HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-11 District 11r
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P . 0 . BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
March 4, 1981
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO. 11
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1981 -5:30 P.M.
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VA LLEY, CALIFORNI A
TEL.EPHONES:
AREA COOE 714
540-2910
962-2411
Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of February 11,
198 1, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11
will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and
da te to review Preliminary Project Report and Environmental
Documentation re Coast Trunk Sewer Study.
c
II
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, Califomi1
DISTRICT No. 11
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 1981 -5:30 P.M.
(1) Roll Call
(2) Consideration of Coast Trunk Sewer Study
Post Office Box 8127
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
(a) Verbal report of consulting engineer re Coast
Trunk Sewer Preliminary Project Report and
Facilities Plan
(b) Discussion of Coast Trunk Sewer Study and
financing alternatives
·( 3) Other business and communications, if any
(4) Consideration of motion to adjourn I 7;0~
II
MANAGER'S A GENDA REPOR T
County Sanitat ion Dist ric ts
of Orange County, California
DISTRICT NO. 11
Adjourned Regular Meeting
March 11 , 198 1 -5:30 p .m.
No. 2 -Review of Coast Trunk Sewer Study.
Post Office Box 8 127
10844 Ellis Av enue
Fo u nta in Vall e y, Cal if ., 92708
T e lepr cnes:
Areo Code 7 14
540-2910
962-24 11
Several mo n ths ago, the engineering firm of Lowry and
Associates was e n gaged to prepare a repor t reconunending
facilities for the backbone outfall trunk sewer for District
No. 11 which would tie the north and south portions of the
District into one system. As of this writing, the Project
Report and environmental documentation have not been completed.
However, we anticipate that the Engineer's Report will be
completed shortly before March 1 1 th .
The staff requested, on February 11th, that the District
Board adjourn to 5:30 p.m., March 11th, inrrnediately preceding
the regular Joint Board meeting , for the purpose of receiving
a verbal report from the consulting engineers and for discussion
of the routing alternatives and several financing plans to
accomplish the final objective, which is the ultimate trunk
sewer facility for District No. 1 1.
Included for the Directors' information is a preliminary
draft copy of a portion of Chapter I of the study, known as
the Executive Sunrrnary . If the Preliminary Project Report is
satisfactory to the Board following next Wednesday's meeting,
the staff will develop a schedule for subsequent public hearings
on the selected project and Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Fred A. Harper
General Manager
;
I
-!
,
.. ···
CHAPTER I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION ANO SCOPE OF WORK
A. The proposed Coast Trunk Sewer and Bolsa Pump Station Projects have
the following purposes:
1. To provide the backbone outfall trunk sewer for County
Sanitation District No •. 11 of Orange County (CSDOC 11) which
will tie the north and south portions of CSDOC 11 into one
system.
.
2. To relieve existing CSDOC 3 facilities which are presently
overloaded.
3. To provide capacity needed to sewer the remaining development
permitted in the current General Plan of the City of
Hunt"ington Beach and in the current General Plan of the County
of Orange.
4. To reduce maintenance and energy costs by eliminating four
existing pump stations including the existing Slater Avenue
Pump Station and replacing them with a single ~ump station.
B. The proposed Coast Trunk Sewer and Balsa Pump Station are key trunk
sewer facilities which were identified in both-the 1977 Master Plan
I-1
.. v
of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11 and the
··1979 ·c1ty-of· Huntington Beach ·sewe~ Ma:s·ter· Plan.·
C. The proposed facilities may require easements for construction
9u~side of dedicated right-of-way where crossing the 1 ands of the.
Huntington Beach Company, (Standard Oil of California} and where
crossing the lands of Signal Landmark. All other portions of the
project lie in dedicated street right-of-way in the City of
Huntington Beach.
O. This project report has been prepared to meet the following
objectives:
1. To describe tha need for the project and its relationship to
City and County master plans.
2;· ·ro describe ·exiSting~ sewering.'facilfti.es arid. ·,th~·. 'appropria.te·
past agreements, permits and commitments affecting them.
3. To examine project alternatives and recommend one apparent
best alternative project.
