HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-23COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. a. sax 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
January 17, 1979
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO. 5
TUESDAY) JANUARY 23) 1979 -3:00 P.M.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH) CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
Pursuant to adjO'lffnment. of the regular meeting of January 10,
1979~ the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No-5
will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and
date for further consideration of project alternatives xe Big
Canyon drainage area.
JWS:rb
II
BOARDS OF DDRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
DISTRICT No. 5
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 23J 1979 -3:00 P.M.
(1) ~Cff--Al~nce
(2) Roll Call
(3) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary
Post Office Box 8127
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
(4) Consideration of actions relative to the Environmental
Impact Report on Jamboree Interceptor and Pump Station
(Big Canyon drainage area) :
(a) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff
Report re Big Canyon Drainage Area Facilities
I See page "A"
(b) Discussion re.project alternatives for the Big Canyon
drainage area
(c) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve
Final Environmental Impact Report on the Jamboree
Interceptor and Pump Station, certifying that said
Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the State
and District Guidelines Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and that
the information contained in said EIR has been reviewed
and considered by the Board prior to consideration of
approval of project (Copy of EIR .i:A~~~sgi;Q~s~-mQQ~~Rg-£.QJ.~$)
mailed with agenda material
(d) Consideration of staff's recommendation
(5) Consideration of actions relative to Environmental Impact
Report on Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer:
(a) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report
re Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer. See page "B"
{b) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from
City of Newport Beach dated January 15, 1979, relative to
preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Bayside
Drive r.rrunk Sewer. See page "C"
{c) Discussion relative to replacement of the Bayside Drive
Trunk Sewer
(6) Other business and communications, if any
(7) Consideration of motion to adjourn
II
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 812 7
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
DISTRICT Noo 5
ADJOURNED ·REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 23~ 1979 -3:00 P.M.
Area Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
~C!g.e -o-~iance
Roll Call
A~~_O.Uent af~~i:i;man pro tern, if necessar~
Consideration of actions relative tq the Environmental
Impact Report on Jamboree Interceptor and Pump Station
(Big Canyon drainage area) :
@
(c)
Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff
Report re Big Canyon Drainage Area Facilitie9
See page "A"
Discussion re.project alternatives for the Big Canyon
drainage area
Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve
Final Environmental Impact Report on the Jamboree l~~
Interceptor and Pump Station, certifying that said~ ~~)
Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the Stat
·and District Guidelines Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and that
the information contained in said EIR has been reviewed
and considered by the Board prior to consideration of
approval of project (Copy of EIR :i:n--D-~-ee-1;G-~~~~~~s,-£e~QQ~e)
mailed with agenda material
Consideration of staff's recommendation
(5) Consideration of actions relative to Environmental Impact
Report on Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer:
~)\ Consideration of motion to· receive and file Staff Report V re Bayside Ori ve Trunk Sewer. See page "B"
(b)
tf\\S
~
Consideration of motion to ~eceive and file letter from
City of Newport Beach dated January 15, 1979, relative to
preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Bayside
Drive Trunk Sewer. See page "C"
Discussion relative to replacement of the Bayside Drive
Trunk Sewer
(6) Other business and communications, if any
(7) Consi.dera tion of motion to adjourn ~~-~'G
-,,
MANAGER•s AG E t~!>.~ REPORT
Cwnty· San it11t ion Districts
of Orange County, California
D!STRtCT
Meeting Date: Tue s d ay ,
NO.
January
5
23, 1979 -3:00
Post Office Box 8127
10844 El l is A venue
Fountain Voll ey, Cal if., 92708
T eleprcnes:
E.m .
Arco Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
The Board has adjourned to 3:00 p .rn., Tuesday, January
23rd a t the Newport Beach City Hall to consider the J anuary
10th public hearing input to the project altern atives for the
Big Canyon Drainage Are ~ a nd to discuss the repl acement of a
portion of th e Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer between Dahlia Avenue
and El Paseo Drive.
Attached a re two staff repor ts for the Board 's considera -
tion. Ne·wport Beach Administrative and Engineering staff
personne l have been i11 vited to express their v iews on these
two items unde r con s ide ration.
