HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04 r
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
NOS. 6, 7 and 14
OF
r
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
r
Revised Project Report
for
r
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities
to Serve
Districts Nos. 6, 7, and 14
r
Contract No. 14-1
r
r
April1988
r
Prepared by
r Boyle Engineering Corporation
P.O. Hex 3030
Newport Bp.aah,CA 92656-902D QROFESS/0N
` �O EOGENp q!
ye4���Q sTo �✓
Telex 685561
yF
W C-0mg4 p
* P. 6130/89 >r
r sr CIVIL �Q
9rFOF CAV%0
REVISED PROTECT REPORT SUMMARY
Subsequent to issuance of this project report the Districts
r have revised the sizing criteria for the gravity trunk sewers
of the project to limit the peak flow depth to pipe diameter
ratio (D/d) to 0.75 for all sizes greater than 21-inch diameter
in response to the Irvine Ranch Water Districts' December 16,
1987 letter request. The effect of this criteria revision is
to increase the gravity portion of the Baker-Gisler Interceptor
from the Santa Ana River to the terminus of the Baker Street
Force Main at the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel from 84- and 78-inch
diameter to 90- and 81-inch diameter, respectively.
r The result of the pipe size increase of the Baker-Gisler
Interceptor is an increase in the estimated construction cost
of this facility. The Districts' staff has indicated the
additional capacity freeboard should be allocated to District
No. 14, the requestor for the criteria revision. Consequently,
the average flow capacity determination has been revised in the
following manner:
r
1. The upsized pipeline's peak flow capacity is
calculated at a D/d = 0.92.
2. The pipeline's average flow capacity is calculated
from the peak-to-average flow relationship included
on page II-1 of the project report using the peak
flow capacity from step 1.
3. The average flow is allocated by maintaining the same
average flow capacity for Districts Nos. 6 and 7 as
r shown on Table 1 of the project report (page II-2)
and allocating the remainder to District No. 14.
Table 1A on the following page extends Table 1 of the project
report to reflect the revised capacity allocation.
r Table 8A summarizes the revised estimated construction costs of
the conveyance facilities for the upsized Baker-Gisler
Interceptor and allocates the construction costs in accordance
with the prorated ownership of the participating Districts
r shown in Table 1A.
The text, tables, or figures of this project report that
follows have not been revised to reflect the above. The
conclusions of the report remain, except as described above.
It should be noted the major revisions to the project report
would be to replace the following Tables lA and 8A for Tables 1
and 8 of the report and revise the profile on Sheets 1 through
4 of Figure 4 at the back of the report to reflect the 90- and
81-inch pipe sizes.
r
r
1 t 1 t [ [ [ I ! ! I [ [ E l l 1 t !
TABLE IA
DESIGN PLOW AND CAPACITY ALLOCATION FOR
JOINT GUIDE CONVEYANCE FICILTISS
To SERVE DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Facility Beach Pipe Projected Average flow egd/(% of total) Design Peak Pipe Capacity (egd) Average Flop Capacity agd/(% of total)
_____-----____--- ------------------- Size Slope ----------___-_----------" - Floe (agd) -------(1)(2)------- -----------------"'----------------
from To CSD No. 6 CSD No. 7 CSD go. 14 Total Peak Flow Ave. Flow CSD No. 6 CSD No. 7 CSD No. 14
----------------- ------------------ ----- ------ ---------- ------------- - ------ ----------- -------- --------- ------------- ------------- ------'-_-
BANER-GISLER INTERCEPTOR
Reclamation Plant 1 Fairview Road 90' .0004 10.30 (14.6%) 16.88 (23.9%) 43.5 (61.5%) 70.68 89.33 106.7 85.74 10.30 (12.01) 16.88 (19.7%) 58.57 (6B.3%)
Fairview Road Neadosa Drive 81' .0005 .68 (1.1%) 16.88 (27.6%) 43.4 (71.2%) 60.96 77.97 90.1 71.34 .68 (0.9%) 16.88 (23.7%) 53.76 (75.4%)
Nendoaa Drive S.A.-Delbi Channel 81' .6005 -- 16.88 (20.0%) 43.5 (72.0%) 60.38 77.28 90.1 71.34 -- 16.88 (23.7%) 54.44 (76.3%)
BANES STREET FORCE RAIN -- 16.88 (28.0%) 43.5 (72.0%) 60.38 77.28
FAIRVIEN ROAD RELIEF INTERCEPTOR
Baker Street Village Nay 9.61 -- -- 9.61 14.25 9.81 -- --
Village Nay fair Drive 6.28 -- -- 6.28 9.63 6.28 -- --
Fair Drive Nilson Street 2.12 -- -- 2.12 3.55 2.12 -- --
--------------------------------------------------------------_----------------------------------"'--------------------------------------------------------------__------
1) Peak flow capacity based on flow depth to disaster (d/D) ratio = 0.92.
2) Average flop capcity based on relationship Qpeak = 1.84(Qave) raised to the 0.92, Q in cfe.
r TABLE 8A
COONT➢ SANITATION DISTRICTS NO 6, 7, AND 14
SENAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
r PBBLIMINAR➢ CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
r COST ALLOCATION
---------------------------------------
it" Description 0uanity gait Suit Price Total Cost CSD 6 CAR 7 CID 14
----------------------------------------------- ------- ---- -----•-•----
BAEIB-GISLIB INTERCEPTOR
1 90' E.C.P. Sever 13,550 L.P. $710 $9,890,000 $1.190,000 $1,950.000 $6,750,000
2 81' R.C.P. Sever 1,980 L.P. 675 1,340,600 10,090 320,000 1,010,000
(Fairview Rd. to Benicia St.)
3 81' R.C.P. Sever 41890 L.P. 645 3,150,000 750,000 2,400,000
(Boggess St. to Delhi Channel)
4 118' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Bristol St. 96 L.F. 2,270 220,000 50,000 170,000
5 118' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Fairview Rd. 120 L.P. 2,270 270,000 60,000 2001000
6 132' Jacked Caeiog/Tunnel-Harbor Blvd. 114 L.F. 21550 290,000 30,000 60,000 200,000
7 Junction Structure-Pairviev and Baker t L.S. 50,000 50,000 10,000 10,000 30,000
8 Siphon-Santa Ana liver 1 L.S. 400,000 40010eo 5D,000 80,000 270,000
9 Siphon-Greenville/Banning Channel 1 L.S. 550,000 550,060 7D,000 110,000 380,000
10 84' Manhole 300 V.P. 700 210,000 3D,000 40,000 140,000
(Treatment Plant No. 1 to Pairviev Rd.)
11 84' Manhole 40 V.F. 700 3D,000 10,000 20.000
(Fairvlev Bd. to Meodoaa St.)
12 84' Manhole 60 V.F. 700 40,000 10,000 30,000
(Retinas St. to Delhi Channel
------------ ----------- --------- ------------'
r
SUBTOTAL 816,44D,000 $1,390,000 $3,450,000 $11,600.000
BAKER STREET FORCE MAIN
I Tvo 42' D.I.P. Sever (Double Barrel) 9,400 L.P. 500 417001000 1,320,000 3,380,000
2 Tvo 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Sain St. 90 L.P. 2,350 210,000 60,000 150,000
3 Tie 66' Jacked Caeing/Tunnel-San Diego Ivy. 250 L.P. 2.350 590,000 170,000 420,000
4 Tvo 66' Jacked Caeing/Tueoel-Delhi Channel 70 L.F. 2,350 180,000 40,000 120,000
5 Junction Structure (Kith Interceptor) I L.S. 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000
------------ ----------- --------••- .............
SUBTOTAL $5,600,000 $1,600,000 $4,080,000
r
PRISMS ROAD IILISF INTERCEPTOR
r 1 33' T.C.P. Saver 000 L.P. 280 220,000 220,000
2 27' T.C.P. Sever 5,30D L.P. 240 1,270,DCO 1,270,000
3 21' T.C.P. Sever 2,700 L.I. 190 510,000 510,000
4 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Baker St. 90 L.P. 1.140 100,00D 100,000
r 5 54' Jacked Caeing/Tuatel-Fair Dr, 75 L.P. 700 50,00D 50,000
6 Manhole 72' 143 V.I. 650 90,000 90,000
7 Whole 90' 78 V.P. 650 WORD 50,000
------------ ----------- ----------- --•----------
SOBTOTAL $2.290,000 $2,290,000
TOTAL $24,410,000 13,980,010 $5,050,000 $15,680,000
r ................................................................................................................................
r
r
r
r
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
r OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Ir
r PROJECT REPORT
for
r
JOINT SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
TO SERVE
DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
CONTRACT NO. 14-1
r
DoLile
r
r
August 1987
Encyncerinq
Cornoration
P.O. Sex 3030
Prepared by
r BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Telex 68656, QRGfESS10N
O���Q EtlGENf sT2< y4/
C-017714 ^'
r W A
EXP. 6130/89E.
