HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaster Plan of Drainage - For the City of Huntington Beach - x �
C � J '
c
OF l4Ut4Ti jVGTQN Cjj
o'It v,i otj. GipsMASTEK" PLAN ,
ISO
Mn
OF I i
INAGF.
For The City �of Huntington Beach
Cl
S
h y,
L
s
C
sID
!; ..
y-
CL
y
r
f r i
s �
t£ Y b
October,1979
CL
C /
L SANTA ANA, CA. 927.05
701 NORTH PARKCENTER DRIVE
RESOLUTION NO. 4914
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVISING CITY'S DRAINAGE
FEE SCHEDULE, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 46001
AND ADOPTING THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT PLAN AND
MAP
WHEREAS, section 14.48. 010 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code authorizes amendment of the drainage fee schedule
by resolution; and
It is necessary from time to time to revise the drainage fee
schedule due to increased costs of drainage district equipment and
other costs; and
California Government Code section 66483 requires the City
Council to adopt a drainage district plan and map before said
drainage fees can be collected,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that the following new drainage fee
schedule is established for the city:
Drainage District Fee per Gross Acre
2 $ 650
2A 2,500
3 4 ,000
4 Completed 0
5 2,000
5A 2,500
5B Completed 0
5C Completed 0.
5D 0
6A 2,500
6B 2,000
6C 3,000
7A 3,500
7B 2,500
7C 2,500
7D 2,500
7E 4,000
/ahb
8/28/80
1.
I
Drainge District Fee per Gross Acre
7F $ 2,500
7G 4,000
7H 4,500
71 6,500
8A 0
8B 7,500
8C 4,500
8D 2,000 .
8E 0
8F 3,000
8G 7,000
8H 3,500
9 6,500
10 2,000
11 0
12 6,500
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach hereby adopts the amended drainage plan and
map included in the L. D. King Study of October, 1979 as the
official Drainage District Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
Resolutions No. 4412, 4467, 4600 , and all resolutions in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd
day of ISOtembpr 1980.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cit 'Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
C y Administrator Director of Public Works
2.
I
1 1
Res. No. 4914
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day
of September , 19 M , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson,. Finlg, Bailey, Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
None .
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Thomas, MacAllister, Kelly
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
!
!
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE
CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
OCTOBER 1979
MGM
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, California
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I . INTRODUCTION
Study Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II . STUDY METHOD
Regional Flood Control Facilities. . . . . . . 3
Local Drainage Facilities. . . . . . . . 3
Flood Frequency Definition . . . . . . . . . . 3
Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Computer Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hydraulic Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III . DEFICIENCIES & PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Storm Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Pump Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
IV. COST ESTIMATES & RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES
Storm Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Pump Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
U. METHOD OF FINANCING
PRIMARY FUNnING
Drainage Fees.. 60
Improvement Act of 1911. . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. 62.
Drainage District Improvement Act of 1919. . . 63
Other Special Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . 64
City General Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Orange County Flood Control District . . . . . 65
Arterial Highway Financing Proqram . . . . . . 65
Federal Aid Secondary - Urban Extension. . . . 66
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. . . 66
APPENDIX
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
t
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The City of Huntington Beach is a community of approximately 27 square
miles situated in the west area of Orange County, California. The City
has a population of approximately 170,000 resulting primarily from the
Orange County growth boom which has taken place in the last twenty years.
The population growth rate has ranged between 4% and 6% for each of the
last 10 years.
The present land uses within the study area was determined from applicable
zoning maps, with the City largely developed as single-family, multiple-
family, and commercial-industrial areas, with the City approximately 80%
developed to date.
The cities bordering Huntington Beach are Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
Westminster and Seal Beach. The City is physically bounded on the north
by the San Diego Freeway, on the south by the Pacific Ocean, on the east
by the Santa Ana River, and on the west by the Bolsa-Chica Channel . Two
distinct geographical features characterize the drainage conditions of the
City. The southeasterly portions of the City consists primarily of the
flat alluvial flood plain of the Santa Ana River. The northwesterly part
of the City consists of a bluff which gradually slopes from northeast to
southwest.
Nine Flood Control District regional channels serve the City: the Bolsa
Chica Channel , CO2; the Anaheim-Barber City Channel , CO3; the Westminster
Channel , C04; East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel , C05; Oeacn View
Channel , C06; Sunset Channel , C07; Huntington Beach Channel , D01 ; Talbert
Channel , D02; and Fountain Valley Channel , D05_Santa Ana River E01.
The smaller drainage facilities which drain into these major channels are
the general responsibility of the City for implementation, operation and
maintenance. It is these facilities, or the lack of such facilities,
which is the primary concern of this report.
HISTORY OF DRAINAGE
The early development of the City of Huntington Beach commenced in the
downtown area and radiated in all directions. Development was generally
confined to the flatter areas of the City where construction was relatively
easy and grading of the land minimal . Few, if any, drainage facilities
� -1-
f f
were constructed in conjunction with the early land development and
the absence of proper grading requirements to elevate land improvements
above surrounding ground gave rise to conditions of potential flood
damage from the relatively infrequent storms which occurred in the
Southern California area.
In the early years of the City, before the .establishment of design
methodology in Orange County, drainage facilities that were installed
were generally accomplished on an ad hoc or as needed basis with little
engineering, planning or design to correlate the facility size with
expected rainfall runoff and future integration into a total system.
In 1960, the City adopted the first Master Plan of Drainage. Numerous
revisions have been made since the 1960 Master Plan of Drainage with the
most recent being in 1975. Due to the increased level of development
the City has been unable to keep pace.
-2-
STUDY METHOD
CHAPTER .II
STUDY METHOD
In order to establish-.-a better understanding of the• scope of this study
and the study results, it is necessary to review jurisdictional considera=
tions which govern the implementation, operation and .maintenance •of drain=
age facilities which .are required to provide flood protection for the. City `
of Huntington Beach.
REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES-
The Orange County Flood Control District provides flood control facilities
through its pay-as-you-go source of revenues. Because the Flood Control
District covers the entire County of Orange and has a uniform tax rate for
this area, .it must limit its expenditures primarily to regional facilities,
generally defined" as those which serve areas of 500 acres or ,greater.
These "regional facilities" thus serve larger drainage areas and in addi-
tion, are designed for greater storm frequencies than facilities which
serve smaller areas. An additional jurisdictionalelement is the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers which generally confines its resources to the planning,
design, construction and maintenance of major flood control projects such
as the Santa Ana River. The Corps derives its source of funding from the
Federal government. This source of funds is widely sought by all flood
prone areas of the United States and is thus extremely limited.
LOCAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES
It is therefore, by exception, that the local. drainage facilities which can
be considered those draining approximately 500 acres or less are the respon-
sibility of the local agency having jurisdiction over the health,_ welfare
and safety of the community: In the case of the City of Huntington Beach,
it is the City's responsibility to see that all of the drainage facilities
are properly installed in one manner or another. This study then concen-
trates .on analyzing and defining the drainage facilities within the City's
responsibility which are necessary for local flood protection of the community.
FLOOD FREQUENCY DEFINITION
In determining the level of protection desired for a community, it is essen-
tial that one have an understanding of the term "flood frequency." Flood
frequency is generally defined on a statistical basis in terms of the
number of occurrances in any one period. Because. rainfall .intensity and
runoff quantities ,are generally recorded on an annual basis , flood frequency
is usually defined in terms of years. Any particular flood would then be
defined as .a certain amount of peak runoff occurring an average of once .in a
certain number of years . For example; a ten-year frequency storm means a
storm that would occur over a large number of years an average of once every
10 years. . Similarly, a 100-year storm would be a storm which- on an average,
would occur once in 100 years . The larger the recurrence interval number,
the less the frequency of occurrance and the greater the storm runoff and
potential for causing damage.
. -3-
Many communities throughout the United States have adopted flood protection
criteria against 10.-year frequency storm flow or storms having a potential
flood flow of a certain level on an average oc_currance of once every 10
years. On the other- hand, the Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires flood
protection for a 100-year storm ,or a storm having flood flows -which are
estimated to occur once. every 100 years.
As a general rule, unrestricted flood flow quantities for various frequency
storms usually have a greater impact because of greater magnitude as the
drainage areas become larger in size. For instance, comparing flood flows
for a 10-year and 100-year storm, it can be seen that for a drainage area
of 100 acres, the 10-year storm flow could be '120 cubic feet per second (cfs)
and the 100-year storm flow, 150 cfs. For a drainage area of 1 ,000. acres,
the respective 10-year and 100-year flow magnitudes could be more like
1 ,200 cfs and 1 ,500 cfs , respectively. The significance of these differen-
ces in magnitude is that drainage facilities .which provide protection for
larger watersheds (_i .e. , the 1 ,000 acres) must carry higher. frequency storm.
runoffs because the difference in flow magnitude (i .e*. , the 300_ cfs) has a
greater potential for flooding due to the general inability of the land
forms, streets, etc. surrounding the drainage facility to safely accommo-
date the excess flood flows. It can therefore be seen that local drain-
age facilities , which have small. drainage areas , may be designed for flood 4
flows less than the 100-year storm provided the streets , etc. , have the
capacity to safely carry the difference between the lower frequency flood
flows and the 100-year storm flood flows. The concept that local drainage
protection can be afforded for major storms (100 years) by a combination of
Street flow or other overland facilities' capacity in combination with an
underground storm drain system of lesser design capacity (e.g. , 10 or 25 �
years) is the basis upon which most of. the City's local drainage facility
needs were analyzed..
STUDY APPROACH
It is the. attempt of this. study to identify the drainage areas within and
tributary .to the City of Huntington Beach; to define the relationships of
the area to the existing and/or planned regional flood control facilities ;
to identify and analyze drainage deficiencies within the study area; to
master plan the drainage of the study area; to determine the cost for pro-
viding required storm drainage of a master plan nature; to determine
relative priorities for storm .drain construction; and to identify possible
means of financing these facilities; for the implemention of the master
drainage plan.
Deficiency Study: The first step to develop this master plan was to define
which facilities are regional facilities and generally not to be analyzed
in detail within the study scope; and secondly, to determine those facilities
wh.i'ch (by exception) are local in nature and therefore require detail analysis .
Based on information obtained from the City and the OCFCD, the regional and
local facilities .were classified. Once the facilities were classified,' then
under the Deficiency Study, the following analyses were made:
-4-
1 . All drainage areas within and tributary to -the City were
defined in detail .
2. . All existing drainage facilities within the .City were classi
fied and documented as to size and location through inventory
of thC. City's files and field reconnaissance.
3. An hydrology computer model was established , The City land
use data, the existinc, drainage .facility, and rainfall data
were .input to the computer model .
4. From the computer model , the estimated runoff quantities at
various local drainage points throughout the City were de-
termi'ned for the 10-year and 25-year frequency storms under
existing drainage conditions .
The first phase of the study was the analysis 'and determination of the neces-
sary local drainage facilities to provide various levels of flood protection
for the community and to present the results of this analysis.
The second phase of the .study, which culminates in this report is the docu-
mentation of the comprehensive master local drainage system to provide flood
protection.
COMPUTER MODEL
L. D: King has developed a hydrology computer modeling program which de-
termines. runoff quantities at various points along a runoff path. This
computer model utilizes criteria established by the Orange County Flood
Control District in its Hydrology Manual ; the most recent edition of which
is dated. October, 1973. This computer model utilizes the Rati.onal .Runoff
Method for determining storm runoff quantities, which under the Flood Control .
District criteria is generally limited to watershed's having a drainage
area of approximately 4,000 acres or less. The rational method for storm
runoff i's. defined by the formula : Q = CIA. The terms are defined as.'follows :
Q Peak discharge, in cubic feet per second, cfs .
C. = Runoff coefficient.
I = Rainfall intensity, in inches per hour, corresponding to
to the time of concentration.
A = Tributary area, in acres .
The OCFCD has expanded the definition of the C-value, or coefficient of run-
off value„ and based the value on the type of land use, soil .type (which is
classified under four..general .classifications) and an assumed maximum limita-
tion on the amount of rainfall which will ultimately contribute to peak storm
runoff. This is fully explained in the OCFCD manual .
-5-
Time of concentration is the time required for. runoff to reach the subarea
collection point from the most hydraulically remote point in the subarea .
In this modified application of the "Rational " formula, thE, time of con-
centration of each subarea is computed separately; hence the runoff re-
sponse time of each subarea of a watershed is independent of the time of
concentration of the other subareas. Use of a design storm makes this
procedure possible and permits assumptions for hydrology calculations to
more closely approximate runoff conditions and to overcome a very serious
deficiency in the "Rational " formula as- normally applied (where time of
concentration for an entire watershed is related to the most remote sub-
area plus travel time from that subarea) .
Calculation of the time of concentration is based on the maximum rainfall
intensity of the subarea, considering such items as infiltration rate, over-
land flow across turf and paved surfaces, collector flow paths, type of
collector, and ground and collector slopes. The calculation is a trial and
error solution based on flow velocity and length traveled by overland flow
plus flow velocity and length traveled by flow in watercourses , streets ,
and drains. An experienced engineer can determine a subarea time of con-
centration in one or two tries, and by computing times for two or three
carefully selected subareas can prorate times of concentration for all near-
by areas.
Travel time for flow in watercourses , streets, and drains can be determined
from velocities knowing channel length and slope and estimated Q. The
estimated Q at any point in the subarea is based on the drainage network
of the subarea and the .assumption that flow rates are proportionate to area .
The "Rational " formula should nct be applied on a single area basis to de-
termine peak flow from basins with a long time of concentration since the
peak discharge from a short-duration, high-intensity rainfall over a por-
tion of the basin may exceed the discharge from a lower intensity of rain-
fall corresponding to the time of concentration of the entire basin.
In ,routing flow between subareas in the collector channel ; uniform flow
is assumed as. a basis for determining- normal velocities. Approximate
relationships for velocity in terms of discharge and channel slope based on
field measurements of typical natural mountain and valley channels are used
to, determine normal velocity of natural channels. Normal velocities in
street sections are determined from velocity curves as computed by the Manning
equation for typical subdivision streets or for special street sections
where necessary. Normal velocities in drains and channels are computed by
the Manning equation.
Since the hydrograph constitutes a flood wave of variable flow, travel
time of flow between collection points is based on a wave velocity relation-
ship developed on a. theoretical basis which has been substantially confirmed
for both natural and artificial channels under controlled experiments .
-6-
Land Use:
Runoff from rainstorms will vary with the amount of impervious area in a
watershed. The Orange County Flood Control District has determined the
relationships between .types of development and impervious areas and has
published curves defining runoff coefficients to be assumed for various
land uses.
Soil Types:
An important element in hydrology calculations is the type of soil within
the Watershed. Since various soils have different infiltration and
saturation capacities, runoff rates can vary depending upon the predomin-
ant soil type in each drainage subarea. The Orange County Flood Control
District has adopted the Soil Conservation Service Generalized Soils Map of
Orange County and has grouped the various soils into four hydrologically
similar groups. These four soil groups, A, B, C and D, were used for the
hydrology calculations in accordance with the Orange County Flood Control
Hydrology Manual .
Catch Basin:
During the hydrology analysis it was assumed that at points of concentrations
adequate catch basin capacity exists to intercept the peak runoff flow differ-
entials in the main line and place that differential underground.
HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
Storm Drains: For underground storm drains, these. drains were. ass.umed to flow
full without pressure except to the extent that available hydraulic gradient
was reduced in areas where the regional faci,ltiies would have hydraulic grade-
lines higher than the storm drain outlet elevation. Sizes of storm drains were
.initially determined using the hydrology computer model . The storm drains were
assumed to be established on a slope parallel to the slope of the existing
streets within which they were assumed to be located. This .is a conservative
assumption since .the slope of the actual hydraulic grade line would be steeper
than the assumed slope thus increasing the capacity of the storm drain over that
assumed. Storm drain sizes were selected to nearest three inches., In some
instances, box culvert alternatives were analyzed where circular conduit sizes
became unrealistic in terms of potential availability and/or feasibility of
construction installation.
Open Channels: Open channels were sized based on the most 'efficient section
and assuming uniform flow with the water surface being parallel to the long-
itudinal gradient of the channel . Depths of the channel were established gen-
erally using two feet of freeboard between the estimated water surface and the
top of the channel bank. In all cases, regional facilities were assumed to
have adequate capacity to accept peak flows discharging from the storm drains
or open channels (not presently the case .in most of the channels) .
Catch Basins: Two catch basin conditions were evaluated. Where a sump
condition existed so that flows would not be able to excape the catch basin
-7'_
I 1
area, the need for new catch basins was determined by first subtracting the
capacity of the existing"catch basins as determined in the deficiency study
from the flow to be placed underground. The new catch basins were then
sized for the .residual flow on the assumption that the inlets would have a
capacity of 2 cfs per foot of opening. A similar approach was used for
flow-by conditions. Where residual flood flows could pass the location of
the catch basin without accumulating and flooding adjacent property, existing
catch basin capacities were subtracted from the total flow to be inter-
cepted and the residual flows were then intercepted by catch basin lengths
based on the assumption of l cfs per lineal foot of opening. Catch basin
inlet openings were then standardized into 4.0, 7, 14, 21 and 28 ft. lengths
for cost estimating purposes.
Hydraulic Equation: Preliminary hydraulic design calculations included in
the hydrology program and made for the above facilities were based on
Manning's Formula, which is V = 1 .486 R2/3 Sl/2. ' The terms are defined
as follows: n
V = Velocity of uniform flow, feet per second
n = Roughness coefficient (.n = 0.13 for reinforced concrete
conduit).
R = Hydraulic radius, in feet
S = Slope of energy gradient, in feet per foot.
Coefficient of Roughness : The following coefficient of roughness was assumed
for the respective conveyance section :
1 . Reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) n = 0.0,13.
2.. Open concrete channels n = 0.014.
3..- , Open green belt channels n = 0..030.
4. Earth channels n = 0.035.
5. Streets n = 0.015
Losses : The hydraulic analysis did not take into consideration bend losses ,
junction losses or any other losses except those due. to friction (roughness)..,
In all cases , hydraulic and catch basin analysis assumed that the streets
would be free and clear of any major obstructions and that the storm drain
systems would be adequately maintained so that blockage would not occur, ' Thi.s
assumption is particularly critical in sump areas for any blockage could
cause accumulating storm flows to inundate adjacent properties before escap-
ing through the. drainage system.
-8-
S1N3V43AOadw.1 C1d5UdUtid X SdIJNdIJI =IdV
CHAPTER III
lip
DEFICIENCY AND PROPOSED IMPROVEME"ITS
STORM DRAINS
The major task of the Master Plan of Drainage for the City of Huntington
Beach was to identify storm drain and street capacity deficiencies and
recommend improvements to correct those deficiencies. The storm drain
deficiency is a much more severe problem since it could lead to. property
damage, whereas street capacity deficiencies are a convenience item and
thus are a lower priority.
The majority of the existing storm drains in the City of Huntington Beach
were designed by the -criteria established in the 1969 Orange County Flood
Control District Hydrology Manual or prior to the adoption of the Manual .
The Orange County Flood Control District revised their Hydrology Manual in
October 1973. The new criteria revised downward the rainfall intensity-
duration curves and revised upward the rainfall runoff coefficients. These
changes generally result in a 15% to 25% increase in the design flows.
Therefore, the majority of storm drain deficiencies determined in this report
-are attributable to the change in design criteria and not on poor foresight
by the City's staff.
The following table summarizes Drainage District information with a short
discussion of each Drainage District following the table. It should be
pointed out that the drainage district boundaries have changed somewhat
since the March 4, 1975 Master Plan of Storm Drains. Exhibit I in the
back of this report shows existing and proposed storm drains and proposed
Drainage District boundaries.
