Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage - Miscellaneous Documents - Including ocean outlet STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE,w'R,.ESOURCES AGENCY / GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION —'`'r``��'/ �i 74 SOUTH COAST AREA 245 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 / LONG BEACH, CA 90802 (213) 590.5071 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PERMIT NUMBER: 5-89-283 APPLICANT: Orange County EMA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconstruction of the Talbert and Huntington Beach Channels , including a new ocean outlet cut through Huntington Beach State Park, demolition and reconstruction of a public restroom, and the construction of new bridges for Pacific Coast highway, the bike path, and the beach parking area. PROJECT LOCATION: New ocean outlet will be 850 ft. north of the Santa Ana mouth HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: DATE: Thursday, June 15, 1989 z TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Carmel Mission Inn 3665 Rio Road ct� >"�m < rn Carmel `BCD (408) 624-1841 a HEARING PROCEDURES: People wishing to testify on these matters may appear at the hearing �or may present their concerns by letter to the Commission on or before the hearing date. Copies of all correspondence will be provided to the Commission if received a minimum of three working days prior to the public hearing. Written comments may be of any length; oral testimony may be limited to 5 minutes or less for each speaker, depending on the number wishing to be heard. No one can predict how quickly the Commission will complete agenda items or how many will be postponed to a later date. The Commission begins each session at the time listed and considers eac'lh itemi In order, except in extraordinary circumstances. Staff at the appropriate commission office can give you more information prior to the hearing date and you can call the staff at the hearing location for last-minute information. Questions regarding the report or the hearing should be directed to Don Schmitz at the above address. A4:0353D SAN11 NM Ws NOTICIE OF PL""'Bo-RAC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given pursuant to California Health and Safety to, District No. 3 recently adopted a sewer service user fee. This Code Section 5473.1'of a public hearing to be held by County fee has been set at$30.36 per year($2.53 a month)for residences, Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California at 7:30 $18.22 per year for apartments and mobile homes,and$21.71 per p.m. on Thursday, April 27, 1989, in the Garden Grove Com- 1,000/sq. ft. of building space per year for commercial P-1 munity Center, Room B, 11300 Stanford Ave, Garden Grove, industrial customers with larger discharges. User fees arc used for new development. Fees for new development are paid.-r California. by the developer connecting to the sewer system. Said hearing is to be held for the purpose of reviewing written Our ongoing goal is to maintain effective and efficient wastewater reports pertaining to the providing of sewer service for all management services. The challenges we must continually face properties within County Sanitation District No. 3, and to con- are increasing service demands as population grows, and sider public comments regarding use of the County of Orange increasingly stringent environmental regulations. The fee property tax roll for billing of District sewer service charges for schedule reflects the immediate financial needs of your District, sewer collection, treatment and disposal services for the fiscal and will be reviewed and adjusted as needed to continue protecting year commencing July 1, 1989. public health and our precious environment. PROPOSED BILLING AND COLLECTION METHOD Los Angeles County IQ County Sanitation District No. 3 is proposing to collect its sewer 0 service user fee as a separate line item on the annual property tax 3: U_ 0 bill. Use of this more cost-effective alternative method would allow the Districts and its customers to save the costs of producing, de & mailing and an separate utility bills for direct payments. C* W Id yPc......................... ... ........ saeo sa Every property owner within the District receives an ani ..................... .......................... ....... ........*...... ........ property tax bill from the County Tax Collector. California Heaiun .......... .......... .................. .......... ............................. and Safety Code Section 5473 allows the District to place our sewer user fee on this bill as a separate line item,thus providing the user with the convenience of including payment for District No. 3 sae sewerage service with property tax payments. L Therefore, effective with the billing year beginning July 1, 1989, ........... Die 0 the Board of Directors of District No. 3 iss proposing to use this F billing method to help keep the cost of service down. The above noticed public hearing is to consider the proposal to use the property tax bill to collect the annual sewer user fee instead of a separate direct and more costly billing method. FURTHER INFORMATION/PUBLIC WORKSHOPS Wastewater from your home.or business is collected by your local The question and answer section of this notice attempts to add street sewer system, which is maintained by your city or sanitary some of the questions you may have. In addition,three worksi. district. The street sewers flow into large interceptor sewers in have been scheduled where staff will provide more detailed your area owned by County Sanitation District No.3. District No. information and will be available to answer any additional 3,the shaded area of the map,is one of nine questions(see back side of mailer for locations). Districts that make up the County Sanitation Districts .of Orange County, which serve the metropolitan area of the 140 county. These Districts jointly own and REVENUES AND RESERVES operate the regional sewage treatment IF PROJECTED REVENUES,RESERVES, plants in Fountain Valley and Huntington M 120 I EXPENDITURES AND DEFICIT Beach. The Sanitation Districts are L charged with protecting public health and 1 L 100 OPERATING AND CAPITAL FUNDS COMBINED the environment: 0 N The Sanitation Districts operations are S 80 RESERVES regulated by federal and state 0 environmental agencies. In recent years, F 60 these agencies have adopted and imposed D more stringent laws and regulations to 0 L 40 protect our environment.In order to comply L I with.the new regulations, new advanced A EXPENSES R DEFICIT sewage treatment facilities, costing S 20 hundreds of millions of dollars, have been constructed. The additional facilities have 0 resulted in increased operating costs. 86-87 87-88 88.89 89-90 90.91 91.92 92.93 Rising costs and decreasing reserves were FISCAL YEAR forcing District No. 3 into a financial crisis by 1990(see graph). To continue providing the hii7h If-vel of qervirp.voU are accustomed 0 C: 0 What if I feel I should be exempt from the S. Q Is this money to be used for expanc 0 C charge? the system to accommodate more A If your property isn't connected to the local growth? sewer system,you are exempt. Simply=3 9. t t Si l A No. New sewer lines are funded by 0 attach a copy of your tax bill to substantial connection fees paid by =3 a) p a letter of explanation and mail it to the developers of new construction pro • (D Orange County Sanitation Districts, Box CD that are connected to the sewer. 0 8127, Fountain Valley, CA "IMM 0 X 92728-8127. 6, Q Can one district borrow from anoth( -> oo adjacent district that may be more En 2, Q I already pay a charge for sewer service financially stable? X NJ 12. r\) -4 on my water bill. Is this a duplicate A No. Each of the districts is a separz C: o 4 0 charge? entity.The money belongs to the z Ci X L- z --c r A No.The sewer service charge you now prop"owners of that district alon 00 (a pay is for your connection to the local and cannot be lent to other districts N) street sewers operated and maintained > 01 -4 7. Q I thought that under Proposition 13 \.O by the city or a local sanitary district. 0 increase in taxes required voter 0 Z Their sewer system connects to the approval. z District No.3 trunk sewer system.The L/I n 011 A The user fees do not require a vote District No.3 fee will be used to pay for r- under Proposition 13. It is a fee for 0-4 �J the District's regional trunk sewers and not a tax.Water pollution control Z 41 the regional treatment and disposal regulations mandated by the C-1 ;K q) I facilities located in Fountain Valley and -4 CO Huntington Beach that transport and Environmental Protection Agency (I 0 and State health laws require us to Q treat and safety dispose of your meet certain public health standard wastewater. The fees will provide sufficient fund: 3. Q I already pay a charge to your districts on meet these mandated requirements my tax bill. Why another charge? protect the health of the public and A The charge you currently pay on your tax our waters clean. bill is for repayment of bonds sold many 8. Q Are there other ways to collect then years ago to pay for construction of fees without putting them on our ta some of the facilities you are now using. bill? The new charges will pay for operating, A Yes.The Districts could establish Ck maintaining and rehabilitating the F existing sewerage system facilities. separate direct billing and collectioi W systems.The cost of operating suc billing systems would increase the 4. 0 What do you mean by rehabilitation? A Many segments of the sewer system were 15 to 20 percent for the average constructed more than 30 years ago homeowner. and may deteriorate as they grow older. MEN We can extend the life of the pipes, - thereby avoiding replacement, If you have questions or wish further infora by making improvements to the existing please call the Sanitation Districts office at lines and pump stations. (714)962-2411,Ebctension 5. WORKSHOP NO.I Tuesday,March 28,1989,7:30 p.m. WORKSHOP NO.3 Hunt Branch Library Thursday,April 6, 1989,7:30 p.m. Gallery Room Stanton City Hal[ 201 S.Basque 10660 Western Ave. (between Euclid and Brookhurst by Valencia) Stanton,CA to C Fullerton,CA CD m CD C > > 0 z C0 0 --f > > --q PUBLIC HEARING G) M WORKSHOP NO.2 Thursday,April 27,7:30 pm rn Wednesday,March 29, 1989,7:30 p.m. K* Garder e Community Center Board Room D;- *s'Boa 11 3C ford Ave-Room B Ellis Avenue .,en Grove,CA ain Valley,CA Coastal Commission Procedur__ for Permits-and Appeals 8ecause the State Coastal Counission now-Issues all coastal permits for- areas--without LCPs, it has developed new, streamlined procedures for considering these permits. -- -Appli- cants should submit their permit applications .at the appropriate office. because regional commissions no longer existg the state commission's workload has increased tremendously. " The following procedures are -Intended to speed up the process without • neclecting important coastal issues. IT YOU ARE AN' APPLICAM: In most cases, your application v►ill be reviewed by the district* staff and placed on the state commission agenda for the earliest p ostible meeting. Staff will determine if the application can be put on either the consent or administrative calefidarr -or whether it must receive a full public bearing. PM111 :I ATIt'E CALENDAR: Administrative permits may be !ranted by the executive director _- .-for rrojects which are minor news developments, additions to existing structures (not _ exceeding $1001,000 in cost] single family residences,- or-multi-family projects of four units or less The Coastal Act requires that all administrative permits be reported to the Co=ission at its next meeting before they take effect. Administrative permits to Z1 -`vc sevorted ors the administrative calendar. -If four or more commissioners request that an item be held for public hearing, the project will be removed from the administrative calendar and scheduled for a public hearing and possible vote at the next regular com- mission meeting. Conditions may be attached to an administrative permit. Applicants and other interested parties may speak in opposition to the project or its conditions. Testimony is limited to 3 minutes for each side. CONSENT CALENDAR: projects considered by staff to be consistent with the Coastal Act but which do not qualify for the administrative calendar nrP, be placed on the consent calendar. projects on the consent calendar will be approved by the commission with a single vote for the entire calendar. If three or more commissioners wish to pull an item off consent, that item will normally be rescheduled for a regular public hearing and possible vote at the next regular commission meeting. Conditions may be attached to consent calendar permits. Applicants who accept these conditions need not speak. Opponents should tell the commission why the project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Three minutes will be allowed 'f or each side to speak to the commission. If there are several persons wishing- to address an item, efforts should be made to consolidate pre- sentations in order to stay within the time-limits. Interested persons should check with the commission staff regarding subsequent hearings. 