►
r A CIO-
4'FOF Ca1MQe
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
r PREFACE AND SUMMARY MATRIX i
I INTRODUCTION I-1
ti
A. BACKGROUND I-1
B. PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN I-1
C. PROPOSED PROJECT I-2
J
II DESIGN CRITERIA II-1
w A. PROJECTED FLOWS AND OWNERSHIP II-1
1. Design Flows and Ownership II-1
2. Initial and Ultimate Projected Flows II-1
B. GRAVITY TRUNK SEWER DESIGN II-3
J 1. Sizing II-3
2. Pipe Materials II-3
3. Loading II-4
a 4. Manholes and Appurtenances II-4
C. FORCE MAIN II-4
r 1. Sizing II-4
2. Pipe Material II-7
r
D. SIPHON DESIGN II-8
1. Number and Size of Barrels II-8
2. Depth Below the Channel Bed II-9
J 3. Access Structures II-9
4. Air Vent II-9
III ROUTE ANALYSIS III-1
A. ROUTE ALTERNATIVES III-1
r 1. Main Street Pump Station to Baker
Street and College Avenue III-1
2. Baker Street and College Avenue to
J Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue III-3
3 . Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue to
Reclamation Plant No. 1 III-4
4. Fairview Relief Interceptor - Fairview
r Road from Wilson Street to Baker Street III-5
Contents - 1
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
r
Section Page
r B. COST COMPARISON III-5
C. ANALYSIS AND SELECTION III-6
r 1. Main Street Pump Station to Baker Street
and College Avenue III-6
2. Baker Street and College Avenue to
Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue III-8
3. Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue to
Reclamation Plant No. 1 III-10
4. Fairview Road from Wilson Street to
r Baker Street III-10
IV ALIGNMENT AND PROFILE ALONG RECOMMENDED ROUTE IV-1
A. ALIGNMENT IV-1
B. PROFILE IV-2
e1 1. Gravity Interceptors IV-2
2. Force Main IV-2
C. COMMUNITY IMPACT IV-4
1. Traffic Control IV-5
2. Schools IV-5
r 3. Commercial IV-6
4. Industrial Areas IV-7
5. Residential Development IV-7
6. Churches IV-8
r 7. Other Segments IV-8
D. SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSING IV-8
r
E. RIGHT-OF-WAY IV-8
V REGULATORY AGENCIES V-1
W A. GENERAL V-1
B. CITY OF COSTA MESA V-1
C. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
r AGENCY (EMA) V-2
D. CALTRANS V-2
E. DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY (DIS) V-2
F. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB) V-2
r G. STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME V-3
H. COORDINATION WITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS V-3
VI CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES VI-1
A. EARTHWORK VI-1
B. REMOVAL AND RESURFACING OF STREET
r PAVEMENT AND SURFACES VI-2
Contents - 2
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Section Page
-- C. UTILITY CROSSINGS VI-2
D. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN CONCEPT VI-3
VII PROJECT SCHEDULE VIZ-1
r A. TARGET DATES VII-1
B. CONTRACT LIMITS VIZ-1
1. Baker-Gisler Interceptor VII-1
2. Baker Street Force Main VII-1
3. Fairview Relief Interceptor VII-1
C. PROJECT SCHEDULES VII-2
VIII CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE AND ALLOCATION VIII-1
Table
1 DESIGN FLOW FOR JOINT SEWAGE CONVEYANCE
FACILITIES TO SERVE DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14 II-2
2 FORCE MAIN PRESENT WORTH COSTS II-5'
3 FLOW VELOCITIES IN FORCE MAIN II-7
r
4 FLOW VELOCITY IN 66-INCH SIPHON BARREL II-9
5 CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE
ROUTES III-6
6 SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES FOR
r ALTERNATIVE ROUTES III-12
7 ECONOMIC COMPARISON FORCE MAIN TERMINUS
ALTERNATIVES IV-4
r
8 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE VIII-2
Figure Follows Page
r 1 FORCE MAIN SIZE-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS II-5
2 AIR JUMPER CONCEPTS II-10
3 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES VIII-2
4 PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROFILE (BACK POCKET)
5 PROJECT SCHEDULE VII-2
Contents - 3
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
r
Section Page
r C. UTILITY CROSSINGS VI-2
D. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN CONCEPT VI-3
�.. VII PROJECT SCHEDULE VII-1
A. TARGET DATES VII-1
B. CONTRACT LIMITS VII-1
s
1. Baker-Gisler Interceptor VII-1
2. Baker Street Force Main VII-1
,d 3. Fairview Relief Interceptor VII-1
C. PROJECT SCHEDULES VII-2
VIII CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE AND ALLOCATION VIII-1
r
Table
1 DESIGN FLOW FOR JOINT SEWAGE CONVEYANCE
FACILITIES TO SERVE DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14 II-2
2 FORCE MAIN PRESENT WORTH COSTS II-5'
3 FLOW VELOCITIES IN FORCE MAIN II-7
4 FLOW VELOCITY IN 66-INCH SIPHON BARREL II-9
ur
5 CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE
ROUTES III-6
r
6 SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES FOR
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES III-12
m' 7 ECONOMIC COMPARISON FORCE MAIN TERMINUS
ALTERNATIVES IV-4
,r 8 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE VIII-2
Figure Follows Page
1 FORCE MAIN SIZE-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS II-5
2 AIR JUMPER CONCEPTS II-10
3 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES VIII-2
4 PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROFILE (BACK POCKET)
_ 5 PROJECT SCHEDULE VII-2
Contents - 3
r
r
PREFACE AND SUMMARY
w
This project report for County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County is the basis for final design of the Joint Sewage
• Facilities to serve Districts Nos. 6, 7, and 14. As such, this
report establishes the following: the recommended route; the
preliminary profile for that alternative; final technical design
w. criteria; requirements, such as permitting and right-of-way;
project schedule; and preliminary cost estimate.
Criteria that have been established include the design flows for
each reach of the system, with the corresponding flow
contribution of the three participating Districts, sizing
criteria, and pipe material selection using the District's
standards as the basis. A preliminary alignment, size, and
profile for the system are presented in the eight sheets of
Figure 4 contained in the pocket at the back of the report. The
force main sizing and terminus location determination included
0 economic analyses considering life cycle costs and operational
considerations.
r A concise summary of the numerous design and construction issues
investigated for each alternative route is presented in the
matrix at the end of this summary. Table 6 (Page III-11)
provides a quick reference for the advantages and disadvantages
of each route.
The routing analysis investigated three alternative routes in
each of three reaches defined by common points between
Reclamation Plant No. 1 and the Main Street Pump Station. The
alternative routes are illustrated on Figure 3 of the report.
Between the Main Street Pump Station and Fairview Road, routes
following Baker Street, Paularino Avenue, or a combination of
these two streets were found to be the only feasible
alternatives. Paularino Avenue is narrower than Baker Street,
not continuous, and the portion west of Bear Street travels
through a heavily developed residential area and past an
elementary school. The Baker Street route is slightly shorter
and more direct, not requiring as many direction changes for the
large-diameter interceptor. Although an arterial street, Baker
Street is wider and able to accommodate construction while
maintaining traffic. To minimize delays to traffic on this
,r heavily traveled street, construction activities will be limited
during peak traffic hours to provide as much of the street for
traffic as possible.
r Between Fairview Road and Gisler Avenue, routes following College
Street, Cinnamon Avenue, and Labrador Drive and Gibraltar Avenue
were investigated. The City indicated Harbor Avenue was not a
feasible alternative, in view of the recent street improvements.
The College Street alternative was eliminated, since the
elevation of the street surface is too low to allow a gravity
sewer profile. The Cinnamon Avenue route would require many
r
i
r
r
bends of the large-diameter interceptor, which would greatly
s, increase the construction time along this route, resulting in
significant impacts to the surrounding commercial establishments.
The addition of a junction/diversion structure with the existing
District No. 6 trunk sewers is necessary for this route because
+' of profile conflicts. The Labrador Drive/Gibraltar Avenue route
is a more direct route and has no profile conflicts with existing
utilities. It will result in definite inconveniences to those
residences that front the street and it will require that the
construction maintain provisions for continuous access to each
residence.
�+ From Gisler Avenue to Reclamation Plant No. 1, the recommended
route runs adjacent to a fairway in the Mesa Verde Country Club
golf course, where a slight regrading along the edge of the
.. fairway is proposed to provide a minimum cover for the gravity
interceptor. The route turns, runs adjacent to the
Greenville-Banning Flood Control, and then crosses the Santa Ana
River to Plant No. 1. The two alternatives through the
r residential development north of Gisler Avenue would result in
significant inconveniences to the surrounding residential
community, and only that paralleling the existing District No. 6
sewers would provide sufficient cover for a gravity profile.
The City of Costa Mesa is the primary permitting agency, having
jurisdiction over the public streets throughout most of the
r project. Other permitting agencies for specific areas include
the Orange County EMA for flood control channel crossings, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Santa Ana River crossing,
.. and Caltrans for the three freeway crossings. The requirements
of each, including traffic control and pavement replacement, will
be included in the construction plans and specifications.
•+� A project schedule has been developed to meet the target of
placing the permanent system serving District No. 14 in operation
by January 1, 1990, in accordance with the March 13, 1985,
agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District. The schedule
calls for construction to begin on the Baker-Gisler Interceptor,
the first of three proposed construction contracts, by July 1988.
Construction of the Baker Street Force Main must begin by January
.� 1989 to meet the target. The Fairview Road Relief Interceptor is
shown beginning construction in March 1989.
The total construction cost of the three contracts is estimated
to be $23.6 million. Allocating the construction costs in
proportion to the design average flow contribution, the share of
the respective participating Districts is:
r
District No. 6 = $ 3.9 million
District No. 7 = 5.5 million
District No. 14 = 14.2 million
$23.6 m ion
r
ii
r
Summary Matrix of Alternative Route Analysis
Issues &Considerations
ce C.0 QJ p0
m� V
Alternative Route Q0 5 c,° 'C° m Total Cost'
A. Baker Street Q Q Q $9.3M
T B. Paularino Ave. Q Q • • $10.2M
C. Paularino Ave./Baker St. • . $9.41VI
D. College Ave. Not Feasible
I
E. Cinnamon Ave. Q Q • Q $4.7M
F. Labrador/Gibraltar Q Q $4.611111
G. Gisler/Golf Course Q $2.2M
H. Indiana Would not meet
_ �a
operational criteria
J. Washington/California Q Q • $2.41VI
*Cost totals for each route are for comparison only and do not include common items.
See Table 8 (follows VIII-1)for the estimated construction cost for the selected route.
Legend
❑ Acceptable
Q Constraint
Clear Disadvantage
❑ Not Feasible
Recommended Route-Bold Type
Alternative Route-Regular Type
SECTION I
.e
INTRODUCTION
"+ A. BACKGROUND
The December 1982 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewer
,e Facilities identified the facilities required to serve
District No. 7 and the north half of District No. 6. The May
1985 Engineers Report for the Formation of County Sanitation
District No. 14 defined the conveyance facilities to serve
District No. 14, which consists of a system integrated with
Districts Nos. 6 and 7. This system consists of four trunk
sewer facilities, shared in differing proportions with
Districts Nos. 6 and 7: the Main Street Trunk Sewer, the
Main Street Pump Station, the Baker Street Force Main, and
the Fairview-Gisler Trunk Sewer.
District No. 14 was formed in 1986 and construction of the
conveyance system is proceeding. The Main Street Trunk Sewer
(Contract No. 7-2C-4) , the Von Kerman Trunk Sewer (Contract
No. 7-8) , and the Main Street Pump Station (Contract No. 7-7)
with an interim connection to the Sunflower Interceptor were
completed and placed in operation in early 1987.
^ This project report addresses the remaining Master Planned
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities to serve Districts Nos. 6,
7, and 14. The scope of work for design of these facilities
^ has been divided into two phases: the preliminary
engineering phase and the final design phase. This project
report documents the preliminary engineering phase.
B. PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN
This phase is intended to identify the requirements for the
facilities to be designed. The preliminary engineering scope
entails:
1. Review of alternatives and selection of the final
pipeline routing.
,s 2. Development of the preliminary profile.
3. Establishment of final design criteria relating to
sizing, materials, and appurtenances.
s
4. Identification of required permits.
5. Identification of right-of-way to be acquired.
6. Development of the project schedule and construction
contract limits.
I-1
•r
r
7. Preparation of preliminary construction cost estimate.
e.
S. Research of existing underground utilities and improve-
ment plans.
s 9. Preparation of preliminary condensed plan and profile and
traffic control concept sketches.
,e The investigations of this project report will serve as the
basis for preparation of the construction plans and specifi-
cation in the final design phase.
C. PROPOSED PROJECT
py The proposed project is intended to serve two primary
conveyance purposes:
1. Convey flows generated in Districts Nos. 7 and 14 from
the Main Street Pump Station to Reclamation Plant No.l.
2. Provide relief to the trunk sewers serving the north half
„s of District No. 6 in conveying their flows by gravity to
Reclamation Plant No. 1.
The project involves the construction of the following
•+ facilities:
1. A force main sewer from the Main Street Pump Station to
the gravity intercept system in District No. 6.
2. A gravity interceptor conveying flows from the force main
and District No. 6 to Reclamation Plant No. 1.
ti
3. A gravity relief interceptor in Fairview Road to provide
District No. 6 with the required master plan projected
e capacity.
•
I-2
s�
r
SECTION II
DESIGN CRITERIA
A. PROJECTED FLOWS AND OWNERSHIP
1. Design Flows and Ownership
.e
The Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities, which are the
subject of this project report, receive flow from
Districts 6, 7, and 14 and convey it to Reclamation Plant
No. 1. Flow from Districts 7 and 14 is pumped from the
Main Street Pump Station. District No. 6 flows enter the
gravity interceptor first at Mendoza Drive and then at
.. Fairview Road. All flows from the Fairview Road Relief
Interceptor are generated in District No. 6.
Since preparation of the 1982 Consolidated Master Plan of
Trunk Sewer Facilities report with addendum, flow
projections have been updated. District No. 7 's capacity
in the Von Karman Trunk Sewer is continued in these joint
conveyance facilities. District No. 14 's capacity
requirements are set forth in the March 13, 1987
agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) .
The peak flow was determined using the following CSDOC
peak-to-average flow relationship:
Qpeak - 1.84 (Qave. ) 0.92 Q in cfs
Construction costs of these trunk sewer conveyance
,r facilities is shared on the basis of the proportion of
the respective District's capacity in accordance with the
March 13, 1985 agreement with the IRWD. The allocation
of costs of the new facilities is prorated based upon
s average flow capacities.