4. To compute expected velocity and flow conditions associated
with the apparent best alternative project. . . . . . . . . . ··. .
5. To outline the applicable design considerations for the
reco1T111ended project_ for pipeline design and pump station
design.
6. To provide environmental documentation for the project and
outline necessary mitigation measures.
I-2
. • .. ; .·::
. ... . ··:
] •. -.To provide. reach by reach. .cost' ... estimates. for. the .. project ... and ..
identify funding sources.
-8. To identify remaining permits, agreements, and agency
approvals needed to complete the project.
9. To develop a schedule for financing and constructing the
entire trunk system.
10. To prepare an interim operations plan for the District.
HISTORY
A. A sunrnary of existing sewering.facilities used by County Sanitation
Oistict No. 11 is presented in Table I-1.
. . .. B.· · A: summary·.of pa.s.t.. agreements,. per.mi-ts. and .conmitments . is· included . ~ .. · .. · .....
in Table I-2.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Four alternate vertical alignments A thru 0, were evaluated in this
study. Alternative A provides the minimum allowable slope required
to maintain a flow velocity of 2 fps throughout the pipeline
...
alignment, and provides for minimum TOH requirements at the Bolsa
Pump Station. Alternatives B, C, and D provide for higher flow
velocities, i.e., smaller diameter pipe with shallower trenches
downstream from the Balsa Pump Station with a resulting higher TOH
requirement for pumping.
B. The estimated capitalized cost for power for pumping an average
flow of 19 mgd for a 50 year period amounts to approximately
S287,000 per foot of lift.
I -3
r"8l! C·l
SUMMARY OF E:<ISTt:SG CSCOC 11 ~~CIL!7!:'.!
c::mtACT ~-B
U oa:;;& "VE. T1UllX
U·l
U·7
U-3
tl•U
N!MUICO OE1.AWAI£ GRAVm
TilUlflC SerD C Ul'llT 1 )
An;m'A amRC!PTOR 1'1WftlC
mr&a (UNIT 7)
aoa war nucx ss;a (UllT ,,
HMtt.Ta!I ..\VEMJE FORCE *L't ma
:t&WUICD STRET PW'IPUCG mnas cu:crr 11 >
Gal.O!JI ~ PUM't'IG
STATION .vtD FORCE l'A tN
·S&a (UllT l) ·. · · ·
SLAT!R·SPtfliDAL! nlUlllC
SEWS (UftlT S)
s:4!Ln!I (!DUIGS) !QUA
OltC\ nmreK sews cuitrr ~>
SMS.Tm AVE. SCSIGAGi
UFT mnoN
:Ce.uHO ST. tNTaCEPTOR
T'RUHK SEWER
mt,m AVE. GAAYtn SEWER
EDI?IGB AVE. Sale.AGE l.IFT
ST-\TtOtt
SLATS AVE. wvm SillS
lUOtOU ST. wvtn S!'AEil
sum AV!. GAAVtT'f SEWS
1;.SU-Te "VE. Sala.AGE .
~JMPtffG ST.1.TtCa't AHO FORC%
!'Alff S!'JER
SUTS-1PRUSAI.£ l em1Ga ~a.•u iilUrtK saa
SUi'ER ~VE. i'RlUOC SSER exnnsxmc
'MUUIG .we:. ~EU!F ssao
COAST ~IC srJG
:seu:UJ ~V!:. !lE!.!i? SE'.iG
YEAR OF C011STRUCrtO:S OES iu:m! !T
·•
1914 G'.~. s;eca
1935
1948
L9S3
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1959
1966
1966
1965.
1970
l9i4
l979
1980
l9BO
I-4
CURRIE E!IGI~E!RtflG CO.
QUIHTOlt ERGiltEERS t.Tt1.
HARRISON 1 ~!"t
HEADMAN. FSGUSOft l C\ROLLO
UlWRY OVGJEYER 1 ASSOCIATES
LOWRY OVERfETB i ASSCCtAT'ES
l.O'AY OVERME'!ER & ..\SSOC!AT'!S
l.OMRY O'IGmEI Ii WOCt.\TES
t.O'.IRY OVOHEYG & ASSOC:ATiS
l.C'JRY 1 ASSOCL\TiS
LO'dRY & ASSQCt..\r-c:S
:<£!iM l ~SSOCtATtS
mid i ~!SOCI..\1n
:<~!nf i .lSSCC:;its
:.!!!!!!