7MrTTW CALEN"DAP. PM11T APPLICATIONS: Projects potentir17.y inconsistent with the Coastal Actor which can be approved only with conditions for which there are no clear precedents will be placed on the regular calendar and will be considered after a full public bearing. Persons supporting or opposing the project should tell the commission why they think the project is or is not consistent with the Act. Testimony riust address coastal act policies and environmental impacts of the project and should not be redundant. Each side is allotted 10 minutes, with the applicant speaking sirst and than the opposition. Spoken rebuttal is not allowed, but written rebuttal or other pertinent material may be submitted to the staff following the hearing. Projects on the regular calendar will normally be scheduled for continued hearing and voting at the next regular commishion meetft. On some projects, the staff may have enough information to make a preliminary recommen- dation for approval after the public hearing has been held. Ir that case, the commission may vote that day and not postpone the decision. When a staff recommendation is presented to the commission,-both the applicant and opponents have five minutes each to comment on the recompendations. After the hearing Is closed, the commission will discuss the matter and vote. UQEMST TOR RECONSIDERATION: to applscant may request that the commission reconsider is previous action on a permit. the applicant must show-that there is relevant now evidence which could not have reasonably been presented at the original hearing or that J an error of fact or law occurred. Only the applicant and persons who participated in the original proceedings are .eligible to testify. Testimony is limited to three minutes . .for each side. Should the commissioners vote to grant the reconsideration request, the natter will be scheduled for a public bearing as if it were a mw application. PERMIT AM ENDh1MS: An applicant may apply for an amendment to a previously approved project. The amendment will be scheduled for a public bearing and any person may speak In support of or opposition to the amendment. Tive minutes will be allotted to each side. ;. MLIC IMARING PROCEDURES: If the item you are interested in speaking on is scheduled for a public bearing, you must fill out a 'bequest to Speak* form and give it to a staff person before the bearing starts'. Sign-np forms will be available on a table at the back of the bi-axi.g Time limits for spoken testimony vary accprding to the three different calendars. because of this limited time, applicants and opponents are encouraged to submit written cements to the commission office at least one week in advance of the bearing. Cements of up to two pages will be copied and forwarded to the commissioners by the staff. I.1 you wish to submit lengthy comments, you must submit 20 copies to the commission office at least one week before the bearing. 3f it is convenient, you may also wish to bring 20 copies of your spoken testimony to the bearing for distribution to the commissioners. Speakers may use saps, slides, photographs, models, and other visual materials in their presentations to the commission. Since such materials become part of the public record on the permit, reproductions of the materials shown must be submitted to the commission staff before or during the commission meeting. or the originals will be retained by the coa�.ission for 60 days. A garousal slide projector and screen will be available at the meetings. WHEN WILL A,V AGENDA ITE!! BE Ar.ARD: Unfortunately, too one can predict how quickly the Comuaissior. will complete agenda items. Zsch session begins at the time noted on the meet- ing notice. tech item is considered in the order listed, except in extraordinary cir- cumstances. The Commission will cansider an Item even though the interested persons are not present. Staff at the appropriate commission office can give you more information prior to the hearing date and you can call the staff at the bearing location for last- minute information. CX%TAIGN COMMSMONS: To ensure the integrity of the permit process, the Coastal Con- mission has adopted regulations (Sections 1302S.1 and 23045) prohibiting a Commissioner from voting on a permit matter if he or she has received a campaign contribution from an Interested party. If you intend to speak on a permit matter, please indicate on your speaker slip and/or in your testimony, if you have mane campaign contributions in excess of $200 to any Com ssioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner you Con— tributed. WN K%M VOTES DOES IT TAXE TO APPRM AN APPLICATIM? tach permit must be &}proved by a majority of the commissioners who are authorised to mote and who are present in the room. All permits on the consent calendar will be voted upon at one time with just one motion and one roll call. PUBLIC 1MMOS: Public records on matters before the comaaission will be available for inspection at the meeting and at other times in the commission office. txtra copses of staff reports will also be available at the meeting. ACCESS TO IMARINGS: Commission meetings are in centralised locations and are accessible to persons with disabilities. y City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 5 ;tom-;� OFFICE OF T11E CITY ADMINISTRATOR November 10, 1986 SAD '' �'$°�✓���______._ BY CITY COUNCI. Mr. Gary Gorman, Chairman Huntington beach Wetlands Conservancy CITY CLERK P. 0. Boxl9U) Huntington Beach, California 92615 `)-ar iMr. Gorman: This is ;n reply to your letter dated October 22nd concerning the location of the outlet for the Talbert Flood Control Channel. As you are well aware, the city has adopted a pc-sitiori in this matter indicating its strong preference for outlet alternative F. There were Borne very reasons for tlhe selection of this alternative in that we judged this to be -far less costly to the 13ublic: taxpayer than any other outlet. By locating the out- let adjace!-;t to the Santa Ana River Channel, one set of bridge abutments could be built TO span the combined Santa Ana River outlet as well as the flood control channel outlet. `+ilq:"Id the alternative F.2 or other ;alternatives be selected, two sets of abutments and two bridges viou.'d have .to be built. In addition the F2 outlet would split the state beachs an: make it dif:r:lcult, if not impossible, -for the state to maintain the beach ar->a located "f :n between the Santa Ana River Channel and the F2 outlet. This, of course, assuyrsf:s that the .'l}a+-_ would continue to maintain that area rather than to vacate that area for Public U_se. in our discussions with the coUnty of Orange, they have indicated to us agreement on this rnatter, and we were also led to beiieve that, with proper measures, the Least Tern area :could be sa-eisf actor Hy relocated since it was a matter of merely pushing the area slightly uo to its previous location. We were also informed that the Least Tern area had i,cen successfully relocated previously, and that the principal. difficulty with the Least i_rrn area was tine problem wish other birds which tended to prey on the eggs of the Terris it o h You indicated in conclusion to our .letter that several agencies or the;.. young �fatc:h(i.igs. Y g ,tpported the alternative F2 alignrnent, and this conclusion is contrary to information which F.��e have received in this office. In our discussions with representatives of the California Departynent of Parks and Recreation, we certainly have not received such indication, and C.a'Trans has indicated that they have not taken any position at all. Also, I have not re- ceived a^y information from the Corps of Engineers as to their preference of the F2 a l ignmens_, We do have a copy of the letter previously submitted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, but it appears that the only consideration and the only perspective from which they viewed the project was the question of the Least Tern Colony. I would submit to you that the public expense is also a consideration, and that this should be a matter of some concern in that funding of these projects .is not an easy matter. p�� Telephone (714) 536-5202 Mr. Gary Gorman -2- November 10, 1986 , We are also in receipt of a letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation indicating that their preferred position is that no encroachment upon the Huntington State Beach be allowed, but that either the F1 or F2 alignment would be acceptable if the channel could not remain within the existing Santa Ana River levy area. This matter can be resubmitted to the City Council to determine if they have any further opinions in this matter, but until such matter might be reconsidered, the city remains firmly convinced that the F1 alignment is the preferable alignment. Sincerel Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator CWT:pj xc: Mayor and City Council Paul Cook, Public Works Director Donald Watson, CalTrans District Director Carl Nelson, .County Public Works Director Ron McCullough, State Department of Recreation & Parks Garth Tanner, State Department of Recreation .&..Parks Dennis Majors,..Corps .of Engineers Murray- Storm; County Environmental Management Agency Director Ji a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To From PAUL COOK/LES EVANS GAIL HUTTON Public Works City Attorney Subject Date Request for Opinion on the April 2, 1985 Permissible Use of Drainage Fees Background: The Subdivision Map Act (Section 66483 ) provides that a local agency may impose fees for constructing drainage facilities. Chapter 14. 48 of the Municipal Code adopts a master plan of drainage and implements drainage fees. Now, ten years later, the city is largely developed and in many areas of the city there is no more developable property, but flood problems remain. In other areas of the city few flood problems exist , but the potential for collecting drainage fees through development of land still remains. Oue5, ion: Can the city be consolidated into one drainage area and all fees generated by new development and all fees presently in the drainage fund be expended anywhere in the city for any drainage project? AIISWer : No. Ana ysiS : Government Code § 66483 is quite explicit in its requirements : "Such fees shall be paid to the local public agencies which provide drainage facilities , and shall be deposited by such agencies into a ' planned local drainage facilities fund. ' Separate fend, shah, be established for each local drainage area. Moneys in such funds gall be expended solely for the con- struction or reimbursement ,for construction of local drainage facilites with-in the area from which the fees comprising the fund were collected, or to reimburse the local agency for the cost of engineer- ing and administrative services to form the district and design and construct the facilities. (Emphasis added) = There may be alternatives, however , as follows : "A city g,U,-a.J comply with the requirements of ern- mgnt Code § 66483 when enacting a drainage fee ordin- ance However , the requirements of this statute need not be followed when enacting a drainage fee ordinance under some other police power authority on taxation powers. " 66 Ops.Atty.Gen . 120. I PAUL COOMES EVANS April 2, 1985 Re: Use of Drainage Fees Page Two _ Thus, the city may enact a new drainage fee ordinance so long as the total acreage in the drainage area is the basis of the cal- culation. -We are also advised by Mr. Evans, City Engineer, that the city currently has established a greater number of funds than are required. Such funds consist of "basin" funds and "sub-basin" funds. Since the key under Chapter 14.48.020 is the "drainage area" based on the "Drainage area map which is on file in the City Clerk's office, " it would seem that the funds of such sub-basins within a drainage area may be merged and used in such drainage area without violating the above authorities. . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney a -lob DRAINAGE DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION PROPOSAL Santa Ana River Drainage Area Drainage Districts 7D and 7G contribute storm run off directly to the Santa Ana River through the Meredith and Hamilton Pump Stations . 7D $ 1, 904 . 85 7G 14 , 993 . 26 $16 , 898 .11 Talbert Channel Drainage Area Drainage Districts 6A, 6B, 6C, 7B, 7C and 7F contribute flow to the Talbert Channel from five pump stations. The drainage districts should be consolidated since the contribution of flow from each district is limited by the Talbert Channel capacity and future im- provements must be carefully coordinated. 6A $ 95, 775 . 