HomeMy WebLinkAbout79 - 109v°
?
\� zx
/�
/\
'
\\\\
�
�
e
lu.
131J'TTH COUNTY 111JAWNG COMMISSION
MINOTHS 1.979,
I RVIAGE STUDY
A. GRICOTTRBAN.-ARBA (79-1019)
80-14--2"210
Mrs. Blair called the Comml—ssion's attention to a memorandum f -roll,
Pd,blic Works Director, Clay Caotleberryj dated August 9, 19790 copies
of which had been. furnished the Commissioners earlier. 'The text of
this memo follows*
0
Attach6d is, a copy of 'the map that shows the stvorill trunk lines ptop()g,�(!j to serve
the Chico,, areal,,
'The Board of Supervisors authorized me to bring back a preliminary jcnrproposal which would, among other things, set probable boundaries, proect service
Areas$ Assist it community meetings and petitioa formation that might lead to an
ultimate storm drain assessment district.
have asked for such aProposal from Ellis Rolls of Ro 11s, Anderson Rolls in
,accordance with the Board's direction and permi,
on. By a copy of this letter 1
will ask Ellis Rolls to plan his efforts in conform' --ace with the land use planning
of your commission because this sewer should assist it service for proper larA
ruses r,ather-than guide laud use itself.
It was later noted that the study being prepared by Brown 6T Caldivell,
of Walnut Creek is now available.
Mrs4 Blair said that she 'would keeo the Commission informed concerning
deVelopments. No formal action was taken,
J
1
1416_ DELAY ACTION ON PREUMINAV ENGINEERING PROPOM VOR CONSTRUC'T'ION (V A
SANI'PARy $L1,1ER TRLTN"K LINE TO SERGE THE NoRTIt alto, AREA UNTIL BUDGM
CO�iS 1'n1I2A'l:10v5
Discussion on the preliminary engineering proposal for construc-
tion, of a sanitary sewer trunk line to serve the north Chico area held
at this tIM04
Clay Casrleborry, public works director, stated that they had
received proposalu for preliminary engineering from Rolls, Anderson and
Rolls. If the' Board wants to proceed With possible development of an
assessment district it would be in order, to start now. The 'City of
Chico has started .,for the southerly Chico area. Most of the north Chico
trunk would be for the unincorporated aron. If it is in order, they should
accept Mr. Drake's offer of ane -half of the money for the preliminary
engineering and some way to finance the remainder: If the assessment
district is formed, the money would be paid back. It is in order to authorizel
the issuance of 4urchase order for. the preliminary work and make an
appropriation foo the other $8,250 in the budget the Board is now considering.
Ile felt the county should proceed.
Supc-x~visor Winston stated that the Board is going to be
commencing deliberations. There are some grave problems in the k
budget. Even X8,250 is quite an item. This project is not going to
sink or swim in 30 days. He would hesitate committing any money out
of the budget.
Supervisor Dylan stated that shecould share Supervisor
Winston's concern in a sense. She knew the city's engineering study
was proceeding rapidly. if it i:s a cooperative effort the county should
also move on the matter. It has been too long in coming. She Was
optimistic regarding the assessment district. Money has been, offered
by an individual.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that the county was dragging their
feet. The people have waited a :long time for this. She felt the county
should proceed as soon as possible.
Dan Blackstock, cotnty counsel, stated that because of the
present litigation schedule, it would take some time to prepare and
review the contract. This might not be brought back until the bLcdget
is adopted. If the money is not in the anticipated budget, he would
not be inclined to have the auditor pay, out money or theBoardto sign
the contract. He felt that with working with other property owners
something could be worked out.
On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the ac't;ion•regarding the preliminary engineering proposal
for construction of a sanitary sewer trunk line to serve the north
Chico area was delayed until budget considerat:ions� AXES: Supervisors`
Moseley; Winston and Chairman Lemke. NOES: Supervisors Dolan and
Wheeler.
_.��..v---—�.eainanr�tG70lE11D7i14LW,Wl1Fi;. CW17t1A1kTR _., 3r 1 4A,.
df Y'fl'.t" 01' ih1C MAY1;117 +^ . 7
( 0, C141X 0420,; 0!701,17
®Cl�ICO
Tt:LCr'HOI'4C (DIG) 240.4401— AFrC17 ;O(J r. Irl, 343•7331
°Sotrar;fOn�ro�
3, 1.979 1'suo
FranclsRo
tlonovable Board; of Supervisors
County o,f Butte
1859 -Bird ,Street
Qrou3,l.l.e, Ca, 95965
Dear Board Momberti
On Tues(1ay r t+7, � �„ z 9 t ' ��°5�[}rrt'" �r M :h�1 1ley
the City "I 01 -Tr on Lha f Z
1.";y,�"jn;n�; fox1� iaT >� 'iw l'lia sp1`an
i:ncol'p as at Cs tine i�riconirnen(l;a t :ions ;cel"int �a�t��i' �"0" 1tgrotvfl) of
the mc,,t i.np, held. in Chico o11 ,J'a,-auar.y 73 with the C.ouliciI and
Board.
J.addition, the CoMic .l will be di.scu asi 11g soi er use f c e anci
connectl,on cbar pes I, 1. ,Mch u,1 he ins i,tuted o11 1979,
in order to In -(:t: St 1 to and, l"adcr. tal roquiroments for a: finan-
cit -11 p1.1-11`1 tOld, ewreaaue program for 1qisfi,owater f.aci l itIe y
ThenceCouncil
Fasl�cd mc, to; in',ri.te each oC you to the meeting
C `a' `a 1 ti tal. poi t i arG oa 'te tar ca to be serval by the
wastewatex kacilitie: is with.. to unincorpoTated; Clxi,co
area,
Should you 11AVO ra.n g1te5ti,cns in the interim, please feel.
:Gree to call. the City Mumaf e .
V •. r V
444
JRB-.be or
cc : Salol visors
Council
n(i(7)
Cityz
� '111,rgjcr +
City Clark
ra tab 1, 1. a W a il, h.., 1. l r +a c r o r �.• �,. ��'
Pltzrlaing, Dir octoi
raC' VA,rcm/ Cxt
County, Admin. Of," .ccr c,1
Courlt", Public lei`s , Mr,
county PI a.nnnin"Dir.
5/,1/79
AMINUA - CHICO CITY COUNOL qW
Chico ?Municipal Center - Council Chamber 421 Main Street
Ad journcld Re ,alar Meeting - Tucs(127, h(nX, 81 1079'1P.M.P.M
1, ROLL CALL.
2. RIiOU1,AR AGPNDA,
2.1. water Pollution Control Plant FI San:i.t-qry .Sower Collection !'system (waste -
a er con°ro --.-
A. Review of, current ittfe"rmation concerning City's requirement for expand-
ing its sewer collection system,,
The City Manager will. Brief Council on updated information provided by
Brown fi Caldwell., Engineers, who are preparing final report on City's
S1,11111RAGL' MASTisR PLAN. Maps and costestimates will be available at
the meeting.
b, Review, briefing, and discussion concerning user fees tend connection
Charger, for Financing mnintenancr., operation, dobr service and replace-
ment of facilities.
Review public information mailer re changfos in Sewer u. -,o fees.
Review time scltedulc for adoption of ordinance and resolution for
placing new user fees and connection charges in effect by July 1; 1979.
Prior to this meeting, Council: should again review the "Financial Plan
and Revenue Progrnm, Wastewator Paciliti,os Improvements" dated 7/78,
preparedby Brown f Caldwell, BRING YOUR COPA' Or RPIPORT TO 1.EPTING,
Al -so :see report from Vi.ntlnce Officer dated 10/20/78 which was requested
by Council last year re sewer service charges r renters/owners.
2.2. Request ,for MoblIc Office - Paul, Petersen (continued from 5/1/79)_,
Letter from Paul Petersen dated 4/26/79 sets forth request for. temporary .
mobile off ice at S)i corner of Notre Dame FI Skyttiay. The City Attorney will
be prepared to provide furth,or information to Council on this request.
2, 2, Annexation,
Resolution No. 151 78.70 - Resolution Anncxing Uninhabited. Territory to the
i of•�Git - :,est 20th. ,trret Annexation istrict—NO, 7.