Table 1 lists the design flow contributions by the
,. participating Districts for each facility reach.
2. Initial and Ultimate Projected Flows
e" Flow build-up within the tributary service area of these
sewage conveyance facilities in addition to the opera-
tions of the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant will
affect these facilities with regard to the amount of flow
transported to Reclamation Plant No. 1. The addendum
report to the 1982 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk
Sewer Facilities contained flow projections by the IRWD
staff for the IRWD planning area including their
projected seven-month summer period and five-month winter
period variation to account for their water reclamation
II-1
TABLE 1
DESIGN FLOW FOR
JOINT SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
TO SERVE DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
Average Flow Design Peak
Facility Reach mgd/(S of Total) Flow
______________ _______________________________________________________ ___________
From To CSD No. 6 CSD No. 7 CSD No. 14 Total (mgd)
_________ _________ __________ _____ _____
BAKER-GISLER INTERCEPTOR
Reclamation Plant 1 Fairview Road 10.30 (14.6%) 16.88 (23.9%) 43.5 (61.5%) 70.68 89.33
ti Fairview Road Mendoza Drive 0.68 (1.1g) 16.88 (27.6%) 43.4 (71.2%) 61.06 78.09
H
i Mendoza Drive S.A.-Delhi -- 16.88 (28.0%) 43.5 (72.0%) 60.38 77.28
N Channel
BAKER STREET FORCE MAIN -- -- 16.88 (28.0%) 43.5 (72.0%) 60.38 77.28
FAIRVIEW ROAD RELIEF INTERCEPTOR
Baker Street Village Nay 9.61 -- __ 9.61 14.26
Village Way Fair Drive 6.28 -- -- 6.28 9.64
Fair Drive Wilson Street 2.12 __ __ 2.12 3.55
program. Using this summer/winter variation the
following initial and ultimate flows have been projected:
Winter Flow Summer Flow
(mgd) (mgd)
Facility Average Peak Average Peak
INITIAL (1990)
Main Street Pump Station 19.4 27.2 5.9 9.1
Baker-Gisler Interceptor 22.4 31.0 8.9 13.3
To Reclamation Plant No. 1 33.2 44.5 19.7 27.5
ULTIMATE
w
Main Street Pump Station 60.4 77.3 41.9 55.2
Baker-Gisler Interceptor 70.0 88.5 51.5 66.8
To Reclamation Plant No. 1 82.2 102.6 63.7 81.1
s
B. GRAVITY TRUNK SEWER DESIGN
s
1. Sizing
Flow calculations are based on the Manning formula for
^ open channel flow with a coefficient of friction, n, =
0.013. Pipelines will be sized to limit the peak flow
depth to pipe diameter ratio (D/d) to the following:
sm
Pipe Size
(inches) DLd
8 to 18 0.50
21 to 60 0.75
> 60 0.92
s
Section IV presents a preliminary profile for the gravity
trunk sewer facilities.
•' 2. Pipe Materials
The Gisler-Baker Trunk will be comprised of 78- and
84-inch-diameter pipe and the Fairview Road Trunk will
vary from 24-inch to 33-inch-diameter pipe. Keeping with
the District's standards, vitrified clay pipe (V.C.P.)
will be specified for sizes of 42-inch-diameter and less.
^' Low head reinforced concrete pipe (R.C.P. ) with poly-
vinyl chloride (PVC) plastic liner plate will be speci-
fied for sizes greater than 42 inches in diameter.
A'
w
II-3
a
r
3. Loading
Since the gravity trunks are sized for open channel flow
conditions, the piping will be designed to handle the
following types of loads under empty conditions:
o Permanent Loads: Dead load of earth cover.
o Transient Loads: Highway live loads.
Transient loads will be considered acting simultaneously
with permanent loads.
r
Marston's theory of loads on underground conduits will be
used to predict external loads on pipes in trenches.
Load calculations will be based on soil data developed by
soil consultants. V.C.P. and R.C.P. will be designed as
rigid pipe.
W 4. Manholes and Appurtenances
Manholes will be spaced as follows:
..' Pipe Diameter Maximum Manhole Spacing
< 66" 600 feet
> 69" 1,200 feet
In addition, manholes will be placed at the following
locations:
o Change in invert slope.
w o Change in alignment.
o At the beginning and end of horizontal curves.
Pressure manhole covers will be specified where cover
over the pipe is less than two feet.
C. FORCE MAIN
1. Sizing
The Main Street Pump Station is designed with two banks
of five pumps each for a total of ten pumps. Each bank
�+ has its own wet well and discharge header. The two
headers are joined by a valved crossover line, which
allows either bank of pumps to pump through the outlet of
either discharge header pipe. This maximizes flexibility
at the pump station.
r
II-4
e+'
A double-barrel force main is proposed to maintain this
maximum flexibility. A double-barrel force main allows
use of one barrel only in the early years to keep the
velocity as high as possible. The second barrel would be
available as a backup in the event of a problem with the
first barrel. Two barrels of equal sizes are proposed so
that capacity is not sacrificed in the later years when
one is out of service. One of the equal sized barrels
will provide capacity for a significant portion of each
day when design flows are reached. As a result, maximum
reliability is maintained for the overall conveyance
system.
r*
Two elements were considered in selecting the force main
size; an economic analysis considering construction costs
plus energy costs over the service life of the facility
and an operational analysis.
a. Economic Analysis
w
The analysis compares the present worth of
construction costs plus energy costs over the service
.. life of the force main. The optimum pipe size is the
one for which present worth costs is a minimum. The
calculations for the present worth of energy costs
uses a discount rate of 9 percent and a differential
r+ rate of inflation relative to the general economy of
2 percent. Inflation of the general economy is not
reflected in an economic analysis of this nature.
The analysis used a double-barrel force main of equal
sizes. The present worth costs are tabulated in
Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
w
FORCE MAIN PRESENT WORTH COSTS
Present Worth Costs ($1,000,000)
N Diameter
inches Pipeline Construction Energy Total
30 2.88 1.85 4.73
r 36 3.34 1.18 4.52
42 3.72 .95 4.67
48 4.19 .86 5.05
54 4.65 .82 5.47
Figure 1 is a plot of the total present worth of
costs versus force main diameter of each barrel. The
pipe diameters shown are the progressive size
increments available for ductile-iron pipe (D.I.P.) .
s
II-5
�a
r
7
J
r
rn 6
0
U
2
r
0
3
r
z
w
Ul
w
g
a
J
O . : � . . . . . . .
r
4
12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
FORCE MAIN DIAMETER-EACH BARREL ( INCHES)
/ � COUNTY SANITK"OIDIGTRICT! NO. OJA14 OF ORANGE COUNTY
�a IX_ SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
L�i�CarjrJOl�dirfor►. FORCE MAIN SIZE-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS LFIG. I
r
While the cost for the 36-inch-diameter double-barrel
.. pipe size is slightly less than the 30-inch or
42-inch diameters, a clear determination is not
evident from the economic analysis.
b. Operational Considerations
Of prime importance in the operation of the force
.� main barrels is the flow velocity profile that will
result over the life of the facility. Ideally a
velocity of between 2.0 and 2.5 feet per second (fps)
r at daily peak flow during the initial years is
desirable with the maximum velocity at ultimate peak
flow limited to approximately 6 fps. The minimum
velocity is important to maintain in order to keep
�+ solids from settling out in the force main and
creating a potential blockage. The maximum velocity
is limited in order to minimize the possibility of
r, erosion of the pipe material due to suspended solids
and grit within the sewage. In addition, a high
velocity necessitates a greater hydraulic head and,
therefore, a greater energy requirement, a factor
.� which is reflected in the above economic analysis.
It should be noted that surge pressures resulting
from such occurrences as power loss are usually
less at lower velocities.
These ideal velocity conditions, however, are not
attainable for this facility due to the large
s projected annual flow variation and the low initial
flows. Table 3 lists the velocity in the force main
for varying flow and pipe barrel sizes.
s
II-6
r
TABLE 3
FLOW VELOCITIES IN FORCE MAIN
velocity in fpa
Total Flow Force Main Barrel Diameter
Mgd cfs 36" 42" 48"
r
INITIAL SUMMER (1)
average 5.9 9.1 1.3 0.9 0.7
peak 9.1 14.1 2.0 1.5 1.1
r INITIAL WINTER (1)
average 19.4 30.0 4.2 3.1 2.4
peak 27.2 42.1 5.9 4.4 3.4
.r ULTIMATE SUMMER (2)
average 41.9 64.9 4.6 3.6 2.6
peak 55.2 85.5 6.0 4.4 3.4
ULTIMATE WINTER (2)
average 60.4 93.5 6.6 4.9 3.7
peak 77.3 119.6 8.5 6.2 4.7
,r ---------------------
(1) Total flow in one barrel.
^" (2) Total flow divided eq
ually between both barrels.
Considering results of the economic analysis weighed
d against the operational characteristics, the 42-inch-
diameter force main barrel size appears to be the
best. Both barrels being of equal size are most
compatible with the Main Street Pump Station, which
is designed for two banks of equally sized pumps,
each discharging independently to its force main
barrel. This interchangeability allows maximum
system flexibility.
2. Pipe Material
The 42-inch-diameter pipe barrels will be operating at a
maximum internal pressure of approximately 25 pounds per
square inch (psi) . Ductile-iron pipe (D.I.P. ) is
proposed for the force main. Of the pipe materials able
to withstand the internal pressure requirements for this
pipeline, D.I.P. is available with a lining to resist
internal corrosion and is the most economical in this
size range. It has a successful history within the
District's systems. It is recommended that the interior
be lined with a fusion-bonded polyethylene lining to
provide increased resistance to internal corrosion.
w
II-7
w1
r
D. SIPHON DESIGN
The profile of the gravity interceptor, which is controlled
by the hydraulic grade line (HGL) at the treatment plant
headworks, will require two siphons, one beneath the Santa
Ana River and one beneath the Greenville-Banning flood
control channel.
The siphon beneath the Santa Ana River is necessitated by the
proposed improvements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
which calls for lowering and widening of the channel-s
invert. Current planning calls for lowering the invert
s approximately 7 feet and constructing a wider rectangular
channel section along this area. The proposed river
improvements will also interfere in profile with the existing
,r District No. 6 Air Base Trunk No. 2, which crosses the
existing Santa Ana River channel with approximately 3 feet of
cover. To provide for this eventuality, flow from the
existing Air Base Trunk No. 2 will be intercepted upstream
and combined with this project for a single siphon crossing
of the river channel. This will provide the additional
advantage of increasing the early year flow in the siphon and
improving its operation. The Air Base Trunk No. 2 will,
therefore, not require relocation in the future when the
channel improvements are constructed.
^" The following criteria will be used in the design of the
siphons:
e. 1. Number and Size of Barrels
The District's established maintenance program includes
frequent cleaning of all trunk sewer siphons, normally at
approximately three-month intervals. Experience in the
Districts has shown that siphons with a single barrel
operating continuously throughout the day coupled with
the above cleaning frequency provide the best operational
characteristics. Intermittent use of a barrel results in
odors and deposits of grease and solids that lead to
blockages. Consequently, the siphons will be designed
^' for a barrel sized to produce as great a velocity in the
early years as possible without excessive head loss at
ultimate peak flow.
Preliminary hydraulic analysis indicated that a 66-inch
siphon barrel will keep the head loss within the range
necessary to allow the upstream profile to meet the
hydraulic commitments of the trunk sewer system. The
diurnal flow through the siphon will vary throughout the
year as the demand of the IRWD's water reclamation
,r program fluctuates. During the summer months when demand
for reclaimed water is high, flow diverted by IRWD to the
District's system will decrease with a corresponding
reduction in flow through the siphons. The opposite will
w
II-S
1
L
be the case during winter months when the reclamation
�.. demand is low. The 66-inch barrel would operate over the
range of flow in the manner shown in Table 4 .