52 6B 67 , 357 .12 6C 51, 163 .70 7B 53 , 568 .75 7C (641 .41) 7F 121,160 .78 $388 , 384 .46 Huntington Beach Channel Drainage Area Drainage Districts 7A, 7E, 7H, 7I, 8B, 8C and 8G contribute to flows in the Huntington Beach Channel through three pump stations and several gravity storm drains. The Huntington Beach Channel is under- designed and all future improvements to facilities contributing flow to the channel must be coordinated. 7A (14 , 439 .98) 7E 262 , 646 . 06 7H 7I 68 , 906 . 33 8B 363 , 280 .49 8C 17 , 341. 10 8G 260, 853 . 86 $958 , 587 . 86 Downtown Drainage Area Drainage Districts 8A, 8D, 8F and 8H comprise this area. All run- off is directly to the ocean by gravity flow. Permits for discharge across the State beaches all require special mitigation and coordina- tion with the State Parks and Recreation. 8A $ 3 . 00 8D (744 .11) 8F (62, 173 . 78) 8H 158 , 032 . 14 $ 95 , 114 . 25 Drainage District Consolidation Proposal Page 2 Wintersburg Channel Drainage Area Drainage Districts 3 , 4 , . 5 , 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 9 , 10 and 11 contribute flow to the Wintersburg Channel through four pump stations and numerous gravity lines . The Wintersburg Channel is not adequate to handle all the flow which it receives. Careful coordination and planning of all drainage improvements in this area will be required to ensure the highest level of flood protection. 3 $ 25, 491.79 4 (15 , 616 .78) 5 30 , 819 . 37 5A (73 ,210. 21) 5B 68 , 079 .68 5C 106 , 863 . 79 5D (1, 014 . 92) 9 552, 696 . 58 10 64 , 893 . 57 $759, 002 . 87 Huntington Harbour Drainage Area Drainage Districts 2 , 2A and 12 make up this area which drains to the harbor. Because of the debris and silting problems in the harbor, improvements proposed in these districts must be carefully coordinated. 2 $263,214 .73 2A 306 , 732 .72 12 214 , 338 .72 $784 ,286 . 17 Santa Ana River Drainage Area The district is almost completely developed and no funds are on hand. Two high priority projects are identified within the district. Possibilities for funding appear to be limited to City General Fund or Assessment District. Talbert Channel Drainage Area Consolidation of the districts will yield less than 50 acres of underdeveloped land. Funds on hand are about $400,000. Two high priority projects identi- fied within the district would remain unfunded without General Fund or Assess- ment District Funding. Huntington Beach Channel Drainage Area District consolidation should give close to 200 underdeveloped acres, which could generate close to one million dollars in additional funds. Together with the one million dollars on hand, the highest priority projects could be . easily acccmplished. Wintersburg Channel Drainage Area Consolidation of existing drainage districts would give 700 acres of under- developed land worth two million dollars in drainage funds. Together with $750,000 on hand, the three projects with the highest priority could be accomplished. Huntington Harbour Drainage Area Consolidation would allow adequate funds to complete the three highest prior- ity projects. Downtown Drainage Area As the downtown area is redeveloped, adequate funds could be generated to complete many of the highest priority projects. McDonnell Douglas Drainage Area The City should establish a fee for this area to complete the one project identified. REQUE T FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 10 G1S` Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: C. W. Thompson, City Administrator YYayti. �/�r Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works 'C. " J Subject: Request for City Council Approval for Demoli o keinforced Concrete Box Culvert at Newland Street and the Huntin o ach Channel (D01) Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Orange County Flood Control Act requires City Council approval before the County can award a construction contract within City limits. RECOD24ENDATION: Approve plans and specifications (on file in the City Engineer's office) and award of contract for the demolition of the reinforced concrete box culvert at Newland Street and the Huntington Beach Channel. Approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The County will agree to hold City harmless for accidents occurring in the Newland Street R/W within the construction area. 2. The County will provide an emergency crossing of the D01 Channel by April 9, 1984. 3. The County will stipulate completion of the project by June 30, 1984 in the speci- fications and contract documents by requiring double shifts of work. 4. The City will be given the completed construction plans and specifications for all work in sufficient time for review and the County is to agree to take no action until City approval is given on said plans and specifications. ANALYSIS: The County has prepared plans and specifications for the removal of the existing in- adequate 8 foot x 12 foot reinforced concrete box culvert in the Huntington Beach Channel (D01) at Newland Street. It is the County's intention to have the restriction caused by the old culvert removed in _late February. The removal of the channel re- striction may avert an emergency. situation similar to the March, 1983 event. Con- struction plans are being prepared for a new box culvert in the same location as the existing culvert, but due to the rainy season construction will not begin until early April. The County has agreed to stipulate that the contractor work a double shift to expedite the construction of the new culvert, but it is estimated that Newland Street will be closed from mid-February until late-June. The County will provide an emergency crossing of the channel as the first step in the new construction, but it is expected that no access across,-the D01 Channel at Newland Street will be available from mid- February until mid-April. The Fire Department feels that it -can provide adequate response to the mobile home park on Newland Street, south of the D01 Channel. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny approval of the County demolition project. 2. Approve the County demolition project and impose additional conditions. FUNDING'SOURCE: N A PIO 4/8 :PEC:LE:jy N ESTELIN 1M�2 11'oodstock lane 6.`,+ Auntini;ton Reach, CA 92647 May 28, Huntington 'Beach City Council Huntington Beach, California ( r' Dear Council Members= g 3 We the undersigned property owners on Woodstock Lane and Softwind Drive do hereby request that the Street Maintenance Department correct the drainage problem at the corner of Softwind Drive and Woodstock Lane. Due to the level of the roadway; the rain water, lawn sprinklers, hose wash-downs, etc. all the way from Springdale Street to the and of Softwind Drive sits at the lowest level on Woodstock Lane. To compound the problem, there is a drainage outlet from the apartment buildings (Whiffle Tree and Woodlake) on Edinger Avenue that dumps atthe end of Softwind Drive and Woodstock Lane. On several occasions there has been motor oil and paint in the run-off water. This is not just a "winter rains problem." There is constant running or standing water in this area; which breaks down the road bed causing asphalt, gravel and mud to collect .in piles too heavy to be swept up by home owners or the street sweeper. This is a definite unhealthy condition due to insect infestation and smelly, slimy moss growth. It Is also unsafe .for visitors getting out of their cars because of the slippery pavement and the broken hunks of road bed* REQUE. i" FOR CITY COUIVCO ACTION Date October 28 , 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 4G1ti Submitted by: Charles Thompson, City Administrato �Y G0 8,l Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works Subject: Drainage District 7I Fee Revision ply �/� Egg Statement of Issue; Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alterna ive Ions,Attachments: Statement of Issue : The Drainage District 71 feeds in error and needs -to be revised to reflect the actual cost per acre of undeveloped property. Recommended Action: (1) Adopt the attached resolution revising the City' s drainage fee schedule and repeal Resolution No. 5074 . . (2) Reduce the credit for drainage fees for Tract 11861 from $24, 120 . 75 to $16 , 635 . 00 in Reimbursement Agreement 82-D2 . Analysis:. The City Council has adopted the L.D. King Study of October, 1979 , as the City' s Master Plan of Drainage. _ After a current review of the ." . number of undeveloped acres remaining within Drainage District 7I , an error was discovered in the study. The L.D. King Study showed 40 un- developed acres, but in actuality there are approximately 70 undeveloped acres. Therefore, the drainage fee should be reduced from $7 ,250 an acre to $5, 000 an acre to compensate for the error. Since the L.D. King Study was adopted, there have not been any drainage fees collected at the higher rate; but there has been a reimbursement agreement (No. 82-D2) adopted by City Council. Thus it is necessary to reduce the amount credited for drainage fees for Tract 11861 from $24 , 120. 75 to $16 , 635. 00. This will allow a maximum reimbursement to the developer of $59., 140. 50. Alternate Action (1) Do, not adopt the attached resolution. (.2) Adopt the resolution, but do not reduce the credited fees for Tract . 11861. PEC:WAP: lw F PIO 4/81 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK 1 . I, Alicia M. Wentworth, am the custodian of the official .,records of the City 'relating to actions taken by the City Council (formerly called the Board of Trustees). 2. The design of the storm drain system fo"r Thirteenth Street, near Orange Avenue, was duly considered by the City Council and approved on November 23, 1925. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 7, 1981 at Huntington Beach, California. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk City of Hur:tinyton Beach REQUEw FOR CITY COUNCIL ,,ACTION .f _ SLIbUnitted t,y Paul E. Cook Department Public Works Late Prepared _ September 17. , 19 80 Backup Material Attached M Yes No Sut)Ject Widening of Drainage Channel through Central Park from South Side of _ Slater Avenue to East Side of Goldenwest Street,• MSC-177 APFR6$XRffl c'n-i4iiJtXattd VNPW nts 191 6 �� CITY CL Approve mmenlaed . Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:, STATEMENT OF ISSUE t, Plans for widening of drainage channel through. Central Park from south side of Slater Avenue to east side of Goldenwest have been prepared, and a quotation has been received to perform the work. '. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the plan for widening of channel in order to cut down the chance of flooding of adjacent properties. 2. Adopt resolution for emergency work. 3. Authorize expenditure of $30,000.00 from contingency funds. 4. Authorize issuance of purchase order to Ecco Contractors to perform work. a ANALYSIS The subject channel is approximately 1,290 ft. long and is very heavily covered with growth which obstructs the flow of water during a rain storm: By widening and increasing the depth of the channel, the flow will be increased and the chances of flooding will be decreased. During the rain storms ixi January and February 1980, the Beach View Mobile Park was flooded several times and had to be evacuated during one storm. Therefore, the City was subject to several law suits. Widening the channel would eliminate this problem. The Department of Public Works has contacted several contractors which. do this type of work and received only one bid from Ecco Contractors, Inc. at .a cost of $26,500.00 on a time and material basis. Due to the rainy season approaching, it is recommended that Ecco Contractors be authorized to commence the work as soon as possible. FUNDING SOURCE Funds for this project could be obtained from the ,Miscellaneous Contingency Funds. ' Plo 308 CO � I ` L,,V,52� 2,�� 92 40 OGE Z .- CO Ld uj o _ �r 0 4WEL- i a i i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Paul E. Cook From Dan T. Villella Director of Public Works Acting Director of Finance Subject Central Park Drainage Channel Date September 18, 1980 FIR # 81-11 In response to your request, I am hereby submitting a Financial Impact Report relative to the widening of the drainage channel through Central Park. If the City Council de- sires to approve this project, there are funds available in the contingency account from which this expenditure can be made. The uncommitted balance in the contingency account after this expenditure would be approximately $934,500. Dan T. Villella Acting Director of Finance DTV/cg o . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT Project Name Central Park Drainage Channel Widening Description Widen drainage channel through Central Park from the- south side of Slater Avenue to the east side of Goldenwest Street. 1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1 . 