Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1985-04-17
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) April 11, 1985 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 5 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 1985· -5:00 P.M. NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL -COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of April 10, 1985, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 will meet in an adjourned meeting at the above hour and date. II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districb of Orange County, California Post Office Box 8127 10844. Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: DISTRICT No. 5 Area Code 71"' 540-2910 962-2'11 AGENDA (1) Roll call ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 1985 -5:00 P.M·. NEWPORT BEACH CITY· HALL -COUNCIL CHAMBERS · (2) District/Newport Beach Joint Balboa Peninsula Sewer Improvements from "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street: (a) Staff Report (b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve City of Newport Beach Balboa Peninsula Point Sewer Improvement Study dated February 1985 prepared by GPS, Inc. (copy enclosed with agenda material) (d) Consideration of motion approving joint participation with the City of Newport Beach to replace the District and City.sewers ~rom "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street with a new combined sewer, and directing the General Counsel to prepare an agreement between the District and the City for said project (3) Verbal status report by staff on the Districts' sewer rehabilitation program and Master Plan of facilities to serve the District (4) Other business and communications, if any (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn II -MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT NO. _s_ ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 1985 -5:00 P.M. Post Office Box 8127 l 0844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Teleprcnes: Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 NEWPORT BE.ACH CITY HALL -COUNCiL CHAMBERS MANAGER'S REPORT FOR DISTRICT NO. 5 Chairman Hart has asked for this workshop meeting to update the Board on the status of the Districts' sewer rehabilitation program and Master Plan of facilities to serve the District. No. 2: District/Newport Beach Joint Balboa Penninsula Sewer Improvements. The City of Newport Beach and the District have parallel sewer lines in the Balboa Penninsula from the District's "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street. Both facilities are aged and in need of extensive rehabilitation. The District Board and the City Council have previously approved a joint study to determine the best and most cost effective means of correcting these deficient facilities. The consultant, G.P.S., Inc.~ has completed the study, a copy of which is enclosed. The report recommends that the existing facilities be replaced with a single line that would be owned and operated by the city. The cost of the new combined sewer is estimated at $647,000, proposed to be shared 55% ($355,000) by the District and 44% ($292,000) by the City. Staff concurs with the consultant's conclusions and recommends that the Board authorize preparation of an agreement with the City to jointly complete the project. The design, construction and administration of the job would be done by the City. Staff will review the report and recommendations in greater detail at the meeting. No. 3: Status of Sewer Rehabilitation Program and Master Plan of Trunk Sewers. Staff will report on the status of the District's major program of rehabilitating the existing sewers and the Master Plan program on new sewerage facilities for serving District No. 5. Attached is a schedule which outlines the facilities improvements and expected costs. Staff will review the program in detail and provide additional information at the meeting. - BALBOA PENINSULA POINT SEWER IMPROVEMENT STUDY FEBRUARY, 1985 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ... PREPARED BY:· G.P.S . ., .INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 1420 E. EDINGER AVENUE SANTA ANA., CA 92705 BALBOA PENINSULA POINT SEWER IMPROVEMENT STUDY FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEBRUARY 1985 - - - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Valuable assistance was provided during the preparation of this study. The maintenance crews from Newport Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District were extremely helpful while collecting sewage flow data. Newport Beach · Public Works Department L1 oyd R. Dalton Utilities Department Joe Devlin Gil Gomez Pat Connel Maintenance Crews Orange County Sanitation District Tom Dawes Ken Ramey Maintenance Crews R. C. Hoffman Company, Inc. Chet Reynolds .... - TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Authorization and Scope 2.2 Objective 2.3 Approach SECTION 3 STUDY AREA 3.1 Background 3.2 Land Use 3.3 Study Area Description 3.4 Study Limits Map SECTION 4 EXISTING SEWAGE SYSTEM 4.1 City System 4.2 Orange County Sanitation District System 4.3 Maintenance Problems 4.4 Field Investigations 4. 5 Research. SECTION 5 EXISTING FLOW -MEASUREMENTS 5.1 Method of Measurement 5.2 Table -Flow Measurements SECTION 6 WATER CONSUMPTION 6.1 Purpose 6.2 Method 6.3 Data Analysis SECTION 7 INFILTRATION 7.1 7.2 Sea Water Storm Water SECTION 8 DESIGN CRITERIA 8.1 Sewage Inflow 8.2 Design Flow - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) SECTION 9 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS 9. 1 Existing Systems 9.2 Pipe Materials 9.3 Alternatives 9.4 Construction Specialty Items 9.5 Construction Costs SECTION 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10. 1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Inversion Lining Utility Interference Construction Difficulties Sanitary Sewer Replacement 10.5 Maintenance 10.6 Alternate Com pa ri son -Advantages /Disadvantages SECTION 11 APPENDIX 11.1 Plate A-1 -Existing Sewage Systems 11.2 Plate A-2 -A-5 -Flow Meter Charts 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11. 7 11.8 Plate A-6 ~ Water Consumption Area Map Plate A-7 -Water Consumpti~n Table Plate A-8 -Infiltration Table Plate A-9 -Empirical Analysis -House Connection Infiltration Plate A-10 -Design Computations and Tables Plate A-11 -Hydraulic Capacity Table 11.9 Plate A-12 -Plan Profile, Alternate 'A' 11.10 Plate A-13 ··Typical Section, Alternate 'A' 11.11 Plate A-14 -Plan Profile, Alternate 1 8 1 11.12 Plate A-15 -Typical Section, Alternate 1 8 1 11.13 Plate A-16 -Typical Section, Alternate 'C' 11.14 Plates A-17 to A-21 -Construction Costs of Alternatives 11.15 Plate A-22 -Abandonment of Manholes 11.16 11.17 Plate A-23 -Pipe Backfill in Trenches Plate A-24 -Sewer Alignment Alter~ates - SECTION 1 -SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEtlDATIONS The existing sewer system is deficient. Size, grade, condition of sewer and joints reduce capacity and allows the infiltration of a high amount of sea water. Sea water infiltration accounts for up to r/l.~ of the flow. The City sewer, from B Street to F Street, is an old 8 inch portland cement sewer. Replacement of the county system was completed in 1955, with a vitrified clay sewer. All of the existing system is subject to sea water intrusion, varying from 73% to 9.6%. County sewers are continuously flowing in a pressure condi- tion. The objective can he accomplished by the construction of a new sewer with new laterals from B Street to G Street. This would not include replace- ment of the City sewer on the north side of Balboa Boulevard from A to B Street. The reasons for not replacing this sewer are 1) The sewer is shallow and not surcharged. 2) The sewer was constructed in 1961. 3) The sewer carries a small amount of effluent (0.04 CFS). and 4) Maintenance problems have been minimal. The estimated construction cost for the new system is $647,000. -1- .. ... SECTION 2 -INTRODUCTION 2.1 Authorization and Scope The studies summarized in the report were authorized by the City of Newport Beach and prepared by G.P.S., Inc. The purpose of the report is to assess the existing sewer system in Balboa Boulevard from A Street to G Street and to provide a basis for the correction and/or replacement of the system. 2.2 Objective Our objective is to determine the design inflow requirements at A Street and the present flow in the system. Included in the objective is the determi- nation of the structural integrity, the magnitude of infiltration, and a recommendation for the rehabilitation or replacement of the systems; there- by reducing the amount of sewage be1ng pumped at the County's lift station. 2.3 Approach a) Conduct a field investigation of systems, followed by collection of existing data to aid in the analysis. b) Initiate measurements of existing flow tributary to the sewage lift station. c) Establish the amount of potable water consumed by the residents in the system. d) Analyze the data and determine the design flow requirements. e) Prepare construction cost estimates and recommend a system to satisfy the needs . -2- ... - ... SECTION 3 -STUDY AREA 3.1 Background All of the existing sewage flow, from 'A' Street to the end of the peninsula, is pumped into a force main by the O.C.S .• D. #5 Lift Station. The Main Street sewer discharges into the lift station; however, this sewer is a new sewer main (constructed in 1982). The discharge is directly into the wet well of· the 1 ift station and is not a part of the study system. The lift station is pumping excessive amounts of sewage due to infiltration. 3.2 Land Use Land use in the study area is predomently residential with the exception of commercial uses in the vicinity of A & B Streets~ and no change is planned. 3.3 Study Area Description The study area covers all of the peninsula from 'A' Street to the end, which is the intersection of Ocean Front and Channel Road. The study limits are for the sewer system from 'A' Street. to 'G' Street. Refer to EXHIBIT 3.4 page 4 • -3- - .. :1-f?.~ .. J\_~-.:;:) ·. ,-----, . • • -4- . STUDY LIMITS EXHIBIT 3.4 .. .. SECTION 4 -EXISTING SEWAGE SYSTEM The existing sewage system consists of a sanitary sewer lift station at 'A' Street, vitrified clay pipe in the center line of Balboa· Bouleva~d to B Street, vitrified clay pipe on the northerly side of Balboa Boulevard from B Street to 1 G1 Street. This part of the system is owned and maintained by the County. The remaining sewage system is owned and maintained by the City. Refer to Plate A-1, Existing Sewage System in the Appendix. 4.1 City System A relatively new 8" vitrified clay pipe exists on the northerly side of Balboa Boulevard from 'A' Street to 'B' Street. This sanitary sewer pipe drains east and west from a high point in the middle of this section. The depth of cover varies from 3.s•± to 4.s•±. On the south side of Balboa Boulevard from 'B' Street to 'F' Street is an 8" portland cement pipe that was placed in the 1920's. 4.2 County System The county system is vitrified clay pipe. The section between 'B' and 'G' Streets was placed in 1955. 