Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSewers - Miscellaneous Documents - Master Plan of Sewage Fac REQUESi' FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION �� L 1 Date Nov=mber 6, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City'Council AI?P Olt pgD ny CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administratolg /f- I �.r.�.19: ; Prepared by: v Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works � I ^wbjtxrt. STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION R j CIT CLr LETTERS TO SENATORS AND CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES i Consistent with Council Policy? VI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Staterrient of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATIEMENT OF ISSUE: The Orange County City Engineers' Association is requesting Orange County cities to send letters to their Senators and Congressional Representatives asking them to support the National Association of Flood and Storm water ttanagement Agencies' (NAFSSIA) Stormwater Discharge Permit Program proposal. RECOMMENDED ACT ION Execute the attached letters of support of NAF5\1A's permit proposal and direct the City Clerk to serrd tite letters to Senators' Cranston and Wilson and Congressmen Cox. and Rohrabacher. i ANALYSIS: On February 4, 1987, Congress passed the Water quality Act of 1987 ('t;'QA) amending the 1972 Clean Water Act. Under this Act, the Environmental Protect,an Agency is required to rrgulate storrnwater that discharges into waters of the United 5:ates. Municipalities, counties, and ,other government agencies which discharge stor,nwater will be required to apply for a 51ormwater Discharge Perinit. under the National Pollutant Discharge j Elimination System Program. In response to these regulations, the Orange County City En-gineers Assocation has formtrd a corarnittec. The Committee has adopted tht: f0ll9-,•.•in7, mission statcrnertt. To provide inform-3tion and technical assistancr to 13rarive County agcncics nn the UI'DES Sturtttw:iter Permit :tc-I;ulatiuns, to dr-fine a cooperative process for th'. pertrlit ipnliratinrt trrl to aid iri knviq�rnuritatiorl of a Corint}• !fide r • It) revit-winr; the ttatu" of 111, Stor'nw"ftC'r 11,r'►lit Ifl+} r-lrtl, 11w Comm!ttt-tr 1}'.s k--irtw 1 n that t1rC itC:;ltrn tl Water Q11.11ily Colltr'JI (it%Vt?C!NS ) atlttt_'1:);3tt,` ct',`;I};lliitlilj; E)r ttl;l` :.: County Inv, two -; "*p:tr it!, "!•� �t!"S1'."• 11+1'•!'Cl otl .11t' traft rll�'�?1 1�, �.iltltil t+ Aivi Itrr;i•rrt will itt• Ili- orr t nor I -tf 1:1 i'rtr'�/1, ts;unn 11t':t� rt ,!s .t "atilrrt". ' sir;tll lrl},, t!r!` `t'.�'t?+'11. 5.ttt ttr!•,;;t ttri;loll will ttrtii;;n ltt• t1w 'ar,10wrn p trt OI tiro Comity . r1n ttM-a I a i Request for Council Action Stormwater Discharge Per mlt ' Application Regulations November 5, 1989 Page 2 as another "system". In each system, the cities, County and Flood Control District will be co-permittees. Thus all metropolitan areas in Orange County wil! be regulated by the NPOES Stormwater Permit Reg Cations. Presently CPA expects to release the final regulations by August, 1990 with applications due by June, 1991. As the application . requires extensive development of information and initiation of programs which will be k included In the final program, imp:ementation should be viewed as beginning August, 1990 for budgetary purposes. In anticipation of this program, the Committee has begun wort: o• implementation agreements for each "system" area. These agreements specify the roles and r' responsibilities of ca%;h co permittee and proposes a cast-sharing formula. Finally, the Committee is suporting a proposal to encourage the cities to contact their congressional representatives in support of the National Urban Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies' Stormwater Permit Program proposal. FUNDING SOURCE: None at this time, but funds will be needed next fiscal year depend:ng on the final regulations and the cost-sharing between cities/counties. ATTACHMENTS: Letters of Support LFS:WAP:Iw 222Sg/:7 :. MAYOR J Wes Bannister City of HUntangtan ]3F:d MAYOR PRO TEh1gDRE: Torn Mays P.O.80X 190 • 2000 MAIN STFEET CALIFORNIA 92648 * CDUNCILLIE'.18E•RS John t:tskvre Peter Green Dun MacAllister Jim Silva Grace winchell October 19, 1939 Congressir►an Dana Rohrabacher 1017 1.ongworth House Office Iluilding ►V3shington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman ltohrabacher: O:i 5ecember 7, 1989, the U.S. En- iron-nental Protection Agency prnposed regulations which would establish permit application, requirements for discharges from municipal separate storm sewers. l'he proposal is comprehensive and complex and -will initially require cities with populations gre •,er than M,000 to apply for permits; eventually all cities and towns will be subject to the rcyuire(nerit. The County of Orange has sLvcral r municipalities which will be affected by these regulations. i Luring; the 90-day review period, the EPA received many cornincnts regarding the i proposed regulations. Sources within the :Agency have disclosed that a summary of :►test cornatcnts totals 970 pages. The National Association of flood and Storenwater %lanagrement Agencies (NAf=MIA) has develop�.-d -t proposal ,vhich reduces the complexities of the EPA regulation while retaining; all of they :Key cletnents. It j recommends a one par: application process followed by a compliance. pe.•rind whereas the EPA proposal requires all elernettts to be addrt ssed in a two part application process. •• I The one part application would consist of 1) providing general inform atinn, 2) de:rcribing, existing legal autharity to control discharzvs to the storm drain system, 3) identifying; pollutant sources, 4) developing; a rTionitorim.; and characterization plan including, a description of any existing; programs, 5) :f(!scribin;; axistinp, 'lana,crncnt Plans, 6) Preparing i plan includiac; a sche'lule to _l�ICCI and eliminate illicit discharges and Vuproper disposal into storm drains, 1) dvve•lopin;; a pl-jn to reduce pollutai is in stormwater runoff from constructirnl sites 'ind .9) identifying :lest `.lartavernent Practices (IkM11s) that catt be r('adI'v it Tit)I^tr1(•tlted clrnrtnr; the cninpliance pr'riod, hlr' compliance period would consist U 1) obtainirl^ the legal 7tltthority, 2) ir'Ipler i ntirig, the plans described in t11e apolic ttiz.: , 3) orep-tring 3 Mart for structural aril source controls to reduce pollution fro-Ti rL•Sicirrittaf -11111 ("Y1111"Wrcial -lrv;ts, and 4) rirr'paring, it liscal atvaly sis of tht.- progr-71m. i i Y l r ` yr.t.cr>Ic�r�t: i•ta1 nos•::+ya l fON Congressman Dana Rohrabacher October 19, 1989 Page 2 A copy of the NAI=SMA proposal and a draft letter to the Administrator of the EPA, urging him to seriously consider the NAMIA proposal in the development of the final rule are attached. Your review of these documents and corri:spondence with the j Administrator regarding these concerns will be greatly aDI)reciated. I will have a member of my staff contact your office in the next week to discuss the matter further. 'Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, t j Wes Bannister Mayor Wll:'d'AP:lw i Attach. j 2225g Ir R i� i , October 19, 19139 The Honorable William -'teilly Administrator (W 1200) U.S. Environmental Protection Arcncy 401 M Street .S%V Washington, DC 20460 ' Dear Adrninis'ratcr aeilfy: On March 7, 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (r�P:1) closed the putslic comment period on its proposed rulernaking for NPi)1;S permits for stormwater discharges. The first phase of this program will target cities :with over 100,000 population; however, the need for a storm sewer discharge perrnit will eventually he f required by cities and towns of all sizes. The public r_oncern over the proposed rule by local officials is reflected in the fact that, as I understand from EPA sources, a summary of the comments received oa the proposal totals 900 pages. They far reaching impact of this rule requires that the agency develop a regulation which is effective, targeted, reasonable and practical to implement. 'rhe National Association of Flood and Storrnwater Management Agencies (NAPS MA) has developed a proposal which I feel accomplishes these goats. I The proposal outlines a ore part application process followed, during, the compliance period, be perrnit monitoring planning, characterization anti asseis—aent. The one part process could, under `AFS�Ws proposal, consist of the following: ;erleral information, a *.. description of existing; legal authority, sourc_ identification inforr'13tiOn, e_ICvelopment of � a monitoring and characterization plan, preparation of a plan including a sc_hedide to detect and remove il;icit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers, development of a plan to reduce pollutants in storrrswater runoff frorrl construction sites, and identification of Best ,ianapement Practices (W.il"s) that can be readily applied and r implemented during; the initial oart of the comoliancr! period. There is some question as to the definition of terrrr "WIterS Of Vir- United States" as stated in the proposed rlllr_`. A clarification of this tern is regijired to ilccllrltely def►m! the responsibilities r)f the yomicipa(ities. The rule propo5r-s ar..tivitivs heryorlrf the scope of most municipalities ar•i would require ctlntractrrl consultarst srrvices or specialized staff. These activities, such as water 51ijAity rrlonituring, ncrmittim; Jf industrial discharges gibe enforcement actions should ht- the` re porlsibility of tf'ise ar;t:n-ics •,t'hk-h already vosso.ss the adrrlirtistrativr, technical and lvv; al m ar(--ls. AM, Hermit requirerrivots shook) only b--- establishi-d for tlla5u arras which, -i,. 1 t"irllt of sturrrlwatcr discharl;es, have at► itfcntificd dc�trirlsr�nt to t���ncfiCirsl usrs. lhr� "alrr quality rnanitarins; I7rUljrilf!I SIIGl11d IK' SItC i;)r.'(--lflc SJ ttitilt til+! CU115tItUl'IItS tr) t)C iinilll'iCrl ha lrl identifiable or at Icdst stlSovctrd srnlrcr•. I'his will :dlwx ;s mare oruth'rlt cxprnaiture of Public fund!, io the of 0w prm-ra-M. i' I - - 1 The Honorable William Reilly October 19, 1989 Page 2 Additionally, innocuous non-stor+n discharges such as landscape irrigation and other non-point "nuisance" flows as well as diverted stream flows, pumped groundw ter or rising; g;roundwa tors should be excluded from the definition of stormwater. Regulation of these discharges would complicate the administration of the program anti would yield little if any environmental benefit. !} Since the proposed regulations are so encompassing; and pervasive in their impact on local governments and will require the expenditure of scarce local resources to imple•ncnt, the PA should seriously reconsider the requirements which would be imuosed under the proposal rule. The NAFS%IA proposal retains all the elements of CPA's proposed regulations, but rearranges them so local governments can better implement a meaningful but practical program. I also feel that this proposal will enhance EPA's stated objective to deve.op a flexible prograrn that can be tailored to the unique problems of the many different regions of the country. I also urge you to consider reproposing the rule once the agency has had the opportunity to review and evaluation the information gathered during the public curnment period. jThank you for your consideration of this matter. ` Sincerely, Senator Alan Cranston j I 1 i i i s i I i i NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND STORWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES STATEMENT ON "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION REGULATIONS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES" In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule detailing stormwater discharge application requirerents published in the We�_, ral Register on December 7, 1988, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies submits the following statement: 1. Propose s 1 Qart Application Process: The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies is concerned that the application requirements as proposed by EPA are too complex and w=1i be difficult for municipalities to accomplish in a two year period. Areas of particular concern are Field Screening Analysis and Characterization Plan (Part 1); and Characterizatior, Data, Proposed Management Plans (for residential, commercial and, industrial activities), Assessment of Contro*,s, and Fiscal Analysis (Part 2). EPA requested comment on the following Section VII.J. of the Preamble: "EPA requests comments on the relationship between the proposed deadline and the proposal for a two part permit application for discharges from a large or medium municipal separate storm sewer system. Specifically, EPA requests comments on an alternative approach to a two part permit application where only some part of the requirements discussed in today's notice (primarily the Part 1 application requirements) would be established as application requirements and other requirements (primarily the Part 2 application requirements) would be established as permit conditions. Under this approach, applicants would be required to include plans to submit Information with the Part 1 application. These plans would be used to develop compliance schedules which would be incorporated as permit conditions. This option is not favored in today's notice because of the Agency's concerns about the additional time that may be required to develop and implement municipal stormwater management programs." It is NAFSMA's position that a or►e part application would be preferred. The requirements as proposed by EPA will result in: hurriedly collected and compiled sampling data; poorly documented and inaccurate estimates of loads, and 'nastily prepared and completed management plans. In addition, it will not be possible for local agencies to receive legal authorities it needed within the application timeperiod. A one part application will permit initial system ic'entification %York to take place and permit monitoring, pianning, i characterization and assessment to take place on an agreed upon schedule during compliance. A one part application should consist of the following: 1. Provide general information. 2. Describe existing legal authority. 3. Prepare source iderilification information. 4. Provide discharge characterization information consisting of existing quantitative data, and-monthly precipitation data, and a list of water bodies that receive discharges from storm sewer systems. 5. Describe existing nianag:jment plans. 6. Prepare plan for monitoring and characterization that would be implemented during the compliance period. 7. Prepare plan including schedule to detect and remove illicit discharges and impropbr disposal into storm sewers for early implementation during-compliance period. 8. Prepare plan to reduce aollutan+s in stormwater runoff from construction sites for early implementation during compliance period. 9. Identify BMP's that ban be readily applied and implemented during the initial part of the compliance period. Schedules for compliance ac4ivities would be a part of the permit application. i Activities to be performed during the compliance period would include: 1. Implement plan to detect and remove illicit discharges. 2. Obtain legal authority. 3. Implement monitoring and characterization program. 4. Develop localized criteria for BMP's identified as questionable. 5. Prepare plan for structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from residential and commercial areas. F;. Prepare assessment of controls. 7. Prepare fiscal analysis. 8. Implement Manacgerrment Flans. i A one part application followed by compliance activities as outlined above will result in a more orderly development of stormwater m:Anagement programs while allowing for quick implementation of efforts to eliminate illicit discharges and initiation of some BMP';,. Allowing for this orderly development of programs will save time in the long run and be more cost effective. The prepared plan does not eliminate any of the EPA required work items, but only rearranges them. Also, permits could be more quickly issued bucause permit requirements are reduced. This proposal will not make the process more complex as the same b=sic items ars being accomplished. Also, the program can be more readily adopted to local conditions because the sequence of events will allow more of a building block approach. 2. Request ter f3epro osa! of ftigmaking: The December 7, 1988 proposed rule presents a complex series of options for public consideration and comment within a 90 day period. An analysis of the rule's Preamble unveils over 90 distinct questions, options and alternatives for comment by interested parties. This form of rulemaking affords the agency a vehicle to solicit comments on a variety of alternative approaches to addressing the stormwater runoff problem. It is an information and data gathering exercise that provides the agency the opportunity to rethink, bases: on additional new information, some of its proposed requirements. NAFSMA supports EPA's efforts to gather additional information on the most effective means of developing stormwater application requirements. However, the association does not support EPA's attempt to simultaneously gather additional information and propose a rule all in one document. Although ? EFA does in fact propose its first option as "The Proposed Rule", an impacted agency must comment on it as well as take into consideration every alternalivc presented in the Preamble. This process does not afford the public the opportunity to coniment on a comprehensive proposal and places those most affected by its contents at a distinct disadvantage by having to guess at what a proposal m?ght actually look like. For these reasons, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies requests that EPA repropose the rule once the agency has had the opportunity to review and evaluate the information gathered during the December 7, 198E to March 7, 1989 comment period. The reproposal could then reflect the agency's best thinking on the subject of stormwater reguiation and provide impacted parties the opportunity to :omment knowledgeably on a comprehensive proposal. MAYOR JJ . Was Bnrrnister r ` City Of Hh�.Y.1tIngtOn Beal!311 MAYOR PRO TEMPpRE Torn Mays P.O.nox 19n • r000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 C Mt:MpERS Johnhot Erskine Potter Green Don MatAltister J+nt Silva Grace Winchell October 19, 1989 Senator Alan Cranston I Z Mart Senate Office Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Cranston: On December 7, 1938, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proc•1.sed regulations + which would establish permit application requirements for discharges I.aril municipal separate storrn sewers. The proposal is comprehensive: and complex and will initially req+rire cities tvith po.uWations greater than 100,000 to apply for oermits; eventually all cities and towns will be subject to the requirement. The County of r�Dram; has several municipalities which will be affected by these regulations. During the 90-day review period, the EPA received many comments regarding the proposed regulations. Sources within the Agency have disclosed that a summary of these comments totals 906 pages. The National Association of Flood and Stor+nwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) has developers a proposal which reduce:, the complexities of the CPA regulation while remaining; all of the k�!y elements. It recorn,riends a one part anolication process followed by a compliance period wrhrreas the EPA proposal requires all elements to be addres;erl in a two part application process. The one part 7pplication would consist of 1) providing general information, 2) describing existing legal authority to control discharges to the storm drain system, 3) identifying pollutant sources, 4) developing a rnonitoring and ch:iracteriz.ation plan incluelin; a description of any existing; oro.-rains, 5) describing existing \lznag;er:,r.fit Plans, b) preparing; a plan inclucling a 5chedu!2 to detect and clirniriale illicit discharges and improper disposal into storrn drains, 7) developing a p!an tc rr:rtcl e pollutants in stormw'iter runoff frmn construction sites and 8) identifying Hest 'Ianagerr,mit Practices (B-MI)s) that can be readily implerrtented during tht, compliance periorl. The cornpliarlce period would cori5ist of 1) obtaining the lei,al authority, 2) brink--wilting the plans described in the application, 3) prerparinl; a elan for strur.trlral and sotlrr_r + cantrols to reduce nollution fro,ti r,-%idential and r ;r tl!r1r:rCl+'.l ar`-as, Fief.! 4) per-paring a i 1 fiscal analysis of the vrot;rarn. a I f i 4 }t t 1 i , ' 'rl:ltr•llaNt (714) Car+ sIal, i Senator Alan Cranston October 19, 1989 Page 2 A coAv of the NAF5MA proposal and a draft letter t-) the Administrator of the EPA. urging him to seriously cons-ider the NANSM proposal in the development of the final rule are attached. Your review of these documents and correspondence with the Administrator regarding these concerns will he greatly appreciated. I will have a member of my staff contact your office in thr: next week to discuss thu matter furtht:r. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 5incerel , r VI es Bannister Mayor ` ll:,VAP:lw Attach, 222Sg i I i t i i i October 19, 1989 The Honorable Miliain Reilly .Administrator (W 1200) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1101 M Street SNV W21shington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Reilly: On March 7, 1989, the U.S. Eiivironinental Protection Agency (GPA) closed the public comment period on its proposed rulemaking for .'.1'OE permits for stormwater discharges. The first phase of this program will target cities with over 100,000 population; however, the need for a storm sewer discharge permit will eventually be required by cities and towns of all sizes. The public concern over the proposed rule by local officials is reflected in the fact that, as I understand from EPA sources, a summary of the r_ornoicnts received on the proposal totals 9p0 pages. rite far reaching impact of this rule requires that the agency develop a regulation which is effective, targeted, reasonable and practical to implement. The National Association of Flood and Storrnwater Management Agencies (N.AFS 3A) has developed a proposal which I feel accomplishes these go7ls. The proposal outlines a one part auplic.ation process followed, during the compliance period, be permit monitoring planning, characterization and assessment. 'rite one part process could, under NAFS`JA's propose;, consist of the following: general in:orrnatlon, a desct iption of existing legal authority, source identification information•,, develop(;-,ent of a monitoring and characterization plan reparation of a plan including . schedule to � plan, 1 j; 1 le I dCtCCt 311d 7emove illicit discharges and imoroper disposal into storm sewers, deve-lopmCnt of a plan to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites, and identification of Best ` anagernent Practices (VII-"s) that can be readily applied arx: i^lplerienterf during the initial part of the crpfllnliance Period. There is 50111C question 1s to the definition of terra "Waters of the U: ited States" as st:atz!d in the proposed rule. A clarification of this term is required to accuratcly define the responsibilities of tl.e rnuniCi(palities. The oilt- proUUses rictivitiCS beyond the scope of most tnunicijpalitii's anal Would require contra,71t-d c_ofisultant %erviceE or sof.cializefl stalf. 'rhese activities, such aS water gttality 'nr)rlitorin g, i)vrinitting of industrial discharges and enforcenicrit action:, ahouldf he the' responsibility al those a1wricies -which :tlreafiy possess the •idministrative, tr-chnical and legal expt!rtise in those arras. Also, orrridt requirements should only be e!%tablis!ied for thos•L- area, as a result of stc;rtnW:1ter discharges, havr. an identifira detriment to ht!nefic_i•al use„;. nct- water quality tnunitorinr; program Should ip ! site Specific so that tit;.• c:onstituerits to hn analy:ed have ran 1 idcntifia!ale or at last suspeacttrl scnirc,?. Ptis will alto,v ,► riore prulerit expr..nditure of 3i3 ipu-�lic funds in th" im;plernentation of the pro-rafn. 4 4 I i t 3 f S The ;lonorable William rteilly October 19, 1989 fare 2 Additionally, innocuous :ion-storm discharges such as landscape irrigation and other non-point "nuisince" flows as well as diverted strea►o flows, pumped groundwater or rising groundwaters should be excluded (ram the definition of storniwater. Regulation of these discharges would complicate tite administration of the program and would yield little if any environmental benefit. Since the proposed regulations are so encompassing and pet•vzsive in their impact on local governments and will regvire the expenditure of scarce local resources to implement, the CPA should Seriously reconsider the regijirements which would be irnaosed under the proposal rule. The NAFSMA proposal retains all the ell-nents of EIIA's proposed regulations, but rearranges them so local governments can better implement a meaningful but practical progra►n. I also feel that this proposal will enhance EVA's stated objective to develop a flexible program that can be tailored to the unique problems of the many different regions of the country. also urge you to consider reproposing the rule once the agency hats Karl the opportunity to review and evaluation the information gathered during the public comment period. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Ccngress*nan Dana itohrabacher I - I NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND STORWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES I STATEMENT ON "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE f ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION REGULATIONS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES" In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule detailing stormwater discharge application requirements published in the Feder l&gj9Lr on December 7, 1988, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies submits the following statement: }}� —pr ± ose .,,gip, phi l,Qn,,Pioms; The National Association of. I Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies Is concerned that the application 1` requirements as proposed by EPA are too complex and will be difficult for municipalities to accomplish in a two year period. Areas of particular concern are Field Screening Analysis and Characterization Plan (Part 1); and Characterization Data, Proposed Management Plans (for residential, commercial and industrial activities), Assessment of Controls, and Fiscal Analysis (Part 2). c. EPA requested comment on the following Section VII.J. of the Preamble: "EPA requests comments on the relationship between the proposed deadline and:the proposal for a two part permit application for discharges from a large or medium municipal separate storm sewer system. Specifically, EPA requests comments on. an alternative approach to a two part permit application where tl• only some part of the requirements discussed in today's notice (primarily the Pail 1 application requirements) would be established as application requirements and.other requirements (primarily the Part 2 application F' requirements) would be established as permit conditions. Under.this approach, applicants would be required to include plans to submit information with the f, Part 1 application. These plans would be used to develop compliance schedules which would be incorporated as permit conditions. This option is not favored in today's notice because of the Agency's concerns about the additional time that may be required to develop and implement municipal stormwater Lr.. management programs." It is NAFSMA's position that a one part application would be preferred. The requirements as proposed by EPA will result in: hurriedly collected and compiled sampling data: poorly documented and inaccurate estimates of loads; and hastily,prepared and coin'plated management plans. In addition,it.will riot be possible for local agencies to receive legal authorities If needed within the application timeperiod. A one part application will permit initial system Identification work to take place and permit monitoring, planning, t• . . ......'',....