1 One-Time Costs Land urn. , aci i- Acquisition Construction. ties, Equipment, Other Total Cost $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 .2 Recurring Annual Costs Additional Materials & Dut-side -Payroll Personnel Supplies Services Revenues Total Cost 1 .3 Replacement/Renewal Costs Periodic removal of obstructing growth. 2. INDIRECT COSTS N/A Financial Impact Report Page 2 3. NON-DOLLAR COSTS N/A___ 4. BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT Improved flood control . 5. PROJECT USAGE Drainage through Central Park. 6. EXPENDITURE TIMING Prior to the rain season. 7. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT Possible law suits. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by _ Paul E. Cook Department Public Works Date Prepared X ust 22 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached 0 Yet No Subject Master Plan of Drainage- CC-476 City Administrator's Comments Approve as Recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: City Council approval is needed to incorporate the L.D. King Study as a technical appendix to the City's Master Plan of Drainage, and to implement an increase in the drainage district fees. Recommendation: The Planning Commission and the Staff recommend that the City Council approve the adoption of the L.D. King Study as a technical appendix to the.Master Plan of Drainage and that the attached resolution increasing drainage district fees, as recommended in the L. D. King Study, be adopted. Analysis: 1. Incorporating L. D. King Study as technical appendix. Background: The City of Huntington Beach adopted its first Master Plan of Drainage in 1960. Since that time there have been numerous revisions to the plan with the most recent in 1975. In 1979, the City retained the engineering firm of L. D. King to study and update the existing drainage plan. The L. D. King Study identifies drainage areas within and tributary to the City; defines-the relationship of these areas to regional flood control facilities; identifies drainage deficiencies in the City's system; recommends improve- ments to the drainage. system; and estimates the cost of providing these improvements. The Study provides essential information and guidance for the construction of drainage facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Increasing district drainage fees. The L. D. King Study also proposes that drainage district fees be revised accordingly: Drainage District Current Fee/Gross Acre Proposed Fee/Gross Acre 2 500 650 2A 2.,000 2,500 ' 3 3,000 . 4,000 4 (complete) . —0— —0- 5 2,000 2,000 Pio We � Request for Council Action Master Plan of Drainage; CC-476 August 22, 1980 Page 2 Drainage District Current Fee/Gross Acre Proposed Fee/Gross Acre 5A 2,000 2,500 5B (ccoplete) -0- -0- 5C (ccuplete) -0- -0- 5D (ccoplete) -0- -0- 6A 2,000 2,500 6B 2,000 2,000 6C 3,000 3,000 7A 2,000 3,500 7B 2,000 2,500 7C 2,000 2,500 7D 2,000 2,500 7E 3,000 4,000 7F 2,000 2,500 7G 3,000 4,000 7H 3,330 4,500 7I 4,000 6,500 8A -0- -0- 8B 5,600 7,500 8C 4,500 4,500 8D 1,650 2,000 8E -0- -0- 8F 2,300 3,000 8G 6,000 7,000 8H 2,500 3,500 9 4,000 6,500 10 1,500 2,000 11 -0- -0- 12 5,000 6,500 These fee increases reflect the anticipated costs of completing the storm drain facili- ties as outlined in the Study. The fees were last revised by the City in 1978. Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternative Action: Do not approve a change in drainage fees or incorporate the technical appendix to the Master Plan of Drainage. PEC:DN:jy u> - �% Publish August 21 , 1980 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7.30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Tuesday the 2nd day of September 19 80. for the purpose of considering adoption of the L. D. King study as a technical appendix to the City's existing Master Plan of Drainage. The L. D. King study identifies existing deficiencies in the City's storm drain system and sets forth a list of recommended improvements. Methods of financing needed storm drain facilities are also discussed. Copies of said report and documents are available for public review in the Office of the City Clerk and Department of Public Works. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Master Plan of Drainage Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED August 4, 1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk IN THE v Superior Court OF THE. STATE he CALIFORNIA of Ora In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH9 CITY CLERK PROOF OF PUBLICATION Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE State of California ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a County of Orange )ss• public hearing will be held by the,City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen- R i t a J. Richter ter,Huntington Beach;at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Tuesday the 2nd day of September,19K That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of for thepurpoeeofconaidermgado tiomof the L.D.King study as a technical appen- the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I 'dix to the City's exis. Imager Plan of am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; Drainage.The L.D.King study identifies that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the existing deficiencies in the City's storm drain system and Bete forth a list of recommended improvements.Methods of Huntington Beach Independent Review ar;�°d; aef°'°`m star° facilities Copies of said report and documents a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of are available for public view in the Office Beach of the City Clerk and Department of Pub- Huntington lic works. All interested persona are invited to Count of Orange and which newspaper is attend said hearing and e�p�ea� their y g pa p published for the opinions for or against said Master Plan disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- of Drainage urhe . Further information may be obtained ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, Mein Street,Huntington Beach,Cahfor- and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- nia92648.(714)636-5227. DATED:A t 4,1980. lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a CITY OF IUNIINGTON BEACH period exceeding one ,year; that the notice, of which the By:ALICIAM.WENTWORTH annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular City Clerk' Pub.Aug.21,1980 and entire issue of said newspaper,and not,in any supplement Hunt.Reach Ind.R6.#10264 thereof,on the following dates,to wit: August 219 1980 I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct: Dated at........... ....Garden-Grove.. ........... 2 t A gust 0 California,thi da .... . / ....... .......... . . L �!C-!..2. . ;.. Ignature Form No.CAF-6579 CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TO:, ;,�CITY :CLER1fi,5� rQFF'IC$ DATE: Jl�l—� � `�j �•'clka' •N+':+r``.•T,ypAa'tti; FR ;: 1`�5 .,,.R.,,',.;.$sy sill,is r.�.i`f.:;±,•�.7k",} ' _f«�e}``s Ait ( $ARING::USING TPE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE VI ,=�.r:,.i, t{Df:St:'�' ,i', .• y,'.Fv It.,�iKi �.'; {�• { i,,.!K;',�}a��`,.': 1, ';=^t'`� ''vti,'•":;•',y;',T..;gi,t,.., ',(' ached '.j ''t�'Y?4 �+}"k�� <�7Ni�I yfi,i,v°,�i,��:a�,��r:�1�'t�i,.S.�l,t,j�t`� � • ;:.i'C�tl;'' ;°+'•'':f. �$j';1��11"s�' ,t�;';lr+��;?°'i•;d'�';j?,l.A.:;'•�;•` .. . , } + d •y� y?`1i p�'�y A.t-:L Y+A•W���b T f�, t , .Sr�J,7d" 1� 1(�1?f 7.}�'t ry.•"t'7;�i..a, .�,'ti•'.. I'. `. iss'ion. 4 I q�+# { � ,Td�iia� �. I• R,t::;: .:, !.'1 :, ' '4i 'r'�e{A,artment'•': :' 47 { AM i,h(•t i�. Y' ,,'6•,'�r, y:� ir+t,,jrt�' !� 'I �_}�}��'y� .•s�'�..ja, ,,'��,.,: ,:Riro`r'�;;',t,4•.+ ..�t .,. ,. .. 44.�t,•� ,�r� C!�•a 7Ea:y..$'v f•a..-: ..�'- ,:i�;,:,^'fP,_, iy,, .. ,•}.. v. ' '`sA 'nt',iaa;, of aEnvirottmen a3 ,$ atus W ' ,,r:', YES NO " : ='r w"'t a' i;ti. ', ::'r,El'anning Department - Extension # Refer to T:E ,,;i::`..: : z:,x'. 4 for additional inform.*t1bn ' its'' '� �, ;��,• . If a_P�eal , please lEranam v exact weir<li g tee he ..required in. the legal 'y' 1'.e"rrt�,i`•r;r's '§fd'. �,1v.' ,. '�; ._ .?N'.,s.,• pro I ..r��a,'` v � '. ..,, ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Office Of the City Clerk P. 0. Bo", 190 Hunthngton Scach, Calif. 92648 IVIAt PLAN R ,, ��C OF DAINA L For The City of Huntington.- Beach C", C u R October,1979 ® rxtf® 701 NORTH PARKCENTER DRIVE m SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 MASTER .PLAN OF DRAINAGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BFACH OCTOBER 1979 MUM 701 North Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, California r r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. r I . INTRODUCTION Study Area Description . . . . . . . . . 1 History of Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 r II . STUDY METHOD Regional Flood Control Facilities. . . . . . . 3 Local Drainage Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . 3 Flood Frequency Definition . . . . . . . . . . 3 Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 r Computer Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hydraulic Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 III . DEFICIENCIES & PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Storm Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 r Pump Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 IV. COST ESTIMATES & RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES Storm Drains . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 51 Pump Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 r U. METHODS OF FINANCING PRIMARY FU!,!nING Drainage ,Fees.-. . . . . . . . . . 60 r 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 N SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING Orange County Flood Control District . . . . . E5 Arterial Highway Financing Program . . . . . . 65 Federal Aid Secondary - Urban Extension. . . . 66 Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. . . 66 r APPENDIX r • INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I r 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 Bo.lsa 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- r 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 S 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 1 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 1 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 occurrance 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 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 aid tributary to the Ci.ty of Huntington Beach; to define the relationships of t e 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 which (by exception) are local in nature and--thprpfore analysis . Ba a on information obtained from the City and the OCFCD, the regional an 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 thE:• 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- termined 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 Rational 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 is 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 assumed 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- 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 1 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 S1/2. 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, This 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- IMPROVEMENTS CHAPTER III 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. Th-e storm drain deficiency is ch more severe problem since it could lead to property damage, w ereas street capacity deficiencies are a convenience item and thus—are aware 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 deficiencie�'s determinneeddin this report are attributable to the Chan e a and not on poor foresight by the City's staff. The following table summarizes )istrict 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. -9- 1 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. DO1 210 7B Adams P.S. D02 460 7C Banning P.S. D02 410 7D Meredith P.S. E01 255 7E Newland P.S. DO1 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) DO1 620 8A Ocean --- 140 8B Atlanta P.S. DO1 300 8C Gravity DO1 75 8D Ocean --- 290 8E Gravity --- 30 8F Ocean --- 200 8G Gravity DO1 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 i -11- w 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- . i -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. r -13- 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. ' -14- 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 r 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 r 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 r 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 r 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. r 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 r 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. 