4.3 Maintenance Problems The county removes large amounts of sand from their system at regular inter- vals. This is an indication that voids are being created around the sewer pipe. Eventually this will cause a collapse in the street surface. Pumps and impellers at the lift station have been replaced numerous times. Therefore it is impossible to determine the pump rating or determine the amount of water being pumped. This indicates that the amount of sand in the system could be causing excessive wear in the pumps. The City's portland cement pipe is old and allowing sea water to infiltrate, eventually causing a collapse in the system. Although there appears to be no major maintenance problems, the collpase i~ the system could cause expen- sive street repairs. -5- 4.4 Field Investigation Each of the manhole covers, within the study limits, was removed and the flow conditions observed. The manholes in the county system were surcharged. Depth in the manholes varied from 4.0 ~feet at C Street to 1.0~ foot at G Street. During the intervals of low tides, the manhole at G Street ceases to be surcharged. This flucuation of water depth above and below the soffit causes a build-up of grease around the entrance to the pipe which restricts the flow. This deposit of grease can reach a thickness of 1/2 11 in a seven day interval. Depth of w~ter in the county manhole at A Street fluctuates rapidly due to the high head upstream and the wet well sewage level at the lift station. This pumping action during high flow conditions causes the sewage level in the manholes adjacent to the station to rise and fall six inches at rapid intervals. Every county manhole is lined. The city sewage system was not flowing under pressure (surcharged). This system does not have as many buildings to serve and is not as deep. The city manholes are not lined. Sewage flowing at the manholes is rela- tively clear; another indication that a high amount of sea water is infil- trating. The city's terminal manhole at F Stree~·was dry during the peak flow at B Street; therefore, there was no infiltration at this location. The manhole invert at F Stree~ is at +2.0 M.S.L. The city's terminal manhole at Ocean Front and Channel Road was dry during peak flows in the system. 4.5 Research The County has a video tape, showing the flow conditions in their system. A to B Streets. Because most of the system is flowing full, there is not much to observe. However7 it does show some obstructions. -6- - - - - - - - - Data is existing for the length of time that the lift station is pumping sewage. Pumping time is recorded every other day (Saturday and Sunday excluded}. The total number of hours of operating time for the station was determined. Because the pumps and impellers have been replaced many times, a pump rating curve is not available.. Therefore it is not possible to determine the quantity o~ sewage going through the station. Samples of sewage have been analyzed, by the County, for sea water content. An analysis in 1964 resulted in a maximum of 50% sea water. The analysis approximately five years ago resulted in 75% sea water. -7- .. ... .. SECTION 5 -EXISTING FLOW MEASUREMENTS Quantities of sewage flowing through a pipe system are usually measured ~t the manholes. The manholes on the County system have depths of sewage above the soffit of the sewer pipe. Manholes on the City system have depths of sewage flow below .the soffit of the sewer pipe. 5.1 Method of Measurement Because it is not feasible to build weirs in the manholes, a device that measures depth of flow (pressure or gravity) was selected. The Isco, Model number 1870, was selected. This flow meter measures depth by releasing an air bubble at the invert of the pipe. The meter determines the pressure exerted on the bubble and converts this into a direct reading of depth of flow in feet. Because the meter is based on a pressure analysis, the pres- sure head in the sewer pipe can be determined by placing a meter in the up- stream and downstream manholes. These measurements are used to determine the friction slope and the quantity of flow in the reach. Measurements for each reach were recorded for seven days (except at C Street). The depth of flow, in feet, is recorded on a chart. See Appendix, Plates A-2 through A-5 for examples. Plates A-2 through A-5 are portions of the charts showing peak depths. Measurements were taken at the following locations: Orange County Sanitation District Sewers l. Balboa Boulevard and B Street 2. Balboa Boulevard and C Street 3. Balboa Boulevard, 112 feet westerly of G Street 4. Balboa Boulevard and G Street (southerly) Newport Beach Sewers 1. Balboa Boulevard and Main Street 2. Balboa Boulevard and C Street The computed maximum flows at the measured locations are shown in Table 5.2 on page 9. -8- - - - Table 5.2 FLOW MEASUREMENTS Point CD Location Designation C & Balboa B B & Balboa 1 to C & Balboa 2 112' W of 3 G Street to G Street (So.) 4 11 A11 & Balboa 5 to (12" V.C.P.) 11 811 & Bal boa 6 CD Letters represent City sewer Numbers represent County sewer From 1/18/84 2/8/84 2/29/84 N/A ~ This flow was estimated based on existing data (see calculations) -9- Date To 1/25/84 2/15/84 3/7 /84 N/A .· Max. Flow {CFS) r~s Date 0.25 1/19 1.36 2/14 0.89 3/3 l.89® - .. .. ... ... .. SECTION 6 -WATER CONSUMPTION 6.1 Purpose Determine the amount of water used by the people in the area. This is the maximum amount that can enter the sewage system; without consideration for infiltration • Actual quantities of flows have been measured. Correlate the water consump- tion data with flow measurements in the same time interval and the difference between the two will provide the amount of infiltration. (Assuming· that all water used will enter the sewer). Storm water inflow and storm water infiltration were not considered as the flow measurements were taken during the dry weather. 6.2 Method Water consumption records, for the tributary areas, were provided by the City of Newport Beach's Utility Department. See Plate A-7 in the Appendix for the Water Consumption Table . The amount of water used by each residence (or the amount recorded by each water meter) is determined by the meter readings. Meters are read once every two months. Each area contributing to a specified reach of sewer will de- termine the maximum amount of water that can enter the sewer, without an allowance for infiltration and storm waters. The records for the months of December 1983 and January 1984 were used to determine the amount of water consumed during th~ flow measuring time inter- vals. Quantities of water contributing to the system were converted into average daily cubic feet per second. Each area contributing water to a reach was tabulated. Refer to Appendix Plate A-6 Water Consumption Area Map. 6.3 Data Analysis Example: AREA C Water consumed during December 1983 and January 1984 was 93,900 cubic feet 93,900/62 (days) = 1,514.5 cubic feet/day 1,514.5/24 x 60 x 60 = 0.0175 average CFS -10- ' j Id I I I l=I ! i I,:} 1 I l.::z.l i l =I J i ! , I '=' I ' I bz!l i t=1 I i I.col I i;sJ j I J Plate A-6 shows that the highest amount of consumption is generally during the months of August and September. The water consumption quring these .months is used for design purposes. -11- - ... .... - - SECTION 7 -INFILTRATION Sea water and .storm water are the two contributors to infittration on the peninsula. Stonn water was not a contributing factor for detennining in- filtration during the study. It did not rain. 7.1 Sea Water High tide will contribute the maximum amount of sea water infiltration. High tides do not always occur during peak water consumption times. There- fore, the average daily water consumption should be reduced to account for the maximum infiltration. The maximum amount of flow was detennined from the flow meter charts (Plate A-2 to A-5). Ave.rage daily water consumption was detennined from the records (Pl ate A-7). Reducing the maximum flow by the amount of minimum water consumed would pro- duce the amount of infiltration to be expected. Example: AREA C Maximum flow Minimum consumption (*nearest 0.01 cfs) Amount of Infiltration % of Infiltration 0.25 cfs 0.01 *cfs 0.24 cfs (0.24/0.25) is 96 Plate A-8, appendix, shows the tabulation for infiltration. This tabula- tion does not seperate the main sewer from the lateral sewers. House connections (laterals) will also contribute sea water infiltration. Results of an empirical analysis show that 45% of infiltration is contribu- ted by the house connections (55% for the main sewer). The analysis for .house connections is shown in the appendix, Plate A-9 • 7.2 Stonn Water Although stonn water inflow was not considered a part of the measured flows because of dry weather conditions, it does become a part of the design flow. -12- ... - Observations during the field investigations did not indicate any roof drain connections to th~ sewers. However, it was not feasible to con- duct a through investigation on private property. We would assume that some storm water will be piped directly to ·the sewer laterals. In a report prepared by Don Simpson, titled "Sewerage System Study and Report #5," dated 1964, the storm water inflow varied from 800 gallons per day to 1600 gallons per day. The report also states, "the stonn water inflow allowance for newly sewered areas is 600 gallons per acre per day and is in addition to the peak sanitary sewage flow." For the purpose of this study and report, 1000 gallons per acre/day was selected, since only a minor area of the total system is beinq improved. -13- SECTION 8 -DESIGN CRITERIA Land use will not change. Sewer pipe size is detennined by maximum depth of flow of 0.75 x the dia- meter of the sewer pipe (0.750). Friction factors are: VCP, n = 0.013 PVC , n = 0 • 011 8.1 Sewage Inflow The design flow calculations began at the upstream end at G Street of the proposed project. This quantity of flow is a summation of infiltration plus August·and September's water useage plus an allowance for storm water inflow. For that portion of the peninsula easterly of G Street, it was detennined that the infiltration rate was equal to 2.7 times the average daily water useage (December/January), refer to Plate A-10.1. Using this factor, in- filtration and total design flow was calculated at F Street. The next point of design flow calculation was at B Street. Measured flow data was available at this point. Using the measured flow data and the computed data at F Street, the rate of infiltration between B Street and F Street was calculated, refer to Plate A-10.1. In rehabilitating and/or reconstructing deteriorated sanitary sewers, only that portion of the system within public rights of way are corrected. Norm- ally in rehabilitating, only the mainline is corrected. Therefore, this leaves that portion of the lateral outside of public rights of way or the total length of lateral in its present condition. This has to be accounted for in an infiltration reduction analysis. The method chosen for this study and report is an empirical analysis based on the assumption that the majority of the infiltration is occurring at the pipe joints. Assuming the joint separation on the lateral is equal to the joint separation on the mainline and surcharging these joints to the ground surface, the orifice formula {Q=ca ~ can be employed to develop a relationship between lateral and mainline infiltration. The calculations for this study and report yielded 55% mainline and 45% lateral. The calculations appear in the appendix, Plate A-9. -14- - - - At B Street the above discussed lateral infiltration factor was applied and a total design flow at B Street was computed. Refer.to Plate A-10.2. Side flows at B Street were brought into the system. The manhole at B Street has a side inlet sewer, that collects sewage south of the manhole. This inlet is approximately four feet above the main sewer. The continu- ous flow from the inlet would cause erratic readings on the flow meter. Due t~ the unsatisfactory flow conditions within the manhole at B Street (City line), flow could not be measured; therefore, the flow measurement was obtained upstream at C Street. This required estimating the addi- tional flow between C Street and B Street. Also estimating the flow south of Balboa Boulevard at the B Street manhole was required. The calcula- tions for these estimates appear in the appendix, Plate A-10.2. 