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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-