DRAINAGE DISTRICT SUMMARY
Drainage Outlet O.C.F.C.D. Acres
District Facility
2 Gravity C04 730
2 Scenario P.S. C07 70
2 Gravity C07 315
2A Gravity C04 315
3 Gravity C06 550.,
4 Shields P.S. C05 340
5 Gravity C05 - 1135
5A Gravity C05 315
5B Marilyn P.S. C05. 70
5C Heil P.S. C05 95
5D Marilyn P.S. C05- 45
6A Gravity D05 290
6B Flounder P.S. D05 140
6C Yorktown' P.S. D02 230
7A Atlanta P.S. D01 210
7B Adams P.S. D02 460-
7C Banning P.S. D02 410
7D Meredith P.S. E01 255
7E Newland P.S. D01 670
7F Indianapolis P.S. D02 380
7G Hamilton P.S. E01 515
7H Banning P.S. D02 15
7I O.C.F.C.D. P.S. (Adams) D01 620
I
8A Ocean --- 140
8B Atlanta P.S. D01 300
8C Gravity D01 75
8D Ocean --- 290
8E Gravity --- 30
8F Ocean --- 200
8G Gravity D01 575
8H Ocean --- 45
-10-
Drainage Outlet O.C.F.C.D. Acres
District Facility
9.. Slater P.S. C05 2630
9A Bolsa Chica P-S: --- 155
10 Gravity C06 135
11 Gravity C05 ' 70
12 Christiana Bay --- 55
12 Gravity C04 355
Huntington/
Harbor ' Bays --- 490
- -11-
Drainage District 2 is located in the northwest section of the _
City and drains to the Westminister Channel (C04) and the Sunset
Channel (C07) . The district has three discreet drainage areas;
the western section drains in a southerly direction to the
Scenario Pump Station which discharges to the Sunset Channel (C07) .
The existing 36" storm drain in Opera Lane can only convey approxi-
mately one third the design discharge. The proposed 36" storm drain
from the pump station to the intersection of Waikiki Lane and
Scenario Drive and the proposed 36" storm drain westerly along
Scenario Drive thence northerly along Fantasia Lane to the inter-
section of Rhapsody Drive and Fantasia Lane will correct the storm
drain deficiency and the street capacity deficiencies in Scenario
Drive.
The central section of the drainage district drains by gravity
to the Sunset Channel (C07) . The existing storm drain at the inter-
section of Meadowlark Drive and Graham Street can only convey approxi-
mately one third the design discharge. The proposed 54" storm drain
from the Sunset Channel (C07) to the intersection of Meadowlark Drive
and Graham Street thence a 36" storm drain easterly along Meadowlark
Drive then southerly along Birdie Lane to the intersection with Venturi
Drive; and a 48" storm drain southerly along Graham Street thence,
easterly along Heil Avenue, thence, southerly approximately 1000 feet
into Meadowlark Golf Course will correct the storm drain deficiencies
and the street capacity deficiencies.
The north section of the drainage district drains by gravity to the
Westminister Channel (C04) . The existing storm drain in McFadden Avenue
can only convey approximately half the design discharge. The proposed
storm drain in Cornell Drive/Rome Circle ranges from a 66" diameter pipe
to a 36" diameter pipe and extends from the Westminister Channel souther-
ly approximately 3200 feet along Cornell Drive/Rome Circle to the inter-
-12-
section of Rome Circle and Hanover -Lane. This proposed system will
relieve the existing storm drain deficiency. The proposed storm drain
from Edwards Street easterly along Halifax Drive ranges in size from
30" to 24" and will relieve the existing street capacity deficiency.
-13-
f
Drainage District 2A is located in the northern section of the City
and drains by gravity to the"Westminister Channel (C04) . The
existing storm drain in Graham Street from the Westminister Channel
(C04) northerly to the intersection of McFadden Avenue and Graham
Street can only convey approximately sixty percent of design discharge.
The proposed. parallel storm drain which ranges- in- size from 75 inch
at the Westminister Channel (C04) to 36 inch near McFadden Avenue will
alleviate the existing deficiency.
j
e
Drainage District 3 is. located in the easterly section of the City and
drains to the Ocean View Channel (C06) by gravity. The drainage is
generally in a northerly direction. The undeveloped parcel between
e Talbert Avenue and Newman Avenue adjacent to the Good Shepard Cemetary
currently acts as' a retarding basin which reduces the peak discharges
in the existing downstream storm drain. The downstream storm drain can
-convey only one third the design discharge around the deficiency to the
e open channel at Slater Avenue.
The proposed 54": storm drain runs easterly from the C06 channel along Slater
Avenue thence southerly along Newland Street thence westerly along Talbert
0 Avenue thence southerly along Hartland Street to Gladys Avenue. The proposed
storm drain branches into two 30" pipes at the intersection of Gladys Avenue
and .Hartland Street, one running southerly on Hartland Street to the inter-
section with Le Conte Drive and the other pipe running westerly on Gladys
Avenue thence southerly on Wharton Street thence westerly on Sterling Avenue
thence southerly on Lisa Lane to the intersection with King Avenue. The two
branches of the main proposed storm drain will remove all the street capacity
deficiencies in the drainage district.
P
The existing, 12" storm drain in Rosanna Drive and Roxanne Lane is deficient
to convey the storm waters therefore a storm drain is proposed in Benjamin
Drive to connect to the proposed storm drain in Newland Avenue to relieve the
I existing storm drain.
The existing 36" storm drain in Newman Avenue is proposed to be. extended to
the existing 36" storm drain in the Good Shepard Cemetary.
i
i
� -15-
1
Drainage District 4 is located in the northerly section of the City
and drains generally in a southerly direction to the Shields Pump
Station which discharges to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg
Channel (C05) . The existing storm drains in the western section of 1
the drainage district are approximately 50% deficient to convey the
design discharge. The proposed 48 inch storm drain parallels the
existing 48 inch storm drain in Shields Avenue from the existing
pump station to Springdale Street. The proposed storm drain and
the existing storm drain branches into three directions, the first
500 feet paralleling the existing 42" in Gildred with a 36" thence
northerly 800 feet in Greenvi.ew Lane with a 24" oaralleling the existing
24" approximately half the total distance; secondly northerly along
Springdale Street approximately 900 feet with a 36" paralleling the
existing 36" thence approximately 900 feet along Springdale Street with
a 24" to the intersection of Heil thence along Springdale Street approx-
imately 900 feet with a 18" to the existing storm drain from Par Circle;
thirdly, southerly approixmately 700 feet with a 30" paralleling the
existing 21".
i
-16-
1
Drainage District 5 is located in:the north easterly. secti;on of .,
the City and drains generally in .a south westerly direction by gravity
to the East Garden Grove - W.intersburg Channel (C05) . The existing
1 storm drain running in a east-west direction which runs from the P.E.
Railroad tracks to Parkside Street southerly of Amazon Drive is
approximately 50%. deficient. The proposed storm drain that consists of
a 24 inch and 18 inch storm drain which runs parallel to the existing
/ system, 600 feet, to the north will correct the existing deficiencies.
i
-17-
1
1
.Drainage District 5A is located in the northerly section of the City
and drains generally in a south westerly direction by gravity to the
East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel (C05) . The existing storm
drains in 'the drainage district are adequate to convey the design
discharges , however, their are several areas where street capacities
design criteria is exceeded. The existing storm drain in Edwards Street
is proposed to be extended approximately 1,500 feet to the north, the
existing storm drain in Edinger Avenue is proposed to be extended to
the east approximately 1,300 feet and approximately 600 feet to the
north in Sherbeck Lane, and the existing storm drain in Redlands Lane
is proposed to be extended to the north approximately 800 feet with a
24 inch pipe.
i
A
-18-
1
/ Drainage District 5B is located in the northerly section of the City
and drains generally in a' .southerly direction to the Marilyn Pump
Station which discharges to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg
Channel.. The existing storm drains in the drainage district are.
1 adequate to convey the .design discharges and there .are 'no street
capacity design criteria exceeded.
1 .
1
M
-19-
1
1
`Drainage District 5C is located in. the northerly section of the
City and drains generally in a easterly direction to the Heil
Pump Station which discharges to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg
Channel . The existing storm drains in the drainage district are /
adequate to convey the design discharges and there are no street
capacity design criteria exceeded.
1
1
1
1
1
i
-20-
1
1
0r4inage_District _6A is located in the easterly section of the City
and drains generally in a westerly direction by gravity to the
Fountain Valley Channel (DOS) with all the existing storm drains in
/ the drainage district being deficient. The proposed 84 inch storm
drains will parallel the existing 84 inch storm drain from the
Fountain Valley Channel (D05) to Brookhurst Street at which point
it "reduces in size to a 42 inch. The proposed storm drain continues
1 easterly approximately 2000 feet in the Southern California Edison
right-of=way at which point the proposed storm drain branches northerly
and southerly with 24 inch storm drains. The proposed system will
"remove and will correct all storm drain and street capacity deficiencies.
1
1
1
1
1
=21--
i
1
Drainage District 6B is located in the easterly section of the
City and drains generally in a northerly direction to the Flounder
Pump Station which discharges to the fountain Valley Channel (D05) .
The existing storm drains in the drainage district are adequate to
convey the design discharges and there are no street capacity design
criteria exceeded.
1
4
1
-22-
Drainage. District 6C is located in the easterly section of the City
and drains generally in a easterly direction to the Yorktown Pump
Station which discharges to the Talbert Channel (D02) . The existing storm
drains in the drainage district are adequate to convey the design dis-
charges also there are no street capacity design criteria exceeded.
a
t
1
-23-
r
1
Drainage District 7A is located in the southerly section of the City
and drains generally -in a westernly direction to the Atlanta Pump
Station which discharges to the Huntington Beach Channel (DO1) . The
major backbone storm drain system is deficient and can only convey
approximately 60% of the design discharges. The proposed 36 inch &
48 inch pipe running northerly from the pump station in the O.C.F.C.D. 4
Right-of-way to Indianapolis Avenue where it branches easterly and
westerly to capture drainage from both sides of the channel will
remove all the storm drain deficiency.
-24-
Drainage_Di"strict 7B is located in the south easterly section of the
City and drains to the Adams Pump Station which discharges to the Talbert
Channel (002) . The existing 60 inch pipe from the pump station to Bushard
ftreet in Adams Avenue is deficient and can only convey approximately 50%
of the design discharge. The proposed 60 inch storm drain will parallel
the existing system thus removing all deficiency;
--25
1
Drainage'District 7C is located in the south easterly. section of the
City and drains to the Banning Pump Station which discharges to the
Talbert Channel , (D02) . The existing 54. inch storm drain in Banning 1
Avenue and the existinq 49 inch storm drain in Cape May Lane are
deficient and can convey approximately 50% of the design discharge.
The proposed parallel 54 inch and 42 inch will remove the existing
deficiency. 4
d
-26-
1
1
Drainage District 7D is located in the easterly section of the City and
drains to the Meredith Pump Station which discharges to the Santa Ana
► River (E01 ) . The existing storm drain which ranges in size from 60 inch
to 27 inch and is located in Midland Lane and Adams Avenue can convey
approximately 50% of the design discharge. The proposed strom drain is
a 60 inch and runs northerly in Midland Lane .from the pump station to
► Niagara Drive thence westerly to Lawson Lane thence northerly to Adams
Avenue were it branchs westerly with a 42 inch pipe and easterly with a
24 inch pipe. The proposed system will correct all storm drain and
street capacity deficiencies.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -27-
1 1
1
Drainage District 7E is located in the southerly section of the City
and drains generally in a southerly direction to the Newland Pump
Station which discharges to the Talbert Channel (DO1 ) . The existing 1
84 inch pipe in the Seaforth Lane and 96 inch pipe at the pump station
are inadequate to convey the design discharge. The proposed 60 inch
storm drain runs northerly from the pump station to Hamilton Avenue
then westerly to the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Newland Avenue.
The proposed storm drain branches with a 36 inch westerly approximately
800 feet and a 42 inch northerly to St. Auqustine Drive. A 36 inch and
24 inch storm drain extension is proposed in Magnolia Street to correct
the street capacity deficiency. The proposed "systems will correct all 1
storm drain and street capacity deficiencies.
1
1
1
1
-28- 4
1 /
Drainage District 7F is located in the south easterly section end of the
City and drains to the Indianapolis Pump Station which discharges to the
6 Talbert Channel (D02) . The existing 48 inch and 66 inch storm drain in
Indianapolis Avenue to convey the design discharge. The proposed 54 inch
storm drain will parallel the existing storm drain from the pump station
to Bushard Street. The proposed storm drain will correct all storm drain
and street capacity deficiencies.
10
10
-29-
1 1
a
Drainage District 7G is located in the south easterly section of the
City and drains to the Hamilton Pump Station which discharges to the
Santa Ana River (E01 ) . The existing storm drain in Brookhurst Street
which ranges in size from 72 inch to 30 inch is deficient. to convey
the design discharge. The proposed parallel system which ranqes in size
from 48 inch to ,24 inch will correct all storm drain and street capacity
deficiencies.
-30-
1
Drainage District 7H is located in the south easterly section of
the City and drains to the Banning Pump Station which discharges to
the Talbert Channel (D02) . No storm drains exists in the drainage
► district and none are needed.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -31-
1
Drainage District 7I is located in the easterly section of the City
.and drains to theOrange County Flood Control District's pump station
which discharges to the Huntington Beach Channel (DO1) . The existing
double 12" storm drain that discharges to Worchester Avenue from the
shopping center on Beach Boulevard is deficient. The proposed 24 inch
storm drain will convey the storm flows approximately 1,200 feet
southerly on Worchester thence easterly on Yorktown to the existing 45
inch storm drain.
1
The area east of Beach Boulevard, West of the Huntington Beach Channel
and south of Adams Avenue is currently a low point without a major
outlet. The proposed 48 inch storm drain will extend from the Flood
1
Control Districts ' Pump Station to the existing 27 inch, approximately
1,400 feet.
1
1
1
-32-
►
Drainage District 8A is located in the southerly section of the City
and drains directly to the Ocean. The existing storm drains in the
► district are approximately 50% deficient to convey the design discharge.
Street capacity is also exceeded in many streets in the existing con-
dition. The proposed storm drain in Sixth Street is a 42 inch which
branches east and west at Olive Avenue. The proposed storm drain in
► Lake Street and Olive along with the other proposed storm drain will
remove all the storm drain and street capacity deficiencies.
1
1
1
1
1 -33-
1
\ 1
Drainage District 8B is located in the southern section of the City
and drains in a easterly direction to the Atlanta Pump Station whi.ch
discharges to the Talbert Channel (DO1). The majority of existing
storm drains in the district are -adequate-to convey the. desi.gn dis-
charge. However, there are numerous areas in the district that are
lacking storm drains.
The proposed storm drain system includes the missing storm drain in 1
Beach Boulevard which consists of 1,300 feet of 36 inch and 700 feet
of 48 inch storm drain. THe proposed system also includes connecting
the existing storm drain in Frankfort Avenue to the Beach Boulevard storm
drain. To alleviate street capacity deficiency in the Geneva/Delaware
and Elmira/Delaware area a network of 30 inch and 24 inch storm drains are
proposed.
The existing storm drain in Atlanta Avenue is extended westerly to 1
correct street capacity deficiencies. The existing 54 inch storm drain
that extends westerly from the existing 60 inch is extended with a
36 inch to Huntington Avenue.
1
Due to a change in drainage boundaries the existing 18 inch and 21 inch'
storm drains east of Beach and south of Atlanta in the shopping center
parking lot are deficient. The proposed 30" in Beach Boulevard which
extends 1 ,600 feet southerly from Atlanta Avenue will correct the 1
deficiency.
1
1
1
-34-
1
Drainage District 8C is located in the southerly area of ,the City and
drains by gravity to the Huntington Beach Channel (D01 ) . The area
east of Beach Boulevard, west of the Huntington Beach Channel and south
of Adams Avenue is currently a low point without a major outlet. The
proposed 48 inch storm drain will extend from the Flood Control Districts'
Pump Station to the existing 27 inch, approximately 1,400 feet.
r
r
0 -35-
Drainage District 8D is located in the southerly section of the City
and drains by gravity to the Ocean. The existing storm drains inthe
district are all deficient to convey the design discharge. There are
also severe street capacity deficiencies in the area, The proposed
storm drain system is described in Drainage District 8F since the pro-
posed system corrects both districts deficiencies.
•
•
•
-36-
•
1
1
' Drainage District 8E is located in the south westerly section of the
City near the Huntington Seacliff County Club Golf Course._ There are
1 no major storm drain or street capacity deficiencies in the district.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-37-
1
1
Drainage District 8F is located in the south westerly section of the
City and drains by gravity to the Ocean. The existing storm drain runs
through drainage District 8H. The major back bone storm drain system 1
in the district which is located in 22nd Street and Seventeenth Street
is approximately 50% deficient.
The proposed storm drain in 12/Main Street with branches in Utica Avenue, 1
Adams Avenue, 12th Street and Palm Street will relieve the existing storm
drain and street capacity deficiencies in the Drainage District 8D and 8F.
1
1
1
1
1
-38- 1
1
1
Drainage District 8G is located in the central area of the City and
drains by gravity to the Orange County Flood Control District Pump
1 Station which discharges to the Huntington Beach Channel (DOl ) . The
existing storm drains in the district are adequate to convey the design
discharges, however there are areas of the district that are lacking
storm drain facilities, especially in the north westerly section of the
1 district.
The proposed extension of the existing 42 inch storm drain westerly along
Garfield Avenue to Crystal Street decreasing in size to a 18 inch, the
1 proposed extension of the existing 24 inch storm drain westerly along
Clay Avenue to Huntington Street, the extension of the existing 39 inch
northerly along Huntington Street to State Avenue then westerly
approximately 2500 feet, and the extension of the existing 18 inch
1 westerly along Adams Avenue to Lake Street will correct all storm drain
deficient areas and street capacity deficiencies.
The extension of the existing 39 inch southerly 500 feet along Huntington
1 Street to Wichita Avenue to the existing 24 inch.
1
1
1
1 -39-
1
Drainage District 8H is located in the south westerly section of the
City and drains by gravity to the Ocean. The drainage district has
. severe street capacity deficiencies. The proposed extension of the Golden
West Street and the Twentieth Street storm drain to Orange Avenue as
well as the proposed system in Eightenth Street to Orange Avenue and the
extension of the existing storm drain in Sixteenth to Olive Avenue will
correct all deficiencies. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-40-
1
1
Drainage District 9 is located in the central area of the City and
drains generally westerly to 'the Slater Pump Station which discharges
/ to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel . Drainage District 9
is the largest district in the City and contains three lakes which
act as retarding basin during storm flows. The study did not include
an analysis of the Slater Channel since the county has recently com-
pleted a study of the drainage area.
The majority of the existing storm drains in the district are adequate
to convey the design discharge; however, there are numerous areas of
/ the district where street capacity criteria are exceeded and where
storm drains are lacking. The majority of the proposed storm drains
were identified in earlier Master Plan of Storm Drains and are located
near the Central Park.
The major proposed storm drains discharge northerly of Ellis Avenue
with one branch traveling southerly along Golden Nest Street and the
other branch traveling easterly to Gothard Avenue. The easterly branch
/ is a 90-.inch and the southerly branch ranges from a 72-inch to a 36-inch.
The second proposed system drains the area between Edwards Street/
Golden West Street and Garfield Street/Central Park. The proposed
storm drains range from a 60-inch to a 36-inch pipe.
1
The existing 24-inch storm drain that drains Harbor Bluffs Circle
is proposed to be connected to the existing 66-inch storm drain in
Graham Street with a 42-inch reducing to a 36-inch storm drain.
1 This will prevent drainage into the marsh area.
The existing storm drain in Springdale Street is inadequate to convey,
the existing design discharge and a parallel system is proposed.
1
1
-41-
1
1
The existing 54 inch storm drain which terminates on the west side
of. Gothard Street .will. be extended to the west approximately 600
feet to the railroad right-of-way with a 60 inch. The line then
branches to the south with a .48 inch and to the west with a 60 4
inch. The southern branch extends to Talbert Avenue thence west
approximately 900 feet. The west branch extends to the existing
60 inch in Speer Avenue.
1
THe proposed storm drain is a 48 inch and travels north from the
existing open channel to theintersection of Palo Alto Drive and
Springdale Street where the proposed storm drain branches northerly
and easterly with 24 inch pipes to correct street capacity deficiencies. 1
The existing storm drains in Prescott Lane and Flintstone Lane are
proposed to be extended southerly with 24 inch storm drain to correct
existing street capacity deficiencies. 4
The existing storm drain at Warner Avenue and Graham Street will be
extended into the Golf Course area with a 42 inch and a 24 inch storm drain
if the Golf Course area develops. 4
-42-
i Drainage District 9A is located in the west central area of the
City, and drains to the Bolsa Chica' Pump Station which discharges to
the ocean by way of the Bolsa Chica Back Bay. The existing storm
drains in the drainage district are adequate to convey the design
1 discharges and there are no street capacity design criteria exceeded.