8.2 Design Flows Design flows were based on the amount of water consumed during peak months and expected infiltration. Refer to Plate A-10.3. -15- - - ... SECTION 9 -PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS After computing the design flows and hydraulic capacities of the existing sanitary sewer lines within the project reach, it became obvious that ca- pacity deficiencies existed. These hydraulic deficiencies can not be cor- rected by only reducing the roughness coefficient through a polyester lining process; therefore, the alternates selected are a combination of lining and new sanitary sewer line construction or only new sanitary sewer line construc- tion. 9.1 The Existing System The existing system can be repaired by slipping new pipe inside or by lining the pipe. The polyester lining process involves insertion of a liner bag, impregnated with a polyester resin, (trade name--Insituform Process}. "Inversion Lining" is another tenn used for this method. The lining material is inserted into an inversion tube. Cold water is pumped through the tube, forcing the material to conform to the pipe configuration. When the lining is fully extended, the cold water is circulated through a boiler where it is heated and recirculated through the liner. The heat pro- cess cures and hardens the thermal setting resin. After the resin is cured the water is pumped out and any connections are cut. The curing time for the resin is approximately !our.hours and the anticipated lateral downtime approximately 12 hours. Because of high groundwater condi- tions due to tidal effect, this lateral downtime could be very critical. In- filtration would occur in the laterals thereby reducing the capacity available for storage. A four inch pipe has storage capacity of 0.65 gallons per lineal foot. The sewer mains are 10 feet from the property line. Available storage to the property line is 6.5 gallons plus a vertical rise equal to 2.6 gallons (based on four feet). Realistically, each resident would be without sewer service during the curing process. The cities of Taft and Santa Monica have inversion 1 ined sewers. They did not have a ground· water problem and Santa Monica had no lateral considerations. Taft did have some problems with laterals filling and causing flooding in the -16- - ... - residence. Both cities had a root intrusion problem. It is necessary to remove the roots and locate the laterals with a video camera. The sewer in Balboa Boulevard would have to be cleaned, derooted and laterals located prior to lining. This would be done during low tide. A camera can- not produce pictures under water. The sewer would have to be closed be- tween manholes and pumps installed to remove the infiltration and ~ewage. Lining the s_ewers does not provide the capacity required, Refer to appendix, Plates A-10 and A-11. The advantages of preventing construction of a new sewer and inconvtence to traffic are eliminated. Isolated failures in the existing pipe would have to be repaired. Full value of a reduced friction factor (n} cannot be considered because the lining takes the form of the existing sewer. The imperfections would increase the normal friction factor. Slip lining is not considered a feasible alternative because the capacity would be reduced. Any obstruction such as a lateral extending into the main sewer or a deflection in the sewer would prevent slip lining, without repairing and eliminating the obstruction. "Johns-Manville Ring-Tite PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe Installation Guide" recommends the largest pipe to be installed within a 10 11 diameter pipe is a 411 diameter pipe. 9.2 Sewer Pipe Materials Sewer pipe materials considered are: 1. Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) 2. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC} 3. Reinforced Plastic Mortar (RPM} 4. High Density Polyethylene (HOPE} VCP has been used satisfactorily for many years. The design life of 40 years is very conservative. The sewer pipe has resistance to chemicals and salt water. The type of joint has been improved and allows a mini- mal amount of infiltration. Properties of a 10 11 extra strength VCP sewer a re: 1. Weight per foot, 45 pounds 2. Nominal laying length, 5 feet 3. trushing strength, 2100 pounds 4. Joint deflection, 2.5 degrees -17- - All of the other pipe materials are products of chemical resin fabrications and pos~ess similar specifications. Properties of a 10" diameter PVC sewer are: 1. Weight per foot, 7 pounds 2. Nomiflal laying lenth, 20 feet 3. Beam strength, 1200 pounds 4. Joint deflection, 3 degrees The pipe is allowed to deflect up to 5% of the nominal diameter or 0.5" for a 10 11 diameter pipe. Ring tite joints are used on PVC pipe, which resist infiltration. Less joints mean less root intrusion. PVC manufacturers claim excellent re- sistance to the chemicals and sea water that may be expected in sanitary sewers. Experience of years of service is not available, but there appears to be no dissatisfaction with PVC. Realistic 'n' values for VCP and PVC are 0.013 and 0.011, respectively. PVC sewers have greater capacity than VCP sewers of equal diameters. The number of joints per foot of VCP is 0.2 and 0.05 for PVC or a 4:1 ratio. Infiltration resistance would also have the same ratio. The ease of installation for PVC is superior to VCP. The construction time can be reduced, and there will be less inconvenience to the residents. PVC pipe can deflect where VCP cannot (except at joints). Smaller sized pipe can be used if PVC is selected. Refer to Plate A-10. No further consideration for VCP will be used in this report. 9.3 Alternatives The various factors for alternative consideration·have been stated. Alter- natives selected are listed: 'A' Replace existing sewer with a new sewer in the center or offset from the center in Balboa Boulevard, from A Street to G Street. R~fer to Plates A-12, A-13 and A-24. -18- 1 B1 Replace existing sewers with a new sewer in Balboa Boulevard and place a new 8 11 sewer above the main sewer (Piggy Back) from B to D St~eets. Refer to Plates A-14 and A-15. 'C' Same as 'A' but house connections are placed on minimum slope from R/W to sewer main. Refer to Plate A-16. 1 0 1 All exisitng mainline sani~ary sewers between A Street and G Street are 'lined with polyester lining. Construct new relief sanitary sewer between B Street and G Street. 1 E1 The existing 8 11 concrete sanitary sewer between B Street and F Street is lined with polyester lining. Construct new sanitary sewer between A Street and G Street. Abandon existing mainline sewers on the northerly side of Balboa Boulevard between A Street and G Street and 12" V.C.P. between A Street and B Street. 1 F' Same as Alternate 1 E' except instead of lining existing 8 11 con- crete sanitary sewer between B Street and F Street, construct new 8 11 sanitary sewer between B Street and F Street. 9.4 Construction Specialty Items The following construction procedures are recommended for this project: 1. Fill the abandoned sanitary sewers with portland cement concrete slurry and abandon existing manholes per Plates A-22 and A-23. 2. Pavement shall be subsealed over existing sanitary sewers~ per Ca 1 trans s peci fi cation·, Sec ti on 41 . 3. Water jetting~ the introduction of water under pressure to the pipe zone, shall not be used to compact the backfill of PVC pipe. 4. Dewatering shall be continuous until the trench backfill has been placed to a depth of one foot above the top of pipe. 5. No mechanical compaction equiJlTient shall be used in the trench backfilling process until the trench backfill is greater than three feet above the top of pipe. -19- 6. The contractor shall indemnify the City for all damages resulting from construction procedures, and failure to maintain required sewage flow. 7. Liquidated damage provisions should provide for a reasonable penalty for delay and a monetary incentive for completing early. 8. All connections, including manholes, shall be watertight. 9. All new manholes, including manhole steps, shall be lined with a waterproof and sulfate resistant material. 10. As the sheeting is being removed, the resulting voids shall be backfilled and hand-tamped to re-establish side support for the pipe 11. Backfill material shall have a sand equivalent of not less than sixty. 9.5 Construction Costs Each of the alternates includes the cost of pavement subsealing. Subsealing was estimated to cover three square feet per foot of existing sewer pipe main. It was assumed that 10 percent of the area above the sewer pipe was voids. Construction costs are listed for each of the al terna tes. Refer to Plates A-17 to A-21 : Plate A-17 A $647,000 Plate A-18 B $706,000 Plate A-17 c $647,000 Plate A-19 0 $837,000 Plate A-20 E $667,000 Plate A-21 F $726,000 -20- - SECTION 10 -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.l Inversion Lining Attempting to polyester line (Inversion Lining Process) the existing sani- tary sewer system, without installing new house connections, would not achieve the primary objective of minimizing infiltration. Polyester lin- ing the existing sanitary sewer system and installing new house connections creates the following potential problems and/or considerations~ 1. The sewer laterals are cut in after the mainline sewer has been lined and the lining has cured. The lateral is unable to drain for approximately twelve hours. The twelve hour time is quoted by the manufacturer. Public agencies that installed the inversion lin- ing, stated, the out of service time could be twenty-four hours. High ground water, due to tidal effect, could increase the curing time for the inversion lining. The sewer lateral is out of ser- vice until the inversion lining has cured. Continued use of the sewer lateral depends on the storage capacity. Sewer facilities are available to the resident until the capacity of the sewer lateral is reached. The alternative would be to dis- continue the water service until the sewer lateral is placed in service. .. Unless the water service is discontinued, sewage could back up and overflow into and flood the residence. This causes an inconven- ience and potential liability for the City and contractor. 2. The existing sanitary sewer system, after polester lining, re- mains hydraulically deficient; thus, requiring the installation of a new relief sewer. 3. The inversion lining alternates do not significantly reduce the inconvenience for traffic and local residents as it relates to the sewer replacement alternates, because the inversion lining alternates include new sewer construction. -21- - - - 4. The sewer lateral locations are determined after inversion lining, . with a television (T.V.) camera. A dimple appears in the lining at the sewer lateral connection. A polyester lining cutter provides the opening for the lateral. It is possible that the person moni- toring the television projection may miss a lateral location, due to lack of lining indentation. The probable solution, to prevent this ·from occurring, is to locate the laterals with the television camera, prior to and after lining the mainline sewer. The pre- lining television viewing would be an additional cost. 10.2 Utility Interference There are insignificant differences in utility interferences among the alternates, with the exception of alternate 'B', the 11 piggy back" alternate. The sewer laterals in this alternate are tied to the upper sewer line, thus creating the potential of elevation conflict with the gas and water utility lines. 10.3 Construction Difficulties Anticipated construction difficulties for all alternates are as foll-0ws: 1. Installation of well points and pumping, for dewatering the trench. 2. Caving of trench walls, necessitating solid trench sheeting. 3. Control of traffic through the constructi9n area. 4. Providing access for all residences within the construction area. 5. Providing non-interrupted sanitary sewer service. 6. Some utility conflicts. 7. Possible tree removal and replacement. 8. Concrete removal, replacement and subsealing pavement. 