete I. Drill Rig 14 Days 16,800 16,800 2. Welder 14 Days 2,800 2,800 3. Flat Rack 14 Days 280 280 2,576 3, 136 4. Laborers 28 Days 4,564 4,564 5. Shifter 14 Days 3,080 3,080 Subtotal 280 280 10,220 15,600 30,380 nu 1 IER ENGINEERING, INC. l I I I I l I I l I I I I I I IV. TUNNEL EXCAVATION AND DRIVING -JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TUNNEL -PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCfION COST (continued) F. Backfill Tunnel with Lean Mix Concrete (continued) Description Quantity Owned Material Labor Rental Subcont. Total of Item and Unit EguiEment. Construct Bulkhead -2 each 6. Shifter 4 shifts 880 880 7. Miners 8 shifts 1,672 1,672 8. Ti.mho Nails LS 224 224 Subtotal 224 2,552 2,776 Grout Tunnel 9. Concrete Mix 3,900 cy 115,752 115, 752 10. Shifter 26 Days 5, 720 s, 720 11. Re-Crane 26 Days 1,950 780 5,174 7,904 12. Welder 26 Days 5,200 5,200 13. l~lat Truck 26 Days 520 520 4,784 5,824 14. Laborers 78 Days 12,792 12,792 Subtotal 2,470 117,052 28,470 5,200 153,192 Backfill Grout Holes 15. Sand 100 Tons 583 583 16 Dump Truck 3 Days 150 90 552 792 17. Skiploader 1 Day 125 40 199 364 18. Laborers 9 Days 1,476 1,476 19. Repave floles 14 ea 70 140 210 Subtotal 275 783 22367 3,425 GRAND TUfAL 3.025 118,339 43.609 24,800 189, 773 BUllEA ENGINEERING. INC. .-BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC . .. JAMBOREE RO.AD SEWER TUNNEL PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 2 v. Indirect Costs Quantity Equip. Mat'l Labor O.S.Rent Subcont. Bonds Ls 1s,soo Off ice 9 mo. Z,700 450 Yard Rent 11 mo. 5,500 Telephone 11 mo. 900 Fence Yard LS 1,690 Pickups 27 mo. 6,750 5,400 Superintencmt 11 mo. 35,750 Off ice 11 mo. 19,100 Repairs etc. 11 mo. 44,000 Sanitation 11 mo. 1,800 Barricades 11 mo. 1,800 Rain Gear/ Boots LS 1,200 Misc. Supplies LS 5,965 Light Bulbs LS 1,800 Shoring Design LS 1,500 Transp. On & Off LS 8,200 Legal/Acctg. LS 5,500 Overtime 5% 42,385 Overhead Fringes 22,425 . t-' Builders Risk LS 5,000 Haul Pipe & Load ZS loads 8,000 -Laser Guidance LS 2,500 · 1 9,450 89,715 119,660 25,380 1,690 I GRAND TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS = S245,895 I I I j I _, I ,.,.. bet I BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. VI. JAMBOREE ROAD SEWER TUNNEL PRELIMINARY CONS1RUCTION COSTS -ESTIMATE NUMBER 2 Equipment use in Tunnel and Placing Pipe in Tunnel -Move On & Off 1. Shield or Tunnel Boring Machine -1 each 2. Locomotive -Muck cars and conveyor 3. Tunnel Rail 4. Air Compressor -600 CFM S. Tmmel Jumps -3 each 6. Dump Truck 7. Skiploader 8. Pea Gravel Pot 9. Construct Car Dumper 10. Drill Rig 11. Pipe carrier to Load Ttmnel · 12. Rough Terra:in Crane Move On and Off 1. Shield or Tunnel Boring Machine - 2. Backhoe 3. Dump Truck 4. Compressor 5. Pipe Carrier 6. Skiploader 7. Locomotive and Cars 8. Miscellaneous Total Move On and Off 700.00 1,100.00 50.00 400.00 300.00 400.00 400.00 3,000.0@ $6,350.00 - - - -·-·, V.. APPENDIX - - .,._"""": ..•.. . . .. :-.~ 1 _:..,. '( .. ~-· . \. -, ·- - ·- ·- ··- 'c-i 'ial:S . i.i ..... ConverseWardDav1sD1xon Geotechnical Consultants GEOTECHNIC~..L FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED JA.MBOREE ROAD SEWER TUNNEL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Conducted For: COUNTY SA.~ITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. o. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 9270: Project No. 79-2223-01 August 24, 1979 Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 1440 South State College Blvd. Post Office Box 6288 Anaheim, California 92806 714 772-2151 I -=:I .... . _ .. August 24, 197 9 County Sanitation Districts of Orange Country P. o. Box 8127 ConverseWardDav1sD1xon Geotechnical Conaultanta Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Thomas M. Dawes, Senior Engineer Gentlemen: Enclosed is the report of our geotechnical feasibility investigation performed at the site of the proposed Jamboree Road Sewer Tunnel, Newport Beach, California. The results of the investigation and our recommendations were discussed with the Sanitation District prior to the completion of this report. The results of the investigation indicate that the proposed tunnel may be constructed as planned. Subsurface conditions encountered in the limited exploration program indicate that the major portion of the proposed tunnel alignment will penetrate soft to moderately hard siltstone and claystone. The remaining sections of the tunnel near the north and south portals are expected to penetrate through fill and/or natural terrace deposits • Groundwater levels are expected to be above the tunnel elevation for a major portion of the alignment. This report contains preliminary recommendations for tunnel driving methods, support loads, support systems, drainage requirements, and observations during construction • The proposed 5-foot diameter tunnel should be suitable for the purpose intended. However, to allow for the use of larger moles and shields available for construction, it is suggested that the tunnel be bid on a footage basis. This may reduce the costs for the excavation, support system, and backfill of the tunnel. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, tnc. 1440 South State College Blvd. Post Office Box 6288 Anaheim, California 92806 714 772·2151 ,-. County Sanitation District of Orange County Project No. 79-2223-01 August 24, 197 9 Page two We appreciate the opportunity of having been associated with the Orange County Sanitation Districts on this interesting and important project. We will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Respectfully submitted, ~VIS DIXON JAD/DLF /TJS :bl t""rift\lllU'C:A \lJ!:llrtf n:avi~ r'.HYnn_ Inc_ .... ... .... ... TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCOPE ••••••••••••••• • • • • • • Field Exploration Laboratory Testing •••••• Analyses •••••••••••••• . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations in Scope •••••••••••• . . . . . . . GEOLOGY ••••••••••••••••••••• General ••••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surficial r>=posits ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • Fill ••••••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slopewash • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Terrace Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bedrock •••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure Groundwater •••••••• Faulting ••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newport-Inglewood Fa u1 t ••••••••••••••••••• Pelican Hill Fault ••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrocarbon Gases ••••••••••••••••••••••••• TUNNEL RECOMMENDATIONS ••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tunnel Driving Methods ••• . ..... . . . . . Tunnel Support Loads •••••••••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tunnel Support System •• Drainage Requirements Ventilation •••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lost Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tunnel Backfill •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Observations During Construction •••••••••• Seismic Considerations •••••••••••••••••• CLOS URE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• APPENDIX A Exploration and Laboratory Testing APPENDIX B -scs Engineering Report DRA\vINGS No. 1 through 10 Page 1 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 Al to A3 Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. No. . - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical feasibility investigation performed at the site of the proposed