222.79 acres located cast of intersection of East 20th Street overcrossing
09 rreoway ()tart: of Village Park Subdivision) .
w,4. Resolution Xo.1555 7itl8.70 - Resoluti.on of the r t, Council of the City of
1100,!i'JI OT-iRLQI.Y _. ILG'C{1IJ 7,'QS KQIIIVVriW.V1 I'4J.U7 kl%,V1 flutIV �1., j tl Ij n.-+a�+ua.u,..1-
TYvcr tca,c tructures 7"Tai11 t tc Lrect.G, ef7' y an`d the u tVazc ay Tt in an
rel o le.zty�o ' Chico to ctesa.Ftnntoo un nrgroun a.s trxc ' NO. ZI x`
}Te`arng at: ;o '.
Area along Nord Avenue (81111 32) from Big Chico Creel: to north of intersec-
tion, with Sacramento ,Avenue:
Letter from P, G. F, P. elated 4/25/70 outlines availability of ,funding for
undorgrounding facilities in City.
�1
2.s.
Code Amendment ro fiannars over City �trcots.
Ordinance - ordinance of the City Cotinci.l of the Cit of Chico Amend, 11
uca7"""�t o I , , H Lilt, Wilco 011111""14 tent
'�l� C„ Thi ' �� anti -r to Gl]�Y��Ilte
q' tie e5`iCi j!t'� an �) iltllTt'1' n[IC to ,, tit 1to1.177c 'C
��__T,�e__e___i_n_C711 {1E.j�,7 T rlv11 l:e .a lltl'i1ctor5 ar t le 1!1'j aSh a n �tal�� l�? -
T;n roductoryea aitP
The amendment authorizes the City 1'lnnager to angor into agreements with
of installing banners across City
private contractors for the purpose
s'troots, The payment for tite contractor's services 11,17 he paid by per-
sons requesting permission to place banners across City streots.. S're-
this service but their present eejuiP-
vi.ously the hire 1)opartnient provided
ment i.1, not practicable for this purpose.
2. G.
Meetirl , to Review Ajodi..fications to City 6lnnnger's 01 fico fitaf-fipy • (con-
ta.nuej from
The City Manager's report dated 4/24/79 concerning modifications to the
discussed at the 5/7./'79 meeting,
City Manager's of ice staffing l�»ns not
in to al.101Y adoquate time for Council roview and discussion, the
order
City Manager recommends Council schedule a soparate meeting for this item
some afternoon at 4:00 P.M.
2,7,
MeatinP for 7'vur ttncl Review of Canitnl. ?.mnrovements.
The council has previously expressed a desire to ma'ka a detailed rovi.civ
improvement and priorities, It is requested that
of capital projects
Council schedule a date to discuss the capital improvement program and
tour public far.il .ties
AAJOl112NMjs�f'I`
To executive session. BRING TO MEETING CITY MANAG):R'S REPORT DATED
OF UNDERSTANDING, 1',TC. Those items wi.11 then be
4/25/79 RE MEMORANDUMS
rescheduled for Council consideration at your 5/1.5/79 meeting,
To Tuesday, May 15, 1979, at 7130 P.M. in tale Council Chamber, c
To Thursday, May 17, 1979, at 4;00 P.M; in Council Chamber. re Chico Urban
Area Transit System,
_7 -
Ig
,i
CITY' OF C ico
,. "I T Y VOUNCH
)
U91
CITY COUNC1,1� �Mt�" 1/2$/79)
TO, BOARD t?z' SU1?8RVX$Oit$ DX1T>J- 1unk 18,, 197
F11OM: C1.7'Y HAIM;CI3Ii l"1LE: PS -p'463
WWECT, Items requirinPoltcy approvalby
te CcutcGl and City of Chico Se{aera e s concerning
Master Plan (,1.978-2025) » meetina, of January
231 1979, at 7:30 P.M.., Coullc3l Chamber„
w
1. Tile City Councl,l and Board of. Supervisors funded n Study, conducted by Brown and,
Caldwell, Consulting Engineers, for the
purpose of providing the City and County
with a long-range master p1an for the expansion of the City's ser,,ex collection
system and Water Vollution Control. Plant facilities. The Study Is nota nearing
Completion*
2. On December 13, 1.978, Mr' John Bouey of Brown and Caldwell, brief members of fire
Board of Supervisors, Clay Council. and 1,nterosted persons on the results of the
Study,
3-. After, Completion of the briefing several. comments we're received from interest -d
persons suggesting the desirahil:i.t:y of expanding the area fay awhish a. sewer collet
tion system should be made available.
4- PODICX bLGTST.(7NS R80"I1"IZCi�I T -11B CITY "COUNCIL AND BOARD OI+�,q,U%tiT2S0125
A. What area is to be served by the sewer Collection ystem?
Brogan ftticl', Caldz el.l will SU89 14t; five optiO"s which rel,avc to area to be served,
B, Should present users be required to assist; it, the finaactng of the ex.panded
facilities required for new development?
C.
What
eat:,.oi;s� st emnr�nci Gl��.tic,�"1Jdo1:.l.ut:;i.o Control it
�p o
_ unci the cost of the expanded sewor
- �ont'rol Plant facilities?
5. City staff and John tOuey of Brown .and Caldwell, will be available to provide .a
technical. informatjon and answer any quer tioxrs conCernin&' the above, ny
rrel' Dav;;sCat rifanager
Da;str r
See PS, -D --1,G3
Bulf4 Ga. Planning Cpmri�
JAN 19191
CM 471S xCdO`
CITY OF CHICO
SEWERAGE MASTER PLAN
1978-2025
PUBLIC BRIEFING
DECEMBER 13, 1978
�utgGo•`�.L'+1
V ^'Ali
010
Brawn and Caldwell
Walnut Creek, California 94596
0
CTTY OV CHICO
SEWERAGE MASTER, PLAN: 19'8-2025
Residents of the Chico urban area are fortunately endowed with
more water of good quality than many areas in California. As ari
abundant, high quality resource, water has undoubtedly played a
strorg role in the urbanization and continued development of the
Chico urban. area as the -major population center in Butte County.
This resource supports domestic, commercial and industrial uses as
well as the agricultural activities on surrounding lands. Some
effects of such beneficial uses of water, however, ire often to
the detriment of the surrounding environment. Cor, -xample, the
compound effects of increasing demand for water supply and the
increasing strength of municipal. industrial and agricultural
wastewaters have degraded water quality in many areas of the
state.
The City of Chico has for several years maintained a 'Orrograirt
for water quality control which provides for the orderly collection
and treatment of sanitary wastes within the incorporated areas of
Chico. Since 1903 nearly 485,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewers
have been installed, and the city currently operates a secondary
treatment plant with nominal rated capacity of 5 million gallons
per day (mgd). Treated wastewaters are discharged either to
the Sacramento River or M&T agricultural canal adjacent to the
treatment plant. Areas outside the incorporated city boundaries
rely on individual waste disposal systems (septic tanks) for
treatment and, disposal of sanitary wastes. Installation and
inspection of leech line failures of individual, disposal systems
comes under the jurisdiction of the Butte County Department of
Health, Division of Environmental Health.
At present, thes ' e mechanisms appear, to have adequately managed
the collection treatmentand disposal of sanitary wastes within
the Chico urban area: 1 14 : oweverr as sections of the municipal
collection system reach capacity, as development is contemplated in
areas unsuitable for conventional septic tank systems, or as
regulatory standards for the treatment of municipal wastewater
become More restrictive, clearly a more comprehensive , sewerage
master planning effort is required. it is' under this concept,
therefore, that the city commissioned Brown and Caldwell. to
undertakea comprehensive sewerage study of the entire Chico urban
area.
objectives
The purpose of the sewerage master plan 1978-2025 is to
determine additional sewerage needs of the planning area based on.
current land use planning goals, The development of any facilities
will satisfyfour objectives as follows:
SWR A +'.'.i.. •'.: ". +IrvMi•.va -. ia.+-,..,.-......�..........,� ._...._r—_.—..— — ..... ...
5
first, aewerage needs will be evaluated on a regional basks.