1
1
1 "
1
1
1
1
1
-43-
1
i
Drainage District 10 is located in the east central section of
the City and drains by gravity to the Ocean View Channel (C06) .
The existing 12-inch corrugated metal pipe in Warner is inadequate
to convey the design discharge and is proposed to be replaced with 1
a 30-inch pipe. The existing storm drain in Ash Street is proposed
to be extended southerly along Ash Street, thence easterly along
Cypress Avenue to the intersection with Elm Street to correct street
capacity deficiencies. 1
1
1
1
1
1 Drainage District 11 is -located in the north central area of the
City, and drains. to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel .
The existing storm drains in the drainage district are adequate
to convey the design discharges and there are no street capacity
1 design criteria exceeded.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -45-
/
Drainage District 1Z is located in the westerly section of the
City and drains by gravity to Christiana Bay. The existing storm
1
drain in Heil Avenue is inadequate to convey the design discharge and
a 72-inch pipe is proposed to parallel the existing system. The
proposed system runs westerly in Heil Avenue, thence southerly in
1
Le Grand Lane and ranges in size from 72 inch to 24 inch. A
line is proposed in Algonquin Street to correct street capacity
deficiencies.
The existing line in Bola Chica Street is proposed to be extended
southerly with a 48-inch pipe to Warner, thence southerly 600 feet
with a 36-inch storm drain.
1
The existing storm drain in Warner Avenue is deficient and is
proposed to be paralleled. The proposed lines range in size from a
54-inch to a 42-inch in Warner Avenue and a 27-inch in Lynn Street.
The existing storm drain at Bolsa Chica Street and Heil Avenue is 1
proposed to be extended 1,600 feet easterly down Heil Avenue with, a
42 inch storm drain.
Heil Avenue street capacity is exceeded at the intersection with 1
Green Street. To correct this deficiency a 30 inch storm drain is
proposed in Waterway Circle from the Sunset Channel to Heil Avenue.
The Harbor area of the City is located in the most westerly section of 1
the City and drains to the Harbor Bays, thence to the ocean. There
are no major storm drain or street deficiencies.
1
1
-4F- 1
Areas not currently within existing Drainage Districts. The area
in the northwest section of the City just north of McDonnel
Douglas Space Systems Center has street capacity deficiencies.
The extension of the existing 36 inch intersection of Nevada
Drive and Stardust Drive with a 18 inch approximate 700 feet
east will correct.
I
The area north of Pacific Coast Highway east from Beach Blvd. to the
Santa Ana River does not have any existing storm drains. If the
area does develop, storm flows will be required to be discharged
directly to the ocean with a new storm. drain system or a new storm
drain pump station provided that will discharge to the Huntington Beach
Channel (D01) .
Heil Avenue has street capacity deficiencies for Beach Boulevard
to the San Diego Freeway. The extension of the 48 inch at Tripp
Avenue easterly with a 36 inch to Newland Avenue and a 24 inch to
the Freeway will eliminate the street capacity deficiencies. The
1 storm drain system will be within the city of Westminster and a
joint funded project .is recommended.
1
1
I
-47-
PUMP STATIONS
The City of Huntington Beach has 15 storm drainage pump stations
located throughout the City. During the month of October 1978,
L. D. KING, Inc. , conducted a field investigation of all the City's
pump stations and prepared a report entitled"Storm Drain Pump
Station Analysis." The investigation was to include a complete in-
ventory of equipment, an evaluation of station operation and main-
tenance, and a report of any deficiencies related to pumping capa-
city.
An inventory of all pumps , engines , gear drives, and controllers is
provided on a station by station basis within the section entitled
"Pump Station Review." The inventory includes the make, model , and
serial number for the above mentioned equipment. As evidenced by the
inventory, there are very few interchangeable parts between stations.
Consequently, the City is extremely vulnerable to flooding caused by
equipment breakdown. Future pump station design and equipment replace-
ment should place considerable importance on standardization of equip-
ment when possible.
The most significant findings of this investigation deal with the op-
erations and maintenance of the pump stations. The proper operating
sequence of a pump station is detailed in the section "Storm Drain
Pump Station Model " of the report. Not one of the City's pump stations
is operating per it's original design specifications or the sequence
outlined in the "Storm Drain Pump Station Model " , section of the re-
port. The irregularities and resulting problems differ from station to
station. Details for each station may be found in the "Storm Drain
Pump Station Analysis Report. "
There are irregularities which are prevalent in a majority of the sta-
tions. Nearly every station was found to have start/stop control
settings different from the original specifications. Many of the
stations are operating above the established maximum water surface ele-
vations. The start/stop control settings should immediately be adjusted
to the elevations recommended in the section "Pump Station Review" , of
the report.
A second problem is throttling of the engines which is also related to
the start/stop control settings mentioned above. All stations, except
Adams , were designed to provide variable speed throttling related to
water surface elevation. None of these stations are operating properly.
-4R-
Most of the stations accomplish throttling through the .use of
a weight and counterweight apparatus. As water rises in the wet
well the throttle weight becomes partially submerged , making it
weigh less, until it is equal in weight to the counterweight. As
the water rises so does the throttle weight which in turn is linked
to the engine carburetor causing acceleration of the engine.
Three critical adjustments are necessary to insure proper operation
of the above system. First, the water surface at- which the submerged
throttle weight equals the counterweight should correspond to the
elevation at which minimum pumping speed is to occur. The majority
of the stations were set improperly.
The second critical adjustment is throttling range. Generally most
engines throttle from minimum pumping speed to full speed over a
two foot change in water surface. As the water surface and throttle
weight rise two feet, the supporting cable also travels two feet.
Linkage to the engine carburetor is fixed to the travel of this cable.
Consequently, the cable must be free to travel the specified distance.
The majority of the stations fail to provide a throttle range equal to
. the original specification. All of these systems should be corrected.
The third critical adjustment in throttling is linkage to the car-
buretor. The linkage to the carburetor must convert approximately
two foot of horizontal distance into an approximate 10 to 30 degrees ro-
tation of the carburetor's butterfly. None of the station are equipped
with an adequate linkage and/or linkage adjustment. The linkage for
all units should be corrected. Final adjustments must be made during
storm conditions when the engines are properly loaded.
All the pump stations were originally designed to be equipped with a
sump pump. The majority of the stations have had the sump pump re-
moved due to failure and have yet to be replaced. This has produced
a number of problems including ponding and stagnation- of water, corr-
osion to submerged equipment and inaccessibility for maintenance. These
pumps should be replaced as soon as possible..
Nearly all engines were originally equipped with heaters. Heaters
are designed to keep water within the engine jacket warm during periods
of non-use in order to inhibit condensation within the engine. The
majority of the heaters were non-operational and should be repaired.
The above operational and maintenance problems are extremely serious.
The probability of flooding has been substantially increased. Any
flooding resulting from improper maintenance or operation of City
pump stations may subject the City to ext�,-emely high liabilities.
The corrective measures recommended above could be accomplished with
City maintenance crews and a budget of $5,000 ner station for materials.
-49-
1
The next highest priority to insure proper operation is for all units
to be equipped with a cool-down cycle. Generally this will involve
an enhancement to the existing controllers, a modification to the
existing carburetion and changes in the throttle linkage. Each
station should be individually reviewed to establish a budget for
these repairs.
Deficiencies in pumping capacity were evaluated based on the design
discharges prepared for this report. This report defines the limits 1
of each pump station drainage basin. A 25 year hydrology study was
completed for each drainage basin including a hydrograph which may
be found in the appendix of the "Storm Drain Pump Station Analysis. "
A direct comparison between design pumping capacity and ultimate peak
runoff was made for each station. The pump stations which are in need
of immediate attention are Shields, Newland, Marilyn, Adams, Atlanta, 1
Hamilton and Banning, Bolsa Chica, Slater, Scenario, and Meredith.
Details regarding each station may be found in the "Pump Station Review"
section of the "Storm Drain Pump Station Analysis. " It is recommended
that the City study each of the above stations in depth prior to making
any further storm drain improvements within the related drainage basins.
The eleven pump stations that are deficient in pumping capacity for the
ultimate design .discharge can be divided into three categories. The
first category is complete pump stations with inadequate capacity,
the second category is pump stations that are not complete and with
increased pumping capacity can pump the design discharge, and the third
category is pump stations that are complete and are approximately 20%
deficient. Since category three pump stations are at ultimate develop-
ment with inadequate storm drain capacity these pump stations need not
be improved until the storm drains are constructed. (See page 59, Pump
Station Priority)
The fuel source for all engines is natural gas. LPG is supplied as an
emergency backup fuel . However, the switching from natural gas to 4
LPG must currently be accomplished manually. The absence of an operator
during a natural gas failure will result in flooding. All the units
should be improved to an automatic transfer system.
The existing LPG installations are currently in violation of Article 5
of the Unified Pressure Vessel Safety Orders. The current systems bring
LPG into the pump station building in its liquid state. These systems
must be altered to transform the LPG from its liquid state to a vapor
state prior to entering the building.
It should be pointed out that in a drainage system the storm drains
are only effective if the pump station is operating at its optimum ,
level . The pump station therefore is the weak link in the total drainage
system. The pump station operation and maintenance should have the
highest priority to reduce the probability of pump station failure.
i
-50-
•' � � 7 i i i '� ! � i
COST ESTIMATES & RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES
1
CHAPTER IV
Cost Estimates
&
Recommended Priorities
Storm Drains
The following table is a summary of total storm drain and contingencies
costs required in each of the respective Drainage Districts. A detailed
cost breakdown and unit prices used in the cost analysis is in Appendix
I. The second table is a listing by priority of the proposed storm
drain improvements.
The summary on the following page includes costs of 'storm drains 39 inches
in diameter and larger for all drainage systems. Areas that are currently
at or near ultimate development which do not qualify for master plan of
drainage funding costs of all storm drains improvements are included.
1 The priorities were established on a basis of potential flooding of
existing development having the highest priority, storm drains that
correct street capacity deficiencies having the next priority since they
are a "convenience" type improvement, and the lowest priority are storm
drains that are required for future development and currently are not
a flooding threat.
1
1
1
1
-51-
1
Proposed Storm Drain Cost Summary
1
I. Projects Fundable With M.P.D. Fees
Drainage District Outlet Location Costs
thousands
2 Graham 744 1
71 Yorktown 181
7I O.C.F.C.D. P.S. 317
8G Garfield 289
Yorktown 487
9 Ellis 751
Edwards/G.W. 709
Gothard/Talbert 1,435
Warner 296
Harbor Bluffs 236
10 Warner 59
12 Bolsa Chica 369
Heil (E) 316
Warner 800
II . Projects Not Fundable With M.P.D. Fees
Drainage District Outlet Location Costs
thousands
2 Cornell 958
Halifax 192 N
Meadowlark 148
Scenario P.S. 409
i
-52-
Drainage District Outlet Location Costs
thousands
2A Graham 687
3 Slater 1,227
4 Shields P.S. 986
5 Volga 239
5A Edwards 169
Edinger 230
Redlands 103
6A SCE R/W 1 ,227
7A Atlanta P.S. 616
7B Adams 334
7C Banning 410
7D Meredith 683
7E Newland 709
7F Indianapolis 406
7G Hamilton 848
8A Sixth 522
Lake 232
8B Atlanta P.S. 1 ,255
8D/8F 12th St. 3,790
8H 2Oth St. 174
18th St. 204
16th St. 95
Golden West 160
9 Springdale 340
Prescott/Flintside 230
-53-
1
Drainage District Outlet Location Costs
thousands
10 Ash 222
12 Heil (W) 707
Stardust 94
1
Heil (E) 295
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-54-
1
Storm Drain Priority
' Cost Recommended*
Priority District Approximate Location (thousands) Funding
1 I Yorktown 181 M.P.D.`
2 -- Heil (E) 295 A
3 8D/8F 12th 3,790 A
4 8H 18th 204 A
5 8H 2Oth 174 A
6 8H Golden West 160 A
7 8H 16th 95 A
8 12 Bolsa Chica 369 M.P.D.
9 9 Gothard/Talbert 1,435 M.P.D.
10 12 Heil (W) 707 A
11 2 Scenario P.S. 409 A
12 8A Sixth 522 A
13 8A Lake 232 A
14 6A SCE R/W 1 ,227 A
15 7B Adams 334 A
16 4 Shields P.S. 986 A
17 5 Volga 239 A
18 7D Meredith P.S. 682 A
19 7F Indianapolis P.S . 406 A
20 7G Hamilton 848 A
t 21 7E Newland 709 A
22 3 Slater 1,227 A
23 7A Atlanta P.S. 616 A
1 24 7C Banning 410 A
1 -55-
1
Cost Recommended
Priority District Approximate Location (thousands) Funding
25 10 Ash 222 A 1
26 2A Graham 687 A
27 9 Edwards/G.W. 709 M.P.D.
28 5A Edwards 169 A
. 29 2 Graham 744 M.P.D.
30 8B Atlanta P.S. 1,255 A
31 8G Garfield 239 M.P.D. 1
32 9 Springdale 340 A
33 9 Prescott/Flintside 230 A
34 2 Cornell 958 A
35 2 Halifax 192 A
36 2 Meadowlark 142 A
37 5A Edinger 230 A
38 5A Redlands 103 A
39 -- Stardust 94 A
40 8C O.C.F.C.D. P.S. 317 M.P.D.
41 9 Ellis 751 M.P.D.
42 8G Yorktown 487 M.P.D.
43 10 Warner 59 M.P.D.
44 9 Harbor Bluffs 236 M.P.D.
45 12 Heil (E) 316 M.P.D.
46 12 Warner 800 M.P.D.
47 9 Warner 296 M.P.D.
M.P.D. - Master Plan of Drainage
A - Assessment District
-56-
1
Pump Stations
All of the existing pump stations require control system and L.P.G. modifi-
cations. The control system modifications should be implemented immediately
with the L.R.G. modifications following thereafter. The costs for the
control system modifications are approximately $20,000. The costs for the
L.P.G. modification range from $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the number of
pump units. The following table is a list of total costs for each pump
station. A detailed cost breakdown for each pump station is included in
1 the appendix.
Following the Pump Station Cost List is the Pump Station Priority List.
The pump stations are grouped into three -priority categories.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -57-
1
Pump Station Costs
Cost
Pump Station (thousands) 1
Adams (7B) 126
Atlanta (7A/8B) 229
Banning (7C) 126 1
Bolsa Chica (9A) 127
Flounder (6B) 51
Hamilton (7G) 327 . 1
Heil (5C) 25
Indianapolis (7F) 27
Marilyn (5B) 176
Meredith (71)) 176
Newland (7E) 276
Scenario (2) 126 1
Shields (4) 750
Slater (9) 440
Yorktown (6C) 25 1
TOTAL $ 3;007
1
S0 �
1
PUMP STATION-PRIORITY
1 Category Pump Station Drainage District
I Shields 4
Newland 7E
1 Marilyn 5B
Adams 7B
/ II Atlanta 7A
Hamilton 7G
Banning 7C
1 Bolsa Chica 9A
Slater 9
/ III Scenario 2C
Meredith 7D
1
1
1
-59-
METHODS OF FINANCING
1
CHAPTER V
METHODS OF FINANCING
One of the primary goals of this study is to determine possible methods
of financing and' to recommend specific methods to the City for implemen-
tation. The identification and evaluation of the different financing
1 means is the purpose of this chapter.
Two major categories of funding are presented: Primary Funding, which
could finance 100% of the facilities under ideal conditions; and Supple-
mental Funding, which requires matching or alternate sources to complete
the financing.
PRIMARY FUNDING
DRAINAGE FEES - Section 11543.5 of the California Business and Professional
Code (Subdivision Map Act) enables a city or county to enact a drainage
1 fee program after certain prerequisites have been satisfied:
1. A Master Drainage Plan must be prepared containing a map of
drainage facilities showing their locations, types and sizes,
and an estimate of costs. of the required facilities for each
drainage area.
1
2. The drainage plan must be certified by the governing body of the
county and/or district having an areawide drainage plan as
being in conformance with. said plan.
3. An ordinance must be adopted supplementing existing subdivision
1 codes to require the payment of the drainage fees as a condition
of approval of a final subdivision map.
4. Planned, local drainage facilities construction funds must be
established and maintained for each local drainage area.
1 Following these steps, fees are collected from developers as a condition
of approval of final subdivision maps. The funds are deposited in the
appropriate "local drainage facilities, construction fund" , and they may
then be expended for the engineering, administrative and construction
costs of local drainage facilities within that area.
A developer may construct the required facilities and receive credit
against his drainage fees. If the cost of the master planned facilities
which he constructs exceeds the amount of fees due, it would then be
possible for the developer and the administering agency to enter into a
reimbursement agreement, whereby the developer may be refunded the excess
costs when sufficient funds are available in the "local drainage facilities
1 construction fund. "
The master planned facilities include pipe sizes 39 inches in diameter and
larger. Therefore, the developer is responsible for the construction cost
of all storm drains 36 inches, in diameter and smaller, as well as all
appurtenances.
1
-60-
1
The City of Huntington Beach is already largely developed. An adoption
of drainage fees may raise insufficient amount of funds and this money 1
may not be timely, and the fees might be considered discriminatory in
that they would be applicable to only a small portion of the landowners
at this time. It must be considered that one of the justifications for
drainage fees is that they prevent drainage deficiencies from being
created and spread the burden evenly over all the property owners.
Since Huntington Beach is already largely developed, and since drainage
deficiencies already exist, it is recommended that drainage fees be con-
sidered on a limited basis as a means of financing.
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911
I
Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code authorizes a City
to initiate an Assessment District for various purposes including the
construction of storm drains.
As the first step the City Council must pass a Resolution of Intention by
a majority vote to establish the District, enumerating the location and 1
extent of the project, the proposed extent of the District, and establish
a date that protest hearings shall be held.
If written protests are presented by owners of more than 50% of the pro-
perty,and not subsequently withdrawn, then no further action may be taken
on the District's formation for one year, unless the Council overrules
the protests by a four-fifths vote.
If the protests represent less than one-half of the property, or the pro-
tests are overruled, the Council automatically receives the authority to
pass a resolution ordering the work and to advertise for and receive bids
for construction of the project.
Prior to award of the contract, the, prospective contractor must pay the
City the accrued publication and miscellaneous expenses incurred in the
establishment of the District.
Following award of the Contract (or earlier if desired) the Engineer dia- 4
grams the extent of the District. Then following completion of the con-
struction, the Engineer will spread the costs over the district, estab-
lishing the assessments on the varous parcels in relation to the benefits
derived.
The amount to be spread will be the construction cost less,an allowance
for any contributions made to the project such as County, State or Fed-
eral funds.
The Council will then hold hearings to discuss the method of spreading and
to allow any protests and -may subsequently affirm the Assessments.
4
i
-61-
. The City may retain, or give to the Contractor, a warrant authorizing
the collection of the assessments from the individual property owners.
Whichever party holds the Warrant notifies the owners that the amount
is payable within 30 days and that if it is not, either that legal
action may be taken, that bonds may be issued, or that the assessment
will be collected on the tax rolls.
The Contractor may have to wait for his money or accept bonds as pay-
ment for his work. He also has to include the administrative and
printing costs in his bid, as he must reimburse these to the City.
This procedure is complex, time consuming and expensive. It reduces the
number of prospective bidders due to the requirement that the contractor
does not receive any payments from the district until following com-
pletion (he may receive progress payments from funds other sources, how-
ever) .
The assessment spread can logically be made over the entire drainage area
on a tributary area basis, or, for a project such as that recommended in
Chapter VI, spread over the entire area of benefit, which is obviously
the entire city in this case.
A maintenance district for maintaining the project work following con-
struction may be created by the Council at the time of ordering the
work to be done. The monies under the maintenance district are collected
along with other property taxes.
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT 'OF 1913
Storm drain facilities may be financed under the Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code.
As in the 1911 Act, the Council must first adopt a Resolution of Inten-
tion by a .majority vote, setting forth the District boundaries, the issu-
ance or non-issuance of bonds, and the potential disposition of excess
funds that may be left over.
A report must then be filed with the City Clerk containing the plans and
specifications, a cost estimate including incidental expenses, a diagram
of the assessment district, and the proposed assessments. This report
is then presented to the Council and following its approval , the Council
will establish a date for receiving protests and holding a hearing.
Notices of the proposed improvements must then be posted throughout the
District, and mailed to all property owners.
If owners of more than 50% of the property protest the formation of the
District, there may be no further action taken for six months unless the
Council overrides the protests by a four-fifths majority.