9. The water p~mped from the trench must be filtered before discharge. The method shall be approved by the State of California Water Qua~ity Control Board. The most difficult reach of construction will be from the existing sewer lift station westerly of A Street to B Street. This reach has two problems: one, tying into the existing wet well; and, two, maintaining continuous sewage flow, during construction of the proposed sewer system. -22- Providing a new sewer connection into the wet well involves definitive construction procedures, as this environment is classified by OSHA as hazardous. In addition to the required safety measures, the.existin~ wet well operation causes surging which may cause backflow into the construc- tion work area. The alternate to breaking into the wet well is to construct a manhole over the existing sanitary sewer contiguous with the wet well. Refer to Plate A-24. Construct the manhole in such a manner that the existing sanitary sewer will remain in service until the manhole has been completed. This minimizes the hazardous work environment and construction problems relating to backflow. This alternate appears to be the best of the two solutions. Two sewer alignments between the existing lift station and B Street are shown on Plate A-24. First alignment option is offsetting the proposed sewer seven feet northerly fr_om the existing sewer. Second alignment option is constructing the proposed sewer in the same location as the existing sewer. It appears the first alignment option is the better of the two. The exist- ing sewer would remain in service until the proposed sewer was in place, thus avoiding by-pass pumping. Leaving the proposed sewer dry in this reach un- til it is complete and in place is feasible, there are no lateral connections in this reach; therefore, any lateral problems wh1ch could result from off- setting the mainline sewer will not exist. 10.4 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Alternates 1 A1 , 1 8 1 and 'C' are replacements with new sewers. The :Jasic . differences in the three alternates are as follows: 1. Alternate 'A', sewer laterals are straight graded from the right- of-way line to the proposed sewer. (Plate A-13) 2. Alternate 'B! encompasses a "piggy back·" system from B Street to 0 Street. The sewer laterals slope from the right-of-way line to the upper sewer main line at two (2) percent. ( Pl ate A-15 ) -23- - - - - - 3. Alternate 'C~ sewer laterals slope from the right-of-way line ·to the sewer mainline at two (2) percent until the lateral inter- sects at forty-five (45) degrees (shall not exceed slope stability) to join the sewer main. (Plate A-16) 10.5 Maintenance Alterna.te 1 8 1 "piggy back" system has some maintenance advantages over alter ... nates 'A' and 'C' between B Street and D Street. These are: 1. The lower sewer between Band D Streets has no lateral connections, thus eliminating grease build-up at those points of lateral connec- tion to the main sewer. 2. The upper sewer would be constructed at a shallower depth. Shallower depths would make future repairs easier and less ex- pensive because less sea water would be encountered in the trench excavation. Conversely, alternates 'A' and 'C' contain 2,568 L.F. of mainline sewer while alternate 1 8 1 contains 3,557 L.F. of mainline sewer; therefore, future maintenance requirements could be greater with the "piggy back" system, because there is 989 additional lineal feet to maintain. (Alternate 1 8 1 ) The alternates that involve polyester lining, 1 0', 'E'. and 'F' contain the following lineal footage of mainline sewer: Alternate IO' = 7,040 L. F. Alternate IE' = 4,266 L. F. Alternate IF' = 4 ,311 L.F. Considering that all project alternates are operating under similar environ- mental conditions, it is reasonable to assume that the comparative mainte- nance costs will be proportional to the length of the system being maintained. Alternate 'O' maintenance cost would be the highest and alternates 'A' and 'C' the lowest. The new sanitary sewer system, within the project limits$ will significantly reduce the maintenance cost. Maintenance of the remaining sanitary sewer system, tributary to the proposed system, will remain unchanged. The -24- - - - - rema1n1ng sewer system contributes a substantial amount of grease. Grease deposits were discovered in the manhole of G Street, during the flow measure- ment. Seawater infiltration will contribute sand. 10.6 Alternate Comparison -Advantages/Disadvantages A. Alternate 'A' or 'C' 1. Sanitary sewer mainline and lateral construction between A Street and G Street will result in considerable traffic and local residence disturbance, as mainline trench excavation will occur throughout the project limits (A Street to G Street) and the lateral trench excavation will traverse the entire right-of-way width. The trench excavation may make access to residences difficult at times. 2. Cost effectiveness rating -on a scale of one to five, five being the most costly, these alternates rate number 1. 3. These alternates provide for new sanitary sewer construction, thus providing for an anticipated longer system life. 4. These alternates do not involve polyester lining. Polyester lining results in sewer lateral down time of 12-24 hours cre- ating the possibility of sanitary sewer s~rvice shut down to the residence and the probability of flooding the interior of the residences. These alternates minimize the probability of dis- continued sanitary sewer service. B. Alternate 1 8 1 1. This alternate is the same as alternates 'A' or 'C' with the ~xception that alternate 'B' provides a "piggy back" system be- tween 1 8 1 Street and 1 01 Street. 2. The addition of the "piggy back" system results in greater con- struction cost than alternates 'A' and 'C'. -25- - - 3. It is anticipated that maintenance cost between 'B' Street and 'D' Street on the upper sewer would be reduced as repair work would be done at shallower depths; however, repair work on the lower sewer would be more costly than single sewer maintenance as the upper sewer hinders access to the lower sewer. There is 989 additional feet to maintain. 4. The construction of two "drop" manholes is required in this al- ternate. Normally, "drop" manhole maintenance cost is greater than standard manhole maintenance cost. 5. Cost effectiveness rating is number 3. 6. Items 1, 3, and 4 under Alternate 'A' or 'C' above, also apply to a 1 ternate 'B' . C. Alternate 'D' 1. As compared with alternates 'A', 'B' and 'C', the traffic and local residence disturbance would be somewhat reduced because the trench excavation for. the laterals would be confined to the outer 15' ~ feet of the right-of-way. 2. This alternate involves polyester lining. Polyester lining re- sults in sewer lateral down time of 12-24 .. hours creating the possibility of sanitary sewer service shut down to the residence and the probability of flooding the interior of the residences. 3. Cost effectiveness rating is number 5. D. Alternate 'E' 1. As compared with alternates 'A', 1 8 1 and 'C' the traffic and local residence disturbance would be somewhat reduced because the trench excavation for the laterals would be confined to the outer 15' ! feet of the right-of-way. 2. This alternate involves polyester lining. Polyester lining results in sewer lateral down time of 12-24 hours creating the possibility of sanitary sewer service shut down to the residence and the proba- bility of.flooding the interior of .the residences. -26- - ... 3. Cost effectiveness rating is number 2. E. Alternate 1 F' 1. This alternate is the same as alternate 'E' except that instead of lining the old existing 8" concrete sewer from B Street to F Street on the southerly side at Balboa Boulevard it would be re- moved and replaced. 2. The traffic and local residence disturbance for this alternate compare favorably with alternates 'D' and 'E'. 3. Cost effectiveness rating is number 4. On the basis of the discussion,. within this section, the recommended a.lter- nates are 'A' or 'C', using PVC (or equivalent) sewer pipe. The laterals for alternate 'C' are shallower, throughout most of the lateral lenqth~ there- by reducing excavation and trench water removal; however, this advantage could be offset by lateral utility interferences at the shallower lateral depths. These alternates provide complete replacement of the sewer system (mainlines and laterals) from the sewage lift station to 'G' Street. Alternates 1 A1 and 'C' are the most cost efficient. Design life is the longest. Future maintenance costs are the least. Alternates 'D', 'E' and 'F' include in- version lining, with anticipated liability to the City and contractor . -27- ---. -----··. I l I l l I I l l I l l I L ( l [ I l ( 1 : : 11 1 l 11 · I · 1111 --~rr~ mr~,, i~: i ~ n11 m 1 .. ___ . _. ~ _: I .: I Ii !I! I llll!llil !!II 1111 -. . . .. ·---:~:.:;":".." . ;: :II : . 111 1 · I ,;1!1! 1 11 IJ!rli!i! llli 11 1 1" -~,-~:·:-::~.>:~·~~~"-~~~>-·-·~:=:·· ! I t: i· •.•. i!ll· I 11!!!1 . I ii!;!tiii •i•I .1 I . ... ·--... --.1 .... ,.. -·---~-: · l ; : ; : ' j : -; ·; · : r iTll i tr1-11iTtt~fr-s'T~J x ,JW~ iEJ;.J iii i 1i11 I I I.I . -. -. --~ ~ -~: -. ----~: ~ ~ -_. -~.~ ~;~:~ H ~ :. ,'.;, ,~ _ • 1 !::. J;,\I 1 , '.: !'.~1 ::!_!:!:;:ii!:::::: ,!J'.!l!1!_ :_· · -I :--_: :_:~:i :_; ~~~~-~:~:·;:~Fiif . i. i .• i '~; •... 1. . .. 1 •• 1 i 11t1 1 ., ii t I 1+1 ~-l-1 ··1 tli 1 i-i i-i-i~-· !.. i-i-i-.li 1+L1--1--... --1·11 ·--~ -·-~""-'-~ '---.·. · · .. ~Ill :>1~;: t::~::l ;: ...... :au -H(Jvk~hH~~!i~ · .. Liii !!Jiff!!! :H:11r!·f·!: !·· .. u. ~~ .. ,~ ~~-~.-~:-·_, __ .~:<--~-.-· : iiill!.! !i.::::I ! . :!ll! 'l1l!1~~J-~ ,r~I :::~~~~:::·;:~ .,k v.1'~11. )'"]._· ~ .... -~ ........... :.::~·::,...,:: -' i ;.!-!-.!.:... ... ~~ · ~i--; --. -~._;iJ' 1 I · 1· I ! 1 · · IXt · 1· ii t 1 1 : f Ii i"bo''a 1 1; 1·· · -· -r.Ic·:.-~ J ~ · ~ ~}~ -~-~ ---· · · .... _~ _ .... ~ . _. ·-,_,_~. . . i . , : . ;\ · ~':.. • ! i 'J, O ,lv t,"-! j U;'\i ~ i , u'; I( r\ )\}' l · t. --· · · -'-I• i. • ---· ... -._,_ ,_ -.. 1111 tJJ iLktfn_ · 1 :r~ __ ;Vi~!? 11 -1 : YA~~=~ :i:~fWW~w:~~: -:=~~ ~-:~~ ~~~.~ ;;~~~~ ~i; ;_" :~: = :--~ -._ --·-"-~ ===~ 15 I 11 ' 11 I i I I I I . ' I ' ' , i I I ---I 1-1--' I------. --" -------. -------" . -" ---------" --_, '" " .. 'H l1il i I I 1 I I I 1 i I l ! l 1111 -----:~~: _; :L~--~ ~~~}~: ~~:itf~ :~ :-~:~~ ~ :: ;~ :~ :-:~·--== ::: <":~"" -: '' -: -"I;.; -1-;~'.~Ji,.:.ii}l'-l~l'-l~;,H,.;:;pJr=.i+:~: fl'O /,~ \ 2(} PROFILE SCALE: 25 30 35 '-' HORIZ. : 1"=100' VERT. : /''= 4' ORIGINAL SCALE ~ ~ : LEGEND o EXIST MANHOLE -·-·CITY SEWER MAIN ---COUNTY SEWER MAIN (IO"J EXIST MAIN SIZE •• .., loCIO -I'll-I MDUCID PLAN Pl.ATE A-I OltGINA&. ICA&.t••··IOlt BALBOA BL VO. -----.-..re&lil SEWER SYSTEMS IH-.....~~-----._,_ ....... .:_-:_--EXISTING FACILITIES EEI--~---~ ·n.i. ~ . . art or w1W10111UC11 •CYISOCI -w -c-1111' .. llOtJll I - - - ~ HLGH TIDE EL. + 3.1 0620 1020 SCALE 1420 HOUR OF DAY SUNDAY 1-29-84 HORZ. 111 = 4 HOURS VERT. 111 = 3 II 2220 0220 0620 MONDAY 1-30-84 MH AT MAIN ST. DEPTH OF FLOW 8 11 VCP SEWER EAST BALBOA BLVD. PLATE A-2 - - - - - UNCOLH, NEBRASKA =i=:c::-.z-~-:100-· ==::::.:t=:...~=-:.-'= :..:. ·-~ -·--· . ..,<E --------- -----·----.. ·----.. -· -- l'~•"u.1.a. ,_ -~1~0~ MH AT B ST{T C ST~ 100~ ·--= .. 90 ·-.. _._ ~---.. -· ·-~ ·-·........--~:: -...-_,,___, • I ~ ... ______ --::.. ~ - .... -_:S.ii~-===~· --·----. .!~-==, :-:-· ===· I 70==.--==-=+--=.-. -··-=· ··-· c.: ·--60 --~1:: -------··· ·-------·--·--·------. ---··-· : ... _·r. __ -· • ............ ...::::!::.-. _.......-~-. --.c::= ··---.&.: 1· ~- •~·=-~· II ~-=: ·-. ........:.: "":."':'. :_ ~ 11--:-.~ ~ ~ ail!;:-.;. . ·~ .L:.-:.-:.~.J_:_ -==-=----= ~~~~-:.: .... -~:.-:.·:·E:::;:: -.:;; :.:.~.-===i... ~ ;::::-.. ::--. --. -.. =:r=1b-. ··------. --•;-;.., ~-1 --. . --•.•. -· -. . .. 1 o---.. ··-. ;: :.:.. =.. -.. -.:. -:. ·~--~F·.:-~ -· ·:.:: ...• ":"":~~--=--~ -.:·;; ~ ~ '!f':------:, -""' ..: .• ;-4,;. = ·.;.. .• ~-=-.--· --. :-::-.:~== =:=:: -.:-.:~: ~-:·r-_-:-==-== ~:: :-=: ~~ -·t::..--. -. . ~ .4:...-~~:---:-=:.··· ---· = = -··. -. r .~~~ = ~' :-_:; _·:.· ~ .. . . -~-.r:.;. --. ---t:-· ·--· .._. =-... -~==-.i.=-=. ~~..:n-=:+.::=--~.=--~-. -=:. · ·,. ~-.; ~ .t·:..--· :--·~~--:.::.-~.a-=~~~~. ,_-_ ---·:.::... =-=- --· 0420 0820 1220 1620 2020 0020 0420 HOUR OF DAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY 2-14-94 2-1e -94 SCALE HORZ. I" = 4 HOURS DEPTH OF FLOW 10 11 VCP SEWER VERT~ , .. = 9 .. EAST BALBOA BLVD. PLATE A-3 [ j) I I I I [ [ I I I I I I I I l l I I_ II ISCO, INC. l!MCOl.N, H£9t1ASK.\ •••11• • •.1.a. P/H UO•OSOO·OJ ISCO, INt:. U _ 60_ . _ . --~.o . _ _ 6~= ___ -: -· 6<>= _ 60-. -. .E6o: =r-. c • ----_ 6.~ ~f~;~~~:~~~::·-~~~i~~~~i;~~i~~~~ ~--~:::~i~X~·~~~::.:=~~, _ ,_ --:::~··~i ~f~~~~:~~~;~[i~~~~i~:5~~~~~~i~~~~;~=~~~5_;.:~~~~:~:~~i§~1:~~r~~~I~~ :LI::l>.=..·~-:: ::.1:., ··: ~· ~~ ::~ ~~·---~ -. --.:..: ; _ -~ :.;::: := .• ··-· .... .: :-:-..: ~ . .:. =.:. ~:. &".':::IE:-·r-==i:t=r .: ·.a~-.::1= -_ . : =: ... .:. 1-:==" ~ =:-::r-:--:R :l:.~: · ";u, 11 "• LINCOLN, NEBRASKA PllMUIM11.1.1.__ ________ --"HZ50·0800•0J ____ ~~ ll '" LIHCOU, HEllRASICA I T-T-1 I -g(j' I ::u~_ .. _ _._ 1~1~~~~~i~f ~~~ib~i~§~~i;~~~~~i~~~~;~~~;3~~~~~~ : ~ -.