�'... :.!.ri.1•....1...kt.n>,•..r .. ...... t.f.w .+,.w...w�.rr�•w.waM Y. s 1 1 characterization and assessment to take place on an agreed upon schedule during compliance. ' A one part application should consist of the following: 1. Provide general information. 2. Describe existing legal authority. 3. Prepare source identification information. 4. Provide discharge characterization information consisting of existing quantitative data, and-monthly precipitation data, and a list of water bodies that receive discharges from storm sewer systems. ` 5. Describe existing management plans. 6. Prepare plan for monitoring and characterization that would be t Implemented during the compliance period. ' 7. Prepare plan including schedule to detect and remove illicit discharges and impropbr disposal into storm sewers for early implementation during'compliance period. 1 B. Prepare plan to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from. construction sites for early implementation during compliance period. ' 9, identify BMP's that ban be'read;ly applied and implemented during the:: initial part of the compliance period. tie Schedules for compliance activities would be a part of the permit application:' Activities to be performed during the compliance period would include: 1. Implement plan to detect ,�:,,d remove illicit discharges. 2. Obtain legal authority. 3. Implement monitoring ar.9 characterization program. ;i 4. Develop localized criteria for BMP's Identified as questionable. 1±t 5. Prepare plan for structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from residential. and commercial areas. 6. Prepare assessment of controls. 7. Prepare fiscal analysis. 8. Implement Management Plans. !` is ... ......« .....•. rN•. ..-i '.lf.., ;�"j ;?:fJ:. '7' .. r ....._.. .. ............ .. ... .. -..«._......_.......,..... w�.r.....�.....,r,.r«....ww�+w ww✓ — .. A one part application followed by compliance activitias.,as.outlined above will result in a more.orderly development of stormwater management programs while allowing for quick Implementation of efforts to eliminate Illicit.dircharges and Initiation of some BMP's. Allowing'-for this orderly deveh?ameni of programs will save tame in'the long run and be'more cost effective. The prepared plan does not eliminate any of the EPA required work Items, but only rearranges them. Also, permits could be more quickly Issued because permit requirements are reduced. This proposal will not make the process more complex as the same basic itams are being accomplished. Also, the program can be more readily adopted to local conditions because the sequence of events will allow mors of a building block approach. 2. Ren est jgr F QprorapospI at RuutQMphiho: The December 7, 1988 proposed rule presents a complex series of options for public consideration and comment within a go day period. An analysis of the rule's Preamble unveils i over 90 distinct questions, options and alternatives for comment by interested parties. This form of'rulemaking affoids the agency a vehicle to solicit comments on a variety of alternative approaches to addressing the stormwater.runoff'problem. It Is an Information and data gathering exercise that provides the agency the ' opportunity to rethink, based on additional new information, some of Its . proposed requirements. NAFSMA supports EPA's efforts to gather additional Information on the most effective means of developing stormwater application requirements. However, the association does not support EPA:s attempt'to simultaneously gather additional information and propose a rule all in one document: -Although i EPA does In fact propose its first option as "The Proposed Rule", an impacted ` agency must comment on it as well as take Into consideration every alternative t presented in the Preamble. This process does not afford'the public the opportunity to comment on a comprehensive proposal and places those most affected by its contents at a distinct disadvantage by having to guess at what a proposal might actually look like. For these reasons, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater I Management Agencies requests that EPA repropose the-rule once the agency has had the opportunity to review and evaluate the information gathered during s the December 7, 1988 to March 7, 1989 comment period. The reproposal could E then reflect the agency's best thinking on the subject of stormwater regulation and provide impacted parties the opportunity to comment knowledgeably on a ' comprehensive proposal. 1 a MAYOR City of Hu tit-Ington Beaeft vies Bannister MAYOR PnO TEMPORt Tam Mays P.O, Box 190 • 2000 MAIN 5TRt CT • CALIroRN1A 92640 COUNGILK'IEMUERS Jahn Erakinr Peter Green Doti MacAllister Jim Silva Glace Wincholl l'.Qllgre55(T1an Christopher Cox 510 Can,.on Of(ice Building ttirashington, O.C. 20515 i-lear Congre%sr►►an Cox: On Occember 7, 1988, the U.S. i:nvironmental Protection Agency proposed regulations which would establish permit application requirements for discharges from municipal separate storm sewers. The proposal is comprehensive and complex and will initially require: cities with populations greater than 100,000 to apply for permits; eventually all cities and towns will be subject to the requirement. The County of Orange has several municipalities which will be affected by these regulations. iluring the 90-day review period, the f'PA received many comments regarding the proposed regulations. Sources within the Agency have disclosed that a summary of ihesr. comments totals 900 pages. The National Association of flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSNIA) has develoned a proposal which reduces the complexities of the EPA regulation while retaining all of the key clements. It recommends a one part implication process follower] by a compliance period whereas the 1:13A proposal requires all elements to be addressed in a two part application process. The one part application would consist of 1) providing general information, 2) describing existin? legal authority to control discharges to the storin drain system, 3) identifying , pollutant sources, 4) developing a monitoring and characterization plan includinE', a description of any existing progratns, 5) describing; existing Management glans, G) preparing .a plan including a schedule, to detect and eliminate, illicit discharges and .improper disposal into storm drains, 7) t',_�,eloping a plan to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites and 8) identifying !lest Management hracaiees WIN s) that can be readily implemented during the compliance period. I The compliance period would consist of l) obtaining the legal authority, Z) implementing ' the plans described in the application, 3) preparing a plan for structural and source controls to reduce pollution from residential and commercial areas, and 11) Preparing a fiscal analysis of the program. TELEPHONC (7141 336.5533 .nNrn..++rowl.w....{._....w nwvM[t:^"Y.•Y.:.1J..;..r'•�'�Lil.:.t:1...t'3.iv'ti:M1l:t•t:a.lr.4t1'i...!.i.u. ��wil::s..-.� iwr..�..•...+�. rw+*+.n..++.iriln'Ft.I ri•RSMVP/y+�.' Congressman Christopher Cox October 19, 1989 Page 2 A copy of the NAFS'.IA proposal and a draft letter to the Administrator of the EPA, urging him to seriously consider the NAF'SMA proposal in the development of the final rule are attached. Your review of these documents and correspondence with the Administrator regarding these concerns will be greatly appreclated. I will have a member of my staff contact your office in the next week to discuss the matter further. :frank you for your consideration of this request. Since ely, j • Wes nannt ster '.Mayor Wf3:WAP:iw Attach. 2225g t 1•r i C, :tf 4 1 " 1 1........,_..._�..�. �..+..w+v..ew�i X7 Stti f.'.'...Iv)W».s7'1 L:> L�33.'-,:1:1�',•:%+Z'.•t.l.,:`.1....�:-.».:ly«ftr�...,..r.- ...ws......w.r.....,....aw+so\•yldYiW'3,ui�lRR we+f7aatiNtW Rt:few. ,)ctobcr 19, 1989 The Honorable Williarn Reilly Aftinistrator (W 1 Z00) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 N1 Street 5W Washingtoir, DC 201460 i near :Administrator Reilly: On Niarch 7, 1989, the U.S. Cnvironmental Protection Agency y (1:PA) closed the public comment period on its proposed rulemaking for MIDES permits for stormwater discharges. The first phase of this program will target cities with over 100,000 population; however, the need for a storm setter discharge hermit will eventually be required by cities anti towns of all sizes. 'i The public concern over the proposed rule by local officials is reflected Ill the fact that, as I understand from 1r11A sources, a surmmary of the comments received on the proposal totals goo pages. the far reaching impact of this rule requires that the agency develop a regulation which is effective, targeted, reasonable and practical to implement. The iNational Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFS%iA) has developed a proposal which I feel accomplishes these coals. i The proposal outlines a onc. part application process followed, during, the compliance j perlod. be permit monitoring planning, characterization and assessment. The one part f process could, under NAFShiA's proposal, con,ist of the following: general Information, a description of existing legal authority, source Herntification information, development of a Monitoring and characterization plan, preparation of a plan including, a schedule to detect and remove Illicit discharges and Improper disposal into storan sewers, development 1 of a plan to reduce pollutants In stormwater ru►►o(1 fro►n construction sites, and i Identification of Best Management Practices M ill's) that ran be readily applied and Implemented during the initial part of the comoliance period. There is some question as to the definition of terra "iS'aters of file United States"as stated in the proposed rule. A clarification of this term is required to accurately deflnr. the responsibilities of tite municipalities. Tile rule proposes activities beyond the scope of most municipalities and would require contracted consultant services or specialized staff. These activities, such as water quality monitoring;, permitting of industrial discharges and enforcement actions should lye the responsibility of those agencies which already possess the administrative, technical and legal expertise in those areas. Also, permit fi requirements should only be established for those areas which, as a result of stormwater l discharges, have an identified detriment to beneficial uses. The water quality monitoring; ` program should be site specific so that the constituents to be analyzed have an identifiable or at least suspected source. This will allow a more prudent expenditure of public funds In the implementation of the program. . ...�...-...�.. ��. --...' ��.......-.�...•`++..i.-r+,w..f++•.��...�....._. ._. -.+w,w.Wr" ,t.t�lr..r+.r.n..r�...�..r•+-t..+�4asadrraanla••r.+.+rrwri'Y.Wt+fA1RM�.A s�tl'aStS.t Ki•IASVtY-ifrL.M1'J The Honorable William Reilly October 19, 1989 Page Z Additionally, innocuous non-storin discharges such as landscape irrigation and other non-point "nuisance" flows as well as diverted stream flows, pumped groundwater or rising groundivaters should be excluded [rurn the definition of stormwater. Regulation of these discharges would complicate the adminis:ratfon of tile program and would yield little If .any environmental benefit. Since the proposed regulations are so encompassing and pervasive in their impact on local governments and will require the expenditure of scarce local resources to implement, the EPA should seriously reconsider the requirements which would be imposed under the proposal rule, The ,NAFS!IA proposal retains all the elements of EPA's proposed regulations, but rearranges them so local governments can better implement a rncaningful but practical program. I also Peel that this proposal will enhance 11PA's stated objective to develop a flexible program that can be tailored to the unique problems of the many different regions of the country. I also urge you to consider reproposing the rule once the agency has had the opportunity to review and evaluation the information gathered during the public comment period. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Senator Pete Wilson L . t is 1 G, �. .... .yam—�*-wu Mww+�w+.wv+N:4'rL'aY.r`73'¢l.Rlra.++..+.+�.......—.�..w.r•�a+l''-4::'.t:f.: �..�...w r.... __— _ ___ t NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND STORWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES STATEMENT ON "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE I ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT., APPLICATION REGULATIONS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES" In 're'sponse to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency's propused rule detailingstormwater`discharge application requirements published in the Faderal F egi$ter on December 7, 1988, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies submits the following statement: . itQiQ a 1 art ARp cpj 0 Process: The National Association of $ Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies is concerned.that the application requirements as proposed by EPA are too complex and will be difficult for municipalities to accomplish in a two year period. Areas of particular concern are Field Screening Analysis and Characterization Plan"(Part 1); and Characterization Data,.Proposed Management Plans (for residential, commercial and industrial activities), Assessment of Controls, and Fiscal Analysis (Part 2). EPA requested comment on the following Section VII.J. of the Preamble: "EPA:requests comments on the relationship between the"'proposed deadline and the proposal for a two part permit appllcation for discharges from a large or medium municipal separate storm sever system. Specifically, EPA requests comments on an alternative approach to a two part`permit application,where only some part of the requirements discussed In today's notice.(primarily the Part 1 application requirements) would be established as application requirements and other requirements (primarily the Part 2 application pr requirements) would be established as permit conditions. . Under this approach, applicants would be required to include plans to submit Information with tho Part 1 application. These plans w,)uld be used to develop compliance schedules which would be incorporaitid as permit conditions. This option Is not favol,ed in today's notice because 6f the Agency's concerns about the additional time That may be required to develop and implement municipal stormwater management programs." r: It is NAFSMA's position that a one part application would be preferred. The requirements as proposed by EPA will result in: hurriedly collected and compiled sampling data; poorly documented and inaccurate estimates of loads; and hastily prepared and completed management plans. In addition, it will not be possible for local agencies to receive legal au!hedties if needed within the application timeperiod. A one part application will permit initial system Identification work to take place and permit monitoring, planning, characterization and assessment to take place on an agreed upon schedule during compliance. A one nart application Should consist of the following: '�. Provide general information. 2. Describe existing legal authority, 3. Prepare source identification information, 4.. Provide discharge 6haracterization information consisting of existing quantitative data, and-monthly precipitation data, and a list of water bodies that receive discharges from storm sewer systems. 5. Describe existing management plans. 'I 6. Prepare plan for monitoring and characterization that would be Implemented during the compliance period. 7. Prepare plan including schedule to detect and remove illicit discharges and impropbr disposal !nto storm sewers for early im;:,ementation during compliance period. ' 8. Prepare plan to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoffIfrom construction sites for early implementation during compliance period. . 6. Identify BMP's that ban be readily applied and Implemented during the Initial part of the compliance period. Schedules for compliance activities would be apart of the permit application. ,{ Activities 10 be performed during the compliance period would include: 1. Implement plan to detect and remove illicit discharges. 2. Obtain legal authority. I Implement monitoring and characterization program. 4. Develop localized criteria for BMP's identified as questionable. Ya> 5. Prepare plan for structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from residential and commercial areas. i . 6. Prepare assessment of controls. 7. Prepare fiscal analysis. 8. Implement Management Plans. Ir 4 Y ` A one part application followed by compliance activities as outlined above will result In a more orderly development of stormwater management programs while allowing far quick implementation of efforts to eliminate illicit discharges and initiation of some BMP's. Allowin.1 for this orderly development of programs will save time in.the long run and be more cost effective. . The prepared-plan does not eliminate any of the EPA required work items, but only,rearranges them. Also, permits could be more quickly issued because permit.requirements are reduced. This proposal will not make the process more complex as the same basic items are being accomplished. Also, the program can be more readily adopted to'local conditions because the sequence of events will allow more of a building block approach. 2. ReoUest Jor Repropogg! of Rulemfik 6a: The December 7, 1988 proposed rule presents a complex series of options for public consideration and comment within a 90 day pericd. An analysis of the rule's Preamble unveils over 90 distinct questions, options and alternatives for comment by interested parties. This form of rulemaking affords the agency a vehicle to solicit comments on a variety.of alternative,approaches to addressing the stormwater'runoff problem. It is an information and data gathering exercise that. provides the agency the opportunity to rethink, based on additional new information, some of its. proposed requirements. NAFSMA supports EPA's efforts to gather additional Ink;rmation on the most effective means of developing stormwater application requirements. However, the association does not support EPA's attempt'to simultaneously gather additional information and propose a rule all in one document. -Although EPA does in fact propose its first option as "The Proposed Rule", an impacted agency must comment on it as well as take into consideration every alternative presented in the Preamble. This process does not afford the'public.the opportunity to comment on a comprehensive proposal avid places those most affected by its contents at a distinct disadvantage by having to guess at what a proposal might actually look like. For these. reasons, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies requests that EPA repropose the rule once the agency has had the opportunity to review and evaluate the information gathered during the December 7, 1988 to March 7, 1989 comment period. The reproposal could then reflact the agency's best thinking on the subject of stormwater regulation and pr,vide impacted parties the opportunity to comment knowledgeably on a comprehensive proposal, _ -..•.'%, . .. .. ..w. ..,:,:- ..... `.:t'.sr..: ....:.r._• -.� .« •.ru-+:..w.•I.w.•.. .wra+uw••r+.• 1 r{ MAYOR J-4 City of I-�u.n.t�.r�►�;toxi ■�p ea c Was gannistar MAYOR PRC TEMPORE Tom Mays P.O.Box 190 • 2000 MAiN STRICET • CALlroRNIA £L649 C MEMpF.fi5 Jahnhn Erskine Paler Gruen Don MacAllister Jim Silva Grace Winchall October 1`}, 1 93`) Senator fete .Filson 720 liart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 clear Senator �%'ilson: On December 7, 1938, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulations which would establish permit application requirements for discharges from municipal separate stor-1 sewers. Tile proposal is comprehensive and complex and will initially require cities with pop'tlations greater than 100,000 to apply for permits; eventually all cities and towns will be subject to the requirement. The County of Orange has several ,! municipalities which will be affected by these regulations. Luring the 90-day review pee iod, the EPA received many comments regarding the proposed regulations. Sources within the Agency have disclosed that a summary of these comments totals 900 pages. The National Association of Flood and Storrnwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) has developed a proposal which reduces tlic complexities of the EPA regulation while retaining all of the key elements. It recommends a one part apnlication process followed by a compliance period whereas the EPA proposal requires all elements to be addressed in a two part application process. The, one part application would consist of 1) providing gencral information, 2) describing existing legal authority to control discharges to the storm drain system, 3) identifying pollutant sources, 4) developing a monitoring and characterization plan Including a description of any existing programs, 5) describing; existitg Management Plans, G) preparing a plan includin; a schedule to rf^tect and eliminate illicit discharges and improper disposal into Storm drains, 7) developing a clan to redlice pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites and 3) identifying (lest Management Practices (11hil s) that can be readily Implemented during; the compliance, period. The compliance period would consist of 1) obtaining the legal authority, 2) implelvienting , the plans described in the applica--ion, 3) preparing a plan for structural and source controls to reduce pollution from residential and commerciai areas, and 4) preparing a fiscal analysis of the program. TELEPHONE(714) 536.5353 ,,�� ..�_._ ..._... ./..r,...,..�4..n..l'Y:�t'!".�'L�...M4•.M.ww +.�v.....♦ .. .:Li•fi. ♦ . t.. ....'C'CP'I.+w^^�.•.^•�`^.w r+_...�.���r.r� �� r Senator Pete Wilson October 19, 1989 Pale 2 A cony of the NAi:SMA rroposal and a draft letter to the Administrator of t!:e EPA, urging hi►n to seriously consider the NAFS'JA proposal In the development of the finat rule are attached. Your review of these documents .and correspondence -vith the Administrator regarding these concerns will be greatly appreciated. i will have a member of my staff comar:t your office in the next week to discuss the matter further. Thai►k you for yr;►ir consideration of this request. Slm::ely, �r Wes bannister Mayor IM B:'Jv A t':l w Attach. i `i 22251, I t_ •.---•,•-.... -_....-,......-.y,..-.-...:o r.. ra:'tiG�.. .,a. rt.....r....c...r'�t:. ....: .a,.... ..........a.......-.....«.•...•.�-«.. .^ . r October 19, 1589 The Honorable William 'teilly Administrator (W 1200) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 t,t Street SW Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator 2cilly: Un `.larch 7, 1959, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (RPA) closed the public comment period on its proposed rulemaking for NPD1'.S permits for stormwater (lischarges. The first phase of this program will target cities with over 100,000 population; however, the need for a storm sewer discharge permit will eventually be required by cities .and towns of all sizes. 1 The public concern over the proposed rule by local officials is reflected in the fact that, ,. as 1 understand from EPA sources, a summary of the comments received on the proposal _f totals 900 pages. The far reaching impact of this rule requires that the agency develop a regulation which is effective, targeted, reasonable and practical to implement. The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAi~S:1A) has developed a proposal which I feel , oinDlishes these goals. Tile proposal outlines a one part application process followed, during; the compliance period, be permit monitoring elanning, characterization and assessment. The one part i process could, under NAf=St1A's proposal, consist of the following: rgencral Information, a description of existing legal .authority, source identification information, development of a monitoring and characterization plan, preparation of a plan Including a schedule to detect and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers, development of a plan o reduce pollutants In stormwater runoff from construction sites, and identification of Best `.ianagement Practice-, ( YMP's) that can be readily .applied and impicmented do.jring the Initial part of the compliancc period. There is sortie question as to the definition of terin "Waters of the United States" as stated in the proposed rule. A clarification of this terra is required to accurately define the responsibilities of the municipall tics. The rule proposes activities beyond the scope of most municipalities and would require contracted consultant services or specialized staff. ; These activities, such as water quality monitoring, permitting of industrial discharges and enforcement actions should be the responsibility of those agencies which already possess the adrninistrative, technical and legal expertise in those areas. Also, permit requirements should only be established for those area.,, which, as a result of stormwater discharges, have an identified detriment to beneficial uses. 'fhc water quality monitoring program should be site specific so that the constituents to be analyzed have an identlilatile or at least suspected source. This will allow a more prudent expenditure of public funds in the implcrrientation of the program. 1: r The Honorable William Reilly October 19, 1989 [gage 2 Additionally, innocoolis non-storm discharges such as landscatic irrigation and ether non-point "nuisance" flows as well as diverted stream flows, pumped groundwater or rising groulldwaters -rhould bu excluded from the definition of stormwater. Regulation of these discharges would complicate the administration of the program and would yield little it any environmental benefit. Since the proposed regulations are so encompassing and pervasive In their impact on local governments and will require the expenditure of scarce local resources to implement, the EPA should seriously reconsider the requirements which would be imposed under the proposal rule. The: NApSMA proposal retains all the: elements of rPA's proposed regulations, but rcarranges them so local governments can better implement a meaningful but practical program. I also feel that this proposal will enhance EPA's stated objective to develop a flexible program that can be tailored to the unique problems of the many different regions of the country. I also urge you to consider reproposing the rile once the a gimcy has had the opportunity to review and evaluation the information lathered during the pi)blic comment period. 1 Thank you for your consideration of this ratter. Sincerely, 1 Congressman Christopher Cox '�...—. ,/ . ., ._. ......�.....«.« ... ...._....... .. ,:..: .. .. .....- .... .,.�..._......-...wr«..c.-. Y.M*r+s'VN?'!