Secor,d, maximum use will be made of existing facilities,.
'third, alternative plans will be consistent with U.S
Environmental, Protection Agency TEPA) and California State Water.
Quality Control Board (SWROB) polioies for water quality control.
Fourth, costs for wastewater collection treatment and disposal
will be apportioned relative to the cost of providing such services
to individualuser classifications. Efforts will be made to secure
federal and sta.t,e funding to reduce the local share cost of
recommended facilities.
Scope of Work
The long-range sewerage master plan includes consideration of
both trunk and interceptor sewer requirements and additional
treatment and disposal facilities ro accommodate the projected
service area population in 2025.. General. elements of the study's
scope of work are outlined below;
• Definition of individual wastewater tributary areas.
Review of physical andeconomic characteristics.
Review of land use and population.
• Study of wastewater characteristics and volume.
Analysis.of existing facilities.
Evaluation of facilities needed through 2025,
• plan to capital requirements for
recommended facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTBRISTICS
The sewerage master plan 978-2025 study area encompasses the
entire Chico urban area. This area is essentially defined in 'a
recent document prepared by the Butte County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) entitled 2beres of Influence for the City of
Chico, September, 1978. Key environmental characteristics which
effect municipal service such as wastewater collection, treatment
and disposal include: land use planning, population distribution
and growth potential, and wastewater concentration and volume.
Land Use Planning
in 1976 the City of Chico completed' its general plan 1.976--1.595.
The land use element within the general plan identifies seven land
L
use Categories including residential,, Commercial, industrial,
public, agricultural, transportation and open space. Ae8idential
zoned areas vary in density from one unit per five acres to
35 LInits pe.r typically a,re located
gross acre. Commercial zones
along interurban traffic corridorsr while the major industrial
zoned lands are in the southern portion of the urban area and at
the Chico Municipal Airport -
Some minor discrepancies exist between the Chico general lan6
use map and county zoning; for example, in the northwest urban
area, the city general plan indicates an agricultural cialssifica-
JI zoning modifications to the
tion n this area, while county
1971 general plan would permit residential development in these
unincorporated areas.
Land use planning strategies of both city and county were used
to define the ultimate character of the Chico urban area. It was
assumed that development would proceed consistent along the lines
established in the Chico general plan zoning classification map
with some minor variation in the northwest, corner of the urban
area, i.e., conversion of agricultural land to residential. Bated
on average densities defined by the land use plans, a saturation
population at planned maximum development was calculated.
Population -Growth
Calculation of saturation population and the extent of
commercial and industrial activity at planned ultimate development
represents only one step in estimating future wastewater volume and
strength. A second and equally important consideration is that Of
the rate of growth in the planning area. Currently, the Chico
urban area is experiencing a growth boom; annual population growth
in the incorporatedarea exceeds 4 percent. Within the 19 separate
neighbothoodsi identified by the Chico planning department, annual
growth rates ranged from loss than I to over 15 percent.
Estimates of future population were made by LAFCO employing
data developed by the California Department of Finance. Assuming a
base population for the urban area of 49,-0,62 in 1975, estimates of
1995 population range from 58,400 to 77,3b0 persons, including CSUC
student population. The Chico planning department, after a review
of "holding capatltylin the lower density areas, has suggested an
ultimate or saturation population of 103,000 within the Chico, Urban
area.
Usinq popula.tion projections of LAFCO and city planning
department as input, individual service , .are ' a population pr 0-
jec
t lons by , f ive-year increments were proposed, Population was
disaggregatedon the bass of 1975 census data (1978, special census
. i
study in incorporated areas) and projected using estimated growth
rates establishedthrough discussions with developers as well as
'
city and county planning personnel. These data are summarized in
Table 1-
DRUMM
..w
Tate'i'� PQ{�ulatianrcjcctis�ra Summary �4_tewaerM. en th a:rae.
The strength of wastewater
Arra 1975 20oo 2025 is measured by its suspended
��:_a, � -�", _....,.�_-.,_ ......<_.-� m ��__Ma . ; soli(js content and the oxygen
Naxrt, of LiAdo I it utilizes in the biochemical
�'ttiann 7
12,000 27,500 39, 790 !
Between x,a,nda Chan- oxidation of organic matter.
twe n L ndo Chia- � Wastewater of the service area
Creek 70,230 27,71.0 31,390 ,s typical of sewage front
sant„ or Big ctoQ domestic sources; presently,
790 25,080
Creek 7.0,880 20j79
0 ` � p l'1 1. jr minor ampunts O
'la nl �,�,s,Q70industrial wastewaters are
tributary, to the Chico Water
pollution Control Plant (WPCR)
During the sampling period of this studyr ,7uly and August 1978,
24-hour composite samples of raw influent wastewater averaged about
170 mg/'l nOD5 and 165 mg/1 suspended solids, respectively.
Wastewater volume averages 2.2 mgd in the summer while CSUS
is not: in session. Average dry weather flow (ADWF), however,
increases to 2.6 mgdas students return to the classroom. Assuming
a current population record of 24e500, the latter �� ig�or the
re is
equivalent to about 105 gallons per day per person (gp )
combined reside tial, commercial, industrial and institutional
flows tributary to the WPCP.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
To adequately assess long-range needo, it is necessary to
evaluate existing conditions. important considerations include:
collection system location and capacity treatment plant performance
and capacity, and potential problems in unsewered areas.
Col.loction System
The existing sanitary sewer system was initially constructed
in 1903 to serve most of the developed areas of Chico. Periodi-
cally, the system was extended to include additional areas. The
system is ,designed to collect and convey only sanitary wastes.
Most of the sewers are constructed above the water table, thereby
eliminating a potential source of continuous infiltration.
several areas of the collection system,
however, are nearing
design capacity. Major `system components (interceptors and trunk)
identified in this category include the fallowing:
1. River Road 'interceptor
2. Rose Avenue trunk
3 First Avenue between Esplanade and Palm
. .r
4 sttst 15th Avonue immediately downstream from the Floral
Avenue pumping station
Chico WPCP
The Chico [NPCP is located west of the urban area on River Road.
These facilities, commissioned in 1975, have a design ;rapacity
of 5 mgd of domestic wastewaters today, the plant is treating
wastewater volume of about 50 percent of its rated capacity.
secondary treatment defined as 85 percent removal of BOD5 and
suspended solids not to exceed 30 mg/I in either constituent is
accorplished by means of the air -activated sludge process.
Facilities for disinfection, solids stabilization and final
effluent disposal were also included in the design. Effluent is
discharged either to the Sacramento River or the M&T canal where
it is used for irrigated agriculture.
since its commissioning, the plan .t has ixperienced periodic
upsets of the biological process. The variability in influent
waste strength and volume attributable to the activity of CSUS
student population has been suggested as a possible cause for such
upsets. However, plant performance inveffl- igat ions cunducted from
June through September 1978 revealed two more likely causes --
unstable operation due to partial nitrification in the oxidation
process and recycle from solids stabilization process units. While
complete conversion of influent ammonia to nitrate, nitrification,
would provide a more stable operation, the aeration facilities were
only designed for carbonaceous oxidation. Nitrification would
require substantial additional quantities of air and result
in increased power costs. The impact of recycle from solids
stabilization units was mitigated by discharging digester
supernatant and thickener overflow to an adjacent. effluent storage/
percolation pond. Continuation of this practice due i,o vector
control and odor problems,, boweverr, is not recommended. The final
clarifiers also pose a constraint on the WPCP's ability to meet
the discharge specifications. Shallow sidewater depth, 9.5 feet,
and a sludge, collection system countercurrent to flow, often
preclude attainment of low efffluent solids concentration without
exceptional attention to operational control of the related
aerat'loh-clarification system. Due to these limitations, actual
plant- capacity is somewhat less than 5.0, ingd.