TABLE 4
r
FLAW VELOCITY IN 66-INCH SIPHON BARREL
r
Flow Velocity
(mgd) (fps)
INITIAL - Summer Average Flow 19.7 1.3
Peak Flow 27.6 1.8
INITIAL - Winter Average Flow 33.2 2.2
Peak Flow 44.6 2.9
ULTIMATE - Summer Average Flow 63.8 4.2
Peak Flow 81.2 5.3
ULTIMATE - Winter Average Flow 82.2 5.3
r Peak Flow 102.6 6.7
r 2. Depth Below the Channel Bed
The siphon barrels will be placed at a level beneath the
channel bed that will not subject the pipe to exposure
ee from future foreseeable erosion of the streambed and is
compatible with the future channel improvements. The
barrel will be encased in reinforced concrete and a large
size rock riprap apron placed on the downstream side of
the encasement for further protection against damage from
streambed scour and erosion.
3. Access Structures
An inlet and an outlet structure will be located in an
area accessible by trucks for maintenance and diversion
" operations. The structures will be lined with PVC liner
plate to protect against internal corrosion. The upward
slope of the downstream leg of the siphon profile into
.. the outlet structure will be limited to 15 percent to
enable moving solids upward during cleaning by the
balling method.
4. Air Vent
An air vent will be provided between the inlet and outlet
structures to allow the offensive atmosphere of the sewer
system, which travels with the sewage flow, to continue
across the siphon rather than escape to the atmosphere
.w
through the manhole covers on the upstream structure.
II-9
.r
r
r
Two types of air vents or "jumpers" were considered:
(1) an aboveground pipe suspended above the hydraulic
grade line (HGL) of the sewer, and (2) a belowground pipe
that runs parallel to the siphon. Figure 2 illustrates
the alternative concepts at the Santa Ana River Siphon.
r
In the case of the Santa Ana River Siphon, the
aboveground air jumper requires a costly pipe bridge to
support the suspended pipe. This structure will require
modifications to accommodate future widening of the Santa
Ana River. One positive aspect of this alternative is
that it requires no energy to maintain air movement. The
cost of the pipe bridge in comparison to that of the
underground alternative is significantly greater.
However, at the Greenville-Banning Channel Siphon, an air
,y jumper above the HGL is not feasible due to the ground
surface elevation and the surrounding surface
improvements.
r The underground air jumper consists of a sloping pipe
ending at a pump well structure that will collect
condensate and water that may enter the vent pipe. The
water can then be removed periodically using a sump pump.
Continuous positive air flow is maintained using a fan
located in the outlet structure. The fan will be an item
requiring maintenance and replacement from time to time.
In reviewing this concept with the District staff, it was
felt that, since a ventilation system will be installed
at the new headworks expansion, just downstream of the
Santa Ana River Siphon, enough pressure differential may
be created across the Santa Ana River Siphon by
installing a fan in the air jumper at only the
Greenville-Banning Channel Siphon.
r
Construction of the underground air jumper can be
performed at the same time as the siphon construction.
The V.C.P. material proposed is less expensive than the
pipe material that would be required for the aboveground
alternative and is most resistant to corrosion from the
sewer atmosphere. The belowground alternative is,
therefore, recommended.
r
r
r1
II-10
r
PIPE BRIDGE
ABOVE GROUND
ALTERNATIVE
SS' AIR JUMPER
FAN
84' GRAVITY
SEWER
78' PIPE \ - SANTA ANA
1 RIVER
w/Y
SS' VCP PIPE
/
PUMP WELL
SIPHON BELOW GROUND
ALTERNATIVE
SANTA ANA RIVER
SIPHON PROFILE
N.T.S.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NO.E.7&1/ OF ORANGE COUNTY
=1 Kw llll�ff X4 SEWAGE CONVEYANCE R\CLfTES
m7n• I AR MWER CONCEPTS M 2
SECTION III
ROUTE ANALYSIS
A. ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of this trunk sewer is to convey flows from the
,y Main Street Pump Station through the City of Costa Mesa and
into the CSDOC's Reclamation Plant No. 1. Several
alternatives have been identified and analyzed, including the
possibility of paralleling the San Diego Freeway through
various existing easements. This alignment, however, is not
feasible due to numerous tunnelings required under freeway
ramps and overcrossings which make the cost of this route
,r excessive in comparison to other alternatives. The feasible
alternatives are described below and shown on Figure 3 at the
back of this report. The alternative routes have two
intermediate common points--the intersection of Gisler Avenue
and Washington Avenue and the intersection of Baker Street
and College Avenue. The route analysis is, therefore,
divided into the three reaches defined by these common
points.
1. Main Street Pump Station to Baker Street and
College Avenue
r
ALTERNATIVE "A"
This route commences at the Main Street Pump Station and
proceeds in a southwest direction parallel to the
northwest property line of the John Wayne Airport through
the airport parking lot. It continues in a southwest
direction as it tunnels under the San Diego Freeway. It
then proceeds west into the Airport Loop Drive cul-de-sac
and continues southwest in Airport Loop Drive and
southwest in Airway Avenue until it reaches Baker Street
East, west in Baker Street East to College Avenue. This
alternative is composed of three pipe types and sizes.
From the Main Street Pump Station to the intersection of
Baker Street and the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel, it is
comprised of approximately 10,080 linear feet (L.F. ) of
double-barreled 42-inch force main sewer. From the Santa
Ana-Delhi Channel to the intersection of Baker and
Fairview it is comprised of approximately 6,720 L.F. of
78-inch gravity trunk sewer. From the intersection of
Baker and Fairview to the intersection of Baker and
College it is comprised of approximately 2,700 L.F. of
84-inch gravity trunk sewer.
Baker Street is a major east-west arterial street and
carries a relatively high volume of traffic particularly
during rush hours. The portion between Bristol Street
and Harbor Boulevard appears to be the most heavily
III-1
r
r
traveled. Development along this section of Baker Street
is comprised of primarily community commercial types with
the residential areas facing interior tracts away from
Baker Street. This route passes a parochial school and
church east of Mendoza Drive. Although the route also
passes a church just west of Fairview Road, this church
has access off Loren Lane.
r
ALTERNATIVE "B"
Alternative "B" is identical to Alternative "A" up to the
intersection of Air Loop Avenue and Paularino Avenue At
this point the alignment changes direction and proceeds
northwest in Paularino to Bear Street, and southwest in
Bear approximately 750 L.F. It then extends in a
northwest direction tunneling under the southbound
offramp of the Corona del Mar Freeway for approximately
200 L.F. to the Helena Place cul-de-sac. Following
Helena to Helen Place and north in Helena Place to
.+ Paularino Avenue, it continues west in Paularino crossing
Fairview Road in a west direction the the Donreal Place
cul-de-sac. It turns west in Donreal to Loren Lane, and
southwest in Loren to Baker Street continuing west in
r Baker until it reaches College Street, the common point
with the other alternates. This alternative is composed
of three pipe types and sizes. From the Main Street Pump
Station to the intersection of Paularino and the Santa
Ana-Delhi Channel, it is comprised of approximately 9,720
L.F. of double-barreled 42-inch force main sewer. From
the intersection of Paularino and the Santa Ana-Delhi
Channel to the intersection of Paularino and Fairview it
is comprised of approximately 7,350 L.F. of 78-inch
gravity trunk sewer. From the intersection of Paularino
and Fairview to the intersection of Baker and College it
is comprised of approximately 3,300 L.F. of 84-inch trunk
sewer.
The Paularino Avenue route passes through a predominantly
residential area. It passes one elementary school at
Coolidge Avenue and a church at Loren Lane and Baker
r Street. West of Bear Street, it is a relatively narrow
street (one lane in each direction without a striped
median) with residences fronting the street. East on
Bear Street a striped median has been added.
ALTERNATIVE "C"
r Alternative "C" is identical to Alternatives "A" and "B"
up to the intersection of Air Loop Avenue and Paularino
Avenue. At this point the alignment changes direction
and proceeds northwest in Paularino to Bear Street,
southwest in Bear to the intersection of Bear and Baker
Street. From this point on, the alignment is identical
to Alternative "A" up to the intersection of Baker and
III-2
r
d
College Avenue. This alternative is composed of three
r pipe types and sizes. From the Main Street Pump Station
to the intersection of Paularino and the Santa Ana-Delhi
Channel, it is comprised of approximately 8,720 L.F. of
double-barreled 42-inch force main sewer. From the
" intersection of Paularino and to the intersection of
Baker and Fairview, the pipe is comprised of
approximately 7,260 L.F. of 78-inch gravity trunk sewer.
r From the intersection of Baker and Fairview to the
intersection of Baker and College, the pipe is comprised
of approximately 2,700 L.F. of gravity trunk sewer.
2. Baker Street and College Avenue to
Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue
r ALTERNATIVE "D"
This route commences at the intersection of Baker Street
and College Street, then proceeds north in College, until
it reaches Gisler Avenue, west in Gisler to the
intersection of Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue.
This alignment is comprised of approximately 7,800 L.F.
,. of 84-inch gravity trunk sewer. There are several storm
drain facilities crossing the alignment in the vicinity
of Harbor Boulevard; these will require the addition of
two short siphons in the profile.
r
ALTERNATIVE "E"
The commencement point of this route is identical to that
of Alternative "D" and will proceed west in Baker until
it reaches Deodar Avenue, continuing north in Deodar
Avenue, Nutmeg Place, Mace Avenue, Caraway Drive, and
r Cinnamon Avenue to Gisler Avenue, where it travels west
in Gisler to Washington Avenue. This alignment is
comprised of approximately 11,550 L.F. of 84-inch gravity
.,, trunk sewer. It parallels a 60-inch storm drain between
Baker Street and Gisler Avenue and crosses the District's
30-inch trunk sewer just south of Gisler Avenue.
ALTERNATIVE "F"
Again from the same commencement point as Alternative "D"
r, and Alternative "E," this alignment proceeds on a west
direction in Baker Avenue, to Labrador Avenue, continuing
northwest in Labrador to Gibraltar Avenue. From this
point, it continues north in Gibraltar to Gisler Avenue,
" and west in Gisler to the intersection of Gisler Avenue
and Washington Avenue. This alignment is comprised of
approximately 7,920 L.F. of 84-inch gravity trunk sewer.
r
III-3
r
r
3. Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue to
Reclamation Plant No. 1
ALTERNATIVE "G"
r This route commences at the intersection of Gisler Avenue
and Washington Avenue, then proceeds west in Gisler -
approximately 800 feet where the street profile drops
significantly. The interceptor would then deflect
southerly into the Mesa Verde Country Club golf course,
where some regrading adjacent to the north side of one
fairway would be required to provide cover over the pipe.
A 600-foot siphon beneath the Greenville-Banning Channel
from an inlet structure located in the golf course
property to the west side of the channel is required.
,r The alignment then parallels the Greenville-Banning
Channel in an easement from a parcel of private property
between the channel right-of-way and Southern California
Edison (SCE) right-of-way to the point where the Santa
Ana River syphon begins.
ALTERNATIVE "H"
r
The commencement point of this alternative is identical
to that of Alternative "G" but will proceed in a
northbound direction in Washington Avenue to the
intersection of Illinois Street and Washington Avenue, in
Illinois until it reaches the intersection of Indiana
Avenue and Illinois Street and in Indiana until it
reaches the T-intersection at Iowa Street. At this
point, the trunk sewer will siphon underneath an existing
residence and the Greenville-Banning Channel in one
siphon. From this point, it will proceed in a northwest
direction to the point where the Santa Ana River Siphon
begins. This alignment is comprised of approximately
2,450 L.F. of 84-inch gravity trunk sewer. It also
parallels and crosses existing utilities along the length
of the route.