Fred A. Harper
Gen eral l"la n ager
··-
COUNTY S/\NIT!\TION OISTrHCTS
ol 0 ltAr~Gl C OUNl Y. C fd II UllUlf\
P .0 OOX ll \?7
\OU 4 4 [L L1 :::;11v1 l~U l
.Jnnuary 18, 1979
rOUNl /\IN V/\Lll Y. CllL 11 ()I 1 :1111 0~703
(714) 540 :?91 0
(714)9li2·24\ 1
S T J\ F F M E M 0 R J\ N D U M
BIG CANYOl~ DRAINl~GE Al\EJ\ FACILITIES
The Facilities P l an and accompanyi ng Envi ronme nt a l Impact Report have eval uated
three alte r n a tives to .improve th e sewage h rindl ing f aci lities tributary fr om
Big Canyon Drainage Area . J\ brief review of t h e alternatives by the staff i s
as follows :
l\l tern ate I. Gravity System J\l ong the Back Bay Drive
Al tho ugh from a n engin ee ring standpoint and overull cost, this
altern a tive is the be s t and mo st re liable s y stem to accommodate
th e sewage f l ows , because of the environmental concerns and the
previ ous decision from the Californi a Coastal Co mmission deny i ng
tl1 e penni t, this al te rn a ti ve is not a vi a b le one for i mplementat ioll .
Al tern ate II . .:!_mp r oved Pump Station and Force Ma in
Th i s a l t ern a tiv e i s c o mp arable in cost to the Back Bay Gr av i ty
Sewer and estimated t o be app roximately one-hulf o f the gravity
tunnel sewer in Jamboree Road , but the annua l maintenance and
energy costs may fa r exceed the cost of the gra vi ty tu nnel sys-
t em . In preparing the cost es timates contained in the Facilities
Pl a n , e n ergy costs were computed at 3¢ per kWh . Th e Districts are
present ly expe ri e n c i ng costs of 4¢ pc~r k \·7h in the t reatme11 t plairts
and recent d i scussions wi t h r epresentatives from the So uth ern
Ca li forn ia Ed i son Compa ny indi cate th at t h ese rates wi l l in c r ease
substantia lly in t he very near fu ture. It does n ot provide the
rel iabi l ity of service unle ss standby genera t ion i s installed to
a v o id o verf l ov1s i n the Big Cunyon Area a nd subscqt.iently to the
Back Da y .
Alt ernate III . Gravi t y r:r unncl System j n J nl'1bc1J.-ee Road
This ul t .ern ative , a Jth o u q l i the most e x pensive i n i nitiu l capita l
inve stme nt , may ultimatc.ly prove to be the J.ec:i ~;t. cost l y of t h e t1·10
vi n.bl e o l ternut:i ves .
Staff R0 co1mni:.'11t<1tion
Si nce t l1 crc is a consi cJer.:ibJ c i'l mou n t of di f[cre n ce in t.l1c CcJ[.d tu) costs of U1c
purnp .stobo:1 versus lh~ trnrncl 9ri1vity systr·m in :J:1n:h0i.-00 i'otid , ~1~ 1·1el l as tlir:
p l:oj cclec1 i1111or LizuU 011 cosl oi lioth pro~jc(;U:, st.-1ff re••)) s th.:it p c'rll.:ir:, a morrJ
accu1«d.c ;1 c::~c~;!;1 nt~nt of t he co !;t· '.; of t.li c ~11-<w.1 t.y t u nne l :_;y!_;lcrn in ,J'.-1r.:b o r cc Lo<i (l
should l><' i 1 1vest:i~;H <:<.l i u1 ·ll1 c)r. l'rc l imin .11 :/ c·1 1qi 1wcr i :1q co-.1ld h <! done , alo11:;
wit·Ji ~;oil bori.119!~ ;1nrl jnJ>u t· :>o ) i cilccl f..1'0111 l"<'~:pon ~~i bl1 ~ conl:1 c1(.;l:o1·:; t o cvu]u~:t ·.-..
the a c t.u ;i] co~;t-. of Lli...: r3r;1vi l y t·1ll1r,r•l sy:~t:1·11 1 f0~· <tj)i •I O:·:i 1n.1te ly $/.'.i ,000 .
'l'h is c:uulcl tiic:n i:i e r.01:.pdrvd <Jl.J.ii.11::1. tl1e pu1: .. ~1 :.t·.J.t·i on r.1ci.lil j es .