Unsevered Areas
P, greater portion of the Chico urban area is not provided with
a sewerage. collection system. in these areas, wastewater is
disposed' of by, individual septic tanks. Con,struct,ion and
Maintenance practices for individual septic tanks are regulated by
13utte County Department of Health, Division of Environmental
Health. The key issues affecting the use of septic tank systems
are soil conditions and population density. . in previously
subdivided areas, the Health Department reviews expected water
consumption and soil conditions to establish the appropriate leech
e
field design. Soil conditions, primarily shallow sols, may
septic tank systems in certain atha
preclude use of individual to
For unsubdi.vided land, additional criteria including depth
groundwater, slopdable lot e and lsipzermeability re used to et,,
ablih
. Thus, site conditionss havesa
the minimum buil
significant effect can planing of an individual. parcel within the
study area.
Generally, areas wrist of highway 99 are suitable for
installation of septic tank systems. Soils which are best suited
dor orchards are also suitable for septic tank systems due to their
'
fine, deep and well drained characteristics. Typically, such soils
are found to the west and south of the city. Areas with shallow
soil, mine tailings and/or Tuscon soils occur east of Highway 99
These areas would require a community wastewater collection system
due to their low permeability characteristics.
ALTERNATIVE SEWERAGE PLANS
presenting alternative sewerage plans at a,
The purpose of
pubic briefing is two -fold: (1) to present a range of alterna-
tives considered and their associated costs and (2) to assess the
community's support for the final: alternatives and recommendations»
It is important to emphasize at this pointhttanenil
o e extent of the ultimate age service a
decision as
should be made in the near future. This will determine both the
t,ost and components of the long --term sewerage master plan.
Co1.lection System Alternatives
Three basic alternatives were evaluated for providing sewerage
facilities. The Chico 'urban preliminary alternatives A and B
(Figures 1 and 2) are designed to provide sewerage to the entire
Urban area, population served 97►080. Preliminary alternative C
.
(Figure 3) represents an abbreviated collection system excluding
the area north of Lando Channel and west of Esplanade as wellTas
these areas not presently severed north of. Big Chico Creek.
rationale behind such a collection system layout is that these
use
annin
areas are best suited to individual ul septic 9 nand stems zoning*
that density is controlled by la_ P
y yv.� This plan
Preliminary Alternative Ai Ultimate Gravit S stem.
provides a complete gravity system with staged construction of the
trunk lines after 1990.
Northwest interceptor' and North Cohasset°
Existing Rose Avenue Northwest trunks are oversized to accommodate
ad6itional_ flows' between 1980-90since these lines are nearing
design capacity or design capacity is currently exceeded.
Toa
cost is $9,1:05,Q00 excluding costs for inflation when construction
projects are deferred. Costs could be reduced by $1,517,000 if the
temporary facilites
ultimate system is constructed initially' and
are deleted from the project.
1
Pr. elimin Altyrnz'ivet:
Total ; a;� >M ,r � enarg nq th capac,i ty:,o f ex rating r j�
ncre.asex �si.inct xx stn tea aac� t
17ncs itwouldbe unnecessary to install major, interceptors
through agricul rural, ,sands. This ,approach would be more desirable
k
from an environmentalist's Point of view since the
patential
for new development to connect to these sewers is precluded.
Preliminary alternative B, Figure 2, embodies this approach. Total
construction oast for this alternative is $9,335,000 including
construction cost for f.-acilit-'s which would be abandoned folio, ing
construction of the Northwest intel:Ceptor and force main by 1990
.Erel. minary Alternative (: Increase Existing Trunk Ca acIt
Minimum Service Area. This alt,znaE e acknowl...ed es the -
g possibil-
sty that unsewered areas in northwest Chico may remain unsevered.
The corresponding ultimate (2025) Population served by this
alternative is 76,000including student census.
By eliminu,.�.�g
major sewer construction in the northwest Chico urban area,
signific4nt cost savings are achieved. T--Lix construction cost for
alternative c is $6,2.50,000.
Assuming construction of the ultimate system in the initial
years of facilities improvement, thus eliminating the need for
oversize facilities, relative project cost including an allowance
of 30 percent for engineering and contingencies is as follows.
Project cost,
Alternative Populatian served dollars
97►080 9,864,000
B 97 080 11,272,000
C 76,000 8,125,000
Clearly, the all -gravity system has economic advantage over
use of existing trunk lines withum
p ping stations and force mains.
This holds for both ultimate and minimum project service areas.
Therefore, the ultimate gravity system was tentatively selected as
the recommended collection system.
Final Alternatives 1 and 2 To define the costs relative
to serving the northwest corner of the Chico urban area and
other presently unsewered areas north of Lindo Channel, final
alternatives l and 2 were developed. Final alternative 1
representing a complete collection system for all urban wastewater;
was estimated at a construction cost of $8,520,000. Final alterna-
tive 2, again consisting of an all -gravity system, has an estimated
construction cost of $6,110,000. Addition of engineering and
contingency costs (30 percent) to the basic construction cost
results in total project costs' of $11,076,000 and $7943,000 for
final alternatives 1 and 2f respectively.
Chico WPCP improvements'
While" existing: wastewater treatment facilities may be capable
oi: providing adequate treatment of the current flaw, 2.7 mgd,
improvement will be required Z'S addiLional tributary populations
are added to the service area. The precise timing of construction
for additional capacity is unknown at this Lime pending Lhe
resolution of sewerage needs in the northwest Chico urban area.
ljowever, to bracket anticipated costs, facility requirements for
necessary additional capacity in 2.5-mgd increments are shown in
Table 2. Vor example, if it is decided that the minimum collection
system alternative, final alternative 2, will be implemented to
serve approximately 76,000 Persons, an additional 2.5 mgd of
capacity is required. If final alternative I is chosen, then an
additional 5.0 mgd of capacity would be requived. it is expected
that planning for such expansion would occur sometime after 1990.
Table 2. Construction Cost for Additional
As shown; construction
Treatment Capacity
cast for a 2.5-mgd and 5.0-m9d
.incremental increase in
—
treatment capacity is
Capital cost,
dollarba
;$3t953,000 and $7,380,0000
Unit process
respectively, A 35 percent
2.5 mgd
5, 0 mgd
engineerijig and contingency
Primary sedimentation
060,000
1,200,000
factor must be added to the
Aeration system
950,000
1,670,000
construction costs shown to
Secondary sediment-
I develop total project cost.
a tion
435,000
680,000
S o 1 d s p r o c e s s i n g
Dissolved air riota-
tion
improvements required to
200,000
a5Cl,000
minimize operational problems
Anaerobic digestion
too, 000
1,390,000
ansa the potential for vector
sludge. lagoons
3.101000
580,000
and nuisance conditions at the
Disinfection
218,000
400,000
WPCP include construction of
Total construction
thickening facilities for
t
cotb
3,953,000
7,�80j000
waste activated sludge and
facultative sludge lagoons to
aid in the final stabilization
Based on tnginoering News Aecora construe-
tion Cost index 3450.
and storage of combined primary
bincromental capacity costs; does not in
elude additional laboratory,
and waste activated sludge
solids prior to final disposal
, administra.tiv'e,.
or maintenance facilities.
or reuse. Estimated construe -
tion cost to correct solids
handling deficiencies for
the existing 5-mgd WPCP is
$880,000.
Effluent Disposal System
Final effluent disposal facilities consist of an 8,970 -ft,
33 -in. diameter reinforced concrete
pipe outfall. and river' diffuser
section in the Sacramento River. The capacity of this facility at
normal water level in the Sacramento
River. is 16 mgd with wpCp
effluent: pumps in service. Capacity is reduced to about 7 mgd when
the river is at, flood stage, approximately 130 ft USGS datum. This
system when coupled with the existing
holding ponds should be
adequate for several years.
0
i
LOCAL littMSOWNU COST
.An important aspect of any sewerage prOject is its econOfllic
impact on local. users. Individual homeowners and. commercial,
industrial and institutional users must share proportionately in
the cLsts ausoc:iated with the service rendered. For example, new
areas connecting to the system should pay for the cost of extending
interceptor and trunk lines into the area in addition to Costs for
operational and maintenance and for treatment plant capacity needs.
Costs associated with providing additional sewerage.: service for
Rinal collection system alternatives 1 and 2 are presented in
Table 3. The monthly user cost is increased to between $6.78 and
$7.63 to generate capital necessary to accommodate the demands for
additional facilities required by presently sewered areas. ;areas
outside the present service area boundaries would be assessed a
connection charge of between $575 and $995 to cover the cost of
-
interceptor, trunk and treatment plant construction. Estimated
annual homeowner cost over the life of the project for new
connections including monthly service charges is about $300.
