Loading...
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 •.•• __