When the protests are insufficient or overruled the Council may order the
work to be done, advertise, receive bids , and award a contract for the
work.
-62-
At the same time it may levy and collect the assessment or issue and sell bonds 4
and thereby receive the funds to construct the facilities. Excess funds
following completion of the improvements may be credited against assessment,
applied towards the maintenance of the facilities , or, if less than $1 ,000,
deposited in the City general fund.
Should insufficient funds be available to finance the project, the City may !
repeat all of the above steps , levying a new assessment to raise the neces-
sary funds.
The principal advantage of this method over the 1911 Act is the availabil-
ity of funds for progress payments and final payments at the times they are
customarily due.
DRAINAGE DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1919
This act provides for the financing of storm drains by counties or cities .
Twenty or more property owners in the potential district must petition •
the City Council , which must then grant or deny the petition within 60 days .
If granted, the Council may request the preliminary plans, specifications ,
cost estimates , and a map of the district be prepared and filed with the
Council .
The Council must then establish a date for a hearing and publish a notice !
describing the district, the proposed construction and stating the hearing
date. If protests filed at the hearing represent less than 50% of the
as value of the land in the district the Council may pass a resolu-
tion b f intention to construct the proposed facilities , and providing for
the financing of the improvement. This notice must be posted in the District.
Prior to the actual ordering of the work the property owners have an addi-
tional period in which to protest the ordering of the work, the plans and
specifications, and the boundaries of the district. If the Council then
decides to proceed, they authorize advertising for bids, open bids and award
the contract. As under the 1911 Act, the Contractor must advance expenses
incurred by the City prior to being awarded the contract.
After award of the contract the engineer estimates the costs and spreads
the assessments over the district. He submits his report to the City Council
which sets a date for a hearing on the assessments .
Following completion of the work the total costs are established for the work
and the proceedings and bonds may then be issued and given to the contractor •
or his assignee. The bonds are subsequently retired by annual property tax
levys.
Following completion of the work an annual ad valorem assessment may be made
to provide for maintenance of the facilities.
•
•
-63-
This act has a disadvantage similar to that of the 1911 Act in that the
contractor does not get paid until the job is complete. This tends to
discourage bidders and raise prices of the work.
OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS
The following special districts and improvement districts may be formed
to finance and construct storm drains under California law. The princi-
pal features are stated below, particularly in regards to their disadvan-
tages when considered in the Huntington Beach case.
1 . County Drainage District Act (Sections 56000-56146 of the
California Water Code) . Formation requires petition of 100
property owners. Unincorporated territory must be included
and both Board of Supervisors and City of Huntington Beach
Council must create the District.
2. County Water District Law (Sections 30000-33901 of the
California Water Code) . Formation requires petition of 10%
of registered voters, approval of County Board of Supervisors ,
and majority vote in District. Five elected directors govern
the District.
3. Drainage District Law of 1955. Formation requires petition
of owners of two-thirds of the land to the County Board of
Supervisors and an order of the Board creating the District.
Assessments restricted to annual ad valorem on land only.
District is governed by 3 trustees or all the landowners .
4. Irrigation District Law (Sections 20500-29978 of the
California Water Code) . Formation requires petition of
owners of 20% of property value. Requires approval of
County Board of Supervisors and majority vote of District.
District is governed by 3 or 5. directors.
5. Protection District Act of 1880. Formation requires petition
of majority of lot owners and order of County Board of
Supervisors . Three trustees govern the District.
6. Protection District Act of 1895. Formation requires petition
of 10 landowners , order of the County Board of Supervisors ,
which is the governing body of the District. Assessments
limited, bonding provisions vague.
7. Reclamation District (Sections 50000-53901 of the California
Water Code) . Formation requires petition of owners of one-half
of the County Board of Supervisors, 3, 5, or 7 trustees (or
all the landowners) govern the District.
8. Storm Drain Maintenance District Act. Formation requires
declaration of intention by City Council , hearing, and order
by Council . Council is governing body of the District
(majority votes) . May not be formed if other districts may
-64-
r
perform the same function. Use would require clarification
of overlapping of the Orange County Flood Control District.
9. Storm Water District Act of 1909. Formation requires petition
of 25% of owners of land and order of the County Board of
Supervisors, which is the governing body of the District.
10. Water Conservation Act of 1927. Formation requires petition
of 50 property owners to the County Board of Supervisors, and
an election (majority vote required) . 3, 5 or 7' directors
govern the District. Must include unincorporated area within
District.
11. Water Conservation Act of 1931. Formation requires petition of
500 qualified electors to the County Board of Supervisors
and an election (majority vote required) . 3, 5 or 7 directors
govern the District.
CITY GENERAL FUNDS
Cities can construct storm drain projects as part of their ususal public
works projects utilizing general fund money. Many cities budget a certain
amount of drainage capital improvements from this source.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
While the foregoing sources could be used to raise one hundred percent of
the cost of storm drain facilities in certain cases , the following sources
cannot. They can be used to supplement funds from other sources. Indeed,
it is possible to derive enough funding from combinations of supplemental
sources so as to require extremely minimal contributions from primary sources.
ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
The Orange County Flood Control District budgets funds each year to be spent
on drainage projects in Orange County .cities. A committee of city engineers
called the "City Engineers Flood Control Advisory Committee" (CEFAC) de-
termines priorities and recommends projects for financing to the District.
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM (AHFP)
4
This program may provide supplemental financing for drainage improvements
within street designated on the County Plan of Arterial Highways. The funds
.are derived from state gas tax funds allocated to the County and subsequently
shares with the cities through the AHFP Program. AHFP funds are limited to
50% of eligible items, not to exceed the amount the City is contributing from
its own funds.
Longitudinal storm drains within arterial highways are 50% eligible and other
drainage appurtenances are 100% eligible for funds provided by this program.
-65-
1
FEDERAL AID SECONDARY -- URBAN EXTENSION
The Urban Extension Program was established in. 1959 for purposes of
extending to Urban Areas certain financial benefits that were available
at the time to rural areas through the Federal-Aid Secondary Program.
$5,000,000 of State funds are budgeted each year by the California Highway
Commission for allocation to local governments under the FASUE Program.
The priorities of the applications are determined from a complex evaluation
of some ten criteria established by the Division of Highways and those
projects receiving the highest ratings are funded.
FASUS will provide up to 50% of the construction costs of the projects, not
to exceed $500,000. Matching local funds may be from any source, such as
gas tax, AHFP, and California Division of Highway funds.
Storm drains which are a part of a street improvement project being con-
structed under this program and which are a necessary part of the project
are 100% eligible for financing.
i The deadline for filing applications to the Division of Highways for funding
under the program is February 1 of each year.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965
This act includes provisions for the Basic Water and Sewer Facilities Program,
i designed to assist large and small communities throughout the nation by making
Federal grant assistance available for basic water, sewer and drainage
facilities. Construction grants of up to 50% of estimated construction and
right-of-way costs, plus .five percent contingencies, may be made to public
agencies.
In general , the projects that may qualify for the HUD program would be those
in minority areas and low income areas. Projects located in new subdivision,
areas, particularly moderate to higher income areas, have a markedly poor
chance in the intense competition for these limited funds.
Other factors which are favorably received by HUD in rating an application
i are: Number of agencies .served and/or contribution; no previous grants
for similar projects; a complete General Plan, including a housing element
(or endorsement of a regional plan) ; relatively high unemployment; and
other indications that a jurisdiction has greater need for Federal assistance
than the average community.
i Local matching funds for the grants may come from any source -- City, County,
District, or State.
1
-66-
r C
I
STORM DRAIN AND PUMP STATIONS
Cost Summary i
Drainage M.P.D. Funded Other S.D. Pump
District S.D. Projects Stations
2 744,000 1,707,000 126,000
I
2A 0 687,000 0
3 . 0 1,227,000 0
4 0 986,000 750,000
5 239,000 0 0
5A 0 502,000 0
5B 0 0 176,000
5C 0 0 25,000
5D 0 0 0
6A 0 1,227,000 0
1
6B 0 0 51,000
6C 0 0 25,000
7A 0 616,000 229,000
_ 1
7B 0 334,000 126,000
7C 0 410,000 126,000
7D 0 683,000 176,000
1
7E 0 709,000 276,000
7F 0 406,000 27,000
7G 0 848,000 327 ,000
1
7H 0 0 0
7I 498,000 0 0
8A 0 754,000 0
1
8B 0 1 ,255,000 (See 7A)
8C 0 0 0
1
-67-
1 r
1
STORM DRAIN AND PUMP STATIONS
Cost Summary
Drainage M.P.D. Funded Other S.D. Pump
District S.D. Projects Stations
8D 0 3,790,000 0
8E 0 0 0
8F 0 (See 8D) 0
8G 776,000 0 0
► 8H 0 633,000 0
9 3,427,000 570,000 430,000
9A 0 0 127,000
► 10 59,000 222,000 O
11 0 0 0
12 685,000 1 ,601 ,000 0
1 Stardust - 94,000 0
- Heil (E) - 295,000 0
► TOTAL $7,228,000 $18,662,000 $3,007,000
TOTAL COST $28,198,000
►
►
1
-68-
1
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DISTRICT FEE
Drainage Undeveloped Proposed 1
District Current D.D. D.D. Acres in D.D. Balance In D.D. Cost
D.D. Cost (Per Acre) Acres (Estimated) D.D. Fund* Per Acre
2 500 1050 < 10 156,600 650
2A 2000 315 < 10 158,000 2500 1
3 3000 550 15 28,200 4000
4 Closed 340 < 1.0 -15,600 Closed
5 2000 1135 80 84,700 2000 1
5A 2000 315 <10 73,200 2500
5B Closed 70 < 10 68,700 Closed
5C Closed 95 < 10 70,600 Closed
5D Closed 45 < 10 -1,000 Closed
6A 2000 290 < 10 56,700 2500
6B 2000 140 < 10 67,400 0
6C 3000 230 < 10 46,500 0
7A 2800 210 < 10 5,500 3500
7B 2000 460 < 10 20,800 2500
7C 2000 410 30 100 2500
7D 2000 255 < 10 19,700 2500
7E 3000 670 80 194,000 4000
7F 2000 380 <10 115,500 2500
7G 3000 515 20 92,300 4000
7H 3330 15 < 10 (See 7E) 4500 4
7I 4000 620 < 15 199,800 6500
8A 0 140 < 10 0
8B 5600 300 50 -204,500 7500
8C 4500 75 20 93,500 4500
-69-
1 r
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DISTRICT FEE
Drainage Undeveloped Proposed
District Current D.D. D.D. Acres in D.D. Balance In D.D. Cost
D.D. ) Cost (Per Acre) Acres (Estimated) D.D. Fund* Per Acre)
8D 1650 290 1-10 12,200 2000
8E 0 30 0 0
8F 2300 200 20 -88,500 3000
8G 6000 575 80 245,200 7000
8H 2500 145 --10 63,500 3500
9 4000 2630 600 580,000 6500
9A 0 155 10 0 0
i 10 1500 135 10 46,800 2000
11 Closed 70 `10 -32,200 Closed
12 5000 475 80 152,400 6500
i
* As of June 30, 1979
i
i
i
-70-
Z
W
CL
A
Q
r .
1
r
1
r
APPENDIX I
1 Detail Cost Analysis
1
r '
1
r
� I
1
1
1
PUMP STATIONS
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
Pump Stations
Adams (7B)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Sump Pump - 1,000
Pumping Capacity - 100,000
(Increase Pumpinq Capacity 16%)
Total $126,000
Atlanta (7A/8B)
Control System - $ 20,000
I L.P.G. System - 8,000
Sump Pump - 1 ,000
Pumping Capacity - 200,000
(Two New Units)
Total $229,000
Banning (7C)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Sump Pump - 11000
i Pumping Capacity - 100,000
(One New Unit)
Total $126,000
Bolsa Chica (9A)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 6,000
Sump Pump - 11000
Pumping Capacity - 100,000
(One New Unit
Total $127,000
Flounder (6B)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Sump Pump - 11000
Pumping Capacity - 25,000
(Pump Overhaul )
Total $ 51,000
1
Hamilton (7G)
Control System - $ 20,000 1
L.P.G. System - 6,000
Sump Pump - 1,000
Pumping Capacity 300,000
(One New Unit & Replace
Two Units) Total $327,000
1
Heil (5C)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Total $ 25,000
Indianapolis (7F)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 6,000 1
Sump Pump, - 1,000
Total $ 27,000
Marilyn (5B) 1
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Sump Pump - 11000
Pumping Capacity - 150,000
(Increase Pumping Capacity
Total $176,000
Meredith (7D)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Sump Pump - 1,000
Pumping Capacity - 150,000
( Increase Pumping Capacity)
Total $176,000
Newland (7E)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Sump Pump - 11000
Pumping Capacity - 250,000
(Replace Two Old Units) 1
Total $276,000
1
1
Scenario (2)
1 Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
Sump Pump - 11000
Pumping Capacity - 100,000
Total $126,000
1
Shields (4)
Replace pump station to increase
1 capacity.
Total $7S0,0.0.
Slater (9)
1 Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 20,000_
Pumping Capacity - 400,000
Total $430,000
1
Yorktown (6C)
Control System - $ 20,000
L.P.G. System - 5,000
1 Total $ 25,000
1
1
1
1
r
r
r STORM DRAINS
r
It
r
r
r
r
r
June 1979
HUNTINGTON BEACH MASTER PLAN! OF DRAINAGE
Cost Estimate
Description - - - - - - - - -Unit - - - - - - - - - - Unit Price
18" RCP LF 60.00
21 " RCP LF 65.00
0 24" RCP LF 75.00
27" RCP - LF 80.00
30" RCP LF 100.00
33" RCP LF 110.00
36" RCP LF 120.00
39" RCP LF 130.00
42" RCP LF 140.00
45" RCP LF 150.00
48" RCP LF 160.00
51 " RCP LF 170.00
54" RCP LF 180.00
57" RCP LF 190.00
60" RCP LF 200.00
63" RCP LF 210.00
66" RCP LF 220.00
0 69" RCP Lf 230.00
72" RCP LF 250.00
75" RCP LF 265.00
78" RCP LF 275.00
81" RCP LF 285.00,
HUNTINGTON BEACH MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE 4
Cost Estimate
Description- - - - - - - - - Unit- - - - - - - ,- - - -Unit Price �
84" RCP LF $ 300.00
87" RCP LF 310.00
90" RCP LF 325.00 4
93" RCP LF 340.00
96" RCP LF 350.00
99" RCP LF 370.00
102" RCP LF 400.00
105" RCP LF 420.00
108" RCP LF 440.00
111 " RCP LF 460.00
114" RCP LF 480.00
117" RCP LF 500.00
120" RCP LF 525.00
Manholes (15"-33") EACH 2,000.00
Manholes (36"-6611) EACH 2,500.00
Manholes (69"-93") EACH i .000.00
Manholes (96"-144") EACH 6,000.00
Junction Structures
(15"-5411) EACH 5,000.00
Junction Structures
(57"-144") EACH 8,000.00
Catch Basins 4' EACH 2,000.00
HUNTINGTON BEACH MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE
Cost Estimate
Description - - - - - - - - -Unit- - - - - - - - - - -Unit Price
1
Catch Basins 7.0' EACH $ 2,500.00
Catch Basins 10.0' EACH 3,000.00
1 Catch Basins 14.0' EACH 4,000.00
Catch Basins 21 .0' EACH 6,000.00
Catch Basins 28.0' EACH 8,000.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 2 ( CO4 ) CORNELL
--------------------------------------
1 18" RCP 400 LF 60 .00 24 .000900
2 36 " RCP 500 LF 120 .00 60 . 000 . 00
1 3 48 RCP 700 LF 160.00 112. 000. 00
4 66" RCP 2. 000 LF 220 .00 440. 060. 00
5 MANHOLES (96" -144" ) 1 EACH 6. 000 .00 6. 000 . 00
6 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 3 .000 .00 6 .000 .00
7 JUNNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 5_•000 .00 10 . 000 . 00
8 CATCH BASINS 14. 0 FOOT 9 EACH 4 .000 .00 36t000 .00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 694. 000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 104. 000 .00
SUBTOTAL 7989000..00
1
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 160 .000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION! COST 95.8. 000. 00
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. 2 ( CO4 ) HALIFAX
1 18" RCP 50 LF 60.00 3 . 000 .00
2 24" RCP 800 L:F 75.00 60. 000 .00
3 30 " RCP 600 LF 100.00 609000 . 00 1
4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000 .00 6. 000 . 00
5 ' CATCH BASINS 7.0 FOOT 4 EACH 295'00..00 10 .000000 ,
SUBTOTAL 139900.0 .00.
CONTINGENCIES +15X.' 21. 000. 00 .1
SUBTOTAL 160900C . 00-
ENGR. AND „ADMIN +20% 32 . 000 .00
TOTAL ,CONSTRUC_TION COST 1929000900 1
I
DRAINAGE AREA - D .D . 2, (CO7 ) GRAHAM
-------------------------------------=-
1 42" RCP 600 LF 140 .00 849000 . 00
2 48" RCP 29400 LF 160.00 384, 000 . 00
1 3 54 " kCr 300 LF 180.00 549000 . 00
4 MANHOLES ( 35" -6611 ) 1 EACH 2.500 .00 29500 .00
5 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000-900 6• C00 .00
6 CATCH BASINS 14.0 FOOT 2 EACH 49000 .00 89000 ,00
------------------------ -------------
SUBTOTAL 538*500 . 00
1 CONTINGENCIES +15% 819`000 . 00
SUBTOTAL 6199500 .00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1249000 *00
1 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 743*500 . 00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 `
DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. . 2 ( CO7) MEADOWLARK
1 18" RCP 50 LF 60. 00 3 . 000 .00
2 361, KCP 8 U 0 LF 120 . 00 96. 000000
3 CATCH 9A.SINS 14 . 0 F00F 2 EACH 49000 .00 8 . 000 . 00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 1079000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15'% 16 . 000600
SUBTOTAL 1239000 . 00
ENGR . AND ADMTN +20% 259000 . 00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1489000 .00
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 2 ( C07) SCENARIO
1 16" kcp 100 LF 60 .00 6 . 000 .00
2 36" kCP 29200 LF 120 .00 264 . 000 .00
I 'MANHOLES ( 3 66" ) 1 EACH 29500 .00 2 .500 .00
1 4 CATCH 0ASIY'S 21 . 0 '`OOT 4 EACH 6,1000, 00 249000 . 00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 296 .500 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 449000 . 00
1 SUBTOTAL , 3409500000
E:NGR. AND ADMIN +20% 689000 . 00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 4089500900
1
1
1
1
1
1,
1
DRAINAGE AREA U.D. 24t( 34 ) GRAHAM
---------------------------------------
1 36" RCP 1 .200 - LF 120 .00 144. 000900
? 66" RCP 1 200 LF 220..00 264 . 000 .00
3 .75 " RCP 300, LF 265114100 799500 .00 1
'+ JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2- EACH 59000-000 10 , 000 . 00
------ ----------- -------- ----------
SUH-TOTAL, 4979500 . 00
CONTINGENCIES +15%-. 759000 .00
1
SUBTOTAL 572 .500 .00
EING,R.., AND'' ADMIN' +20y 1149000 . 00
TOTAL. CONSTRUCTION COST' 6869500 ,00
1
J
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 3 ( CO6 ) SLATER
L 18" RCP 200 LF 60.00 12 . 000900
2 24" RCP 19703 LF 75.00 1279500 .00
. 3 30 " RCP 19600 LF 100 .00 160 .000 .00
4 48" RCP 200 LF . 160 .00 329000 .00
5 54" RCP 29600 LF 180 .00 468. 000900
6 MANHOLES ( 15"- 311 ) 6 EACH 29000900 12. 000. 00
I MANHOLES ( 35" -66" ) F? EACH 29500 .00 209000 . 00
8 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 6 EACH 3 .000 .00 189000000
9 CATCH 3ASINS 14 .0 FOOT 10 EACH 49000 .00 40t000 . 0O
----------------------------------------
SU3TOTAL 8899500 . 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 133vG00 . 00
. S'J3TOTAL 1 .022 .500 .00
E,JGR. AND ADMIN +20% 204 . 000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1 .2269500 . 00
r
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 4 (C05) :;HIELDS P.S.
-------------------- --------------------
1 18" RC? 800 LF 60.00 489000 .00
2 24" RCP 19600 LF 75.00 1209000.00
3 30" PCP 800 LF 100.00 80 . 000000 .