ALTERNATIVE "J"
r
Again the commencement point of the alternative is
identical to that of Alternative "G" and proceeds north
in Washington Avenue until it reaches the T-intersection
of California Street From this point, it proceeds in
California until it reaches the end of Nevada Avenue,
where it continues through a community park and along
SCE's right-of-way to the Santa Ana River Siphon. This
alignment is comprised of approximately 3 ,950 L.F. of
84-inch gravity trunk sewer.
.r
III-4
4. Fairview Relief Interceptor - Fairview Road
from Wilson Street to Baker Street
This route commences at the intersection of Wilson Street
and Fairview Road and continues in the east side of
Fairview Road until it reaches the Paularino Channel.
Approximately 100 feet north of the channel the alignment
traverses across Fairview Road to the west side to Baker
r Street and connects to the 84-inch Gisler-Baker Trunk
Sewer.
Because of the location of service commitments which
include relieving the existing trunk sewers at three
locations, the route of the proposed trunk sewer is
limited to the east side of Fairview Road. After
intercepting the three existing sewers, the alignment
will cross Fairview from east to west to join the 84-inch
trunk sewer at Baker Street.
r
B. COST COMPARISON
r The estimated construction costs of the alternative routes
for the respective reaches are summarized in Table 5 for
comparison. The costs include only those items which differ
between alternates. They do not include common items, such
as manholes, structures, and appurtenances. Section VII
presents a detailed construction cost estimate of facilities
following the selected route.
r
r
r
r
III-5
r
r
r
TABLE 5
r
CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
r' Alternate Length (L.F. ) Estimated Construction Cost
1. Pump Station to Baker Street/College Avenue
A 19,500 $ 9,300,000
B 20,250 10,200,000
C 19,700 9,400,000
r
2. Baker Street/College Avenue to
Gisler Ave/Washington Ave
D 7,800 $E 8, 160 q,700,000
F 7,920 4,600,000
r
3. Gisler Avenue/Washington Avenue to Santa Ana River
r G 3,600 $ 2,200,000
R 2,460 2,100,000 (1)
J 3,600 2,400, 000
to
(1) Includes purchase of existing property on Iowa Street
at 150 percent of estimated current price plus tunneling beneath
the existing house. The potential recovery of some portion of
this cost by resale of the property is not included.
r
C. ANALYSIS AND SELECTION
Analysis of the alternative routes considered construction
feasibility, community impact, economics, existing utilities,
and future trunk sewer maintenance operations. Table 6 at
the end of this section summarizes the advantages and
+' disadvantages specific to each alternative.
1. Main Street Pump Station to Baker Street and
r College Avenue
Of the three alternatives "A, " "B," and "C" in this
reach, Alternative "A" was selected for recommendation
r for the following reasons:
a. Baker Street includes two lanes in each direction
r, plus a median, while Paularino Avenue between Bear
Street and Bristol Street has only one lane in each
direction plus a median, and west of Bear Street it
has no median. Even though a higher volume of
r
III-6
.r
r
traffic is encountered on Baker Street than on
Paularino Avenue, additional width of Baker Street
will allow the pipeline construction to occur only on
the north half (westbound) of the road, leaving the
south half available for traffic. Temporary lane
configurations could be designed to minimize traffic
delays. For instance, during construction hours, one
lane could be open in the west direction and two
.. lanes available for eastbound traffic. After
construction hours, a second lane on the north side
of the street could be returned for westbound
traffic. The narrower Paularino Avenue does not have
sufficient room to allow this traffic control method
and it would probably require closing Paularino
Avenue to through traffic west of Bristol Street for
safety in view of the construction area required to
install an 84-inch pipeline.
b. The impacts that would be experienced by the overall
community would be greater from construction along
Paularino Avenue than along Baker Street.
Development along Paularino Avenue between Bear
., Street and Fairview Road is strictly residential with
many properties fronting on Paularino Avenue. In
addition, the Paularino Elementary school is located
on Paularino Avenue at Coolidge Ave. East of Bear
Street the residential development surrounding
Paularino Avenue faces the interior tracts rather
than directly on the street. Although a parochial
.. school is located on Baker Street at Mendoza Drive,
it has its primary access from Mendoza Drive.
Along Baker Street the residential development faces
away from the street and in fact between Babb Street
and Fairview Road a block wall on the north side of
the street will help to serve as a buffer between the
.. adjacent properties and the construction activities.
Access to residences north of Baker Street can be
gained using the local north-south streets to
r
Paularino Avenue.
The narrow width of Paularino Avenue west of Bristol
Street and the larger 72-inch pipe would necessitate
closing the street to vehicular traffic in phases.
This would result in access delays for residents of
the surrounding area. Also, inconveniences may be
experienced from noise and dust during the actual
construction. Along . Baker Street, these types of
impacts will be significantly less.
The commercial development on Paularino Avenue is
centered primarily around Bristol Street and access
could easily be gained from Bristol Street. Along
r
Baker Street the commercial establishments are
III-7
r
located for the most part on the south side of the
street. By maintaining the vehicular traffic on the
south side during construction, access will easily be
maintained to the adjacent business during
construction. Residential condominium projects on
the north side of Baker Street between Babb Street
and Bristol Street will have continuous access during
construction.
r
It should be noted that continuous unobstructed
ingress and egress must be maintained to the fire
station on Baker Street at the Corona del Mar Freeway
at all times during construction.
c. Alternative "A" is shorter in length by 750 L.F.
than Alternative "B" and by 200 L.F. than Alternative
"C," which translates into a lower overall
construction cost. Alternative "B" would also
require approximately 200 L.F. of tunnel under the
Corona del Mar Freeway offramp near Bear Street,
which adds to the construction cost differential.
Using the summary in Table 2, the construction cost
,., of Alternative "A" is estimated to be $920,000 less
than Alternative "B" and $140,000 less than
Alternative "C."
d. Utility involvement is essentially the same for the
three alternatives. Existing water and sewer mains
and a recently installed storm drain on the south
.. side of Baker Street require locating the pipeline on
the north side of the street. This is also the
preferred location with regard to traffic control as
previously pointed out. Along Paularino Avenue east
of Bristol Street, there are no major utilities,
although the local distribution utilities will force
the pipeline alignment to the center of the street.
r
e. From a maintenance standpoint, Alternative "A" or "C"
would facilitate cleaning operations of the trunk
sewer by virtue of its straighter alignment in the
vicinity of Bear Street. The wider Baker Street
would allow easier access to manholes for cleaning
vehicles without excessive traffic impact.
r
2. Baker Street and College Avenue to Gisler Avenue
and Washington Avenue
Alternatives Routes "D, " "E, " and "F" were analyzed in
this reach. Taking into consideration construction
feasibility, community impact, economics, existing
utilities and future maintenance operation, the
recommended alternative for this reach is
Alternative "F. "
r
III-8
r
L
r
A profile for Alternative "D" cannot be developed to
maintain gravity flow from the hydraulic control
elevation at Reclamation Plant No. 1. The existing
surface profile along College Avenue as it approaches
Gisler Avenue and along Gisler Avenue itself across
Harbor Boulevard is below that necessary to maintain a
minimum amount of cover over a gravity sewer profile. As
a result, Alternative "D" was eliminated as a choice for
r the trunk sewer alignment.
Alternatives "E" and "F" continue westerly on Baker
Street, crossing Harbor Boulevard. It should be noted
that an improvement project on Harbor Boulevard which
cannot be delayed is scheduled for this year and will
preclude construction along this portion of Harbor
Boulevard.
Alternative "E" follows a circuitous route along narrow
streets between Baker Street and Gisler Avenue. The
properties bordering are both commercial and residential.
This route follows storm drain for most of the way.
Construction of the 84-inch interceptor will be difficult
,r along this route because of (1) the many turns to be
negotiated, (2) the necessity to relocate at least the
local sewers to make room for the large pipeline, and
(3) the necessity to construct a junction/diversion
structure where it crosses the existing 30-inch Air Base
Trunk No. 2. These streets would require closing to
vehicular traffic, which would result in significant
inconveniences to the adjacent commercial and residential
properties.
Alternative "F" continues on Baker Street and follows a
more direct route along Labrador Drive and Gibraltar
Avenue to Gisler Avenue. It does travel through a
strictly residential area of single family houses. The
r, primary impact would be inconveniences to the residences
fronting on Labrador Drive and Gibraltar Avenue. These
would stem from potential delays in vehicular access to
their driveways and from the noise and dust generated
from the construction activities. Measures to minimize
these impacts will be discussed later in this report. It
is felt, however, that with mitigating measures to
minimize the construction related inconveniences to the
residences along Labrador Drive and Gibraltar Avenue,
Alternative "F" is least impacting to the overall
community. Significant utility relocations are not
required for Alternative -IF.'-
Alternative "F" is approximately 240 feet shorter than
Alternative "E" and, in terms of construction cost, is
$150,000 less.
r
III-9
r
r
3. Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue to
r Reclamation Plant No. 1
The profiles of all three alternatives, "G, " "H," and
"I," require a siphon beneath the Greenville-Banning
Channel. The siphon of Alternative "H" continues beneath
an existing house with the upstream end terminating at a
depth of only 2 feet below the street surface. This
�. shallow upstream depth, however, does not allow
sufficient room for the water surface to rise in the
manhole during the cleaning operation. The profile of
Alternative "H," therefore, is not operationally
'+ feasible.
Alternative "J" is more costly than Alternative "G" by
$200,000 because of the more circuitous route for this
large pipe and the necessity to construct junction
structures with the two existing District trunk sewers to
resolve profile conflicts. In addition, Alternative "J"
'r would present significantly greater impacts to the
surrounding community, since it travels through the
center of a heavily residential area.
r
Alternative "G" would present some inconvenience to the
Mesa Verde Country Club golf course during construction
along one fairway and during the regrading and
landscaping construction. However, the use of this
fairway should not be interrupted. Construction along
the remainder of Alternative "G" should not impact the
other community elements significantly. The portion
paralleling the Greenville-Banning Channel on the west
side is outside the proposed improvements of either the
Santa Ana River or Greenville-Banning Channel as shown on
the Corps of Engineers' current preliminary plans
received in April 1987 and titled "Santa Ana River,
California, Phase II General Design Memorandum,"
Sheets 34 and 44. Consequently, Alternative "G" is
recommended.
4. Fairview Road from Wilson Street to Baker Street
AI
The alignment for this route is best situated in the
outermost travel lane on the east or northbound side of
Fairview Road. This location for the trunk sewer is
dictated by the District's existing trunk sewer which
must be relieved at three locations and other utilities
on the west or southbound side which includes a storm
drain ranging from 30 inches to 60 inches. Also, various
existing 8-inch water and sewerlines provide enough
longitudinal conflict to force the proposed trunk sewer
to the eastside of Fairview Road. By occupying the
outermost travel lane, it provides a space and allows a
construction zone which minimizes the traffic
inconveniences. Because of the wide street configuration
III-10
r
which includes one bike lane, three travel lanes and a
r median, the construction zone will allow one lane open
for through traffic during construction hours and two
through lanes after construction hours. Thus, the
inconvenience to the motoring public will be held to a
r minimum.
Review of the alignment of the existing Air Base Trunk
r No. 2 between Arlington Avenue and Adams Avenue notes the
existing trunk is beneath a building of the Costa Mesa
High School. It is, therefore, not feasible to follow
the easement of this existing trunk sewer.
r
r
r
r
1Y
1
r
r
III-11
r
TABLE 6
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
ti SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
,r ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIC ADVANTAGES SPECIFIC DISADVANTAGES
Main Street Pump Station to Baker Street and College Avenue
'A" 1. Minimum inconvenience 1. Heavier arterial
to surrounding resi- traffic
dential areas.
r
2. Shorter by 700 L.F.
3. Lowest construction
r cost by $140,000.