?'JROIASE!J ~
C:T'f OF
14U1CTtrtGTa:I SC:-! •
~URCMASS ~OH
CITY OF
Mwrrt:>ON ;c:,.
''JRCIASED ~OM
C!TY OF
Htllrr.::CGTON !C:-t •
~ROfASED ffl0H
Cr:'Y :JF
ifUlCTt:>Oft SC:-t.
.~lOOMED 1967
t.!i=T SiAT?O.,
A8At«XJNE1 1966
Jt
I
I
-~
--------------------1:_.-' -------
'
TABLE I-2
S~.MARY OF PAST AGREEMENTS ANO COMMITMENTS
AGREEMENT WITH
csooc 3
csooc 3
HUNTINGTON BEACH
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION
BY .CSOOC 11
SUMMARY OF OBLIGATIONS
CSOOC 11 PURCHASED l9i OF
CAPACITY OF MILLER HOLDER
TRUNK SEWE.q
CSDOC 11 PURCHASED 13~ OF
CAPACITY OF KNOTT INTERCEPTOR
OEVELOPE.q· AGREED TO FINANCE CON-
STRUCTION OF COAST TRUNK FROM
LAKE sr·. TO GOLDENWEST
CSDOC ll ASSURED COASTAL COMMISSION
THAT BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS WOULD NOT
BE ANNEXED UNTIL CERTIFICATION OF
· LOCAL COASTAL PLAN OR UNTlL JULY
1981
·.··
I-5
.. . . •. . ..
I
Jt
I
I
I
I
... ·· ...
C. In order to minimize both pumping costs and sewer construction
· ·costs; A·lternatfve .. C has beeri selected as the recomfrended vertical · ··
alignment (See Figure I-1).
0. Four alternate horizontal alignments, I thru IV, were evaluated.
These alignments are shown on Figures I-2 through I-5. The cost
for each alternative alignment and for a no project alternative is
sunmarized in Table I-3.
E. Alternatives I, II, and III are within the Balsa Chica area and are
all approximately the same cost. Alternate IV is totally outside
the Balsa Chica limits, but has an estimated capitalized power cost
of $35 mi 11 ion.
SEWAGE FLOWS
·A. · ·· Sewage· flows . have ·been· :-comptite-d ·. for.· . the· . prbj ect using .. current
planning data from the City of Huntington Beach and the. County of
Orange.
B. The unit flow generators used in developing design flows for the
project are shown in Table I-4.
C. Peak flows have been developed assuming a peaking factor
'• '. .....
(Q peak/Q average) of 1.80. Minimum flows have been developed
assuming a minimum flow factor (Q min/Q average) of 0.50.
D. The design project flows are tabulated by reach on Figure I-4.
I-6
2
26
24
......_ ". 22 a:
4
..1 . 20 ....
0 a 18
"' .. 0 ... 18
"""-' " z
0 14 -· ..a .... 12 -== ~ 10 ... ,,,
0 8 CJ _. 6 = -a. 4 cc
(.) 2
1
I
L'
OSTS OF VERTICAL
.ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES .
60
ALT. D
... Z I Ill
Ill ... a:> a: en Ill i=; ~ Ill !:i cc a. m CZ
-C TOTAL PROJECT COST
M cosTS
.. coNSTRUCTlO .
66
POWER COSTS FOR
SO YEARS
MAINTENANC2 COSTS FOR
50 YEARS
.72 78
ALT. C ALT. B ALT. A
PIPELINE DIAMET1£R BELOW PROPOSED BOLSA STATION
F1GURE I ·1
I-7
-
ALTERNATIVE ..
1•.·
I-8
I '·--.---i . . , -I
FIGURE 1•2
ALTERNATIVE 11
I-9 ...