Jamboree Road Sewer Tunnel, Newport Beach, California. The purpose of the investigation was to develop preliminary data regarding subsurface conditions along the tunnel aligrunent and to provide geotechnical recommendations regarding the general feasibility of the proposed project. The scope of work included field exploration, laboratory testing, research analyses and preparation of this report. Preliminary project information provided by the Orange County Sanitation District indicates that the proposed tunnel would be constructed to install a gravity flow sewer trunk line. It is understood that the proposed trunk line would parallel the alignment of Jamboree Road, extending south from the existing pump station north of San Joaquin Hills Road to Back Bay Drive (see vicinity map, Figure No • 1.). The proposed line would replace the existing pump station and existing sewer route which includes a vertical rise of about 90 feet, and necessarily requires pumping. The proposed sewer line would be 24 inches in diameter and the tunnel excavation is planned to be 5 feet in (outside) diameter. It is understood that the tunnel excavation will be backfilled after completion of the sewer line and surface connections. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. ... -I!? CL. c. < ... :t Et' 0 Trunk Line Service Area REFERENCE: Pump Station & Trunk Line Service Areas Plan, Figure 111, by LDKING. VICINITY MAP JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL Jamboree Road north of Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California for: County Sanitation District of Orange County @ ConverseWardDav1sD1xon Geo1echn1ca1 consultants Project No. 79-2223-01 Figur~ No. ---·----------------------- - .. 3 SCOPE Field Exploration Four test borings were drilled to depths varying from 41 to 99 feet at the locations along Jamboree Road shown on Figure No. 2, entitled "Site Geology Map". Continuous logs of the suosurface conditions, as encountered in the test borings, were recorded at the time of drilling and are presented on the boring summary sheets, Drawing l~os. 2 through 8. Drilling was accomplished with truck-mounted, rotary-wash and bucket auger drill rigs equipped for soil sampling. Undisturbed driven samples of the subsurface materials were obtained at frequent intervals below the ground surface, and continuous core samples of bedrock materials were· obtained at the tunnel elevation. The samples were taken to the laboratory for examination and testing. ~ests were performed in the field to detect the presence of explosive gases. These tests were performed by SCS Engineers of Long Beach, California. In addition, a limited amount of geologic reconnaissance was performed in the site area to supplement the subsurface exploration and available published information • - - ... - - .. 4 Laboratory Testing Representative samples were tested in the laboratory to determine certain engineering properties of the soils and bedrock. Unit weight and moisture content of each sample were determined to provide density·and moisture information for the various soil and rock deposits, encountered in our exploratory borings. Direct shear and unconfined compression tests were performed to evaluate the stiffness and strength of the bedrock at field moisture conditions. Mechanical grain-size analyses were performed on representative soil samples. The results of the teJts are presented in Appendix A, on the boring summary sheets, and on Drawing No. 9, "Grain Size Distribution Cheirt". Analyses The results of the field and laboratory investigation supplemented with available published information regarding subsurface cvnditions, site geology, faulting;· and seisrnicity were used in engineering and geologic analyses to provide a basis for our preliminary conclusions and recom- mendations r~garding the methods and requirements affecting the feasibility of the proposed tunnel. Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. . l=el - :- I i ... Limitations of Scope This investigation was a limited feasibility study for the purpose of providing preliminary information to allow the Sanitation District and its consultants to proceed with 5 an economic evaluation of the proposed project. The scope of this investigation was necessarily limited and was not intended for final design. A more detailed final design level investigation should be performed prior to construction • .... - I_. 6 GEOLOGY General The area through which the proposed tunnel will pass lies along the western limit of the San Joaquin Hills and near the southern margin of Newport Bay. The San Joaquin llills are highly faulted by north to northwest trending faults resulting in an uplifted area that is grossly anticlinal in form. Bedrock underlying the proposed alig~nent has been assigned to one formation: The Upper Miocene Monterey Formation.* A thin deposit of terrace materials (3 to 10') overlies the bedrock along the middle reach of the proposed alignment, while relatively deep accumulations of slopewash with overlying fill cap the bedrock at the northeast and southwest ends. _, Surficial Deposits - ... Fill: Fill masses composed of mixtures of sandy clay with little gravel and rock, silty clays with rock fragments, and silty sands are present at both the northern and southern ends of the proposed sewer alignment. These fills have apparently been placed in conjunction with the construction of Jamboree Road. *Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V. and Fife, D.L., 1973. Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange county, California: California Division Mines a.nd Geology Prel. Report 15. ;,_. ._. 7 Slopewash: Slopewash materials, consisting of silty clays with minor amounts of sand and numerous rock fragments, underlie the fill at the extreme ends of the proposed tunnel, and are expected to be encountered for short distances during excavation. These deposits have a stiff to very stiff consistency when dry. Terrace Deposits Marine Quaternary terrace materials are present at the surface along the middle sections of the tunnel alignment. The terrace is relatively thin {up to 10 feet) and is composed of yellow-brown, brown and orange brown silty sands and sandy clays. The materials are medium dense and stiff and indistinctly stratified. As these materials rest on wave-cut benches in bedrock, the terrace-bedrock contact should reflect an irregular surface related to different stands of the sea. Bedrock The greatest bulk of excavation will be through deposits of _. the upper Miocene Monterey Formation. In general, the rocks of ; ... this formation are tuf faceous and diatomaceous shales and siltstones, commonly siliceous with calcareous sandstone inter- beds. Occasional thin beds of phosphatic shale will be encountered. Bedding is thinly laminated and generally -moderately hard with local hard to very hard layers. The bedrock along the proposed tunnel alignment consists of thinly laminated,~ CnnvPri::P w~:nd Oavis Dixon. lne. moderately to very fractured, soft to moderately hard, slightly weathered shaley silts tones and clayey sil tstones with frequent thin tuffaceous and claystone interbeds. Localized intensive fracturing and minor shearing is also apparent. Structure 8 -. The geologic structure of the area is a northerly to - - northeastly dipping homocline. Dip angles vary from 15 degrees to SO degrees based on visual down-hole inspections and oriented core samples. Well defined bedding planes observed in the cores from B-2 and B-3 have a dip of 45-50 degrees below the horizontal. The strike of these