1 1 1 -15- 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 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 northe-�7y 800 feet in Greenview Lane with a 24" paralleling 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" . -16- Drainage District 5 is located in the north easterly 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 drain runninq 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 . -17- 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. -18- , 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 - Win tersburg Channel . The existing storm drains in the drainage district are IP adequate to convey the design discharges and there are no street capacity design criteria exceeded. i A -19- 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. i i i A -20- 4 i e r Drainage 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 -(D05) with all the existing storm drains in r 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 N 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. r r r r N i -21- 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. i -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. • • • • -23- r 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 (DOl) . 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. 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. s 41 48 -24- .Drainage District 7B is located in the south easterly section of the City and drains to the Adams Pump Station which discharges to the Talbert Channel (D02) . The existing 60 inch pipe from the pump station to Bushard Street in Adams Avenue is deficient and can only convey approximately 50% of the design discharqe. The proposed 60 inch storm drain will parallel the existing system thus removing all deficiency. t -25- Drainade District 7C is located in the south easterly section of the City and drains to the Banning Pump Station ►rihich discharges to the Talbert Channel (D02) . The existing 54 inch storm drain in Banning Avenue and the existing 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. -26- i i 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 i 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 desiqn discharge. The proposed strom drain is a 60 inch and runs northerly in Midland Lane from the pump station to b 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. i -27- 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 0I 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. Augustine 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 storm drain and street capacity deficiencies. i -28- 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 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. r r t -29- 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 ranges in size from 48 inch to 24 inch will correct all storm drain and street capacity deficiencies. 41 -30- r r 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 r district and none are needed. r s r r r r r -31- 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. The area east of Beach Boulevard, !lest 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 a Control Districts' Pump Station to the existing 27 inch, approximately 1,400 feet. ! -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 0 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. • • • -33- Drainage District 8B is located in the southern section of the City and drains in a easterly direction to the Atlanta Pump Station which discharges to the Talbert Channel (DO1). The majority of existing storm drains in the district are adequate. to convey the design 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 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 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. 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 deficiency. -34- Drainage District 8C is located in the southerly area of the- City and drains by gravity to the Huntington Beach Channel (DO1 ) . The area P east of Beach Boulevard, west of the Huntinaton 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. i -35- Drainage District 8D is located in the southerly section of the City and drains by gravity to the Ocean. The existing storm drains in the 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- ! Drainage District 8E is located in the south westerly section of the City near the Huntington Seacliff County Club Golf Course. There are ! no major storm drain or street capacity deficiencies in the district. ! ! -37- 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 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, Adams Avenue, 12th Street and Palm Street will relieve the existing storm drain and street capacity deficiencies in the Drainage District 8D and 8F. -38- r r Drainage District 8G is located in the central area of the City and drains by gravity to the Orange County Flood Control District Pump r Station which discharges to the Huntington Beach Channel (DO1 ) . 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 r 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 r 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 r 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 r Street to Wichita Avenue to the existing 24 inch. r i r r r -39- 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 4 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. -40- r r Drainage District 9 is located in the central area of the City and drains generally westerly to the Slater Pump Station which discharges b 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 r 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. r The major proposed storm drains discharge northerly of Ellis Avenue with one branch traveling southerly along Golden West Street and the other branch traveling easterly to Gothard Avenue. The easterly branch r 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. r 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. r 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. r r -41- 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 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. 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. 41 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. 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. 41 -42- 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 discharges and there are no street capacity design criteria exceeded. -43- 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 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. 41 r 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 design criteria exceeded. r r r r r -45- Drainage District 12' is located in the westerly section of the City and drains by gravity to Christiana Bay. The existing storm 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 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. 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 i 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 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 the City and drains to the Harbor Bays, thence to the ocean. There are no major storm drain or street deficiencies. -4F- � r 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. 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 storm drain system will be within the city of Westminster and a joint funded project .is recommended. -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. 0 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 per station for materials. � -49- 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 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, 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 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. -50- • • • • • • • COST FSTIMATFS & RFCOMMFNDFD PRIORITIES 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. 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! i -51- Proposed Storm Drain Cost Summary I. Projects Fundable With M.P.D. Fees Drainage District Outlet Location Costs thousands 2 Graham 744 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 !1 Drainage District Outlet Location Costs thousands) 2 Cornell 958 Halifax 192 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 20th St. 174 18th St. 204 16th St. 95 Golden West 160 9 Springdale 340 r Prescott/Flintside 230 -53- Drainage District Outlet Location Costs thousands 10 Ash 222 12 Heil (W) 707 Stardust 94 Heil (E) 295 -54- 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 blest 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 i 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 21 7E Newland 709 A 22 3 Slater 1,227 A 23 7A Atlanta P.S. 616 A 24 7C Banning 410 A -55- 7 Cost Recommended Priority District Approximate Location (thousands) Funding 25 10 Ash 222 A 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. 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 33 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- 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.P.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 the appendix. Following the Pump Station Cost List is the Pump Station Priority List. The pump stations are grouped into three priority categories. D -57- Pump Station Costs Cost Pump Station (thousands) Adams (7B) 126 Atlanta (7A/8B) 229 Banning (7C) 126 S Bolsa Chica (9A) 127 Flounder (6B) S1 Hamilton (7G) 327 Heil (SC) 2S Indianapolis (7F) 27 Marilyn (5B) 176 ,7 Meredith (71)) 176 Newland (7E) 276 Scenario (2) 126 Shields (4) 7S0 Slater (9) 440 Yorktown (6C) 2S TOTAL $ 3;0 0 7 V 58 1 PUMP STATION PRIORITY Category Pump Station Drainage District I Shields 4 Newland 7E Marilyn 5B Adams 7B II Atlanta 7A Hamilton 7G Banning 7C Bolsa Chica 9A Slater 9 III Scenario 2C Meredith 7D 1 1 1 -59- METHODS OF FINANCING 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 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 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. 1k 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 6 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. 6 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 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. -60- The City of Huntington Beach is already largely developed. An adoption of drainage fees may raise insufficient amount of funds and this money , 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 Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code authorizes a City 4 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 4 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. _��2 The City may retain, or give to the Contractor, a warrant authorizing the collection of the assessments from the individual property owners. Whicheverparty 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 i 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 19.13 Storm drain facilities may be financed under the Municipal Improvement Act t 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 ! 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 assessed value of the land in the district the Council may pass a resolu- tion of 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 L 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 i -64- 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) 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- 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. b 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 L 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. 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, 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 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. Local matching funds for the grants may come from any source -- City, County, District, or State. -66- STORM DRAIN AND PUMP STATIONS Cost Summary Drainage M.P.D. Funded Other S.D. Pump District S.D. Projects Stations 2 744,000 1 ,707,000 126,000 • 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 6B 0 0 51,000 6C 0 0 25,000 7A 0 616,000 229,000 7B 0 334,000 126,000 7C 0 410,000 126,000 7D 0 683,000 176,000 7E 0 709,000 276,000 7F 0 406,000 27,000 7G 0 848,000 327,000 • 7H 0 0 0 7I 498,000 0 0 8A 0 754,000 0 8B 0 1 ,255,000 (See 7A) 8C 0 0 0 • _A7_ 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 0 11 0 0 0 12 685,000 1,601,000 0 - Stardust - 94,000 0 - Heil (E) - 295,000 0 b TOTAL $7,2281-000 $18,662,000 $3,007,000 TOTAL COST $28,198,000 f -68- 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) 2 500 1050 < 10 156,600 650 2A 2000 315 < 10 158,000 2500 3 3000 550 15 28,200 4000 4 Closed 340 < 10 -15,600 Closed 5 2000 1135 80 84,700 2000 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 -11000 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 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- 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 <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 10 1500 135 10 46,800 2000 11 Closed 70 `10 -32,200 Closed 12 5000 475 80 152,400 6500 * As of June 30, 1979 i -70- APPENDIX ! ! ! r APPENDIX I Detail Cost Analysis r 1 r 1 1 r PUMP STATIONS r r 1 1 1 r Pump Stations Adams (7B) Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 5,000 Sump Pump - 11000 Pumping Capacity - 100,000 (Increase Pumpinq Capacity 16%) Total $126,000 Atlanta (7A/8B) Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 8,000 Sump Pump - 11000 Pumping Capacity - 200,000 (Two New Units) Total $229,000 Banning (7C) Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 5,000 Sump Pump - 1,000 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 - 1,000 Pumping Capacity - 100,000 (One New Unit Total $12.7,000 Flounder (6B) Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 5,000 Sump Pump - 11000 Pumping Capacity - 25,000 (Pump Overhaul ) Total $ 51,000 • Hamilton (7G) Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 6,000 Sump Pump - 1,000 Pumping -Capacity - 300,000 (One New Unit & .Replace Two Units) Total $327,000 • 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 Sump Pump - 1 ,000 Total $ 27,000 Marilyn (5B) , Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 5,000 Sump Pump - 1,000 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 (7 0 Control System - $ 2n,000 L.P.G. System - 5,000 Sump Pump - 1,000 Pumping Capacity - 250,000 (Replace Two Old Units) Total $276,000 • Scenario (2) . Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 5,000 Sump Pump - 11000 Pumping Capacity - 100,000 Total $126,000 Shields (4) Replace pump station to increase capacity. Total $750,000 Slater (9) Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 20,000. Pumping Capacity - 400,000 Total $430,000 Yorktown (6C) Control System - $ 20,000 L.P.G. System - 5,000 Total $ 25,000 r r r r STORM DRAINS r r r , r r r r r June 1979 HUNTINGTON BEACH MASTER PLAN! OF DRAINAGE r Cost Estimate Description - - - - - - - - -Unit - - - - - - - - - - Unit Price r 18" RCP LF 60.00 21 " RCP LF 65.00 24" RCP LF 75.00 r 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 r 42" RCP LF 140.00 45" RCP LF 150.00 48" RCP LF 160.00 r 51" RCP LF 170.00 54" RCP LF 180.00 57" RCP LF 190.00 60" RCP LF 200.00 63" RCP LF 2.10.00 66" RCP LF 220.00 r 69" RCP LF 230.00 72" RCP LF 250.00 75" RCP LF 265.00 r 78" RCP LF 275.00 81" RCP LF 285.00 HUNTINGTON BEACH MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE Cost Estimate Description- - - - - - - - - Unit- - - - - - - - - - -Unit Price i 84" RCP LF 300.00 87" RCP LF 310.00 90" RCP LF 325.00 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"-66") EACH 2,500.00 Manholes (69"-93") EACH i .000.00 Manholes (96"-144") EACH 6,000.00 Junction Structures (15"-54") EACH 5,000.00 Junction Structures (57"-144") EACH 8,000.00 Catch Basins 4' EACH 2,000.00 r HUNTINGTON BEACH MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE r Cost Estimate Description - - - - - - - - -Unit- - - - - - - - - - -Unit Price I Catch Basins 7.0' EACH $ 2,500.00 Catch Basins 10.0' EACH 3,000.00 Catch Basins 14.0' EACH 4,000.00 Catch Basins 21 .0' EACH 6,000.00 Catch Basins 28.0' EACH 8,000.00 r r I I I 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 2 ( CO4) CORNELL -------------------------------------- 1 1811 RCP 400 LF 60 .00 249000900 2 36" RCP 500 LF 120 .U0 6U • 000 . 00 3 48" RCP 700 LF 160.00 112. 000 . 00 4 66" RCP 29000 LF 220.00 4409000 .00 5 MANHOLES ( 96" -14411 ) 1 EACH 69000 .00 6. 000 . 00 6 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000 .00 69000 .00 7 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 59000 .00 109000000 8 CATCH BASINS 14. 0 FOOT 9 EACH 4 .000 .00 36t000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 6949000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 1049000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 7989000 .00 1 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20`C 1609000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 9589000 . 00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 2 ( CO4 ) HALIFAX -------------------------------------- 1 15" RCP 50 LF 60.00 39000 .00 2 24" PCP 800 LF 75.00 609000 . 00 3 30 " RCP 600 LF 100.00 609000 . 00 4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000 .00 6 . 000 . 00 5 CATCH BASINS 7.0 FOOT 4 EACH 29500 .00 10 .000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 139►000600 CONTINGENCIES +15% 21. 000. 00 SUBTOTAL 160 ► 000 .00 ENGR. AND ADMIT! +20% 32 . 000 .00 TOTAL .CONSTRUCTION COST 1929000 .00 M DRAINAGE AREA — O .D . 2 (CO7 ) GRAHAM --------------------------------------- 1 42" R.CP 600 LF 140 .00 849000 .00 2 48" RC? 29400 LF 160 .00 3849000 . 00 54 " HCr 300 LF 180.00 54# 000. 00 4 MANHOLES ( 35" -6611 ) 1 EACH 2.500900 29500 .00 5 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000 .00 69Co0 .00 6 CATCH BASINS 14.0 FOOT 2 EACH 49000 .0O 89000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 538.500 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 81 . 000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 6199500 .00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 124900C . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 74395C0 . 00 0 DRAINAGE AREA — D .D. 2 ( CO7) MEADOWLARK ----------------------------------------- 1 lei" r^•,CP 50 LF 60 . 00 3 .000 .00 2 36" RCP 8U0 LF 120 . 00 96. 000900 :5 CATCH ';A.SI°JS 14 . 0 FOOT 2 EACH 49000 .00 8 .0000000 , ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 107v000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 16 . 000 ,00 SUBTOTAL 1239000 . 00 � FNGR . AND ADMTN +20% 259000 . 00 TC•TAL CONSTRUCTION COST 148 . 000600 0 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D . 2 ( CO7) SCENARIO' --------------------------------------- 1 I Ili" RCP 100 LF 60 .00 6 . 000900 36 " RCP 29200 LF 120 .00 2649000 .00 ' MA N H 0 L 1 ( 3 6,6" ) 1 EACH 29500 .00 2 .500 .00 4 CATCH RASI .�S 22 . 0 FOOT 4 EACH 69000000 24. 000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 296 .500 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 449000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 340 *506. 00 f-NGR. AND ADMIN +20% 689000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTrRUCTION COST 4089500 . 00 DRAPJAGE AFiEA - D.D . 24 ( r04 ) GRAHAM --------------------------------------- 1 36" RCP 19""00 LF 120 .00 1449000 . 00 2 66" RCP 192:00 LF 220 .00 264 . 000 .00 3 7 5 " RCP 300 LF 265.00 799500900 . 4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2' EACH . 5-900'0. 00 109000 . 00 ----------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 497 •500 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15ti : 759000 .0O SUBTOTAL 5729500 .00 � E NGR A.ND ADIII N +20% 1149000. 00 T'DTIA.L CONSTRUCTION COST 6869500 . 00 a DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. 3 (C06 ) SLATER ------------------------------------- 1 18" RCP 200 LF 60 .00 12 . 000. 00 2 24" RCP 1 ,000 LF 75.00 1279500 .00 30 " RCP 1 .600 LF 100 .00 160 .000 .00 4 4911 RCP 200 LF 160 .00 32 , 000 .0O 5 54" RCP 2t600 LF 180.00 4689000 . 00 5 MANHOLES ( 15"-3311 ) 6 EACH 29000 .00 129000. 00 l MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) Y EACH 29500 .00 2.09000 . 00 8 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 6 EACH 3 .000 .00 189000000 9 CATCH 3ASINS 14 .0 FOOT 10 EACH 49000 .00 409000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SU3TOTAL 8899500. 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 133. 000 . 00 SUDTOTAL 19022 •500 .00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 204 . 000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1 .2269500 . 00 6 e r r DRAINAGE AREA. — `) .D . 4 ( COt,� ) ' HIELDS P.S . ------------------------------------------ 1 l c3" RC ' f3t10 LF 60 . 00 48 000 . 00 2 24 " RCP l �600 LF 75. 00 120 000 . 00 3 30" f?CP 800 LF 100 .00 809000 . 00 4 36" ?CF 1 .400 LF 120 .00 1689000 .00 5 4a RC:P 19400 LF 160 .00 2249000 . 00 6 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 6 EACH 2 .000 .00 129000 .00 7 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 5 EACH 29500 . 00 129500900 %? JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 3000 . 00 �VoG0 . 00 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 000 .00 5 • 000 . 00 � 10 CATCH 3ASINS 14 . 0 FOOT 9 EACH 4 .000 .00 369000 . 0O ---------------------------------------- SUf3TOTAL 714 .500 .00 CONTINGENCIES +157, 1079000 . 00 "j."3TOTAL 8219500 . 00 - .,IGR . AND ADPIIN +20°c 1649000900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 985e500 .00 1 9 DRAINAGE AREA — D .D . 5 (COv,, ) VOLGA ------------------------------------- 1 18" RCP 19200 LF 6C .00 72 . 000 .00 2 24" RCP 11000 LF 75.00 75s000 . 00 3 MANHOL,=S t15"-3-3 2 EACH 2. 000 . 00 49000 . 00 µ JUNCTION STRUCTURES ? EACH 39000000 69000 . 00 `i CATCH HASINS 14 . 0 FOOT 4 EACH 49000 .00 16 . 000 .00 ---------------------------------------- .1ijlTOTAL 1739000 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15 26. 000. 00 SUti'TOTAL 1999000 . 00 LNGR . AND ADMIN +20% 409000 .0O r TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2399000 . 00 i i i i 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA — U .D . 5A (,C05 ) EDWARD S ---------------------------------------- 1 24 " RCF 19500 LF 75 .00 112•`_;00 . 00 2 MANHOLES ( 1J"-3:3" ) 1 EACH 2s000 .00 2 . 000 .00 3 CATCH BASINS 14 . 0 FOOT _ EACH 49000 . 00 89000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 1229500 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 18. 000 .00 SUBTOTAL 140 .500 .00 y ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 28. 000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1689500 .00 r f A DRAINAGE AREA - D.D . 5A ( C05 ) EDINGER ---------------------------------------- 1 1811 RCP 900 LF 60 .00 549000 . 0O 2 24" RCP 300 LF 75 .00 229500 . 00 ` 3 3E"" RCP 500 LF 120 .00 60 . 000 .00 4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000 .00 69000900 5 CATCH BASINS 21. 0 FOOT 4 EACH 69000. 00 24 ♦ 000900 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 1669500 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 259000 .00 SUBTOTAL 1919500 .00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 38♦ 000900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 229*500 . 00 1 1 1 DRAINAGE 4 EA - D.D. `_,A ( C(',5 ) REDLANDS ----------------------------------------- 1 2411 RCP 800 LF 75. 00 60 . 000 . 00 2 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 3 . 000 .00 3. 000 . 00 3 CATCH PJASINS 21 .0 FOOT 2 EACH 6 .000 .00 12 . 000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 75 . 000 .00 CONTINGENCIES + 15% 11 . 000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 86 . 000 . 00 � ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 17.000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 103 .000 .00 i 1 . 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA — D .D. 6A (D05 ) SCE R/w ---------------------------------------- 1 18" nCP 500 LF 60 .00 301000 . 00 2 24" RCP 19000 LF 75.00 759000. 00 3 42" RCP 29000 LF 140 .00 2809000. 00 4 84" RCP 19500 LF 300 .00 4509000 . 00 3 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 3 EACH 2 ,000 .00 69000 ,00 6 MANHOLES ( 35"-6611 ) EACH 29500 .00 79500 . 00 7 MANHOLES ( 96"-144" ) 2 EACH 69000 .00 l2 .000 .00 8 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 39000 .00 99000 . 00 1 9 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 59000 . 00 59000 . 00 10 CATCH BASINS 10 .0 FOOT 5 EACH 39000000 159000000 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 8899500000 CONTINGENCIES +15% 1339000 . 00 1` SUBTOTAL 190229500 . 00 EtdGR . AND ADMIN +20% 2049000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 192269500 . 00 1 1 i 1 1 1 DRAINLGE AREA - D .U . 7A ( F) ? l ) ATLANTA P.S. --------------------------------------------- 1 200 LF 60 .00 12 . 000 .00 21+ " r-C;` 400 LF 75 .00 30 .000 . 00 30" RC 1 . 500 LF 120 .00 180 . 000, 00 4 4r," 1 .200 LF 160 .00 192♦ 000 . 00 MANH0L' ( .��" - " ) 4 EACH 29500 .O0 109000 . 00 JUNCTION STRUCTUIIE`_' 4 EACH 3 .000 .00 12 . 000 . 00 7 CATCi? ! i ) IWS 7 * 0 F.JOT 4 EACH 2 .500 . 00 10 . 000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- ?TOTAL 4469 000. 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 679000 * 00 T.1TAL 513 . 000 .00 _,':G'r A JD A5'1LE +20 - 103 . 000 . 00 7 TOT L CO:'.STRUCT ION COST 6169 000 . 00 1 i 1 i 1 DRA! NtIAGE AREA - U .D. 7H (002 ) ADAMS P.S. ------------------------------------------- 1 6C " F'CN 1 * 200 LF 200 . 00 2409000 . 00 2 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 2 EACH 29500 .00 59000 . 00 ' 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 59000 .00 5 * 000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SLJoTOTAL 2509000900 CONTINGENCIES +15% 379000 .00 1 SUBTOTAL 287*000 . 00 FNGR. AND ADMIN +20Y, 579000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION: COST 3449000 .00 D 1 1 1 I I D`: AINAGE AREA - D.D. 7C ( UO2) BANNING F. S. --------------------------------------------- 1 42" RCP 500 LF 140 .00 70 . 000 .00 2 34 " RCP 19200 LF 180 .00 216 . 000 . 00 MANHOLES ( 35"-5611 ) 2 EACH 29500 .00 59000 .00 � 4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000. 00 69000000 ---------------------------------------- SUPTOTAL 2979000900 CONTINGENCIES +15 45. 