11 A-l 11 AGENDA IT EM #4(A) (lf\.-l"
--------------------------------------...... 1·--.~
VI. Economic /\nt1lysis
f\ comparative analysis of the proposed alternatives V
over a 50-year 1 i fe of the project was prepared. The
p u r p o s e o f t h c a n a 1 y s i s \·1 u s n o t to p r c d i c t e x a c t c o s t s
of the alternatives over the 50 yeur period, but only
to give the magnitude nnd cost relationships of cost
for each alternative.
The comparative merits of the alternatives a~e best
eva 1 ua ted by comparing energy costs for 50 yea rs of
operation and the initial capital outlay. The cost of
the alternatives are shO\'/n in the following chart:
Total Costs of f\ 1 tern a ti ves
I I I I I I
I
Pump Tunnel Back bay
Station Gravity Gravity
Rcplucement Se \·10 r Se\'/ er
Capital Cost 520)000 l ,000 ,000 540,000
Maintenance
(yearly) 11 , 000 2,000 2,000
Energy (yearly) 23~000 -0--0-
U s i n g t lw v b o v c c o s t s , a 8 % c o s t o f 1 i v ·j n g i n c r c a s c a n d
assuming that all alternatives have no salvage vuluc at
th c e n d o f th e 5 0 y c u r p c r i o d, th c f u t u r c \·JO r th , th c: p r e s c n t
w o rt h a n d th c ·t\ n n u u 1 c o s t o f ea c Ii a 1 t c r n a ti v cs a re s h o \·rn
i n t h e f o 1 l o \·Ji n 9 t il b 1 c s :
\.-I
....._.__ ___________ _ ------·-----------~--~fl®~<J~TJ)~1~J_ ____ )
II p,-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(A)
·i"--.: --=--
"A-3"
Ca pi ta 1 Cost
Maintenance
Energy
Total Future
Worth
Capital Cost
Maintenance
Energy
.•
Total Present._
Horth
Future Horth of I\ 1 terna ti ves
I I I I I I
Pump Tunnel Backbay
Stution Gravity Gravity
Replacement Sewer Sewer
24,388,800 46,901,600 25,326,900
6,"311,500 '1,147,00. 1 , 1.4 7 , 5 0 0 ~
13,196,700 -0--0-
43,897,000 4 8 , 0·4 9 , 100 26,474,400
Present Worth of Alternatives
I ll I I I
Pump Tunne1 Backbay
Station Gravity Gravity
Replacement Sewer Sewer
520,000 1,000,000 540,000
134,600 24~500 2(l,500
281 , 400 -0--0-
936,000 1,024,500
AGENDA ITEM f4(A) "A-3"
·"A-4"
Capital
Recovery
Maintenance
Energy
Total /\nnual
Cost
Annual Costs
I I I
Pump Tunnel
Station Gravity
Replacement Sewer
42,500 81,700
11 , 000 2,000
23,000 -0-
76,500 83,700
AGENDA ITEM #Q(A)
of Alternatives
I I I
Backbay
Gravity 'c
Sewer
44,.100
2,000
-0-,
46, 100
-----
. '-.,,,I
"B-1"
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.0.80X8127
January 18, 1979 108-14 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
REPLACEMENT OF PORTION OF BAYSIDE DRIVE TRUNK SEWER
FROM DALHIA AVENUE TO 800' SOUTH OF EL PASEO DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH
(714) 962-2411
The District has experienced failures on a portion of the Bayside Drive Trunk
Sewer. This facility was constructed in 1936 and subsequently purchased from
the City of Newport Beach by the District. Recognizing the necessity to
replace the badly deteriorated portion of the Bayside Drive Trunk, this project
was initially placed in the 1976-77 budget.
To assist the staff in evaluating the alternatives, a consulting engineering
firm was retained ~o prepare a Facilities Plan which was transmitted to the
Directors in December. The two basic projects for consideration are:
A. Replace 3100 linear feet of 10-inch cast iron pipe with equal
size. This alternative would not provide any additional
capacities for future service areas or developments and would
not allow the eventual deactivation of the Bayside Drive
Pumping Station. Construction could commence on this with a
negative declaration and an administratively issued Coastal
'conunission Permit which would not require Commission action.