beds was not observed but stratigraphic relations and surface mapping tend to indicate a general, east-west to northwest strike and a northerly dip. Groundwater The soils and bedrock in which the tunnel will be driven generally consists of fine grained sediments with low penneability. Water was encountered in all of the borings, and is classified as free groundwater. B-l and B-4 encountered water at approximately 42 feet, while B-2 and B-3 encountered free water at 25 feet and 15 feet, respectively. As the bedrock contains phosphatic shale intervals, slightly anomalous quantities of phosphates may be encountered in the water derived from bedrock. This is not expected to create any serious water quality problem. -. . .. .. .. . ·. . . ..... :: ... . . ' GEOLOGIC UNITS i[UJ ffi ~ ALLUVIU~ c a; C,) 8 [o MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS WITH ; i_, [§EJ NON MARINE COVER (SUBSCRIPTS• 111 ~ RELATIVE LEVELS). ~ iQ Tus I UNNAMED SANDSTONE. I[: ~CAPISTRANO FORMATION. cc z r-;:-i ~ g ~ MONTEREY FORMATION. !; i2 EXPLANATION 22 ~ STRIK£ AND DIP OF BEDDtN6. EB HORIZONTAL BEDS. _,-GEOLOGIC CONTACT, DASHED --WHERE APPROXIMATE. FAULT, DOTTED WHERE ~ BURIED, Ui UPTMROWN • _,,. 0 SID&, D: DOWNTHROWN •• SIDE.. SITE GEOLOGIC MAP JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL Jamboree Road north of Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California for: County Sanitation District of Orange County ~ Converse Ward DaV1S Dixon Geo1echn1ca1 consu11an1s SYMBOLS 22-<> CORE HOLE OR WELL DRIJ..LED FOR on •• e--APPROXIMATE DIP OF BEDS, 25 STRIKE UNDETERMINED. 8•4 S BORING. NUMBER AND LOCATION. REFERENCE: GOLOGIC MAP OF THE SAN .JOAQUIN Hll.L.S • SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO AREA, ORANGE COUNTY, CAL.IF. BY VEDDER, YERKES AND SCHOELi.HAMMER, USGS Ur.57). Seate Project No. 1 n = 2000' 79-2223-01 Prepared by Date DLS 8-24-79 Checked by Figure No. Approved by 2 •" • 0 0 :r 0 • ... ·~ ••• ~ • t. , ............ 0 '' •,• ~· ............ 0000 "I~·:• I -.~.• ·.~ 0 • T 0 p •• •o ~ - -=t . .. 9 Porosity is very high while permeability is very low within the Monterey Formation. Joints and fractures provide the avenues for water movement. Due to the fact that the bedrock encountered ~ras moderately to very fractured,· a significant amount of water should be expected during excavation, particularly in joints and fractures normal to the alignment. Faulting Two known fault zones lie relatively close to the proposed project: The Newport-Inglewood Fault, approximately 2-1/2 miles, and the Pelican Hill Fault, less than 1/2 mile. Geologic reconnaissance of the site, and correlation of the bedding within the Monterey Formation do not suggest any faulting on or adjacent to the proposed tunnel alignment. In addition, available geologic literature and maps do not show or mention any faults projecting toward or through the site. Newport-Inglewood Fault: The Newport-Inglew9od fault is made up of a series of parallel northwest-trending faults and folds reaching from the south edge of the Santa Monica Mountains southeast to the offshore area of Newport Beach. This fault zone lies offshore in the site area approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest of the proposed project. The Newport-Inglewood fault has a history of Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 10 moderate to high seismic activity, with numerous earthquakes greater than Magnitude 4, and the Magnitude 6. 3 Long Beach earthquake centered off-shore near Newport Beach on March 11, 1933. At the time of the 1933 earthquake, many secondary effects were noted in alluvial areas of the Long Beach area (i.e., sand boils, ground cracking, etc.). Although there has been no known historic suface displacement associated with the Newport-Inglewood fault {including the 1933 event), there was reportedly subsurface fault displacement on the order of seven inches associated with the October 21, 1941 earthquake (Magnitude 4.9} and with the June 18, 1944 earthquake (Magnitude 4.5). Pelican Hill Fault: The northwesterly trending Pelican Hill fault zone, which is about one-half mile to l mile wide, lies approximately one-half mile to the northeast of the proposed tunnel. No apparent evidence of Holocene activity has been found within the Pelican Hill fault zone. Holocene soil, slopewash and other deposits do not show any visible fault dlsturbance within this zone.* *Miller, R.V. and Tan, S.S., 1976. Recency of Faulting in Orange County (in press): California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report, p. 19. Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. 11 Hvdrocarbon Gases While no significant amounts of gas or othe~ hydrocarbons were detected in the exploration holes, the Monterey Formation is the pr ic ipal source rock of commercial petroleum in the Los Angeles basin. Some hydrocarbons should be expected in the bedrock portions of the tunnel. The Monterey Formation is the source of many old oil seepages along Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach. The nearest known oil seep to the project is along the bluff at the south side of the Dunes Trailer Park within about 2000 feet of the southern end of the proposed tunnel. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. - 12 TUNNEL RECOMMENDATIONS General Dased on the results of our limited field and laboratory investigation combined with our research and analyses and our own experience and judgement, it is our opinion that the proposed tunnel project may be constructed as planned. An evaluation of the economic feasibility of the project is beyond the scope of this investigation; however, this report is intended to provide preliminary information to allow the Sanitation District and its consultant(s) to proceed more confidently with an economic evaluation of the proposed project. The results of our investigation indicate that the proposed tunnel alig~uent should penetrate fill and/or natural soils for a distance of over 600 feet north of the south portal and similar natural and/or fill soils should be encountered for a distance of about 100 feet south of the north portal. The remaining portion of the tunnel {approximately 3800 linear feet) will penetrate soft to moderately hard sedimentary bedrock consisting of siltstone, Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. - 13 claystone, and shale. Based on our examination of the rock core samples, blasting is not expected to be required in the bedrock materials. Continuous shoring by jacking or liner plate construction is expected to be necessary in the soil zones and highly weathered bedrock near the soil/rock contact. Groundwater levels in the soil and bedrock are expected to generally be at or above the proposed tunnnel elevation, however, water levels may be below the tunnel near the south portal. Drainage provisions are anticipated to be needed in some areas of both the soil and bedrock materials. The following sections present more specific recommendations and alternative procedures and equipment for tunnel driving and support, groundwater conditions, and protective measures. Tunnel Driving Methods Considering the materials and conditions expected to be encountered along the tunnel alignment, a variety of tunnel excavation methods may be considered. These methods include; a mechanical mole or TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine), a "digger machine" (hydraulically operated digging arm similar to a backhoe arm), and hand excavation. It is expected that a shield or jacked tunnel support would be necessary with any excavation method. CnnvAr~e Ward Davis Dixon. lnc. - .. 