"B" 1. Less through 1. Longer route than
traffic. Alt. "A" by 750 L.F.
2. Requires closure to
through vehicular
traffic due to
narrower streets.
3. Inconvenience to sur-
rounding residential
areas with many
fronting directly on
the street.
4. Higher const. cost
.. than Alt. "A" by
$920,000.
5. Passes one elemen-
tary school.
6. Approximately 200
r L.F. of tunneling
beneath freeway
offramp.
m' "C" Since this alternative is a combination of Alt. "A"
and Alt. "B" the advantages and disadvantages are
similar in description with the exception that
Alt. "C" is longer than Alt. 'A" by 200 L.F. and the
inconvenience surrounding residential area is less
than for Alt. "B. "
r
III-12
�i TABLE 6 (Continued)
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
d
SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIC ADVANTAGES SPECIFIC DISADVANTAGES
Baker Street and College Avenue to
Gisler Avenue and Washington Avenue
"D" -- 1. Gravity sewer not
feasible due to sur-
face profile.
M� "E" 1. Minimum inconvenience 1. Inconvenience to com-
to through arterial mercial and residen-
vehicular traffic. tial areas due to
circuitous alignment.
2. Inconvenience re-
quires closure to
through vehicular
'^ traffic due to nar-
rower streets.
r 3. Longer route than
Alt. "F" by 200 L.F.
4. Higher const. cost
than Alt. "F" by
$140,000.
1. Shorter route than 1. Inconvenience to resi-
Alt. "E" by 200 L.F. dences on Labrador
Avenue and Gibraltar
Avenue which front on
the street.
2. Lower construction 2. Inconvenience re-
costs than Alt. "E" quires closure to
by $140,000. through vehicular
traffic due to nar-
rower streets.
3. Minimum inconvenience
to through arterial
vehicular traffic.
r
III-13
r
r
TABLE 6 (Continued)
r
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
o SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIC ADVANTAGES SPECIFIC DISADVANTAGES
"G" 1. Minimum inconvenience 1. Longer siphon under
to through vehicular Greenville-Banning
r traffic. Channel.
2. Golf course route out 2. Easement required.
of right-of-way.
3. Lower construction 3. Additional landscape
cost than Alt. "J" by cost.
$200,000.
4. Inconvenience to
golf course.
"H" 1. Shorter route than 1. Surface cover shallow
Alt's. "G" and "J. " at upstream siphon
structure resulting in
operationally non-
feasible profile.
r 2. Inconvenience to resi-
dential area due to
circuitous route.
3. Inconvenience requires
closure to through
vehicular traffic due
to narrow streets.
4. Siphon under house re-
quired plus easement.
r
1. Shortest siphon. 1. Inconvenience to resi-
dential area due to
r circuitous route.
2. Inconvenience requires
closure to through
r vehicular traffic due
to narrow streets.
r 3. Higher construction
cost than Alt. "G" by
$200,000.
III-14
_ SECTION IV
ALIGNMENT AND PROFILE
ALONG RECOMMENDED ROUTE
A. ALIGNMENT
Utility information and improvement plans have been gathered
along the route of the sewage conveyance facilities and a
preliminary alignment has been selected within the streets.
Figure 4, Sheets 1 through 8 in the pocket at the back of
this report, presents a preliminary plan and profile for the
entire force main and gravity interceptor system. Existing
major utilities which serve to control the location of the
pipelines within the street are plotted in both the plan and
profile views.
A
The proposed pipeline alignments have been selected to
minimize conflicts or involvement with existing utilities
while allowing vehicular traffic to continue past the
construction zone with as little delay as possible. The
objective is to allow a contractor to develop an efficient
train of pipeline construction activities while minimizing
„r the impacts to the overall community.
Along Baker Street from approximately College Avenue
easterly, an alignment was selected on the north side of the
's street for several reasons. The major longitudinal trunk
utilities are on the south side along this portion of Baker
Street--a 30-inch to 60-inch storm drain, a 16-inch waterline
,., and 8-inch local sewer mains. The north side on the other
hand is relatively unencumbered with utilities. The
District's 18-inch Air Base Trunk No. 1 may be intercepted at
Mendoza Drive, allowing the new trunk to occupy its location.
The remaining reaches of the Air Base Trunk No. 2 can then be
abandoned downstream.
Locating the sewers on the north side will allow room on the
south past the construction zone for two eastbound lanes at
all times and one westbound during working hours with a
second westbound lane added at all other times.
Subsection VI, D, of this report further describes the
traffic control and phasing plan concept.
a West of Harbor Boulevard, an existing 54-inch storm drain,
12-inch water main and 8-inch local sewer forces the
alignment to the center of the street.
No major utility relocations are foreseen at this time.
There may be a few distribution size utility relocations
required.
IV-1
.d
B. PROFILE
1. Gravity Interceptors
The following points serve to control the profile of the
'd gravity trunk sewers:
o The HGL elevation at the Reclamation Plant No. 1
headworks established by the design of Contract
No. P1-20. The point of interface between Contract
No. P1-20 and the Baker-Gisler Interceptor is the
siphon outlet structure across the Santa Ana River.
'^ Following are the controlling data set by the
headworks design:
Invert Elevations of 78-Inch Outlet = 15.45
Water Surface Elevation at Peak Day
Flow of 100 cfs = 19. 04
ed
o Interception of the District's Air Base Trunk No. 2
in Fairview Avenue at the Paularino Flood Control
Channel. Under Contract No. 6-11, a 21-inch VCP was
constructed along the Paularino Flood Control
Channel sloping to the west from the existing Air
Base Trunk No. 2 to Fairview Road. This dry sewer
will be intercepted and manhole modification work
done on the east end to activate this line and allow
abandonment of the Air Base Trunk No. 2 between the
® Paularino Channel and Baker Street.
o The hydraulic commitment to relieve the District's
existing Fairview Road Trunk Sewer between Baker
�! Street and Wilson Avenue. The depth and profile of
the existing Fairview Road Trunk Sewer controls the
slope of the Fairview Relief Interceptor. A 27-inch
pipe size is required for conformance with the
criteria of Section II-B. This results in
sufficient excess capacity between Fair Drive and
the Paularino Channel to allow abandonment of the
•" Air Base Trunk No. 2 south of Salvador Street, which
is over 45 years old.
Frelimin4 (in pocket at back of report) shows a
preliminary profile with pipe sizes and slopes and the
major utilities that cross the pipeline route.
s 2. Force Main
The purpose of the force main is to convey flow from the
Main Street Pump Station to the gravity interceptor
system serving District No. 6. The westerly most
terminus of the force main is, therefore, Fairview Road.
This results in a 17,000-foot-long force main.
IV-2
r
r
Review of the gravity system and roadway surface profiles
indicated the gravity sewer could be continued easterly,
joining the force main at the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel.
This would shorten the force main to 9,400 feet in
length.
-
An economic comparison was made of the life cycle costs
of these two alternative force main/gravity interceptor
r interface locations. The analysis compared the capital
(construction) costs plus pumping energy costs over a
50-year service life for the facility. The present worth
of these costs in 1987 dollars were compared using a
discount rate of 9 percent over the 50-year life for the
pumping energy costs.
Flow buildup for the determination of energy costs
parallels that of the addendum report to the 1982
Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewer Facilities as
follows:
en
Average Flow (mgd)
r
Tributary Area 1990 2030
Winter Months
CSD No. 7 5.5 10.0
IRWD 14.5 45.0
20.5 55.0
w
Summer Months
CSD No. 7 5.5 10.0
�= IRWD 0.5 25.0
6.0 35.0
The summer months flow reflects the seven-month period
when IRWD reclamation demands are greatest and the winter
months flow is the remaining five months when reclamation
r demand declines.
The analysis compares only those elements that differ
between alternatives. The appendix includes two tables
that itemize on a year-by-year basis the annual pumping
energy costs at the Main Street Pump Station. A double.
barrel 42-inch force main was used for pumping energy
�+ calculations and a 78-inch diameter pipe for the gravity
sewer portion. Table 7 summarizes the present worth
costs for comparison.
r
r
IV-3
r
r
TABLE 7
ECONOMIC COMPARISON
FORCE MAIN TERMINUS ALTERNATIVES
d
Present Worth Cost (1987)
Force Main Term nus Force Main Terminus
Cost Element at Fairview Road at S.A.-Delhi Channel
CAPITAL COSTS
Force Main $7,395,000 $3,660,000
r Gravity Sewer 0 3,885,000
Subtotal 7,395,000 7,545,000
ANNUAL COSTS
Pumping Energy 1, 130,000 1,410, 000
..i TOTAL $8,525,000 $8,955, 000
w The total present worth costs are slightly more for the
shorter force main, although the difference is within the
accuracy of this level of estimates.
e+ The two alternative force main terminus locations were
reviewed for other considerations. In terms of reli-
ability, the shorter 9,400-foot-long pressure line would
have less exposure to problems than the longer
17,000-foot alternative. In addition, the extension of
the gravity system east of Fairview Road allows District
No. 6 additional flexibility for future gravity service
e� within its service area. As a result, to afford maximum
reliability for this backbone conveyance system without
sacrificing excessive life cycle costs, the shorter force
main terminating in the vicinity of the Santa Ana-Delhi
Channel is recommended.
w C. COMMUNITY IMPACT
Construction of the trunk sewer pipeline in City street
right-of-way will necessarily cause some degree of
inconvenience to various aspects of the community, i.e. ,
residents, businesses, industry, schools, churches, and the
motoring public. The following identifies those elements of
wr the community that may be affected by the construction
activities of the proposed trunk sewer. During the final
design phase, measures will be developed to mitigate these
inconveniences. Possible solutions that will be considered
are discussed:
IV-4
r
1. Traffic Control
The pipeline routing follows two prime arterial streets
of the City of Costa Mesa, Baker Street and Fairview
Road, which carry vehicular traffic through the
e' community. They are crossed by other arterial streets at
approximately half-mile to mile intervals. Traffic on
the remaining streets is local in nature. A suggested
phased construction/traffic control plan will be
developed to minimize impact during construction and is
conceptually presented in Section VI. The contractor
will be responsible for submitting final phased
construction/traffic control plans for agency approval.
There will be some inconveniences to the motoring public
,e during the construction process; however, these are short
lived and minimized by maintaining traffic through the
construction zone. We have found in major pipeline
construction that stipulating construction zone detouring
�+ of traffic from normal patterns in approximate half-mile
segments between major cross streets results in an
efficient interval for the construction process without
,y creating major delays to the motoring public. Further,
by specifying that restoration follow the pipelaying
heading closely as it progresses forward, traffic can be
returned to normal patterns expeditiously and attendant
inconveniences should be minimized.
Using this basic approach, a suggested traffic control
plan detailing specific requirements will be developed
during the final design phase for inclusion into the
construction specifications. This plan will be reviewed
with the appropriate jurisdictional agencies prior to
!' finalizing. The concept which will serve as the basis
for the detailed traffic control measures that will be
included in the construction contract documents is
s, explained further in Section VI of this report.
2. Schools
"+ There are seven schools in the proximate area of the
proposed trunk sewer: the Mesa Verde, Tewinkle,
California, College Park, St. John's Parochial School,
Costa Mesa High School, and Orange Coast College.
a. The Mesa Verde School at Mesa Verde Drive West and
Baker Street near Labrador Avenue has entrances that
s border Baker on one side and Mesa Verde Drive West on
the other. At the rear of the school, a row of
houses border the school's perimeter and shield it
from the trunk sewer construction zone. Tewinkle and
California Schools at Gisler Avenue and California
Street have entrances off of California Street; thus,
all three schools will not be directly impacted by
s
IV-5
r
r
the construction zone for the proposed trunk sewer.