}6Y'�Y..:trw:eir «111...,+ , r s NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND STORWATER I MANAGEMENT AGENCIES r STATEMENT ON "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION REGULATIONS FOR ► STORMWATER DISCHARGES" In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule detailing stormwater discharge application requirements published in the EQderal Reois er on Decernbor 7, 1988, the National Association of Flood and stormwater Management Agencies submits the following statement: >. PropQ g a i Part App_Iioa ion erocess: The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies is concerned that the application requirements as proposed by EPA are too complex and will be difficult for municipalities to accomplish in a two year p-riod. Areas of particular concern : are Field Screening Analysis and Characterization Plan`"(Part 1); and Characterization Data, Proposed Management Plans (for residential, commercial and industrial activities), Assessment of Controls, and Fiscal Analysis (Part 2). EPA requested comment on the following Section VII.J, of the Preamble: "EPA requests comments on;the'relationship between the proposed deadline t, and the proposal for. a two`p6h permit application for discharges from a large or medium municipal separate storm sewer system. Specifically, EPA requests comments on.an alternative approach to a two part'permit application where only some::part of the requirements discussed in today': notice'(primarily the ; Part 1 application requirements) would be established as application requirements and older requirements (primarily the Part 2 application requirements),would be.estabiished as permit conditions,'.,Under this approach, applicants would be required to include plans to submit information with the Part 1 application. These plans would be used to develop compliance schedules which would be incorporated.as permit conditions. This option is not favored in today's notice because of the Agency's concerns about the additional time that may be required'to develop and Implement municipal stormwater management programs." It is NAFSMA's position that a one part application would be preferred. The requirements as proposed by EPA will result in: hurriedly collected and compiled sampling data; poorly documented and'inaCC'Urate estimates of loads; and hastily prepared and completed management plans. In addition, it will not be possible for local agencies to receive legal authorities if needed within the application timeperiod. A one part application, wili'permit Initial system identification work to take place and permit monitoring, planning, r . 't` P I ! T characterization and assessment to take place on an agreed upon schedule during compliance. A one part application should consist of the following: 1. Provide general information. 2. Describe existing legal authority. 3. Prepare source identification information. 4. Provide discharge 6haracterization.information consisting of existing quantitative data, and-monthly precipitation data, and a list of water bodies that receive discharges from storm sewer systems. 5. Describe existing management plans. 6. Prepare plan for monitoring and characterizatir;n too'i wC ld be implemented during the compliance period. 7. Prepare plan including schedule to detect and remove HOW discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers for early _ ) implementation during compliance period. B. Prepare plan to reduce'poliutants.in stormwater runoff from construction sites for early implementation during compliance period. 9. Identify BMP's that ICan be readily applied and implemented during the initial part of the compliance period. Schedules for compliance activities would be a art of theP permit applicatio n. r performed c Activities to be p rmed dut�ng the compliance period would include: t. Implement plan to detect and remove illicit discharges, 2. Obtain legal authority. 3. Implement monitoring and characterization program. 4. Deve;up localized criteria for BMP's identified as questionable. 5. Prepare plan,for structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants from residential and commercial areas. 5. Prepare assessment of controls. 1, 7. Prepare fiscal analysis. 8. Implement Management Plans. . rrwi�l•'It ww.�.►t'MK.R'NLWAT.NIY►V.�.• • S 1 e ��..,�. ms� ^��k.�^�C���g� + '�'��` ���s��i�c:T�+r�x����; �t�g�►ks�_;�s�cx���:�" �,�&��u�:r�;u.: t A one part application followed by compliance activities as outlined above will result in a more orderly development of stormwater management programs while allowing for quick implementation of efforts to eliminate illicit discharges i and Initiation of some BMP's. Allowing for this orderly development of programs { will save time in the long run and bo more cost effective. The prepared plan does not eliminate any of the EPA required work items, but only,rearranges them. Also, permits could be more quickly issued because permit requirements are reduced. This proposal will not make the process more complex as the same basic items are being accomplished. Also, the program can be more readily adopted to local conditions because the sequence of events will allow more of a building block approach. 2. Request :or Reprr. pQsal gf RuIgnikina: The December 7, 198B proposed rule presents a complex series of-options for public consideration and comment within a 90 day period. An analysis of the rule's Preamble, unveils over 90 distinct questions, options and alternatives for comment by interested parties. This form of rulemaking'affoi`ds the agency a vehicle to-solicit comments on a variety of.alternative approaches to addressing the stormwater runoff problem. ; It is an,information.and data gathering exercise that.;provides the agency the opportunity to rethink, based on additional new information, some of its proposed requirements. NAFSMA supports EPA's efforts to gather additional Information on the most effective means of developing stormwater application requirements, However, the association does not support EPA's attempt to simultaneously gather additional information and propose a rule all in'one document. .-Although EPA does in tact propose its first option as "The Proposed Rule", an impacted ;! agency must comment on it as well as take into co'nside ratio n'tivery alternative presented in the Preamble. This process does not afford the public the opportunity to comment on a comprehensive proposal and places thnse most affected by Its contents at a distinct disadvantage by having to gues i at what a proposal might actually look like. r. Far these reasons, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies requests that EPA repropose the rule once the agency has had the opportunity to rev;3w and evaluate the information gathered during the December 7, 1986 to March 7, 1989 comment period. The reproposal could then reflect the agency's best1hinking on the subject of stormwater regulation + and provide Impacted parties the opportunity to comment knowledgeably on a comprehensive proposal. i �.. .. «...ns. .r, rii.,. ....�. -... ��sT: ,.:'r%d r .ti.t tt..- ... ..' a ... r... -.,. .,...,.... ....ru.n....;. ..o..rt:.Y•3:1:(rFatn•.i.c.:*.[+i-i:+.►C'i.RiAN.7.t.%..4T�a.r+.t.+..r i 'r � N ! �CTDON REQUEb f FOR CITY COO C ,. . Date Bch uar3c..L�, 1()OR. r L I Submitted to: Honorahle Mayor and City Crnancil ..? Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator �—' A1111ROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works « 2�"a 19—PL Subject: SEWER CODE REVISION - COUNTY SEWER FEE. �' ��'� � cm•r �: Consistent with Council Policy? k j Yes ( j New Policy or Exception, c Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: �4 i STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The County Sanitation District has eliminated the daisy In collection of connection fees in Sanitation District Number 11. RECOMME'*iDATION: Adopt the attached ordinance which repeals Section 14.36.090 (a) (b) (c) of the coda and adds new 14.36.090 (a) (h). ANALYSIS: The portion of the Huntington ©each Municipal Code which deals with County sewer fee payment must be revised to conform to the County Sanitation Districts new requirement z. as established by their board of Directors an December 14, 1988. The fees can no longer be delayed until final inspection, but must be pr,id "up front". The Pubhe Works Department has prepared this revision. FUNDING SOURCE: None. No funds necessary. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: k , No no ATTACHMENTS: E! Proposed sewer code. f' LFS:BPCsdw 1938g/1 } 4 I i P10 6/86 . , "' ^ ,...d" .. ....il :j'• .:d.'; a;+.• ..� ,, •',�li.�.•ryii•,.io l;, .. .:..ern,rr:..,e.n.,,,++nw:x,:i«:.qi'mat;7m,!ti:Y,�'`"a....«..«.r......"...,,q 17:� -•*k REQUE FOR CITY COUNCIL ACT10N r ©ate February 1, 1988 - ? ti Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 4 Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Adninist rator Prepared by: Les G. Evans, Acang Director Public Ubrks V45 D Subject: SWER CODE REVISION p,J 40 0q { Consistent with Council Policy? [� Yes [ j New Policy or Exceptlo crr}. Statement of Issue, Rcco-nmendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:'` STnTEMWr OF ISSUE: The sewer section of the Municipal Code has beoom outdated and needs to be revised. RECX7M%M14MTIC N:. Adopt the attached ordinance which repeals Qhapt:ers 14.36, 14.40, and 14.44 of the aade and adds new Chapters 14.36 and 14.44 to the code. ANALYSIS: The portimn'of the Huntington Heads Municipal Code which gals with sewer system connections has not revised since 1959. Timse sections concerning sewer fees and 3 deposits have not been changed sinLv 1982. All are out-of-date and should be revised. The Public Wbrks Deparhnent has prepared this revision. It contains a new fee srJiedule which by State lava nxmt by set by ordinance, rather than resolution. FMING SOURCE: •io Pone. Pb funds necessary. I ALTFTiVE ACTION: Retain the current sewer code. Proposed sewer code. # , LGE:JS:ik t, Plo W05 .. • .. 1. +`yl i ' i REQUE"T. FOR CITY COUNC :`5 ACTION Date December 81 1987___r____ Submitted to: Mayor and City Council t Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator ��' AI'PItOYED BY CITY cUUtiC:le, Prepared by: Les Evans, Acting Director of Public Works'--A/ i Subject: Purchase of Sewer Cleaning Machine _ ,,z CITY C: ,15C Consistent with Council Policy? [ Yes [ j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: I STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Capital outlay Funding in the amount of $117,000.00 was approved in the 1987-88 budget to purchase a sewer Letting and vacuum truck, and 'jids from three companies have been evaluated. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the number two alternate bid from Dew-Par Sales and Service in the amount of $139,255.01, and authorize increased funding in the amount of $22,255.01 to effect the purchase. ANALYSIS: Three companies submitted quotations in response to requests mailed out by the Purchasing Division of Administrative' Services, and all quotations exceeded the allocated funding• The . Dew-Par Company provided four alternates, and their number,_ two alternate is considered to provide the most value for the City. The features of all machines bid were reviewed by the Street/Sewer Division Supervisor and Crewleader,. as well as by the Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor, and all agree with the recommended selection. An operational e..:alysis is attached hereto. j FUNDING SOURCE: 4 Sewer Fund. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Approve low bid machine, even though less operationally efficient and :safe.. ATTACHMENT: Operational comparison memorandum LE:DWA:mj i I • P104/E4 , ��Ne*p•.�y;2`•t -'••�t:�,..7 :.}iia. , (�. . .., ..,.....t.+<„'.�. ..:.t.. .. ..,• '.t.l' .,•(.:. .�y-��,, .a;'w.(a,.«:.:. ,:yA:.� :�i:�.'-i;.v$.�i�'i ifi Y'Yr�'i+','�1'R,S.:YJS.:yIA+a•w^"^7 I Y'T"`!M AATfY.fiAlNf3l _ _ ' - • _.« '.•••••••••- ` �1 1 � t�lyV OF �$UNIrIEl�IC�'t ON IISf'�d�'s!'H HINTER•DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ltutity IM 11A01 RICH BARNARD DONALD W. KISER IL . To ASSISTANZ TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR prom DIVISION ENGINEER Subject SEWER CLEANING MACHINE Date JANUARY 61 1988 1 I have returned the RCA in order that it may be placed on the Agenda for the meeting of January 19# 19881 and the recommendation to purchase the Aquatech remains unchanged. In so far as your inquiries are concerned, the following information � ! has been determined. 1. The weight distribution was carefully reviewed by ,Del' Gray and t L his , calculations effected specifying the rear double axle with heavier load capabilities. Had there been a problem, he would f' not have recommended the equipment. I 2. Staff of the Mechanical, Street, and Sewer Maintenance Divisions have seen a demonstration of ,the Aquatech which war, the same except for the reel being mounted in the front. They were all impressed with the vacuum performance 2a. The same staff also attended a demo 'of a smaller than specified competitor's unit in Newport, however the vacuum performance was not Satisfactory nor equal. 3. We have checked for other locations having the Aquatech equipment and found: j ..� a. Philadelphia has purchased four rear mount reel machines, however they have not taken delivery yet. b. Hawaii has purchased one or more. c. At least one contractor in New York and two contractors in the L.A. area have purchased the rear mounted reel machines. �.. d. Locally El Toro and Laguna Beach have the same machines with front mounted reels. 9. The additional weight on the rear will not be a maintenance r. problem due to the specified axle weight carrying capabilities. Furthermore, relocating the weight will reduce wear and 'tress on the front axle# which will assist in maintenance. i Page -2- Following our last discussion, I retrieved the bid package and went through the specifications and bid proposals item by item, and prepared a matrix of all thirty-eight specified features. My own personal findings were that the Aquatech equipment met all thirty-eight satisfactorily with three proposed items exceeding the requirement. The proposed Vactor equipment was described out of compliance with the specifications for nine of the thirty-eight items. Therefore, I am renewing my recommendation to purchase the Aquatech. i i� 1. ^Donald W. K see i - Division Engineer DWK:bh cc: Les Evans d r • i f �wwwrr.�w+awwr•�rr+.. --- - � h . 1 i duced ar ed l for all CombinationAquatech ssewerocleanerssasewelloasttheirSSJRCeeries Sewer model r Jets. Because front mounted hose reels are illegal in most European countries, rear mounted reels have been standard for 25 years. There have been over 5000 units produced in Europe with this type of reel . Aquatech $ is the first American manufact•irer to use the con:ept and design e ments. reel for American chassis design and American sewer system require r Consider these advantages. Remember there are over 9000 high pressure sewer cleaners with rear mounted base reel working throughout llorth America. = SAFETY 1. Eliminates accidents associated with frontal collisions because the reel overhangs the front bumper up to 4 feet. 2. Eliminates accidents associated with the reels falling in front of the chassis while the vehicle is in motion. 3. Eliminates partially blockeJ iiEadiights caused by reel covering _ lights on some model chassis. 4. Much lower decibel level for operator. Engine noise totally eliminated. llelps stop operator fatigue. AINTEUMICE 1. Eliminates damage to reel when towing vehicle. 2. Eliminates one ton front axle overload. Excessive tire and spring i wear on front end. ! J. Eliminates the "necessity of having to tip the reel forward to check engine oil and fluid levels. Because the extra effort needed to tip the reel operators has failed to check fluid levels, thereby causing engine damage. ' 4. Total engine cooling. Eliminates problems associated with engine's overheating caused by reels covering radiator air inlets. OPERATI0HAL ADVAUTAGES ' always a in out in direct relationship o Reel swings 130 depress. Rase ispaying 9 . to the manhole location. Eliminates hose chaffing and time consuming repositioning of the truck to reel with manhole or catch basin. 4 ep rator moves rm rk station to manhole not truck chassis to manhole. s o Operator in align position to see tank level controls paddle and debris tank. ; o Operator now in easy reach of rear door tank drain valve. �...-.�.. , N .. .•.....•r. - ... ...« :,ri a"�r;.tCi'.r+;.•. ......'�U7?C3.1,'�'a�.iJvgc*�-x+wrPsic:s+�.w v�w'vw.+!r.w+� � ..-._.-� .js_.r..ri...4s.:a.Z+..s_a.•,w..l.:r.....•:s:.x _.'}us+..rrs++:rraa..•a r-:.:: ,..-. ., ._._.�.... .�.-.... f .:.� +._._a., •... .-v..--. o_.. ...... >...._... ` ..........s-.,_ _.. .. _.- sr....�. :p wa..raura. .....M•-• ssraau4acw+s�.. 1�....r..+-..s.s�.,l..+..14«.•_.,..-a cis•.u.++s..yw,i�+raww-._-••i...a.,..fr.+uw rr .:ta u•...+a,u a+ a.a....us.n..�.s.n.r.+.z-.sw+a.._arr R+x •tt n•� � ,sea...a-.r,.sc.r wr...c-rn.wsw�. -a+ .....a..rrvaw.ar..,'a w,w..,,n: .•.n..aav-.- .rrrrasxr-,.,-. -n+.ra.,ti.+.a.a►u4a,rsn.rura 4«. V 1t 1L 1L yt k f.x V. X K x ti W.x x % x,fC tt u f, ?t !�►t t► X al � v �. � .,...,r.:i., •.,s..w-.�•. ` v.+.rr+�e.,s.na...,•a,�ua+.�irr.•ra..nn•...-..v. rar.rrv..-.,.• ....r,.....- .. i>•+w...sr. „�.v,.. '.. �,a„�ra, ,�w.rrn•►'a*an arvrr.rar�.-,aa.ww4 sma�.rs�w.�sv-a.ww.a�aaawrrn-wa..'. a..�a�rr rrs.avr-•=va w. .-•�a,nw sw � �y � h .u1.M..•'...» T.M'.v.b.r..h• xH.nWy I •,v 1v ;ry (,�' • N'.:I. ♦,i N4+M-/Lv�Y in � '1 .� � .�,�... .....M-...•.rv_ .,.u.n,�.tea._ - -- --- +r►.. ---�..e...w ..n..r.._.w_..u... ,�..,..w..�.�ann .�+..+..,w...s., r..r.«..-..w.., .c. 1%.K x_x K x k K k n K k 1G'�C'x'K x �t �c x x X .c 36 bt ------------- y..w.._a.+ .,wY i..,..,�.L.:aL.._..........� .��.-�.t. •3,�it aa,+. . .,......,..ar....,...rr�..- ... ..�w.:,w.,swns a.. K t ♦ 1 A-�..4t ��.r.ac.ws•, .�\e.,r. y�r•v.x. .r..r.�a4.a +s. o_,afr,..,.n •..w.,s.w.<...w.l�. r,r•.-w rn.r.n ...r,.}�+,.'r,vr,•.».--r. - 4 0!� «,i,w.-.a4 .4..,..+••.+.a.r.lwur, a•..v--r. r+•.r..r,-..�ry�.w...•.e, c.�'.wr..a.�-4.r ..�r�.., .r .. 4 >! •r..,x+, r�araa:nrr,`,�,su, Vas•. y .,auaww +aarr s,w •�.c..w•r ..yJyy .,air��~ .saran u�a sa',a,cw,.,._:... rsw..,.. .. ...+.kwar .rt.v+r .',.�,.y..'�l r�..r, t.i:.w� �w0..ewn�rt•�-v.r• u�v�w-q.�.•,tl.;l t\ hw«�xr ..t•.,:�-r:.-.�r..r.+..rrr.rr. � FFF w ' , 4r p �f , MIry a ' � +NI \ * w r1 r S 4 ti o a 11 lk 14 4 � i Y � Z �• � � t v Z Kti,,. Z •, S v � ►y `� � 'k � H t ` Rv, K : Y� y ` w '` � t Cti �'• •s---. � . .,r ..... .. ......n..-�-•.. ,.+�,..-...,`e ..w..,,.,,.. sr e,rar„r rk.... ....- ., ...,.-.. v...rnr ,..,', .�...-. ,.- _.... '-."'.."'*r..r"auF:,l'�:"i;L::; , ...i�i:_.;.-.. .. .:•::.'lC:...�1::.:<:,.':;l"n:.i�i , "fi..i3:.4...,...:va�wea�+..:.uJ:tV::.1Y.i'�w:rs.�:.'rtti:l-q�i:.ri.Y1'lV.7f1C'tAirt.Yit7:'fi�xa+ni+ar.+r.�+� x REQUES FOR CITY COUNCI'l .''ACTION "� 92 Date •Octo1 3: 24,E 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council j%I'I1R0%1 :U ICY CITY COUNCi.. Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prapnred by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Work' C` Subject: Telemetry System for Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations (MSC-261) Consistent with Council Policy? IX) Yes [ ] Now Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT O. ISSUE: Proposals for the furnishing of professional eagineering services for the design and document preparation for a telemetry system for the City's thirty-one Sewer Lift Stations were received on October 16, 1986. REOOMMENDATION: Accept the proposals, and award the contract for furnishing Profesuional Engineering Services to Boyle Engineering Corporation for their bid, based on an hourly rate schedule, having a total of $15,500. ANALYSIS: The, Request for Froposals for this project was mailed to six firms determined to be in the mechanical/electrical design industry. Five firms responded by submitting proposals. The other submittals were from CH2M Hill, Alexander Engineers, J.M Montgomery, and Engineering Science. All firms submitted satisfactory brochures describing their experience and expertise in systems design, which were reviewed by staff; and Boyle Engineering was selected to perform the work. The current system has been in operation for over fifteen years, and repla-ement parts for the components are no longer manufactured. FUNDING SOURCE: r, Funding was approved in the Sewer Fund Account by the City Council for the 86-87 Budget, and $55,000 was placed in Account No. 807 090. Final funding needs will only be known after 'completion of the design and consultants estimate, however the Sewer Fund is anticipated to be the source for the additional needs. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not accept the proposals. 1, P10 4104 a . 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL: AC ION Data March 6s 1984 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council c DXry �v 4• Submitted by: C. W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Worksxc-j I Subject: Request for City Council approval of the Plans and Special Provisions for the Construction of a Reinforced Concrete Box t . Culvert at Newland Street and the Huntington Beach Channel (D01) „ Statement of Issue,Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Altemative Actions,Attachments: 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: T e Orange County Flood Control Act requires City Council approval be- fore the County can award a con.t:ruction contract within City limits. . RECOMMENDATION: Approve plans and special provisions (on file in the City Engineer's office) and award of "contract for the construction of a six barrel; twelve foot wide by eight foot high reinforced concrete box culvert rt on Newland Street at the Huntington Beach Channel (D01) . Approvalj ect to the following conditions: 1. The County Contractor .will be required to obtain the necessary permits for construction in the City right-of-way and provide .. � evidence of insurance. ` 4 2. The County will provide an emergency crossing of the D01 Channel by April 9, 1984 . r 3. The County «rill stipulate completion of the project by May 311� 1984 . .', ` in the specifications and contract documents by requiring 'double shifts of work. 'ANALYSIS: At their January 16, 1984 meeting, the City Council conditionally ;ap d the removal of the existing Newland culvert in t;:e D01 Channel. prove channel •:'s a emergency acces s across the cnConditions include providing n g Y o dit prior to' April 9, 1984 and completion of the project by May 31, 1984 . } The contract for demolition of the existing structure was awarded by the Board of Supervisors on February 21, 1984 and work on that project has commenced. The County expects to open bids for the construction of the new culvert in late March and begin construction in April. �I ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny approval of the construction project. 2. Approve the project subject to additional conditions FUNDING SOURCE: i N A ATTACHMENTS: None. CWT:PEC:LE:jy Plo 4181 r I r siYS.LiaZia,n��v�� C•� i �{' ��f"'tSr Ziar.::�c�r. ,.,vitur:�s.c.. — � ty 40 REQUES'`I=OR CITE' CO►UNCILe-r�ACT19)""I"' Date Febrt:ary'-23,-%84 n7 (,j bminedto: Honorable Mayor. and City Council ll Submitted by: C. W. Thompson, City Administrator � � TO*. Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Dirwtor of Public Works �k Subjact: Request for City Council Approval of the Mans and Special Provisions for the Construction of a Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert at Newland Street and the Huntington Beach Channel (D01) Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachment:: I STAMR NM CF ISSUE: The Orange County Flood Control Act requires City Council approval before the County can award a construction contract within City limits. RDC.`C[MIEA'i'ICN: Approve plans and special provisions (on file in the City Fr.gineer's office) and award of contract for the construction of a six barrel, twelve foot wide by ten foot high reinforced concrete box culvert on Newland Street at the Huntington reach Channel (D01) . Approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The County Contractor will be required to obtain the necessary permits for con- struction in the City right-of-way and provide evidence of insurance. 2. The County will provide an emergenry crossing of the D01 Channel by April 9, 19846 3. The County will stipulate earpletion of the project by May 31 , 1984 in the specs- fications and contract docurrants by requiring double shifts of work. ANALYSIS: At theIr Januury 160 1,984 inaeting, the City Council conditionally approved the rgnovalr of the existing Newland culvert in the D01 Channel. Conditions include providing an Lvergen y access across the channel prior to April 9, 1984 and completion of the . . project by May 31 ', 1984. The contract for demolition of the existing structure was awarded by the Hoard'of Eupervisorrs on February .21, 1984 and work an that project should cam*=e within two weeks. The County expects to open bids for the construction I of the new culvert on March 13, 1984 and begin construction in early April. 1. Deny approval of the construction project. 2. Approve the project subject to additional conditions. R.1C1tM SOURCE: N7A AM3 D*=: None ' . CWI':PDG:LE:jy r1a 4nn ..--++.......R:Y"„i!'t 7:'e'i:Y. . .• nl .,iY's.7' .. ... ..e ., !"...i., ,l r.\•a.rn+r...«....».+.............................�..rrM�Aw.w.w...w+r.ww 7 ur'nNet1T.A+^+^ '. 1 ''yyP3 A.P.Id IL REQUES-z FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 24, 1983 •- .. Submitted ta: Honorable Mayor and City Council f Sebmittrri by: C. W. Thompson, City AdministraCfir `f Prepamd by: Paul E. Cook, Director of public Works Subject: Ordinance Revision j for Collection of County Sewer Fees �.2�0�' 7 'lQ, �Sr zeadiN,, A pert/-► b Statement of Issue, Re+rommekidation,Analysis, Funding Sourc+,Altemative Actions,Attachments:IVA STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Tie Orange County Sanitation District has agreed to defer the collection of their fees for subdivisions until the time of final building inspection rather than prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed ordinance amendment will allow the City to collect the fee at the time of final building inspection. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Re or nance amendment regarding the time at which Orange County Sanitation District fees are to be collected. ANALYSIS: Thiss ordinance revision allows the builder of subdivisions more time to recoup on his investment before being reauired to pay the fee; also, no public demand or cost is generated by a development prior to occupancy. FUNDING SOURCE: No funs nvo ved. ATTACHMENTS or ndnaance. ; }: Cf�T:PEC:HYC:3y I � P10 4181 r 4S1 L.'Ln v. .. .,F.+w . +\. ,� ...1i•.« ...f.:': . ..:\•. _ . .:ci r;..v+«..b.. l..rf•. -.1.....wr-:�. •.'� .... ... ., .. .. �4•+. r...:.;�t as.7�4'^Qt1+trtp W.waafrll.Mlrx7nliRC 1, vo+t _ REQUEST FOR CITY CO IJNCii�' ACTION --- r����yL Date O-:tober 12, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council A Submitted by: C. W. 'Mmvson, City AdministrsY r Prepared b Paul E. Cook, Director of Public ti4'ark: � _ S' A�bO AS p y Franc B. Arguello, Chief of Administratilra services aA;'f�D Subject: Establishment of Sanitary service Fee t1+7!%r �ie /a `��,/ r•��� D`��- ' �--� �, cL `-5`/ a Vote I ; �p Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Sour _ ce,Ai!ernative Actions,Attachments: STAZDUM OF ISSUE: The Crange County Board of Supervisors has imposed dumping fees on all citie<q,within the County. These charges will amount to approximately $63,000 per month starting oat. 11., 1982. in addition, City operating and capital .improvement co::ts have risen to the point where additional revenues are necessary to avoid a deficit sitmation within the City's General ->+turl by next bear. RASED ACTIM: T. -!Axpt Me attached q ordinances establishing a sanitary service fee which will cover the costs of refuse collection and disposal and sewer system mmintenance. 2. Adopt the attached resolution establishing a bimonthly fee fo sanit ary services. 3. 'Authorize str-f to continue study of assessing property owners for street cleeaW g services based on the length of street frontage for each property. ANALYSIS: Costa or refuse collection and disposal, sewer system raintenance and srreel- cleaning will amount to over $4.4 million in 1983. At the present time, all three of these City services.are fully financed from the General ft-4. Also in .1983 the City will. he faced with major expenditures for capital improvements and other projects in the five ),ear Capital Improve ment program. The projects L--1 the C.r..R, w ich must be financed :From the ' General Fund total over $30 million. Jt is InTera* •-1z that -ary sources of revenue be ex- plored and ordinances adopted which will secure this revenue for the General.Fund. There are three services provided by the City for its citizens which are comrorly pa.d . from fees collected through the bhwnthly water bill. These services are refuse collection and disposal, sewer system maintenance and street cleaning. The following paragraphs 1 discuss each of these programs and their related costs. j REFUSE COLIMIION ANL D DISp06AL .In 1983 it is estimated that the cost of refuse collection will be $2.5 million and the cost c,f refuse di.aspOsal which will be paid to the County of Ct:ange as gate fees will be $L 0 million for a total of $3.5 million for this cae program. . In Orange Coounty, 24 of tip 26 cities pass these refuse costs on through fees to the PrOPertY,owners. Only the cities of Iiuntington Beach and Tustin.fully pay these costs frcm their General Funds. pause of the dwands on the City's General Fund and the im- pact of th:3 County's recently imposed gate fees, staff recammm-ds that refuse fees be established for residential units of service as defined in the Municipal Code. Approxi matel.y 43,000 residents currently receive this service at no charge. pi4 4/81 ,. .... ,,... .,. .... .. ... .. ... .. ; � ., .. ... .. .,..... .:.n.,...