ALTERNATIVE 111
F1GURE 1·4
I-10
ALTERNATIVE IV
FIGURE I· 5
I-11
ALTERNATIVE
IHORIZ. VERT.
I
I A
I B
I c
I 0
II c
III c
IV
v
TABLE I-3
SUMMARY OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
(ENR 3600)
TOTAL COST.
CAPITAL INCLUDING CAPITALIZED
COST* 0 & M COSTS NOTES ,,
Minimum TOH Vertical Alterna-$16,518,000 $27 ,s10 ,·ooo
ti ve, 78 11 Pipe Downstream
from Bolsa P.S.,(See Fig.V-3)
16,027,000 27,459,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex-
cept with 72 11 Pi pe Downstream
from Bolsa P.S., Higher TOH
at P.S. and Less Trench Exca-
vation.
15,462,000 27,438,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex-
cept with 66" Pipe Downstream
from Balsa P.S., Higher· TOH
at P.S. and Less Trench E.xca-
vation.
14,897,000 27,879,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex-
cept·with 60 11 Pipe Downstream
from Bolsa P.C., Higher TOH
at P.S. and Less Trench E.xca-
vat ion
15,795,000 27,772,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex-
cept a more direct Route was
taken across Balsa Chica
( See Fi g • I-3 )
14,935,000 26,911,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex-I cept an Alternate Alignment
was taken through Huntington I Seacliff Area(See Fig. I-4 ) I
I
I
12,020,000 48,52:3,000 No Encroachment on Bo 1 sa Chi ca
(See Fig. I-5) I
I
!
34,236,000 No Project Alternative i
i
I
ft
I-12
-: ,_ .. ·
..
. ~·. DESIGNATION
Rl
R2/MH
R3
RS
c
M
CFE
'...,.,;
CFR
x
TABLE I-4
UNIT FLOW GENERATORS
AVG. FLOW
DESCRIPTION GPO£ACRE
LOW DENSITY 1,550
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM OENs:ITY 2,000
RESIDENTIAL/
fttlBILE HOME
HIGH DENSITY 3,880
RESIDENTIAL
COAST AREA APARTMENT 14,000
COMMERCIAL AREA
COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL 3,230
INDUSTRIAL 3,880
SCHOOLS 3,.600
PARKS 160
NON. SEWAGE -0-
GENERATING
I-13
PEAK FLOW
GPO/ACRE
2,790
3,600
6,984
25,200
5,814
6,984
6,480'
288
-0-
ALIGNMENT ANO PROFILE
A. The recorrmended alignment and profile for the project is shown on
F i gu re VI -1.
B. The recormnended alignment and profile will minimize pumping
requirements while maintaining a minimum velocity of 2 feet per
second at a 0/d of 0.75.
C. The profile will allow the bluff area to drain by gravity.
D. The flows, velocities, and depth to diameter ratios at each reach
of the project are tabulated in Table I-5.
DESIGN
A. A conceptual design for the proposed Balsa Lift Station is
p-resent·ed· ·;-n Chapter ·vrr. · · · · .. ·· .... · · ··. · ·· .'. .. ·.·· :· ·.·
B. A list of design criteria for the proposed Balsa Lift Station is
contained in Table I~6. ·
C. Where possible, the Coast Trunk Sewer will be located within
dedicated right-of-way. The first section of the Coast Trunk
Sewer, between Lake Street and Golden West Street will be located
entirely within existing streets maintained by the City of
Huntington Beach.
I-14
;-~· ; -. I
EXCERPTS FROM
PROJECT REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
COAST TRUNK SEWER
MARCH 1_1, 1981
Prepared By:
LOWRY & ASSOCIATES
17748 Sky Park Blvd.
Irvine, California 92714
......
I .-
01
(
~·----
~·
--
PEACH
A-I
A-2
1\-J
A-4
1\-5
A-&
A-1
A-0
A-9
A-10
0-1
C-1
C-2 ----
Spring-
dale-I
Spring-
dale-2
Edwards-I
Etlwards-2
Edwnds-3
.Gol~!!f~U
~
LOCATION CATION
lake St. to lrd St. to lrd St.
lrd lo Kiln St. In St.