Table 3, User Cost Summary (1979-1984)
�,,.��...��. ..
past, dollars
CategoryAlternative
Alternative 2
I
User charges
Treatment
Capital
785,700
254,400
aperatign ani maintenance
271,000
271,000
Collection
" pi.tal
323,700
254,300
Operation and maintenance
82,800
74,,700
Ceheral overhead.
38,900
35,500
1,002,100
Total annual cost
689,900
7..63
Monthly user charge
6.78
Connection charges
interceptor, trupks and treatment
575
995 ,
works
street and ho- 'ateral.s
2,100
2,100
tquivalent,a), action charge sa
215.59
249.43
307.15
Totalannua
330.79
agased on ,30"y-,%. _ capital at 1 percent
interest.
, PUMPING STA FORSE MAIN I
v � t7EM[•SRARYT
�f
t
RANAMA 'TRUNK' + �YK+ } , •..�
AST, 1911 'T94NIf - 4.'t -.•c •' C, yr' ,; a �,
.y
0.,'
4 , .. .1. yip �• '� I )
b
,q
. � � x ^,' � 5`� ',. ,+ 50. ... a: ,•yY•P. .•a �`. 7,P �_Y Y• , ^ �`{ •r � u , r... �fa t' ,
♦ 1, — COHAASET/ M8N2ANI1A 1"U
NK ..
,, � ,• . y fi • , , `` .a ,,p R .r.�' ala • i
♦ 1.. ✓', S \ ` � Act , 5. r.. • 1 q, , !r"!' 'q,� N'a � ,
`<t��Q��
5� -• ^!GP ,, ``•� ,i.1, JI, yn•.•ra- rb- lsy, Tp
,
' tit Ude
NO EST" TRUNK
- r
f <
y r at lak,f,•s ^•, �,' ''o `z 3r ;. Asa
1000 00 9 4000 1500Q,
a
SCALE IN KEK7
L
.. a •, �' a .., .4e p;r ��Ay •. ;", r� ..tAI
WEST INTERCEPTOR I .'+ r�IV
NORTH R E. TAUtk
"i
i"i k
•
SOUTHEAST INTERCFPTOR
�YCNICO WPCP .'•
ULTIMATE UIi4AN SC'riVICE AREA 49��, v
Construction Cost S 3ary
'tlCl� 31
C'.paclIy,
111413
Plam1Yi"orp
in
��tS1AI�Fai j � 13113 � �J7`FI
River it'oad intercoptar 3.
1.41
36, 36
4-4
Aive:r Road intercop4or 2
16.32
27, 36
1,143
Northwent inWrceptov 1
6.75
33
1,614
Nor:thwost intarceptor. 2
4.87
24
279
Southeast i.ntorgeptor-
3.52
24, 21.
74'3
Panama Lrunk
04$4 - 1-62
12, 15, 10
842
North Conasset trunk
0.55 - 2.12
3.0, 1.2
1,3.56
P..S./r.M. 3, (tempor-ary)
0.7S'
A
Cant Avenue trunk 1
1.37
1.8
76
Last Avenue trunk 2
0.63
10
330
P.S./F.M. 2 (temporary)
2.42
12
Roan Avenue trUnk
7.44
21, 24, 30
45o
cohasse .t•/bmanxanll;h trunk
0.74
11, 12
2.20
Meyers Me Street _ y S ree trunk
0.80 - ]., A 3.
1.2, 15
27.3
Northwest; trunk
2142 - 3.60
12, 15, 18, 21
1,066
8,654
Total construction cosh
aBased on 8ngineering News Record ronstruction Cosh Cndox of 3450;
affective October 1978.
b'1'wa parallel pipets clue to cover limitations.
cTotal population served 97,080; 19,000 daytime student population
i.nOluded in flow Calcul a t -ions ,
Y" .f�mr
+T TRUNK 4
r ,
u aAPUMPINO OTA/FOROE MAIN I
k (TEMPORARY) ri+
,
,
PANAMA 'CI!UMK �t *`
u-
,r
WiT, A� Tf
•- c f a Y
{ COHA'Sw/MAW7,017g Y�'jiONk°
a r' r p
,a
�q��kQGEnM¢0
' f N
Pogo
n m.
r,
o•
„
• ..� �Na{i7HWESTa'fRUNI(
N
,
pp
• 1
pUf!iPINO 9TA,/FORCE
4 S
a
n A
•
a ► �*u i.1t11tqq,,,� h ~',� Y'., yF A i r k',i `t
a . t ,Y '
�i
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 » 5E AVE. 1 Nl:
SCALE IN FEET py
P
f
` pUMPIN0S7A%FORO
SOtlTtI ASf TRUNK
s'
aoP° oP •
�K,.✓"O' RtW��
Cyt00 V(PGP
Uf r,MAQ MAN SERVICE AREA
_
Comstruotion,
rrlG{i13 Ly
Cast
ary
Diameter,
C�tpaoity,
IfIgO
1 tt
River Roars inwroepwr
2iYA1
36, (35, 33) .,3tP��.
H000 AvanUe ttYunk
11.85
30, 36 39
Northwe€ L, truijk
2.42 - 340
12, 1€2, 18, 21
Northwest inttlrooPLor and force
4.87 - 6.75
24, 36
Main.
North Cohaoset thunk
0.55 - 2.1,2
1.2, 15, 21,
P.S./P';M. 1 N'tompoxary)
0.75
8
Manama trunk
0.54 -= 2.62
10, 1-, is, lo, 21,
F.S./P.M. 2 (40mporar,y)
2.42
10
Nast Avenue trunk
.63
0, 10, i3
Cohasset/Maitz7nita trunk
.74
1.7, 12
Southeast: interceptor and force
3.52 - 7.40
24, 27
main
Mey0Ls SLroettrunk
0.80 - 1.41
10, 12, 15
Total vohsLrur ti,cir costs
arlased on Engineerinq Nowa Record Const,rucL;i.on Cost, Index of 34501
eff ective October. 1970.
bTwo parallel pipes clue to cover limitations.
cTotnl population served 76,000) 1.9,000 daytime 91,udent population
Included in flow calculations,
b,7N4
01.4
2,073
q,lt 5
847.
337
350
220
1,570
273
9, 1.00
.; ,,.> 4,'.
,.wl! .rE a. ,1 3, i,. _to ,,...: _ 1, i,. ��5 s .. ..i �s,... I•{('
I!' 1A ., .. ,,:-:v,e"Y,
•
Construction Cast 5 nary
w�-„Es-+,ems--�.:,,..=s .w�Y .v.,e.A c.,mr�m _c.+.r�a �-e�,.x.+•�-sa=�n..d.'�.. ssr�..�,,:ar,.s �x.
w.a.n.rcwacwY!e'.+•'w�'^"«•.rwa+�-�N,u -"r=+�nirc+•._+r. n..-s�,n�.xa,�� m�xum..+.,auu«nn__.�aavr. -n w�awrn._.w xu.,w:.s �a:,m. ,�.
:. w..,,.
r
t,
x r n Capacity,
1.3.�'� IiS,t11i1CSL'tlli'a f;C1A4,ry, ,.,
16.182 `33, 16b '1,410
Mgt it1 thounnnu do) lar!t
� R�.°Vt:T' Rcjac3 l n�raa;rar���e,.��,.,• � .�. .,.,, .., ..�::,, -, . ,_ � -...u- ,. r_ r x �r F_. .. - .
r
n, . ,.t1lf1'HAaGNK _
i 02 2,1 2;1 741
,.e biCJ t"X 3 r'tLClCiL r^runLUI," r
• Y aN" Nt'>tyeriant. .teL, trunk O,pO - J,, 31 J0, 12 21,1
waw nvonue 4vo rk 11,70 21:, 24, 27, 10 474
u4w Mp', wrthweat tank 2,'711 » 6.07 10, 24, 27, 30
1 t t� PlN7 X11 Pwstrrr V•)N t
d ,
! t.fE)AP9f{h4rY1 00`yt t;U11�C 1.12 k1, 12 2 50
1 C::
North (o411nE111G'
1"
;; m ��.... �, V _....�..,w.��'t,..• ,«:.;,...�,..,.,r<r ._.....�..- � i•s �� ,,.. �,, �.