[....,r.a.x�a»...«..r......w....r....n:.a..wu+n I Request for council Action Establishment of Sanitary Service Fee October 12, 1982 Page 2 There are many alternate leveln of refuse fees which can be imposed. They range from covering the WE. cost of refuse collection and disposal to covering only disposal. costs (county gate fees) . Fo.lawing are three alternatives presented for City Council consideration: 1. Full Costs of Refuse Collection and Disposal A fee to each beneficiary of service which includes single family residences., duplexes and triplexes of $6.35 per month would cover the full cost of refuse collertion and disposal. until July 1, 1983. At that time it is anticipated that the cow ity gate fees will increase by 32% which would result in a monthly fe- of $6.90 thromgh September 30, 1983. This additional charge has already been approved by the County Hoard of Supervisors. 2. Cost of Refuse DLTosal Chzly A fee of $1.77 per month would cover County gage fees until 031ily 1, 1983 tfien it is anticipated that $2.34 per month will be required to cover the caost of refus., disposal. 3. Partial Costs of Refuse Collection and Di sal There are innumerable levels of fees which could be imposed .to cover partial casts of refuse collection and disposal.. The reomr-ended alternative is one which considers the City's adoption of an utility tax and concurrent deletion of a refuse fee in October, 1970. The refuse fee being collected by the City and paid to Rainbow Disposal. in 1970 was $1.40 per month per residential unit. If, because of the Imposition of the utility tax in 1970, the City Council feels that the City should continue to partially subsidize the cost of refuse service, it is ream ended that the subsidy be set at $2.00 per month per unit. The rationale for this is that the contract amount for residential units paid to Rainbow Disposal has increased from 31.40 in 1971-72 fiscal year to $3.40 in 1981-82 fiscal year. Reim sing the refuse fee at the 1971--72 level of $1.40 plus adding all increased costs subsequent to Septewber 30, 1982 would result in a fee of $4.35 per month per unit to cover the ranaining costs of refuse collection and disposal until July 1, 1983 when it is anticipated that per month would be required to cover the remaining costs. The three basic alternatives for refuse fees would generate the following e.ytimated revenues to relieve the General Fund. November 1, 1982 July 1, 1983 thru June 30, 1983 thna Sept. 30, 1983 Totals Alternative 1. $ 21170,000 $ 884,000 $ 3,054,000 Alternative 2. $ 605,000 $ 300,000 $ 905,000 Alternative 3. $ 1*485,000 $ 628,000 $ 20113,000 Alternative 1 would generate $2,149,000 for the General Fund d which would allow the City to pursue some of its highest priority programs during this fiscal.year. Alternative 2 world simply coves the County gate fees and would generate no additional,revenue to re- lieve the General Fund. Alternative 3 would generate $1,208,000 which would partially cover a few major priorities but no other capital improvements in 1983. `.ti.«�.--._.. _�.... .rrw., t ... .. ..I. . '7. Y. ..... .. .. w.,,«.•......._...«...-..... ......:w......M'.r+N4cYAtW++•v+nr..r+..c.+xN�..IpYwrs.1{(R• • 1 Request for Council Action Establishment of Sanitary Service Fee October 12, 1982 Page 3 SEWM SYSTEM MAINTENANCE In 1983, it is estimated that the cost of maintaining the City's public smgsr system Will cost $550,000.00. The sewer system consists of 360 miles of sewer line and 33 , sewer pUnp stations. The cost of sir maintenance in Huntington Beach is considerably higher per resident than most cities because of the high cost of operating and maintain- ing these pump stations. In February 1981, a survey was made by the Public Works Dept. of l85 cities in the eouthen•xcgst part of the State. Of the 124 cities who responded, G4 cities collect sewer maintenance fees. The method of collecting fees ranged from a percentage of the water bill to a flat monthly fee. ,After analyzing various meth, staff recamr ids that the most equitable method of assessing costs of sewer maintenance to owners of ; cam rcial, industrial and residential property throughout the City is by basing the : fee on the size of the water meter serving the property. This fee would also apply to property which is sPxved by a private water caq.any but which uses City so;-ers. The recatrnended schedule of fees is shawn on the attached resolution and is intended to be an additive to the bimonthly water, bill or by separate billing if City water service is not used. Using the attached schedule would result in a monthly fee ranging from $0.62 for a typical single family residence to $43.48 per month for a large industrial plant with an eight inch water meter. This fee would generate approximately $550,000 in 1983. STREET CLEANING In 1983, street cleaning in the City will cast approximately $400,000.00. '~ The Public kbrks survey previously mentioned showed that 10% of the.responding cities have street cleaning fees. The fees for these cities average 400 per month for a single family residence and are usually collected through the water bill. The most equitable method of assessing property cxmers for street cleaning set'vices would be hIXed on the length of street frontage on their property .-Ius a prorated surcharge for arterial highways which do not have properties fronting on then. Due to the major task of calculating assessments based on frontage, staff is not prepared to revotmend that street cleaning fees be i.mplenvmted at this time. . Hmrover, it is felt that staff should be authorized to continue study on this matter if the City Council feels that street cleaning fees are a viable revenue souroa_ in the future if costs con- tinue to rise. � . There m y alternatives to the recanTended actions. The most relevant are: 1. Do not adopt refuse collection Ud disposal fees. 2. Do not adopt sewer maintenance fees. } 3. Do not continue study on street cleaning fees. 4. i' Impose fees to ercrns the full cost of refuse collection and disposal. 5. MVose fees to c( mer only County gate fees. 6• Adopt a refuse fee with a City subsidy greater or less than thre $2.00 unit which is recacimended. per month per 1 • .....-�.�•wM+.YIt Yr.rti.r.r.v .,'Y.1.,, •. •t' r i+ry . . .. .....•. ...+..-•-•.....vw•rr..+•........r.n....... r..•ntiw�•.nr.r+w w.•+r..,�rr ..•,r� too) Request.for (council Action EstabUshnent of Sanitary Service Fee October 12, 1982 Page 9 FUNDING SOURCE: There ed action W11 result in increased revenue to the General Fund. ATBMOR'S: ox 1-nance Resolution CMT:PDC:FBA:]y ti 1 f 4 ' i 1 1 : i i FRt LSD 77 Re I/�ll,1d,Z i4bopf�OAJ TimleD 't vot+:. lee ORDINANCE N0. 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTOU BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTIONS 8.20.160 AND 8.20.170 RELATED TO REFUSE COLLECTION AND DIS- POSAL CHARGES f The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto sections 8.20.160 and 8.20.170 to read as follows : 8.20.160 Residential service char es. Each unit of service shall pay a monthly charge for refuse collection and disposal in an amount established, and amended from time to time,, by resolu- tion of. the city council. 8.20.170 Collection billi.nr,. Refuse collection and dis- posal charges shall be billed binionthly on the water billing =- statement. All money received as a result of such billing shall first be applied to refuse and collection charges and the bal- ance to water charges. Properties which are not served by the city water system shall be billed for vhe service either on a bimonthly o^ an annual basis, and payment shall be made within twenty (20) days following the date of' billing. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption. , i T*,%E9--A1ii)-A-DGPTI•-B by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. ATTEST: Mayor Cicy Clerk + RCS:ahb 11/23/82 (2) 1. •--'+-^--.......+.v-x:r-nn++w.+�..-+.•............-...w.s..nfi:z'-'Ti:^t'Si.��.�1'�.vYcw..-.+-.......��...env'.r.+.•,..+n,arsYs:-•are7#ynrwiwrr+.u.w.ea.wr'�s.w 1 t REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS - 0 FORM: ""��• I. Citymstrat city ttorne Y� INITIATED AND APPROVED: C� �1 Director of Public Works i Fi t�! f,. y•, 4. t 1 t tSII 'l+ 1` 2. '�!• „rl,.erv�:r,.'^�';,';'�+,;^.�^.'.":7'77 Tt^.^.^S'm^n c'r t..•.:S -�:'—>.:"! 'T�F't:T[m•e+...r...+.sR.eww+...+n+:'ti.rrrxce v.+r.++w.w... 7qT uvu`ttw.ewt.wr.� tftprd. No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) an: CITY Oil HUNTINGTON BEACH I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular _O 3ouRaCp meeting thereof held on the -.-�sT_ day of mbP. 19_,�, , and was again reed to said City Council at a regular m eting thereof held on the C t'' 7'AILeD -� B� day of — 'tu��►-- lg.� _, and s-�a K%d adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority all the members of said City Council. � y d f AYES: Councilmen: w HOES: Councilmen: t ABSENT: „ouncilmen: ;a. --------- City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Califo=r.ia 1 ` ;4A w.....pT'•ASCSTG.S'!tRJs1CGt:7:�1.:✓r^�-.'--'."�..`iT,:Ct7+ry-qZ.-�.• •t`•r t t j REQUES.'FOR CITY COUNCICAC'TION June 22, 1982 ' Date !- Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council f 1 ! Submitted by: C. W. Thompson, City Administrato I + Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works, L_� Subject: Ordinance Revision for Collection of County Sewer Fees rcotvc.;�-IDa! RP�nmve� ;=•--6 --Z 6 Pud"L , ' Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternativ3 Actions,Attachments: CP STATEMENT OF ISSbE: The C ty's ordinance and the Orange County Sanitation District's ordinance ` disagree with respect to the time at which the County sewer fees are to be collected. The proposed ordinance amendment will resolve the conflict. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the ordinance amendment regarding the time at which Orange County Sanitation District fees are to be collected. ANALYSIS: The Ci y's present ordinance states that all sewer fees (including the County sewer feel shall be paid prior to the recordation of the final sub- division map. The County's ordinance reads that their fees shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. Since this is. a fee that the City collects for the County, the City's ordinance should agree with the County's requirements. FUNDING SOURCE: None. ATTACHMENT: Ordinance • t F CWT:PEC:IIAP:j y i 1 • 4 PIO 4/61 1 .. .,.__..-..+_.... ..... .. la..... .. .. 1' .. . r. .. .. •. .....'4''.. ..., i.... .,. •n...... .,..w 4.. .i'«..t4i✓:�' "..ti•ii;•:4T�S'1:'i:'i1i:Y.42l1 LS flll'iMru�+�.. 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 30, 1981 Submitted to: Mayor and City Council AF 0V&JU I;y Clxy co IL Submitted by: Charles Thompson, City Administ�rato -- ■"x� Prepared by: Paul B. Cook, Dir^ctor of Public Wo lie T �1�lyCL�JgC i Subject: Sewer Connection Fees es t1 q g3 I�DOOP7V O & 1{ Backup Material Attached: _ [XI Yes [ ]No Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: It is requested that the City Council adopt: (1) an ordinance establish- ing sewer connection fees by resolution instead of an ordinance; (2) a resolution increasing existing sewer connection fees as previously approved by the Council . Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance and resolution. Analysis.- One of the major recommendations included in the Interim Master Plan of Sewers , adopted. by the City Council, is an increase in sewer connection fee,. The City's last increase was approved in 1964. Since then, costs i of providing and maintaining essential sewerage facilities have increased dramatically. Therefore, the City's sewer connection fees :should be increased. Based on current construction costs and assessment data obtain- ed f_ron other Orange County Cities , our schedule of fees should be increased one hundred percent (100%) as noted on the attached resolution. Unlike many of the other fees established by the City, our schedule; of sewer connection fees is established by ordinance rather than resolution. In order to be consistent with other fees such as drainage fees, it is recommended that the attached ordinance and resolution be approved. Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternative Actions: Deny the request and maintain current fee schedule and procedure. r IIEC:DRN:lw f pio Lei �. . .,,....... . . .. _. . r.._--• , ... ....... ,. .. .... -.. tiJi:.. .... .e�-.T..:i�i,3�4'A'.."(Lt cr.rr.a.��+.na..,. i 5, . i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 28, 1981 J t Orange County Sanitation District P. 0., Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Thomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at -its adjourned regular meeting held Monday, October 26, 1981 approved the granting' of a right- of-way easement along the southwesterly side of Pacific Coast Highway from Beach Boulevard to lake Street for the Orange County Sanitation District Ill Coast Trunk Sewer. Enclosed is the duly executed original deed. We would appreciate re- ceiving a copy of :the recorded deed for our files. • ' 'Z 'Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk �r AK4:CB:cd t' i Enclosure r cc: Lion Noble, Dept. of Public Works i a. f ; (TelepMns:714-536.52271 . '•,4 4 ►.� +� i cultvc aaT1200* � '• .�! %� t• 102.11' SEE `a'a•.t�a+'•A: {,CUR VC DATA Q ------� •• n. 12aa•DETAIL'A* I.- sass• .ComTRAC7' t40. 11-19'Z^ '`• > ~ SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT' COUNTY SANITATION DIS'i'RICT NO. 11 � '_ ORANGE COUNTY'CALIF. Q r o \.j.,.� co .a ' � ,•,� r � ''J e \S'�r i t;psi IN THE • R!w ' ` 'y,,,• •�-. • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -'' °k' ORANGE COUNTY CALIF. • LC •� 4� �r _ k11i•!4'sew k4f•fs'3f'r - '�090 '\ q yJ.• a'�:�•.' ` r,/ PACIFI C COAST H WY. • \ ' y' .- �.. rflw 4.• o . JAAI sf. � =� \ • \ i a!•as'sj' DETAIL"A" - NITARY •`• Ka u 1:.o' OF ER•SA E T •++' \ •.Jr y�f'y �E1N A3E�IEN car } 4Ji. • °A_ .S' su►t N $'.too' lot 04- Cs `.� `RJ■IkdlTNtf+[os►cNI f r LO _ 0 1 c. •,•*te r} � �i.kll�il'10•tf �Nl2.37'ZQ<•tr 131f1' ~ �C ���• iri:l':i?i•1 • ' .. , CURVE DATA (a /i k92•71']T�K HWY. A•6•14'26- PACIFIC COAST - la• aDo' � CURVE DATA •Q ' -- b'!'. •i• Ti[ot POINT Or milt O • CURVE DATA [O • • _ /�' +•J•\\ ' �o ♦�, e•i•'33•W 4 K CURVE DATA •� ? ' R• sco `tr L•'ll2fe t �� e• 1*2!• S• 11 • R• tODO t• :!00' cvrtvc DATA . S OF 3d3A?IITARY " e•• rlo'21' EWER EA3ENEHT T.f.Y • . R. goo' " �. L• T14' ican2 t.af' b Y DETAIL 8 SEES - CURVE DATA Q 21 n _ .v It LEGAL DESCRI?TIO'N Sewer Easement County Sanitation Districr No. 11 Orange County, California (Easement in City of Huntington Beach Parking Lot) An easement to construct, operate, maintain, and reconstruct a sanitary sewer over and under a portion of Section 14, Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.B.B. and Meridian, Rancho Los Boluas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, lying L5.00 feet each side of the following de- scribed centerline: Beginning at the intersection of the cencerline of Pacific Coast High- way, said centerline lying 70.00 feet South of and parallel to the North_ line of Pacific Coast Highway with the centerline of Beach Boulevard; thence South 0' 15' 37" East along the Southerly prolongation of the centerline of said Beach Boulevard a distance of 103.90 feet, to an intersection with a portion of a curve, lying concave Northeasterly, caving a central angle of V 53' 40" and a• radius of 800.00 feet, and a partial arc distance of 96.26 feet, said intersection being also the True Point of Beginning; thence along said curve Westerly, along the arc distance of 10.88 feet, having a central angle of 0' 46' 45" and a radius of 800.00 feet, to a point of tangency with a reverse curve lying concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 800.00 feet, a central angle of 6' 14' 28" and an arc distance of S71 .14 feet; thence along said curve an are distance of 87.14 feet to the end of said curve; thence along a line ! tangent to said curve North 51' ill 40" West a distance of 624.54 feet to the beginning of a curve lying concave Southwesterly, having an internal angle of j V 25" 56", a radius of 1000.00 feet, and an arc distance of 25.00 feet; thence along said curve an arc distance of 25.00 feet to a point of tangency with a line bearing North 52' 37' 36" West, said line lying 88.00 feet Southerly of the centerline of Pacific- Coast Highway measured at right angles thereto; thence along the following courses and distances: 1. A Line being North 52' 37' 36" West, a distance of 1779.56 feet. 2. A curve lying concave Southwesterly having a central angle of 7' 10' 2101, a radius of 600.00 feet, an arc distance of 75.11 feet. 3. A line bearing North 59' 47' 57" West, a distance of 416.54 feet. 4. A curve lying concave Northeasterly having a central angle of V 38' 02", a radius of 600.00- feet, and an arc distance of 48.33 feet. 5. A line bearing North 55' 09' 55" West, a distance of 1089.18 feet; thence North 8' 46' 56" East, a distance of 59.97 feet more or less to an intersection with the South line of said Pacific Coast Highway, said South line being 50.00 feet South of the said centerline of Pacific Coast Highway: said South line lying on a Northeasterly curve having a radius of 1250.00 feet, a radial line to said intersection having a beating of North 38' 16' 24" East, and having a radius of 1250.00 feet. i r t ki, NG RF.QtTFSTED B11 ills RECORDED MAIL, TO ,,,,,,,,SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE _... GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made and entered Into this 077A day of SCV- - by and between CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Grantor, and County Sanitation District No. 11,of Orange County.California,a public corporation,Grantee. WITNESSETH: For a valuable consideration the Grantor does hereby grant unto the Grantee the easement and right of way to establish,construct and maintain for all time a public sewer ur 3twers and appurtenances In, through,on and along that certain real property situated in the County of Orange, SUM of California.more particularly described as follows: A map and legal description attached, marked Exhibit "A" and Exhibit."B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. f THIS GRANT is made by the Grantor under the full understanding that the Grantees by acceptance of this grant has the right to remove and replace those facilities which exist in this easement area and only those facilities which interfere with ' the purpose for which said easement is granted. Grantee shall obtain the concurrence of 'the Grantor prior to beginning work in said easement, except in emergency situations. The Grantee agrees, after due consultation and cooperation with the Grantor, to assume the expense of removal and replacing said existing facilities. Further, it is understood that connections to such public sewer or sewers constructed on the real property described above may be made only upon strict compliance with such rules and regulations as Grantee shall adopt from time to time and keep on file in the office of its secretary. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the Grantee (orrver for the sole object and purpose of constructing and maintaining thereon a public sewer or sewers and appurtenances thereto. Grantee's rights shall include the right to construct and main- WA service roads,manholes, air valves,blow offs,pumping weU pumping stations,metering gtatioru,stand pipe and service connect+on structures anourtenant to said-line or lhim al trunlr "war nfr. wW-1. .._._._._.. . STATE of CALIFORNIA ) sa COUNTY OF ORANGE ) � fh before me. On this _ � day of , 1t .;otjtt 1 peared a Notary Public in and for said County and State,, pct y u(` known to me to be the Mayor anti , ,i1 r,, • , known to me to be the City Cleric t f the City of Huntington Bear-It, the municipal corporation that executed the within d the within in- inotrument, known to me to beni.ci persons execute acknawledged to strument on behalf ,of said mu pal corporation toe that such municipal corporation executed the same. i�• ..ram. y..�•� •��r���.�.� � Xf ;1! ,` ,, l' f i ,l . . . 1,', , - ,:{ ♦ ,• 1.'•. .va. 1"Z` ►1•,y}�"}4�,t i, TERMk,- DESCRIPTION AND MA" PPROVED: ' By Engineering Department APPROVED AS TO TERMS, FORM AND LEGALITY: I r By %Gfl77as1 'S •t' �. General Ceurisel t 1 t I I I i II { • r i f� I I . t A i. IfS +�.t, + '� ! � �_ .� +I � + � 'f�- {Y' f� f•t1'~+,..+P.➢•'t 1 _4� i r� �• REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ' Co. e6 Public works Submitsed by Paul E. Department Date Prepared June 16 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached x] Yet No Subject Reimbursement for Construction of 8-inch Sewer Main Extension in Holly St. by Mola Dev. Corp. City Administrator's Comments ��° ��� f l�ka Approve as Recommended ���� 010 �ifl,.a7— D Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: 9ENteFeSt oF Issne; Mola Development Corp. , developer of the condominium development located at the southeast corner of Main St. and Garfield (Tract 10511) , has requested reimbursement for the construction of an 8-inch sewer main extension in Holly Street. Recommendation: Deny the request from Mc-la Development Corp. for $11,122.20 for the exten- sion of 310 feet of an 8-inch sewer main. Analysis: Mola'Devel►�pment Corp. -?a3 required,. in accordance with H.B. Municipal Code Section 973'l,4 and the 'sion Ordinance, to dedicate and install ulti- mate public improvement- the streets abutting Tract 10511. This includes sewer and water main -4ions. Main St. , Holly St. and Clay St. have been improved with the development. An extension of an existing 8-inch sewer � . line across thc- development frontage was deemed necessary in order to elimi- nate the requirement to re-excavate the street when the adjacent properties south of Tract 10511 developed. (Refer to the attached map.) Mola Development Corp. retained Cherokee Pipeline, Inc. to install the sewer t line in Ifolly St. at a construct-ion cost of $11,122.20. The construction has been completed. The developer is now requesting reimbursement, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding as to whether the cost is reimbursable. Staff has reviewed the matter with the developer and has indicated to him that the item is not reimbursable based on the provisions of Code Section 9730,14 (copy attached) . In addition, competitive bids were apparently not obtained by Mola Development Corporation. The unit price for the 12 foot deep 8-inch sewer line is $52.96 per foot compared to the more difficult . job recently completed for the City on Beach Blvd. to install a 10-inch sewer at $52.78 per foot. r Pio We �•...-..__. ..._�-_.......... ......... .r.a:• .-.1, „ , r ... .. .. .. ..,.. . .. .,.,."•.. .. .... ,....a .. ,ca^... . w.•w.w.•..•+-•.w•.w.�.•+•vs .K.•i"591;ri Ti.,a' Y . Request for Council Action June 16, 1980 Page 2 Although attempts have been made to resolve this matter on a staff level, the developer has requested that the Council consider their request for reiaabursement. Staff has reinforced internal procedure to avoid this situation from occurring in the future. Basic procedures involve the following: 1. Only master planned facilities are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with City ordinances. 2. Questions regarding reimbursement will be resolved prior to any work being performed, including the execution of an agreement. 3. Competitive bidding will be required for reimbursable items of work. Alternative: 1. Authorize a reimbursement agreement to be prepared in which the City would reimburse Mola Development Corporation from funds collected by future developments utilizing the sewer line. 2. Approve request utilizing monies from the Sewer Fund. I ' PEC:GLT:jy ..f. ,.n•.y.'+.:.°'T.:r'_. '.:fit 1' -- ... ..,:7: .., t t _ .e ..,..v ,.w....._...,,.,,,...._... .+.,......+.+...^nn.wwww,+..,... i ` ZONING INDEX MAP 0419 0' I i LEGEND `,b 19.6.10.5ECTIOV-TO'A OSP-RANGE 16- -N IS- •N 14-5.11. . + DM 22.OiSTpICT MAP 22 24-5;f2 19.5-11 i 6•5•II 21- •11 22 5-11 2 S 11 24 1� _ Ott 29N� DS121 Oti «D%124 pR25 C A 26 D1 27 3a•5-N` M,Yi 29�5•11 '�{� Zd=��;,�t - �_$_tl _ 2�•5.11 _25_- •If } \�;�rf _ Am 35 OH 'S34 4 �'%rkf — w bb1.2' �ptt31 � QA 50 �•`\f .�i 32•5`It i 33 5 11 ,%'I'✓ Ob1�6 OM 37 i- ;fir. 38 b D6140 'a•6-11 j 2.6�1F-^-�� 3.6.11 •I1� �I-6.11 6.6.10 5-�6.0 DM4 \`; \ 1 Df.13 0 2 -- bti i pA16 p�► r 1 : 9.6-1I a-6-tf 11• tr1 r 12•6•N 7-6•l0 a/ to D61r0 gttt _r� _,.-•-.:.z�_.._... ..._..r..t__..ss C �. O D MIS 01617 1.1H C>4 ! _•13 6•tl IB G-10 17-6.10 CITY OF c'F�PA t tiDW14 . 0M20 DM19IF t HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORN'A I a �+ 24-6•I t9- -10 R.wM C+r11 M.I li..rA •AO I • I '1 + l _... +.._.,w,w.aN9.:•'0.�f 1:1'.,.5'.s . .r ... .....�-!.. .,..�........ ✓.., e..w.«w...... a. .+..., •.. .. ..y...v. �.. ... ...._.....ur++.-+r....�-_......._..r...._�+«...-.. •rw+n..+ I Y 1, 1 PLANNING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2- 6 II 14 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP GapfrELD AiE. .Ll l �.l I!, 11- i if �w j1r-_- Pz, - rvt�:Kr.•1 L .-- � © •--�,�I���r~— � of �vl k - CF E L6 WO.V1,•:Jb+u:rnrsisi.rs/,1 • .. _ �-... _ 'fir is;t Tif U:: AL, fill I J J — i rL •..rt . _ .....� or '-71 aDauS A""'--'1 r �' i 4 r. • - i GENERAL PROVISIONS too) PLANNING the highway,. street, or alley right-of-way shall be dedicated to or vested in the City of Huntington Beach to a width as provided by this code, the standards of the Public Works Department, and provided that the requirement to dedicate shall be sub- ject to review by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The hoard rhall consider the fol- lowing criteria in making its decision: (a) Type of agricultural use proposed. (b) Duration (temporary or permanent). (c) Vehicular Access. (d) Effect of the proposed use on traffic in the site. (e) Relationship between the proposed requirements and the anticipated expanded use. No dedication shall be required under this article for any purpose not reasonably related to the use of the property for which application has been made or in the case of agricultural use, not reasonably related to such agricultural use. When filing for a building permit, the applicant may file a written appli:ation.,with the planning Department to have the Board of zoning Adjustments review the require- ment to dedicate abutting rights-of-way. If the Board determines that said use is of an `inLensity which does not require rights-of-way dedication, the Board zmy grant a temporary postponement for a period of time not to exceed one (1) year, End may grant additional extensions as deemed appropriate. Said application shall be set for hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustments within fourteen (14) days following receipt of application, and the "pplicant shall receive at least ten (10) days notice of such hearing. Any decision of the Board may be appealed to the Planning Jommi.ssion within ten (10) days following such decision, as provided by Sections 981:,.1 through 9815.1.7 of this code (1821.-2173) ,r SS973_0.