14 The choice of a particular tunnel driving method will depend on economics and availability of equipment of the proper size. The proposed 5-foot tunnel diameter may be smaller than some available mechanical tunnel driving equipment. To allow for the use of larger moles or shields available, it is suggested that the tunnel be bid on a footage basis. This may reduce the overall tunnel construction costs. Whatever method of tunneling is used, certain precautions should be taken: (1) any overbreak, raveling, or spalling should be backpacked with pea gravel or other suitable material, as soon as possible to control the condition and re-establish uniform loading on the support system; {2) any tendency of the natural deposits in the face to slough or run should be controlled by breast boards or whatever means are appropriate; and {3) the support system should be installed before the walls start to slough or ravel. Implementation of these precautions should result in a reduction of ''lost ground", and greater efficiency in advancing the tunnel • Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 15 Inspection of the tunnel alignment profile shown on Drawing No. l indicates that the· proposed invert elevation along the southern portion of the al ignrnent will be soil materials at depths less than 30 feet for a distance of over 400 feet. Consideration may be given to a conventional cut and cover construction method in this area. Based on our laboratory strength tests and our experience, it is our opinion that construction slopes may be cut at a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) ratio in properly dewatered soils for slope heights up to 30 feet; slope ratios may vary in the field depending on the local soil conditions. Alternatively, shoring may be used to reduce excavation quantities. Tunnel Support Loads It is understood that the tunnel will not have a permanent lining. After completion of the sewer line, the tunnel and any surface connections, and manholes will be permanently backfilled. Consequently, the temporary support system will carry the imposed soil or rock load until the backfilling operation is completed which may be as long as 12 to 18 months. - .. 16 The tunnel will be excavated in fill or natural terrace soil deposits, an estimated distanc.e of at least 600 feet north of the south portal and about 100 feet south of the north portal. These soils are generally clayey in nature and vertical pressure in these soils will be approximately equal to the overburden pressure of the soils above the tunnel. Review of the proposed tunnel profile indicates that the soil overburden may vary from less than 10 feet to more than 40 feet. Our preliminary estimate of the vertical tunnel loading (for the purpose of preliminary shoring cost estimates) would be about 100 pounds per square foot per foot of overburden. Horizontal pressures would be about 1/2 of the vertical pressures. Soil loads should develop within a few days. The central portion of the tunnel alignment (about 3800 feet) will be excavated in massive soft to moderately hard claystone, siltstone and shale. For preliminary cost estimating purposes, the vertical load for this tunnel section is estimated to be in the range of 500 to 1000 pounds per square foot. The horizontal pressure is estimated to be about 1/3 of the vertical pressure. The rock load should gradually build up until the maximum load is exerted in an estimated three to five weeks • Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 17 Tunnel Support System Based on our preliminary estimates of tunnel support loads anticipated throughout the length of the tunnel, it is expected that liner plate, steel rib and lagging or jacked steel or precast concrete liner support systems or combina- tions of these systems may be used. A liner plate or a jacked liner support system is recommended for support of the fill and natural soils outside of the bedrock tunnel section. A circular shaped tunned support would be desirable in soil areas below the water table to prevent heaving of the tunnel bottom. A rib and lagging support system should provide adequate support for the bedrock tunnel section. If a mole or shield that shoves off of the temporary support system is employed in the tunneling, additional longitudinal stiffening of the liner plates may be required to carry the shoving force without buckling. If a jacked tunnel support system is used, special con- sideration should be given to maintaining tunnel alignment and grade because alignment and grade corrections cannot easily be made with this system. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. - - - 18 Drainage Requirements Groundwater measurements were made in all of the exploratory borings. The results of these measurements indicate that the groundwater surface generally follows the same pattern as that of the ground surface. The groundwater level at the time of our exploration apparently ro~e from an elevation at or below the tunnel at the southern end of the alignment to an elevation in the range of 65 to 75 feet above the tunnel in the central portion and dropped back to a few feet above the tunnel elevation near the north portal. It should be noted that the groundwater condition may vary with seasonal rainfall and surface irrigation patterns. Water flow rates in the soil materials will depend on the initial groundwater level and the type of soil through which the tunnel penetrates. It is anticipated that the soils will be predominantely clayey in nature. In clayey soils, initial flow rates are expected to be only about l gallon per day per foot of tunnel. If a zone of sandy soil is encountered, flow rates may be in the range of 100 to 250 gallons per day per foot of tunnel. These preliminary flow estimates are based on approximate soil permeability values and a water level 5 feet above the tunnel crest. Flow rates will decrease with time as the local water table lowers. Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. - 19 Water flow rates in the bedrock materials will depend on the amount of join ting and fracturing of the rock and the groundwater level. A preliminary estimate of the average flow rate from the bedrock would be on the order of 1/2 to 2 gallon per hour per foot of tunnel. Considering the estimated water flow rates, it is e>:pected that seepage could be handled by a gravity flow drainage conduit from an up-driven tunnel. A down-driven tunnel would require sumps and pumping capability. Alternatively, the local groundwater level near the tunnel alignment could be lowered prior to construction by vertical or horizontal wells. In addition, a pilot hole advanced ahead of the tunnel face could be used to detect zones of high permeability or rock fracture water reservoirs prior to excavation. Consideration may be given to compressed air methods, for control of seepage in the soil zones; however, such a system may not be economically feasible for the expected short soil tunneling sections. Ventilation Ventilation should conform to the requirements of both the State of California, Division of Industrial Safety, Subchapter 20 Tunnel Safety Orders, Section 8431, and the Department of Labor, CX:cupational Safety and Health Administration. ~nnvPr~P Ward Oavis Dixon. Inc. - ... .... 