, l
2.78 �
7I
17rinmma trunk 0.g4 -,7a 0, 12, )
NANAIM Tlt }NK
t,acTt Avenue trunk t1
unk .G3 , lo426
IIAaT AVF IRUNt: „ CohassetfManzrWta trunk 0.4 1,2,, 1.0
" 270
, 12 110 290
azo
,
w,t. at � ,;,.r.• Ira �;. • r� � - -_ r � _ . ,
s
Total 1, c . ru . L(i
c , 2,ri0
oITstr �ti:.tt�n Ca
t k
�WHASW 'MAN?ANITA'1HUNK
�,r 6: .....4.r.Y 4 ,; ,,,,Uf,•�`,. ,�!t I1,,�TG . CST .,. C'
,, .,,r a ?, r, ;' i �,7 t3nEtncl on 1,ng:.ncna^inc3 News Reryard Corzsi,ruction Cost Index of 3450;
, ..: - a � ` �; .q;'q ,,, i� • t^,,., r'. r �'' �'A'�r+'fiJ`r"+ "+` f /� v i.• r, }A. C"ft:er.`:L':t;:VSt OfX�:Ober 1978',.
b
♦` i - _ -n.+ ty . „" .x neo YF.« a ,,,so L . ryA �,�µ,;. Ria R //`:uhZ .. 'i �WO parallel pipes duo to C.'f ver limitations,
MAN 2 a g,_.,: A,:,r;. w.a C v �C 0D0 daytime L'Lit1G Al4TC1L1t1L` ]q,uluiNipn
r PUMPING 9TA„�aHCN ( *r, . «+, ^: 'e' sa +"`Fi ✓ . `,o Lal popula ion so vee 76,0001 ,,,3, population
4.
.` ,f ., W • A, JF ,� �y included to �IIJW ara.l=l.ntipns.
r;>4•r
X i
v'
,
NoRTHWOT TAVWK.
I,
,
•d
�{ d tti� � � �,�X��AM,N t`1�,, sa�a . t ' t. �. � � ��r �� sr � � �•. r _ � . � ' �tjy, • ��� r' _
toxo o l0000 x000 4000 50OU
-A� I ,k
1: H
..� AVt,.TgUN
n�2oK
N = i, ::�,�" �'�..am r ^i , �, , ,g
5a -LE t! FEET
' A h x �.�
_ s I
.� �1 ,oma. }. 'T.-•.,�i+ {:.. <, ��a�
"'mow
a
' � ., .:- Q;3a' .;• • ,�'.. CII ',t; r67+
,
AG04 SOVTHEW INTERCEPTOR ^
, e
papa 1N� !
l
-rt, ... • . ARAN ',.r ttatsF AREA X39,
w cHlca wrap `nary Alternative C;
,F>~viaE ',REA Fig 3 Preliminary
Increase Existing Trunk Capacity,
8 ,r
_ �.
Minimum Service Area
.. - � ,., t♦ ,.. , � , 1 .,.... :... „C':' ci ,.•, r �, ';i �y'iT. V W{ 4 i °iii' I r 'ff� i
.,
., �,. ., , ,,.4.. r. Y. ..•:,. ..1 § ,. .... ! .. i, , .. .. ..:. ..... ,F n,d x.41,, f� f. ,,"i� i {•J. �i e,z� .1.t d'. r . ly..+
,.. «, ,•., _5 ... ,. .r,. �., . .. r�, -.. k++. .. � •�.. -r.-„ .. ,..,;. It :, .,. ,., y ..1,-, ! li. ,.T. '1 t yy fin , - 4
...,. u..y n, .. ;. n., .,..,:.. ,..'. ..,. �,. i{. ..,„ �. ,. ,.., �...„ „y k n. �t ,.h, . .. „... ..,,.. „1,... �.1. �. .,a I 'J, 1WU, S,.. �.,,.r. I f�°!{M1.;.n•. , g+:' ..rA
„e... v„ .,.a. 1. .,.. .... ..,,- , .. ,. .�>.. „k w,r. , .,.. a,.v '•,,,:r r1R* .•, N�.'�l'.�d. i„ .t i. 43 b..+ ':'. :�, I•,I,':,f
P.- .i!,. ,�-
_a .. r6.. , ,... n ri,f , �,.;'. ... - , ..; �:.. .. ,, :. f :.! . ., � ., �.. ,: '.: L: '•,1.� S -4: X � '•:V t, '�h"' 4
1 �,... ;,'•p J...,.,..t- :..�. .:�.,:...�+ ,.sed ,r, ,. �.:;, .a.I.t:' �.,;,.i .�..';.1. r_;. y .r, '�--� a ,c• �r. Y: {' j'.'A.i
F ,a <.a .,,ro, '¢ a .>„.,,«. .•. c ., ,. { 1, „� s. .1 r „ 1. „r t a 'If Si r' K � A,' r p" e•x
.. - r. � Yat1,,: r'- �.i� •.•.. ,�<. �.. , .;,,: .. �d. , !�, 1. 4P � r. 't -> ,., 1:.a. ... ., ... .A. .,...� .. _..� r. 4.'.. '1 _ ,4° t• Q'y.,• .... ..�I s. K:-r.l,; n '�,t<i.`.0 :. .1, N .. ,t t.� ,'�>' .F . •.!+ :�1: •,. ..... ,..i�, �_•+] w
Constrwtioon cost
-,.ti ^ss•-
"n"'•.r,. �."" �•+•x». = :
ary
SW
_.
"
u..u�a..���s
_
Dimplotori
in.
capacity,
rigd
coat",
thounand1 dollarn
River Road ilitervaptor
.
.
RRl
(33)}
a
407
RR2
(33)
30
7.40
RR3
30
11.8
r,01
RR4
24
6
t xiati,n+1
k1d 4 t4S48r
1.0, 14, 18
7.2
Exiioti.nq
Nort-hweat interceptor
39
14
1,089
NW1
NW2
r,
12
441
NW3
30
10
u
547
.IN
24
5.4
ROSE AVE RE
Southeast interceptor
Sri
24
4,1
213
842
21,
5.1%
127
SE3
18
3.0
2252
Rose Avenue trunk Al
21
2.4
Existing
hose Avenue relief sower
18
3,,2
292
Panama menue trunk
PAI
1000 _ 0 1000 2000 3000
4000 $000
4,4
137
PA2
21
4.1
Existing
PA3
1.8
3 0
SCALE IN FEET
Pn4
12
1.35
140
PAS
10
,`85
167
,
NC'1
27
5.5
371
Nc2
21
3,7
420
NC3
15
2.0
320
NC:4
12
1.4
137
NCS
10
0.8a
125
r.s./r.M, 1,
b
13
168
East x+venuo trunk
E1
1h
2.9
70
E2
K
0. 79-
Existing
E3
1,0
0.75
224
Cohasset/Manzanita trunk
Qq
CM1
12
1.0
Existing
Setw
12
1..3
194
Nero Avenue trunk is:,'
ser
15
1,34;
197
Meyers Street Trunk
Ml.