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION DETERMINANTS. Right-ut-way dedication shall be y ' to a width determined by any of the following: `' (a) Department of Public Works' standard plans; (b) A precise plan of street, highway or alley alignment. (2166-2/77) 1 S. 9730.4 USE ABUTTING HIGHWAY, STREET OR ALLEY. INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMEMTS. (a) No certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the Department of Building and Community Development until the abutting highway, strer-r, or alley right-of-way has been improved to the center line of such right-of-way. Said +,.'.; improvements shall include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paving, street trees, street lights, street signs, street drainage and sewer and water main extensions in full compliance with the City of Huntington Bench street standards and requirements. r (b) The Department of Building and Community Development shall make a frame inspection as required by the Huntington Beach Building Code. At the time of the frame inspection, the off-site improvements including curbs, gutters, and z street paving shall be completed. (c) The Department of Building attd Community Development shall not {'< issue* a building permit until the application for a permit and the street improve- went plans and specifications have been submitted for plan check and the Department 46 CITY OF 1-0UNTINGTON I3EA CH ! INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 11LMIW.TON MACH TO F. G. Helsito From Paul E. Cook City Administrator Director of Public Works Subject Request for Reimbursement of Date duly 15, 1980 � 8-inch Sewer Main Extension in ' Holly St. by Mola Development Corp. ' I" have discussed the subject matter with the City Attorney. +1 4 J This my opinion that the engineering staff is correct in recommend- that the requested reimbursement not be made. The construction of the sewer main in Holly St. was a normal regt:i`rement, of the development of the property and not a reimbursable item. Section-9730.4 of the Municipal Code, a copy of which 'is attached, is very clear that- the developer is required to improve istreets to, ihe centerline of.abutting right of way including sewer And water main extensi.ons., This is a uniform policy. for this and other California cities pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act. The' Map Act was adopted .to require developers to 'dedicate and improve ; fetid .adjacent to and within their subdivisions so this burden would f not`be placed on the city or adjacent property 6;ners. The'Map Act has=.provisions for reimbursement of costs for oversize sewers or the V' necessary extension of sewers outside of the subdivision to serve the � subdivision. A•'copy of this section .of the `Map'�Act is attached as well as`the' City's ordinance on this matter. Following this State law, the' ` Holly..St. sewer is clearly not a reimbursable item. J f PEC:jy Attach. j I I I i r d �t ,. ti f i a , o 1/(�j�y�, `' �::'•:c a:: { to `i EDGE OF PA!/�n fE,t/T gel • -----r—--„— V \ '���'1'�r -i Li.;�i;'`"' —w:.-JI r�.+�'•�`�.iy��,:�4�'.i�;i'•'.,� r..�•...:c+ •s--; ... ��i I � e �. +.. .i � :•�:.. r ..•�:� .+CM :+r1rYl:!rc:•i1.�...!.;.Sti.,' ��. L.t/S1:F:L1V.:+.V f r.�.�.�wr �.� ♦ -�+' •�L -.�.•.��w• e'���7�•�!���. r•��_ 714o..ai'.J.r•r.:y+w�..«. , — 4� c jI I. � EDGE C7F NAtJEM�tNi HOL L Y O 1- R EE T - w� S.'9730.2. 1 t GENERA!. PROVISIONS PliMING the highway, street, or alley right-of-way shall be dedicated to or vested in the City of Huntington Beach to a width as provided by this code, the standards of the Public Works Department, and provided that the requirement to dedicate shall be sub- ject to review by the Board of zoning Adjustments. The Board shall consider the fol- lowing criteria in making its decision: (a) Type of agricultural use proposed. (b) Duration (temporary or permanent). (c) Vehicular Access. (d) Effect of the proposed use on traffic in the site. (a) Relationship between the proposed requirements and the anticipated expanded use. No dedication shall be required under this article for any purpose not reasonably related to the use of the property for which application has been made or in the case of agricultural use, .not reasonably related to such agricultural use. When Filing for a building; permit, the applicant may file a written application with the Planning Department to have the Board of Zoning; Adjustments review the require- ment to dedicate abutting rights-of-way. If the Board determines that said use is of an intensity which does not require rights-of-way dedication. the Board may grant a ,temporary postponement for n period of time not to exceed one (1) year, and may grant additional extensions as deemed appropriate. Said application shall be set for hearing; before the Board of Zoning Adjustments within �+.y fourteen (14) days following; receipt of application, and the applicant shall receive: at least ten (10) days notice of such hearing. Any decision of the Board may be appealed to the rlanning; Commission within ten (10) days following such decision, as provided by Sections 9815.1 through 9815.1.7 of this code (1821-2/73) S. 9730.3 RlGlgr-OF-WAY DEDICATION DETERNINAITI'S. Right-of-way dedication shall be i to a width determined by any of the following;: (r.) Department of Public Works' standard plans; (b) A precise plan of street, litghway or alley alignment. (2166-2/77) S. 9730.4 USE ABUTTING 11ICIRMY, STREET Oil ALLEY. INSTALI.ATION OF IMPROVt;MURS. ' (a) No certificate of occupancy shall be insued by the Department of Building; and Co=uni.ty Development until the abuttinghi,zhwav, street, or alley right-of-way has bean improved to the center line of such right-of-ways Said improvements shall include curbs, gutters, sidewalks,- paving;, street trees, street lights, street signs, street drainage and sewer and water mnin ext;rnsions in full compliance with the City of Huntington Beach street standards and requirements. (h) The Department of building; and Commninity Development shall make it frame inspection as required by the llupting;ton Beach Building Code. At the time of the frame inspection, the off-site improvements including; curbs, gutters, and street paving; shall be completed, (c) The Department of Building; and Comminity Development shall not issue " building; permit until the application for a permit and the street improve- ment plans and specifications have been submitted for plan check and the Department + ,r 14. 44. 010---14 .44 . 050 Chapter 14 .44 SEWER MAIN EXTENSIONS Sections : 14 . 44 ,010 Application. 14 .44 .020 Size, location and costs determined. 14 .44 . 030 installation upon compliance. 14. 44 .040 Deposit refund. 14 .44 .050 Installation costs paid by applicant. 14 .44 .060 Oversize extensions--When. 14 .44. 070 Oversize extensions--Decision. 14 .44 .O80 Oversize extensions--Installation. 14 .44. 090 Refund conditions. 14.44.010 A2�lication. Any person, as owner or subdivider of a single lot, subdivision or tract of land, who desires the extension of sewer mains and connections to such lot, subdivision or tract of land, shall file written application with the sanitation department. Any number of persons may join together in a single application. (Ord. 741 (part) , 1959) . 14 .44.020 Size, location and costs determined. The sanitation department shall determine the size, locations :and total cost for such extension, and shall on approval of. such extension, collect from the applicant a deposit covering the total estimated cost of installing all facilities from the nearest existing main of adequate capacity. - (Ord. 741 (paLt) , 1959) . 14 .44.030 Installation upon �compliance. If and when .the applicant has complied with all the requirements of the sanitation department and made the deposit as herein required', the sanitation department shall install such mains and connections, subject to provisions of Section 14 .44 .040, such sewer mains, connections and appurtenances become and remain the property of the city. (Ord. 741 (part) , 1959) . ` 14. 44.040 Deposit refund. In the event the deposit was in excess of '-"- actual cost of installation the excess amount shall be returned to the applicant. In the event the deposit was less than the actual cost of installation the applicant shall immediately pay to the sanitation department the deficit. (Ord. 741 (part) , 1959) . 1444 .05s Installation costs paid by applicant. If in the of the superintendeRE of the sanitation department it is for the best interests of the city, he may authorize the applicant to install said extension at applicant's sole. cost and expense in accordance with specifications approved by w ' 419 1. 14. 44. 060--14. 44. 090 the superintendent, and such sewer main and appurtenances shall thereupon become and rcrain the property of the city. (Ord. 74.1 (part) , 1959) . 1.4 .44 .060 Oversize extensions--When. Whenever an applicant for extension of a saver main is received the superintendent shall determine whether the best interests of the city would be served by a main larger than required by the applicant's need. In the event the superintendent so determines, he shall require the larger size line to be installed. (Ord. 741 (part) , 1959) . 14 .44 .070 Oversize extensions---Decision. The determina- tion of the superintendent of the sanitation department as to size of the sewer main necessary to meet the applicant's need and his determination of the size of sewer main which would best serve the interest of the city shall be final and binding on the applicant. (Ord. 741 (part) , 1959) . 14 .44 .080 Oversize extensions---Installation. When the superintendent of the sanitation department has determined that the city► sanitation system will be best served by a sewer main larger than needed for applicant's use, the superintendent shall require the installation of such oversize sewer main. (Ord. 741 (part) , 1959) . 14 .44 .090 Refund conditions . Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter the payment of refunds shall be governed as follows: (A) Refunds shall be payable for a period of five years only from date of applicant's application for. sewers; (B) Refunds shall be made from subsequent development at tae rate per acre developed set forth in Section 14. 40. 020; (C) nefy ;s shall not exceed ninety percent of offsite construction costs; (D) Refunds shall bear no interest; (E) Refunds shall be payable only to the original applicant or applicants. Upon the death of applicant, the right to refund shall terminate. In the event applicant is a . partnership or corporation, the dissolution of the partnership or corporation shall terminate the right ro refund; (F) The city and city sanitation department shall not be liable for payment of any refund by reason of its failure to collect or receive from any person the service fee for connecting into the main line paid for by applicant; (G) The city sanitation department's refusal to allow any connection or connections into the main -line paid for by applicant shall not make the city or city sanitation department liable to applicant for any refund which might have accrued to applicant if such connection had been permitted; 420 An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section map provide for by an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section Gfr1115, the. local agency . , the acceptance of consideration; in lieu of the payment of fees. slial3 enter into an agrccinent veith the stihdiyiticr to rciusbursc tlic ' A local agency ;inllosin�g fees purst:ant to this section ilia).aavaroce subd;vidcrrfor"than pn�tion of the cost of such intpmyemenic ^goal . money from its generai rand to pay the coct of constructing the im- to iric dil.ercnce beiwecn tl►e amount it would have cost the sitb- i dir;der to install sndi improvements in scree the subdivision only provanents and r:ea}' reimburse the general fund For such advances anti the actual cost of such improvements. i from planned recharge facility funds collcctcd to linance the con_ stntction of such improvelnrnls. GE'M.' to order to pay the crusts as required by the rcimhurse- A local agency imposing fees pursuant to this section may incur an mcnt agreeme tt, the local agency map: interest-bearing ;rnlcbtt dnz as for the construction of Iccharge.facilities (a) Collect from other persottcI including public a;;cncics, using provided that the sole security for repayment of such irdcbteditcvs shall such iuiprovenitats for the bruclit of real property not within the be tnoncys in planned recharge facility funds, j subdivision, a reasonable charge for such use. Recharge facilities shall not he constructed unless the water agency (b) Contriboitc to the subdivider that part of the coat of the xapproves tht design of dir. facilities, to be constructed and has reached improvements that is attributable to the benefit of real prolicrty tent- an agrecinent with the local agency establishing the teens and con- side the subdivision and levv a charge upon the real property benefited ditions under which the water will be furnished. If the water ag cncy ( to reimburse ;!self for such'ce+tit, together vritb interest thereon, if an}•, + finds that the facilities have been constructed in accordance whiff tic paid to the subdivider. approved design, the agency shall furnish grater for such ground water l (c) Establish and maintain local benefit districts for the icyv and recharge facilities. collection of such charge or costs from the property benefited. If such water agency is an irrigation district or other entity. ob-to apportion ligated by la fifrlflSl. Any local agency within a local drainage or sanitary lawwater among the landowners the v+;thin f area of benefit, such y+'atcr agency shall receive credit upon such ob- sewer area may adopt the plan and man designated in Scct;oti Gf'r1113 and impose a reasonable charge on property within the area which, t ligation for any water delivered for ground water recharge under such in the opinion of the legislative body, to benefited by such drainage or agreement and shall be relieved of any further obligation to deliver f sanitary sewer fadicit;es. The cIiarge collected trust be paid to the r the antount of water for which ;t has received such credit to the Iand- local agency r subdivider constricting such drainage or sanitary owners or lands within such area. Nothing contained in this section silo!l entitle a local agency to sewer facilities, und any local agency within the drainage or sanitary i sewer area may cuter into a rcimbursancnt agreement with the sub- r.ullert a fee front a Iandowner who presently receives and continues to divider. receive and use the landowner's pro rasa share of surface water front the ! agency responsible for that area or from a landowner who has not G&JR9. Any local agency may establish an area of benefit pursuant applied for approval of a final or parcel map or a building pennit. to Section 6611I3 and may impose a reasonable charge on property A credit far lees paid as authorized by this section shall be applied'. within the area which in the opinion of the legislative body, is bene- against any a%sessmctit levied by dic local agency to construct such fitcd by the construction of the bridge or major thoroughfare. The planned recharge facilities. charge collected shall be paid to the Iocal agency or subdivider con- 'nit terns "construction,m" as used in this section, includes design, structing the bridge, and any local agency haying jurisdiction over acquisition of land or easeents, administration of contruetion can• any propert-� vrhich, in the opinion of the legislative hods, is licnc- s tracts, and actual construction. ! fited.by :nc construction of the bridge or major thoroughfare may Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude.a county or � enter into a reimbursement agreement with the subdivider. city from providing funds. for the construction of recharge facilities to t defray costs not allocated to die area of benefit. ARTICLE 7. SOILS REPORT [Added, Chapter 620, Statutes of 1978] G6990. A preliminary soils report, prepared by a civil engineer registered in this state, and based upon adequate test borings, shall ARTICLE S. REIhABURSEArtEl3T. i be required for every subdivia;tin for which a final map is required Gfr#E35. There ma• be im osed Iffy local ordinance a by this division and may he required by local ordinance for other ' m subdivisions. that in�irovements installed y t c subdivider torithe,ltenefi of-Ili e I su�Tlit ivuron as contain sup cment.Tu :.ca acity#or' numher'inr , oj:fL With respect to such soils report; a local ordinance may e en it:o roro _ not wit tine e• su ivision,-.an ::rhos,?such "Mvi': that: improvements be dedi�to the publim - ;a} The=preliminary soils report may be y.aived if the local 66486. In the event of the installation of improvements required agency shall determine that, due to the l nowlce'ge it has as to the i , —•f6— —47— trtrtir. UNCl1. � �• C1'�Y GU , Superior Court r•�' - 1� -° STATFOFCAI.IFOIINIA �GlpY GLi~kLY+ In and for the County of Orangr CITY OF HUhtTINGTON IIEACHr CITY CLERK iI Public Hearin- C�Q� .:n+oria atr ruN.>tc ut{wur+o�:'" Statenf California 1 ''' � '�. N071(�It-Hum rlrvt*` County of Orange i }� ac ttm"ld HuoIY�CSbwtly.:.; D'1 It tM Castel climb"of It ow.. a Rita J. Righter 7!*JWj "'HOD&'I�' 1'ilr«.a.lw"t.+[Mc.t va•e+►n► That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of t!wpup�ss sl .ca ti• the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I btuMr Pirr rt tl +r M' _ am not a party tn,nor interested in the above entitled matter; Qlyt" r ' �iwr 1'M M iM pns a &e"a• Y that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the dw p�hMr�Ltw+a7w� at i ( isd Coral ir.wt tt(sl r+rM dtf►CW HUntineton Beach Independent Review at ON thaVA44•' �r«utt.adsd w tYr t�p!f t:i a newspaper of general circulation,pd"lished in the City of s"� "M Iaii sidse�. f.r'DKdnrtoalVe.• 10,,t Huntington Beach {nsw` ar wa �wfa'" County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the adow. LW Am ' disemination of local ne and intelligence of a general charac• ;•.,;,•;. y ws ,� •Y..: 't��l,•y't ter,and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had lar<Iriairnisliea 6++liWs+1"'I > w list"+."w and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, m�yay�,• and which newspaper has lien established,printed and pub. Talst :: 10 ailT:r•i �1' lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a rAit vpt 1 low-NC period exceeding one year, ihat the notice, of which the ��'�" pqW t ;,?• annexed Is a printed copy,hem been published in the regular i and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: June 19r 1980 I I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the fotego- ine Is true and correct. Dated Gardena Grove Cal (MI i '19th dayo•. n G e . �g0• ............ or r .. . ... ... Signature f tr { I Fam Na CAF-WI ....__......_..-............_.... ..wt. .�.,-.,. .., .. .. .. - :... - .. .. .-....d. -. .....,...�.... e n ., .a t;Kwo'. ....nw.v'a�Fy,.is a1t;..ZWt7iT!' t ' l REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Services Date Prepared June 25 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached Yes No Subject MASTER PLAN Or SEWEBS -- City Administrator's Comments eRo Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue. Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: STATEMENT'OF ISSUE:. Transmitted for consideration is the Master Plan of Sewers which consists of two parts. The first part of the plan Is a report prepared by the City's Public Works Department which updates, reorganizes and expands the information presented In the City sewer study by Lowry and Associates. The second part Is the Lowry sewer study itself which is to be adopted as n technical 'r appendix. RECOMMENDATION: lre Planning Commission and staff recommend that the I�City Council adopt the aster flan of ewers. ANALYSIS: Planning Commission Action on May.6, 1980: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KEN&-ICK THE MASTER PLAN OF SEWERS WAS �. APPROVED BY THE ADOPTION OF MODIFIED RESOLUTION NO. 12621 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.- AYES: Winchell, Kenefick, Porter, 9azil, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Greer ABSTAIN: None l In 1978, the City of Huntington Beach retained the erg. Bring firm of Lowry and Associates to analyze the ability of the City and County sewer system. 1 accommodate sewage generated by existing and future development in the City. Although prevat.,ti studies have been prepared for the f City none have been officially adopted, I The Lowry Study established sewage generation rates and peak flow +ro for all land uses within the City. Using these factors and the City's Land Use Element, Asting sewage system was analyzed to determine present deficleneies and remaining capacities. 'anal facilities r within the City operated by the Sanitation Districts of Orange County, were uit. innlyzed. Based on these analyses, the Lowry Study recommended a list. of short and long term Imi. ments to the City's sewer system. Some of the recommended Improvements have been or are t... -ntly under construction. Pro 3/Ja r MASTER PLAN OF SEWS June 27, 1980 ' Page Two I The information contained in the Lowry Study has been reorganized and condensed by the i Department of Public Works to form the first part of the proposed Master Plan. It contains a map showing the location of existing City and County sewer lines and recommended improvements. It reports on the current status of these improvements and updates the informatir, , regarding their cast. Together, the Public Works report and the Lowry Study technical appendix constitute: a Master Plan for sewers that provides essential information and guidance for the construction of sewer facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. This proposed Master Plan will also serve as a basis of support for the collection of sewer fees. The Sanitation Districts have reviewed the props,ed Master Plan and found it to be consistent with County plan;,. i The Department of Development Services is currently preparing a Community Facilities Element (CFE) to The City's General Plan. 'rhe CFE will address not only the City's sewer system, but alw drainage, water supply and other community facilities. The CFE will incorporate appropriate Mauer Plans including the proposed Sewer Master Plan and will also contain a comprehensive and I coordinated set of policies to guide the provision of future facilities. The proposed Master Plan of Sewers is intended to serve only as on interim document until the Department of Development Services can complete the proposed Community Facilities Element. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 80-28 for 10 days and no comments, either verbal j or written, were received. Prior to its action on the Master Plan of Sewers, Planning Commission reviewed and adapted Negative Declaration 80-28. FUNDING SOURCE: Not app ica le. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:- Not applicable. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Resolution Number 2. Negative Declaration Number 80-28 3. Master Plan of Sewers Respectfully submitted, 4Jes Director, Development Services JWP:CI:de �I j1 !I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L A 0 IN T ER•DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 111w11M.111%Mull To Carol. Inge From EItVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SECTION • Assistant Planner Subiect NEGATIVE DECLARATION Date April 30, 1980 110. Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Reouest: Adopt Interim Master Plan of Sewers Location: Citywide Background Baspd on the Staff's initial study of this project a Draft Negative Declaration was published in the local netispaper and posted in the Office .,f the City Clerk for a 10-day public review period ending April 28, 1980 and no comnents, the attached comments, were received. Recommendation The Environmental Resources Section recommends that the Planning Comiasion and i CityCouncil approve Negative Declaration No. 8 0—213 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. f' f Respectfully submitted, James R. Barnes 'ssociate planner i JRE/dc f 1i I i • • CITY Of HUNTINGTON ACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT P.0.Box 190 •'• Huntington Beach,CA.92648 m.nv.nn��urn Tel: (714)536.5271 ENVIRONMENTAL INFOMATION FOW-1 { Fee - $75.00 i FOR CITY USE ONLY � City of Huntington Beach Date Annlicant/Authorized Agent Received: Lj-- JQ 4t �1 Project ?dumber: riti 0 P. O. Box 190 s i' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 z , Department of Origin: Mailing Address { (714) 536-5431 (Public Works) • Other Applications or Telephone Permit Numbers: Proaerty Owner ` Flailing Address/Telephone 1.0 Project Information (please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) See attached location map. 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed proiect. The interim Master Plan for Sewers will provide essential information and guidance for the inprovatients and construction of sewer facilities within Huntington Beach. 'Ibe plan includes a detailed list of potential deficiencies and specific correc- tive recannerdations. A cost analysis of the needed improveszmts and methxis of obtaining adiitional revenue is also providW. 1. 2 Location of Project: (Address, nearest street intersections) See location nup. 1. 3 Asrlessur O S I'arce l Num)jer: td/h r i i i i i I 1.4 What is the present zoning on the property? N/A 1.5 What is the surrounding land use to the: N/A North • South East West 1.6 If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to estimated employment per shift and any potential hazardous materials which may be used, etc. 2J/A 1.7 If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. N/A 1. 8 If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and maximum occupancy. I N/A 1.9 Project land area (acres) 15,401 Number of parking spaces N/A j I 1. 10 Square feet of building area N/A Numbe-- of floors N/A 1. 11 }Ieiaht o� tallest structure involved in the project N/A I 2.0 Environmental Settina 2. 1 brainano and flood Control n) Please de:icribe how on-site drainacie Will bri accommodated. Il/A { i . • 2.2 Land form a) Is the site presently graded? N/A b) Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed N/A , the acres of J•..nd to be graded N/A , the amount of earth to be transported on the site N/A , and the amount of earth to be transported off the site N/A , c) what will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? N/A 2. 3 soils a) Type of soils on the subject site? (Submit soils report if available) . N/A 2.4 Vegetation a) Attach a man indicating the location, type and size of i trees located eit the site. Indicate below the number, type and size of trees to be removed as a result of the project. • N/A 2.5 water Quality a) Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? N/A b) Describe how th, project will effect any body of water. N/A 2. 6 Air nuality a) If the project is industrial, describe and list air j pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. NIA 2. 7 Noise a) Describe .,ny adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , air- ports, industry, freeways) . N/A b) Miat. noise will be produced ay the project? If available, Please dive noise levels in decible measurement and typical time distribution when ricise will be produced. V/A 3.. C. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? N/A 2. 8 Traffic Approximately how mach traffic will be generated by the project: (check one) N/A i 0-50 vehicular trips per day 50 - 250 vehicular trips per day 250 - 500 vehicular trips per day over 500 vehicular dips per day 3.0 Public Services and Facilities 3. 1 Water a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new water lines? No b) Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the proj-:it. 3. 2 Sewer a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer lines? Yes b) Please indicate the approximate amount of sewage generated from the project. a , 3. 3 Solid haste a) If the project is industrial, describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generatedl by the project. tI/A 4.0 Social 4+. 1 Population Displacewent M Will any residential occui3ants be displaced by the project act.ivitivs? Ila M Dvi-tCHI)o hr ivf ly t txo t;pu of bLi i idintic- or to be t it(3 j)rr. JL,Ct. tr/A A 1 •,M i 1 i I 5.0 mitigating Measures 5. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve nonrenewable resources (e.g. electricity , gas, water) ? Yes. Please describe. (see attached) 5.2 Are there measures included in the project which would protect or enhance flora and fauna? Please describe. N/A 5 .3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution? Please describe. N/A 5.4 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project (e.g. architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? Please describe. N/A 5.5 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce water pollution? Please describe. N/A 5.5 Are there measures proposed which would reduce air pollution? List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A 5.7 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resource recovery and/or energy conservation (e.g. solar heating, special insulation, etc. ) ? Please describe. ItiA 5.0 Alternatives 6.1 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse enl!ironmental effect? 'lease explain all project alternatives on an attached sheet. N/A t hereby rertify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Gic7aatury Date filed 7 Attachment Sectirn 5.1 Mitigating Measures: The construction of specifically proposed sewer lines will eliminate the need for several exit ing pump stations. This elimination, of facilities will reduce electrical consumption. S 4, . r f 4 lUs ass,�tC: r r LOS ANGELES COUNTY s N l rJr,viEIli ' 1 �-- RIVERSIDE COUNPI ORANGE COMY SA'tTA MIA :UtIS£I li£Apt• !' UOLSA CHICA COSiA MESA CIli Of W-11ilpGlW, BEACH STU DY A RU4 A" n_arCkt ECA.CH a SAN DIEGO COUNTY i> LorAT I ON MAP Lowry and Associates ...Y..�.. ... ._. ._.._ .....�......._._r'� � ..._ .,r,� .-... ., // .r• � `,, /' ''ti'1"f++..-sue.,+ Publish June 19, 1980 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MA5TER AN OF SEWERS 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 8th day of July 1980 - for the "purpose of considering adoption of a Master Plan of Sewers prepared by the i City's Department of Public Works. The Master Flan is based upon a study conducted by Lowry and Associates. It identifies potential trouble spots in both City and County sewers that serve the City of Huntington Beach and sets forth a list of recocrmended improvements to the City's sewar system. The City Council will consider Negative Declarz0 on No. 80-28 in conjunction with the adoption of the proposed Master Plan of Sewers. f All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Master Plan of Sewers _. Further irforru tion may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerks 2000 Main Street, Huntington Reach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED JLne 12, 000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON ?EACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk i • i tmaria TO CL 1K TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING rrZM MASTER PLAN OF SEWERS JUKE 12, 1986 T0: CITY CUM'S 0171CT DATE: _ Firms: �1?.�Y�.-���saavxc8s PLEJISB 5CWMX A rMLIC YM6 USISC:THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE 7hh „SAY OF:_..9P X-- is". A. 1i'il*i ttaatird APO a will follow No AV a laitLatai d by:' Flaming Coasission Plaaniaa Department X Petition Appeal Other Adoption of Inviro=cntel Status (x) X YES NO ` Refer to Carat Inge �. Planning Department - Extension # 5251 for additional information. * If � jal, please transmit ex&ct wording to be rewired in the legal. i s Published in the Huntington Beach Independent June 15, 1980 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HgARING A4A S 1er AI,6 M af'Sew-V li NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVER that a public hearing will be held by the City C,--uncil of the City of Huntington Beach, California, for Vie purpose of considering adoption of a Master plan. e of Sewers prepared by the City' Department of Public Works. The Master Plan is based upon a study conducted by Lowry and Associates. It identifies potential txouble spots in both City and County sewers that serve the City of Huntington Beach and sets forth a list of recommended Lmp.nvements to tite City's sewer system.- The City Council will cc..-.Sider Negative Declaration. No. 80-28 in conjunction with the adoption of the proposed Master Plan of Sewers. j Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7:30 P.M. on Monday, duly A. 2980, in the Council Chamgers Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing ? and express their opinions for or against the proposed Master Plan of Sewers. Futher information may be obtained from the City Planning Deparmtent, Telephone I`umber (714) 536-5271 DATED THIS DAY OF CI;•Y COUNCIL BY l #1001-f DPW REQUEST FOR CITY COUNC►L ZrN Submitted by H. E. Iiartge,# /} Department Public Works Date Prepared August 28 01978 Backup Material Attached E] Yes E] No Subject :lain Street/Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer; CC-398 City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: .• Statement of Issue: ` The City Council at its meeting of July 3, 1978 authorized the advertisement for bids for the Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project. At the meeting of July 17th the City Council voted to reconsider the matter. No further vote has been taken. Recommended Action: Reaffirm the authorization for advertisement for bids for the Beacn/Main Sanitary Sewer Project with condition that award will not be made until October 17, 1978 (at which time the State Coastal Commission expects to i render a decision on the coast trunk sewer) . f Analysis: The City Council asked whether outside funding sources may be available for the project. The attached letter confirms prior verbal notice that County Sanitation District No. 3 (in which district the proposed line is located) cannot finan..e the lino. The criteria fer a trunk line which is spaced at approximately a two-mile interval in a north-south direction in that District is as follows quoted from the District letter dated Aug. 25, 1978: "The criteria established for the trunk sewers was that they were to serve more than one local sewering entity and that the drainage area encompass at least j 3,000 acres. " The subject line does not meet either criteria. Further, based on our experience in obtaining Federal funds such as Housing and Ccm- munity Development Funds, local projects will not be approved if there are local funds available for the project. There was some question as to the actual need of the line. Host of the .,and in that newer drainage area is served by a trunk line owned by County Sanita- tion District No. 11 . This line is presently at- 90t; capaci'cy and requetstc for further tic-ins to it will. be examined very clunely by the County Sanita- Lion District as well an this; office. At 010 Council necetinq of July 3, 197H , :tuthvrizat:ion :.au givers to a:Jverttsv elm' 1 Request for Council Action August 28, 1978 Page 2 for bids for the Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project. The advertisement for bids was delayed because the City had not received the California Department of Transpirtation permit needed to construct the sewer in Beach Blvd. , a State highway. Additionally, the Sanitation Districts coast trunk sewer project, recently approved by the Regional Coastal Commission, has now been appealed to the State Coastal Commission. If the coastal trunk sewer project is not approved by the S tate Coastal Commission, the Sanitation District has advised the City that an alternate inland route would be required for the coastal trunk sewer. There is a possibility that an inland route for the coastal trunk sewer could impact the City's Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project. The Sanitation District expects the State Coastal Commission to render a decision on the coastal trunk sewer by October 17, 1978. ' I This schedule would place the construction of the sewer project after the Christmas rush and also after the rendering of a final decision by the State Coastal Commission on the coastal trunk sewer. In addition, the updating of the City's Master Plan of Sewers now in progress by Lowry a Associates will be far enough along by November to further assist in the analysis of the Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project. Alternative Action: No project; strict limits on development would have to be imposed in order to stay within the design capacities of the area's existing setters. Funding Source: The project is estimated to cost $500,000 and will be financed from the City's sewer fund, which has a present balance of approximately $3.0 million. # j � ; i I, t i HEIi:JRR:jy { w i b r A A •sue q TELCPH0NCS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � s2�4,1° r.' P. O. 13OX 19127. FOUNTAIN VALLE:. CALIFORNIA 927LID 10944 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIC613 FREEWAY) . 11 August 25, 1978 1 City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA ! Attention: Mr. II. E. liartge, Director of Public Works Subject: Master Plan Trunk Sewer Criteria for Sanitation District No. 3 When the Districts were incorporated in the 1946-47 era, each individual Sanitation District had prepared a I-taster Plan of Trunk Sewer Facilities. These Master Plans have been periodically up-dated to reflect the changing needs of the respective Districts. The criteria established :or trunk sewer facilities to serve the respective Districts has varied because of the differ- ing needs, the numbers of local sewering entities to be served, the growth and economic capabilities of each District. Sanitation District No. 3 serves fourteen cities, two sanitary districts, plus the unincorporated territories located within the boundaries of the District. The initial backbone system for the District was portions of the lines purchased from the joint outfall system during the early development periods of the District. An outgrowth of that purchase was the establishment of a gravity system traversing the District in a north to south direction, with the trunks S j aligned with approximately a two-vile separation. The criteria established for j the trunk sewers was that then were to serve more than one local sewerinq en- tity and that the drainage area encorpass at'least. 3,000 acres. The sizing of i the system wus not a criteria because of the differing land use plans adopted by the cities. The criteria established for thq Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for District No. 3 does vary from that of District No. 11, as well a.1 the ether Districts. The criteria established for District I.o. 11 is similar to thaL adopted by Districts !!ns. 1 and 7. These criteria I-ave been in effect for many years and the implementation of the Master I.lan based on this criteria is nearing complet:icrl in many of the Districts. The collective master. Flans of tvink sewers for the Sanitation Districts ara somc-what complex becaarf, of the way in which each of the Districts hac davelol-ed and tl•o Associated needs of the respective drainage areas. The criteria estab.l.trhed has bi!cn L•a_•cd on round car:gineering ptinriples, a., well as the pllilonolihy and policy of the respective r.(!wvrinel agencies ilia ary rerricr atlonclt'r of the Sanitation Districtr. our ptogran:-, have, lived irrl4cm.ented at a minirrnrr� U.,col;C to thv taxpayern and iri{%•C hvpt. al7icast l:l th t.i14 J,,,,vd� of tb!, drainslUC' ilI'vav within c' 1C11 rei pect.iv i)ilitI'iC:t'. 'lite Ir;l l�'2^,'rlt.iltiJrl A tt1'! I)S4;tI'ic't,:i� I at',ter C� I'larin could not have iecr1 air f:r: t.ivt 0t.hout t.irc full co�)rt-raticn nf tEv luc-A , LOONTY SANITATiori DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY.CALIFORNIA • P.O. 00X 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 1714) 962-2411 City of Huntington beach. August 25, 1978 4 Page Two sewering agencies and the implementation and coirnitment to the local newering programs. I am enclosing herewith a copy of a District tlo. 3 iiaaLur Plan dated June, 1960. You can appreciate that although this Plan is approximately ten years old, the Uistrics. -;ill require approximately an addlti,onal two to three years for full implementation of this program. If you have any questions regarding this`matter, please do not hesitate to call. Ray ?E.. Low s; i Chief Engineer REL:ll jb Enclosure �2 L� • 'f•r i . i { I {tj F,'r • • - 'N f' , ' t t ,1 I •l lil t" 10-N B I41A( ,1 ! �.�► � 1 •:'... 1•. !�r tl (•(� �� �•I•�•, �♦.� IrI I' �1It :�+) f� �• �r ;.. .•j .. .. ••,••1-. •nv•r rrr. t 1011E CASE* i ii ..-•;�::u: . 111,•►t N. ar,•II,M 1'!•U!N .1 �..,., r.....:... ...;.•••r• 1�.a.y Kl.,a1.a+�;a.+,t•a.N•N,••:• •1 tr,rrla.n... •n rra i ... s t.r f"rl••..:11rr k•'• ••\r.aY.••. , •,•ta,r••,ra•s••1•,•a q.�:•r'." ..,.. , ..,,... ..I I•I w J • h . `T CMI-co �� t �~ 1r�tfhf: OI"AG9 P11.y0. �t. , TRUNK 7iinnu _c{�; i� 1'1• V P K OW 00 Ca : � CF-R '�• MI-CD la,i .. • MI-CD CF_R ICI I I C2 I y 5 4PO MI 41,i►..ram• hi no RA-0-CD i• ,mot I"l RI 1. " ( I I /• , RI R► 1a11 '• VF-<J •1 m, .1•r♦ tt rt�v••t t� JJJJ �},,,i� •r utl al j 1 i R� 1 I' r,,.. •MI-CD E I PA PJ•►P��I� •:,::;.I= l'y , I I 1 M iOo ,�� �(._._ 1. l►..ti , �.� .. I i :'SILT RI 1• j _iiy ' ..lLp�_1_ a• I:��..I _. l I �Klyl'. �UMP riot- Mlo, R2 G2 �, 1 r». , r• ub i RA 0- _ ,,� .. _ ..,r.l . R2 r I i � �Rs �p I r1� 7 1 N rGb N 1/ 1 tOr.rto�� / T A M _0 as I /r•s 1._..J .. . ' yr. 19ew0 R --- - MI-0 Rd ..•r , �. �. r L1•a•ca � ,' Pau KA f. 1r.R1tATY f'LaN 1 • I •, i 4 IDIS ICt Ott) = J 1 ftJ M2•^dr• If .••r � .� I � 111•0 5 R5 tMI-0 R5 1At ` Mom ' I C eJ (7 RA-0 +'� Rb �:2 R2 r R2r^ ' T .. .. _ , at _ I- e � Gxl rING �yo /11 a�= RoPohRv llif�RcEPf�br� PciNr rsu 99 hgv/rlI / 7 ��.�..d ' y�Fvl'o� !�>7E�!► pf 7�ot�o���n fr�ut�K �f'w� � IF I / 1 • •�><RY.•jY:y",•• r.:.7.'.."i4i+Dr:"W F::'+"ZT3.;'Tt'�isa y REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTION } Submitted by H.-E. Hartge Department pub t^Works Date Prepared August 1 1978 Backup Material Attached n Yes 0 No • Subject Status Report of the Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project City Administrator's Comments gl J v fr a ` y$4 o Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: Statement of issue: Due to circumstances outlined below, it is advisable to defer the Call for Bids on the Main/Beach Sanitary Sewer Project to November, 1978. Recommended Action: It is recommended that advertising for bids of the Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project be deferred until app.:uximately November, 1978. Analysis: At the Council meeting of July 3, 1978, authorization was given to advertise for bids For the Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project. The advertisement for ,. bids has been delayed because the City has not received the California De- partment of Transportation permit needed to construct the sewer in Beach Blvd. , a State highway. If the advertisement for bids proceeded at this time, construction of the Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project would take place during the pre-Christmas shopping season and cause considerable public in- convenience &..ring the heavy traffic period, • Additionally, the Sanitation Districts coast -trunk sewer project, recently approved by the Regional Coastal Commission, has now been appealed to the State Coastal Commission. If the coastal trunk sewer project is not approved by the State Coastal Commisnion, the Sanitation Districts has advised the E , City that an alternate inland route would be required for the Coastal trunk sewer. There is a possibility that an inland route for the coastal trunk sewer could impact the City's Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project. The Sanitation Districts expects the State Coastal Commission to render a decision on the coastal trunk sewer by the end of September, 1978. The deferment would place the construction of the sewer project after the Christmas rush and also after the rendering of• a final decision by the State ' Coastal Commission on the coastal trunk sewer. In addition, the updating of f..: the City's Master PI.an of Sewers now in progress by Lowry & Associates will. � be far enough along by November to further assist in the analysis of the a`- PIa 3178 t" ..........,........,..._....'aa:. -.t: ,... . ..:.,•. .i. .... '•l: -, a i, .: .. ..."i. °.i...�. .. . •.« .......,.:....,. W..•.......-._....�.,..+.•w.,...««a-wi•avw.N.w r.•.,s.:.m.»:aaar+..•++ Request for City Council Action August 1, 1978 Page z Beach/Main Sanitary Sewer Project. Alternatives Advertise for bids as soon as the State permit is receivedi however, public inconvenience will occur during the Christmas season. , Funding Source: .' This project will be funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. i HEH:RLLsjy T 4 ' 1 1, l • f 1..y.e^""'�'^""'.`--^+�-�'...as rlw•,ua.i"-/Rf:Y.fti{..?,'+':..*.:+'...+......_.. .._.�,•,era:.R t+ext t ! 4°512:.t'IC».:t;.cv►«...w w....�.�aa...�.. �.r•+rM►w.�.rs i f a• REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by }I. E. Hartge zv ,lI -- Department Public Works Date Pr.pared June 27, , 1S 78 Backup Material Attached Yes Q No Subject Main Street/Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer; CC-398 City Administra oc's •'L r�i'Mr • L Approve as recommended �a Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: r .� Statement of Issue The ex st ng .sewers in Beach Boulevard between Ellis and Blater Avenues and in Delaware Street north of Garfield Avenue are at capacity. In addition, the existing sewer in Florida Street is rapidly approaching capacity. This ' project will relieve these existing deficiencies and suppress other antic- .ipated problems. Recommendation Approve the plans and spe6i7ications for the project, adopt EIR 70-3 and authorite the call for bids for the installation of a sanitary sewer in Main Street and in Beach Blvd. Analysis ,< Recent monitoring of sewage flows in the aforementioned existing sewers showed the need for a new sewer main as proposed. Not to proceed with this project will either overload the existing sewers to an unacceptable degree or severely limit further development of the: area. Alternative Actions Alternat ves are d scussed in detail in EIR 78-3 and are: (1) No project; { strict limits on development would have to be imposed in order to stay with- It the design capacities of the area's existing sewers. (2) Alternative '' . alignment; the proposed sewer could be constructed easterly in Ellis Avenue + from the Main Street/Beach Blvd./Ellis Ave. intersection, terminating at vhe Miller-Holder trunk sewer of County Sanitation District No. 3. This al`:ernative has been studied by the Sanitation District and was found incompatible with the District's Master Plan. Fundii;a Source T' H-e projec is estimated to cost $500,000 and will be financed from the City's sewer fund, which has a present balance of approximately $3.0 million. HEH:JRR:mc . Pro 3/78 .... ._......-_._. .•w�..r....,+. ... .. ..r... .-.!•... .r......... •.... . ,... .:.—, ... .. ...... ..............�...,....-...,.-...— ...-...-.aarwxw.srvs+•LK'.1'.4'Z'+i b [itilTMi'F� 7. .EK i ti t t r C 4 •'1 i •n i1i' fib ' CF-E « 1 ,�,+...•.+.u....l W11 MI r t R 2• R� "1 t it ;' �NI ( R2 . RI RI _ t ij cf-ii ,rW� � 1• RI � f ' Jrl R2, R 2 ` r RI YI RI rl tr t R� ..... mi 1 +11 rl 1 RI 1 r� r1 � RI #M Lt rwc Iw, t t R i i r �... Fw m p co R1 MI•CD !t • ��,. Mt-CDI MN �ii ` » R2 RZ R2 IiA-CDS {11 ---------=' c' R 3 R2 .. RI writ U",f a f oil I l c .?2 C M t R >~�� tit firR2 CF-R 112 c� 1 .....w.r ar.r t•rl IsTt RS- tit re Rx -•xv ` RZ R5 i SP-1 +w+«++N M,.• r�t"'Cc) RJ R2 C+� ! 4.5./{,r,r'i/ /G//V R2•PQ�W 1 .. ;,� f • 11 r MI-CD MI-CD R! 'c CF•R � ,1 C2 Mi RI RI C2 • GI'-�'. a 11 RI . . NI • RI RI •wdr' rnr• �' • RR RI � RI RI f As r !l I• MI-CD RI R► RI - , r. Pat p ---'►.f- f MI .� « oa e, R, it �Raro wir ♦ R? y,, p ., r.l 1 Of Iff MI-0-co r 41 � .,.`` _____ -- r •� J �y;, . I...— Wci MI-A --I C2 ` c= Ca RA-0-CD F .R2 .._I R� �trPSI :wl iwI M2.0 N>t ~' ` MN A•p MI-0 all opt R2 _ x t. _rn ItsitsC4 `+' Ra r at t ~4 Rt { 1 au wl co _ MI.O a w Rs 11 4 ` R3 r10 �R! Rs R2 i r♦ RI ` Pi R1 1 t q R2 ' RI AO RD R9,. a 4 rl �t All arras i ...__-.,.........ti i1:� ..d:.. .. `.=1.. 9',�.va✓�..w,..'.4t ..'1;.�J.fa a a., ._ ./. ..�.�.� .t.wx+w+.,a.`..wvw«.w• A ... +•.+•a vaot;K's�s4v,;;f:,�e¢:LS:'.T.a;M'sr+�.-7 c2nc y r • 7 H. B. INL^rENDENT j Publish Date 3/1179 LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE NO. 2351 ,,AN ORDINANCE OF 71IE CITY OF HEMING704 BEAC31 At MUG THE HUNTING ON BEACH 1011CIPAL CODE 13Y MENDING SECTIONS 15.12.040, 15.20.010, 15.20.020 AND 15.20.060 PERTAINING TO WASTE WATER PERHIT FEES." I (Copy on file in the City Clerk's Office) SYNOPSIS: Ordinance No. 2351 eliminates the annual waste water permit fee for oil well corpanies that arc tied into the County sever system. I t- f'. 7t, ll i i ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an regular meeting held Monday, February 20 by the r_ following roll call vote: t : ' AYES .Councilmen: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert, Pattinson NOES,; Councilmen: done ABSENT: Councilmen: None c. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Raymond C. Picard Department Fire Date Prepared January 1J 79 Backup Material Attached E] Yes No Subject EL.IMiNATiON OF WASTE WATER ANNUAL PERMIT FOR OIL WELLS TiED 111TO THE COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM City Administrator's Comments A rove as recommended. Pi? - 3 F Statement of Issue, Wornmendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: 4� Statement of Issue: Per the request of the City Council to eliminate the annual waste water permit fee for oil well companies that are tied into the County sewer system, the attached ordinance has been prepared. Recommended Action: Adopt attached ordinance. Analysis: It has been researched by this department and found'thot there. are a total of 350 wells which are tied into the Cwnty sewer system which, at $30 per well, comes to a total of $10,500 in revenue to the City annually. The total waste water fees collected this year will be $20,190 minus the $10,500 from County tie-ins leaving $9,690 collected this year for all wells tied into the Cify's sewer system only. Alternative: f Mit approve the attached ordinance. Funding Source: None required. RBG:sh ' j: attachment P10 3i78 ': .:,:.::. ..... .-...„....:•:yr.. ..n.. ..,.-•:w.rsA.:,.;d:..,..t'.1^{-•,:*�'4inrl�':::Ki;�I;M1.rrcT>.•.asr:'.R�a.+t.+ 1 1 y i i ORDINANCE NO. 2351 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 15.12. 0402 15.28.0102 15.28.020 AND 15.28.060 PERTAINING TO WASTE WATER PERMIT FEES The City Council of xhe City of Huntington Beach does 4 ordain as follows: t SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby R amended by amending Section 15.12.040 to read as follows : 15.12.040 Waste water annual permit. Oil well waste water shall not be discharged into the aity 's sanitary newer system unless a permit therefor is obtained each calendar year for every well discharging such waste water into the san4tapyouoh system. SECTION 2. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 15. 28.010 to read as follows : 15.28.010 Waste water s stem. For the purpose of handling industrial wastes from oil and gas wells, including waste water and brine, the department shall issue a sewer connection permit t9-�e�es��wsde#�-waste-Ha�e�-and-b�iae-��oa-�#�awlienauax seals waste is to be deposited into the aity 's sanitary sewer system, provided such industrial waste does nut contain more than one hundred (100) milligrams/liter of any crude, distilled or refined petroleum products, mud, rotary mud, oils, or other residual products mentioned in Orange County Sanitation District Discharge regulations. Such industrial waste shall be processed through a clarification system approved by the department. At no time shall discharge water b: over 1400 Fahrenheit at point of entry to the sewer. SECTION 3. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 15.28.020 to read as follows : f 15. 28.020 Sewer connection permit--Application fee. No {� connection shall be made to the aity 'a sanitary sewer system f until a sewer connection permit has been obtained from the depart- ment. An application for such sewer connection permit shall be � filed with the department together with a fee of one hundred dollars ($100) per sewer connection. •ps i/a/79 I 1. „—.. _.. ._.. ........ ......�.�...,.r tiw M,•ulA WrwLF r\� ... f. .:•.r: re r..r•.M S •.Y •µvlwwrr-� ......—.�..., .�•+�rrv.w ' 1 •r t 1 SECTION U. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Sectijn 15.28.060 to read as follows : 15.28.060 Rules for laying drainpipe to sanitary sewer. The method of installation for the discharge line from the clarifying tank, including all pipe and fittings, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach 1 Plumbing Code. No sewer connection to the eity 'a sanitary sawar system Ghall be made by other than a licensed plumbing contractor. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, a news-- paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1979. F 1, Mayor Y ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r, City Clerk go� City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: '10 Oil ;ity Administrator F'ire Ch.tef 2. f' REQUEST rOR CITY COUNCIL k fl N Qg Submitted by H• H. Hartge , � Department Public Works �a �w Cate prepared November 9, 19_._.. Backup Material Attaclied Q Yes No Subject Pruperty owners Request for Sanitary Sewer Service on Huntington Street City Administrator's Comments r Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: I Statement of Issue: Owners of two properties fronting on Huntington Street, north of Main St. have requested that the City participate in the cost of a sanitary sewer. A copy of their letter is attached. Recommended Action: 1 Approve t e concept of the City pre -financing the cost of the sanitary sewer installation fronting thi3 vacant parcels, if the owners of the developed property will pay for the cost of the sewer fronting their parcels. • (2) Authorize the City staff to and the two interested Prepare an agreement between the City property owners. Analysis: Several property owners on Huntington Street, north of Main St. have requested the assistance of the City in providing sanitary sewer service to their parcels which are currently on septic tanks. The property owners ' have expressed a willingness to pay for the cost of the hewer fronting s their parcels if the City would pre-finance the cost of the sewer fronting }the vacant parcels. The City would be reimbursed for this cast when the' i vacant parcels are developed and connections are made to the new sewer line. The estimated cost of this sewer line is $10,000L The property owners share is $3,000 and the City's share would be $7,000. The Citywould also be responsible for designing th, sewer and supervising the construction. The sewer would be extended to the north of the presently developed parcels k:at the time those parcels are developed. The City has assisted several Property owners in other areas of the City in a similar fashion. Alternatives: Do not pre-finance the cost of this sanitary sewer fronting the undeveloped parcels which will result in the developed parcels remaining on septic '1 tanks. 1. Pla 3176 .-,. ... .-.... • ._.. .�,��r.,i..ti vet"+Y' 1i,NY ...'L.r, ..�.....M•-.x.,a. �'` • • •' •,.. ._..ti. . .,• t.vw.(+..•M'+.il.•> v ...•wa,wu.sq..x1-,♦x41,JYSJtagy y,l FSW•A•atana+•ww..... I J { • Request for City Council Action Praj?erty owners Request for Sanitary Sewer Service on Huntington street Novi3mber 9, 1978 Page 2 Funding: The property owners will contribute $3 construction and the City,s $7,000 share bedfinancedst sanitary sewer fund. �r of this share of the cost when thehe cvacantll be totally reimbursed formitse parcels are developed, i i a a: 1 t. ,Y t i; t• i i . HEH:Rr,L:me i ' 7 i r 18761 Huntington St. Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 i September 5, 1978 i Public Servicen ti Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Dean Mr. Hartge In( talking with 14r. Ron locked and the Huntington Beach, ch Company, we were told to write to you requesting a sewer line in front of our homes. We live on 18761 Huntington St. approxmatcky 300 feet north of Baia St. in Huntington Beach. There is a main newer line, with a roan hole, approxmately 250 isnt short of our property on Huntington St. There are three existing homes and many empty 1'eta c,y the west side of this street. All of us have cesspools. My family has lived on this property since 1937 without a sewer line. Tws years ago your office and the Huntington Beach Company informed us to wait un-;il new buildings would Start on either nide of the street and then this would be the appropiate tima to install a sewer line. In checking with your office and master plan, we found out that installation of a newer line to our properrier is not planned. New con,truction is now under way, the street is in very poor condition and with the cost of canstructien spiralling, we » . ., .. . think now is the apprppiate time to install a sewer line. We also belive that in the hear future the empty properties (including one of oure), will need a sewer line. If one is installed everyone is willing to pay their equal share for the cast of installation and connection from their home to the street. As you well know, cesspR915are very hard to maintainf not permanent and expensive. All of us have been paying property tazeS for many years, some of which goen to the nanition district, but never had any eewer connection to our homes. We are in dire need of your help. Thank yo , - / jr.& ,;Mrs. Robert S. +Espitia i .1, jt 1 r l�p � 4 ► ".a, :.� y, + i/ `� pe{. G''y� �y.:,1.�� .f� ! R1 7+. � � ',3', A �45 "4 i'4-. M4 1�, ,}� �. ry' .. '♦•1 . 'S.r' !"1 � �,�R� { 'L'4,' j�� 1.1.11� �� ��.';r-� �Y��1t�ll [:�'� :��1t�� Tyf' � + �! !�f"i FYI 'L '}1 1 �.It!}� � �,�.�,�. "' `C ,}._•�r"'V^- t .�1 et �,. � y.���,.�� �•';1 �� '+:K'tG. a ,� ;Py+ n'4.-�S. ��,�. lCs.,V+,.•' ,. ,r , t�...� i 4e.}1�a��.l x;w (. , 1 J,r'��t, L�,'„ 4 � �,.;�r1, S ' �4.�• ,.��.�f,Y�`..�LYI .,C:!";r , �tih'� ty N�L+P' �';�� � .} ;;YMr 1 'V�a;k, F�l'� ia}� fir+ ��:�f � 5 li i' t• 4 lM'�'�'.,•r��l,�: � .T�' ; V �+ i�..r`,1':rx, �:, �.i',i f1r,l.. �_y�j ��^�..L ,,��`},���. tk. ,,5 - 3 +� TY r � 4� }- �'�i ,,}},,.. I�1(; '�l4 � �. 45 !�. ,�. 1... -„ + �',! } '1 ,� �t M1�.i.7 trR (}�'l'Si �,!}1 + r,•�.''ti -.i a. .:. tZy [', 1 �• ti-, .•.F It �S,ry, \. {. ' A `kr [fir P; 'Af• a �.�� i �, ! - � �� 4.1"'�+..�� Rti� �V �,� 1 . , �. t..lrti� i.!�y}r V 'M'�.(NI iy�ik�� �A•. R" �i�{-. '+F, �j,V7. �. `,r� � h7`'� �,. . . _r• � ti' �;M uu � P l,i 4 � � j� ,.► t , .�6:?• ,Y M4'L� '��MY6 ;..1P� •$'1: +f; A T i� .� 'S i..ti'� �� � 5v r'Vr�l���. r� � .�rl ! "� �a �i 71V iti � ��•.��� � r�.�. fi+�f�.rfi,`�i�4f', r � y� f�� �a��st :� f�{it �' ,.+�' � 4"c. p ,,k���;,�`' �7,i,�` tAl:,4� r�'•[•f? � �',r�� �y',��� +1 '�[} �y.. �'�r��.�� � .r �.Y• i �'l ,'Ap1 }i't��y�.C�,F1 �+�'fr '�'�,�'' �' � ,� ti.. �M� ,h e � ,y�t 5��t���y� ti �[�.����'� j "�'. �. �k�; � �• � '1�,� �`�iMa *i+,y.[�i�; �x, ��t���; .5�. d F'�• VP 'y����i�� ���ar 14�.���h�r��y r�r�`�'b�'��'T,���� �"l�� '�• + A � V ' ` �! � •4 �d � 17 ..t��^ r� fir'"��41 ,� ft� �1 ryry���1M1�;�j{""'t� �S�4 rr! r'rd�� '1'���',`i���i'�'�•'1XR��, 7 y5�, A^ }�w �3- Pi�-' ,� .t�� [JIJS Zf �'` Y ..i.� •�i.5�:7 t'. ��•�-�'n�. h1���S��r� +fr'1•'.•� S4 A'•4�1��.i' i. t + �. { 1 An REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Y ii Submitted by H. p., tiarr e�,44/_ Department Public Works Date Prepared October 30, , 1978 Backup Material Attaclied Yes No Subject Sewer Lift Stations "A' and "B" 1%lodifications City Administrator's Comments j APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL { Approve as recommended. u-b.19-2t CITY ('[. IV: Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: / Statement of Issue: Sewer, Lift Stations "A". and "B", located along Picific Coast Highway and serving areas of Huntington Harbour, require modifications which will increase their capacity. Attached is a map showing the location. Recommended Action: Authorize the expenditure of $22,500, from the Sewer Fund, to purchase four larger diameter pumps, motors, and ap,.urtenances. • Analysis• The subject pump stations are in excess of fifteen years old, and the sewage flows have increased 50-100% over that of 1973. New developments are due to be finaled in the near future which will add even more to the load on these facilities. Furthermore, the present models of pumps are no longer in manufacture, and replacement parts are not available. The on-off frequency has now surpassed the designed operational limits which J' will greatly shoi '-en the life and reliability of the stations to handle the contributory areas. The installation of the new equipment will be performed by City rorces. Alternatives: 1. Do nothing. This will increase City liability due to possible over- loads and pump failures resulting in property damage. 2. Contract the entire project. This will cost an estimated $45,000 due to contract employees earning much higher wages. Funding _ Source: , . Sewer Fund. HEH:DWK:lw Pla 3/73 K••tlawu•tna•v�......... _ ._ •ram. .._.. . ........ � 1 4 • a tl'{, �f +lit, �, •, 1 f. 4 �!M �f \ 'W4Fs�iL� ''� •; � •,� I 1 1 ar •� � 1�4 ���rL�i�,• ! � ry E;q k � r,��a„ � {� ; •; '� t { PLANNING ZONING � DM 21 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 19-5-I1 -� NOT[' A,arttr r..c« tC•1,e1Is a,t wusw,..•.•n. - .+. rw wee..•.•.•vr p... C� 1T T 0.�� MIT CDVMtII JaCIti. •D /ir p ♦.c..yr • "a f'1 (tell• �Vfe_�ca rn.o aMI+C[D o,o.a At/[ftC. • . sef,t I.e\t efemle i WOO 1•N.{• IOIt t• rel+«I(OYtet«l.a1Kf T•SD•{. IDIa I•y Nti\etL.tYt I•t•K\ I�.INTINGTGN BEACH ��_ .. ID„ .��jy]] ra.+wt 1 ran.ct nucr ..j1.{, 11♦1 .: a,\v..l,\•.Ve ,.♦11„ u.,•n i?f ORANGI; COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AAtENDW bT LONE CASE; t uf,a♦1,♦ra,tr.n. H•i•,n•w,n-lent, _•t�y1J ({//•, 11 E[HNG 11VE t 1 \ ` ��r."'•� 7.� •�i:� a.��t�`•C._� S 'ttp 2! 1�'�._, ,t.t I :.t'::� .'-1 D :.✓.!• i3%��t• I R1 R2 .,t;;,,+ ,"s;�t.i;:• ,`,ilty ".",' UI •iar•..- ♦ �. / \ •' a.^. e\:fir..•r, t•i t .:. r' 1....� Jr..:..\ t CF•R CF•R RI C4 RI Rt,� � ��t Rt � RI Ri RI „ •\ l •- Q`. 'Q/tit /•, M RI RI RI RI44, k• RI ss -AV VIA `"~.CZ tt ' lie `: •�• t r CA. 10 t\ COq �t�,'r�iy fit �%� �'/���' `(�)� R1 rr / GQ•� PUMP 5TArIOP "A' R •�,�� �. FlI t•trwef'• t• Q 1 S. t•rarMwt "It \ y� low tl PUMP 5TA71 UW •5 �� I a+ i REQUEZJT FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitto by H. E. Hare,, ,a Department Public Works bate?repared _ August 16 , 1978 Backup Material Attached E Yes No Subject Property Owner's Request for Sanitary Sewer Service on Main St. City Administrator's Comments APPROVED I3Y CITY COUNCIL Approve as recommcnclet . 19 CITY LkRIC Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternathte Actions: Statement of Issue: Owners of three properties fronting on Main St. between Florida and Ellis have requested that the City participate In the cost of a sanitary sewer. A copy of their letter is transmitted. .Recommended Action: Approve the proposal in concept and instruct the staff to prepare an agree- ment between the City and the Builders outlining the terms of participation. The proposal in general is that the Builders will design and construct a sanitary sewer line in Main St. at a cost to them of $3,700 if the City will Provide $9,300 to cover the cost of the line across vacant property owned by others. Analysis: The proposal is that the three owners (Main Office and Professional Building, General Partnership, Warren Lortie, a General Partnership; Cracchiolo and Adler) will provide the plans and arrange for construction of a sanitary sewer on the south side of Main St. from Florida St. to Ellis Ave. if the City will provide the funds for the properties not being developed at this time. Of the 600 feet of Main St. fronts ge 290 feet are represented by the three owners w(Main hich toffice he eanduld Profess onalte, Building 1301 , Cracchiolo 1201 , and Adler 401) . Of $18,000 and 600 feet of frontage, the front foot scostn(whichtI feel co isimated the equitable method of spreading the cost) would amount to $30 per foot. The owners' share would then be $80700, leavin the City. As the other properties connect to the sewer,-they wouldO to be aibebrequired to pay $30 per front foot, eventually reimbursing the Sewer Fund $9,300.00. The absence of a sewer line in this immediate vicinity would necessitate each owner to install a septic tank. The City of Huntington Beach Sanitar Code requires that a new building connect to a sewer if it is within 200 y feet of the property. A public sewer is not within 200 feet of any of the three subject properties. Flo We I -4 Request for Council Action August 16, 1978 Page 2 ;r It appears the line planned for Beach Blvd, and Main St. cannot be com- pleted until spring of 1979. The proposed 8" line is considered' a local service line which is meant to serve building laterals, whereas the 18" line is considered a collector line which usually permits connection only at manholes. Therefore, there is no duplication of lines. There is precedent of the City participation in a sewer line with property owners on commercial property, that being on Warner Ave. east of nolsa Chica Street. Alternatives: (1) Have the owners deposit the $8,700 with the City and the City prepare the plans and let the contract. This will delay the project six to eight weeks and would cost about 20% more. (2) No Project - This will result in the installation of septic tanks at ! the three locations. Funding Source: 1 , Privates +'unds in the amount of $8,700 and Sewer Fund in the amount of $9,300.00. HEH:jy t S .Y • _...._-.•_-__.__.. ....—...,.......».....,..,_...._..................�......n rc..1'«:..« a,..:S,:�..,....•.•rr,«.w ...+..rc*rr:...:.i.,^ vcr.,:•�curai9a'.ris:i'.�ffi'f�X;'34:.tK'i'.{F:T.Mtt'Z7t 1 ^ ' ' �` -:a•w .�..r, r• :� f rsr:. q f `�•. G4J *'�.w .t,� ti r�M `t ' ,�?.�:: A�'4T 'y �� V t.�r, {+ r�r + {.w::� 1 fl,.�. �S ��•,�. r l *'L.f� i.:r1 S ��7 � ,!.• f' y,+•�A � T'; 1 S...r � r" M1 I#lt.+ ,�. t r.} i fl`t w ,i ::��•7. V�� t k Sr �7,- �L.'4�j F�;V';1��' � ,•+'��t ,t fit* 'r` .� ?' " ' tl; ,' "tr.��'L'�"',Y l��y �,I4,��. iY a�� '��A :f•, ;a ..ti ,,,''Y,'�� Yr j'7.; t' K rr��{��' .� t�. F 4 a, ';�. 1;^��ll �f {�� r.1fifi '�i���..�Xr'�ir�� rt�,:ha`ti'^,;,�•I + ,-,idf.�l E :���, 5�}. �k�� �,' n 1 .r, 'r j., �. t' � ei,. �. /�•. „� X,L���'n��1 y.^4;,;11.y11`/,ir;' .S �'' 1 'i•I i '` �<1'•,•��• �����i� a}T r�,f.�.•�. +1 .y.�',. r'1. � .; '* t�.;��.� �.r:�.j S'}�v'j44+1.,. �'.� ���+•Y.;t } � .i�+'� �'t �:�y�4 .;; 1;� �:.iJ.''4, y� t 3�' r, t.N�.J ,,� �� w` ,.., 1 4$;�1a� ..Y ••.A` �.,,, '� ".n;���RC, f ��! �'.iY� .�t� )�.:y�'.Y,+ y .�', �kL� �. �.+-, �'4 r.,h} yG Xti� � � a ,r{,'�4'Y �q{y, {;r! {,��L ,.rh.. '" . �r. x,��,ii�•Lt,��;��i!`4 f. .ti..r �'. ' t;� .1 ,u31��. F...4S+�. �+'F.;41dd 1 ►�.�„�'�,-tr��.,;�,{, } �.l' {!. „'.:' �.�...A 'p�,�•1.�. {. ��-n•yy�, } �yr��� `1.�,1r,k.4 ;1'� e yu�. �!�,. �t .ty',+rk1�,��� �F<•le .�. ,(t;.�{.`�L�;tF"t k�'�y�et5��1;� 7''ryr{ .: ��Y i �t ii �'�1��;t i?' �,•' lei i`�iik, +'.{. �,ti�71 .�`' y �,�, .iy :� .;��, rL �r'S�t��,.y,�;�� r a .� ;w'1,•t n J �i'b"4§� , �'A ` 4�... . � ��• � •r] �.L :..0 .� � �r f �:� y1 is d��S • Tr, to ky ,' x.i gyp`y' +.�, t k rat �}k�54�v •FA ,t:� t+ryy[(.'�[ ,. �h ajt� �15 ty ti „ l.x� ti. .a t �f ; pd�. � ,+.i ��1; Y• � � ��,..�4n'; 'j45 t� .�. "i�t Y �..�1{ r� � 1v.''�4 ?Y ,. Y.1 fn+�'4e k� ,�' .l. , '� N ► � + �*A�t{ �1,•J ,�, yl!'{"�. 4�'CL.�� � �,l}r � �9 r.��e ,:$ rn �p ?,{• 4��Y,�,l 1 !� �i:•�"ai �. �w r',r �• � ` �}�. � `, .��„�,,f. �:�� �� 'y,�}my, y{ •�4�/ir',� �,�#}���t�?�a �v�{;�`vt�L��l �54'>+,'��`„y�•'.3', �;'�' �� l��t' Y '�r 1. � r1�+�� ('^rS, �''�((} �� �� t,� � V 5�.. '1,y ,��. yy. 'N ^Y' {)L riA'» �,yy� ij'�5 •t4� rl�'1}} .'F :'nt.'l• 1X ¢,�}"p 4 4 A j .V 4 Yyr j�}1 Q ' �. •ilt,r�• f'..;�'�b ��..Ji.i{7. � 4'.1+1•A t.. -.�� ,.'C�. �''• � S 1 f � �, e f:t �.F �:�,V "{..Stb.� \. .ti+..,�FX �k� �R �./ 4 f A ' � I o . 4 � M 1 4 ` I` 1 ! � f IY.II�LI rr ® r • r i . r � tor e G) 102 , r " '1 .r *•4 � .. � ' i•i� UAL >.q. �.f�. 1, ILI t� 4 ti N 1 L L i t I August 16, 1978 Mr. Bill Hartge, Director City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works P.O. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Mr. Hartge: The property owners listed below would like to request City of H.B. Participation in the construction of a 811 sewer line from the corner ' of Main Stree and Florida Street to a man o e ocated at the Ellis/ Main Street intersection. We would, be Willing to construct the sewer line and have the City participate financially, or have the City construct the sewer line with we owners as financial participants. We, the property owners, Would pay approximately $8,700,00 of the total cost allocated amongst ourselves, according to•lot frontage on Main Street. We are asking the City of H.B. to pay the bsiance of this post and collect from future develops s alon a n Street, to recover the Ci: funds. 1 TIDE MAIN DIAL BUILDING ren- H. Lo t a 18600 Main Street Mananing pa tner Huntington Beach, California 92648 ; I DAYID and LINOA ABLER 21832 Michigan Lane Lake Forest, California 92630 FRANK M, and p OLORES L. 19712 quiet Bay Lane I CRACCHIOLO as Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 { Joint Tenants . -. -..i: i.^V�•5..:.4`Yv'y:.l...l+VFNl.ftlq wh•+r.++w++YwM.VT.fS11SCNMlIM�.•I...w�.rr..�w..r M , . . .. PIN 0 *A• �!` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAY .5 1978 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF 11UNTINGTON BEACH f ►uHr�Hc��v«�� CITY COUNCIL OFFIC ti To City Council From H. E. Hartge Subject Sanitary Sewer Deficiency Report Date May 3, 1978 AO At the Council meeting April 3, 1978 Mayor Shenkman requested the staff prepare a report on the deficiencies existing within our sanitary sewer system. our existing sanitary sewer system includes 280 miles of sanitary sewer pipe varying in size from 4 inches to 18 inches in diameter. Those pipes larger than 18 inches. in diameter aice in most instances owned and maintained by the Sanitation Districts. In addition, the City owns and' maintains 32 sanitary sewer lift stations. As major developments take place on the. vacant lands within the City engineezed . studies.. of. the sanitary sewer requirements to, serve these new developments is made by staff. Occasionally such a. study.` revcals a `defi- ciency;.in the 'existing sanitary sewer system._ Such deficiencies would normally be known in advance of .the request. for a building permit. Hoca-- Huntington Beach has laced a :load ever, the tremendous rate of growth ofp on the engineering .personnel, such that advance planning is not possible. There are situations, however, ,when deficiencies within the sonitary .sewer system are brought to the attention of the engineering division by field personnel. when. during their normal schedule of maintenance they discover overflowing conditions or other suspect activity. As of the date of this report the following areas of our sewerage system are. .considered to be deficient in that they are not•. capable of handling the sewage which wil3 be generated upon the ultimate development of the vacant land upstream of the particular sewer line involved. The dollar figures represent the estimated cost of resolving the particular deficiency. (1) Main St./Beach Blvd. Trunk Sewer $ 4501000 (2) Warner/Bolsa Chica/Los Paton Sewer 4751.000 (3) Heil/Gothard Relief Sewer 90J,000 (4) . Huntington Harbour Sewer System Modifications 140,000 1 (5) Exi.,sting Pump Station Modifications 750000 1 (5) Vista Del Mar Relief Sewer in Delaware St. from De'._roit to 15,000 Atlanta (7) Miscellaneous Location Trouble Spots Throughout the City,. 25,000 Total $11270,000 1. As'of this. date the existing balance in the City's sanitary sewer fund is approximately two million dollars. Recently the City Council authorized -the Public Works Dept. to obtain proposals from private engineers for the purpose of developiitg. a Master Plan .of Sanitary Sewers for the City. The request for proposals is . scheduled to be mailed May T2, 1978. If all goes as scheduled we can I R I Ix City Council - memo May 31 197B Page 2 anticipate having this Master Plan available as a design tool by January 1979. It is possible the study required to develop such a plan will reveal additional deficiencies within the City's existing sanitary sewer system. If so, these deficiencies will be prioritized with those re- ferred to above anC budgeted for acc:rdingly. E. Hartge Director of Public Works IiEH:MZ:jy •r F ' I :• 1 . t 1 1 l I . r r rt'iika, ;zumbory. + To City Engineer Dote 4118/78 IMPORT ON SEWER COMMONS Councilman Shonknan at U_ ji -Qf—Y 3 78, requested that staff prepare a roport' ;i un. the loud. and condition o C- the City00 r..._ or. Presentation at the 6/5 78 Council ,:aes'ting. Please .see to It that this report is placed oil .�J the 1t r.IIt. u or that Ante. RETURN TO ---)o-' ) Slgnnd :,; :,:.`.` LS,• k + t C. •t'll !\4=+ "e ':1 1. „t City ,AdM stfitbr !s W. it Dale signed IflliMfinw ,' ''. $010 WIS 1 AM 7 Wml CAISO i3 IMAM. °1 i'. 45 A6$1 �s -Fact s wu!a caucNtc wrn�ccrcx. ...+'.irtit •.per • I �, � � � �. � si. `Cp.:/e.Ri' {r a �+ ( ,q; !'^` k" •'"�•} '"�t�� r =oft&''Ra Lcj •aNr.L COUNTY XNITATION DISTRICTS AREA CgOC 7IA 1 S40.2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 z.2 a 11 P. 0. BOX 13127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92700 10044 ELLIS AvENUF (EUCLID Or•F^RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) August 24 , 1977 i �; ' OF r Ali , , 147 HUMnrurrgN p=ACH. CALM City of Iiuntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . Attention: H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works Subject: Ordinance No. 1104, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1103,. Establisliing Sewer Connection Charges '£or Use of District Sewerage Facilities Enclosed herewith for your information is a certified copy' of subject Ordinance implementing connection charges in District 11. Jl �. Wayne Sylvester. Director of Finance and board Secretary JWS:rb • Enclosure i :i' .,:Y-.,, .............w•-....•1.•. ....::!1."1...., a.. .::u,..r„ .,..i;, < _.--..................___•_---...........»..,.....�....._...�.._-._. .. '.+..w.+r•a1'�,--)t'.9J1 f , 1! F 4 usr.Yuivrr,� iw-.'faith ;#.sr�L4' i �' '..`` x t �4 `'` �;ws�_�i� 1b �$...: _w:.� �. i .*a.*. . ilt1:P7 i ORDINANCE;'NO. 1104 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1103, ESTABLISHING SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES FOR USE OF DISTRICT SEWERAGE FACILITIES The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, does hereby ORDAIN an follows: Section 1: Section 402 of Ordinance No. 1103 is hereby repealed. ' Section 2: Section 402 is hereby added to Ordinance No. 1103 to read: 91402 . DISTRICT NO. 11 -CONNECTION CHARGES 1. District Connection Charges Before any connection permit shall be issued, ,' the applicant shall pay to the District or its agent the charges specified herein. (a). Connection charge for new construction, ;r family dwelling buildings. Far each new family dwelling building +� constructed, the connection charge shall be $250 per dwelling unit. (b) Connection charge for existing family , dwelling buildings. f • For the connection of each existing � family dwelling building, the connection ' charge shall be $250 per dwelling unit. r t; • 3 f v � t7J .�MzT,y`Y `tt (e) Connection charge for new construction and existing structures, other than •family dwelling buildings. For all other new construction, including but not lii.:ited to commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the connection charge shall be $50 per 1000 square feet of floor area con- tained within such construction, provided that the minimum connection charge for such new construction shall be $250. (d) Connection charge for replacement buildings. For new construction replacing Former buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in Paragraphs (a) and (c) above. If such re- placement construction is commenced within two years after demolition or destruction of the former building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed and shall be the equivalent connection charge for the building being demolished or destroyed, cal- culated on the basis of current- charges for new eanstruction. In no case shall such credit {: exceed the connection charge. ? (e) Connection charges For additions to or alterations of existing buildings. In the case of structures where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of family dwelling buildings or � = the area of buildings to be used Afor other than family dwelling buildings, the connection charges shall be $250 for each dwelling unit added or created and in the case of a new construction other than family dwelling � buildings, it shall be $50 per 1000 square feet of additional floor area contained within such new construction, provided such new construction shall contain additional fixture units. -2- r t .ti +.• kt; ' f t .••u a . .Y , M t 4 ts:!!4`u.5 :ri:Usav 1 ---sr.t..yt.,t e(ii 'i1 ta% „'i h+ri�• 1: `1 . . -_ - _ .. 1 (f) When charge is to be paid. Payment of connection charges shall be re- quired at the time of issuance cf the: building permit for all construction within the District, _ excepting in the case of a building legally exerapt from the requirement of obtaining a building permit. The payment of the sewer connection charge for such buildings will be required at the time of and prior to the issuing of a plumbing connection permit for any construction within the territorial limits of the District. i (g) Schedule of charges. A schedule of charges specified herein will be on file in the office of the Secretary of the District and in the Building Dapartmc;lt of each City within the District. (h) Biennial Review of Charges, At the end of two years from the effective date of this Ordinance, and every two years thereafter, the Board of Directors shall review the charges established by this article and if in its Judgment such charges require modi- ficatiOt, an amendment to this; Ordinance Will be adopted establishing such modification. " Section 3: The effective date 'oF this Ordinance shall he Se tember 9, 1977. PiRSSED 'AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of County t Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, at a regular meeting held on the loth day of August , 1577. Chaff man of the £hard of Directors, ,. County Sanitation District No. �j of Orange Countyr California, ATITEST: Secret ) •� the Board] of Directors, Qojn4y Sar� tation District No. 11 ' 'cr 4r ige County, California . -3- I ' j � r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) d', J. WAYNE SYLVE5?'ER, Secretary of the Boards or Directors of County Sanit ation District No 11 of Orange County, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Ordinance Nn. 1104 was regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Board on the loth day of August , 1977 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Directors Ron Pattinson and Laurence J. Scbmit NOES: None F ABSTENTIONS: None y 1 ABSENT: Director Ron Shen)=n II � IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto Set my hand this loth day of August , 1977 J./ 4ayn a 1 •stc::, Secretary, rd Di ctors, County • nit�Eon istr.ict No. 11 of I Orange County, California ".`a1L.:.V W{.r—.•+•+•. ......,.-n.....«.«.......w....+e'r..:.:•'.t.`1..L•!•::S Lwf•f1A^.i+...':fl^'tl.ii:_:i:..:' ]•..l;twN...�..�.�...... .. .... .... _..... ..�....+.n..rw•-.. -.•+r....../+`++•.wfrrrr• .J.� City of Huntington Beach P./,. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 02648 ENGINYERING DEPARTMENT r June 15, 1977 11 Honorable Mayor V and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator Subject: Warner Avenue San ary Sewer i Dear Council Members: The Public Works Department requests authorization to hire a consulting engineer to design a sanitary sewer to relieve the over- loaded condition existing in the Warner Avenue sanitary sewer west of Springdale Street. The Sunset Beach Sanitary District is dis- charging flows into the Warner Avenue sewer 370 percent greater than that permitted in our agreement. This excess capacity represents the sewage which is, generated by 2200 R-1 residential units. Also developments under construction and others approved for construction representing a substantial number of housing units within the service area of the Warner Avenue sanitary sewer require additional rapacity. The Planning Commission has withheld approval of several Tentative Subdivision Maps pending City Council acceptance of the project being proposed in this letter. The Master Plan of sewers presently under consideration by the City Council resolves the problem throuah. ;;on- ' atruction of a "Coast Trunk Sewer" in Pacific Coast: Highway from Brookhurst Avenue to Bolsa Chica. Unfortunately the great cost involved requires the Sanitation District to construct the Coast Trunk Sewer in phases spanning approximately eight years. Construction activities within the Warner Avenue service area cannot wait eight years. At the present time and at its most critical location the existing Warner Avenue sanitary sewer is flowing at 98% of its capacity.. Because the Wazner Avenue sanitary sewer is planned to eventually be purchased by the Sanitation District, they have informally agreed to a reimbursement agreement whereby the City of Huntington Beach .: will design and construct a parallel sewer in Warner Avenue west of Springdale Street and in Los Patos Avenue west of Balsa Chica to Marina View Place and receive a 100% reimbursement of the cost. The City in turn at its own cost would construct a pipe in Bolsa China between Los Patos and Warner Avenue and in Warner Avenue from Bolsa Chica approximately 1000 feet easterly. There would be no reimburse- ment for this portion of the project. i It is estimated that the total project would cost $564,000.00. The District would reimburse the City $395,000.00 of this total cost.. t i. i .1 , r Honorable Mayor June 15, 1977 Page 2 Monies are available from the Sanitary Sewer Revolving Fund to carry the project until reimbursement. The City's financial commitment to this project will not have an adverse effect on any other planned sanitary sewer project presently under consideration. The reason the City would be lead agency is the need to expedite the work. It is believed that sip months could be gained by having the City act in this capacity. It is anticipated that the project will be under construction for six months; however, .that portion of the pipe being. placed beneath the flood control channel west of Springdale must be in place prior to October 15, 1977 due to Orange County Flood Control District . requirements. We expect the critical section of the parallel Warner Avenue sewer (between Springdale and Graham Street) to be operational by November 15, 1977. The balance of the system in Warner, Aolsa Chica, and Los Patos Avenue should be completed by April 1, 1978. A formal reimbursement agreement between the City and the District will be prepared concurrently with the design 'of the parallel sewer. We can expect the agreement to be completed and executed by both the City and the District prior to the call for bids for the actual con- struction of the project. The Sanitation District presently has Keith and Associates of Santa Ana as their consulting engineer on the Coast Trunk Sewer and requests that the firm be .retained for the design of this project. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the ;.=urchasing officer to retain the services of Keith and Associates of Santa Ana as per section 3.03. 080 "Exempt and Emergency Procedures" of the Municipal Code for the purpose of designing a sanitary sewer to handle yl' the savage flow from the Warner Avenue sanitary sewer service area at c its ultimate development per existing land uses. Very truly yours, H. E. ellret� q Director of Public Works HEH:MZ:jy 1 Y: . • • t '•'F. (', •,� '•fit A I • { r'f /rj `.� 1'• .,:'••- it r '.'• .r.1, 1• ! . rift r•,•'� � I{ii •�T �'•tir�•�l,l•' '.•.i�1•rt..':♦:.'. s'{\• '�.�•.��.��,:Y. :. ( '�•-1:r•,,J � .wr J t•: l� �i,i l V ,I.f ':Tl, 'Il' ."�' �r�, :� ! r` I• •� / L. n� ..••":a •Ir. 'j:e %c:• ',ey:.. ,ia'•(' :�'ilt''i a..♦..1'll � MI�• • ` ;%51fi �^ `f•:1�•:...�,I:�:::��!•��Il:• i�I•r' .�I ~ ii,llt�'t`'�•,��'1!;i11r it �' ,f' r�'`'r.•�'� , :J;''r.::�ijt,�l • i � 'tl-Ct.r.r•,.