000 . 00 SUP.TOTAL 3429000 .00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 689 000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 410 . 000 . 00 7 1 1 1 I i DRAINAGE AREA — D.D. 7D (EO1 ) MEREDITH P.S. 1 24" RCP 500 LF 75.00 37► 500.00 2 42" RCP 100 LF 140 .00 14 ► 000 .00 3 60 " RCP 2►000 LF 200 .00 40'0 ► 000 .00 4 MANHOLES t35"—t::6" ) 3 EACH 2 ►500 ,00 7►500 #00 5 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 4 EACH 5► 000 .00 20 ► 000 . 00 cz CATCH EASINS 14. 0 FOOT 4 EACH 4 ► 000..00 16 ► 000 #00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 495 ►000 ,00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 749000 .00 SjBTOTAL 569► 000. 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 114 ► 000400 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 683 ►000 . 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA — C .D. 7E ( DO1 ) NEWLAND P. S. --------------------------------------------- 1 13" RCF' 100 LF 60 .00 6. 000 #00 2 36" RCP 800 LF 120 .00 96. 000 . 00 5 42 " RCP 19200 LF 140 .00 1689000 . 00 4 6C " RC:' 19000 LF 200 .00 2009000. 00 MANHOLE , ( 15"-3311 ) 2 EACH 29000.00 49000. 00 6 MANHOLES (35" —(,6" ) 4 EACH 2s500 .00 109000000 7 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 4 EACH 39000 .00 12 . 000 .00 8 CATCH 6ASINS 10 . 0 FOOT 6 EACH 39000oOO 189000000 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 5149000oOO CONTINGENCIES +15°S 77 . 000 , 00 SUI'TOTAL 591 . 000 . 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1189000000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 709. 000. 00 1 1 1 f 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA D .C. 7-F (DO2 ) INDIANAP.OLIS P.S. -------------------------------------------------- 1 54" i<CN 1.9600 LF 180. 00 2889000 .00 2 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 39000 .00 69006 . 00 ---------------------------------------- S0;.-+TOT AL 2949000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 449000 .00 SUBTOTAL 3389000 . 00 r.NGR.. AND ADMIN +20% 68. 000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTIO�d COST 4069000000 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 7G ( EG1 ) 4AMILTO.N P.S. -------------------------'------------------- 1 24 " RCP 200 LF 75.00 159000 . 00 2 48" RCP 3t600 LF 160 .00 5769000 .00 3 "lANH0LE:S ( 15 3" ) 6 EACH 29000 .00 129000 . 00 r 4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 4 EACH 39000 .0O 129000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 6159000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 929000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 7079000 ,00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20.% 141 . 000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 6489000. 00 1 1 1 1 1 i DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 71 ( YORKTOWN,) 1 30" R.CP 1 #200 LF 100 . 00 120.9000. 00 MANHOLES ( 15"-3311 ) 1 EACH 29000900 29000 . 00 i 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES I EACH 3 .000000 39000 .00 4 CATCH BASINS 21 . 0 FOOT tI EACH 69000 .00 69000 /*00 SUBTOTAL 131v000. 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 209000. 00 i SUBTOTAL 151 .000 .00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 309000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 181 .000 .00 i i R i i i i i DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 71 001) O.C.F.C.D. P.S. --------------------------- ------------------------- 1 48" RCP 19400 LF 160 .00 2249000 .00 2 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 1 EACH 2 .500 .00 29500 .00 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES i EACH 39000 .00 39000 .00 SUBTOTAL 2299500 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 34 . 000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 2639500900 i ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 539000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3169500900 i i i bk4liN14GA AREA = DO'D .' 840EEANi §19T-H 24 RCP 800 609000 .00 RCP 800 LF 0' i 0 00 i 0 0 421; RCP 1 ;2i00 LF- 140400 iE84006000 4 i ON' Ct 16 N SfkUd"URIE'S 8 EACH 3i000400" 24 i 0 00 ,0 0 CATCH 5 4"SIN s 0d P 6 too 5 CAT 0 T 10 EACH � iftb �dd �o 0000 SUBTOTAL 3!Aio00 .00 0' N T, N" E,- si 514000. 00 SUBTOTAL 4359000 . 00 m I EN +2' 0-%' 87i000 *00 'T 0"'T'A L CbNSfAU'cfidN tb§f 522ia00 . 00 DRAINAGE AREA - D .D . 8A ( OCEAN) LAKE ---------------------------------------- 1 24" RCP 400 LF 75.00 309000 .00 2 30 " RCP 19200 LF 100 .00 120 . 000, 00 3 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 1 EACH 29000.00 29000.00 , 4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 3 . 000000 6. 000 . 00 5 CATCH BASINS 7.0 FOOT 4 EACH 2 .500 .00 109000000 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 1689000 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 25. 000900 SUBTOTAL 193 . 000000 ENGR . AND ADM1N +20% 399000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2329000 . 00 A . i 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA — D.D. 8B (D01 ) ATLANTA P. S. 1 18" RCP 2'e000 LF 60 .00 1209000 .00 2 24" RCP 19000 LF 75 .00 759000 .00 3 30 " RCP 1, 000 LF 100.00 1009000. 00 4 36" RCP 3►600 LF 120 .00 4329000'. 00 5 43" RCP 700 LF 160 .00 112,000 .00 5 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 6 EACH 29000900 12 , 000 . 00 7 MANHOLES ( 35"-6610 ) 8 -E,ACH 29500 .00 209000 . 00 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 5 EACH 39000.00 15, 000000 9 . CATCH BAS1NS . 10 .G FOOT ' 8 EACH 39000000 249000 . GO ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 9109000000 CONTINGENCIES +15% 1369000 . 00 / SUBTOTAL 190469000 . 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 2099000900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1 ,255 , 000 . 00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAIN14GE AREA - D .D. 8D/8F - 12TH - 1 1 " RCP 100 LF 60.00 69000000 2 24" RCP 850 LF 75.00 639750 , 00 3 30" RCP 29800 LF 100 .00 2809000. 00 4 36" RCP 500 LF 120 .00 609000 .00 5 48" RCP 1.800 LF 160 .00 2889000 .00 6 60 " RCP 19200 LF 200 .00 2409000900 7 72" RCP 19406 LF 250.00 350 . 000 . 00 8 84" RCP 29200 LF 300 .00 660. 000 . 00 9 96" RCP 19600 LF 350 .00 560 .000 , 00 10 MANHOLES ( 15"-33" ) 10 EACH 29000 .00 209000 .00 11 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 5 EACH 29500 .00 129500 .00 12 MANHOLES ( 69"-93" ) 6 EACH 49000. 00 249000. 00 13 MANHOLES (96"-14411 ) 2 EACH 69000.00 12. 000. 00 14 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 5 EACH 3 . 000000 159000 .00 15 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 7 EACH 59000 .00 359000 *00 � 16 CATCH 'BASINS 14 .0 FOOT 30 EACH 49000 .00 1209000900 ---------------------------------------- SU3TOTAL 297469250. 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 412 . 000 . 00 SU3TOTAL 3 .1589250 .00 ENGR . AND ADiMiN +20% 632 .000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 397909250 . 00 1 1 1 1 I ,. RAINAGE ARCA — 0 .D . QW01 ) GAkFILLD ---------------------------------------------- 1 42" RCP 1 . 200 LF 140 . 00 16890 00000 JUNCTION STRUCTURES A 'r:ACH 3 . 000000 1 • 0 ^0 . 00 i CATCH hASINS 21 . 0 FOOT y EACH 60000 . 00 24 , 000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUITOTAL 2109000 . 00 CONTINGE?:CIE& +15% 319000 . 00 i SU'"T')TAL p4i s000 . 00 _. W . AND ADMIN +20% 480com00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 229M0 . 00 i i / 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 8G (D01 ) YO'RKTOWN 1 3�" RCP 29500 LF 130 .00 3259000 .00 2 MANHOLES (35"-6611 ) 4 EACH 29500 .00 .10 . 000 .00 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH 3.000 .0.0 69000 .00 4 C.ATCH 3ASINS• 21 . 0 FOOT 2 EA.CH -69`00,0 .00 129000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 3539000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 539000 .00 SUBTOTAL 406. 000900 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 819000000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 4879000 , 00 1 1 i 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 8H 2OTH -------------------------------- 1 110" RCP 400 - LF 60 .00 249000 . 00 2 24" RCP 19200 LF 75 .00 90 . 000 .00 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH . 39000900 3. 000 .00 4 CATCH BASINS 10. 0 FOOT 3 EACH 3. 000 . 00 99000000 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 126*000, 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 19 .000000 SUBTOTAL 1459000 .00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 29. 000. 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1749000 .00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 8H 18TH -------------------------------- 1 18" RCP 400 LF 60.00 249000 . 00 2 24 " RCP 19500 LF 75.00 1129500 . 00 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000000 3V000 .00 4 CATCH BASINS 10 .0 FOOT 3 EACH 3,0000 .00 99000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 1489500 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 229000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 170 .500 . 00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 34 . 000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2049500. 00 1 1 i. 1 1. DRAINAGE. AREA - D .D . 8H 16TH -------------------------------- 1 24" RCP 80U LF 75.00 609000. 00 2 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000000 39000 .00 3 CATCH BASINS 10 . 0 FOOT 2 EACH 3t000 .00 69000000 --------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 699000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15X 109000000 SUBTOTAL 799000 . 00 ENIGR. AND ADMIN +20%. 169000000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 959000 . 00 1 i 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 8H GOLLENWEST -------------------------------------- 1 24" RCP 19400 LF 75.00 1059000000 2 MANHOLES ( 15"-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 6-p000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 1169000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 179000 .00 SUBTOTAL 1339000 . 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 279000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1609000 . 00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D .D. 9 PRESCOTT/FLINSTONE ---------------------------------------------- 1 24" RCP 29300 LF 75.00 172 ,500 .00 2 CATCH BASINS 14 . 0 FOOT 4 EACH 4 .000 .00 169000 .00 ---------------------------------------- � SUBTOTAL 1889500 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 289000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 216,500 . 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 439000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2599500 .00 f 1 I 1 1 r DRAINAGE AREA - D .D . 9 SPRINGDALE ------------------------------------- i 24 " PCP 900 LF 75.00 679500 .00 2 48" RCP 19200 LF 160. 00 192. 000 . 00 r 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 39000 .00 3. 000 .00 4 CATCH BASINS 21 . 0 FOOT 4 EACH 69000.00 249000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 2869500 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 439000 *60 SUBTOTAL 329t500. 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 669000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3959500 .00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 9 HARBOR BLUFFS ------------------------------------------- 1 42" RCP 19200 LF 140 .00 1689000 .00 2 MANHOLES (35"-6611 ) 1 EACH 29500 .00 2 .500 .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 1709500. 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 26. 000 .00 SUBTOTAL 1969500 .00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 399000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2359500. 00 / 1 1 1 1 URAI':AGE AREA — G .D. 9 EDWARDS/GOLDENWEST ' ------------------------------------------------ 1 42" PCP 1 ♦600 LF 140.00 22.4. 000 .00 2 60 " RCP 19400 LF 200.00 280 . 000900 3 MANHOLES .(35" -66 " ) 4 EACH 29500900 102000000 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 5149000900 CONTINGENCIES +15% 77s000 .00 SUBTOTAL 591 ♦ 000. 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 1189000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 7099000 .00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.U. 9 ELLIS ------------------------------------ 1 48" RCP 800 LF 160 .00 1289000 .00 60 " RCP 600 LF 200 .00 120 . 000 . 00 72" RCP 600 LF 250 .00 1501000 .00 4 9 0 " itcp 400 LF 325.00 130 . 000000 5 MANHOLFS ( 69"-,-j3" ) 4 EACH 49000 . 0O 169000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SU3TOTAL 5449000 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 82 . 000 . 00 SUHTOTAL 6269000. 00 FNGR. AND ALMINI +20% 1259000 . 00 TOTAL , CONSTRUCTION COST 7519000 .00 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 9 GOTHARD/T.AL.BERT 1 42" RCP 1. p200 LF 140,900. 168t000 . 00 2 54 " HCP 2•9500 LF 18'01.0.0 450 . 000 .00 3 60 " RCP 29000 LF .2.0D4.00 4009000900 4 MANHOLES ( 35"-661- ) ,5 EACH 2 500..0.0 129500. 