18
3.12
Existing
M2
API
1.80
a)
r '
12
1,5
95
M4
00iMATE ;UNOAN
SFRVIGE AREA
»
CHICO, WC'Op
,
A
12
l.2
,
•
M6
12
1.03
Existing
M7
.. - � ,., t♦ ,.. , � , 1 .,.... :... „C':' ci ,.•, r �, ';i �y'iT. V W{ 4 i °iii' I r 'ff� i
.,
., �,. ., , ,,.4.. r. Y. ..•:,. ..1 § ,. .... ! .. i, , .. .. ..:. ..... ,F n,d x.41,, f� f. ,,"i� i {•J. �i e,z� .1.t d'. r . ly..+
,.. «, ,•., _5 ... ,. .r,. �., . .. r�, -.. k++. .. � •�.. -r.-„ .. ,..,;. It :, .,. ,., y ..1,-, ! li. ,.T. '1 t yy fin , - 4
...,. u..y n, .. ;. n., .,..,:.. ,..'. ..,. �,. i{. ..,„ �. ,. ,.., �...„ „y k n. �t ,.h, . .. „... ..,,.. „1,... �.1. �. .,a I 'J, 1WU, S,.. �.,,.r. I f�°!{M1.;.n•. , g+:' ..rA
„e... v„ .,.a. 1. .,.. .... ..,,- , .. ,. .�>.. „k w,r. , .,.. a,.v '•,,,:r r1R* .•, N�.'�l'.�d. i„ .t i. 43 b..+ ':'. :�, I•,I,':,f
P.- .i!,. ,�-
_a .. r6.. , ,... n ri,f , �,.;'. ... - , ..; �:.. .. ,, :. f :.! . ., � ., �.. ,: '.: L: '•,1.� S -4: X � '•:V t, '�h"' 4
1 �,... ;,'•p J...,.,..t- :..�. .:�.,:...�+ ,.sed ,r, ,. �.:;, .a.I.t:' �.,;,.i .�..';.1. r_;. y .r, '�--� a ,c• �r. Y: {' j'.'A.i
F ,a <.a .,,ro, '¢ a .>„.,,«. .•. c ., ,. { 1, „� s. .1 r „ 1. „r t a 'If Si r' K � A,' r p" e•x
.. - r. � Yat1,,: r'- �.i� •.•.. ,�<. �.. , .;,,: .. �d. , !�, 1. 4P � r. 't -> ,., 1:.a. ... ., ... .A. .,...� .. _..� r. 4.'.. '1 _ ,4° t• Q'y.,• .... ..�I s. K:-r.l,; n '�,t<i.`.0 :. .1, N .. ,t t.� ,'�>' .F . •.!+ :�1: •,. ..... ,..i�, �_•+] w
Constrwtioon cost
-,.ti ^ss•-
"n"'•.r,. �."" �•+•x». = :
ary
SW
_.
y-�--y.M1c�+a--„"--�.atuu.rr�... , o s
u..u�a..���s
_
Dimplotori
in.
capacity,
rigd
coat",
thounand1 dollarn
River Road ilitervaptor
RRl
(33)}
30
407
RR2
(33)
30
7.40
RR3
30
11.8
r,01
RR4
24
6
t xiati,n+1
RRS
1.0, 14, 18
7.2
Exiioti.nq
Nort-hweat interceptor
39
14
1,089
NW1
NW2
36
12
441
NW3
30
10
547
NW4
24
5.4
214
Southeast interceptor
Sri
24
4,1
213
842
21,
5.1%
127
SE3
18
3.0
2252
Rose Avenue trunk Al
21
2.4
Existing
hose Avenue relief sower
18
3,,2
292
Panama menue trunk
PAI
21
4,4
137
PA2
21
4.1
Existing
PA3
1.8
3 0
246
Pn4
12
1.35
140
PAS
10
,`85
167
North Cohasset trunk
NC'1
27
5.5
371
Nc2
21
3,7
420
NC3
15
2.0
320
NC:4
12
1.4
137
NCS
10
0.8a
125
r.s./r.M, 1,
b
13
168
East x+venuo trunk
E1
1h
2.9
70
E2
12
0. 79-
Existing
E3
1,0
0.75
224
Cohasset/Manzanita trunk
CM1
12
1.0
Existing
CM?
12
1..3
194
Nero Avenue trunk is:,'
15
1,34;
197
Meyers Street Trunk
Ml.
18
3.12
Existing
M2
15
1.80
a)
M3
12
1,5
95
M4
12,85
24
M5
12
l.2
64
M6
12
1.03
Existing
M7
12
1.0
17
[park Avenue trunk
PKI
15
1.86
Existing
PK2
10
92
Existing
ilumbolt >~ttaarl relief sewer
15
2.1
456
Total construction costo
5,520
'gaged on Mannings 'in" 0+013.
b5ased on Engineering News Record
Constxuctiall
Cost Index of 3450;
effective October 1978.
oTotal population served 97,080;
19,000 daytime
student popu1'ation
,.ncludecl in flow calculations:
Fig, 4
Final Alternative 1
Ultim6te Gravity System,
Total Urban Area
,
NCd
PA$ i PAA � F PAIS i e
» m
,
,
+'a
M ;K eea�
.;.a,,, • ��.�Y �Yx f� ,!«x^• r.� yr G�.: �x �'r �,.
a.. �N ,__ .r. '..: CiAi. i,:.or+, ,f.'- ,as :q'e,,��..�,#.., r i•.d�st<.� '
Y4 * .' r'rw�,;v`` ''y+ ' 17, il'�i`,:; j'i :' *' +rw'r•.1+ a•; w° ,i
"lilt " JI dik.¢if'
r
r a+
I,
3 �
ry
-.......__ q.
ROSE AVE 1 4 _tij'',".Y `.,8tyyy"d r # yr „r! . ,_-:.. 7r �yb�. �o" •�:: va � a�, l�.A'�' [' jJ �
:lA 1000 C 1000 2000,_300 4000 ;500
;
SCALE IN FEET IL 11.
�i`✓,'. �rts
P Y I
,
». �.. v
g
� 'i.l :�� nor f(3!�n+, , It•
Y u.
,,�, %tom ,,�; ' � • ti � ,u ad 'h. � �tt,+onx tt
' 2 EZ N\1
\ - ` y J '`a:. ,ry `.. a a rc a •t '^'"5. I �,';,, 6e
SE
SE!
►."�'.-.�,.��.,:,�, a�srsYn"x'`r.;;. �.9 . a",,"..y c
Vt
R
4p1
p
In* istJA+a 1Ef.RV'C` AREA j Y
« _ , Lr F°',.�d ,rA P p'.:•, F�`5 "EI+VIGF ARE A
Gf11C0 HIPCR ' - yn ,.
ConstruAsh, AWALction Cost `5i� Wary
t''ti�czi,7.ilay
Diameter,
� Co paui.tyn
Con
in.
m9d
11011+ss°f;
River Road in4urclepLor
RR1
27
7,7,2
160
14RA
36
18.7
450
14113
30
11.7
e5 6.0
RR4
24
6.2
Existing
RR5
lo, l'1, I's
7.2
1'NJati.nq
NorLhw(.aL intor(.,tsntci'
NW1
27
619
650
NK
24
4.1
240
NW3
24
5.4
382
NWA
24
$4
274
Southeast interceptor.
SG,l
24
4.1
213
SE2
21
5,2
127
SN3
18
3.0
282
TWO AVenuh trunk
2;1.
2,4
S'.;xistang
Hose Avenue relief sewer
In
3,1,
292
Panama Avenue trunk
PAI
18
219
117
PA2
21
4.2
Cxistinq
PA3
1.8
2 9
229
PA4
12
1.35
1,10
PAS
10
85
166
North Cohatsset trunk
NCA
12
1.4
137
NC5
1.0
-85
1.25
1
8
L. 3
1:68
East :Avenue trunk
El
15
2.9
70
B2
1.2
75
Exi.nLinq
123
10
75
224
Cohasset,/Manzani,ta trunk
CM1
12
1.0
CY.,i*"nq
C142
10
.75
213
dryers Strao4 trunk
M1
18
3.12
Existing
M2
15
1.8
87
M3
12
1.5
95
MA
12
85
24
M
12
1.2
64
M6
12
110
Existing
M7
12
1.0
17
Park 'Avenue. trunk,
PKI
15
1.86
Existing
PX2
10
.92
rxistinij
um e t Road relief sewer
15
211
456
Total construction cost C'
G, 110
aBased on Mannings "n't 0.,013.
b8ased on 450 En ineoring 'News Record C nstruct,ion Cost Index of
3 '
el:fectivc October 1,978.
Total population served 76,000; 19,000 daytime studento ulation
p
included in flow calculations.
Fig. S. Final Alternative 2: '
Ultimate Gravity Sy"s em,
Minimum Service Area
Inter -Depart r, emorandu
M Bettye Blair, Planning Director
Fson+t Clay Castleberry, Public Works Director
$U OJEcr: Northeast Sewer., Trunk bine
Our File 425,1
DAM August 9, 1979
Attached is: a copy of the map that shows the several trunk lines proposed to serve
the Chico area.