B. The Facilities Plan, dated December 1, 1978, has analyzed three
alternatives based on various ultimate service area flow pro-
jections, and the deactivation of the Bayside Drive and Corona
del Mar Pumping Stations. The various flow coefficients analyzed
require the installation of a 24-inch sewer to replace the 3100.
feet of 10-inch sewer in all three a.lternatives. The sizing of
the reach from Jamboree Road to the ~alboa Island inlet would
determine the allowable flows as indicated on the attached
Alternate Design Analysis. The installation of the 24-inch cast
iron project would require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report and a formal submittal to the Coastal Commission for
a Coastal Permit.
It is staff's recommendation that the Directors consider approval of Project B.
The construction impacts would essentially be the same for a 10-inch pipe
installation as for a 24-inch pipe. The cost differential would only be for
the difference in pipe cost, which is estimated to be less than $25,000 for
the io-inch versus the 24-inch pipe size. The District could utilize the
presently available 24-inch cast iron pipe purchased for installation on the
Back Bay Gravity Sewer System •
-AGENDA ITEM #5(A) "B-1"
EXCERPT FROM:
. . . . .
FACILITIES PLAN -BAYSIDE DRIVE TRUNK LINE, cotn;TY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY
~
to
I
N
==
~
....
DECEMBER 1, 1978, Prepared by Shaller & Lohr, Inc. .. .. TABLE II
ALTERNATE DESIGN ANALYSIS
ALTERNATE I -UTILIZING SANITATION DISTRICT FLOW COEFFICIENTS & APPROVED CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH & ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLANS
LOCATIO~, LENGTH & SIZE OF PEA~ING STORL~ TOTAL
:::~·:IS'I'!Z'~G s~·sTE:·: ADW FLOW FACTOR INFILTRA-UL':lIMATE
~ION FLOW
3110 L.F. OF 10" C.I.P.
FR0:-1 B.~YSIDE DRIVE PUl-1P STATION
i-..T BEGO~·:IA AVENUE TO TRANSITION 7. 31 MGD 1.67 2.75 MGD 14.96 MGD
70 18 a !iir.;E i"l.T JU!~CTION
N:::TH 3l~L30 .. :\. ISLA.i.~D LINE
3480 L.F. OF 18" v.c.P.
?~ON TR..~;srTION AT BALBOA
IS~AND LH;E INLET TO TRAJ.~SI-. 7 .97 MGD 1.65 3.15 MGD 16.31 MGD
7IC:-: 70 36" LINE ~':EST OF
J.:i..:-:SOi\EE ROAD I
(:., ALT:C:R!·~ATE II -UTILIZING PROJECTED ULTIMATE POPULATION AND 90 GPO PER CAPITA
J:::
1-
·~ ~
---------
LCCATION, L~NG~H & SIZE OF
:s;·:ISTiiZG SYSTEM
3110 ~.F. OF 10" C.I~P -...... '"'., .... -... ~s-o--i'l--r·--cu'.1.p STA,,,IONI .C :",~.·J. ~.:-. l .!. .t. LJ l\ V l:. .. L.l .l L
ADW FLOW
AT 3E:GO:~I.f\. ,"\VE~;u::: TO T?..ANSITIONI 4.93 MGD
'IO 18" LINE AT Jm~CTION WITH
BAL30A ISLAND LINE
3480 L.F. OF 18" v.c.P.
FRC:·i TR.t-.:~SITION AT BALBOA
::::sL.;:.m LD~E INLET TO TR:l'\NSI-
Trm,; TO 36 II LINE NEST OF
J;:i..:.mop..EE ROAD
(
5.50 MGD
PEAKING
FACTOR
1.67
1.65
I STORM ____
TOTAL
INFILTRA-ULTIMATE
TION FLOW
2 • 7 5 MGD I 10 • 9 8 MGD· .
3.15 MGD I 12.~3 MGD
REQUIRED ESTIK~TED
SIZING COST PER
FOOT
24" v.c.P.
WITH ± 143 $175.00
SEAL
ELEVATION
PARALLEL
42" v.c.P. $223.40
(3/4 FULL)
REQUIRED ESTIH ... ~TED
SIZING COST PER
FOOT
24 11 v.c.P.