4 36" RCP 19400 LF 120 .00 1689000 .00
5 4811 RCP 19400 LF 160 .00 2249000 . 00
6 MANHOLES ( 15"-3311 ) F EACH 29000 .00 129000 .00
7 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 5 EACH 2v500.00 12,P500. 00
8 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 39000000 �9000. 00
9 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 59000000 5r000 .00 ,
10 CATCH 6ASINS 14 .0 FOOT 9 EACH 4 .000 .00 36-tG00 .00
-----------------------------m
71.44500 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 1079000. 00
SUBTOTAL 8219500.00 �
FLNGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1649000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 9859500 .00
I f
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 5 (CO5 ) VOLGA
-------------------------------------
1 18" RCP 19200 LF 60 .00 72 . 000 .00
2 24" RCP 1i000 LF 75. 00 75 . O00 . 00
3. MANHOLES ( 15"-33" 3 2 EACH 2 . 000 .00 49000 . 00
4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES ? EACH 39000 .00 E -P0U0 . 00
CArchi BASINS 14 . 0 FOOT 4 EACH 49000 .00 169000 .00
----------------------------------------
Sl.JUTOTAL 17,39000 . 00
' CONTINGENCIES +15:0 269000. 00
SULITOTAL 1999000 . 00
LNGR . AND ADMIN +20% 40 . 000 .00
/ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2399000 . 00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - U.D. 5A ('-05 ) EDWARUS
----------------------------------------
1 24 " RCP 19500 LF 75.00 112•5-00 .00
2 MANHOLES ( 15"-{3") 1 EACH 29000900 29000 .00
3 CATCH BASINS 14 . 0 FOOT = EACH 49000 .00 89000000 1
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 1229500900
CONTINGENCIES +15% 189000 .00
SUBTOTAL 1409500 .00 1
EI4'GR . AND ADMIN +20% 28. 000. 00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1689500000
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. 5A ( CO5 ) EDINGER
----------------------------------------
1 1811 RCP 900 LF 60.00 54. 006 . 00
2 24" RCP 300 LF 75 .00 229500 . 00
1 3 36" RCP 500 LF 120 .00 60 . 000 . 00
4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000000 69000 .00
5 CATCH BASINS 21. 0 FOOT 4 EACH 69000900 24. 000 . 00
----------------------------------------
SUE3TOTAL 1669500 . 00
1 CONTINGENCIES +15% 259000 ,00
SUBTOTAL 1919500 .00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 38. 000 . 00
1 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2299500 . 00
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA — D.D. ',A ( ('Ci5 ) REDLANDS
-----------------------------------------
1 24" RCP 800 LF 75.00 609000 . 00
2 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000 .00 3. OGOoOO
3 CATCH eAgIPJS 21 .0 FOOT 2 EACH 69000 .00 129000 .00 1
----------------------------------------
SU3TCTAL 75v000 .00
CONTINGENCIES + 15% 119000000
SUBTOTAL 869000. 00 1
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 179000oOO
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 103 .000 .00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA — Q.D. 6A (005 ) SCE R/id
----------------------------------------
1 18" RCP 500 LF 60 .00 30 .000 . 00
2 24" RCP 1, 000 LF 75.00 759000. 00
' 3 42" RCP 29000 LF 140.00 .280. 000. 00
4 84" RCP 195-00 LF 300 .00 4509000 . 00
5 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 3 EACH 2 .000 .00 69000 . 00
6 MANHOLES ( 35"-6611 ) 3 EACH 29500 .00 79500 .00
7 MANHOLES ( 96"-144" ) 2 EACH 69000 .00 129000 .00
8 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 39000 .00 99000 , 00
9 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 59000000 59000 . 00
10 CATCH BASINS 10 . 0 FOOT 5 EACH 39000 .0D 151000000
----------------------------------------
SUQTOTAL 8899500 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 133. 000000
SUBTOTAL 1 90229500 . 00
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 204 .000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 192269500 . 00
I
1
1 .
I
1
1
t '
DRAINAGE AREA - Q.D. 7A (D01 ) ATLANTA P.:S.
.r r-r r r r--------r-----------------r-r----r---- - -
1 1p"" RCP 200 LF 60.00 129000000
2 24" PCP 400 LF 75.00 309000*00
30" RCP19500 LF 120.00 1809000000
4 48," RCI. 19200 LF 160.00 1929000.00
MANHOLES (3b"-66" ) 4 EACH 2#500.00, 10, 000.00
JUNCTION STRUCTURES 4 EACH 39000 .00 12 *000 .00
7 CATCH ',A�I 45 7.0 FOOT 4 EACH 29500.00 109000000
---------------------------------------r
SU3TOTAL 4469000.00 1
CONTINGENCIES +15% 679000900
TUTAL 513 •000 .00
NGR AriD ADti1 +201 1031000 . 00 1
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 6169000900
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
ORS !NAGE AREA - U .D . 7H (D02 ) ADAMS' 'P.S.
1 sell PCP 19200 LF 200 . 00 2409000 .00
2 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) �CACH 29500 .00 59000 * 00
r S JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 51000 .00 59000900
----------------------------------------
SUE-TOTAL 250 . 000 900
CONTINGENCIES +15% _ 379000 .00
SUBTOTAL 287t000 . 00
F NGR. AND ADMIN +20% 579 000 . 0.0
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3449000 .00
1
1
1
/
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 7C ( 002) BANNING P. S.
---------------------------------------------
1 42" RCP 500 LF 140 .00 709000 *00
2 34 " nCP 19200 LF 180 .00 2169000 *00
3 MANHOLES ( 35"-6611 ) 7 EACH 29500 .00 5t000 .00
4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000000 6. 000 . 00 �
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 2979000 * 00
CONTINGENCIES +154 45. 000 .00
SUP'TOTAL 3429000 .00 1
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 689000. 00.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 410 . 000 . 00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA — D.D. 7D (EO1 ) MERE"DITH P.S.
----------------------------------------------
1 24" RCP 500 LF 75.00 379500. 00
2 42" RCP 100 LF 140 .00 149000oOO
r 3 60" RCP 29000 LF 200 .00 4009000 .00
4 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 3 EACH 29500 ,00 79500 .00
5 JUNCTION STRUCTUPES 4 EACH 5. 000 .00 209000 .00
3 . CATCH ' GA.SIN.S 14. 0 FOOT 4 EACH 49000.00 169000 .00
-------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 4959000 .00
r
CONTINGENCIES +.15% 749000 .00
SUBTOTAL 5699000 . 00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1149000 . 00
r
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 6839000 . 00
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
DRAINAGE AREA - Lrr.D. 7E ( D01 ) NEWLAND P.S.
---------------------------------------------
1 13" RCP 100 LF 60 .00 69000.00
2 36" RCP 800 LF 120 .00 96. 000 .00
3 42 " RCP 19200 LF 140 .00 168#000 .00
4 60 " RCP 1*000 LF 200.00 2009000. 00
S MANHOLES ( 15"-3311 ) 2 EACH 29000.00 49000.0O
6 MANHOLES (35"-(,611 ) 4 EACH 29500.00 10 . 000000
7 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 4 EACH 39000000 12 *000900
8 CATCH EASINS 10 .0 FOOT 6 EACH 39000 .00 189000000
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 5149000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 779000. 00
SUBTOTAL 591 .000 .00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1181000000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 7051000. 00
r
w
t
DRA.INAGE AREA - D .D. 7F (DO.2 ) INDIANAPOLIS P.S.
1 54" RCN 19600 LF 180. 00 288,P000900 ,
2 JUNCTION STRUCTURES q , 2 EACH 3'p000 .00 6 . 000 . 00
------------ ------ ---- ----=-
SJ1lT.OTAL 294 ,000 .00
CONTINGENCIES . . +15% 44 000.00
SU9TOTAL 3389000. 00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 689000 . 00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 4069000 . 00
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 7G (EO1 ) HAMILTON P.S.
--------------------------------------------
1 24" RCP 200 LF 75.00 159000000
2 48" PCP 39600 LF 160 .00 5769000 .00
.3 MANHOLES ( 15"-?31l ) 6 EACH 29000000 129000900 �
4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 4 EACH 39000 .0O 129000 *00
----------------------------------------
SU3TOTAL 6159000.00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 929000 .00
SUBTOTAL 7079000 .00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1419000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 8489000. 00
1
DRAINAGE AREA - .D•D. . 7I ( YQRKTOW.J)
---------------------------------- ---
1 30" RCP 19200 LF 100 . 00 120. 000900
2 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 1 EACH 2,0000, 00 29000 . 00
1 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 3 ,000 00 39000 .00
4 CATCH BASINS 21 . 0 FOOT .. j . EACH 6 , 000 .00 69000 .00
--- ------------------- ---------
SUBT6TAL 131* 000. 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 209000. 00
1
SUBTOTAL 151 .000 .00
EN6R. AND ADMIN +20% 30v000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1819000000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA — D.D. 77001) O.C.F.C.O. P.S.
-----------------------------------------------------
1 4811 RCP 19400 LF 160.00 2249000 .00
2 MANHOLES (35"-6690 ) 1 EACH 29500.00 29500e00
3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000 .00 39000 .00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 2299500.00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 349000.00
SUBTOTAL 2639500 .00
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 539000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3169500.00
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - OsD+ 8AtOCEANI SIXTH
— 6 i.:.is�.d6 iJ6 irL Y '�W...0 in.+6.. 6.i it 16 ib�iL'ai W.ii. :
1 24" RCP 800 LF 15000 609006 .00
2 3g" RCP 800 LF 120.00 96* 000* 00
1 3 42h RCS' i4200 LF i44.00 168i000.00
4 JUNCtiON StROCNRES 8 EACH stoot.t0 24* 000900
5 CATCH SAStNS 1040 F00t 10 EAtM SVOOO *00 S09000 .00
st��slL&-V.&t1. W.lb ►W. m.I&a.a.A, 6w------r---
: uBtdtAL 3/89000000
1 'CON TIIv4ENCIES *15X 57*000000
s,u,Bt 3tAL 435o000.00
E N 4 A* Akb ADMIN }2bt 87y000 .00
1
tOtAt. CONStRO.CtION tOST 522v060 .00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. 8A (OCEAN) LAKE
----------------------- ---------------
1 24" RCP 400 LF 75.00 309000 *00
2 30" RCP 19200 LF 100000 1209000.00
3 MANHOLES ( 15"-331#) 1 EACH 29000*00 29000000 1
4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000 *00 6. 000000
5 CATCH BASINS 7.0 FOOT 4 EACH 29500 *00 109000000
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 1689000 *00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 259000@00 1
SUBTOTAL 1939000 *00
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 399000 *00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2329000 *00
1 1
1
1
1
1
/
1
DRAINAGE AREA..—. D.D., .86 (DQ1 ) ATLANTA , P..S-.
1 18" RCP: 2'e000 LF 60 .00 1209000 .00
2 24" RCP I.-P000., LF 75 .00 75900'0 .00
3 30" RCP Ii000, LF 100 .00 '.. 100't000. 00
4 36" RCP 39"600 LF. 120 .00 432. 000900'
5 43" RCN 700 LF 160 .00 112'9000 .00
6 MANHOLES ( 15".-33" ) 6 EACH 2t000'.0.0 12/9000000
7 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 8 -EACH 29500 .00 . 20 .000 .00
.8 JUNC.TION STRUCTURES, 5 EACH' 39000*00 151000. 00.
1 9. CATCH BASINS 10.G F00T„'. . 8 EACH 3-P000.00 249000 . 00
-- -------- - --------------
SUBTOTAL. . 9109000 ..00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 1369000 .00
1 SUBTOTAL 1.90469000 . 00
FNGR. AND ADMIN +20%, 2099000900
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 19255,9000 .00
1
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. 8D/8F - 12TH -
-------------------------------------
1 18" RCP 100 LF 60.00 69000. 00
24" RCP 850 LF 75.00 639750 . 00
3 30" RCP 29800 LF 100 .00 2809000. 00 1
4 36" kCP 500 LF 120 .00 60 .000 .00
5 48" RCP 19800 LF 160 .00 2869000 .00
6 60 " RCP 19200 LF 200 .00 240 .000 .00
7 72" RCP 19400 LF 250.00 3509000.00
8 84" RCP 29200 LF 300 .00 660. 000. 00
9 96" RCP 19600 LF 350 .00 5609000900 /
10 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 10 EACH 29000 .00 209000 .00
11 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 5 EACH 29500900 129500900
12 MANHOLES ( 69"-93") 6 EACH 49000.00 249000. 00
13 MANHOLES (96"-144" ) 7 EACH 69000.0O 129000.00
14 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 5 EACH 39000.00 159000 .00
15 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 7 EACH 59000 .00 359000 .00 1
16 CATCH 'BASINS 14 .0 FOOT 30 EACH 49000 .00 1209000900
----------------------------------------
SU3TOTAL 297469250900
CONTINGENCIES +15% 4129000 . 00
1
SUBTOTAL 3 .158.250 .00
E,14GR . AND ADMIN +20% 6329000 .0O
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 39790 .250 .00
1
1)RAIINAGt AREA — O .D . HG ( J01 ) GARFILL1)
----------------------------------------------
1 42 .;ZCP 19 20 0 LF 140. 00 1089GO 0 . 00
JUNICTION STRUCTURES EACH 3t000 . 00 1 • 0 ^0 . 00
i CATCH ASI�!S 21 . 0 FOOT �} EACH 69000000 249000 , 00
----------------------------------------
SIJ tiTOTAL 2109000 . 00
C-1MTIiNGE0.CIES +15% 319006 . 00
S.U~T')TAL ;'41 -P0C:0e00
_ :GR . AiJv ADMIr� +�Q% 48 • ff;C . uO
TuT L CONSTRUCTIW%il COST ?' C, 4000 . 00
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 8G (0)1 ) YORKTOWN
----------------------------------------------
1 3 i" RCP 29500 LF 130 .00 3259000900
2 MANHOLES (35"-6611 ) 4 EACH 29500900 10 . 000000
1 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000. 00 69000 .00
4 CATCH 3ASINS ?1 . 0 FOOT 2 EACH 6. 000000 129000 . 00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 3539000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 53 . 000 .00
1
SUBTOTAL 406. 000900
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 819000 ,00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 4879000 . 00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 8H 2OTH
--------------------------------
1 lei" RCP 400 LF 60 .00 249000. 00
2 24" RCP 1P200 LF 75 .00 90 .000 .00
3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000900 3. 000 .00
4 CATCH BASINS 10. 0 FOOT 3 EACH 3.0000 ,06 99000 .00
----------------------------------------
SUBTO.TAL . 1269000. 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 199000000
SUBTOTAL 1459000 .00 /
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 29. 000. 00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1749000 .00
i
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. SH 18TH
--------------------------------
1 18" RCP 400 LF 60.00 249000 . 00
2 24" RCP 19500 LF 75.00 1129500 . 00
3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000 .00 39000000
4 CATCH BASINS 10 .0 FOOT 3 EACH 39000 .00 99000000
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 1489500 . 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 229000 . 00
1
SUBTOTAL 1709500 . 00
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 349000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2049500. 00
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE. AREA - Q.D. 8H 16TH
--------------------------------
1 24" RCP 800 LF 75.00 609000,00
2 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 3t000 .00 39000*00
3 CATCH BASINS 10 . 0 FOOT 2 EACH 39000000 69000* 00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 69v000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 10 .000 *00
SUBTOTAL 799000900
ENIGR. AND ADMIN +20% 169000000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 959000 *00
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. RH GOLDEN-WEST
--------------------------------------
1 24" RCP 1'9400 LF 75.00 1059000000
2 MANHOLES- ( 1511-33" ) 1 EACH 29000 .00 29000 .00
3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000000 39000 . 00
4 CATCH BASINS 10. 0 FOOT, 2 EACH 39000.00 69000 . 00
---------------- ------------------
SUBTOTAL 1169000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 179000 . 00
r
SUBTOTAL 1339000* 00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 279000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 160 . 000 . 00
r
1
r
r
r
r
i
DRAI14AGE AREA - D.D. 9 PRESCOTT/FLINSTONE
----------------------------------------------
1 24" RCP 29300 LF 75.00 172v500 .00
2 CATCH BASINS 14 . 0 FOOT 4 EACH 49000 .00 169000 .00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 1889500. 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 289000 . 00
SUBTOTAL 2169500 . 00
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 439000 ,00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2599500 .00
f
I 1
. .DRAINAGE AREA - 0 .0. 9 SPRINGDALE
-------------------------------------
1 24 " PCP 900 LF 75.00 67 .500 .00
2 48" RCP 1.200 LF 160.00 192. 000 .00
3. JUNCTION -STRUCTURES . 1 EACH 3.9000 .00 39000 .00
4 CATCH BASINS 21. 0 FOOT 4 EACH 69000.00 249000 . 00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 2869500 . 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 439000 *00
SUBTOTAL 3299500 , 00
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% E6 #000 . 00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3959500 . 00
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 9 HARBOR BLUFFS.
=------------------------------------------
1 42" RCP 19200 LF 140 .00 1689000 .00
2 MANHOLES (35"-66" ) 1 EACH 29500900 29500 . 00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 170 . 500. 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 26. 000 . 00
S0 TOTAL 1969500 .00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 39 . 000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2359500. 00
1
DRAINAGE . AREA U .D. 9 EDWARDS/GOLDENWEST
------------------------------------------------
1 42" PCP 1 .600 LF 140.00 224. 006 .00
2 60 " RCP 19400 LF 200.00 280 . 000. 00
3 MANHOLES (35" -6611 ) -----4 EACH 29500 .00 109000000
SUBTOTAL 5149000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 779000900
SUBTOTAL 5919000900
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1189000000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 7099000 .00
i
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 9 ELLIS
1 48" RCP 800 LF 160 .00 128 .000 .00
60 " RCP 600 LF 200 .00 120 . 000 . 00
72 " RCP 600 LF 250 .00 1501000 .00
4 lJ0 " rtcp '; 400 LF 325.00 130. 000 . 00
5 MANHOLF-S ( 69"-9311 ). 4 EACH 49000@00 169000. 00
SU3TOTAL 544 .000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 829000 . 00
SUBTOTAL 6269000. 00
C'NGR . AND ADMINI +20% 1259000000
TOTAL , CONSTRUCTION COST 7519000 .00
1
1
j
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 9 GOTHARD/TALBERT '
-----------------------------------------
1 42" RO P 19200 LF 140 .00 168♦ 000 . 00
2 54 " k.CP 2.500 LF 180 .00 450 . 000 :00
e 3 60 " RCP 2r000 LF 200 .00 4009000 :00
4 MANHOLES ( 35"-6611 ) 5 EACH 2.500.00 129500. 00
5 JUNCTION STRUCTURES EACH 39000 .00 9.9000000
----------------------------------------
SJ3TOTAL 1 .039#500900
CONTINGENCIES +15% 1569000 .00
SUBTOTAL 191959500* 00
FNGR. AND ADN;IN +20% 2399000900
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1 .4349500. 00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 9 WARNER
-------------------------- -----------
1 42" RCP 19500 LF 140 .00 2109000 .00
2 MANHOLES (35"-6611 ) 2 EACH 2000900 5 * 000 .00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 2159000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15%, 32. 000. 00
SUBTOTAL 247 . 000 . 00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 499000900 �
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2969000 . 00
DRAINAGE AREA - D'.D. 10 (C06 ) WARNER
1 30" RCP 400 LF 100 .00 40 . 000 .00
2 JUNCTION' ST.RUGTURES 1 EACH 39000000 39000,000
------------------ --- ----------------
SUBTOTAL 439000 ..00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 69C00 .00
SU-3T0TAL 49. 000 . 00
ENGR . AND, ADMIN +20% 10 . 000600
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 599000 . 00 .