Ha In St. to 6th St. to 6th St.
6th St. to 8lh St. o 8lh St.
Oth St. to 10th St. o 10th St.
10 12th St. IOlh St. 10 12th St.
12th St. to 14th St. to 14th St.
14th St. to 16th St. to 16th St.
16th St. to 18th St. to 18th St.
18th St. to Golden West St. to Golden West St.
Golden West St. to Oolsa P.S. st St. lo Oolsa P.S.
Ootsa P.S. to Edwards St. Trunk • to Edwards St. Trunk
Edwards St. Trunk lo Springdale Trunk t. Trunk lo Springdale Trunk
nk to Padva Dr. Coast Trunk to Padva Dr.
Padva Dr. to Slater Ave. to Slater Ave.
Coast Trunk to Vars tty Dr. nk to Vars tty Dr.
1r. to Oa lmora 1 Dr. Varsity Dr. to Oa1mora1 Dr.
Da1mora1 Dr. to Slater Ave. Dr. to Slater Ave.
~dwards Trunk to Stater Ave. runk to Stater Ave.
( ( ~.\
"l
--------------· ... -· ··-... -·-.. ~·\
TABLE 1-5 TABLE 1-5
DESIGN FLOW COHOITIONS IN COAST TRUHK DESIGN FLOW COHOITIONS IN COAST TRUHK
PE"Anto\1-AVCliAGrnlJU-. PE"Anto\1-AVCliAGrnlJU---...1nn11M·nmr
PIPE q . v Q r·
CONTRACT DIAMETER ( IH., SLOPE ,!ljD __JU!!__ -11!!. HGO Did f Ps
PIPE q . v Q r -q-·------y-
CONTRACT DIAMETER ( IH., SLOPE ,!ljD __JU!!__ -11!!. HGO Did f Ps fliD. ~J~ . -~
66 66 .00052 .00052 45 45 0.75 0.75 l.64 l.64 25.0 25.0 0.50 0.50 l.25 l.25 12.5 0.34 2.71
66 66 .00047 .00047 43 43 0.75 0.75 J.48 J.48 24.0 24.0 0.50 0.50 l.12 l.12 12.0 0.34 2.61
66 66 .00045 .00045 42 42 0.75 0.75 J.40 J.40 23.5 23.5 0.50 0.50 3.06 3.06 12.0 0.34 2.61
'66 '66 .0004J .00043 41 41 0.75 0.75 3.32 3.32 23.0 23.0 0.50 0.50 2.99 2.99 11.5 0.34 2.50
A A 66 66 .000'11 .000'11 . 40 . 40 0.75 0.75 l.24 l.24 22.0 22.0 0.50 0.50 2.86 2.86 11.0 0.14 2.39
66 66 .00039 .00039 39 39 0.75 0.75 l.16 l.16 21.5 21.5 0.50 0.50 2.80 2.80 11.0 0.3'1 :!.19
66 66 .00037 .00037 38 38 0.75 0.75 3.08 3.08 21.0 21.0 0.50 0.50 2.73 2.73 10.5 0.34 2.20
66 66 .00035 .00035 37 37 0.75 0.75 2.99 2.99 20.5 20.5 0.50 0.50 2.67 2.67 10.5 0.34 2.20
66 66 .00033 .00033 36 36 0.75 0.75 2.91 2.91 20.0 20.0 0.50 0.50 2.60 2.60 10.0 0.34 2.17
66 66 .00031 .00031 35 35 0.75 0.75 2.0J 2.0J 19.5 19.5 0.50 0.50 2.54 2.54 _!=1_ 0.34. ..bl!