-:r __ :So_ ·----· .-·s_o SOE :~.··· ·-·~ . s_o: , ___ .o· ~CP,·· ""'""'·:s::=..L 5 ~40,.-:it 30. =r.:C·Vg;.t§~~ . -==--= ::=.Jo---= ....... ·- THURSDAY 3-1-84 SCALE HORZ I 11 = I HOUR VERT I"= 9" -~:4~..:, _.,_ff.3~¥.J~~==::~ .... .. ..._ .... : 0 ~3 DEPTH OF FLOW 1011 VCP SEWER EAST BALBOA BLVD. = PLA.TE A-4 --------,. . . . - §l Q i Q "' t i "1 :: : - 1 ~ " < ; - ~V i ~ c: : : , "1 · 'i l ~ : : : t ;! ) :t ; ; l: . ~, . . . . . " 1 .. ~ gi C' ) ' ~ - ~: i s ; - s - Vi "\ ) ' C l : > "i ~~ ~ C' ) ~ :- . . ~ .C' ) ~ -, " ~ .. - ;; ; .. , ~ ~ '~ " ~ 119 .• - - .. :~6 .. . ~\. v.-_-;,:) ·. ,-----, . f I : WATER CONSUMrlaw AREAS PLATE A-6 WATER CONSUMPTION TABLE Area Months Year Cubic Feet Gallons A April -May 1983 61,700 462,750 June -July 1983 102,700 770,250 August-September 1983 88,3-00 662,250 December-January 1984 62 ,000· 465,000 B April -May 1983 226,200 .1, 6•96 ,500 June -July 1983 456,900 3,426,750 August-September 1983 412,000 3,090,000 December•January 1984 224,500 1,683,750 .. c April -May . 1983 91,900 689,250 June -July 1983 131,000 984,750 August-September 1983 159,300 1,194,750 December-January 1984 93,900 704,250 -c April -May 1983 50,900 381,750 (B-C) June -July 1983 70,000 525,000 August-September 1983 89,400 670,500 December-January 1984 52,600 394,500 c April -May 1983 88,400 663,000 (A-B) June -July 1983 127,000 952,500 ~ugust-September 1983 168,~00 1,262,250 Qecember-January 1984 102,800 771,000 F April -May 1983 745,900 5,594,250 June -July 1983 956,900 7,176,750 August-September 1983 928,900 6,966,750 December-January 1984 660,900 4,956,750 G April -May 1983 661,500. 4,961,250 June -July 1983 919,600 6,897,000 ... August-September 1983 999,600 7,497,000 December-Janaury 1984 633,100 4,748,250 Pl ate A-7 Table 2 ... INFILTRATION Point Max. Total Water Useage <i> Infiltration Location Designation Flow (CFS·) Period Avg. Daily Q{CFS) QC CFS) l'b Tot Fl OW C & Balboa A 0.25 Dec/Jan 0.01 0.24 96 83-84 B & Bal boa 1 1.36 Dec/Jan 0.28 . 1.08 79 C & Bal boa 2 83-84 112' So. of . I G Street (So.) 3 0.89 Dec/Jan .. 0.24 0.65 73 G Street (So.) 4 . 83-84 A & Bal boa 5 -to 1.87 Dec/Jan 0.35 1.52 81 B & Bal boa 6 83-84 : CD Average daily flow from City's Water Billings Pl ate A-8 - EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS: HOUSE CONNECTION INFILTRATION Sea water infiltrates through joints cracks and failures {deterioration, isolated holes or collapse) in the sewer and seeps through the manhole walls and connections. The County manholes have been lined. There was no conclusive evidence to i·ndicate infiltration through the City manholes. Infiltration has been estimated in the study, for the total system. It is necessary to detennine the amount contributed by the house connections, thus the sewer main infiltration can be detennined. For the purpose of this analysis we have assumed that the joints allow sea water to enter and. that the size of opening at the joint will be the same for both sewers, {K1 = Kz = K3) (see FIG 1). ~i . ~-, .,,,,--J r----, / I J • HOU$£ L 4 ~ BENO! LATERAL~\ I ~JI 1-----~ ·"' FIG. 1 Therefore the area (a) is a direct relationship depending on diameter of the respective sewers. The gap K1, Kz, KJ, relates to the area of the opening in the joint allowing water to pass (refer to Plate A-9.l}. The amount of water entering the joint can be determined by the orifice formula Q = cai/29h. The term h refers to the relative depth of sewer or depth of water causing a head (pressure}. Because the house connections are not as deep as the main sewers, less head is available. Hence the tenns hl h2, and hJ are a relation·- ship to each other. Plate A-9 .. Because a1, a2, and a3 are functions of diameter, c1 and g are constants, Qi, Qz and Q3.become functions of diameter and head thus the relationship to total infiltration. Qi + Q2 + Q3 = Q, the total infiltration in the sewer. Therefore Ql, Q2 and QJ can be expressed as a % relationship to the total infiltration. Refer to Plates A-9.1 and A-9.2 • Plate A-9 - - INFILTRATION : MAINLINE VS.. HOUSE CONNECTION BALBOA BLVD. PT. I MAINLINE ilio. z 10'' Assumptions: 1. Infiltration occurs ~t tbe pipe joint. 0 pr., MAINLINE dio.: s" 2. The joint gaps for the mainline are equal to the joint gaps for the H. C. 's. 3. The gaps are acting as orifices. 4. Compelte ground saturation during high tide. Q = Ca"'\f29ii (orifice equation) C = Orifice Coefficient a= Area of Ori£ice (sq. ft.) g =.32.2 ft/sec Ql vs Q2 vs Q3 Q as compared to Q2 c1 = c2 a1 = P1K1 10" Sewer ('PT .1) al = 3.14 X .833 X K1 2. 62 K1 4" Sewer (PT.2) a2 = 3.14 X .333 X K2 = 1.05 K2 Whereas P= Perimeter 8" Sewer ( PT.3) a3 = 3.14 X 0.667 X K3 a3 = 2.09 K3 K = Gq.p (PT.l) 10" sewer joint infiltration = Cl a(V2Qhi (PT. 2) 4" sewer joint i nfi 1 trat ion = C2 a2i2gh2 {PT.3) 811 sewer joint infiltration= C3 a3-tJ2gh3 The 2g is common for all sizes. Therefore infiltration rates for 10", 8 11 and 4" pipe sizes as as follows: (PT.1) ai fhi = 2.62 Ki ht Ki = K2 = K3 therefore 2.62-{hi { PT. 2) a2 ..Jh2. = 1·. 05 K2 h2 1. 05 "fti2 Plate A-9.1 - - - 1111111 10 11 4" hl6' h2 = 2.9 2.a2 ifhi i.o5 lfil2 Study Limits: B Street to F Street Number of house connections = 118 Average length of H.C. = SO Total length of H.C. = SO X 118 = 5900' Length of mainline = 1853' of 10" Length of mainline = 1049 1 of 8" Lengt~ of pipe between joints 4" :s 3.33' 8" = 3.33' 10" = 5' Number of Joints 411 H.C.'s: 5900' 3.33 = 1772 Mainline ·au: 1049' = 315 3.33 10 11 : 1853 = 371 -s- 411 H.C. Infiltration 1.05 i.["2:9 x 1772 = 3168 Mainline Infiltration 8": 2.09 x-VS x 315 = 1472 1011 : 2. 62 x ~ x 3 71 = 2381 h2 = 2.9' Mainline Total = 3853 Grand Total = 7021 8" ~S.' 2.09 ifh3 Mainline Infiltration = SS% of Total Infiltration House Connection Infiltration = 45% of Total Infiltration Plate A-9. 2 u J J I I ~ I J J l i..I ' I iJ J J J J J J J I ...i DESIGN COMPUTATIONS AND TABLES Plate A-10 - ·Design Infiltration Computations X Water Use (Q = Infiltration/Q-Consumption) Figures below obtained from Plate A-10.3 A-B 1.52/0.35 = 4.3 B-F 1.08/0.28 = 3.9 F-G 0.65/0.24 = 2.7 Infiltration Reduction @ B Street (County Sewer) Water useage addition at F Street and Balboa Boulevard 153 lots = .04 cfs tributary to B Street 55 1 ots = • 02 FS Assume 8" sewer northerly of Bal boa from F Street to I Street and southerly of Balboa Boulevard in F Street are infiltrating at the same rate as those lines tributary to the M.H. at Balboa Boulevard and G Street. Infiltration rate = 2.7 X Water Useage 0.02 X 2.7 = 0.06 cfs (Infiltration addition at F Street and Balboa Boulevard) Total flow downstream of F Street (County Sewer) = 0.89 + .06 + .02 = 0.97 cfs Infiltration in 10" County Sewer between B Street and F Street = 1.08 -0.97 = 0.11 cfs Total measured flow at B Street (County Sewer) = 1.36 cfs New mainline construction will reduce the infiltration from 0.11 to (0.11 x .45) = 0.05 cfs plus infiltration allowance of 0.01 cfs for new construction. Therefore the total infiltration at B Street (County Sewer) after new construction will be infiltration at G Street plus infiltration at F Street + 0.06 cfs Total infiltration at B Street (County Sewer) after new mainline construction = 0.65 + 0.11 + 0.06 = 0.82 cfs Total infiltration A Street to B street (County Sewer) after new mainline construction Existing infiltration (A Street to B Street) minus infiltration reduction at B Street (County Sewer) minus i~filtration reduction at B Street (City Sewer) plus ne~ construction allowance = 1.52 -(1.08 -0.82) -(0.32 -0.15) + .01=1.52 -0.26 -0.17 + O. 01 = 1. 1 O cfs Plate A-10.1 - - - - Flow estimation @ 11 811 Street in City sewers which could not be measured by flow meters: Alley southerly of Balboa Boulevard between "A" and 11 811 Streets and in Bal boa Boulevard between "B" and 11 C" Streets. Measured fl ow at 11 C11 Street (City sewer): Maximum flow = 0.25 cfs Number of H.C.S. = 39 (Concrete Sewer) Maximum flow/lot = 0.25 = 0.0064 cfs/lot 39 13 H.C. 's served via concrete sewer ("B" Street to 11 C11 Street) Estimated Q = 0.0064 X 13 = 0.08 cfs 27 lots are served by V.C.P. sewer Use a factor of 73~ X 0.0064 = 0.005 cfs/lot 96% Re: clay versus cone. pipe 27 lots X 0.005 cfs/lot = 0.14 cfs Total Q (estimated from area) = 0.08 + 0.14 = 0.22 cfs Estimated flow for the area located on the northerly side of Balboa Boulevard between "A" and 11 811 Streets -Lots 8 through 14 7 lots -use 0.005 cfs/lot 7 X 0.005 cfs/lot = 0.04 cfs Total flow between "A" and 11 811 Streets -12" V.C.P. e~jsting line (' of street) Total Q = 1.36 + 0.04 + 0.25 + 0.22 Total Q = 1.87 cfs ----~----------------------------------~----------------------------------Water useage tributary to M.H. @ 11 B11 Street (County 12" sewer = 1,829,800* cubic feet = 0.34 cfs (Avg.) Add water useage of 7 lots on the northerly side of Balboa Boulevard bet- ween "A" and 11 811 Streets. Lots #8 thru 14 Use 0.0005 cfs/lot 0.0005 cfs/lot X 7 = .01 cfs Q in 811 concrete sewer @ 11 811 Street = 0.25 + 0.08 = 0.33 cfs *Areas A-G, December, 1983 -January 1984 Plate A-10.2 I l "'C -Pl M- ID )> I 0 . w I I I I I I I t I I I l I I I Table 3 Reach Water(D Design Infiltration (CFS) Storm Water® Design Flow From To Useage Infil.@ lnfil. @ Infi 1.@ Total Acres CFS CFS Reduction Design lnfi 1. 11 A St. 11 8° (12 .. ) 0.53 1.52 0.43 0.01 1.10 75 0 .12 usu St. llfll (10 .. ) 0.44 1.08 0.27 0.01 0.82 58 0.09 11 811 St. 11 f 11 ( 8 11 ) 0.02 o. 32 0.18 0.01 0. 15 15 0.02 11 f 11 St. 11 G11 (10 11 ) 0.37 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 55 0.08 (i) Months of August and September '83 (Avg. Daily). Peak water useage months, Plate A-7 ® Total existing infiltration, Table 2, Plate A-8 ~ Mainline infiltration reduction (See Calculations on Plate A-10.1) (!) New construction allowance = 10,000 gals/mile/day Length of rehabilitated system= 4887 L.F. (§) 1000 gals/acre/day per Sewerage System Study and Report #5 -1964 (See p. 13) ® G) + ® -@ + © + @ = Design Flow CFS@ 1. 75 1.35 0 .19 1.10 I I I l I -0 ....... ell r1" CD ..... 0 . .po I I I I l I l I I I I DESIGN HYDRAULICS -ALTERNATE A, B OR C Design n 1 n 2 Capacity 1 Reach Flow (CFS) s (CFS\ A-B 1. 75 0.00154 0.013 0.011 2.33 8-C 1.61 0.00154 0.013 0.011 2.33 C-0 1.52 0.00154 0.013 0.011 2.33 D-E 1.46 o. 00154 0.013 0.011 2.33 E-F 1.40 0.00154 0.013 0.011 2.33 f-Pt 1.10 0.00154 0.013 0.011 1.27 Pt -G 1.10 0.00154 0.013 0.011 1.27 ,_ Alternate -Construct new sanitary sewer from A Street to G Street (So.) 1 V .C.P. (3/4 diam. flow depth) 2 P.V.C. (3/4 diam. flow depth) l I I I I I Capacity Req 1 d Req 1 d (CFS) 2 Diam. 1 Diam. 2 2.75 15 11 15 11 2.75 15° 15 11 1.50 15 11 12 11 1.50 15 11 12 11 1.50 15" 12 11 1.50 12 11 12 11 1.50 12 11 12 11 I I -0 __, OJ c-t ID 1--A 0 U1 I I • I l I l ( I I I [ I I DESIGN HYDRAULICS -ALTERHATI:: 1 D1 oesir RequiredQ) Reach · . Flow CFS) Sewer Dia. .n Slope (CFS) A-B 0.80 10 11 0.011 0.0016 0.95 B-C 0.80 10 11 0.011 0.00154 0.93 C-D. 0.80 10 11 0.011 0.00154 0.93 D-E 0.60 = 10 11 0.011 0.00154 0.93 E-F 0.60 . 10 11 0.011 0.00154 0.93 F-) Pt 0.30 911 0.011 0.00154 n.51 . ). Pt -G 0.30 911 0.011 0.00154 0.51 Alternate •o• -lnsituform line 8 11 V.C.P. from A Street to B Street. line 10° V.C.P. from B Street to G Street, line 8° concrete from B Street to f Street and construct new relief sanitary sewer B-G and line 12" V.C.P. from A Street to B Street. (}) P.V.C. (3/4 diam. flow depth) l I I ·- 'I I " _,, Ill c-t to 0 . en I I I I I ( I ( I I I I { I DESIGN HYDRAULICS -ALTERNATE 1 E1 Reach Design full Depth Full Depth Deficiency Required(!) Flow (CFS) Existing Capacity (CFS) (CFS) .Sewer Di a. Capacity (CFS) After Lining n A-B 1. 75 1.24 l.38 0.39 15 11 0.011 B-C 1.42 o.a9 0.97 0.45 12 11 0.011 C-D 1.39 o. 50 0.55 0.84 12 11 0.011 D-E 1.37 0.68 0.75 0.62 12 11 0.011 E-F 1.35 0.68 0.75 0.60 12 11 0.011 F-4.Pt 1.10 0.74 o.ao 0.30 12 11 0.011 2'.Pt -G 1.10 0.93 1.01 0.09 12 11 0.011 B-C* o.1a 0.43 0.52 0 au - C-D*· o.1a 0.45 0.54 0 au - D-E* 0.18 0.47 0.56 0 au - E-F* o. 18 0.56 0.67 0 au - Alternate 1 E1 -Insituform line 8 11 concrete from B Street to F Street and construct new sanitary sewer from A Street to G Street (So.). * City Sewer CD Based on PVC and Slope= 0.00154. (3/4 diam. flow depth) I I I. Capacity (CFS) 2.75 1.50 1.50 l.