. 3
DRAINAGE AREA - D.Q. 10 (C06 ) ASH
-------------------------------------
1 3G" RCP 19200 LF 120. 00 1449000 . 00
2 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 1 EACH 29000 . 0O 29000900
3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000 .00 3900000 ,
ti CATCH BASINS 14.0 FOOT 3 EACH 49000 .00 129000 :00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 1619000 . 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 24t000 . 00
SUBTOTAL 1859000 .00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 379000 . 00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 222t000 . 00
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. 12 (HEIL )
-----------------------------------
1 18" RCP 50 LF 60 .00 39000000
2 24" RCP 800 LF 75.00 609000400
3 54" RCP 800 LF 180.00 144. 000 . 00
4 66" RCP 600 LF 220 .00 132 #000 :00
5 72" RCS 550 LF 250 .00 1379500 . 00
6 MANHOLES ( 15"-3311 ) 2 EACH 21000 .00 49000400
7 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 2 EACH 29500.00 5. 000900
N JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH . 5,1000 .00 159000900
9 CATCH BASINS 10 . 0 FOOT 1 EACH 3. 000 .00 39000 .00
10 CATCH 3ASINS 14. 0 FOOT 2 EACH 4 .000 ..00 89000600
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 5119500 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15m 779000900
SUBTOTAL 5889500900
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 1189000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 7069500000
DkAINAGE AREA. - D.D. 12 BOLSA CHICA
----------------------------------------
1 48" RCP 19500 LF 160 .00 2409000 . 00
2 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 1 EACH 29500 .00 29500 .00
3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 39000 .00 9. 000400
4 CATCH BASINS 14. 0 FOOT 4 EACH 49000 .00 169000 .00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 267 .500 . 00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 409000 .00
SUBTOTAL 307. 500 . 00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 619OG0 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3689500 .00
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 12 WATERWAY
1 30" RCP 600 LF 1.00 .00 60 0.00 .00
2 CATCH BASINS 10 .0 FOOT 1 EACH . 3 •.000 .00 3 . 000 .00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 63 ♦ 000 .,00
CGNTLNG:ENCIES +15% 99000000
SUBTOTAL 72 -P000 .00
ENGR.. AND ADMIN +20% 149UQ0 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST B6t000@00
DRAINAGE AREA — U .U . STARDUST
---------------------------------
1 24 " RCP 800 LF 75.00 609000 . 00
2 CATCH EASINS 14 . 0 FOOT 2 EACH 4 .000 *00 89000900
------------------—---------------------
SUBTOTAL 68s000 .00
CONTINGENCIES +15% 10 • C00. 00
SUBTOTAL 789000 .00
ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 16rG00 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 949000o OO
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 12 HEIL (E )
------------------------------------
1 42" RCP 19600 LF 140 .00 2249000 .00
2 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 2 EACH 29500*00 5. 0000.00
----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 2299000900
CONTINGENCIES +15% 349000 . 00
SUBTOTAL 263* 000 . 00
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 539000000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3169000 . 00
DRAINAGE AREA - 0 .0. 12 WARNER
-------------------------------------
1 42" RCP 700 LF 140.. 00 98 . 000 . 00
54" RCP 2000 LF 180 .00 450 .000 .00
3 MANHOLES ( 75"-6611 ) 2 EACH 2 .500900 59000 .00
4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 5 EACH 3 ,0000 .00 15 . 000000
5 CATCH SAS-INS 1.4 . 0 FOOT T. EACH 49000 . 00 12. 000 . 00
----------------------------------------
SUdTOTAL 5809000000
CONTINGENCIES +15% 879000 *00
SUSTOTAL 6679000. 00
E,,;GR. AND ADMIN +20% 133t000 .00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 800 . 000000 1
1
1
i
'• � it
. � ���'r a >t��� �,♦
♦
�� ♦♦♦o�♦e eo,♦if :.+►�•+ � ♦♦ 't obi+♦,�e�, . � �►�♦. ♦°° ,' ' .
' �,� d'� ♦+♦�e��►•.�tie � � t�`♦ �,e♦ <`•♦e♦♦;♦oi, t�,►,*�♦♦°°♦♦. �' •
• ' �♦i i�0/1�► ',�♦'♦♦�♦fie♦oi � .•,�� •• ,J
�' � , '� � � ,.•,♦�,,,ie�.,•°+i e♦.♦:e♦♦ ♦it �' any: ♦♦ � �t � ♦
I
�'� +* , � \'� '�;`'�►►���yi � /i�♦000ee���e0,,►'♦oee♦e .+tee ee♦. • �'♦ . ,' �♦
r `` �' �` ♦ � . � fioi a♦�' eyo ♦o�o� t ♦♦e�►.♦ot' iti►I � ♦�♦♦ .
! o ,� � �. ♦♦• .� �����%�j/ ♦�D►4�iei!o`♦,e�'♦'��♦*♦o♦s�♦y♦�'e♦�O♦ ee♦ ►ie ♦♦�
�® � .♦�.p eo +,�♦ \, ♦�'� � . jQ oioo Oi♦ ♦e+ +ee° ♦',, ° f♦♦♦ t�♦♦�.♦ ♦♦♦j ,,�
y @. � '�i'♦ �♦iei :�e ♦♦i���e�09♦♦ �.., ��-♦�-�`�i j ,ioi ♦t f ♦oO e+ ems. �i♦♦e,. ° t� ♦
�,,. �♦ ♦°�i���`:♦♦O♦a. °i`o�t, '' ����` e+/o'ri ;�i° �♦�+♦'` a ee+,♦ f♦� �1► ,�✓� eo ♦ ti♦
G �-�' �,� �.1♦♦It ♦ ,+e♦ ,O♦♦ 1♦ ,i,+e ♦e ., � �` Dir ♦ IO� ♦ � .♦ .!I'� I � �i y� �•
y/// ♦�♦♦�♦ �♦ + �♦ ♦ .1j°+11♦,ee ♦�♦♦ ,,♦♦, ♦+♦♦1, ♦j♦t► e,�o,3' �� / ����'�•���/r0 1♦♦ ♦e,♦�►�� ♦ ♦' � ♦�> �� I",� ♦ I� ! � 'I
:►/�y!i •♦•• ♦'eO,ee c i . 9 ^� ,�♦�1♦�.♦��a♦+,♦ eoo��'♦,♦♦e e,♦♦ f�♦♦, �� i ♦ ♦e♦♦.`♦ ♦•,o + �\�4►t a�;,:/�► � !� •tj♦ •
♦ y . ♦ ♦e♦, t"/ � , ♦♦i.:+e o♦♦ ♦ .�+o � f ♦� ♦ 0 �j j�11' ♦ ♦i ♦!d♦i .�►��►sj ♦♦ � o '�►► . �.
�►�/ OI y/ t♦O�+!00♦ eo. � � ;', � ♦♦ ♦+f♦♦i +e♦,♦ ♦♦i +e+,�,r t♦�, ♦ . �' ee f�♦ ^,�I ♦I �' o �!!�' O �e •
y// yyyi, •' �►!,,�+♦ eeo`♦e♦,,♦,', ., -+ ' fi, ♦ ♦♦♦,♦♦♦i'�eie♦ie. ♦i�! . ♦ ♦ � +s♦♦,.♦p♦ ♦ ♦♦� ,,'�d► 1>♦ �► ♦��� 't��'�y�'
G y �//y '� + ♦ ♦ ♦ +O ♦♦ ♦ r + +is ♦e♦ ♦♦♦♦ �► c ♦ e ♦. iei,. o+♦. .�' �'
�y /�,/ i t �=i a♦e 'r♦, ♦00 fo,♦. / �;• o��iee ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦e♦..!♦a ♦+i,!i ♦ t • ♦ +i•ei ♦`♦ ♦e+♦� .. �f► ' ' '�' e, y4 •,�►
►!i � 9 .� ♦♦i e♦� ♦ •♦� +♦,�j► �. .: r ♦ ,♦♦: ♦+ +♦♦♦ a♦♦ ;,N♦ ♦♦i !♦ ei ♦i yr•,�'' - `w . ♦ o♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ee eQ p♦ Z. I �� .�►
/p �� ,v� p♦ :♦ ♦♦ ♦.,♦♦ ♦ � ., ' f r.♦i ♦ ♦.♦, ♦♦„ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦..�♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦a♦� p ♦♦ ,. ,yL► ♦ ♦i♦i ♦♦ ♦i ♦♦o+ ee, �♦j ♦ •• � ♦ e ,o ��t'�'i .
i/y!<y tee.a♦♦♦i♦ e♦ ♦♦♦f ♦e �, � ,, ♦ 1♦� o t�♦♦♦`♦♦♦ ♦eei♦ !♦e♦i� ,+,♦ f♦ei� die �> f' \ . '�, p' O ♦i+i ♦i ♦i !♦♦ 0�,�, ♦i ,`I ♦ o e /e �'.
//jyi/ �►.:,+ +•♦ei; ei�♦i�'1 i .♦;ei .fie eee e.O ♦e: •♦• ;e ♦e f ! . 1 e• ���fe♦♦ •♦ � �: . y ei ♦i♦♦ O �♦..♦ ♦�, ♦ ♦ , >i♦i`�♦ �' ♦�i►� 1� q�►�s� ��►�.d
. , v ♦ ♦° ♦ � ♦e a +♦i + O♦ ♦ .�,♦ ♦ ♦ � ♦ ..�, ,'' of ei ♦i +i+i �i-� O,+ ♦ ♦ee♦ �, d
�j ♦• O♦`� ♦ �i ei ♦♦ ;� �. ' .•♦ p♦i ♦♦,+ ♦ vOot*`i, eiQ o♦♦ !♦♦♦-.F!♦ ,+ ,+o♦ ♦i♦ e♦ti �.e. +'�. ♦ O oo ♦ ee ,,♦�♦Oe� ei ei e. �► ♦ .� a.o •- ♦ ♦♦o♦ ♦'�'' .
I o♦♦o ♦♦ ei e♦ .� � ,� ,� �. � e♦♦ ♦ ♦o a ♦♦. ♦, ♦+♦. ♦♦ ♦♦e♦ ♦•>♦♦+►e ♦ ,o♦ o ♦i♦��of s ♦� .�♦j .j` Q♦ ♦Oe•.� ♦,?�► ee ej♦♦ o� ♦ 1 r o ♦. ♦♦ od1► ♦
,t,♦ ..♦♦♦ a• ♦ to ♦ !p ,p�♦,♦►♦ t•e♦t,�♦, ♦e♦ ♦♦♦..,♦,s, +♦ ,ee ++o fj♦e,ej♦. .I I .♦ ♦ e .� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4 Q► '♦
•' %i ♦ ♦ e d �♦ . ♦♦ , ♦ �/ ♦°�:♦,o ♦,..','♦ ♦ +•.!. ♦ • e+ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦, p+p. ♦ e ,♦ a � ♦/ ♦♦♦ •.�I♦ G,.o .oe o�,♦e♦ ♦♦�: +e ei♦i i♦ �►, ;o'� � l:+l►j ♦ ei* ea:� >
• ►♦� +,♦o ♦i.,e ♦ tie ,00 eo . . ♦ ♦,♦,• Q eo♦e �•♦.♦ ♦♦♦e,�ee ♦+♦ ♦iei ee oe, ♦,waa e♦♦♦ ♦. ♦e , ♦ ,I!! +♦♦ /e f. ♦e,o ♦O♦ei I ej �e ,♦ ♦e ,o ♦o
+, ,a♦♦ .,•�► e,♦'aC a►••t , , ee e _ � o♦ �i!�/O ♦i!�'o!•,% ♦. .♦♦♦: ♦e♦, ♦♦i - t .+ ♦i . ♦ pao eiea t d11♦ � �+;.,, .•.! . � Oe .G . p 4 p �. ♦♦d► �� e� ♦ ♦ ,♦ , 1�
o+e�,'e•'• a♦♦♦a+ a•• t♦ a � � ♦«1�-::e o �,♦., oo•, �♦♦ ;♦ !♦t• ♦ oi♦ ae e. a+, ♦ ♦ ♦,+ ♦� i. a♦♦ ♦y Rio v ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦y
.,� .• e.•/♦�,,♦ a+ dt♦ ♦ �' �e e io♦�,+ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ e♦♦:♦e `�♦ . t+ ♦ •�� ♦ ,♦+�♦ ,,o�.• ♦ e-♦ .�i �' �`' � Qe ,o♦ t' �, .• sf♦ 1+ �i♦i ♦ e ♦ �► ♦ ♦ ,♦ , o
.♦ ♦♦ . t♦ �i ♦♦ ♦♦ •,�♦�' o. ♦♦ ♦ a♦ ♦♦ ♦. ♦. ♦ ei .ei e:r►tZ� �''♦�e as . ,,+ ♦ s �;°;::::;;:::'+ ♦ e ♦ o ♦ ♦.. , ♦ + '�, O ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ � e. ♦d►
�r♦�o �♦a ♦♦ ♦ o. ♦ ,�,Ie Ir, ♦.,♦ 1 d +��♦. f ,�♦ ♦ ♦ ,.�1 r' •e.,++♦ �+♦ O+ e+♦ ♦ ♦ .+`,e+ ',+-,�+++`sa+�.,� � ♦e♦� eo♦� �, ♦j ♦ ♦yj ♦ ` 4� ♦ ewe. ♦
., 1i rr 4♦,Q`�i11��•♦♦ ♦♦♦ e. ♦��.♦r?�� ♦ I♦I �I► ♦e��,♦e ♦► ��,♦ I♦�' ♦♦ ♦.• �► `r♦e,+ ♦e♦, ,♦ee a♦♦e:e e ,e � ,,++;,+,,�r��o,,oc`,-`.,,. \,�• ♦♦,♦,cM♦♦Q ,.♦� - '� e♦ ♦I �, ... .♦ I 1♦ I V,' - �, �►♦I Oa! ,
R ar ii�.+oiausaaa �p ♦+ t ♦ ,♦ ♦o eof♦♦ ,�e� ♦ •„>♦,♦♦e ♦♦♦o ee ♦e♦jeN ,♦e +♦♦, +♦,♦ a/oo+ ,e♦ ♦.1►♦,ee \ ;,+,,,,,,�J,+'���:= ���a ♦,0,� ♦♦♦♦gee~ !►♦� of '. •+�D► ♦ •,�,�, .�,►�, d�i$ o
..;.� dpt �► Oi oo .♦ei +♦oi ♦e! ♦e♦ ♦ ': et ♦ +tt po ♦,�;4'.►+ O ♦+ ♦ o.�th, ® .`; ,,,,;,;.;�' p .♦+,r. ♦♦t ♦,� + +♦ ♦f•. ♦ >,. ' o�♦ ♦ �'♦�i r!►♦i 'tl'♦e ♦i.
.11c... Ud o♦�� oo '/♦�. ♦ee ,.i♦♦♦ ♦ �♦ .♦ ♦O 0+;o♦♦ .e ♦ o♦ ♦♦ s , �+ ,, ♦ ♦♦. ♦ ♦t. ♦ ♦ p♦ ♦ ♦ iei f
kilRRlllllli{{It 4,���► ♦ •,♦ . o♦ a♦e♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦. .. � ♦♦ ,t,;. p �♦i �♦ V +�O ... •+ >• .,+:,+`,++•,,� ♦ y- ♦♦ ♦♦t,. +e .♦t♦e ♦♦ ♦ t ♦ ♦ '�/ ♦► ♦ ♦e♦
♦ .♦ ♦ ,+ ♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦O ♦1 � •♦` � ea+♦ ♦t,.,+�.. ♦�♦ +fie♦ .. A • °,;o`;.;:' ♦ ♦ ♦, ♦ � �,-
♦j+�♦�♦'� ♦♦ . •+1♦ e1♦♦ • 1' ♦I �1�r�♦t.y� ♦♦• ♦IO ♦Vie•♦ej„10 ♦�;, e: 1♦O♦♦ .IO d+ , ® '� 11i tj �♦a♦ ♦I♦e1i��♦��.♦+♦♦♦♦eo♦!,e,;O♦`+,o ee♦t♦oe e,e+ee♦e�er.♦*►���>�e♦o,+♦e,♦oeoOt♦d'♦♦i+i1+!i♦♦,i,♦♦�ipee,i ae ee♦ep♦♦♦e+i♦♦o♦,♦♦ie♦♦♦!♦�ee>i3O+;�ei♦+'+,/v i�♦�-,,♦♦♦e eei♦s ee♦o♦♦+iE♦.♦�O�♦o�♦ ♦+i♦e e+0 i♦♦♦e+imsi�♦r♦4e o♦♦♦o♦fiee♦♦o♦+ifoiee♦,'.�i-♦�aft♦o♦!e♦♦er•�!o♦• ,f.♦i♦�+♦++d,e�'o.♦, �♦.,,r♦,i�t.o,♦�♦r�it t♦e�f•f♦. ♦,+�.� It' +�lt � ,,�♦�I /� e♦♦'�♦i♦♦a♦♦i♦♦♦i�i♦o♦'+�*�'♦<�. �—��t♦d�to � '�, �♦�♦♦�♦.���♦♦ • . �ti/ " �Ij►♦ti d�♦rp�•►1I/►i;�>.'�,�► ��►t�'►'�'►♦♦♦•��j►�v♦'�e♦♦�1♦�►►♦'��♦�. o�y♦�t!!♦,♦S
♦♦;'°•, •
`
..� a • ♦
► ♦♦ ee, ♦o ♦♦•�,►♦ ♦+i ♦♦�►. ♦♦,♦+• +♦ ♦e♦+ •e p ♦e� ♦♦e♦♦ ♦♦fed�♦♦ ee. .,1, ♦., �♦�y♦�e♦♦♦♦♦,� a - ��� I ♦♦ !♦r � ��e'►.:♦♦o. � ♦ � e,�. Leo '�►! ,�► ��♦♦♦ :'�♦ .
�'ee ♦♦o ,e, ,+o♦.:e�\Y ♦e �,♦ !, +. ♦ ,♦o ♦♦ . ♦,a ,e♦ ♦ ♦ !♦e♦.z et ♦ �./e, > ♦♦�.♦ . . ♦ di .♦✓® \�e �.. o♦:,e�'+t:' / ♦ i�io e♦` ♦ee♦♦ e♦♦o ee♦1►♦♦e♦:,eif., ♦♦+ssi ♦+i!:�O�tw eacOer♦• p�+i ♦i♦ei o+♦i•�♦iei ♦�s ♦: - t�•�e. ♦♦�♦i�♦�',t�♦♦d�i e �: � od` � ♦♦ `® ♦ ��! >. �: � �'rt►�''��� ♦ e♦ •i
,., � •.f to♦ ♦, ♦♦, ♦Q«zij♦ ♦ ♦ . 1,• ♦. ,♦ ee .o♦.�♦ ♦+i ♦♦i eie trf ♦♦ � •�. +♦ c,�, ,e♦ �?•. ♦ \ � � ,,, ♦; o �.�► ♦e =:: �,
♦ ♦ , ♦ ♦, Ie� ♦ ♦ • .� ♦♦� ♦ ♦♦ ♦ I ♦ ♦ ♦I. ♦ , ♦ ♦ �. � �� �� ��� � ♦ ♦ ,ram +
+to ♦+ei ♦♦o♦♦ O+eo ee♦♦ '�♦.♦i ♦♦ot, se♦•1 ♦,• .♦eo+ e t vi♦.,♦,♦♦i♦oie ♦i♦ti r�♦ism ��► e0,♦ ,e1♦ ,, e♦ •e�► ♦♦I >j r ♦♦e! ♦ °
•�♦e e0 ♦ ♦ e,ee e♦,e,<,, .♦♦i��s'... ee♦L♦.. �<s :,♦ ��,♦t :♦eoi<:♦ o �°'' �' ♦jf,+ e♦♦e' e, ee di► :�. � '� ♦♦ �� / � r � �: ,� ' �g.
f ,ee,� 0♦ee eei,♦ +off .e♦♦�!♦e �♦��♦i'�••+i�ii+e♦��+,t +•e♦o♦♦��e♦ei•'fe ♦ � ;, � e +♦moo♦ ♦♦i`� ♦�i �♦ry♦ '� •-' P � ♦ •� ���� � e♦�♦+ ► ;�' I ... I ♦�,�+` ���� ° •.�`°`�`
t ♦e+� ♦♦,+ �+ ,e♦i+.�♦o♦♦O♦, ++,e e� ♦0♦e,�,♦,e♦ ♦♦.. ♦e0,�0 ♦' • i��� �i`♦e ♦♦ ♦e4♦ ,� .+ �, ,� � �► � � � ��►i� • ��/ •�o �' � '�� ,• .. F�` s, 0�.. ,i!�♦t ♦i�
-♦+i♦, ♦ � ♦> >♦i:. ep o+0 ee ti.�♦♦�-•,+e. tom+ , ��♦ '►i�.♦ ♦e . ♦� .: '�► �`,�'� 1;: S �i® I/�i ♦ e♦ . r�� � ♦ ,_.t�r� � +♦ .,� c�.