^, Therefore, inconvenience to the schools is expected
to be minimal.
Pedestrian traffic along Baker Street, Labrador
e' Avenue, Gisler Avenue, and Gibraltar Avenue near the
schools will be a major concern, and special care
will be provided to defer any danger and to provide
w proper safety measures for all children if
construction takes place while school is in session.
The crosswalk located at the Baker and Labrador
intersection will also require special attention, as
s it gives access to the children from the south side
of Baker Street to the north side.
The crosswalk located at Gibraltar Avenue and Gisler
Avenue gives access to the children from the west to
eastside of Gibraltar and will also require special
attention.
r
b. Costa Mesa High School will front the construction
zone. The specifications will stipulate that
construction in the vicinity of this school be done
r between June 15 and September 1.
c. To provide for the safety of school children
a+ traveling to and from school, specifications should
require that, when school is in session, a guard is
placed at all school crossings during normal school
r hours while construction is within 500 feet of any
school crossing. The final design will investigate
the interrelationships of the pipeline location,
vehicular traffic, and the school's schedule to
er develop specific requirements to mitigate adverse
impact to the school as well as the project
facilities.
~ d. Orange Coast College, because of its west side
location on Fairview, will not be affected directly
by the construction zone of the trunk sewer; however,
the specifications will stipulate that construction
in the vicinity of this school be done between
June 15 and September 1.
•r 3. Commercial
Local businesses, such as shopping centers, retail and
.s service businesses, fast food restaurants, medical
clinics, and gas stations, are located along the route
proposed for the trunk sewer. "Plaza" shopping centers
are located at Baker Street and Harbor Boulevard and
Baker Street and Fairview Avenue. Each of these plazas
has one or more access driveways from the pipeline route;
however, major access via one or more driveways is
d
IV-6
r
.d
located on the intersecting streets. All of the other
,r businesses (i.e. , gas stations and fast foods) , which
total approximately four, are corner establishments with
two driveways along the trunk sewer route and two on the
r, intersecting street. Approximately three are not corner
establishments and will require total access from the
trunk sewer route and no driveway of theirs be closed.
By requiring that access to at least one of the driveway
r entrances from the trunk sewer route to the shopping
centers, in addition to all those from the cross streets,
be maintained at all times, the inconveniences should be
minimal.
4. Industrial Areas
w The trunk sewer route in Baker Street east of the Costa
Mesa Freeway and in Airway Avenue and Airport Loop Drive
travels through industrial areas. By maintaining at
least one lane open in each direction on these streets,
Baker, Airway, and Airport Loop, access to all traffic,
including delivery vehicles, will be provided and thus
the inconveniences should be minimal. Since the width of
,., Airway Avenue and Airport Loop Drive cannot accommodate
traffic as well as parking and construction, it is
proposed that use of the street for parking or stopping
be limited during construction. Since the businesses on
these streets have off-street parking, this should not
create significant hardship.
5. Residential Development
Where the trunk sewer travels through residential areas,
mostly on Gibraltar Avenue and Labrador Drive and a
portion of Baker Street between Labrador Drive and Harbor
Boulevard, the majority of the residences front directly
on the street. In such cases, maintenance of access will
e+ be required at all times. Consideration will be given to
restricting work along these two areas to those daytime
hours that will minimize disturbances to the residents.
On other streets, such as Baker Street and Gisler Avenue,
the residences face into the tracts and are sometimes
separated from the trunk sewer route by block walls.
.. Consequently, these areas should not be affected by the
construction.
To provide maximum safety for the residents of the
surrounding residential developments as well as the
general public, the construction specification will
provide for the erection of a minimum 7-foot chain link
r fence or other means of securement to preclude
unauthorized entry to any excavation during all
nonworking hours (24-hour basis) including weekends and
a
holidays.
IV-7
r
r
r
6. Churches
R The Districts' standard specifications require the
Contractor to maintain maximum access to churches on
their sabbath days.
R
7. Other Segments
R Continuous unobstructed ingress and egress must be
maintained to all establishments engaged in work of an
emergency nature or directly connected with public
safety. The specifications will bring to the
+ contractor's attention the location of these nearby
establishments, such as the fire station at Baker Street
and Jeffrey Drive, with regard to this requirement.
R
D. SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSING
+ The headworks expansion design of the CSDOC's Reclamation
Plant No. 1 has established the HGL elevation. This
elevation will necessitate a siphon at the Santa Ana River in
r order to cross under the existing channel invert elevation.
The siphon will also need to accommodate the Santa Ana River
improvement project of the Corps of Engineers, whose
preliminary plans show a realignment of the river, along with
�+ a lower elevation for the river's invert, and a 246-foot-wide
by 21-foot-deep rectangular channel.
The existing 39-inch Air Base Trunk No. 2 Sewer crosses
+ beneath the Santa Ana River with approximately 4 feet of
cover at the midpoint of the river. The Corps of Engineers
Santa Ana River Improvement Project design will require
�+ relocation of this trunk sewer in profile to accommodate the
drop in invert elevation of the river. since this conflict
would necessitate a future siphoning of the existing 39-inch
r trunk beneath the Santa Ana River, it is undoubtedly prudent
to route the existing 39-inch trunk sewer to the new 84-inch
trunk sewer along the east side of the river combining the
flows for a single siphon crossing beneath the proposed
.. future Santa Ana River.
a
E. RIGHT-OF-WAY
The streets in which the trunk sewer is located are of
sufficient width in which to construct the facilities.
Permanent and temporary construction easement will be
required at two locations; one in a strip of land between the
Santa Ana River, the Greenville-Banning Channel right-of-way,
R, and another through the Main Street parking lot of the John
Wayne Airport. The easement through the airport parking lot
will parallel the northwest property line. Following is a
tabulation of dimensions and areas of the proposed easements:
s
IV-8
r
r
r
Easement Permanent Easement Temporary Easement
r Location Length Width Area Width Area
SCE Right-of-Way 700' 20' 0.32 so. -- --
East of Santa
Ana River 1,400' 20' 0.64 so. 20' 0.64 so.
w Mesa Verde
Country Club 1,000' 20' 0.46 so. 25' 0.57 ac.
Airport Parking
r' Lot 500' 20' 0.62 so. 50' 1.55 ac.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
s
IV-9
r
r
r
SECTION V
r
REGULATORY AGENCIES
A. GENERAL
The regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over various
aspects of the project have been contacted as necessary for
preliminary coordination. During the final design their
requirements will be ascertained for incorporation in the
construction specification. The following is a list of the
required permits for construction of the sewage conveyance
facilities:
r Permits Required for Construction
of the Sewage Conveyance Facilities
Agency Jurisdiction
City of Costa Mesa Excavation in public streets
~ Orange County EMA Main Street Crossing
(Corps of Engineers) Channel Crossings
1. Airport Storm Channel (F01501)
r' 2. Santa Ana-Delhi
3. Greenville-Banning
4. Santa Ana River
r
Caltrans San Diego Frwy. Crossing
Newport Freeway Crossing
Corona Del Mar Freeway Crossing
Division of Industrial Tunnel Classification
Safety
r
State RWQCB Discharge for Dewatering
State Dept. of Fish and Crossing Greenville-Banning Channel,
r Game if disturbed
^, B. CITY OF COSTA MESA
A construction permit is required for construction of the
sewage conveyance facilities within the public right-of-way
r of City of Costa Mesa streets. The city's requirements
relating to traffic control and pavement replacement will be
included in the plans and specifications.
r
r
V-1
r
r
C. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY (ERA)
r
The Orange County EMA will issue an encroachment permit for
construction across several Orange County Flood Control
District (OCFCD) channels including Airport storm Channel,
Santa Ana-Delhi Channel, Greenville-Banning Channel, and the
Santa Ana River. It is anticipated that construction of the
trunk sewer beneath the channels can be made by tunneling or
„y jacking during the non-storm portion of the year (April 15 to
October 15) . This will integrate very well with the proposed
time frame of the overall project. The specifications will
stipulate this construction within the above dates.
r
D. CALTRANS
r
A "Utilities Encroachment Permit" is obtained to construct
and maintain facilities across state highway right-of-way.
The crossing of the San Diego, Newport, and Corona del Mar
Freeways are the only portions affected. Processing is
carried out through Caltrans Los Angeles or Orange County
offices beginning with submittal of the preliminary plans and
an encroachment permit application. Comments from the
various divisions of Caltrans will be incorporated into the
final plans. It is anticipated an approved traffic control
plan can be developed for an open trench installation in
r Baker Street beneath the Newport Freeway and Corona Del Mar
Freeway.
E. DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY (DIS)
For all tunneled or jacked casing installations, the
r contractor will be required to obtain a permit from DIS to
expedite this process, and "underground classification" will
be obtained during the final design phase from DIS for each
tunnel or jacked casing installation, and included in the
specification.
r F. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB)
The RWQCB requires a permit for the discharge of dewatering
effluent from any of the construction activities. CSDOC's
blanket permit covering the requirements for such
construction activities will be included in the contract
specifications. The contractor will be required to comply
with the provisions of the permit and furnish the data
necessary for the CSDOC to meet the reporting requirements of
the permit.
r
r
V-2
r
r
G. STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
It is anticipated that the Greenville-Banning Channel will be
crossed by open trench. An "Agreement for Streambed
Alteration" between the District and the State will be
r processed, outlining requirements for the construction across
the Greenville-Banning Channel. The agreement will be
included as a part of the construction specifications. In
view of the time frame in which the channels will be
constructed, it is felt the requirements should be only the
State's standard stipulations.
r
H. COORDINATION WITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
r Several street improvement projects are proposed by the City
of Costa Mesa, and lie within the proposed trunk sewers and
force main alignment. The scheduled construction for the
street improvements is in the same general time frame as that
of the subject sewage conveyance facilities. Schedules for
the various city improvement projects are as follows:
r
Proposed Construction
Units Work Period
Baker St. - from Airway
Avenue to Route 55 Slurry Seal F.Y. 1988-89
r Paularino - from Airway
Avenue to Route 55 Slurry Seal F.Y. 1988-89
Baker Street - from Bear
Street Bristol Street Rehabilitation F.Y. 1987-88
Baker Street - from Bear
Street to Babb Street Rehabilitation F.Y. 1987-88
Fairview Avenue - from
Wilson Avenue to Baker
r Street Rehabilitation F.Y. 1988-89
Bear Street - from Baker
r Street to Route 405 Rehabilitation 1990
Airway Avenue Slurry Seal F.Y. 1988-89
Airport Loop Slurry Seal F.Y. 1988-89
r
r
V-3
r
The construction period for the proposed sewer trunk is
tentatively scheduled between July 1988 to December 1989.
Since the majority of City projects are also scheduled
between this time period, the City might consider the
postponement of these projects until the construction of the
trunk sewer is completed.
In addition to the above, the City has also indicated the
following portions of Baker Street are expected to be widened
within the next five years:
Limits Side of Street
r
E/o Fairview to Cleveland North
E/o Fairview to Milbro South
Corona del Mar Freeway to Bristol South
.. w/o Bristol North
r
r
V-4
r
r
SECTION VI
r
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
A. EARTHWORK
Excavation for the pipelines will be accomplished by open
s, trench except in those specific areas where tunneling or
jacking is called out on the plans. The specifications will
require that all excavations be performed, protected, and
supported as required for safety and in a manner set forth in
the operation rules, orders, and regulations prescribed by
the CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders. For all boring,
jacking pits, or open excavations which are 5 feet or deeper,
,r the contractor will be required to obtain a permit from the
applicable agency as required by California Labor Code 6424.