20 scs Engineers of Long Beach, California, conducted tests in Borings No. l and 4 to detect the presence of explosive gases. The results of their tests indicated no toxic or explosive gases present in those borings. A letter documenting their results is presented in Appendix B. It is our opinion, however, based on our knowledge of the local geology, that some hydrocarbon gases should be expected in the bedrock. Lost Ground "Lost ground" is a term describing a phenomenon in which soft soil or rock squeezes into the tunnel resulting in removal of more material than originally occupied the tunnel cross section. The magnitude of lost ground is dependent upon the character of the material through which the excavation is made, the workmanship of the tunneling, the deformation of the support system, and the size of the tunnel. Stress redistribution associated with "lost ground" may result in ground surface settlement. Based upon the assumption that there will be only limited consolidation due to lowering of ground water and that the contractor has a well-executed tunneling operation, the settlement at the ground surface is expected to be ... 21 minor. It is not anticipated that the magnitude of the ground surface settlement will cause any significant damage to surface structures. Based on our field exploration, it is our opinion that the potential for lost ground will be greatest in the fill and natural soils near the portals. It should be understood, of course, that the extent and amount of settlement will be dependent upon the contractor's workmanship and method of tunnel driving. Tunnel Backfill After construction of the sewer line, surface connections, and manholes, it is understood that the remaining space in the tunnel will be backfilled. The function of the backfill will be to completely fill any voids and to provide support to the rock or soil surrounding the tunnel. Backfill for the tunnel may be either a sanded grout or a lean concrete mix. The basic requirements are that it be a pumpable, low slump, low strength mix that can be placed in such a manner to fill all the possible voids in the tunnel. The area of major concern in such an operation as this is the void that occurs at the crown of the tunnel when the backfill shrinks after curing. If desired, this void may be grouted, after the backfill has hardened. Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. - - ... - 22 Observations During Construction Geologic observations ana a geologic log of the tunnel should be made during construction to provide verification of esthnated geologic conditions and to provide a basis for mitigation of construction problems. Seismic Considerations The r·esults of our geologic research and analyses indicate that no known active fault passes through or projects towards the proposed tunnel alignment. The nearest known fault zones are the Newport-Inglewood fault and the Pelican Hill fault which are about 2-1/2 and 1/2 miles, respectively, from the site. The potential for damage to the proposed sewer line due to faulting offsets across the alignment is considered low at this time. Considering the close proximity of the active Newport-Inglewood fault zone, it is expected that the sewer line would be subjected to significant levels of ground shaking during its useful life. The potential for damage due to ground shaking should be considered somewhat higher than for other conventionally constructed lines due to the variations in suppo~ting materials. It is expected that the damage potential would be highest near the soil/rock contact • ~nnw:~r~P W:1rd Oavis Dixon. Inc. . mm 23 Based on the predominantely clayey soils encountered in our exploratory borings, the potential for damage due to liquefaction is considered low. CLOSURE The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. The findings and recommendations are based on the results of the limited field and laboratory investigation, combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of subsurface conditions be_tween and beyond boring locations. This report presented our opinions and recommendations regardong methods and requirements affecting the general feasibility of the proposed tunnel. A more detailed final design level investigation should be performed prior to construction to develop additional information and final design recommenda- tions. Respectfully submitted, CONVERSE WARD DAVIS DIXOU ~~fl~ R.C.E. 24662 Senior Engineer JAD/DLF:bl Encl: Appendices A and B Drawings No. 1 through 10 Dist: (5) Addressee C.E.G. Senior Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. ' I I i ~ I \ I I ~ ' I I I . Im) I I ·. ' ~ I : .J I I 1 I ~ . • I ; '· r .. . i I ' 1 - ·, I I 1-.s I , I ~ : I I I I - APPENDIX A EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING - - - - APPENDIX A EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Exploration Field exploration was performed using a truck-mounted, rotary wash and bucket auger drilling machines. The soils were continuously logged by our field personnel and classified by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and geologic principals. Undisturbed samples of soils were obtained at frequent intervals in the boring excavation by driving a thin-walled steel sampler with successive drops of the drilling bar. The driving energy required for one foot of penetration is shown on the boring summary sheets, in the column "Drive Energy". The soil was retained in brass rings of 2. 50 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height. Hormally the central portion of the sample is retained in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the laboratory. Moisture-Density The moisture-density information provides ·a summary of soil consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils found on this site and other Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. .... - - - A2 nearby sites. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for each undisturbed sample, and the results are shown on the boring summary sheets. Shear Tests Shear tests were made with a direct shear machine at a constant rate of strain. The machine is designed to test the soils without completely removing the samples from the brass rings. A normal or confining load was applied vertically and the soil shear strength was determined at this load. The test results are shown on the boring summary sheets, in the column "Shear Resistance". Sieve Analysis A sieve analysis provides an indication of soil grain-size characteristics. The sieve analysis is conducted by passing the soil through a number of different sized sieves and measuring the amount of soils retained on each sieve. A grain-size distribution chart is generated by plotting percent of soil passing each sieve versus the corresponding grain size represented by the sieve. The results of these analyses are shown on Drawing No. 9. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. - .... - - A3 Unconfined Compression Test A relatively undisturbed bedrock sample was tested in unconfined compression to determine the initial tangent Elastic Modulus and compressive strength of the rock. The results of the test are presented in the table below: Boring No. Depth (Ft) Material Initial Tangent Modulus (psi) Compressive Strength {psi) 3 89.5 Clayey Siltstone 43,500 329 Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. - - ... .... .... .... ..,p 0 z ~ er 0 ..... SUMMARY BORING NO II DI.TE DRILLED July ~:1~ ??:MARY All'PLIES ONLY AT 'l'tt( lOCA~ION 0'" THIS 901UNI AND AT THl~0+~'-~~~t~~~+~~~ TllollEOtDRILLING. SU95UAFACECONDITIONSMAYDIP't[RATOTH!llLOCATIONS ~ <". O~ ~ $ C '.o~,~~ ~ ANO MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WIT., TH( ~ASSAGE O" TIME. 1ME DATA 'f;~ J. 0 ~~ ~\!'