WITH ± 127 I
I SEAL $175.00
ELEVATIO?l
PARALLEL -'~
\
t 36" v.c.P. $208.20
(3/4 FULL) ~
f r•
\ ..
~
. ...
c3
I
\.N ::
( .. ..
( (
..
.TABLE II (CONT'D)
·ALTERi.~ATE DESIGN ANALYSIS
ALTER~ATE III·-UTILIZING SANITATION DISTRICT COEFFICIENTS APPROVED ORANGE COUNTY
LAND USE PLAN & ASSUMING NO DOWN COAST DEVELOPMENT -·
LOCATION, LE~GTH & SitE OF
EXISTI~G SYSTEM
~I 3110 L • F . OF 10 " C • I • P • rnl FRO:·! BAYSID:S DRIVE Pm1P STATION ES .;7 i3:SGONI.; AVENUE TO TRANSITION
::x::al?O 18" LINE AT JUNCTION WITH
~ BAL30A ISLAND LINE
~ 3 4 3 0 L. F. OF 18 II v. c. p.
);1 F~O~·l 'I?...A.:.~SITION AT BALBOA l IS!..~SD LI~E INLET TO TRANSI-
1
TIC:~ TO 36" ·LINE vIBST OF
JJ.~·~BO~E ROAD
::
b:I
I
\.N ::
ADW FLOW
1.71 MGD
2.38 MGD
. ·
PEAKING
FACTOR
.
1.88
1.84
..
STORM
INFILTRA-
TION
1.57 MGD I
TOTAL
ULTIMATE
FLOW
4.78 MGD
1.96 MGD l.6.33 MGD
" '.
·REQUIRED
SIZING
24" v.c.P.
I WITH
:!: 114 SEAL
ELEVATION
I PARALLEL
27" v.c.P.
I ( 3/4 FULL)
'
.\ I ,,
' . :t
•Iii
,.,
.. ,
ESTIK.~TEt
COST ?ER
FOOT
$175.0C
$179.90
DISTRICT 5 ADJOURNED MTG.
1/23/79 -3:00 P.M.
Newport Beach City Hall
(4-a) Staff report re Big Canyon drainage area & Discussion
& b) Mr. Harper referred to staff memorandum . Three alternatives:
(1) gravity l i ne along Back Bay Drive (2) improving or replacing
existing pump station (3) possible gravity tunnel staying within
alignment of Jamboree. Third alternative would avoid energy costs .
Said that appears to look better than some of the other projects
because of increasing costs of electrical energy . Staff report
suggests spending $25,000 to investigate tunnel project .
Ryckof f asked if we could get a preliminary set of bids or estimates
from contractors in order to save the $25,000 . REL answered that he
had talked to some contractors before and they really need soil
borings and better alignmen t information . Referred to drawing. Would
have to have about a six-foot tunnel . Would estimate that soil borings
would be about $10,000 and thought some preliminary engineering could
be done for about $10,000 . May have to pay some contractors about
$1 ,000+ to really get a good estimate if it is feasible. Ray said
he had-a meeting with SCE and the Public Utilities Commission has
passed a rate where they actually penalize you if you use power during
peak per i ods. Are now talking about 5¢ per kilowatt hour should we
go with pump station or gravity sewer. Strauss asked how long a
process it wou l d be to get this information. Ray answered we could
have something within 90 days.
Riley asked if regulatory bodies didn't a l ready indicate that No . 3
is the best alternative. Said he thought the $25 ,000 would be returned
in the ability of those who are going to bid to know what they are
going to bid on.
Ryckoff stated the question is who pays for it? Said The Irvine
Company should pay for it. Said they, and possibly with County help,
put in this line originally in about 1 956. Did it to serve areas
they were developing. One of the main reasons for this is to enable
continued development and this is Irvine Comp any land. Possibly
2/3 developed. If they won't pay for it, don 't think this District
will find it very easy to come up with the money. With regard to
the City of Newport Beach , said they face the matter of reaching
saturati on of traffic.
Strauss wo~dered whether we shou l d make the alternative determination
and then ask Irvine Company to pick up the tab. Ryckoff said he
thought if District wants to endorse this alternative, should do so
and then take it up with The Irvine Company .
Mr. Harpe r advised that District 5 has done this type of thing before .