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 - - - - I -0 --' Pl ~ CD ):» I ...... ...... l I I Reach A-8 8-C C-D D-E E-F F-~ Pt t Pt -G 8-C* C-0* D-E* E-F* * City Sewer I I l I Exist· - Dia (In.) n Slope 12 0.015 0.0016 10 0.015 0.0022 10 0.015 0.0007 10 0.015 0.0013 10 0.015 0.0013 10 0.015 0.0015 10 0.015 0.0024 8 0.017 0.0022 8 0.017 0.0024 8 0.017 0.0026 8 0.017 0.0037 I I I I I l I I I I I HYDRAULIC CAPACITY Af Insituf L .. ~ Q (Full) Di a (In.) n Q (Full) (CFS) (CFS) 1.24 11.5 0.012 1.38 0.89 9.5 0.012 0.97 0.50 9.5 0.012 0.55 0.68 9.5 0.012 0.75 0.68 9.5 0.012 0.75 0.74 9.5 0.012 0.80 0.93 9.5 0.012 1.01 0.43 7.5 0.012 0.52 0.45 7.5 0.012 0.54 0.47 7.5 0.012 0.56 0.56 7.5 0.012 0.67 I l I I l I l l I I I l I I ( I l l l . ·-·-•-14rt-:-t-t-•- -EEEEIIIJlE ~--·-•-1-1.:1-1-1-1-t-•-·-- 1Xl: ... _ 1-=1-1-14-1-UXttt,_. -· --·- ±Ftd+.rl?fJIM +tnt!i: ~-·-1-1 -·--·- ~ 1.nrtr1s·- --~-·-L.;,·-·-·-·-·-·-·- -·-----·---;:;'.~.-~ _ --~; ~~·:=--· ·-~-r-:~it ::· · .LW~i H: tL .\:~~!r~: y,~· .. · ____ ,} '..i_~_J~.~1 1-t-•-.-r-_r_.: : __ -. -I .. -· _ -__ -..,~ -. .. , , _,, . . . ; :. _ . _ _ _ _ . i-H-1-1-i-u-1 1-1-.. ~~·;~·~-~; =-·-: • ~ '.::. !~ { ,--~~~~-.• -~~:~'( .. ~~~··;~I~~-: : '~i~l~~fai i H uH~1l ~:ii~~-!:t~ ~. __ .. ;; {i~-: · ;~ :~~m.u '.~~ ----;:~; · · ·; ;·;-~~~ ... 1-11-•- ~--·-·- ; l{J _ _ _ ,-.. _ :. _ 1 ~ \I': ~ •• . . . . . . I--·r-1-r-I ~ ·---~--r-----I" \:~ .- I'~' ____ --------.v,_. ---s~· -,, . ______ . . , ........ __ _ •~:f 11~ ~ ~;: ~ ~ ·~; ~ m w : ·~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ -~ : .: -~ ~ ~ ~ -: ~ ; .• :-· -; i i : -~ E ! i ! ~ 1!11'~ ~ i 1 1 ~ · · l 11 ! ~ ! ! 1 ~ ; ~ ~ ! } ; 1 · ; ~ ; 1 i i~ ; ': ; -~ : : ; ~ : : ;· : : ' : ~ : ~ . , ; : : -~ -~ : ~ i: ~ /0 /5 \. 2(} PROF/LC SCALC: 25 30 35 HOR/Z.: 1"=100' VCRT. ; I"• 4' ORIGINAL SCALC H+IO J LEGEND o CXIST. MANHOLE -·--CITY SEWER MAIN ---COUNTY SEWER MAIN (IO"J EXIST. MAIN SIZE 'o PROP. MANHOLE -PRnP .t;F"WF"R MIJIAI · 1'-fN~~ :···'·:· .. ;.., . . ; ' ~;: 1 • ., .. '°' '°° ft..Y-I PLATEA-12 IWIUCIO ,,, .... OltGINIL KALI• t••rtJd BALBOA BL VO. SEWER SYSTEMS Al.TFRNArF 'A' - - - - - - - R/W I I 35' f R/W L -+-' . : : --r\--------n---t lJ --ij I ~ PROP. SEWER MAIN SIZE PER REPORT TYPICAL SECTION ALTERNATE ~I ..._.. PLATE A-13 ---.. . . , ,. •· • 1 • .1 1 •· ; ! !I m: !' I l l l: l l 11 '~ 11 1 • 1 .. . . . • · I, '" ' ' ' ' ' .. . . . . . . . . • •• 1• 1 4 ' 1 .. . . . . . •• , •• ~I i • ,I ,, .. ti t : I• Mt l l l l ! , .. . IJ h ' I 1 I •• . i · •• . . , .• . . : •i • r• : .. . u• I. ! • ·. · · · • ' I t ll l l 1 l 1 : i t 4 • 1· .~ · . I .. . . , .. . ·· · · • • t .• . . • . ·1 , .. . . . . . . ,. , , . , . •· h f l 1 : J • ' 1 1 1 , . I ' ,; 1: 1 ' ' 'I ' I' t. 1 ~ o o l I ' . ', 1J f •· ti •. I ' I Il l I" . :d t h1 ; 1• · I' • • , · ~· •I : •t • 1 ; ' I' •. : ~ , 11 . t f ·, • •I '' • , ' .. ·· · · · .. . . . . . ' ., •. • . ,, .. . . . . . . . ,. 1 1 · · . · · · I I' 1- 1 l :. : H '" ' • 'I I ,· 1 1 ' ·• · " r • • · ." : . I I .. . • :~ . I •· :0 1 1 1 1 •• 1: ·I I 1. : : , 1 ' " : , ;· : .. . , .. . . ,, . I. u. I 1• l' t "1 11 1 ~: I .~ I I 't • •9 , : ·· · • · 1 , .. o ! '" o• , I ;t J ~ I .. . . •· . t ·I , . I l' o o l l o 0 I I 1 . ·· • · · .. , .. •I • , , , , . : ~ •• , I ' I• 11 , •. ·• . • .1 . - i .. •1 · · · · · · · · ; . '• , .• ,; . ' 'f • 1 1 , • 1 , ' I •" I I , ' . I • :1 , 1 ., .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , •• - ; •I ,1 , , .. . I •l t . • O lo l ' •. • •! . · ,· .. . . '! ; . j, • 11' . " I, 11 , 1 1 1 1 • ' . .. •1 · 1 · , o l l t ' 11 • 1 . ' "" ·' · '' . ' I Jt : it l h • •. ·· · · i ·· .. 1· : ., I! 1, . 1 • • •• 1 1 1 , 1 1 • '· • ' • •" " •I I •j I I ·~ · · :; 11 , "" I j f; 11 1 . • • · d ".1 11 • 1 ·I •• :, . :r • 11' M 11 1 1 • 1 .. • • • • , I t' I I ., , , , 1 •• • 11 I' · . · . 1· , I ,, · '1 1 ·I ' :1 :i i i n • ., ': : • t: t : 'I • I I Ul l I' t f I · ·~ ; I I II I f •, : : · ,1 1· 1 ; 1 •• '' · · · · w; :1 : .. 1· 1 ., . . .. . . , •. •• 1 1 1 ; 1 1 t • · 1 h 1 tU t i •t t u 1i : , ., 11 • .4 1 1 · • 11 : · ~ .. . . . -. !" " , ~! " " ! " ~ ~ - t - ' t - 1 - .. t- . " t . ~ ~ •• r. - -.. 1" , ~ . ~ .. ~. ~ . ~1 ~ ~ ~ ! " " _ " 1 : , ~ . ~ l t l t . ! : ; ~ . : 1 " " · ~ · ! 1 : 1 : . ~1 1 ~ •• t: : t .. r: : _ , t . i , " t , .~ . I ' : : , . . ~ . , ~ . ~ . t •t .• .• •. " 1 tr 1· 1 •. '• · rn t ·m . .. "~ .. 1 1i t 1 '· 1• . • •• 1. , . u 1, 1 •t .. n i. . 1• 1 •• • ·1 •h • l" . 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1, , . ' "' ,t • ' 11 1 1 U. • lo . ' l• l o 1U I• t· 1 o · 1 1 t 1 1 1 , , : · 1 .. . . . :u .. •' · " :; · • • I ' .: . • II .; : : ' .• I; , I ~ . ' • ;: ; · "' ·• : · .• ' •. : .. . . 11 ; • ., I 1 .. 1· ; 1 1 0 . · • l l • · • 1• . · · 1 1 , .. , .. , •• :• 1 1 1 1 •• • 1· . i : . .. . . . .. . . . . . . "l • l . ' " 0 111• : . . ,. , . , . , .• . . • . I• •• • 1 1 1 1 '· ! " , .. . · 1 ·t ~ ,, , •• ·• r .. :' ! • r· • ": : .1 1 •1 1 1 1 ·• " " ,, . ·. 1 1· •. •J " • • 1. '· 11 1 • '" ' 1• ' •' "' I tl l . 'H 1 1 ! r. , l l h • h" 1 i, r • · ,: . 1 1 · m, .. . . •i 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1. •1 : '" • ' " ' •· , 1u · 11 1 1. : J~ I · 1. t I• • Ut · 11 • 11 f It i. t , .t • 1 I' I 1 11! !' l• • 1 t tl l lt , 1 •I • : 11 ! 11: 1 • •I I ' Ul l lh • I' .. •1 1 •1 1 1 ~ 1 1 11 l. 1 01 1 1 ! I' ' 11 11 1 • : . ,, . . · 11 · t• • • t1 1 . r1 1 11 1 1 11•• I! ' 1• ! 1 ,1 i 11 1 •· ·: IU . . •· 11 1 . ' :· .. . . • •I ' 11 . 1 1 ~ 1 .. 11 1 1 1 · 1. 1 ·: ZJ ; Il l · I ., , h• u I! H '· · • I ' .. . ;. ·I • r 11 11 . •I •• 1 1 ' 1 " ;. ; . ~· · Il l , ~I •1 . UU M• !I 11 • 1 1 1 1 •, 1 • I I ,, ., , u 1: •' l. t : , .. . . . . . 1, 1 . .. . . . . .. . - .. ! . . t hi IJ , l f l l I! 11 • 1. : · !, , I I • I I I I' - '1 1 . 1! , I~ • I, 11 • .1 1 f • 1• 1 •1 , ~I I : 11 1 I ·• : . ~; . •r 1• •: • · 11 . i tf ,I i ' u •• ' UI • .H t 1 l • f , • ' •• • • • 11 1 r• • t 1 1 r1 o 1 . t: . '' r l ' ,_ , ~ 1i : ; ii ": I H I : II • •l • l t • :, ;• • I t •I I ti :· .. w j, 11 ,1 00 • ,, I • •: • Io I' .' • ' I .U ; I .. i : O 1t• t .: : 11 11· 1U . : ' I~ JI : ·1 ' I j' 1 1. • · : . : '• " ,, . , •• :1 1 !t I• I I • Il l ! • •• :' !1 • :: ' ~1 IT U tl I• tl Z • ' 1h . ii :! .. . . . • 1• •t i ·; ·1 , 11 1 J ~ h UI I I; .. . . . . 1: •: • ,. , . 1, : •1 ~· · .I ' t' I I• • .: · •: • · 11 , •1 ' ,, . ·, ,, · .. au I I • t· ' • '· ' . '. : . '• · · ~ " • 11 1 1 . 11 1 1 1 1 •; 1 · · · · • · 1 · · · t ' • " 1 ' 1 ' · · • . 1 . ~ I• : 0 : I" ' ' h '" ., •• ,, ;, . 11 • 1 • 1 '! t• t t; . -o U f , " ti •' ' . "1 , . •1 • 1 f. f II . :I . tt ·~ · ' ~ ·· • I · I. ', . . ' -~ . I I '' · I . •I , . , , •• l· I Il l I '" ' ~ I ·: I t :. ; • I I ! ' / I I I I . :: ;, " ;, \' \ I .. . . . . ·- 1 o o 1'" · . i . : .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;- . : l o o + ~ . - .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !· - - 1 1 1 o r . / - . . . . . o - 1i. . . . . , .. . . '- + - - + - o - + : - - .. . . ;- + - + - l - 1 •' ' W I 1. I I I l . 1 ._ . _ .. . . . ·- · ~ · .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·· - ' - + " " ' ' ' - · .. . . 11 . . . _ .. . It t : .. . ·e ) . ~ .. . : .. . ·- - ' - + - + - - + " - + ' · - · ' " ' " + ' - t - ' + ' · . ; ' '. , . " ' " 4 " 1 ' ,_ : _ I - : . -: - ! : , . . . . I . . , _ . _ , " ' ! ' : .. . ·: ! - + ~ · · - - · - .. . . . ·- · . , . . . . :1 .. . . :: :~ · t ~~ ~ r " ' ~ " T : - t - ~ - · ' ! ' " " + I : __ ', ~1 - · + ' · " " I . ~I 01 1 • · 1 II ' " - ' •I l l ~ I I • I I - '' • I I l I •• :1 t- - 1 "' ! ' ' . - ! 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 - • .. , 1 _ 1 " - t " - - ~ - t - 1 - 1 - 1 - t · ~ ' • I • I I I 1 I I 1- - , ~ · - ~ ~ ' . . . . - . ' - - . - , . . . . + - .. . . . . -. . . . . , . - .. . . . . . , .. . . . . . . . . . ~- ~ · · - .. . . . . -! 1 - , .. . , .. . . . . . . ~. - ~ . · - : . - - + 1 1 . . . ; . . . . + o - 1 , . . . I I I I ; I ~ of ' V I I I I t ll l t i i : .. . e' l . . a h 'I , J ! 1 1 ' 1 • J • t• ; I fl l " " / w ' 1 I I I I 'I I ·1 " '7 , , 1 1 . ! I I. ! t- _ _. _ . . . _ _ . . . .. . . . .. _ . _ 1 - 1 _ . _ " " f - ' o - · - • , . . • .. . . . . 1. . - - - i H l l ~ / - • - • - - l 1 ·_ " _ . _ l .. ,- i ' . _ " ' - " ' - · l - 1 - · ~ : - : - · ~ l - : - t - ' l " " ~ I ~ 1- - - - - - - + - .. . . . -- .. . . -- - .. . . ~H t - - - 1 - ' - . ~ - + - , - - l - , - ~ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , , ; i i . . . . _ , •• I I' ' I I 1 : 'I • '• ' . ~" I I I I I • ,. . . . , I' : ' I r ,, • 4 • 1 1 ' ' • I ' I ~' - ~ ~ • ' I I I~ .• -- - , ~ . - , - - 1 - 1 - , · . - .. . . . . . -- - . - 1 - , .. . . . ~1 .. . . . ~1 - ~ 1 .. . . . . -~ · - - ~ ~ ~ " ' ~ . - 1 - 1 ~ .. . •1 ~ 1 - - .. . . . . ~~ , . ~ . , ~ . ~ .• il ! o l ' I I I I I I · I• I I I I I' ~ " " ~ I I I I• 'I I d' I• I I I : ; i 1 It ! I I I 1· 1 ·I ' 'I ' I I I 'I I .. . ,, I I I I I II I I 1; , 1 , 1 1 .. . 1 .. .1 · I I I I I I •• 1' . I I I I •· 11 1 •• . 1. 1 I .1 " I I I I 'I I I I l• · l r I I ! '' · ,. I I • l I I '; I ·1 .. . . . . I. I 1. 1 ,, ~ 1. ! I I• I •. • •• , •• I I I I .. . . . . . . . I .1 , •I ' - I· •· I " ' I· '1 ' !" ~ I .• • J . • I 1 .. I' I I ·· l · • • • l " I ' 1 I ' ., , I I I •I I I 1 ·, 1 I . 1~ I I • I '. I : I I I ·l • 1 t r I I' l• I , ' I" , I •. "' l ' l " I ' I ·I •I I : I I I . ,. , , .. , ,. I· I• •I .. , .. I If ' I 1- • : - . - : ~ : - - 1 •. ~ . .. . , . . 1 . - ~ - · 1 - + - . - , . . . . . , . - • ' , -: - - - - . - - . . - - - - .. . . . . ,~ - - . - - 1 ~ . - - . -- . . . , . . - . .. . , . . , ~ , - 1 ~ ~ ~ t I I' I I t I I I ~. . . , . i t I• I· I I 0 I I I . I "" I I ,. 1 1 I I I I I• • - " - , - - . I •1 It I I I Ir · I 1' · 1 1 1 1 t • • ' ,, . I" • •· · • , 1 1 I· lo L ,I I I 1 ,~ . r - - A . y - . . o . . . . t· I I• I ·I I I• 11 1 • • 0 , I I• .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. . . I, . . , : • · 'I __ . . I I ! I I - .. .. , , . __ .. . , I• I 1 J, ' I· · .. •· I ·1 e I • _, _ , _ _ _, _ , _ _ -- - - - .. - - H/W 35' f H/W 35·' I :---r\------+----~1--~-1 I u _ LJ I ~ 2% PROP. H.C. ( 0 ST. TO G ST. J PROP. SEWER MAIN ~ SIZE PER REPORT ( 8 ST. TO 0 ST.) ------_:;~~~PROP.H.C. ( 8-ST. TO 0 ST.) PROP. H.C. ( 0 ST. TO G ST.) PROP. SEWER MAIN SIZE PER REPORT ( A ST. TO G ST. ) TYPICAL SECTION ALTERNATE 18 1 PLATE A-15 - .,(. R/W R/W 35' 35.' I I . k---. +· ,--:_ . n .-----------------, 1 I I I \-----------I I u LJ ~ PROP. H.C. PROP. H. C. PROP. SEWER MAIN (SIZE PER REPORT) TYPICAL SECTION ALTERNATE I c I ... "°) PLATE A-16 - - - - - - Ma i n 1 i ne P. V . C • Mai n 1 i ne P. V. C. Lateral P.V.C. Manholes H. C. Cl eanouts Traffic Contro 1 and Mobilization Pavement Subsealing Fill Abandoned Sanitary Sewers with Slurry Abandon Manholes ALTERNATE A AND C PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Dia. 15 11 12" 411 4" Quantity 911 L. F. 1657 L. F. 3605 L. F. 7 EA. ·l 03 EA. L.S. 4475 L. F. 4475 L. F. 10 EA. Unit Cost $ 100. 00 90.00 40.00 3,000.00 300.00 40,000.00 12.00 5.00 1 ,000.00 $ 91, 100 .00 149,130.00 144,200.00 21,000.00 30;900.00 40,000.00 53,700.00 22,375.00 10,000.00 $~62,405.00 +15% Cont. 84,360.00 $646,765.00 Say $647,000.00 Mainline and lateral P.V.C. unit costs include allowances for dewatering and shoring. Tree removal and replacement not included in estimate. Unit costs are dated 7 June 1984. Alternate 'A' -Construct new sanitary sewer between A Street and G Street. Abandon all existing mainline sewers in Balboa Boulevard between A Street and G Street. No "Piggy Back" sewer construction. Plate A-17 em ( .. Item Mainline P.V.C. Mainline P.V.C. Mainline P.V.C. Lateral p •. v. c. M.H.S. (std.) M.H.S. (drop) H. C. Cleanouts Traffic Contro 1 and Mobilization ~LTERNATE B PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Dia. Quantity Unit Cost 15 11 911 L. F. $ 100.00 12 11 1657 L.F. 90.00 8" 989 L. F. 50.00* 4" 3605 L. F. 40.00 5 EA. 3,000.00 2 EA. 4,000.00 4" 103 EA. 300.00 L.S. 40,000.00 Cost $ 91 ,100.00 149,130.00 49,450.00 144,200.00 15,000.00 8,000.00 30,900.00 40,000.00 . Pavement Subsealing 4475 L.F. 12.00 53,700.00 Fill Abandoned 4475 L. F. 5.00 22,375.00 Sanitary Sewer with Slurry Abandon Manholes 10 1,000.00 10,000.00 $613 .855.00 +15% Cont. 92,078.00 $705,933.00 Say $706,000.00 *The reduction in unit cost is because the 8 11 "Piggy Back" sewer will be constructed in· the same trench. Mainline and lateral P.V.C. unit costs include allowances for dewatering and shoring. Tree removal and replacement not included in estimate. Unit costs.are dated, June 1984. Alternate 1 8 1 -Construct new sanitary sewer between A Street and G Street. Abandon all existing mainline sewers in Balboa Boulevard between A Street and G Street. "Piggy Back" sewer construction between B and D Streets. Pl ate A-18 - - .. l - - r-\ \, ~ . ) ...