>., DEPTH ~<,,; o" PRESENTED IS" SIMPLltlCATION Df' ACTUAL CO .. DITIDNS ENCOUNTUt!D. 4\-1-~ 'i...''1' c,1-"' '1'-o"' .. ~ IN .,_fl ~ -~ ''"->, -'t< '> ..-,... FEET ~ .J._,. "">" t' ~ii > J. """~ C, <, ELEVATION 66.01 · J. ~><" . ~ o~--..... ----T-------.,....-..;;--. __ ._.. ________________________________ _....,_. __ ...., ____ ...,_ __ --1t---~ -sl. moist fl rm brown --- 5----.. 10-1 -.. -- 15-- -- SC CL SM CL moist to stiff dense yellow firm to stiff dense stiff yl. brown & orange FILL -SANDY CLAY, 20% gr. SILTY CLAY SILTY SAND SILTY CLAY SILTY SAND & silt SANDY CLAY 11 13.7 111 1.40 .! 0.57~) 1.03 1.83 20-21--....i - brown ~' dark brown SILTY CLAY ·. 6.4 16.5 107 --- 25----- 30-3 CL ---- 35-.. --- -4 - 45-.. --- very stiff brown gray brown & 20% rock fragments SILTY CLAY & 3001'> rock fragments & sandy clay, l B porous stiff &orange brown __ ~oximat~nel ~ v. moist wet to gray brown -Sf-Ground water encountered at 41 '. 16.7 l 03 29.4 89 5.28 0.86..,i 1.61 2.80 50-"-_.jLi------a.--------·----------------------------------------...-----... --------------* Sample progressively sheared at ~, ~, 1, & 2 ksf normal pressure. JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL Jamboree Rood north of Bock Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California for: County Sanitation District of Orange County @ Converse Ward Davis Dixon oeot•chn1ca1 eo111u11M111 Project No. 79-2223-01 Drawing No. 2 - .... ' ) ..J Q Q. < ... 0 ~ SUMMARY I DATE DRILLED July'~~·.~~?:. .... ~.~~,'.~.~ •. ~~.:.~., .............. , ,.,~o~~'-;\~o~~+~~~ TIM£OrDRll.LING. suasuRf'ACECONDITIONSMATDIP'P'[lllATOT"l"LO~ATIONS ~ f' o~o~ ~ 0 -:04',,1-'(I' ':t ANO ... AY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIOh Wllt4 THE PASSAGE or TIME. TME DATA +,~ J.""o -C'~ 4'_..IS'>., DEPTH ...,<&;. O" PRESENTED IS A SIMPLl,.ICATION or ACTUAL CO"fOITIONS ENCOUNTllt!O. ~1-'l" 'i.:/'5'> ~1-"' "'O"T1,."f> F~~T ~~ ./-~ O' ~~t' 't'(, "":> ""~ ":>,_ t,,.J,, ELEVATION: 121 • , ~ J. ~>"f><" . J. >:<" o_,.--------~-----------------------.----------------------------~---,.-----.-----..... ------ 5 10 15 20 ;:' 25 30 35 40 45 so -SC; slig~tly medium ~rown to CLAYEY SAND,porous I SN mor st dense orange ---- ----------- --------------------------------- 1 2 moist 3 4 mod. hard soft to mod. hard soft mod,, hard & hard brown orange gray to gray gray dark gray I BEDROCK- (MONTEREY. I , FORMATION) CLAYEY SILTSTONE, bentonitic and tuffaceous interbeds, thinly laminated, moderately weathered, very fractured. & silty claystone SILTY CLAYSTONE moderately weathered, very fractured, laminated & shale interbeds thinly laminated {continued) ~AMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL 10 42.3 73 35 47.1 71 22 43.4 75 160 47.9 70 Project No. 'Jamboree Rood north of Bock Boy Drive, Newport Beach, California ·for: County Soni tat ion District of Orange County 79-2223-01 Drawing No. @ Converse Ward Davis D1::ton Geo1•chn1""1 conau11an1a 3 - - ·~ ,r I ._"t'- c: ~ ; r.:r SUMMARY ( ) BORING NO 2 continued I I DATE DRILLED July TlH~s' !u~~?fty .. ,.,.Lits ONLT AT TH[ LOCA 0 TIOH or THIS 90RINI AND AT THE~~~~ ~!<~«'1>~+-si~ \T' TIM[ or DRILL IN,. SUllSUA' AC[ CONDITIOlfS MAT D•"rtlt AT OTHrR LOCATIONS -rt-~ ~ <; () '~'ll', ~ " AN:> MAT CHANG[ AT THIS LOCATION WITtc ht[ ,.ASSAGE or TIME. THE DATA 1; ~ I-0 --~~ ~4'>~ DEPTH ,,...,~ o" PRESU;TEO IS A SIMPL" ICAT IO>i OF' ACTUAL CONDIT IONS ENCOU"T!RED. "'.,,.~ 'z,: ,\$' c,1-\T' ~o~ ... "f> IN ~' ~ ....-1> ~'->(, .,... '>--I". FEET ,_. -4."1-"">(;\1-C' 1> ,>. 1-,.,>C'~ 50 "' ~ -~>~ -5 moist soft dark BEDROCK-143 32.7 81 -to gray SILTY CLAYSTONE, -d & sandstone i nterbeds, -~rd. intenselv fractured 55 -very SILICEOUS SHALE, -hard lam., sl. weathered -mod. SILTYCLAYSTONE = hard & clayey siltstone 60-& shale interbeds .. .. -- 65- -- 70-6 ---- 75----- 80- -.. -7 - 85----- 90-+---1 - -w °' -0 -u 95-~ .. u -0 c::: - slightly moist slightly moist to moist hard and mod. hard mod. hard black grades to dark gray green SILICEOUS SHALE slightly weathered, very fractured, laminated, & clayey siltstone interl:>eds. CLAYEY SILTSTONE thinly laminated, very fractured, slightly weathered, & sandstone laminated, & claystone & siliceous shale SILICEOUS SHALE & clayey siltstone ·CLAYEY SILTSTONE thinly laminated, slightly weathered, very fractured & clay- stone i nterbeds ,_....QP.proximate tunnel <£. __ _, ' 77 29.3 90 77 27.4 95 34.0 30.8 100_._-'-____ ..__ ________________ _._ ____________________ __. ________ ~-------- -¥--Ground water encountered at 25 1 • ·J A M B 0 R E E R 0 A D T U N N E L :Jamboree Road north of Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California for: County Sanitation District of Orange County @ ConverseVVardDav1sD1xon Geot•chn1ca1con1u11an11 Project No. 79-2223-01 Drawing No. 4 - - - 0 ~ SUMMARY 3 BORING NO I 04'TE DRILLED July ;H~s' !u':~:,n APPLIES ONLY AT TM£ LOtA 0 TIDN 0' '"I" 801Ulll ••DAT T"E~<>.,.~,/<-<~~io~~ TIMEOrDAILLOIG, SUSSURr&CECONDITIONSM&YD.,rElt4TDTMfltLOCATIONS ~"°~ ()'f.O~ «~.._() '.io'5',"'>- r., AND ...... , CHANGt AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGt or TIMt. THt DATA +,.t": ~'7'0 -~~ ,$'-"'>~.,. DEPTH :v~ 0" PRESENTED IS A SIMPLlrlCATION Qr ACTUAL CONDITIONS £NCOUNTflllD. "\-1-t": °'i;~ ~1-IS' IS'O"f1-it F~~T ,/I ~'b •·~:~ , "'c.. _.,. '> C' ~,_ r.,.J. ELEVATION 121.01 >:(;'~ t'"'>->i'~ . >: .._ ""'>:~ O-r--r-----,r""'l""'---..~r-------,.-------,.--------------------------..,_--..1r..-..--..lp---...-,....--~ 5 10 :: 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 _ sl. moist medium brown SILTY SAND -SM moist dense -----CL --- yellow brown end brown SILTY CLAY & sandy clay & rock fragments -1 slightly soft green gray BEDROCK-21 55.4 69 -------.. ---.. -------------.. ------------ moist to moist 2 3 4 brown ,, (MONTER~Y FORMATION) SILTY CLA YSTONE thinly laminated, moderately weathered, very fractured & fish scales & phosphate nodules CLAYEY SILTSTONE (continued} JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL 15 53.3 67 14 84.1 49 18 80.3 50 Pro1ect No. :Jamboree Road north of Back Bey Drive, Newport Beach, California for: County S:mitation District of Orange County 79-2223-01 @ ConverseWardDav1sD1xon Geot•chn1ca1conau1111111• Drawing No. 5 - - - -;:i.. Q ' ) ~ Q. Cl.. -< ... ... 0 -· SUMMARY J I 1 979 BORING NO 3 (continued) DATC ORIL.L.E:O u t TH~,S~MMARY APPLIE$ ONLY AT TH[ LOCA.TIDH or '"'s 8011111NI AlllD AT TMl~o'fi~'-;\~<01>~+1>~~"' TIMEOrDAILLIHG. SU!15UR,ACECOHDtTIONSMAYDl.-,.£11ATOTH[lllLOCATIOHI >: ~ O'fi ~ ~ 0 ~--,1"-<' ~ AND MA't C"ANGE AT T"IS LOCATION wn .. THE PASSAGE or TIME. TM[ DATA +,.~ ""'"o ~~ 't,.\l'>"f DEPTH ....,~ o" PRlSENTED IS A SIMPLIF'ICATtON or ACTU4L COHDlllOHS ENCOUNTUIEO. "'\."'~ 1i:;\S'>-~"'"', \S'C> ... .,,. .... F~~T .,// ../"~ ""A.1>C' 't-c, ""'>>-.._C' ~~ ~9',. EL.E:VATION ~ J.. -S,.>'fi~ J. >:~ 50~--r-----~----...,..----~r-------.-----------------------.----.,---...,..---r----i _ 5 moist soft brown BEDROCK- -- 55- ---- 60-6 - --- 65----- 70- -7 --- 75----- 80-8 ---- - -w 0:: -0 -u 90-~ -u -0 0:: -- slight! y moist mod. hard dark gra;1 green CLA YEY SILTSTONE thinly laminated slightly weathered, moderately fractured, & fish scales & phosphate seams & nodules & shale, thinly laminated, & phosphate nodule~ slightly fractured -~pproxi mate tun-;;l't, . very fractured, & clay seams & phosphate nodule! 12 87.7 48 32 72.4 54 16 54.6 64 32 73.8 53 116 94.0 84.4 ' 95-1--+----+------..1-----...i....----...;.....1....-------------------+----+----t----+--------- -¥---Ground water encountered at 15'. 10µ...--'-----......