Entered into agreement with Irvine Company to loan them $600,000 .
Then did actually loan $50,000 of this money and we ha ve paid back
about $20 ,000. There is money available but as a loan . Said many
years ago there were sewers built in District 5 tha t were a l oan or
a gift. Ownership of one line is still retained by Irvine Company and
we maintain. With regard to the three alternatives, if District is
going to ask them to pay for it, should mayb e ask them before we spend
$25,000.
( 4-d)
( 5-a)
& c)
Riley said he didn't believe we are going to environmentally sell
alternatives 1 or 3 (think he meant 2??). Ryckoff agreed.
Nolan stated that for reasons of e n ergy conservation, reliability
of operation and economics, tunnel alternative looks the best.
Ryckoff asked if it would be appropriate to approve in concept the
staff recommendation re alternative three and direct them to contact
The Irvine Company with regard to financing. Board would discuss
financing further after that at a future joint meeting (before or after) .
Ryckoff so moved that action. Motion seconded by Strauss. Motion
carried.
Staff report re Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer & Discussion
REL reported that a portion of this line was purchased from City
several years ago and line is badly deteriorated and have experienced
some failures on it. Appears that a 24" line would be appropriate.
If it is enlarged over 10" size, have to go through permit process.
Is a very congested narrow street and only want to be in there once.
Difference in cost of 10" and 24" pipe is about $25,000. Are
recommending 24". Also just happen to have a couple pieces of 24"
pipe we could use.
Nolan agreed with difficulty of construction i n Bayside area. Narrow
and much traffic. About 6000 vehicles a day. Street is a maize of
conflicting utilities.
Ray added there has been two breaks in the last six months. Propose
diverting 2/3 of the flow to Coast Highway and corning through with
dry line.
Riley then moved staff's recommendation (item B in memorandum) re 24 " pipe
Seconded by Ryckoff. Motion carried .
FAH asked for authority to proceed with preparation of an EIR also.
Ryckoff so moved and seconded by Riley . Motion carried.
Adjourned 3:28 p.rn.
-2-
MEETING DATE
!DI~TRICT 1
January 23, 1979 TIME 3:00 p.m . DISTRICTS
Newport Beach City Hal --------
5
{W~LSH) ····.·.··SHARP·.· ••. ·--___ _
ORTIZ)······· ·EVANS·······--___ _
. RI LEY) •.•••••• ANTHONY .••• ·--___ _
CRANK) . • • • • HUTCH I SON --___ _
DISTRICT 2
!FRIED)······· .WEDAA· • • • • • ·------
RASHFORp) .•••• HOLT ••••••• ·----__
ANTHONY) •••••• CLARK •••••• ·------
COOPER· • • • • ·------
ROGET) •••••••• GRAHAM •• ····--___ _
.WELLS) •••••••• HOUSTON •• ·.·--___ _
EVANS)······· ·ORTIZ·······------
CULVER) •• ·•••• PERRY·······----__
SEYMOUR)······ ROTH • • · • • • ·------
HOYT) •• · •• ••• ·SMIT H·······--___ _
ADLER) •.•••••• STAN TON •••• ·--___ _
WINTERS) •••••• VELASQUEZ •• ·--___ _
DISTRICT 3
ADLER •••••••• SVALSTAD ••• ·--___ _