00 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 3,t000 .OG 99000000 _-----------------------------------;---- SUSTOT•AL 190399500 .00 CONTIN,GENCIES +15% .156 p000 .00 SUBTOTAL 191959500. 00 F'NGR:. AND •AD'MIN +,20% 2399000900 TOT-A.L CONSTRUCTION COST 1 ,434.v500 . 00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA — D .D. 9 WARNER -------------------------------------- 1 42" RCP 19500 LF 140 .00 210 . 000 .00 2 MANHOLES (35"-6611 ) 2 EACH 29500 .00 5 *000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SURTOTAL 2159000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 32. 000 . 00 SUBTOTAL 2479000 * 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20%e 499000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 296t000 . 00 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D .D . 10 (C06 ) WARNER ------------------------------------------ 1 30 " RCP 400 LF 100 .00 40 . 000600 2 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 3. 000 .00 39000 . 00 ---------------------- ---------------- SUBTOTAL 439000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 69C00 .00 S03TOTAL 49. 000 . 00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 10 . 000 . 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 599000 .00 1 1 1 . 1 1 . DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 10 (C06 ) ASH ------------------------------------- 3(ill RCS' 1000 LF 120 . 00 1449000 , 00 MANHOLES ( 15" -33" ) 1 EACH 29000 . 0O 29000 . 00 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1. EACH 39000 .00 39000 .00 4 CATCH BASINS 14 .0 FOOT 3 EACH 49000 .00 12 . 000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 1619600900 CONTINGENCIES +15% 249000 . 00 1 SUBTOTAL 185 . 000000 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 37 . 000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 222• 000 . 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA — D.D. 12 (HEIL ) ---------------------------------- 1 18" RCP 50 LF 60 .00 390OO *00 2 24 " RCP Fs0O LF 75.00 6O9000000 3 54" RCP 800 LF 180 .00 1449OOO . O0 4 66" RCP 600 LF 220 .00 1329 0OO .0O 5 72 " RCP 550 LF 250 .00 13795OO . 0O 6 MANHOLES ( 15"-3311 ) 2 EACH 29O00000 4t0OO .00 7 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 2 EACH 295OO. 00 59OOOoOO 8 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 59000000 159O0O . 0O 9 CATCH BASINS 10 . 0 FOOT 1 EACH 39OOO .0O 39000 . 0O 1G CATCH 3ASINS 14. 0 F00T 2 EACH 49OOO *00 8900O .00 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 511950O .0O CONTINGENCIES +15 77900090O SUBTOTAL 5889500 . 00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 1189O0000O TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 7O6950O900 1 1 1 r DkAINAGE AREA. — U.D. 12 BOLSA ChICA ---------------------------------------- 1 48" RCP 1s500 LF 160 .00 2409000 .00 2 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 1 EACH 29500. 00 29500 . 00 3 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 3 EACH 39000000 99000000 4 CATCH BASINS 14. 0 FOOT 4 EACH 4s000 .O0 169000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUHTOTAL 267 .500 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 40s000 .00 1 SUBTOTAL 307s500 . 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 619060 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3689500 .00 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 12 WATERWAY -------------------------------- 1 30" RCP 600 LF 100 .00 609000 .00 2 CATCH BASINS 10 .0 FOOT 1 EACH 39000 .00 3r000000 ---------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL 63r000 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15 99000 .00 SUBTOTAL 729000 .00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 149Q00 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 169000* 00 1 I 1 1 1 1 i DRAINAGE AREA - D .U. STARDUST --------------------------------- 1 24" RCP 800 LF 75.00 609000 . 00 2 CATCH EASINS 14 . 0 FOOT 2 EACH 49000 .00 89000 .00 ---------------------------------------- SU3TOTAL 68v000 .00 CONTINGENCIES + 15% 10 . 000. 00 SUBTOTAL 789000 . 00 ENGR . AND ADMIN +20% 169000 .00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 94 .000 . 00 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AREA - D.D. 12 ►iEIL (E ) ------------------------------------ 1 42" RCP 19600 LF 140 .00 2249000 .00 2 MANHOLES ( 35"-66" ) 2 EACH 29500.00 5. 000000 ---------------------------------------- SULTOTAL 2299000 .00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 34 . 000 .00 SUBTOTAL 263 • 000 . 00 ENGR. AND ADMIN +20% 53 ► 000000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 316T000 . 00 1 1 1 1 i 1 DRAINAGE AREA - 0,0 . 12 WARNER ------------------------------------- 1 42" RCP 700 LF 140 . 00 98 . 000 . 00 2 54" RCP 29500 LF 180 #00 450 .000 .00 3 MANHULE:S ( 35"-66" ) 2 EACH 2 .500 .00 59000 .00 4 JUNCTION STRUCTURES 5 EACH 39000 .00 159000900 5 CATCH 3ASINS 14 . 0 FOOT '_. EACH 49000.00 12. 000 . 00 ---------------------------------------- SUOTOTAL 580 . 000 . 00 CONTINGENCIES +15% 87. 000900 SUBTOTAL 6671000@00 Fl:GR . AND ADMIN +20% 133t000. 00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 8009000000 / 1 1 1 1 �'[Ie�rme fa THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK '? [COE CITY OF .HUNTINGTON BEACH'.INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION C� .3 /i 11�V HUNTINGTON BEACH ,,:To George Tindall From gill Patapoff Subject Drainage Problems Date February 27, 1980 The following is a summary of the drainage problems that'. Don Kiser reported in his memo and map of .January 31, 1980 , and how they could possibly be alleviated:: 1. Garfield -. Huntington/Delaware An existing ,retention. basin that was -constructed with Tr.Act 9378 collects water on the north side of Garfield Ave. The City' s maintenance division is required to pump the water out of the basin to the south side of the .street: This retention .basin, is no longer needed if approximately 300 ' of-storm- drain is constructed in Gar- field Ave. and catch basins constructed at the sumps. An on-site private drainage system is also needed to convey the natural drainage from the properties north of the tract to Garfield Ave. Foxx Development owns the property, but they have not formally submitted plans to fill the basin and construct the necessary storm drains. The estimated cost of the master planned work is $50 ,000 and there is currently $150,000 -in drainage district 8G. In addition, the Huntington Street storm drain, south of Yorktown Ave. is proposed for construction in 1980-81 and is estimated to cost $75 , 000. 2. Adams - Alabama/Delaware Approximately 40 acres of runoff drain to the north side of Adams Ave. at Alabama St. , 20 acres via Adams Ave. and 20 acres on Alabama St. There are two catch basins , one on the west side of Alabama St. (W=51 ) and the other on the east side (W=14 ' ) . The flows along Adams Ave. and Alabama St. are great and due to the flat street slopes the water floods at least one travel lane during a moderate rain storm. The northeast corner of Adams and Alabama does not have curb and gutter, therefore compounding the problem of the water getting to the catch basin. Catch basins can be constructed as Don Kiser suggested, intercepting much of the flow and conveying it into the existing Adams Ave. storm drain. Drainage district 8G has a balance of $150 , 000 , but other projects also need to be constructed in this district as stated previously. Memo - George Tindall Drainage Problems Feb. 27, 1980 Page 2 3. Warner - Bolsa Chica/Graham Due to the development of properties west of Bolsa Chica Street, .the runoff along the south side of Warner Ave. has greatly increased. The ultimate solution is to extend the Bolsa Chica storm drain to Warner Ave. and intercept the runoff: This project is scheduled for 1980-81 . and it is estimated to cost. $200,000. Drainage district 12 presently has approximately $195 ,000 available for the project. Also an additional catch basin can be constructed on Graham Street, s/o Warner to intercept the runoff that bypasses the basin at the southwest corner of Graham and Warner. This could be financed with district 9-funds for approximately $10 ,000. 4. Worchester N/o Yorktown The flooding occurs in the rear of the commercial area east of Beach Blvd. at the block wall. An existing in- adequate drainage system, which consists of two 12" pipes , drains approximately 15-20 acres. Our proposed Yorktown/ Worchester storm drain is _ scheduled for this summer. 5. Yorktown - Delaware/England Yorktown Ave. was widened this past year and temporary grated inlets were installed at the north right of -way line. These inlets which clog up with debris , were con- structed because the City does not have ultimate right of way in this area. - At the time the street is widened and curb and gutter is. constructed, curb opening catch basins will be constructed to ,replace the grated inlets. 6. . 12th - Main/Lake Flooding occurs in this area because of the inadequate drainage facilities which include 6" to 18" VCP and small grated inlets. Thirteenth Street from Palm to Orange also floods because of the undersized and antiquated drainage system. The master planned 12th/Main storm drain will correct the deficiencies, but drainage districts 8D & 8F do not have the necessary funds. The estimated cost for the project ,is $4, 000, 000. I have suggested constructing the first phase of this project in 80-81, if other fund- ing is available. Memo - George Tindall Drainage Problems Feb. 27 , 1980 Page 3 7. Newland - S/o Garfield The street on the west side of Newland has subsided and now holds water. A catch basin and connector pipe• to the existing Newland storm drain should solve the problem at an estimated cost of $10,000. 8. Service Road - E/o Huntington Newly installed drainage facilities in conjunction with Tract 9580 are not functioning because pumping units 4 and 5 at the. Atlanta pump station are not operable. Thus the ditch along the service road is not draining properly but should be draining as well as it .has in previous years. The trailer park flooding could be solved by eliminating` their pumping station and extending the storm drain line along the service road to their catch basin. Drainage district 8B does not have funds to construct this line. 9. Newland N/o P.C.H. Flooding occurs in the low spot south of D01 channel. There are no. drainage facilities serving this area and the area must be pumped after the rains. The ultimate solution to the problem would be to construct a storm drain under the DO1 channel to the Newland pump station. A good time to bore under the channel would be at the same time the O.C.S.D. constructs there line, because of the dewatering, street closure, etc. Drainage district 7E/7H has approximately $240,000. 10. Goldenwest S/o Ellis This low spot of Goldenwest floods because the berm openings are not large' enough to drain the street to the natural swale. The maintenance division should enlarge the berm openings. 11. Beach at Newman The maintenance division indicated a low spot exists in the street. A solution is to reconstruct the curb and gutter. , 12. Elm/Keelson The two streets are connected by a small surface culvert. Under heavy rains debris blocks the drain and causes flooding. The maintenance division indicated that this is not a major problem. i z A Memo - George Tindall Drainage Problems Feb. 27 , 1980 Page 4 13. Ash -S/o Warner The Cypress/Ash storm drain presently under construction should solve the major portion of flooding, but curb and gutter needs to be constructed for ultimate solution. 14. Ocean View High School The grated sump inlet at the trailer park block wall collects debris and grass clippings, thus prohibiting water from en- tering the storm drain. This water ponds against. the block wall and flows into the trailer park. Also maintenance of the Central Park storm drain and drainage ditch is necessary so that the flows are not obstructed. ' The school district should be required to clean up their debris and grass clippings. Also a catch basin with a larger opening could be constructed to accept more water. 15. Springdale S/o Heil Springdale Street has subsided in a number of areas and a couple of catch basins have been constructed in the lowest spots. The street could be reconstructed but would probably settle again. More catch basins could also be installed at the settled areas . 16. Graham S/o Heil Graham Street is unimproved in this area and will not drain properly until curb and gutter, is constructed. 17. Warner @ Los Patos The existing 18" storm drain is .not adequate to convey the runoff, therefore the water floods the street. L.D. King recommends a $800 ,000 storm drain system to correct the deficiency. Drainage district 12 does not have the funds to accomplish this project. Also the extension of the Bolsa Chica Street storm drain is a higher priority project (see paragraph 3) . Bill Patapoff WAP.:.lw Civil Engineer Assoc. cc: Jeff Renna