�. t�o♦o,•;oee ♦♦.�wi♦,♦,♦++ eo♦o,o++ .e o♦+,•r,e.♦♦,. . . �i� � e ♦e . �o �.. �► � � :y., t►i , �e ` � ♦ �e ♦y , .♦♦♦.. oo'�'� � «�+ �. ♦ �;,� � '�.+ •r
��� � .,/ ♦. ,,. ♦ ♦♦� a♦� ♦t ♦ 1i ♦.�e+♦ ♦ :♦ :♦r ,3 a ♦ ♦ � ♦ o� •. �O♦�► - ` , � � `c� ♦+fie ♦ * / ,�. ,>" ,�
� � .� + ♦s o♦e ee +ee+ o+ :, I+i• O;rO ♦ ' 1e od► + I� ♦f '��,i ♦♦i . ♦ O // I'�► � � �,�� . :`s♦♦ +� • +,+�'♦ow �j w ,�r � Q -
tQ +i♦o ♦ p ♦♦♦ • ♦e ♦ y I♦ ♦j o. ♦ f 1 ei ► ? O ee + .r♦♦@ ♦ ♦ a
IN
►ie -♦ei. ♦♦O ♦i♦i O+ ♦ e. •,,♦� �.y► : ,., 1♦ ♦�♦�♦� •'♦t1' . � 3��1� �,��, y �G♦. ® � ' ♦♦��, ♦�ti �ey♦♦ ♦ �t � �`
� ♦(�`io♦o ♦ ♦' a ♦i♦o .�♦o N♦ +i,♦,-♦ ♦1� ,*♦ r.� ,�'� ,6 I of .,<t�.J t1 e�+ ''� / •• ,♦ e� ♦ � o♦�e/ ,e♦� ♦ ® ��► '�'/.. :P '� �,:.
rw S ♦ �, ♦ � , '' +.o r�;., ♦ei ei♦. /♦♦♦ .p. ,..• ♦ .��. •. .�� ♦ of ♦ e♦ j�� �y\ a '4► �►� •e♦ ,♦�� �':, : ♦t ;: o ,,., '•�'' � '. ,
�� � �♦ ,� � ♦+�;�,e♦�;•♦ ♦i♦ei♦ ♦i♦ei♦ OO+eo♦, +i�oe<-♦ •14♦ • `!�„ ?� Sj,♦♦ ` \�t► �j /I/ S♦, ♦s♦ .� � a►♦e�:!♦�<►�♦ e* +e�♦♦ ♦Gj♦ �* �. � ® �`,:
�♦ .;:' .e•/♦♦♦ ♦o♦♦ ♦ep o♦e ;♦♦e♦. ♦,i♦ •I►' `�1R�. ,,; � y � d♦ d��.�r,.�� \� ,�j� ® !�I♦ ♦ ♦i -,e+i �► ♦s Q ,;, � . �l - •
, � � � �. .,♦♦♦ ♦ pp ♦♦♦0 00 oie ♦ �i�r �'ai. y ♦e♦♦�i,.�, ;, �O o �.o♦ \ ���'y � s,•>I♦0 ,�►i ♦e ees ►e t ��♦♦ ♦s ,:r `; / �►•
0e♦: ♦♦♦ eiei ♦i♦ ♦♦i .4�. ♦ ♦ ♦ tit e ♦ :e oe��♦oo��•�` s� ♦i' ♦ O�. ♦/ ♦ ♦ ♦ �♦
.. ♦♦� ♦♦ , ♦ .� ., � ♦ ►♦ � ',`"�� ♦ ♦i 1 � • eoo.,e\�,� � � ®°y►♦♦� � ♦�`� ♦e ♦`♦j ♦♦♦1♦♦ee e♦♦eee ♦+ 4� ♦ ♦y ♦♦♦ ♦♦ � . e,
' f4♦+,♦ ♦ eI ,�i�/ �♦. ♦ >.♦ ♦♦i� ♦„ ,+► ..�.,,� ,� 1♦ � d'•♦+ yG���`'�\O .> � a�; t� � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦j 0��.♦ tll�f �► ��I1, ♦ 1♦♦♦ ♦♦ � S ♦ ♦e
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ / °
o ♦ . e
IPAP
ON
o I ♦ ♦ ♦ o.
e
� r
s ♦ ++,+ ,,,,,,I o d► e
e
e e l
I' ► .3
♦ i
♦ r ♦ ,I
♦
e a ♦ , ♦
1 • .
�► a ::,.+ ...+
�4
rr
e 1 r r
e F
I.
♦•• 1 e 'r .
r
": �` o �e �..2> tee ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦, , ..+.+,,,,,,,.., a ♦ �.♦ '.� ♦ �., �„ ♦/ , ;, ,_ ♦ •,��. :; �►'
♦ ♦ ♦♦ � !� ♦�,. ;+. .� � + •I s4:o♦ , ♦ ♦.: ,+�i .�,Sa:`':�`<�c;=°'° ♦ � ♦ rl. ai + .� i ♦ e;r e♦ ♦��, .�' 'C' !!�
•, ♦♦ ♦ � '� .• ♦ ♦� ,. � ♦� e♦e ♦ eI e I ,.e R�,00.>, +♦♦ ! / .� ♦ ♦ '� ♦-!ice` � �e '�' . ♦ � \ ! ��, `
km aw
e ♦1 F e♦ . .♦d� A ♦ e�eei ♦e♦ ♦ ei .♦♦ ,.+,. e ♦ I/ / - ♦j ♦ �1► ♦ , ��♦a, ♦ � ♦ ♦e, � '>•, ® ,,� ems!
♦ ♦+ a ♦♦t4 a .! oe .► ♦ ��♦1♦ _ ee/ I � , ♦ % I� A , , Oj t#ee: 40 !j►.j
�. o♦e �•o ♦ e♦ fee ♦ ♦i. oee♦ �o r +1 � �� O♦ ,>j >♦� � ♦ . .✓ f �� ♦�••e,+ a♦s e a ♦♦, C41` �:�'` �
�' e1�,�► ,> ® 1♦.+e�i.!e+,�ee tt♦�ee♦ ,er .., � �� ee♦ t ♦ioi �i ♦.�/ 0 °�. ♦1►� ♦I/ ♦ ♦�i♦tifw♦ I++f♦ � ♦o♦,+ ♦ �- so♦ .e♦� z
�� �S / ♦ ♦ �. ♦♦ ►Oo♦♦♦ + p .♦ ♦te ♦♦e � � ♦p ♦p ♦♦I♦:_I♦ro � �� �/ �► � e ♦ ♦ ' eti p e o♦o ,♦ �"" ♦•e/ .♦��♦ ., •, +e4
t. o♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ►. �i e e ♦ + t. 0 0� •.. a♦o ♦ e♦o ♦ .� /e ♦ � .r � ♦ e � � s,♦. � ♦ � ,.� 1► �► �.
,� st. ♦ ♦♦ � ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦♦♦ +e a ♦. � .�/o o e o ♦ e . °♦ w.• ,♦ �r, �4 �, ♦ ♦1 ♦, I ♦ . e, `�► ♦ �
f � ��► � � ♦ e ♦.o ♦ ♦e e ee /�� \� � �e , e� . ♦ •r� • �e ♦ oe � � o♦� ,e ♦♦ e ► ♦o �' ♦ >/e ♦ s �:
J /' <: � ♦ +� ♦ ♦ ♦ I�,1 ♦ + ♦ •. ♦ ► �/ice \\�\ ♦ '►e�.e� ,•♦ • �•!/ �. ♦ r'�♦ ♦ ♦� ♦\O� a♦� ♦♦ �i. �e ,.�' ., i (�' e• ei ♦ r�
� �o+♦o � e♦i+�+a►♦e ♦i ♦+e"♦ ei ?►4efi of ♦e o ♦i ♦ fr., 1 ♦ o♦ ��♦ �� � s ♦+•► O ♦ �1► �►we ♦ ♦ e .z. ♦•a. ♦ f • \ .• ♦ o ♦ �e ��.
�%'' ".♦• i► ♦ e♦,/i♦ o ♦ �o♦ ,r. e,♦p . ♦e ♦ �♦, ♦.� ♦ ♦ ., � � ♦+ ��o♦ �. ® ♦i a ♦♦ ♦ wee, t ,. r!,�'+ e o ♦ +�1! *.
e
�•,. ,,/ � ♦♦+1! + -'. ♦♦e .�>fi ♦♦t ♦ ♦ ♦ ? r ♦t�e o♦ �e - ,�' �` ♦ ♦+i �.t � ♦ ♦i' . ♦ Ip e,.+♦ +e ►f .� . .♦ a ♦♦♦♦ \`��� e�S► ., ♦ ./
,. ✓ � e ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦+ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦.,+ ♦ �: �� .♦ ,.d oii,. , �� � ♦ ��♦♦ d s 4�i••. p , a + 1,♦.. a �► ♦d► �►+ t 1 0 + �►
., y � :•� e ♦ ♦ ♦ +e ,♦ ♦ t{`♦�t ♦ , � ® ♦, s♦. ,e e � p off• ,�:e • ♦ O, ♦•• ♦ . ,. �A � ♦ � ,. �* dy� ♦ ja.e � ♦ � • !i.
i ^J ''P� ♦ `1 •♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦e ♦ �► ♦ ♦ ® I ,.L. i ♦: ,.:♦ � r ¢¢♦. O'� I � ♦ � �I e . O ♦♦ t. ♦ .L.� e �`
v � � ; � � 0 ♦�. e♦ ♦ ♦ e �.� � •+, + ® --♦ ♦ t ,t ,,♦♦r, � � ♦ems ♦ ♦ 1. �, �.ied �<
.` ♦ ► ,♦ ♦ ♦, ♦ . ♦ , ♦ ♦ � s O., .• .® �d ♦., + .. +e . . ti. ♦ ♦ .. .•* ei e� � o ,yte..•;. /10♦,.�. a f♦ '�f►,•
+ ♦♦<, O ♦ d1+ ♦♦ e ♦ ♦r ♦ + ♦♦, ♦ ♦ ♦�♦ ® ;. ..• ♦ .ee w® e ♦♦ o '��'/. ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ s 1 ♦� ♦ '�► �►i,o -:. a e,� , e ♦ .♦♦ .♦
o � /l' `'t'�. ♦�► ►e ♦,.. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦. ♦ , ♦ . � � ► . ♦ ® ® ♦ . � t► oo ♦ + e t ti � e �► +t► f. ,. 1 �. ♦s• ♦* t°� , e1�t, ♦♦ :♦ ♦��i♦
� > •�. �• ♦,. ♦ ♦ .♦ ♦ ♦,+ .♦ ♦ ♦ t•I'♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �►` � � �'+... ♦ ♦O , ..♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �. .t' ♦ ♦� ,► ♦ � ♦ �. %,. � ♦.. ♦ 4♦ �► ♦� /!,• j ,..I♦1 ♦emcee♦ QO
• ♦ ., '�► .e ♦ • ee o�♦ , ,�♦ � ♦ ♦♦��i <� � ♦ � , �/ � ..♦e ♦.�i ♦♦ t�' • ei s .'�►+ ♦ +e ,+'.�. �, � ��.�9� . • o ♦♦f . ♦ee♦ t\,c� e
',: ♦ ♦ '�. � ♦ ♦ + �♦�• . 'fie+,.y ♦ e e♦�♦ t + � � � � . e♦ + � 1 fit►, 4 ♦``� ♦ , �i , ♦>. oi,�♦i. ♦ �♦ � ►o_ ♦ p♦♦ ♦�;e♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦. .re•► ♦ eei �. � ® .. d :♦. ♦ e♦ d ,� �f! ♦ ♦ ♦ <::. a c�♦
:♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦`4.! ♦ . ,. e1 � � � \ ♦ . \ � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦e ♦ .., ♦ �'♦•' e . � � ,r/ ♦ . e ♦♦ a .♦
,•i, � / � ♦,. e♦ ♦. ♦ ,:♦ ♦ +. ♦ ♦ ♦: . e ♦ e .,_. ..�. / � o ♦ ♦<.�,� ♦ ♦,e ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ sot i .♦ d ♦ / ♦ . ♦ e
,,►, ,. ,♦ ♦ � ♦ �♦♦ ds♦ ♦'►�!+e ♦ ��li � + .+: 4•e•+,4! ♦e . �/ , ♦� ♦: fi ei< ee +i ♦ + ♦. ♦ �s♦ '► t♦ :�� ♦ �°i // ♦+�. • ♦�y/O♦ o• +
♦ 0 � ♦ ♦ e;,• � •♦ e +�•,♦ � .o0 4►. eei ♦ o��ta. Q..e,♦ ♦♦.!i♦ ..♦ �♦ :�� ♦ ♦ / ♦ ♦ .1► s♦, o♦ ,+ ,++.� �:,♦,♦ +. ♦♦• / � / . -. - !♦
,�♦� � .. e I + •e� e�!i+i o♦ �s►• ♦ ♦ ♦�+ �♦.♦,.yo ♦fie . '�y to♦ :,.♦ei, ij♦ 4e � o _..♦�,� Od,► o �♦ ♦ .. ,6 ♦ ,,:,.►e ♦ t1�♦�� �. • ,. .♦o, , e ,fie
. 0 � �j I ♦ .;o ♦ ♦,e, ♦! ♦ ♦ .ee<>,o e�:♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ ` �i ♦ e � � � ♦ ♦j �,p ♦ � ♦ ♦♦ ee e,♦o d•,, t,�, , e'A'` +�♦ , ,� ♦ ♦ i:+ ` ,�.
� �,� ♦ ♦ >1,,.♦, ♦+iei ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦�O >� t. ♦et. a f I�►♦t !. \ i ,,, ♦S ♦ ♦ ee♦, ♦eee. ♦ '!��► ,. ♦ �:• � �_` ,+. �' ♦ � ♦♦ ♦tj , -
�► � ® O ♦ ♦r-tee ♦ c�� t ♦+1 ♦+ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ s� fe ♦ ♦ , •. A + ♦a.: e,�,, ♦ ♦�►j � ♦ ♦ � � :p ♦re• � ♦ O O I �
♦ I � ♦ ♦ ..♦ ♦;, +, .♦� ♦ o�.v r ♦ s .r eee ..♦ ♦ �' Zi � . ® ♦ , .. ♦ ♦ , e ♦e,�♦ + ♦ � � / �i ♦ ♦ ♦ +�
- � ,. �� ♦ � ♦ ♦ ♦ .♦. s e 1 ♦ ♦ ► ♦ ♦ ♦ e e o .!,�� ee a /r . � � � e� e♦ ♦ + ♦ <>♦1d o �.:; �► .� � ♦ ♦�♦ r
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦�. �♦ .:♦ � ♦ ee , ♦ ♦ ♦ a , �♦ ,� _ ♦ ♦ e. ♦ ♦ , ♦ ♦ !,�'- I - � � . ♦ ♦ � �
♦ e ♦ � ♦ +. ♦ � ♦ e. ♦,e♦.. t,♦ ♦ .♦ e e o o ♦ /� �,, � � e ., 4 � s .� ♦ e ♦ o e +. / ♦ r' a o
♦ ♦ ♦ w ♦ d,� ♦ ♦++ ♦ +i a ♦o♦ . ♦ e♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ee ...ee ♦ e o + p ♦t�I ,Rio,.� ''� � !�, ♦ ° ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦, � `'>> :r�► �' ��' ♦ ♦ + � .
♦ � ♦♦ �� e � ♦ ♦ e ♦♦ ♦ . ♦ 1♦I♦ ♦a•ft♦e ,♦ �e ♦ I ♦ - �► �OO 1, ori,sir,/i, � ® �. t� 4c 1♦♦ oe�► ♦ ! •., � ♦ a e a.
. o� � ♦ ♦ w e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ . ... ♦ .... ♦ 1 � ♦� ►o e .,or � �'-. /e♦ ♦♦ , e '�. ,. . a ♦♦. ♦ •
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ - • td1�1 �♦ • ♦; ♦ + ♦ a ♦ ♦i ♦ •.e ♦ ee �e +♦e ♦♦° �♦ ♦ e . e o_ 'ati • ../ �� '� � ♦,+ a ♦+i oe e♦ � �' -�: ��' i �' .:. a ...�i., ♦ +
♦.++ ♦e♦!9 ♦��Oea� e, .e♦ e♦♦ se♦ ♦ ee ♦♦e .,�♦, o /e♦ ♦O ♦ e♦ ♦♦ +♦ ♦ ♦♦ ti► ♦ ,�,� . - ✓ .. !♦ ♦ t ♦ ♦� �: o � ., . '�� ♦i ♦e♦♦ ♦ ♦♦•.
p, � �:e �, ,.♦ �.e J ♦♦♦ e♦. •.'. .e♦. . ♦ /♦ e♦ ♦ee ♦♦ �`�♦ ,+e , . ♦ e ! e ` '�' , .�.�♦r�o ♦ e .!♦a i♦ a e�►� �� \G♦ ,+4 � to ♦ e
° �oee a+♦� • •♦ e�►♦ +fit+ 9 .* .; °♦♦ O♦e O .ei O♦ ee ,•e♦ ♦♦t. ♦♦e :' oe♦♦ e♦ oe♦ +O♦ ♦i. � \ � � � , ,�;• ♦p t :♦o/+o e♦ a �f ♦� t� e♦ > ♦ , oe♦♦ ♦•� _ �
• . +e ♦♦ e+ ♦ �►e :./� . .,. � ♦♦i ♦i+ ♦i e!�+ ♦ oe!: ♦ ♦i♦♦ ♦ ♦ed�. ,♦o ,♦o ♦ �, 1► �. �' �~ ! � e�a^� oe♦♦ ♦ o o e� ► • / � -� ♦ •. ♦� ,� e s
♦j ♦♦♦ ,♦♦ �yq o velt ♦ . / rr ♦rj +j I ♦eI ♦1 ♦ e♦ i+ ♦ei♦ ♦+♦ eI eI ♦eI ♦►,+ ♦,♦ *♦ ♦ e �. et,,i e♦ .�I ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ , F�J�L�� ,. ♦ �' ♦. eet+i♦,O �I
e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ R 1 e = ♦ ♦o ♦ e ,:,♦ ♦r'e ♦ o ♦, ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ e, ♦t♦ f'!!e I � \ , ♦♦ ♦ ► �' >�� � � t♦ + ♦ :o ' .. o
00 ♦♦ ♦e ♦ee ♦ ♦ ,�: ♦. .!io ♦ + ♦+i °ei +,a ..♦ • .�O ♦��♦♦ e ♦ ♦s �e a♦+ +♦ ♦i+♦ s '. <l o` ® • ! / � .♦ 00o eo�i! <3' �' ♦ � � ,�,, e�'o e ,♦•♦ ♦ - ♦ .!.
I ♦ ♦ ♦� ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦.> t t..♦ e♦�..e. � . �/ ♦♦♦ ° ♦ o♦i�.li td� .♦ ♦ 1�e,♦o 00. ♦ ►o ♦ + 0+.� .�• �� - � \ /+r I I � r ►o s ♦ �i ,.t; ♦ ��`' r1►�.' � � . , .{♦•,e;``+�►♦ of ♦ ,•
w . ♦ ♦ a ► ♦ , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ .. ♦ ° ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ e ♦ el ♦., e ♦ ♦ ° o o I o oe ♦ ♦ L� e� .r ♦ ,.