• Item PoJyester Lining 12 11 Polyester Lining 10 11 Polyester Lining 8" Polyester Linjng an Latera 1 Cuts 411 Re 1i ne M. H. S. Laterals P. V. C. 4" H.C. Cleanouts 411 Mainline P.V.C. 10" Mainline P.V.C. 911 Traffic Contra 1 and Mobilization Pavement Subsealing ALTERNATE D PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Dia. Quantity Unit Cost V.C.P. 474 L. F. $ 75.00 V.C.P. 1692 L. F. 55.00 V.C.P. 521 L.F. 45.00 Cone. 1788 L. f. 45.00 1T5 EA. 200.00 10 EA. 1,000.00 1725 L.F. 40.00 115 EA. 300.00 2349 L. F. 85.00 216 L.F. 80.00 L.S. 30,000.00 4475 L. F. 12.00 +25% Cont.* *Includes a construction risk factor of 10%. Tree removal and replacement not included in estimate. Unit costs are dated, June 1984. Say Cost $. 35,550.00 93,060.00 23,445.00 80,460.00 23,000.00 10,000.00 69,000.00 34,500.00 199,665.00 17,280.00 30,000.00 53,700.00 $669,660.00 167,415.00 $837,075.00 $837,000.00 Alternate 'D' -Line all existing mainline sewers between A Street and G Street. Construct new relief sewer from A Street to G Street. Plate A-19 - - ( ... - . ·:.·· - Item . Polyester Lin.ing Latera 1 Cuts Reline M.H.S. Ma i n 1 i ne P. V • C. Mainline P.V.C. H.C •. Cleanouts Lateral P.V.C. M.H.S. Traffic Contra 1 Pavement Subsealing Fill Abandoned Sanitary Sewers with with Slurry Abandon Manholes -ALTERNATE E PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Dia • Quantity Unit Cost 8" Cone. 1788 L.F. 51 EA. 5 EA 911 L.F. 1567 L. F. 115 EA. 1725 L. F. 7 EA. $ 45.00 4" 15" 12" 4" 4" L.S. 4475 L. F. 2687 L.F. 6 EA. 200.00 1 ,000.00 100.00 90.00 300.00 40.00 3,000.00 30,000.00 12.00 5.00 1,000.00 +20% Cont.* . Say *Includes a construction risk factor of 5%. Tree removal and replacement not include in estimate. Unit costs are dated, June 1984. Cost $ 80,460.00 10,200.00 5,000.00 91,100.00 141,030.00 34,500.00 69,000 .. 00 21 ,000.00 30,000.00 53,700.00 13,435.00 6 1 000.00 $555,425.00 111 ,085 .00 $666,510.00 $667,000.00 Alternate 'E' -Line existing 811 concrete between B Street and F Street. Construct new sanitary sewer between A Street and G Street. Abandon existing mainline sewers on the northerly side of Balboa Boulevard between A Street and G Street and the 12 11 V.C.P. between A Street and B Street. Plate A-20 --------~--~------------------------------·----------- ... ... ... (\ \ .I Item Mainline P.V.C. Ma in 1 i ne P. V. C. Mai n li ne P. V • C. f~.H.S. H.C. Cleanouts La tera 1 P. V. C. Traffic Contra 1 Pavement Subsealing Fill Abandoned Sanitary Sewers with Slurry Abandon Manholes ALTERNATE F PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Dia. 15" 12" 8" 4" 4" Quantity 911 L. F. 156'/ L. F. 1833 L. F. 12 EA. 115 EA. 1725 L.F. L.S. 4475 L. F. 2687 L. F. 6 EA. Unit Cost 100.00 90.00 80.00 3,000.00 300.00 40.00 40,000.00 12.00 5.00 1,000.00 +15% Cont. Say Cost $ 91,100.00 141,030.00 146,640.00 36,000.00 34,500.00 69,000.00 40,000.00 53,700.00 13,435.00. 6,000.00 $631 ,405 .00 94 '711 .00 $726,116.00 $726,000.00 Alternate 'F' -Same as Alternate 'E', except instead of lining existing concrete sewer between B Street and F Street, construct new 8 11 P.V.C. Unit costs are dated, June 1984 • Plate A-21 ... - - I. NOTES: ---BRICK OR CX>NCRETE WAU.S-.... ,, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET OF MANHOLE SHAFT AND DELIVER FRAME AND COVER TO CITY YARD. 2. THE TRENCH FOR MANHOLE SHAFT REMOVAL SHALL BE BACKFILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLATE A-23. 3. IF MANHOLE BASE IS NOT AS SHOWN, THE CHANNEL SHALL BE REFORMED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. IF SEWER MAIN IS TO BE ABANDONED ALONG WITH THE MANHOLE, THE HALF SEGMENT OF PIPE SHALL BE OMITTED AND THE SEWER MAIN SHALL BE PLUGGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 306-5 OF lHE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 5. HALF SEGMENT OF PIPE SHALL BE VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE. ABANDONMENT OF MANHOLES PLATE A -22 STRUCTURAL TRENCH WIDTH TRENCH 2 1 MIN. WIDTH SECTION PER IMPROV. PLANS SAWCUT 111 FINISH . . . . . . ~ . .. .. . ·• . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ :'.?i·~::<~· ~ f \~ :~:-: ·.: ·",;'):; TYPE A NEW PAVEMENT NOTES: COURSE ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. z· :.-_·.: .'.· =... SEE NOTE I · ... : .: ·: ·. ·. . 6" MIN . . ·: ·: ·. : . ·· : . ·. 12 MAX. . · · · .. · · TYP. . . . . . TYPE B EXISTING PAVEMENT I. BACKFILL SHALL BE IMPORTED SAND WITH S.E. 60 (900/e RELATIVE COMPACTION). 2. IN" EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE REPLACEMENT SECTION SHALL BE THE EXISTING PLUS l 11 A.C. THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE OPTION OF REPLACING CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE WITH A.C. ATTHE RATIO OF l 11 A.C. FOR 2"C.A.8. P.C.C. PAVEMENT SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND PLUS I~ 3. IF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL IS ENCOUNTERED ADDITIONAL BEDDING MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. THE 111 FINISH COURSE AS SHOWN ON TYPE B DETAIL SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS TO A MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS AFTER PLACEMENT OF BASE COURSE. Pl PE BACKFILL IN TRENCHES PLATE A-23 ---·-···---·--··---··---- ... ,,,·-·, ( .... ... r •. ·~'I: ·. ·.--:.-• BAL BOA T------------------------------ ----------€--------------------- BL VO. . PROPOSED SEWER ALINGMENT- OPrlON Na 2 PROPOSED SEWER ALINGMENT- OP7/0N NO. I 6"c; NOT TO SCALE SEWER ALIGNMENT ALTERNATES PLATE A-24 ----------·--·-·----- MEETING DATE April 17, 1985 DISTRICT i TIME s:oo p.m.DISTRicrs JOINT BOARDS 5 -Newport Beach City Hall (C~ANK),,,,,,,,HANSON,,,,,, (LUXEMBOuKGERL GRISET,,,,, ,-- (~ENNEDY),,,,, ,SALTARELLI •• -- (WIEDER),, ••• I .STANTON ••••• :::: DISTRICT L (NORBY),,t••• ,,CATLIN,,,,,, ___ _ (OVERHO~TJ,,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,, (NEWTON),,,,,,,BUCK,,,,,,,,------- (NELSON),,,,,,,CQOPER,,,,,,-------- (LUXEMBOURGER). GR I SET •••• I.--= == (MAHONEY},,,,,,HOLMBERG,,,,--- {SILZE~},,,,,,,KAWANAMI,,,,= = = {SCOTT),,,,,,,,NEAL,,,,,,,, ______ ____ {CULVERJ,,,,,,,PERRY,,,,,,, ____ ____ (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,, •••---___ _ lWIEDER),t•••••STANTON,,,,, {&EVERAGEJ,,,,,WISNER,,,,,,:::::::: = DISTRICT 3 (OVERHO~T),,,,,ROTH11••••••---___ _ {COOPER ,,,,,,,NELSON,,,,,, _______ ___ (THOMAS ,,,,,,,BAILEY,,,,,, _______ _ (RISNER),,,,,,,BROWNELL,,,, ________ __ (NOR~Y),,,,,,,,CATLIN,,,,,, ________ __ (PERRYJ,,,,,,,,CULVER,,,,,, _______ ____ lJARRELLJ,,,,,,GRIFFIN,,,,, ______ ___ (LUXEMBOURGER). GRIS ET I I I •• ·-----~MAHON~Y) •••••• HOLMBERG •••• ______ ___ (SCOTTJ,, ,,,,,,NEAL111••••• (FINLAYSON), •• ,OLSON,,,,,,,= _____ _ {KANEL)t••••••1PARTIN11••••--___ _ (SEIDELJ,,,,,,,POLIS ,,,,,, ____ ___ (SIRIANlJ,,,,,,SAPIEN,,,,,, _______ _ ~WIEDER ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ________ __ lLANDER ,,,,,,,SYLVIA,,,,,, _______ __ DISTRICT 5 (cox> •••••••••• HART •••••••• ..,... ------- (cox> •• t·······MAURER •••••• ~ ------(WIEDERJ ••••••• STANTON ••••• ~ ___ __ DISTRICT 6 !GALLACHER),,,,WAHNER,,,,,, ______ ____ COX)1•t••••••1PLUMMER,,,,, ________ __ WIEDERJ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ______ ____ DISTRICT 7 !BEYER)t••••••1SMITH,,,,,,, _____ __ MILLERJt••••••SILLS.,,,,,, ____ __ KENNEDYJ1•••t•EDGAR1••••••---__ __ \LUXEMBOURGERJ,GRISET,,,,,, ____ ___ (COX),,,,,,,,,,MAURER,,,,,, _______ ____ (WlEDERJ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ____ ____ (GREEN),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,, ______ ____ DISTRICT 11 !MANDICj•••••••BAILEY,,,,,, ______ ____ WIEDER ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ________ ____ FINLEY ,,,,,,,THOMAS,,,,,, ______ ____ DISTRICT 13 !BEYER)~,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,, ________ __ WISNER ,,,,,,,BEVERAGE,,,, ______ ____ NELSON •t••••1COOPER,,,,,, ________ ____ OVERHO~TJ,,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,, ____ ----__ WIEDER),,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ________ ____ 4/10/85 (THOMAS/MANDIC>. I BAILEY. I I I I I (WISNER),,,,,,,, ,BEVERAGE,,,,-- (RISNER). I I I I I I I I BROWNELL. I I.-- (NEWTON),,, •••••• BUCK •••• ,,,,-- ! NOR By ) \ I I I • I I I I I c A TL I N. I I I I I== NELSONJ,,,,,,,,,CQOPER,, ,,,, PERRY),,,,,,,, ,,CULVER,,,,,,-- (KENN EDY) I I I I • I I I ED:GAR I I I I I I I - (JARRELL>. I I It I. I GRIFFIN. I I I.-- (LUXEMBOURGERJ,,, GRISET •••••• -- (CRANK) I I I I I •• I I I HANSON. I I I •• -- (cox),,, t• ••••••• HART ••• ,····== (MAHONEY}. I I. I I I I HOLMBERG. I I I (SILZEL>. 111. I ••• KAWANAMI 11 • ·= lcox>.t··········MAURER •••••• SCOTTJ,,, ••••••• NEAL. I •• II •• -- COOPER). •• I. I I •• NELSON •• I I I.-- FI NLAYSONL I I. I I OLSON. I I I I I.-- KANEL) I I I I. I I I I I PARTIN. I I I I.-- CULV)ER) ••••••••• PERRY ••••••• = COX ••t••••••••1PLUMMER,,,,, SE I DEL J. t I •••• I. POL Is I. I. I.·== OVERHOLTJ ••••••• ROTH ••••• Ill (KENNEDY)),,,,,,,,SALTARELLI,,= (SIRIANI I II II ... SAPIEN." II·-- (MILLER) ••••••••• SILLS ••••••• ! BEYER)~ I •••• I • I • SM I TH. I I I I I I= WIEDER ,,,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, __ LANDER I •• I I I. I .SYLVIA. I I I I·-- !FI NLE,Y) I I. I I I. It THOMAS. I I I I·-- GREEN GA~LACHERJWAHNER,, ,, ,, BEVERAGE),,,,,,,WISNER,,,,,,= ,SIAEE: OTHERS: SYLVESTER.,.~ CLARKE,,,,,, __ DAWES,,,,,,,~ ANDERSON,,,, __ BUTLER,,,,,,~ BROWN,,,,,,,~ BAKER,,,,,,, __ KYLE11••••••----YOUNG,,,,,,, ____ VON LANGEN __ WINSOR,,,,,, __ STREED,,,,,,...J::::::::: CLAWSON,,,,, __ WOODRUFF I. I·--ATKINS •••••• __ HOHENER,,,,, __ HOWARD,,,,,, __ HUNT,,,,,,,,_ KEITH,,,,,,, ____ KNOPF,,,,,,, __ LE BLANC,,,, __ LINDSTROM,,, __ LYNCH11•••••-- MARTI NSON. I·--PEARCE •••••• ____ ~·t~ ~~,,~ , DISTRICT 5 ADJOURNED MEETING -APRIL 17 , 1985, 5:00 P.M . NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL #2(a) -Staff Report re Balboa Peninsula Sewer Improvements The General Manager reported that the District 's Board approved a joint study with City of Newport Beach on the Balboa Peninsula Sewer Improvements from "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street. Presently the City and the District have separate lines from "A" to "F" Street. The study was to determine the most cost-effective way to replace them and it was the joint staffs ' opinion that if we had a joi nt effort, it would save both some money . The study has been completed. Tom Dawes then summarized the conclusions of the consultant and the staff's recommendations. He pointed out the various lines on a map and reviewed the current status of work done on each of the lines and the future plans for said lines . He added that in 1964 the water in this area was found to be 50% salt water and 50% sewage. In 1980 we found 75% saltwater. This report indicates that 98% of the water is from salt water intrusion. All of this has to go through the District pumps and has to be treated at the Districts ' plant . District 5 pays for treating that grou ndwater. Tom stated that we concu r that this is an urgent project, and District 5 should pay 55% of $750 ,000 cost. The study looked at slip-lining existing lines or putting a new line in the center of the street. They recommend putting a new line in. This would be paid for by the District (55%) and the City (45%). After that it would be owned by the City of Newport Beach . Normally , the District does not own lines which have house connections to them. The staff concurs and supports this study . Joe Devlin from the City of Newport Beach stated that they agree with