_ _________________ __,_ ____________________________________ __ 'JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL 'Jamboree Road north of Bock Boy Drive, Newport Beach, California for: County S· .. mitotion District of Orange County @ Converse Ward Davis Dixon Geo••chn•c•• conau11 ... 11 ProJeCt No. 79-2223-01 Drawing No. 6 - 0 G> > 0 --c. Cl < _.. 0 0 ? l -6 ... SUMMARY 4 D•TE DRILLED July T~~.1~~: ...... ~.~:,·.~.~-.~~: ............. , ..... ., '"' ~o~~~~~~~ TIMCO,.DRILLING. SUaSUA,ACCCONDITIONSMAVDl,.,.[llATOT"flllLOCATIONS >:'-('-o"'o,,,_ <o~o +,1''1',"'1- "' AHO MAT CHANG£ AT THIS LOCATION wn .. THC PASSAGE O" TIM£. TME DATA + ~ .I-,..0 -~ ~"'>~ DEPTH ~~ O" PRESENTED IS A SIMPL.,ICATIOH or ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCDUHTrlt~D. ~1--~ /i:'~ <'c,1-~ ~ "f"f~ F'~~T .,,_'l ~-0 ...,._..~ t", >(, . ..., ,~ 0 1--~ "~ "~ ELEVATION 86.0' ~<;'"'-t'-S._...11('->: "'-""~t" o-_,-..,-----i=:::::::::=:J::=::::::::::::i~====:::J:;:::====,7mi.~a~.c~.-';::;;pa:vit1·n~g~----~r----;-;._~r----T--....;. _ moist dense y I. browr 16" sandy grave I base -~L/.. stiff to brown FILL-SILTY CLAY, & sandy _ 1L/ dense to grey clay & cfayey SC brown silt ~-------+ firm green & rock fragments 5- 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ~ 45 50 -- - ---l ---------2 -CL -----.. ---3 ----------.. 4 ------- -5 Sf- to stiff stiff very firm mot st moist soft to very moist Ground water encountered at grey yellow brown to brown brown, green gray & bellow rown brown Y.ellow brown gray to gray brown 42'. SANDY CLAY & rock fragments & silty I clay ,, SILTY CLAY & sand & rock fragments 20% rock fragments porous BEDROCK- SHALE, thinly laminated, intensely fractured, very weathered 4.8 42.8 81 1.6 21.8 85 5.6 19.9 87 5,6 42.5 76 1.60 1.17 * 1.44 2.15 0.94 0.74 1.20* 2.07 4.92 1.07* 1.60 2.78 -,. aeeroximate tunnel ~--5.4 39.6 82 (continued) * Samples sheared progressively at ~, ~, 1, & 2 ksf normal pressl :JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL Pro1ect No. Jamboree Rood north of Bock Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California if or: County Soni ~otion Di strict of Orange County 79-2223-01 Drawing No. @ ConverseWardDav1sD1xon aeDl•chn1ca1 eonau118n11 7 - -~ -0 l;Qjh +a--,a=• ,_ E%ttiS!!'i&'.,...,~ '"-"" --. ....... am :.18:::DW.:2n:a. w=a=v ""iSiitA&#Sf..jl I DATE DRILLED July SUMMARY 4 ( ~· d) BORING NO con.1nue 3, 1979 . ~~~~~~~ THIS SUMMARY .... PLIES ONLY AT THC LOCATION or THIS 80RINI AllO AT T"E ... ~, • < <" +ii~"' TIMtorDRILLINC.. SUllSUAFAC£CONDITIOtfSWAYOIP'F[•ATOT"l"LOCATIONJ ~'"~· o,,..0 ... ~ .... () ~'1',-S. "' AND ..,.,., CHANGt AT TMIS LOtATIOh WITH THE PASSAC.£ or TtMt. TM[ DATA +, ~ ... "'o -C'~ "'-"'>~ DEPTH ~,f <fl>o" .. RESENTED IS A SIM .. Ll,.ICATIOH or ACTUAL COllCDITIONS tNCOUNTIRlD. '\.1-f'o ~""' (..1-"' \S'o"'"'~ IN ,_..,,. ,-.. ~o'f>"' ~ >, ·"" '> 1-.... FEET .... ~ >.,. C'"';;, > ,,_ ""'"'~ 0 C, t, ELEVATION· • '-io-><"' ~ 5 -r--r----,------,..------.--...,...---.-----------------------.----~--..a,---~--~ --- ---- 60----- 65- -- 70- --- - 75----- 80-.. - - 85- ---- 90- ----95_ -- -- moist soft to gr. orn. hard No ground water encountered. to gray to dark gray BEDROCK-SHALE, thin lam. 10J-A---"'----..._ ____ _._ ____ __... ____________________________ ......... __ _. __ __,i.__ __ ._ ___ JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL 'Jamboree Rood north of Bock Boy Drive, Newport Beach, Co 1i fornio ·for: County Sanitation District of Orange County @ ConverseWardDav1sD1:xon Gao1•chn1ca1co111u1- Pro1ect No. 79-2223-01 Drawing No. 8 I ~CLAY >I• SILT SAND I" GRAVEL "'" • FINE >I~ MEDIUM >-f COARSE < FINE ~(+--COARSE >- NUMBER 270 200 140 100 60 40 20 10 4 %" *" l '' I~" 2'' 3" SIEVE SIZE 100 I . . I I I~ . I ' . ' ,. ,.. "I' 1 '' ' l 'I . p I ~:·1· j , .. I ,. 11 . I •. • I . I . I I J' "'~1· -1·--m-1 'j ·, 11 • . · .• : ; ; •. ;' ! . • 1 · " . I" ! • : . : ·_I •• ,; ·: ' ' '( : ; : ' : • : • : : . • • ; .. -• • • • ~ j. . , i . .. ' . : : : . i . ' . . I ·. ' .... ·1 · .. : . ·_ . . : . -·. I I ~ . I • • •. • ' : I: . . ! : • 1 · . .. ' t . : · 1 . . . , . . . ' . . . '.. : .. 1 ··:······· .. !.!.I.'.', ... ··i-.': ... : ·,·: '.:··: .. , .. : .. : ... i! ·, ;l:·;i ::::!.:, .. l·i"l ·!· 1:' ii .... ';;1:···1. :I '• ", : , ..... : I : . . ; . . ; . . .. 1.. ... . : . . .... , .... .. . . , .. . ' ; , .. ... . . . . : .. . . : i . : . .. j ' ., • ! , . , ; : ... ! .. , . . -• • r I ' I : : . ' . . . I ' I , ! .• • 1j'. ... : ..... ·1 ...... : ...... l .. , . ;:. ··'· "I'':! . . i '! ! ,:::· '.!I 1! :.· ,; L '. . . •I· : ;.;., ·.j .. :: . .. . . . I ·' I·'., ... , w ~ .. !·:'.'·~ .......... _ .... r ..... !: -• ! ..... ...:.--·t"~-·· ~~~ ~ .:..,~ ·j-~·1 · ~ 1··=-· R 1~-1'.-~ . · I'··~~ ). : .. : ·l···~ -. ·1 .. ·~·--1..;~--I:.. . ···~[·11J ... j~r'. ··'11._.;.. .. L.-.. 1,-·~ 1··1 · .. t·1j· .. : -.1 ···. ··: 1' N ...... , .. ·1 · " .. . 11. . , ....... I'. ··1 t . . . . .. r 1 •. 1.,. ' . , ··1 . ; 1 ....... 1 t · . 1 1 , .. , I . , -I I . .• ; . I I I : I . I I -• I . I.. • (J) .. t ~ ' • • • I . ! ,. . ·. t" ! . . ' ' . I : . ~. . . t ,· . . . • • : ··:· . • •. • • • • ! I ; ~ : ~ • : I i 1 "!·1·.1· ..... I :-:: ... ,;1··· ·1'.1··1 , .. ; •.' :i · : ··II . ! ·ii!! · .. ;:f'.;&".;.r·!·I ··'! !j I I. I: I:!! It > 80--1....,..,_ . .L..! . .J ... j. -... ,_.:.. .•• ___ J_ .. _ ·--· -·L···-l··-Jl1 ... · ... 1.:.-.:J1.J , __ . ·_ .......... L ··11 t,l.: __ 1•_;__ · .... ,-~ .. ~.L ..•. !1l.: .. -·1·· ·~·:l·--··-······---1! .... ;1.'. .: 1: ... 1 .. .:. ···II w ..... ,. . .. ·· .......... , .... I-. ·. . . . . ·I . . .·,: ·. ··•'·· •.• . ., •... I ! • . I . W l I I I. " • • . I I• : I I· I I ' . 'I ·1· . ·: ., . 1 ·I .. . ' : . 1··· .. I .. ,. I ... • 1· . . . . . . . . I. ·• . . I . . I . 1·· I I . • .. ,. ' I 'I ••.• ..• . • I • . I . I I" : . . ' I lii . i ... I . . : . ..,. . .. .. . . . . . . I i I . : . . I . ; ,; . i .':. . · I ' . : . . : ' I ! . . I I ' I '1 . . ! ' ~ . ; I : · 1 t •• , . ..1 . , . . ... . .... ,. . . . . . . . . .. . l • ·, I ~ 1' !· ' ., .. ! . . . . I • • '. • 1: I ,. • I . i I ; ' I . : I I 1 • • . • ' • I ' • • . • : • ! ~ ' I ' I . ! II\ . • . . . . 1. • ' . • ... . .• I . ; . I .• .,.. ,. .. • '. ' I . ' . 1· • • • . •. , .1 . I . : . . ... . . .. , ! . ' J I t . I ; I • • I v . I ' I!· I • •I • • . l . l_ j. • ' I ' -I -._I •.• I I -., ... ,, .. 1··· ... , .... ~.,.;.j• ... !:•· .. ··l; .. ,., ... 1,·111 ··11·1· 1·· . ·: .·· •:!.;.1 ... , .... ,.,1. I' ·I· ·J····· .... '•1··· .j ·111·· I·. I' ·1 · l1 ·1 'Ii ~ : .:: : ::< r·· ·::. :>i: ·.~: : .. · 1 l > : ~ '.: .:::,. ;: :.1:' ·· · ~-· .·, · . i. / ;·: 1\ :;j;'I:::. > ::1· :::; :::1 _ ~::: · 1 :;: · .:.y·' ··· > i .... :· .·1 1 · , ..1 . 1 : ~ : i : . 1 i i 0 .. -.. , ... , .... ,. ···-··. -· ....... ' .... ·t· ... , 1 ... ,... . ....... , ... , ... , ....... , ... ,, .. ,. • .. ... . .. I i I I I' i I I I . i • . I . I . . : . ! • • I' ;_ ; -I .. . . • I i . ' I -I a. 60 _J .. ,.. -·-__,.. ·--------···---· -·· ··-. ·-1-f . ··---·· ·-L. ··1-·. ~" .. -·· ... _I .... _ ...... --:J __ .. .L. • . .•• _L' . ·-·-·--1--t······-.... '.. ·-.•• .. ... . . , Ul .·1: .... : ... ,· .. ;: .. ~ .... ::i '. :i~.:; ... ··,. ... I ••• : :.,::;·::'.I:::::; . ; .. I :·1 , .. :::1 :::: .j;~: .. : :l.:: l ,; 1·1.. . ! ; ! ! ! : : '. ~;I 0: .. :;·:,'·: .. ·: L ·.;: ·: ... ::· :'. ·.J .. i: 1,) ':!:,:: :;!. ::-:·J.-11 .... 1, .. 11!? J,: J.-:: /' 111.~ :': :: . J. .: ':i '1: : ::· :i;: ·,. ·:X ) ".,:'· 1111··". 'I . I, ) .1, ):, ! ~ i,· ·,· l w .. : ;"· :""' !'.'';'"'"'": 'j'i ::: .:· .. ·;·•; . .. . :.; ·. : ;,!•d"'..'.: ;·~'.;;.:!·! ... :;;: ::.· ~:··;. i··: ·: : . ; :!