I MAN
e ♦ eo. e♦e♦ s ee O . ♦ ♦ ♦of ei♦ '�_ . • . �i ♦♦e ♦♦e ♦♦♦ a �.. ♦ e♦/► r�s ♦♦ oeee ♦O ,e♦ ♦,♦ .•�+. ►: �\ v\�. � . �I .• ♦ ♦ ri ♦'•ie / -t • o• • t�►♦ • ♦ ♦ ► e
d ♦e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦+i . .1 ti ♦♦ ♦e ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦� sr ♦ ♦ ♦ +♦ ♦ + ..�♦ •d11 \ ♦j • ♦j�.9♦♦ ♦ ♦ ?► ♦ ♦ ►+0�,..♦♦ ♦ ♦i+
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦• ♦ ♦ ♦ ee♦ ♦♦ ♦ , ♦ ♦ e ♦ � • ►i ♦ a+i of♦<.♦°3+, s ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ t o♦ ♦ ♦ .♦ � ♦ ► v e\�� \ ♦' ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ►/o ♦ ♦ �- << ► ♦ t♦; 1y•, . f ♦♦
1♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ O .ee♦ . w ♦ ♦ I`a ♦ S e ♦ ♦ ♦ .+ `'• ♦ \ \,.♦ 'I� � � o � d ��1.r" ,,. s' I � ♦j ♦j♦q♦ ♦ ♦ � j�♦�o e
O ♦ ♦e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � _' ♦ ♦ ♦ �." O ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 ♦ r ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦. ♦ 1�I . ♦, ♦ � � o\ � o O � ♦ I ♦ ♦ II ♦ .,♦ ♦ �1 � • ♦ ♦ „e1 ♦ ®�.. ♦ 1
j eo ♦ •e .e♦ e ♦ oe ♦ ` �♦ O ♦ e♦ ♦ ♦ . •, a I e ♦ ♦ .;.♦ o/ � ♦ ♦ A ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦I e,. ♦ e�� ♦ ♦ .0�. � \ O \O � ♦ ♦ � ♦ � If � �:1 ♦ ♦.♦ ♦ �� � e •
she ♦ t o ♦. ♦ ♦ • ♦ � ♦ ��♦ d S .. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ e ♦ +. ♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦.;�♦♦ t♦ . ♦ ° � o. � of � � ,♦ ♦ :. � ♦. I' ♦ � 44 e ..♦
♦ ♦ e. , ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ O ♦ `♦ t e ♦ t► ♦ .♦ o � ♦ei ,. ,� � e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ e ee � ♦ ♦e ♦ ♦ ♦ e • e♦ ♦ �' A o: v \ o � � e / t� ♦ ♦' elf o ♦ �: ♦► ► ► ♦ e • ,♦e o ♦ o •
♦ o ♦ ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 ♦ .♦ • o. o ♦ ♦ ♦ O ♦♦ ♦ r eei a4►♦ \. \ o. .. o . , -<., s � � ♦ . r '�� d ♦ ♦� ♦ ♦ ♦ ► ♦ ♦♦
♦ o ♦ e ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ ♦♦� ♦ � ♦ ♦ ee • �►e♦ ♦e .e e/ e t o e e e♦ ♦` • . e,.♦♦ • ♦ o� � �o ♦ <:. ; ♦ ♦.. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ o � e wit
♦ ♦ + , ♦ � ,..- ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � . a ♦ ♦ o ♦ e ♦ � ♦� <: .♦ �- � \ \ . ♦ ♦ > � ♦ °�► of ♦ ► e ♦ ♦ s
♦ e ♦ ♦ e 1♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �? !♦ ♦ ♦ o ♦ ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ e ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ .♦ . . .♦ ♦ ♦ ♦. �1► \, 00 . oo� a ♦ ♦. . 0 ♦ �•o ♦ e I +, e
♦ % + ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦- � ♦ t ♦♦ ., ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ e ♦ • ♦ ! ♦s ♦ .♦♦ ,e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦+♦ ♦ + ♦+ ♦ ♦ r .� ♦ +♦ I�: � eO\ ,, / /i �. � I r � � ♦ Il ♦.♦ 0 ► ♦:' +t . e1�..! ♦, ,es
e ee ♦ ♦ ♦ ��♦♦ O ♦ ® ♦:I ,eI ♦. ♦. ♦ ♦ e eI • ♦ � e ♦ ♦� ;1♦ .�♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ r �'r•��♦ ♦ a. '♦ tie � // pj / ® ♦ ! ' ♦ 17 ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ � e♦ � �� et I ♦ .e ♦ i ♦♦ 'd•
♦ ♦t ♦ ♦ + . ♦ ♦ ♦ � w ♦� .e ♦. ♦I►♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • , , ♦ ♦♦�, ♦ ♦ �i ♦ ♦. ♦ .. + ♦ e♦. ,.. ♦ ♦S►♦ ., � � � � rim� ♦ ♦ �► e�+♦ . ♦ .Ii e f t�o, •e ♦ ♦,� .+
♦ ♦♦, ♦e �' , ♦ ♦ e ♦ ' ° ♦ ei t� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ s� • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ e ♦ ♦ +e • . ♦ o _ � ♦♦ \ o o � . /, rr ./ ♦ �� '.� � � •►► ♦♦ ee ♦ ♦ v � ♦ ♦ t eo 4i
♦ ♦ ♦. o ♦ ♦ �♦ _ ♦ ♦ ♦ . . . d e . ... rot . . ., o, . e e , ..♦ .. � o\ r, r/ram ♦ ♦ .e ��� . ♦e.<P.o, .;♦.' . � q �♦e ♦e of.;♦ *e•,o
♦ � +♦ ♦ e � .♦ +1 a ,lr I ♦ + ♦ � .♦ .♦ ♦r, f ♦ ♦ ♦ e♦ ♦ �i � \ p \ \� \ rr\// / ,� i ,,, . ♦ , � � � ♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦♦ •. ♦ ♦ t ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �
♦ +r♦ ♦ ♦ ♦, ♦ S ♦ � I re I � ♦ ,e r' � a • ♦•.•.♦ ♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦+ ♦ �•_ •��:Q O ���� O��/� rr� ,r ♦,. i _ ♦'+ ♦ •' , ♦ ♦ ♦1 •♦4 •e♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦O♦► ♦♦ a♦�►M ♦ ♦�" -. .
♦ ♦ + ♦♦ ♦. I ,�j♦ I ♦ • e'�► Ie/ L ,�� �a ♦ /' ♦ ♦ ♦ ��♦ ,p 1♦ a +j ♦t ♦ • ♦♦ .�♦t � � QO� �Q\ ��,p\ % , ♦ N', e1 ► ♦ `♦ ♦ dam► I ° ♦ e�y O ♦e i '�► ♦ �1♦N
♦ ♦ ♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ ,+ ►♦ ♦� ♦ . ♦ ♦ e . + ; ,e♦ +� ♦ ♦, ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ . a •+� ♦ �♦ ♦ , �.� � � o � � .. s .> ♦ ♦ �. t, . ♦ �. ♦ • ♦i.. + .♦ , ♦ice ♦
♦ �► e + e� ♦ ►+e �,,`,., a ;♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦ei + • ♦ � ♦ ♦O +i♦ v+ ♦♦ +♦ ! ♦ . a +e e+ �`i►�Ii� r s� '<�o ��� ,��� . ,. � ♦ 0 � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �!s • ,�I► . ♦ ♦ e s♦p � . ♦ ♦ y� .
♦ + ♦ ♦ �,+,. ♦ ♦ ♦�♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � .r •♦ ♦ ♦f a ♦♦ ♦♦ I :�O ♦ .. ♦ ♦, .Ie s. ♦ ® � ��� � �/�� ® �e � ♦ I I ® � ♦ ♦ �� ♦ ♦ ♦\ e a�' ♦ :G a 0♦ ♦ ♦ > ♦ I ♦ s
♦♦ e + ♦ "� ♦ .. 0 ♦ ♦ e♦o�.♦ ♦p. e � . � � t e ♦ 1Q ++♦ ♦e +o ,,e ♦ «+ ♦i> e!"� �♦•e ♦ � � ♦ I ♦i. ►o ♦ ♦f • e ,d�.♦i, a ep ♦e• ♦♦ ! �♦ '.
� �.j of I ♦ ♦ . ,� ♦i �+ • e♦ . ,♦ tjr♦ !'ems f<4►• ♦i•.•
♦. o ♦ e♦ ♦ ' ��.•.•` ♦ �+♦1. •ee1 O♦+ ♦ �♦ i ♦ee ,.Ij ♦ , ,++ e ♦ e ♦, ..♦ �. �♦ .♦ Ivy � .� �i �\ � �e•' ♦ �f ♦ � ♦� ♦♦!9 e � ♦ ♦ �.♦
e. ♦ +ti �, ♦ .,+ ,e� � e ♦ ♦♦ • � ♦ � ♦ ♦ ,♦ ,+t , ♦ ♦ o ♦e ►. ♦ ♦ ♦ ds � �1� 3 ® .. ® ♦ ♦ ♦ t . � �r. ♦i►• . ♦♦ t- ♦,. y ♦ice o ♦ ♦ e•; ♦`�•
, ♦�: ,+ ♦ ♦1..♦.+';:'`' �<♦ of . +♦ o♦+ ♦♦ �- e♦♦, �+♦t�i♦ ♦ eo ♦et e,+ ♦,♦ eo♦♦. a♦�♦♦♦♦►♦ edt �'�! 3- ..�� � /�\ �i / of♦i r. �j ♦ao.. � .> ♦ ► ♦ ♦i ♦ •• +. r♦e��o♦e a,,e d •
♦ • ♦ ♦ t;., .,.,,,;,. ,'i �i ♦ ♦o , ♦♦♦ ♦ ��, ♦� i �* O <,♦ p ♦ e: ,♦+ a+♦ p♦ ♦+�► ♦ ♦�, . ee, •.�� .a.* ��� •. �/ / ♦ ♦ ♦ e •� � t1 ♦� ♦ ♦Gi � • t,.o.♦, ♦ ♦�► 1► • ,.
o .+,r::.+<>;:;�.•+ �. _ ♦ ! ,t ►+. ♦♦ ♦ �►✓ o.\� e ♦ ♦ ♦ e e t e . . ,♦ +• o♦. � s .,� a ����� � / � e ♦ . i, .!�` a .t• ♦ ♦ e ♦• �
� ♦ ♦ • ♦,. ♦ 1a ♦ :�♦ ♦ a a...♦ ♦ ♦ a1► ae ♦ ♦ • . ,> ♦ f \ gip /y ♦.! t. o e � .� ♦ ♦ + � ♦+ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ .// v/ �
► �� ,�,+`,+ � o ♦, ♦ IRi o.L� ♦ e e. ♦ ♦ e e ♦ ♦ , ♦ l� � ® 0 0 0 � ♦ � . oi. � � ♦ ♦ o �e ♦ ♦ . t,/
� -,+,,++ ::�° ♦ �� � ♦♦ . e e♦ t o ♦ .♦ e ♦ ♦ .. �+�i� • ♦ �l►t a ♦a �� ,� o o �\ � ♦,� � ,: ♦ '��� �i i � �►� ♦ ♦ •�♦ e ♦ ♦ e �• ,�
♦ � I . ♦ a . d ♦ e� ! ♦ e�, ♦ . + ram♦ ,a e ♦ ♦ s ,. � •� �o � � -. �� .�, i � ♦ > ♦ ♦ .,♦ ♦ ♦
,,;++' ♦ � ♦ 0 � • ♦o, ♦ ♦ Ti ♦i ♦. ♦♦♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦t-, , ♦ a� a ♦ ♦ ♦ \,., ® 0OO � �1,�. � .! ♦/ / 1 or �e , � �� �� •• ♦� �' :. ♦ 4i ♦ ♦� oe ♦♦�i► ♦ N
♦' II �♦ � � �♦ ,. ♦ ♦ � ,a., t♦ to ♦ ♦.,♦ o a . ♦ �♦ +. �♦♦ ♦ ♦ _ u 'i � � +� ♦ .. ` •.�' i ie � � � e .e♦ �►1\ ei ♦ ♦ ♦e e
♦� �► . �+'' I ♦ ♦ � _ ♦ e ei��s +♦ t ► e ♦ e .+v♦`, �e,e , , t♦ �,� ,� � o\ � ♦ ♦ ♦ �� ,.► /i O , ♦,�� d► ;►� ► ♦e_4►♦a► ♦ � � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦of.
♦� ♦ /i I ♦ ♦, ♦ ! � ,♦e e e fc♦, ♦ •e ♦, ♦oo .► ,�►♦ ,+ Bata'♦ t �t a'����� � O \ .♦ �� � ► �/ / y i � �, ♦ . �♦ ♦ e'ri�c�► ♦ . ♦ .� ♦ y
♦ s .♦ ♦ >j I �� I � '� a..d ♦ oe e♦ ♦ .♦ t,:. ♦ ♦!► + ♦ �► ���aa_ __ � � e ♦ ♦ !! .is � ,� •�r ♦ � ♦ ♦C�o ♦ �►i s O
��d / ji�I � ♦ ♦I / ♦♦e ♦ � •eri�.! ♦o �,e�e�,v e+ ♦ � ��/♦ e+ ♦ ♦�� ♦�t�• �� � !i i/ / :.♦♦� /i ♦ � �:- ��: ��,�, F� e ♦e��e
► y.► > .:G�� �� >� ♦ ♦ ®� ♦`` � � .,,.,� `•e p •♦.. ♦� ♦♦� ♦ ! ea�t .i e ♦ e♦i♦oir��,�et � taR t �. � �y♦i .op�/ pi ..o of � ♦'� �' �' .4 �` •e�+fi ♦
.� >oyy �; I♦j S ♦ � ,7� ► ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �♦ ♦, ♦ e+�� .aet ee a e.Na►e �t t�of�t`� � � ♦ !� .y e�o _ � ♦ ♦� �, 1 � ��� ♦/ �,�'
,1 ��•` �j► • ♦`` �' ►► d♦e1. ! ♦d1`D,♦♦� ♦jI r:r ♦ r ������ +1 ♦ / yii ♦ 1 O d.
f` I c� ♦. I I l ♦ �Q•.I <,I 10 ♦,: '�s�r ♦ ♦ ;, ♦ ♦ it / ♦ a +" 4. .. ♦ 5►
ei d► re♦♦�i!> >♦♦.♦ ♦♦ o r ••► ♦fi,:♦ . ♦� •P .•, 'ta!�� .�i ♦� loee� ,.>♦ ,...... ♦j �.eot r. . e� yi,;.! ♦ o • \, .♦ ♦ ► .�, o*..
ej ♦ I I\iy j• / j►�I� ♦ ♦j/a •♦11 ♦ •♦ E {ltt~Mt ♦� itt ♦ re ♦I♦♦ •�I,
dI ♦ � ♦♦ I� I� �♦.. /I� ® I �j �` � � /► ..ram!♦w •♦ ♦♦I► �► ♦oi...js3i'a .� S tln/ll, , ♦ 1Ra111 s •0� ,.� ♦�♦ � ♦ /// ,e♦ ..� �I• � �+ ♦ ee ♦♦ �. ♦ �♦♦1
♦ t{If et �.♦i I >�G ♦ ,� � ♦� ♦ ♦•I I .�♦j ♦ -y♦e . .�.w• ♦ • • ...� � •. � �e i os� `� /y o ♦ ♦♦_ y � 1 �,• ♦
1 l,/ 4 • I I ,I •r I ♦ . / 1. �o � : ♦ • ♦. �,lltiti •� Maas a .•♦�i��t� aat ► � + ♦ ♦� ♦`,� <'♦♦ •�
♦ 11 I ei�t I I :.♦ I /! ♦ ♦ e �, , .�.�i ... s w ..:�...: �a S •t- �-.,Cana • tie./o + ♦d♦ � .� ,. ♦ ee ,o � ♦ +.. ,., .-.♦ t
i! l ` ! ! II � , 0 �I <�• <., Ill, r lTi1s • l � .r n lan r.♦ 11 ri �.�!,1a ee ee tA.� •� / a •♦ l• �' ♦� ♦ ;, '�` `
R • ♦ ♦I�� � �I � �� / � ♦ � �e�j��Y • ,r • 11fU 1131{i ,rw�.. �.• ♦ i�iR1i1 >� , 1 ♦ t►.•♦ � � ee♦♦ .. �, ♦: 4 :i♦ ♦. � \ � e � � ♦ /. • •'
♦ I. I� ♦ � O ♦ , e���e♦•-- _,. a� n • : aaEai�� a .� ,.�-�/�:�a �� .. 'r ♦ ♦�ee�tl '�' ♦♦ •, �k+ �i►� - ♦,♦ ,♦�► ♦ ♦eei .,. �► ♦ �� �® a� '.
♦ _-. i � ♦ � I♦e. ♦�� � �e•,s. r--•,-yn � � 'j �tRnsn 1 e ♦e• ��,o .�,. e � � ♦.ee♦♦. ♦ � y�►f'�► ♦ o♦� ./ ; .
♦ .. I♦ � � .Ire till 1111iR1 ri r n '.�ww r\ /� ► i... �� +I ♦e1' \;, `�► � ♦ o,,� � � ♦ ♦♦ `' f.� tr �� - ,.
♦.h`- - � � � ` . .a ..♦ R{{ _ .. w ■Is, •1 fr �s sir= //IN 1 t� ♦ ♦ ♦, .. 3 ♦ ♦ �� ♦♦: .
aftt�dRR ��+i !` � ��-���� ++ ♦ �'Oe ,�It,�i:S4i .+�,11ti w .�,�w • �/ 1 �O. r�r_ �t1 . •►to ♦♦`. ♦ � �,,, ,''�' � �• ; e•"�1. �` e,1 ♦ 1 �1i°f *Q�. f
�� S ♦ � ,.. ♦" ♦ ��. � 0,+ ,�� a . sue.• •__• eeta �I�a ♦�j � �4 -:•r '� ,0'�41' � �r�� I ♦,,� >,� ♦j ,
/r a Ifs ♦ ,• ,;>y � ♦ ♦. ♦♦ ��.=�.r.. ♦ �► ♦�♦s ♦e. I4♦ �, �! !+�' ♦' / ► �♦�" '� �A ♦,♦♦♦. �'� • ♦� •�1 � ♦ ,
_ � O , ♦ � A♦ . ;��j � ♦�► ♦ ♦ ♦♦�Q ♦1">II♦ '♦O♦♦ ♦j `. �I o� 'ir dd � %/ ♦„♦ 1 ♦ o. f � � .�, � �
� - ., ♦ >I� ��!r oew� � .� f �� ei���ei,Go♦-♦ •♦1,♦ -.. I t♦,:�.e• '�' +�`e•♦' � ''��♦. �. ♦ � I O�%S' � i +�. . r� �r e�� .
k •,it,��'f..i ♦iei r'��.t+ata ♦♦:HNC•._ �� �. ♦♦ �a � ���♦,, � '�� � o�•r . . '♦��`- ♦ � / +i , %.g//�! '� �
a� ,��� K,__ :.�� y ♦ dd►••`.�`�':+�♦� ��oix '�•11iTRY 1i};•, ► ,� .as, '�,�•♦ �►, ♦ '� � , / �• � ,�, �� `�` � �y♦♦ . 4 .� I�► ,; ♦I't!�y♦♦
e+ ♦ e!�! al� �♦ p 1, � �► d +' � ♦► � - -°r \ +� :,' •• �''''tfrd'4 � �� ,�. �e... d�1� ♦e♦ ', �1• _ �
�. t +'�'.�ei�i♦♦i. :♦♦�� , ♦i�!+♦tip!♦♦ss �� •♦ • �1� �I/\ � � ♦'� . ♦>
� ♦ •,,� +e oe ei, p .�♦`♦� ♦,•♦:♦♦e♦' e•••+ �rri � fi,. ® �, �,,,,���� • •t� �o♦ ♦♦ � .b �"� �
I� ♦ ♦ ei 1 . � es�0; ♦ ♦♦♦�tpss��►i,,- ei o� � ,may., �s � .�A' ��� , ,,�, ♦♦ ' , •♦ ,►<
� * I' ►°+iei �'' �,♦i♦♦♦�♦tlAf♦���e!♦�` �r _ <�.♦L� ,f E� ► � 1 `� �� �,��tta� ♦�!�� '► '' y�
♦ ,� � Ali i��I'I � ♦ . � ��i♦ +� ■� �� � I� `� .� +��
j� � �I♦j � ���i�. ♦e '♦i�1�♦IIII►10e0�♦♦ a. : t! � V � � ,e' � ,►
s ♦t, ♦ s ♦ ♦ f\� � .� >m=� ,�� � �� ll , t � �� � " .��' ��. off, e
1 .. , - - ��, � ��� � �,�-�� �� �� I ���♦ ♦ �°�®♦ ,eei ♦ .�
s
sm 4 i
� 1—
f
�• a�►��' � .V ! � ��_ �_� •�_ ��� �� � ��.� �� ffii� �,� __ � � � ;ate
�;�w•w.rl� .�rrr�j � � �. ® 11II
r M/► —'ice- i � �i ' �. g�� >�1
- � a '� �� � `� �� •�� •I � '_•I� � ��' NNN•t NN11gN-{IMFI•
i11N 111 M-R� �•�-e_.����1111"1 i 1� 1111-11�1 #�1111.11-���� - - � � -� �� � �� �1� .�,� �lt� �✓ � -
l
l , A • ' ' •
d • • • • •
sA6
;