Tom Dawes and like the idea of the City taking the line over from "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street . #3 -Status report re rehabilitation program and Master Plan The General Manager ind i cated that the Board had met previously and discussed this program after the District had a sewer break just before Christmas. In 1981 the Board adopted a major program of rehabilitation of the entire system in Coast Highway to be funded by a user fee that the Board implemented at the same time. We have updated that program. Tom Dawes then reviewed the facilities that have been completed and the schedule to complete the rest of the projects . Our initial goal is to get one of the two barrels in Coast Highway completely rehabilitated because that is the backbone of the system. The General Manager added that our ultimate goal is to rehabilitate both barrels. He also stated that the yellow and brown lines on the map are on an accelerated schedule and when completed, we will have finished the rehabilitation from the Upper Bay to Treatment Plant No. 2. Tom Dawes continued to review past work and future plans for the area. Tom indicated that he thought Cal Trans would ask the Di strict to wait until school starts in the fall for some of the work in Coast Highway . Evelyn Hart asked if we could move this time schedule up so we don't have to tear up Coast Highway every year . Tom expl ained that we have to keep one lane in service and can only work on one section a t a time. Also, we have to be able to get water across to the other line. Evelyn asked if everything past Coast Highway and Upper Bay Bridge is good? Tom replied that that is clay pipe and is in pretty good shape. ' ' Tom stated that the staff would like to solicit proposals to perform a complete study of the Balboa Peninsula line. Said we hope to do this study in the next fiscal year starting sometime this summer to request proposals. It would be a report similar to the one the City and the District did together. Th e Bayside Drive line and the down-coast line were then discussed. The Bayside Drive line is in excellent shape and it was oversized in anticipation of future down-coast development. Tom reported that we cannot get any firm information from The Irvine Company with regard to down-coast development plans. They are currently being revised again. The latest plans indicate about 2,000 homes instead of the 10,000 previously indicated. The Irvine Company paid for the oversizing of the line and wi ll be reimbursed from connection fees when the property is developed. He discussed the Cameo Shores area and the development plans for Cameo Shoes East. He added that the 19 83 Master Plan estimated the cost for all of these improvements and extended the Zone 3 fee to pay for them. He reiterated that The Irvine Company says they are completely redoing their plans for the down-coast area and have no real schedule they can tell us at this time. Joe Devlin then reviewed the City 's replacement program for City lines. He said in 197 8 they proposed to replace 2 ,200 feet per year and by 1994 they would have overcome their deficienc y . In the early 1920's when lboa Island , the Peninsula and central Newport were developed , all of the sewers were concrete and subject to sulfide attack . Th e City started in the early 1950's to replace these sewers . He said t hat they now find that this sewer replacement should be accelerated as they are starting to collapse and are getting a lot of infiltration. Would like to finish the work in abou t five years . Th ey have done the same thing with the water mains. Will wind up with work on Balboa Island next year . The Peninsula sewers are the worst in the whole City . Director Hart asked if the City has funds to step this up ? Bob Dixon from the City's staff replied that they are increasing their fees by $3.00 per year by an ordinance to be considered the following Monday night. Wayne Sylvester added that according to the District's schedule , the work on the Peninsula should finish in 1986-87. Joe Devlin indicated the City's work is scheduled for 1987-88. Bill Butler then reviewed the District's f inancial situation with regard to each of the proposed projects. He indicated that the cash flows were very preliminary estimates because The Irvine Company will not confirm their development plans so we don 't know how much money we are going to get from them or when. All of the rehabilitation program has been financed from user fees since 1981 . He said we have been able to hold the line with the present user fees but it appears from prel iminary estimates that the user fees will have to increase by 50% in 1985-86. In 1 986 -87 we would need to raise the fee another 50%. He added that the Districts are considering formation of District No. 14 to serve the area presently served by IRWD. This cash flow shows that District 5 will sell a certain amount of capacity to District 14 as a result of that formation, which will contribute approximately $2 million to the District. He further reported that capital costs of the District were allocated on a formula that takes into consideration A.V. and flow. The Newport Beach area has a high A.V . and low flow. If we change this to strictly a flow based approach , it will generate $1.8 million in additional revenue. Th e General Manager added that we are proposing doubling the existing connection fees and if we don 't receive some of the money from The Irvine Company for the down-coast development, certain of that work will not go forward . He reported further that the current fee for the typical homeowner is $26.50. It would increase by $13.00 and then would go to $52.00 the following year. He indicated that this was spelled out to the citizens when the fee was originally adopted . Held four workshops and a public hearing was held on 7-1-81 . Only 25 people attended. There was less response than we expected . The Board has the -2- authority to set the rate under the State Law. The reason that a public hearing was held was to be able to collect the annual fee on the tax bill . Mr. Butler indicated that staff would be corning back to the Board in a few months with some more detailed information, depending upon what develops in the down -coast area. Director Hart asked if staff could speed up the schedule for the line from the Santa Ana River to Rocky Point? Asked if we could make this a l i ttle bit more even throughout the year and step this up a little. TMD indicated that we could. The General Manager added that the only constraint that we have is that we can only take so much line out of s e rvice at a time. Said we will probably ask to have a special meeting of the Board to consider user fee and connection fee rates for the next fiscal year and could present a new report then. (Director Maurer indicated he would be gone between May 14 -June 6) Will probably schedule the meeting for mid-June then. -3 - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR METING April 17, 1985 -5:00 P.M. Newport Beach City Hall -Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of April 10, 1985, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Newp<!)rt Beach City Hall Council Chambers. · The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS: Evelyn Hart, Philip Maurer Roger Stanton J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita J. Brown, Secretary, Thomas M. Dawes, William H. Butler, Gary Streed Ruthelyn Plummer, Bob Dixon, Joe Devlin * * * * * * * * * * * * * Staff Report on District/NewPC?rt Beach Joint Balboa Peninsula Sewer Improvements from "A" Street Pump Station to 11 G" Street The staff reported that the District and the City of Newport Beach had previously agreed to conduct a joint study on the Balboa Peninsula Sewer Improvements from "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street to determine the most cost-effective system for both the District and the City. The study, conducted by G.P.S., Inc., has now been completed. The consultant recommends that a new line, to replace existing separate District and City sewers, be constructed in the center of the street between "A" Street Pump Station and "G" Street to be paid for jointly by the District (55% of total cost) and the City (45% of total cost). Upon completion of the line, it would be dedicated to the City as a local sewer. The staff reported that it concurred with the consultant's findings and recommended approval of a joint project with the City. Receive, file and approve City of Newport Beach Balboa Peninsula Moved, seconded and duly carried: Point Sewer Improvement Study That the City of Newport Beach Balboa Peninsula Point Sewer Improvement Study dated February 1985, prepared by GPS, Inc., be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. -1- 4/17/85 Approving joint participation with the City of Newport Beach to replace the District and City sewers from "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street and directing General Counsel to prepare an agreement for said project Moved, seconded and duly carried: That joint participation with the City of Newport Beach to replace the District and City sewers from "A" Street Pump Station to "G" Street with a new combined sewer be, and is hereby, approved; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the General Counsel be, and is hereby, directed to prepare an agreement between the District and the City for said project. ' Staff Report on the status of The staff reviewed the status of the rehabilitation of the District's rehabilitation program for the District trunk sewer system and on the No. 5 sewerage system. The backbone of Master Plan of facilities to serve the system is the double barrelled the District Pacific Coast Highway Force Main from the Upper Bay Crossing to Treatment Plant No. 2. The major effort since the program conunenced has been the I(_.· restoration of one of the two barrels all the way from the Upper Bay Crossing to 'J' Treatment Plant No. 2. Once that is completed, the second barrel will be restored, and then the Balboa Peninsula sewer will be upgraded. Staff then reviewed the rehabilitation work completed to date and the schedule completing the program. City and District staff also reviewed the cooperative efforts between said City and District regarding their respective sewerage system rehabilitation projects. The staff then reviewed the facilities planned to serve the area down-coast of the City of Newport Beach which annexed to District No. 5 several years ago. District's staff, along with representatives of the City of Newport Beach and The ~ Irvine Company, the property owner, have cooperated for several years in the master planning of facilities to serve this area. The Irvine Company has indicated that they are currently in the process of reuising their development plans for this area. The District 5 Board has establ~shed a separate zone for the area and set a connection fee schedule to pay for the facilities to serve the down-coast area. The Director of Finance reviewed preliminary financial information used to help determine the schedule for completion of the proposed sewer improvements. In 1981 the District implemented user fees to pay for major rehabilitation work as well as ongoing maintenance and operation costs. The original financial plan called for the fees to double in 1982; however, the Board has been able to defer the increase !t because of delays in the construction of joint treatment and disposal facilities " improvements. Staff reported that preliminary budgetary estimates indicate that District No. 5 will have to consider a substantial increase in its user fee for 1985-86. The Directors discussed the possibility of accelerating the schedule for rehabilitation of the Pacific Coast Highway Force Main from the Santa Ana River to Rocky Point and directed staff to prepare a report containing a revised construction schedule for presentation to the Board concurrently with the 1985-86 user fee and budget reports. -2- 4/17/85 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 6:13 p.m., April 17, 1985. Secretary, Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California -3-