· I I • : ~ Ii I ... . .. . • . I . . I . " I ' . . I . I. ·1 I ' • • I. . . I I . ' • 0 :·1;: ·1·:·· .... ·I·· .• :.::··· "I' ; . . I .•• : : I . ! . . ·1 ! ! ! ,; . ! .. ,;. ·1 · .,;. . ·I'! I· ·1 : : : I:. . 'I'" .. ,; i I .. ! 1' ! = .. I 1· l I. I ! ; 'II U --. 11, ''. . . . I • • 1· •. I I .1 I I I • • ' • .. .. • ... I ··1 ... .. ..... I. • .. .... . ; 1·· . I. • • • 1 . . .......... I· . ·• . . • • I... . .. I . ·1· I . I . . . . . ' I I .. ·,!:1.~ .. ·. ,.:·: ..... :::···!::'.:''I·:·.·.:.::.' .. ::: !'.,·.: .• ·i·;;• .. :. ·I.:: i '·>·:. ·'.. .. . . i I!,.;~!~:; z .. , .. 1. I. 'I · ... ' . ! ··I· 1· ..• • . . •. '. i····. I•·' .1 .. 11 , .. , .. 1 j. I·· ... I.·: .• i .. . • i . . . I : . ' .. <( 40 -~·,~·r_·---··-·;"~·.-····-'·. ....... -·-'··; -.. : .. ~tJ. .. 1 .... -1.,-.~· _;,+~l~-l; .... :.1~;..,: ... ":...:. 1 1:-.. -1J.1 . ..1._; ___ :; _ _1_, __ . --... : ... L11-....... ; .. J • .,,1L ..... -l ... 1 .... :I.:·-I ·:·I·· .:1 1 :r I I I 1 I I I 1· . I I I ' I'" 1 · .1 I• I I . I ·I . I I I ; I I I I I . ; I . . ...... I!" •• I . I . • '.... . . ... • .. 1.1· ...... 1·1 :: .I,.,.. .. 11 .•••. ··:: I • • • I '. . ' f-.• .. i .... :lrl"·f·f ·;:.j: =.l!.:.:.,.: .. ': ....... j, .. ,·1~,:·j.1 ... ::, ... , ... , .. , J·.11. ;: •j, .... :. '1.··· .. :ll ·. I: !11 ·1' ! '. ! . . . . : ~ ; . : . : : ;:. j : : . .. ,.: . . • . . . . : • : ; : l ; : . . ; : :. . : . : " ~ ' : I : • ; ; : . ' ; . ' • ! ! . . I I . .. ' I j ! ! ; i . : . I . i ! ,. er . . : • . .. . . ..... '·1 ... .. . ... I . . . , . '.,. ... . r. ... . I , . ' . .. . ... . ·· • .. I . I . . . z . , ............................. i,1···.;1·11 .. t i··1 . ··I .. '··1·· .i 11 ..... 1. ; .. , ............ I ·I ·I 'I . , . i ..• ; .. LL : . . . : ! . : •... : : ... . I .. : : ; '. ~ i : . ; i· \ .:; "'." .. ; .· " ·I : : i : : ;. • i' ': ~ ·'.!:. '·: .:: ... : .. ; .. : ; : ':.. . : . ; : ; . ; ' . .. ' ': I ' . ! . : : i . '. i i i 1-> .. fl 11 ! ... :·I ': l P; :. ;; c :r. ·· 111 · : . L 1 :11·1 ... nk:.: + l:lt:::' · J r::: !::: ::I:: .:: iii: ··J! 111: . 1 I 11 r 1 ,I 1 11 0 .. _L.J.I . ·-......... ,.....~L -· -1~· : ... _;__ ... ..:..._p "7" · 1 . .i,.+·l..J1 1-'i··· .:.![;· -. ·1'-........ ..:_I.~ · ..... ;._ 1··-t· .... ~.·J·--··'1· ~. ·-... '.-r .. ..:.. -J._ ~ -~'1····-~ .... !l.L ... ·-·-·-··-IL. ... 1 .... -~,L ... .:l .. J .. i ... 'I ., . I I . . . . ,, ' .. 1-I I I I ' · 11 I ' • I '.' ' -I . . I I ' I . I ·1 11 w . : .. ·1 .,. .. . . :· :· .. ~;· ... . ~ I· I.: 1 · . " .... '· ... . . . . ... -j .. I I • • • .. : •···.. . . .. ..•. ". ... .. • . . I.. ! I I' ' ... • -" .. • I . . : .. I ~ . u . .. ".. . . I .. ···, '.;.: • i '.'" ... i : ! : : . i I • ! : : ; ". . .. " !. I . .... I . : i i ~ : : . . I' I : • : • ;., ! . ' . : . : . I . i ; : ! I:: : ! ;: .. I.;'."' I . : I i . I • ! . . i j . • I I 0: ·1·::"·"•.··1· ... ,.1_ ....... 1 .. ~'.!'t'·,·· ........ 1. .... , ... , .. '.· ''l'.·_1··: ............ i. ·_:···· i·1 :•:i"·l .•.. I ·I ;''""I ... I . ; ! I I: I I I. I I -. . ' . I . . I I . -I . . . ' . I·' ,. I . I I . I I I I . ' .. I I .w . . ... , . . . ... .. . ' ' . .. . .. 1· . .. . -.. . .. I 1 · . .. . :• . ·-.. .... .. . . . I . • • • • • .. • • I • I" I I . : I • I· . : I . I •. I .. , ..... I. I ..... ·1· -1 I ••••••.. ·1 .. : I ' 111·1 . -' ... I ·1··· ·I•·! ..... I ... ·1 :• .. ;.,, . I . ! . ·1· . I ' . I .· I . I I' .. ~ I . j. • . • . ·+ ~ . . . . .. : I·... I ... , .. ·' . : : . i .; .. . . '.: : . .. . . . . . .. . ' I : . . : . . • . : I . . . I . .. '. ! ' . . ~ . • : . • • ; :1.:1 .. ·i:l1·1-.·.· u.1:.:J. ··1··.·1 l 1 l1' 11.1·11: l:1;.~;·1·;,1;··1·..l1·'l .. 1l··1· .. 11I· i::. :::;.:.,j=·; .. :·.l·11l· .. I .. ·· '1 1: '. 1~ ·1: !1 '.!1: ;1 1 I •. : . ' 'T .. 1 ·1 . I I -• • ·I· ·: :: : ; ... 1 T ;· -·•. '":.' : • . ... ·1 ..... ! .... I. . . ; ! ,. I • I I Q ---------~-----------. . -. ' I .005 .01 .05 0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 0 Boring 1, Sample 1 , Depth 10 1-6 11 • • Boring ld Sample 3, DeptJ1 3 1 -6 11 • m Boring 4, Sample 3, Depth 30 1 -6 11 • } J ' 1 I PARTICLE DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CHART iU! -WiC!L!lm . .,.......--;m•~ JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL Project No. Jamboree Road north of Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach, California 79-2223-01 for: County Sanitation District of Orange County ------· Drawing No. ~ ConverseDav1sD1xon Geotechnlcat consu11an11 . 9 --· -----· ·•·"··-·. ~-__ _ .... ..:"'"" . ~ . .. !::. . . . l::;L::. . 1+. ~ _ J !!·l~ I .?I''' I~ .. ·~..., .. J !:.T.LU I ~ J m . I "!'!:'T. I--::;; __ , I -. I I _.. J : I I I '. -J . .., : ; i ' l . i '' i . '-' .J \ i' ! I ... - • I I '' I .i~ i I :.,. \ ; \ : w : I i ~ APPENDIX B SCS ENGIUEERS REPORT ~nnvM~P Ward D~vis Dixon. Inc. - ... - SCS ENGINEERS STEARNS. CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 4014 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD LONG BEACt-1. CALIFORNIA 90807 (213)426·954"4 August 2 3, 19 7 9 File No. L1879 Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 1440 South State College Blvd P.O. Box 6288 Anaheim, CA 92806 Attention: Mr. Robert Ruff Dear Mr. Ruff: ROBERTP.STEARNS.PE E.T. CONRAD. PE CURTIS J. SCHMIDT. PE MARK L. BRECHER. PE GARY L. MITCHELL, PE RONALD E. PERKINS, PE DAVIDE. ROSS. PE DONALD E. SHILESKY' Seo MICHAEL D. SWAYNE. PhD JOHN P. WOODYARD. PE Attached is the schedule for probe placement and the test results of methane gas readings on the bore holes adjacent to Jamboree Road (see Figure 1). On July 6, bore holes A and D were drilled a depth of 50 ft and 42 ft, respectively. In both cases, drilling ceased when ground water was encountered. Probes were placed at a depth of 19 ft and 39 ft for bore hole A, and 12 ft and 32 ft for bore hole D. Methane gas readings were taken on July 13, 1979. At that time no methane gas was detected in bore holes A and D (see Table 1). Bore hole B was drilled to a depth of 100 ft on July 13, and bore hole C was drilled to a depth of 100 ft during the week of July 16. Due to the presence of water in both bore holes, planned probe placement was cancelled. Testing for the presence of methane gas in the probes was per- formed using a MSA Model 2A, explosimeter combustible gas indicator. This instrument reads directly in percent of lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane in air. Please contact me if there are any questions . Very truly yours, (ZBJ2__ Robert P. Stearns President SCS ENGINEERS RPS:sms Enclosures - TABLE l MONITORING RESULTS AT JAMBOREE ROAD Probe Methane Concentratio· Date Bore Hole Depth {ft) Percent L.E.L.(1) July 13, 1979 A 19 0 39 0 D 12 0 32 0 . _, July 19, 1979 D 12 0 32 0 (1) Lower Explosive Limit t .;.,.. ·- - - - ... EAST - /r-\ / I / I / I // I / \ // l / ' / \ \ \ \ \. __ ) "" I IRVINE COAST ', \ COUNTRY CLUB \ \ I ' I I / ' I ' I '~ J ~/ ___ ,_,, Figure 1. Bore hole locations (no scale). BORING NO. 3 - - - - - - ·- - - i ,_. BORING NO. 2 0. < "' r . 0 er 0 JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL -CORES Jamboree Rood north of Bock Boy Drive, Newport Beach, California for : County Sanitation District of Orange Countv @ Converse Ward Davis Dixon Geo1echn1ca1 consultants Pr oi e ct N o . 79-2223-01 Draw ing N o . 10 -! I ~ I t ua f n~ ~· ~ I :ri""· .:.i ·!! I ~-:1 ' ! I ~J : t I i I .. I :; l I I I I I I H I I I j I I I ;: J • I I I ~-! ........... ···'!. ~ I ~ J i ! ! I ~ :II ~·-:. I I i--- • l ·11 I : ~ I "' -1-1-~ .. l d ~ ~ I •1•·-Utf 'I I 11/ -~-·-':"' 1,11 .. II~ Jill. j•I -. • i I I i I i t I I i I I ' I .... l l i I I I I ' I ! I t l t 1 I ~ . ~ l t 1 l \ t i - - - - - - - - - -