Also, for all trenches 5 feet or more in depth, the
contractor will be required to prepare and submit to the
District a detailed plan showing the design of shoring,
bracing, and sloping or other provisions to be make for
worker protection as required by California Labor Code 6422.
The project geotechnical investigation will include
soils-related design criteria for use in preparation of
and/or reviewing the plan. This will include such
information as safe construction slopes, lateral earth
pressures for sheeting and shoring design, and the effects of
adjacent surcharge loads.
Excavation of open trench will be limited to 600 feet or a
distance necessary to accommodate pipe installation in a
single day. This distance will be collective in length and
will include open excavation for pipeline and appurtenances
and backfilling which has not been temporarily resurfaced.
The contractor will be required to control grading and
stockpiling of excavated material in a manner to prevent
water from running into excavations. Obstructions of surface
drainage will be avoided and means provided for storm waters
or surface drains to maintain uninterrupted service. Free
access will be provided to all fire hydrants, water meters,
and private drives during the course of construction.
The. contractor will be required to provide and maintain at
all times during construction ample means and devices which
will promptly remove and properly dispose of all water from
any source entering the excavations or other parts of the
work. The contractor will also be required to comply with
the provisions of the District's NPDES permit in disposing of
water from the work. The geotechnical investigation will
identify those areas where groundwater is observed in borings
and comment on methods of dewatering which might be employed.
The specifications will require that all excavations be
backfilled after pipe has been installed, with the relative
r
VI-1
r
r
compaction required by the governing agency or a minimum of
90 percent below the street zone and 95 percent in the street
zone obtained as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 or
Test Method No. Calif. 216. Compaction will be obtained by
mechanical means, water jetting, hand tamping, or a combina-
tion of these methods.
r B. REMOVAL AND RESURFACING OF STREET PAVEMENT AND SURFACES
Street pavement and surfaces will be removed for installation
of the pipe and replaced to the requirements of the agency
r having jurisdiction over the right-of-way. All pavement cuts
will be neat and straight along both sides of the trench and
parallel to the alignment of the pipe to provide and
r unfractured and level pavement joint for bonding existing
surfacing with pavement replacement. Concrete pavement,
including cross gutters, curbs and gutters, sidewalks,
driveways, and concrete surface of whatever nature, will be
sawcut to a minimum depth of 1-1/2 inches prior to removal,
in accordance with the specifications. Replacement shall be
in kind and consist of Class A Portland cement concrete.
„y Aggregate base and asphalt concrete mixes for pavement
replacement shall conform to the standard specifications of
the jurisdictional authority.
r During the course of construction, all pavement removed for
trenching operations shall be replaced with temporary paving
after compaction is completed or within three days after the
installation of the pipe, whichever comes first. Temporary
paving will be maintained and a smooth, traversable surface
will be available at all times for vehicular traffic.
Effective dust control will also be maintained throughout the
r job by the contractor. Use of water or dust palliative will
comply with standard specifications.
r
C. UTILITY CROSSINGS
All utilities which cross the pipeline trench will be
protected in place, unless otherwise indicated for relocation
on the plans. The contractor will be required to notify the
utility owner and Underground Service Alert 48 hours in
r advance of the construction crossing and coordinate the
construction schedule with the utility service requirements.
Where indicated on the plans, the contractor will provide
reinforced concrete beams, concrete support walls, or other
means to support utilities which are not self-supporting and
lie within excavated areas. Where utilities are to be
temporarily taken out of service and a portion of the
facility removed, replacement shall be to the specifications
and standards of the utility company.
r
VI-2
r
r
The trunk sewer facilities will be located within the street
.. to provide clearance with domestic waterlines in accordance
with the standards of the State Department of Health
Services.
r
D. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN CONCEPT
.. The basic construction/traffic control approach as pointed
out in Section IV,Cl. , is to stipulate construction zone
detouring of traffic from normal patterns in segments that
will minimize inconveniences that result in major delays to
the motoring public while allowing a contractor sufficient
area in which to develop an efficient train of pipeline
construction activities. Generally, construction of the
r gravity interceptors will start at the downstream ends and
work upstream. The force main, on the other hand, would
start at the pump station and work downstream.
The specifications will identify the limits of each
construction zone/traffic detour phase and will stipulate the
general direction of the pipeline construction. Restoration
r of street improvements, including backfill, compaction, and
the first lift of permanent paving will be specified to
follow the pipelaying heading closely as it progresses
forward so that traffic can be restored to normal patterns in
each phase prior to proceeding to the next phase.
The construction plans and specifications will require the
.. contractor to develop detailed traffic detouring and signing
plans for each phase for submittal to the City of Costa Mesa
for approval prior to detouring traffic. The criteria upon
which this plan is based and traffic control plans which are
intended to illustrate the concept of the traffic control
requirements will also be included in the plans and
specifications for bidding purposes. They are intended to
r serve as a guideline only and will not relieve the contractor
of his responsibility for reparation and adequacy of the
actual traffic control plan utilized.
'r Following is a listing of the construction/traffic control
zone phasing limits with the conceptual vehicular traffic
control criteria requirements proposed for each phase.
r Parking will be restricted on each street where necessary.
BAKER-GISLER INTERCEPTOR
Gisler Avenue; Washington Avenue to Gibraltar Avenue
One eastbound and one westbound lane will be maintained on
the south side of the street at all times.
r
VI-3
r
r
Gibraltar Avenue; Gisler Avenue to Sumatra Place
Gibraltar Avenue; Sumatra Place to Labrador Drive
Street will be closed to through traffic. One lane on the
east side of the street and controlled by a flagman during
working hours will be maintained for access to the adjacent
residences.
.. Baker Street: General
During the final design, detailed analysis of traffic volumes
and turning movements will be made to determine final
suggested lane configurations at various time intervals.
Following are conceptual traffic lane requirements for the
anticipated construction zone phasing along Baker Street.
.. They are subject to revision should the analysis point to a
more efficient use of the roadway.
r
Baker Street; Labrador Drive to College Street
West of Harbor Boulevard one lane will be maintained for each
direction of traffic. At Harbor Boulevard one left-turn lane
.+ will be added on both the east and west sides of the
intersection.
r
Baker Street; College Street to Loren Lane
Two eastbound lanes will be maintained on the south side of
the street at all times. Two westbound lanes will be
.. maintained on the north side of the street during all
non-working hours. During non-peak traffic periods the
westbound lane closest to the center of the street will be
closed and utilized for constructing activities. It will be
returned for traffic during peak traffic periods and all
non-working hours.
.+ Baker Street; Loren Lane to Coolidge Avenue
On the south side of the street two eastbound lanes plus one
left-turn lane at Fairview Road will be maintained at all
r times. In the center of the street two westbound lanes plus
one left-turn lane at Fairview Road will be ' maintained
during all non-working hours. During non-peak traffic
periods the westbound lane adjacent to the pipeline will be
closed and utilized for construction activities. It will be
returned for traffic during peak traffic periods and all
r non-working hours.
Baker Street; Coolidge Avenue to Babb Street
Baker Street; Corona del Mar Freeway to Bristol Street
r The same concept of two eastbound lanes and at least one
westbound lane at all times with a second westbound lane
.r
VI-4
r
being added at peak traffic periods and non-working hours is
,. proposed in this phase as in the previous phase.
Baker Street; Babb Street to the Corona del Mar Freeway
Two lanes for each direction of traffic will be maintained at
all times on the south side of the street while construction
is taking place on the north side.
BASER STREET FORCE MAIN
Baker Street; Bristol Street to Red Hill Avenue
r
Two lanes for each direction of traffic will be maintained at
all times on the south side of the street while construction
is taking place on the north side.
Airway Avenue
Airport Loop Drive
One lane will be maintained for each direction of traffic on
the west and north sides of the street, respectively, while
,r the construction activities are confined to the other side of
the street.
FAIRVIEW RELIEF INTERCEPTOR
Fairview Road; Baker Street to Paularino Channel
Northbound traffic will remain in its normal patterns,
including the two left-turn lanes at Baker Street. Two
southbound lanes will be maintained during peak traffic
periods and non-working hours, reducing one southbound lane
during non-peak working hours only.
Fairview Road; ;air
Channel to Fair Drive
Fairy ew Road; Fair Drive to Wilson street
Southbound traffic will remain in its normal patterns on the
west side of the median. Two northbound lanes will be
maintained during peak traffic periods and non-working hours.
During non-peak working hours the easterly northbound lane
will be closed and utilized for construction, being returned
for peak traffic periods and non-working hours.
During the final design stage the City's hourly traffic
counts will be reviewed to identify the hours of the peak
traffic periods of each phase. In addition, the traffic flow
at each intersection will be reviewed for specific
requirements to be incorporated in the traffic control plan.
r
Construction signing used for the handling of traffic for
Public convenience shall conform to the latest edition of the
"Work Area Traffic Control Handbook" (WATCH) published by
VI-5
r
Building News, Inc. and the Caltrans "Manual of Warning
Signs, Lights, and Devices for Use in the Performance of Work
upon Highways, " which will be included in the specifications.
In addition, the signing, barricading, and diverting of
traffic shall be subject to the approval of the authority
with jurisdiction over the street (City of Costa Mesa) . The
contractor will be required to maintain a 24-hour emergency
service to remove, install, relocate, and maintain warning
devices.
r
4I
YI
r
VI-6
r
SECTION VII
PROJECT SCHEDULE
A. TARGET DATES
The March 13, 1985 agreement between CSD Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
7, 11, and 13 and the IRWD sets forth the time frame by which
District No. 14 will provide permanent trunk sewer facilities
for transportation of its wastewater to Reclamation Plant
No. 1. This serves as the controlling target date, calling
for a permanent operational system by January 1, 1990.
B. CONTRACT LIMITS
An implementation plan was developed to enable the project
facilities to be constructed within the time frame discussed
above while maintaining a competitive bidding atmosphere.
Construction contracts were established that would provide
sufficient construction headings to meet schedule require-
ments and provide contract sizes in terms of cost that will
fall within the bonding capacity of many local contractors.
Type of construction activities, such as gravity sewer versus
force main, also entered in the analysis. Recognizing the
administration responsibilities of the District, the number
of contracts were, of course, kept to a minimum. Three
construction contracts are proposed to implement the sewage
,r conveyance system. These contracts are:
1. Baker-Gisler Interceptor
Districts Nos. 6, 7, and 14 includes construction of the
gravity interceptor from Reclamation Plant No. 1 to the
terminus of the force main from the Main Street Pump
r, Station.
2. Baker Street Force Main
Districts Nos. 7 and 14 includes construction of the
force main from the Main Street Pump Station.
3. Fairview Relief Interceptor
District No. 6 includes construction of the gravity trunk
sewer in Fairview Road from Baker Street to Wilson
Avenue.
The amount of time allotted for construction of the contracts
are based on the following assumptions:
One and one-half months from award of contract to
delivery of first pipe.
r
VII-1
r
- Pipelaying rate would be 80 feet per day and no
weekend construction.
- Appurtenant features (manholes, siphon, and
structures) would be installed concurrently.
- one and one-half months allotted for pipeline
testing and cleanup.
C. PROJECT SCHEDULES
Figure 5 sets forth the schedule for the three construction
contracts proposed for the sewage conveyance facilities. The
schedule shows the minimum practical duration for the design,
bidding, and construction phases and does not allow for
unexpected delays or unusually long permit processing or
review periods by the various jurisdictional authorities.
The City of Costa Mesa has indicated that no construction
will be permitted along Baker Street from Thanksgiving until
after New Year's. This provision should be included in the
specifications for construction of the Baker-Gisler
Interceptor. In addition, stipulating that construction of
the 78-inch interceptor from Fairview Road easterly be done
first (between July 1988 and Thanksgiving) would minimize
�+ delay of the City's Baker Street rehabilitation project
between Babb Street and Bristol Street.
r
u
r
r
r
VII-2