8 (Future) 8 (Future) 66 66 .00031 .00031 35 35 0.75 0.75 2.03 2.03 19.5 19.5 0.50 0.50 2.54 2.54 9.7 0.34 2.11 --------· --------------
72 72 .00019 .00019 34 34 0.74 0.74 2.31 2.31 19.0 19.0 0.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 9.4 0.34 1.72
C (future) C (future) 54 54 .oooso .oooso 26 26 0.75 0.75 l.14 l.14 14.5 14.5 0.50 0.50 2.02 2.02 7.2 0.34 2.34 ---------·-----------·---------
future future 54 54 .00030 .00030 20 20 0.75 0.75 2.42 2.42 11.0 11.0 0.50 0.50 2.14 2.14 5.5 0.34 1.70
future future 54 54 .00020 .00020 19.5 19.5 0.75 0.75 2.36 2.36 10.8 10.8 0.50 0.50 2.10 2.10 5.4 0.34 1.75
-----· -----· -----·------· ·---·-
36 36 .00040 .00040 8.6 8.6 0.75 0.75 2.34 2.34 4.7 4.7 0.50 0.50 2.06 2.06 2.4 0.34 1.75
Future Future 30 30 .01507 .01507 5.6 5.6 0.28 0.28 7.70 7.70 3.1 3.1 0.21 0.21 6.40 6.40 1.6 0.15 5.36
30 30 .00050 .00050 & •. 4 & •. 4 0.75 0.75 2.12 2.12 l.O l.O 0.50 0.50 1.89 1.89 1.5 0.34 1.58 ----·------·--------
Future Future IB IB .00130 .00130 2.J Otl.L 2.sd ... J.!l_ '1t!Q_ ~-~L 2.J Otl.L 2.sd ..... !.!l_ '1t!Q_ ~-~L JI.:..& !!.-~L ~
2
26.
24
~
en 22 a: c ... 20 ...
0
Q 18
u.
0 16 en z
0 14 -..I
..I 12 -:&
~ 10 ... en
0 8 u ... 6 ~ -A. 4 c u ·2
1
COSTS OF VERTICAL
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES.
60
ALT. D
1-z I Ill
UI ._a:> a: r-W-
< fa~= t mcez .
.C TOTAL PROJECT COST
M cosTS
. coNSTRUCTIO
66
POWER COSTS FOR
50 YEARS
MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR
50 YEARS
72
ALT. C ALT. B
78
ALT. A
PIPELINE DIAMETER BELOW PROPOSED BOLSA STATION
FIGURE.1•1
I-7
~I
I
ALTERNATIVE
HORIZ. VERT.
I A
I B
I c
I D
II c
III c
IV
v
~
TABLE I-3
SUMMARY OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
(ENR 3600)
TOTAL COST
CAPITAL INCLUDING CAPITALIZED
COST* 0 & M COSTS NOTES
$16,896,000 $27,988,000 Minimum TOH Vertical Alterna-
·tive, 78 11 Pipe Downstream
from Balsa P.S.,(See Fig.V-3)
16,405,000 27,837,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex-
cept with 72 11 Pipe Downstream
from Bolsa P.S., Higher TOH
at P.S. and Less Trench Exca-
vation.
15.840,000 27,816,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex-
cept with 66 11 Pipe Downstream
from Balsa P.S., Higher TOH
at P.S. and Less Trench Exca-
vation.
15,275,000 28,257,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex-
cept with 60" Pipe Downstream
from Bolsa P.C., Higher TOH
at P.S. and Less Trench Exca-
vation
16,173,000 28,150,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex-
cept a more direct Route was
taken across Balsa Chica
(See Fig. I-3)
15,313,000 27,289,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex-
cept an Alternate Alignment
was taken through Huntington j
Seacliff Area(See Fig. I-4 ) 1
12,020,000 48,523,000 No Encroachment on Balsa Chic
(See Fig. I-5)
34,236,000 No Project Alternative I
fit
I
1-12
CONTRACT
CONTRACT A
CONTRACT B
CONTRACT C
BOLSA PUMP
STATION
TOTAL
TABLE I-8
TOTAL PROJECT COSi
COAST TRUNK SEWER
AND BOLSA PUMP STATION
ENR-3600
ESTIMATED
LOCATION CONSTRUCTION COST
LAKE ST. TO $ 3,667,702
GOLDEN WEST
GOLDEN WEST TO
BOLSA P.S.
2,900,000
BOLSA P.S. TO 1,800,000
SPRINGDALE ·
4,194,000
$12,561,102
( ' '
f , .. ' ~"' -r, .. \u , uk. ( n. }. ..