MEYoRr ••.••••• GRIFFIN ••• ··------
PERRY) •••••••• CULVER •••• ··--___ _
COOPER) ••• ••• 0 GAMBINA. • • • ·--___ _
LACAYO) • • • • • • ·H UD SON· • · • • ·----__ SEITZ).~ ....•• LA SZLO ·• •••• _____ _
WEISHAUPT) .••. MILLER······--___ _
FINLAY SON) •••• OLSON·······--___ _
EVANS) .••••••• ORT! Z •••• ·• ·--___ _
NYBORG) ••••••• PR I EST •• • • • ·--___ _
YOUNG) •••••••• ROGET •••• • • ·--___ _
SEYMOUR)······ ROTH········--___ _
!PAT TINSON) •••• SIEBERT •••• .__ ___ _
ZOMMICK) ••.•• , .SYLVIA ••.••• _____ _
'ANTHON.V) ••• , •• WIEDER •••••• _____ _
VELA SQ UE Z) •••• WINTERS·.···--___ _
DISTRICT 5
!l-jUMMEd • · • · • • • RYCKOFF · • · • · V ----
ANTHONY)······ ·R ILEY ······· V ----
RYCKOFf). ·····STRAUSS ·····~----
DISTRICT 6
{RYCKOfF) .••••• MC lNNI .S .•.• _____ _
{CRANK) ••••••.• HUTCHISON···--___ _
(RILEY)· •••••.•• ANTHONY •. ··.__ ----
DISTRICT 7
(HO YT).)" .••••. SM ITH •.•.... ____ _
(WAHNER ·······GLOCKN ER ...• _____ _
(ANTHONY)· • · · • ·CLARK· • • • · • ·--___ _
(ORTIZ)········ -EVANS········--___ _
!WELSH)········ SA LT ARELLI·~--___ _
GAIDO) • • • · • • • · VARDOULI S · • ·--___ _
RYCKOFF) .••.• ·WILLIAMS· •• ·------
DISTRICT 11
MAC ALLI STER)· PA TTI NSON·· ------
PAT TIN SON)··· ·BA-ILEY· · ·. · ·------
ANTHONY) •••. • • WJ .EDER · • • . • ·-· ____ _
2/14/79
JO I NT BOARDS
!RILEY)······· ···ANTHONY····--__
PATTI NSQN) ••••• BA I LEY .•.•• ___ _
ANTHONY) .••••• CLARK •••••• ___ ._
COOPER·····--__
PERRY) ••••••••• CULVER ••••• ___ _
ORTIZ) ••••••••• EVANS •••••• ___ _
COOPER) •••••••• GAMBINA •.•• ____ ._
WAHNE~) ••••.••• GLOCKNER .•• ____ .
ROGET ••••••••• GRAHAM ••••• ___ _
MEYER ••.•••••• GRIFFIN •••• ___ _
RASH FORD) •••••• HOLT ••••••• ___ _
WELLS) ••••••••• HOUSTON •••• ___ _
LACAYO) •••••••• HUDSON .•••• ___ _
CRANK) ••••••••• HUTCHI SON •• ___ _
SEITZ) ••••••••• LASZLO •.••• ___ _
RYCKOFF) ••••••• MC INNIS ••• ___ _
WEISHAUPT) ••••• MILLER •.••• ___ _
FINLAYSON) ••••• OLSON •••••• ___ _
EVANS) ••.•••••• ORTIZ •••.•• ___ _
MAC AL~ISTER) •• PATTINSON •• ___ _
CULVER •••••••• PERRY •••••• ___ _
NYBORG •••••••• PR I EST ••••• ___ _
ANTHOtJY) ••••••• RI LEY •.•••• ____ . _
YOUNG) ••••••••• ROGET ••••• ·--__
SEYMOUB) ••••••• ROTH •••••• ·--__
HUMME~) •••••••• RYCKOFF •••• ___ _
WELSH ••••••••• SALTARELLI. ___ _
WELSH ••••••••• SHARP •••••• ----
PATT I NSON) •••• ·.SIEBERT •••• ___ _
HOYT)-········· SMITH.·····--__
ADLER) •• ··.-· ••• ·STANTON •••• ___ _
RYCKOfF) • •••••• STRAUSS •••• ___ _
ADLER)· •••••••• SVALSTAD .•• ___ _
ZOMMICK). ······SYLVIA .····--__
GAIDO) ••••••••• VARDOULIS •• ___ _
WINTEBS). ······VELASQ UEZ.". ___ _
FRIED).······· .• WEDAA. • • • · ·--__
ANTHONY).······ WIEDER.····--__
RYCKOFF) •••.••• WILLIAMS ••• ___ _
VELASQUE Z) ••••• WINTER S •••• ___ _
bTHERS
HARPER •.••• _L
SYLVESTER •• ~
LEWI S...... ..,/
CLARKE .•••• --1,.L
BROWN •••••• ~
WOODRUFF .•• __
HOHENER •••• __
HOWARD •••• ·--
HUNT ••••.•• __
KEITH ••••.• __
KENNEY ••••• __
LYN CH .•••• ·--
MADDOX ••••• __
MART I NS ON •• __
PIERSALL ••• __
STEVENS •••• __
TRAVE RS •.•• __