The Board of Supervisor a authorized me to bring back a preliminary engineering
proposal which would, among other things, set probable boundaries, project: Servi';ce
areas, assist in community meetings and petition formation that might lead to an
ultimate storm d.rlfta assessment district,
I have asked for such. a proposal from Ellis Rolls of- Rolls, Anderson, Rollo in
accordance with elle Board's direction and permission. By a copy of. this letter i
will ask Ellis Rolls to plan his efforts in conformance with tite land use planning
Of' your commission because this sewer should assist in service for proper land
uses rather than guide land use itsoli.
H
Clay Castleberry
CC:j'tn Director of Public Works
Attachment
cc: Ellis Rolls, 965 Fir St., Chico 95926/wo attachment
Fred Davis, City of Chico, City liall, Chico 95926/wo Ittachment
_ Construction Cost Sum try
r t)i rtneur ay, ' patai Gyn, C rlc i l',
rr��} t�'crcirlil:;y
_.. x.l�raixt,a►ial #trrlla�r
' RRI 1
itiv{,r Itcr
acl i.ntcarct3l;�tc 211 1,7.2 360
30 11,.7 560
J! NC N0a ,:..� 121t� 2,1 6,2 t:xiarl,nrl
i2ttc 10 7.2 rx'iat,.lnr
01
'A a
—,? Northwest inGeac;aL
27
G . 0
0 "
1.L 240
NW2 29 az
rna NW z1n29 M.lrn5 PA4Nwi
X'
I
« r iiolt asL 111I;4]'co0tar I
24 r r'], 221 .2127
f r
Is 0 282
r
q[2Carelief :
2+
rxiati
nytosu AvenueLl8 292E2SC wV Sewer
P F 4; - s L""funk,
. v,
Panama Avonura
m
I,;� CM2'—';y,.6 r •.. ,^. a 'i;'+i ,..:. i�1+�. 1�.7
f III , 18 2:9
'7f cj, r� "'i • �`^.�I�" f I r « v : :t f '� l�Lr:,. • �a y.- i�. -4'a
r_tXistinq
;'y,7 yril ,iY;" lr
�:t ro , #1 .tr .u�f
y
�f
.. 1%t '# ' i} " r. n,r?u t a, r •. d +.'c � �"� Ii1b , : ti Y � V'r,ay+kb f,�'„ PT3 29
229
1.2 .r
. 140
PA4
32 10 .05 166
North
t.hs :C-
oha
9N
37 2 485 1.75C5 1.0 H/r'.M
t.
ter, � � �'.: :� ',f :•�,Avenue 4tunk
70
d V,
y,
1 .75 Existinq
i,
t; 2 224
e �
,.
C:olaassaL•/Man ita trunk 12 1.0`.K
a..
13
w.
.75
� `.. % ,.•� .. " ,; , ,., r ,.. . 4.e . . ,� .-:'.. �„ CM2
. aan .
,. istincj
" 10
z
Mayers Street trunk
f w r a ✓> e h l8 3.1;2 sling
tl06 0 1000 2600_..3000
4000 5000 ROSEnVE REG 1"'tJ ML 07
a ,
I ,r ;, ,.cW .t a pv�,. M.
�Y�+, • „d , 'r eA ry M3 1.2 1.5 95
.: SCALE IN FEET II " °� � �. � �•, d �,� � M4 .85 24'
p ss
y y. 9 h 112 64
�Y. �.,.v � ��y 4 .. l''i7 JrG
R d ,
1. iA4 ,,e n h15 12 1.0 Existing
fll k �� �'':, « ' . m`,'�t ^� < i •h /+ 'i . I�,G �. .d,Ji"���Il,f��.� q�� 1.� 1.. 0
ryry { M7 17
Park Avenue trunk
A` nc
'rqa PK1 15 CSi5ti
f ;L : 8 6 .!
„
10 .92 existing
. M3 1}t�z
u� to
; j. ,;�. a , � ','.; ,' , ° d ., �, .".• ";u;.„�,�.. lturni�c�lt itarict relief sewer 15
2.1 +i56
} c 6 11.0
r, �
T+aLa1 construction cost
0aserl;on Mannings ri 0.013:
k .. ': b , c .n d in News Record Construction Cost index of 3450;
sl „y . �,.,�,... , �, tia sed on 1.n,3a, c � g ,.
.,.:• d
off ective;October 15784
,
Total population ser od 75,000; 19,000 daytime sitaclen4:laolau7aLiuzi
- ` inc' flow aaloulati.ons;
luded in
Z
a
t#rj 'i aE'ftVIGF ARfiA.
.1=ig. 5 f=inal .AlIternat ve 2;
rl',rr,'r rr c#na�f1 `iCAVKX. AREA
Ultimate Gravity System,
OHIO WPOP
,
_� Minimum Service Area
'I"HO]OAS 13, IiDCAR CO- t"lOnlng Com(n,
Attorney at Law [1AY 2 9188th
682 Vast, Seventh Avcnu :
C111,CO3, califorflia 95926 Orav llaF to itdrniq
(916) 3415.6607
May 27, 1980
Dear "Sewer Group!:
John Luvaas and X have set~ the next meeting for the
"Sewer Group" to be Friday, June 13, at 12;00
at: the olive Tree Restaurant in Chicoo please find
enclosed a copy of a. proposed agenda :dor that meeting
I apologize for 'the fact that we have had several tentative
dates which we have discussed. We have tried repeatedly
to find a date that is convenient for everyone, but we
have been unsuccessful. Thereforet John and I have
arbitrarily chosen Juno 13, with the hope that everyone
will be able to attend.
Very :truly yours,
Thomas E. "gar
TEE c ks
enclosure;
cc" Mr. Bud Tracy
Mr. Wayne Turner
Mr. .Mack Hill
Mr. Bill Cottingham
Mr. lied Davis
Mr. Jere Bolster
Mr. Ron: Laf£ins
Mr. Ronald Imhoff
Mr. Dallas Lewis
Ms. Heather Hightower
Mr. John Luvaas
Mr. Larry Brooks'
Mrs Jiro Magner
Mr. John Lochner
Mr. DanDrake
Mr. Tom Dufour
Mr. Ellis Rolls
Mr. Dari Cools
M.r., Bila, Squyres, it,
Ms. Audrey Tennis
Mr Bob Britton
Ms. Velma Smith
Mri Earl. Dunn
IMan, WIN
May 8, CO. t'tgilYllCl pY�iiSlc
tlAY 2 01980
110
Tom Edgar Oroylllp, COIROMIA
V110M: John L. Luvaas Jr.
Re
Sewer Group Meeting Agenda
1.
Southeast 'Sewer Assessment District
a. Update on revised boundary proposal, discussion of
merits/problems with boundaries:
b. Discussion of staged"development-tfype zoning (holding
pattern for outer portions), advantages and problems.
c. other as desired.
2.
Northeast Area sewers -- Drake's "F`oothill restates"
a. Update on boundary proposals;.. public response: -on inclusion
of "islands".
b. Time game
c. Whether staged development zoning would be appropriate
here.
3.
Chico Annexation
r
a. Update on status.
b. General discussion of proposed boundaries, pros and cons.
C. Interrelationship with sewerage planning.
d. Interrelationship with existing, proposed developments,
e. Whether this group should become involved in mnexaiion
process.
1. other.
4.
South Chico (Midway) Rezoning proposal.
a. General discussion of boundaries; proposed zoning.
b. Discussion of exist ngk proposed development in the area.
' W
� '
�+C. i i���11�<:� t Kl.t1t{ti•
UU�{�
o.
Interrelationship Witt" sewerage plans.
(),oviitu, �ala�uvr7t
d.
Whether this group should: be involved with
the rezoning,
5. Aitpoeb Environs Rezone
a.
General boundaries and proposal.
b.
Existing, proposed development in the area.
c.
Interrepat.ionship With sewerage: plans
d.
Whether this group should become involved.
6. "Green Linea Status
a.
General update, new information.
Whether there is anything further for us to do now.