... \ /\,I )
1-20
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
$ 4,951,398
3,915,000
2,430,000
5,661,900
$16,958,298
S / CY'"'U ,efl-v :_
--.
-i.o c/' u . c ·. ·· · ·, . ' ' ·-
Jt
I
~ r·~ •• ,.. '•I.'
Connection Fees
TABLE VII I-6
PROPOSED FINANCING
TOTAL COAST TRUNK SYSTEM
Residential Units 13,000: ($1000)
Connnercial Area 74 ($1200)*
Industrial Area 309 ($1200)*
Sale of Partial Trunk Capacities
and P.S. Sites
Annexation Fees 318 ($2008)
1 3-, oaa.f a.aa
88,800
370,800
707 ,377
638,544
TOTAL s·1-4, 805, 521
* Minimum fees
NOTES:
(1) A.C.O. = Accumulated Capital Outlay
F. R. = Facilities Revolving Fund
(2) Above connection. fees for Balsa Chica area include minimum
development of 318 acres 1513 units.
..-:--I
VII I-12 /
T .--
MEET ING DAT E March 11 , 1981
DISTRICT 1
l!i'I E 5:30 p .m. DISTRI CTS 11
(SA LT AR EL LI) .•• SHARP ..•... ------
(Y AMAM~TO) ..... WARD,J ..... ------
(CRA NK •....•.. HUTC H I SO N •• -----
(R l LEY), .••..•. STANTON •... ------
DISTRICT 2
(FR I ED ) ••.•...• 1'/ED AA •..•.•
(S EYMO UR ) .....• ROTH ....•.. ------
(WINT ERS ) ...... BOR NHOF T ... ------
(GAMB!NA) .j .... FOX •.••..•. ------
(ECK ENROD E • · · ·HOLT • · · •••• ------
(OD LUM) • • • · · · • ·KA\·JANA~I · • • ------
(WIED ER)······ ·NESTANDE • · • ------~HO LLi i-iD EN ) • · • NlE LS EN • • • • ------
(CUL VER )······ ·PERRY······=== ~E Y E R)· · • • • · • ·SM! TH· • · • · • CORB ETT) ••.•.• WARD,B .•••• ------
~ARD,J) ••••••• YAMAMOTO ... ----------·--
DISiRICT 3
(CO LLINS ) •••••• VA N DYKE ••• ------
(ROl'IAN) ..•..... EVANS ...••• ------
(HO LLINDEN ) ••.• ADLER ••••.• ------
(RO GET} •.••.••• CORBETT .•.. --__ --
(PERRY ) ...•••.. CU LVER •.••• _____ _
(KIRKPATRICK) •. F IN LA YSO N •• __
(M ANDIC ) .•..... FINLEY..... ----
(FOX ) •...•••••• ISLES .••... ------
(SEITZ ) •••••••. LASZLO •••.• ------
(D AVIS). ....••. REES E •.•... ------
(SEYMOUR) •••••• ROT H ••.•.•. ------
(zoMM ICK) •.•••• SYLVIA •••.. ------
(R OMAGNINO ) .... WHEELER •... ------
~N E STANDE). •••. WIEDER ••••• ------
BORN HOFT) ••.•• WINTER S •..• ------
WARD , J) .•..•.• YAMAMOTO ... ===
DISTRICT 5
~MA U RER) .•.•••• HEATHER •••• ------
STRA USS) ...••• COX ..•.•.. ------
STANTO N) ••••.• RILEY .••... ------
DISTRICT 6
(CRANK ). { •....• HUT CHISON •. ____ _
(HEAT HER ; ••.••• PLUMMER •••• --__ --
(RI LE Y) •••••... STANTON·· •. _____ _
DISTRICT 7
(BEYER) •••• < ••• SMITH •••••• -----
(SAL TAR E~LI J •• ·EDGAR. • · •.. ------
(HEATH ER) •••.•. HART .•••••• ------
(WIEDER ) ....... NESTA NDE· ·, ------
~ANTHONY,A) ..•. VA RDO UL!S •. -----
HA NSO N) ...•... WAHN ER ..... ------
YAMAMOTO) .•..• WARD,J •..•• ------
0 !STR IC T 11
(BAILEY ) .•..... PATTI NSON •. + ----
(MACALLISTER) .. BAILE Y •..•• --;r ----
(NESTAND E ) •..•. WIEDER· .•.. ------
2/11/81
JOINT BOARDS
~HO L LIND E N) ••..• AD LE R ..•.. ·----
~MACALLISTER) •.. .BAILE Y .• '. .• ----
WINTERS) .....•. SCRNHOFT •. ·----
ROGET ).······· ·CO RBETT .··· ----
(STRAU S S) .•....• COX •••••••• ----
~PERRY ) •..••..•. CU LVER •.... ----
-,SA LT AR EL LI 1 .... EDGAR .•.•.. --__
(R OWAN ) ••..•..•. EVA NS .•••.• ___ _
(KIRKPA TRICK).·· ·F INLAYSO N··
CMAN DJC ) ..•••••. F IN LE Y .••. ·= -
(GAMDINA) ..•.•• ·FOX .••• •••• --
<H EATH ER) • • • • • • +iART • · · • • • · ----
(MAUR ER) •.• ·••••• +i EATH ER • • • · ----
f ECKENRODE). • ····HOLT •.• • • · • • ----
!CR AtiK ) • ·····.·.HUTCHISON .·==
FOX.) ••.•.•••••• IS LES······
ODLUM ) . ·• · ••..• KAWA NAMI ••. ----
SEIP:) ••. ••· •• ·LASZLO ••••. ----
(WI ED ER)······· ·N ESTANDE •.• ----
(HOLLINDEN1. • •.• NIE LSEN •••• ----
(BAILEY ) ....•... PATT I NSON •. ----
(CULV ER). ..•..... P ERRY •.•••. ----
(HE ATHER ) ..•.•.. PLUMM ER •••• ----
(DAV IS) ..••..•.. REESE ..•.•• ----
(S TANTON ) .•..... RILEY .•.•• ·====
(SEYMOUR ) · · · • • · ·ROTH ....... ----
(SA L TAR ELLI ) .... SHA RP ••••. ·--__
BE YER)········ ·SMITH ..... ·----
RILEY)········ .STA NTON ••• ·----
ZOMMICK ) ······.SYLVIA •••• ·----
CO LLI NS)······ ·VAN DYK E .• ·----
ANTHONY ,A)···· ·VAR DOUL!S • ·----
HANSON )······· .\'/AHN ER .... ·----
(CORBETT ) ••...•. WARD,B ••••. ----
(YAMAMOTO)····· ·WAR D,J • • • • ·----
(FR IE D)········ ·WEDAA·. • •• ·----~R OMAGN !NO )···· ·WH EELER ···· ----
NE STAND !i ······WIEDER ·····----BORNHO F T ~ ·····.\'/INTE RS •... ----
(WAR D,J) ········YAM AM OTO··· --
OTHERS ./ HARPER ·····--
SYLV ESTER ··-"-
LE\'IIS · · • · · · _:L_
CLA RKE····· --
BROWN······--
AND ERSON·.·--
SAK ER •..... __
CONAT SER .• ·--
DAW ES •...•• ___..L_
FATL AND •.. ·--
YO UNG .•....
WOODRUFF .. .
HO HENER .... ===
HO WARD· .•••
HUN T •.•....
KE ITH •.•.•• __
LYN CH ....•.
MART I NSON •. :::Z:
ST EVENS ... ·--
(. I J,, \,. ,.. f
/,...v.. ho\fcv O('.)r I to\~ \ SC
'&.· Q~,., j1
~ \)
( I -•
I
f'4. ~ I 0 ·
...
. .
•
a.. £""'_. -~ ---
•
-...
~·
Q
-.ll ~ t'tii:. ~
4;..--
..
-I
....
r
~-'~
\;
• (' i
1~ •
1 .;
...
. ~-f
l ,,
r
I
l
...
~ l
r r
I
t ' l
f .. .
r
I
I
I
I
~
. ·~ _!