• Iti i .r•' 'f ti,' 1'••'`"i;�i+'%:.%,':eti���lid.���11*;1. ',1.l,w_�. •!• 'f�Jr`+;\._...__ .{1r j a.-r�,t J J:1�i'•w,,='��1:.-..\�1 ,}.. .. V'---, s' —� �. / � - '' %.'.., guru\•'�; 1 I�f'-- +. �! .rJ ��:,�V+`!( •f ._:{� •. .!•' i! iiil, -•_t ,l -\t H ,'t�lfl Itlil:i,!111a:1I'•il� Njfjoj`1Q11b �t. .r i.r_ 'v.+•:i:� �r .,...'� f � i i ;t S!�1l t•:��I � . •., , 1 ..,tllt.r !' ......•.1,�'. w j.7 . _! i1�{ i,.r ' rl 1 M'� \� u! ::►.�^•_.�'i)x.' ;:''f�•'i�►a:.if� '�,Itll'I:•fi j.l i(� lf'J'II� -t � '•��«DI ( i'1:,� Jlli(11! :ill„fill. Ifr+. •1' I11 �.�j. �!! l'tJ• I ' r ,r,. `.� ..i _t,Jl �J't'j1: :1 a ' • I!'=I� � �It 1 1�1;.•.i•��llil.�i .i'�v,tt'i in tt'1� � I`''�:�`f-�'i l � � �:;.;til�.. ,1 j �•1 I.:�r1:`r;' -tv-�•�-t l•1 ���•.+ ,�! �.5� ila�••1�1�.'i..:• ! . �, ( L::.1.•. ,,.� mu't.lrr+� u , , � 1 r' S^;l.ir rt• +„+,ltl,r�ltl :• `i jJ�rl�.�t r. :!!ii S1'1'tiff � !_� 11311{' t'I ,��+�il'Ir!� Fi::�l:'lii� :���II••t!�� -_..i��l ,.,,+1 (�i I � 0 !'L lb f'If•ii:!'i,� • ,,•�:• :1. ',.• 1.ti��li;l:�',Iw��i'�lilii' � _ `I i I:IrIJl.11l:'i�....._.. I _ - .ref t~'1•i••� •�1,1" ,i'1r1� _ j}j !�1" (_``•�j 7. C• 17 r•'I�i;�' .�'��f� . �' � ,. ..'.���� t,!•I ,Il��l�i�l��I I '' 'I.f;�: .� �i F ii�1���,)�j�f I•' � _ ,... .... o O '� ---t • .. 1�n•. ,lItU1_t�Jl.�.:�►��..i'r.i.�.;t..'�.�Li - - -- .._. . w ( i .rttl f •wTi ` . .,: ^+t !' 1 '�.'r�,t ..�,IJ,'`�, i , ,,� ! ; I:I' I �'►I:.:�,tl ; 11 �' •�. 11 1! it�V lrvlk_ ....ti'�'1 1++�.J. (� _r� Iry ( .. ! J( 4-1, ./. .I , 1 .i r ! .. ��I" ••. .ji I ,..::'• :::,•, ..i•+••:•,•:. .. .».,_.,;1` ( 1,-K. ;;; .J ` 1�'. t {.e.�tl. r i '! i ('... _•"'.i !i��ii»_'•':;:� Ir(/1 M•�•1•'.1 •_i i � � �I ..'� 1 . 1 � t-ti r. '!'• I.+ ! �-t�1•., ... .I t(1 . .�: ,J�I 1.... i: i1• �w.•) •IL ,j 1 i • \ !.] .',i...'r::',1.� > • •; t 1 t f•t�1r:ir:;:..,:Y.� i• � 'r-'• ! 1 �I 1 S. � ..` !,,j.� � �') I �i� � c r;;;:� ti!f �__� i�• t � !��••�.:;-::, lij�j I '' 7 li r •.• ,' �. . • �\�... ��'c- •,.:.�'.::: ! .;H� Q ? !i,l f,ui�_:.�'t.� yy`�tl;rl::::".«�'! Lb; «-+_..•.�..i�ti 1 _ F r t 1 ��� �it t.l '' � -�'ft `i.:r.... ,,::�:ti � `��=i i«r_��•'•�:�._•.�i�: '� � ,.1 l y' i•1�� ;r �,��� �,•,l.r1r•r•l.J�� � {.,,I ! '1 I �:IffI .j,: i I j 'nt I:^:.t`•`� '•fir 1 I !��_�i„• 1 •r• (f ! r���+ I� � .It ,.. 1 � , ( !f!.titl}»�filt•..;��•, ''�'' .•;1�lf i .i"";I.1 f. v:�••:. :• t..• .I�•1 1 it i 1 '! 1 r.;... '1 ' i j- �lii i ��..� � ~. •, ..`.:. . ...:1• :Ise �ji •{ � •. '4�.�. ._;1�, �1 ' - '`� . t -::i(! [r. :; 1 �;� t \ Jj � '� 1� If�t�l, ,1• j�._s I y.JL.""�..-.«�.:I:..r. J_ _I�t�.,wig; . .`b/•:�1 1 /'!t.l.�' _I .`i ::J ; . , t '.:::InnaT,f>;(1 r•'•' ••;• t , :•,� I ••",7,-t :"Mf-.� • , �,; - rf•:i :: - - '. `�,.. , .. .. •t,ti t"f 1+•,1' i'•� ��1, ,�.�• il• �:�J•.t I I•( ;`- , ' . l�.j j•�':•� •'`� � f t'rl• � �i li'7, ^ �] ,4• FEU y o � �1 ! City f Huntingtoni�acn P.O. Box too CALIFORNIA lIOU ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT • rebruary 15, 1977 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator Subject: Sanitary Sewer System Dear Council Members: This letter will cover two separate problems concerning the sanitary sewer system. The No. 1 problem requiring immediate action concerns the deterioration of two manholes in Banning Avenue. It was discovered that sewer gases have severely damaged the interior of the two manholes to. the' point that the structural integrity is now questionable. If the manholes should collapse, the street could be damaged to the point that vehicular traffic .6 .would be jeopardized. Upon furthvz investigation in testing, we may determine that the manholes can be protected from further attack by the application of a fiberglass coating. If this proves to be Feasible, the cost of such an application would amount to a maximum of $5,000 for the two manholes. If the wall thickness has been reduced to an unacceptable measure, the manholes should be replaced, This would cost a maximuta of $10,000.00. Transmitted herewith is a resolution which will allow us .to enter into a contract without advertising for bids. If the City Council deems that the work is necessary for the preservation of life, health or property, this must be authorized by an affirmative vote of at least two- thirds of the City Council. Since this ss a maintenance matter, Sewer funds cannot be used necessitating an expenditure fron the Contingency fund. An FIR is transmitted for City Council action. The second problem requires an increase in capacity of sewer purap Station, "C" which in located on Warner Avenue, east of pacific Coast Highway. Due to continuing growth in that area, the pumps are nearing maximum capacity and curtain modifications are necessary. - The modification will consist of replacing two 6" pumps with two B" pumps estimated to cost $10,500.00. Sirice this is an expansion of the sewer system, Sewer funds can be used. It is planned that the materials necessary will be purchased through the Purchasing Agent and will be installed by City forces. Yr—.S�;•.r.l.o.. ........-.-......« ..+.s., r.M1:_+.'I:• .....................__` , 'l..l`.. .. ..,^ a.,...,ww»wr.....-...w.a.e.,..f r.r•r. ,'•T7" Y s�9'S1`.•�rw e h Honorable Mayor and City Council February 15, 1977 Page 2 Recomn.b ded Action 1. Adopt the resolution for work on the two;.manholes in Banning Avenue and authorize the work. (FIR attached) 2% Authorize the expenditure of funds from the Sewer futtd for work on sewer Pump Station "C. " Very truly yours, H. E. artg� Director of public Works HESrae Ti:an.s. r; f. 1• • s• i l r t j ... ...yr.^t. ,. -.,. ')t.. ..... ... .. e:4ti•:. .'7r`tY,e...,Ci1•,::7•',:T fA.`.YF;,C^'•K ftT•:t9p7gw�, i CITY OF MITi,111WJ'!flN'!:a'1iON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION KINTINCHN SIX" To Floyd G. Selsito From F. B. Arguello City Administrator Director of Finance Subject Financial Impact Report - Date February 16, 1977 Sanitary Sewer System Manhole Repairs on' Banning Avenue In response to Public Works' .request to prepare a .Financial Impact Report. cn t:he above subject, 1 am submitting. the attached. At the present time there are fL%nds available in' the City's contingency account (101593) which may be used for 'this .project . If the City Council so desires. The, current balance in the contingency account.would be $2600180.18 (if the requested $10,000 is approved) with another $122,000 due -from f revenue sharing funds In repayment of shamei nsh tree removal costs. F. 0. Ar uella I Director of Finance FBA/EH/cg cc: H. E. Hartge, Director, Public Works i { FEB 16 1977 CITY OF . �. �. • % UNTINGTOU BER01 AOMINISTlZATIVI::CFIC '1 CITY OF HUNTINGT611 REACH FINANCIAL ImPACT_tREPORT Project Name Sanitary Sewer System Manhole Repairs on panning Avenue Description Apply a fiberglass coating or replace two deteriorating manholes in Banning Avenv,. } 1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1 .1 One-Time Costs Ea urn. . acon Construction ties. E ui m nt• Other Total Cost to 000.00 $ 10F000.0 f1 1.2 Recurring Annual Costs Additiona Mater a s 6 ut5 de Payroll Personnel supplies Services Revanues Total Cos I 1.3 Replacement/Renewal Costs -Thg, cost of the project could be S5,000.00 if the appl (cation of a fiberglass coating can be applied. This wiil not be 'known until the thickness of the walls are tested. If the walls are not thick enough and _the manholes .._rco ,'red-.it will- cost tLie_ 10 000.00. Public Works estimates that the , aznhn1e5 will last approximately fifty years after the fiberglass coating or replacement with normal maintenance budgeted each year under the sewer maintenance account in the general fund. 2. INDIRECT COSTS I Financial Impact Report Page 2 3+ NON-DOLLAR COSTS , None . _.._�... ___. ._._..`._....._..._ ._�__._..._._.—.....�_..._..__..._ lr. DENEFiTS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT Stopping the deterioration of two manholes that could colla se and dams a the f street'causing additional repairs. ' t �. PROJECT USAGE Those individuals that use Banning Avenue as a traffic corridor and those re:,idents that live along it near the two manholes. 6. EXPENDITURE TIMING Thirty to- sixty days after award of the contract. 7. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT Unknown at this time because of the potential liability if a car was on the street when the manhole collapsed and the street caved In. BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts /� (( mil Pint 0111it Bon 8127 or' 4ranse County, California 1 10844 Ellis Avenuo Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 " •T�lephaeu Ama'Co& 714 DISTRICT NO, - �1 9540-2910 62.2411 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 7:00 P.M. HUNTINGTON BEACH 'CITY HALL (1) Roll Call (y .wq Q�,•t'i�.�•'�-� /L.r (2) . 'Discussion re Draft !`taster Plan of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11 (copies of proposed District Alaster Plan and proposed Cixy Master Plan have been 'previously pi.ovided•to Directors) (3) Consideration o£ motion approving Draft �lastcr Plan of sewer Facilities fov*;'junt Sanitation District No. 11 in concept, and directing the staff and engineers to proceed with completion of Said Master Plan 4 Other business and communications if an (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn 1. . 1 j 1 . CITY of HtA1+1'M"INGTON BEACH On INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 1"'W NGTOK 814CH To Floyd G. Belsito From H. E. Hartge City Administrator Subject Master Plan of Sewers Date September 131 1976 I presume the Mayor will, refer this matter to staff--either you or I. In attendance will be City Council and Directors of District 11; Schmitt, Wieder and Shenlanant plus Milo Keith of Keith and Associates, the consultant who prepared the study; Ray Lewis, chief engineer of Orange County Sanitation District and Wayne Sylvester, director of Finance Division. I. suggest that a statement be made that the study was .authorized as a joint study by both District 11 and the City Council in February 19751 and then turn over to I Milo Keith this presentation. Final action by City Council should be to approve in concept and to instruct staff to finalize the report.- H. E. artge Direcl:or of Public Works j HEti:ae i f 9�' i MASTER PL ul ? OF CITY OF HU`NTINGTON BEACH i j. CITY COUNCIL Harriet M. Wieder, Mayor f Ted W. Bartlett, Councilman Ronald R. Pattinson, Mayor Pro-Tors �. Alvin M. Coen, Councilman Ron S/henkman, Councilman e Norma Brand4Gibbs, Councilwoman Richard W. '§k6ert, Councilman �1 1u .CITY MANAGER t- Floyd G. Bolsitlo S . r: Pr:apared Undar Direction oftt H. E. Ha.rtge Director of Public Works r+ i s By t I Keith and Associates Consulting Civil Engineers Santa Ana, California P RELIKINARY '�';s:. •. ...tr,..ol...,..:'!',. i1f; �. ".:_ .... ,s, . .. ,��'.:t. .... .. ...w .,......,..,..._�._...... �.._..._.....«�.....+......• ... .s...,..e•vrr..«--} t I TABLE OF CONTENTS P_aRp- LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PART A - MASTER PLAN OF SEWERS, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1 - 2 SECTION II HISTORY 3 SECTION III EXISTING FACILITIES 4 SECTION IV MASTER PLAN 5 - 6 SECTION V ESTIMATED COSTS 7 - 8 SECTION VI BASIC PLAN IN RELATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 9 SECTION VII ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 10 SECTION VIII SLJ',M%RY AZ D RECO124EN'DATIONS 11 -- 12 EXHIBIT MASTER PLAN OF SEWERS -- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH f PART B - MASTER PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1 - 2 SECTION II RESEARCH 3 - 4 SECTION III HISTORY 5 - 7 SECTION IVEXISTING FACILIFACILITIES8 - 9 SECTION V PROJECTED FLOWS 10 SECTION `i1I DEFICIENCIES IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM 11 ., 12 SECTION VII DESIGN CRITERIA 13 - 14 SECTION VIII MASTER PLAN 15 16 SECTION IX PROPOSED SCHEDULING 17 -- 20 SECTION X ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 21 -- 24 SECTION XI BASIC PLAN IN RELATION TO DISTRICT 3 AND CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 25 .. 26 SECTION XII ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 27 SECTION XIII SUMMARY AND RECO101ENDf TIONS 28 -- 30 APPENDIX LIST OF REFERENCES 31 EXHIBITS .� � ..-_.. _... .+..n..... «..-.a:..t•_,,.>.,r a.:. .........+.«.r r... .. 'r..,,:.c......».._�..._........._...... .a...n+,..........-r.*no...,..rs•.....,-.«.+..........�....ro�...........,• .au>CIi i — .. ___ __ , ,,., -r '( It f-• .__ .. - n r r �7S Kl✓�``t'�-1 /�.1�l1� ASSOCIATES 102D 80%3TH GRAND Avr_Nur IG3 OANTA ANA. CAUPORNIA 92705 ` CUNSULING CIVIL ENGIfvE=CRS 1741 641•a3°° I i� I: July 22, 1976 Honorable Mayor City Council City of Huntington Beach City 11811 11untingroa Beach, California 92648 Subject: Master Plan of Sewers Honorable hayor and City Council: Transmitted herewith, for your review and consideration, is the.Master Plan of Sewers for the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed plan has been under study since, February 1975, anO has been rovieued by your staff several timas during the course of study and develop- ment of the final plan. The report is in two (2) parts, Part A being that portion o» the Plaster Plan that is the responsibility of the City of Huntington Beach, Fart D being that portion that is the responsibility of County Sanitation District No. 11. The Board of Directora of County Sanitation District No. 11 will adopt their Master Flan as a separate action. Upon revietr and adoption of this proposed Plaster Plan, the plan will conform as an element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. We wish to thank Mr. H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works, and members of his staff for their cooperation and help in the preparation of the Master Plan of Sowers presented herein. Respectfully submitted, K.EITH and ASSOCIATES 1 Milo K. Keith PlKK:m I I� I MYGRIAUL1 8 MUNICIPAL QERVICED Y:.til i�•'.1.:'v "�' y-{ I.. .L,.i �l_� .. t,....: ♦ n •.. ..L.'ti" Y ...� ... .....t'..:. .r. ..�........ a.f:-.....i . rv.w..f,-n.n..e...},e ww.r. w.w rr� -"'_' .w..�..yw.w...r.l i MASTER PLAN OF SEWERS CITY OF HUNTINGTUN BEACH PART A SECTION I INTRODUCTION General The transportation and treatment of waste water (generated by local sewer system) for the City of Huntington Beach, is provided for by County Sanitation District No. 11. This transportation and treatment is provided by a system of trunk sewers and a treatment plant located east of Br)okhurst Street, approximately 2000 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Huntington Beach. This report is limited to the study and evaluation of local (City owned and operated) sewers to be constructed, to be sold, or to be acquired by the City of Huntington Beach in conjunction with a new Master Plan of Sewer Facili- ties for County Sanitation District No. 11. For ease of reference the report has been divided into two (2) parts. Part A being the Master Plan of Sewers for the City of Huntington Beach, and Part B being the :taster Plan of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11. In addition, the adoption of this report by the City Council�of the City of Huntington Beach, with the Master Plan of Sewer Facilities of County Sanitation Districc No. 11 will constitu' S --rDlete ;taster Plan of Sewers for the City of Huntington heath, as a p&, the General Plan of the City of Huntington Bear-h. Authorization This Master Plan study was authorized by the City Council of the City of j Huntington Beach at its regular meeting of February 3, 1975. j scope The purpose of this report is to provide a complete Master Plan of Sewers for the City of Huntington Beach, including trunk sewers to be constructed, owned and operated by County Sanitation District No, 11. K -1- �'11_ti.•..,..-....•..•.f.: .. .. ...1.•. .. . .» .. ..., .. ...... .. ... i-: ,...,.- ..._.... .....c,....r. .... a..v .:+rr�t^.•.rw r.SRk'a.J:t.Y.*.a._.vr*.rw.r.r+ t i Included in Part B of this report is the Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11. As a part thereof, separate documents, maps, studies, evaluations of existing and future facilities, are being provided to the staff of the City, such that proper planning for the ultimate sewer system for the City of Huntington Beach can be utilized by the staff, and the final Master Plan of Sewers will result. j .f i PART A SECTION 11 HISTORY The overall history of the basic trunk sewer system for the City of Huntington Beach, with particular reference to County Sanitation District No. 11, is outlined in Section III of Part B of this report. During this period (1960-1976), a period of rapid growth has taken place. The financing and construction of the necessary trunk sewers (in addition to those constructed by County Sanitation District No. 11) was undertaken by the City of Huntington Beach as a condition of development. During this same period, rapid development took place, zoning densities were changed, additional areas were annexed to the City of Huntington Beach and the sewer facilities of all sewage enabling agencies were and are at this time reaching capacity. Complete Master planning of a sewer system was not c6npletely 'possible, • as the •planning of other agencies . (State of California - Coast Freeway and State of California Department of Recreation and Parks - Bolan Chica Area) i were not finalized. The planning of the sewer system, and the construction therewith, was undertaken with what was thought would be the ultimate plan, however, immediate needs were given top priority over long range needs. This was particularly true as financing any long range needs was not possible. With the deletion of the Coast ]freeway from the proposed California Freeway system, planning for the future and ultimate needs of sewage facili- ties became feasible. The City of Huntington Brach and County Sanitn tion District No. 11 staffs, with approval of their appropriate elected representatives, together with the consultant, have planned an ultimate system, which is delineated and presented herein., for the City of Huntington Beach. -3- i 1,. 7.-...,.._ -e.....w--._.. �.�.....-- .. .+..++.-.+............�.w....-r•........-++nw�.-..-+ f PART A SECTION III EXISTING FACILITIES In order to properly evaluate and plan a new master plan of sewers for the City or: Huntington Beach, the trunk sewer system of County Sanitation District was combined with the trunk sewer. system of the City on a study map. Field investigations and flow measurements were conducted in both agencies' facilities. In addition the maintenance forces of both agencies indicated certain deficient areas of their system, that they were aware of. -Deficiencies in the City of Huntington Beach system are as follows: Atlanta Avenue - Magnolia Street to Bushard Street Adams Avenue - Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street Newland Street - Garfield Avenue to Adams Avenue Beach Boulevard - Slater Avenue to Ellis Avenue Edwards Street - Heil Avenue to Slater Avenue Warner Avenue -• Ugonquin Street to Springdale Street Hiscellaneoua Trouble Spots - City wide The existing deficiencies of County Sanitation District No. 11 are listed in Section IV of Part B of this report. Other than'the above stated deficiencies in the trunk sewers, the balance of the City of Huntington Beach sewer system is adequate in all respects. 1 w4- ,. l PART A SECTION IV MASTER PLAN As the study progressed on the ultimate plan, close coordination with the staffs of the City of Huntington Beach and County Sanitation District No. 11 was utilized. This close coordination resulted in a master plan for the City of Huntington Beach with financing capabilities and maintenance capa- bilities being finalized to suit the needs of both agencies, with the final benefits of the plan ultimately to the citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. During the investigation phase of this plan, deficiencies were found in the City of Huntington Beach sewer system that could not wait to be corrected; therefore, the City of Huntington Beach installed, or will i.n- stall, the following sewers: 1. Garfield Sewer, Newland Street to %14gnolia Avenue 2. Heil Avenue Relief Sewer - Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street d The above sewers were installed, or will be installed, to: ` E 1. Allocate an excess flow condition 2. Futura needs dictate the Aped for the sewer so the sewer Is proposed for installation with an AHFP project of the City of Huntington Beach rather than cut new pAVBment at a ,. later date when financing for the sewer becomes available. Upon adoption of this proposed master plan (City of Huntington Beach combined with County Sanitation District No. 11) and the installation of • all of the proposed facilities, the trunk sewer system will be adequate to the year 2010. The proposed master plan for the City of Huntington Beach (in conjunc- tion with District ?to. 11) is shown on Plate I herein, the particular trunk sewers to be financed, owned, and operated by the City of Huntington Beach are: 1. Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer Slater Avenue to Garfield Avenue .:l 2. Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer (East) 3. Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer (West) • -5- �?.i :1.?.i.• .'. .....'>+..:G...,..i ,x•.x.'., ...."l: ... "._. .,.!'.,., :,.�........•.-�..w +u..�..•.+ ..w-�l.ay.•ri-C=�Y;:{.i•.i:.�,fi.?.`.1?Fh.,t�at0.7rw:rn'+w..- l l�. Ellis Avenue Pump Station 5. West Boundary Trunk Sewer 6. Talbert Bypass Sewer 7. Heil Avenue Relief Sewer S. Upgrade Pump Station D (Warner Avenue and Huntington Harbor) By constructing, at some date when right of way is available as the area develops, the Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer (East), the Ellis Avenue Pump Station, together with the Talbert Bypass Sewer, three sewer pump sta— tions can be abandoned and replaced with the one (1) new Ellis Avenue Pump Station. A11 of the sewers proposed under the balance of the vaster plan are gravity sewers. era. 1 r� -6- . n[T.N'le tVrM. .-- '.".�rrl'i...... ..w.. •. .. ._a. .... .. _ l.. ..7.r .'.\...".+. ..w, , .Iv.. Lei rr ..!w-.r�r,..n-r••�T:,rru.M�.•n r.•l.IrT=.a. .:r04�r`.Y::iSr"6[.'+4';lt'.AT:d'r•rrA..nve+•w+w 1' { PART A SECTION V ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated cost of the proposed total master plan facilities is shown as two separate totals (Part A and Part B). The estimated cost of the City of Huntington Beach Master Plan are as follows: 1. Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer: 9000 LF - 15" VCP @ $30.00 $ 270,000 2. Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer » East; 3200 IF - 12" VCP @ $24.00 p 76,800 3, Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer - West: 4800 LF 10" VCP @ $20.00 p 96,000 4. Ellis Avenue Pump Station a 250,000 5. Wes-. . Boundary Trunk Sewer: 7200 LF - 10" VCP @ $20.00 144#000 6. Heil Relief Sewer: 5200 LF - 15" VCP 0 $30.00 q 156,000 Total Construction Costs $ 992,800 10% Contingency 92,800 ; 1 $1,085,600 15% Engineering & Administration 139,200 GRAND TOTAL $14224,800.00' ' Thu financing of these estimated costs will be derived primarily from developers as development occurs, however, two of the Master Plan trunk sewers will be required almost immediately. These are: Beach }boulevard Trunk Sewer $ 270,000 Heil Relief Sewer u 1562000 Total $ 426,000 10% Contingency 421-600 15% Engineering & Administration 63,900 • Total Costs $ 532,500.00 -7- +Irt t'vd11'.'alt l..y tow �..rv�+..w rvw v.t 4.'x. w .,T,. •. . •...w-.�_. ..... rr .... ......--. ' A i it should be noted that trunk sewers of the City of Huntington Beach to be sold to and purchased by County Sanitation District No. 11 amount to $370,640.00, leaving an ultimate balance of $161,860 to be financed by the City; however, it should be noted that the above two (2) trunk sewers are heeled almost i=ediately, .and the necessary County Sanitation District e--hedule of financing for their needed facilities will not permit purchase of the City trunk sewers until the years 1981 to 1985. IIr1 y -8- • y i PART A SECTION VI BASIC PLAN IN RELATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT As was previously mentioned, the :faster Plan for the City of Huntington Beach includes, as Part B of this report, the :caster Plan of County Sanitation District No. 11. The City .1.1mits of the City of Huntington Beach include a portion of County Sanitation District No. 3. As described in the Master Plan (Part B of this Report) of County Sanita- tion District No. 11, the ultimate Master Plan calls for certain facilities of District No. 11 to be transferred to District No. 3, and certain District No. 3 facilities to be transferred to District No. 11. One of the several evaluations to be considered in the scope of work of the District No. 11 Master Plan was to solve the problem of inter-district ` flow which, by Staea mandate, must be metered and charged for between Districts. This final Master Plan presented herein presents the basic relationship, I not only between the City of Huntington Beach and County Sanitation District No. 11, but also addresses a further relationship between District No. 11 and District No. 3. This relationship is more fully described in Part B of this report. i �I i �I 3 i i' it �I .ww...n•�R.-�..err ...ti...'!v"..y'. ... .. .:1.y- •l.l �,.. .. ✓ ...,.. .. .. �.... _.. •..a). t.w .+ ..�.� w�.w ..............-.�. ...�...•......••y•.'1..11++wN..Mfw+�4r1'.� '' I I PART A SECTION MY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS General To properly evaluate the proposed Master Plan, environmental considerations must be considered. Complere environmental considerations cannot be made; however, certain environmental facts to be considered are listed in Part B of this report (page 27). Planning Aspects As outlined in Part B. this plan is based on the best available knowledge as to zoning criteria, expected sewage generation (flows) from the latest field and technical measurements or know-how, and the planning aspects which are, or should be considered, a function of other agencies, and the 'growth inducing versus new project considerations are a function of the planning or elected official directors of the agencies, which have control (by State law) over development of the City. � I -40 ' I i , I -+ ��,..+...,+.w+...�.,, �.,»....♦:. ........... ... ...... ;,. .,....,_ .. ,,. ... ..,.......,. ..........�.....__.. ...ter..... , PART A SECTION VIII SU`,.URY AND RECO�fENDATIONS General The basic plan herein presents the entire Master Plan of Sewers for the City of Huntington Beach, and includes by reference the proposed Master Plan of District No. 11 in order that the two plans, when adopted, can suffice as a portion of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach, and further, that the administration for future developments can be administered readily in accordance with these plans. Existing System The existing system of the City of Huntington Brach is, or will ba, deficient in certain areas. The deficient areas have been observed in the field by the maintenance forces of the City of Huntington Beach. In other areas, records of past, present, and the expected increase in gaged flows indicate deficiencies will probably occur within the next few years. Proposed System The proposed master plan of sewers presented herein will solve the problem of present deficiencies and will preclude future deficiencies, pro - vided that the Master Plan of both the City of Huntington Beach and County Sanitation District No. 11 are adopted and completed as one overall Master T r Plan. Special Conditions r The basic plan presented herein will overcome several administrative problems of both agenci:s, with particular reference to County Sanitation District No. 3 boundaries and City of Huntington Bench boundaries when combined with County Sanitation District No. 11 boundaries, i r t i' I MIVV In('.r.[ w.`+.^.......,..-�. .w ..T ..... .i:[: ...+ ti f.. . ..\Y ♦ ..f Fst. ..w.�........ .,._...... ...w..............-..�..« ! .•r' .r ... ..1:. r. +;1...t.. r.r wr.. .«.y,\MYa`iy A1"I:6.Yl\f.'FtiwM+Yw�[+.e. ,7 Indeterminates The special capacity agreement with the Sunset Beach Sanitary District and the problems chat District creates for the staffs of the City of Huntington Beach and County Sanitation District No. 11, shauld.be evaluated, and a plan selectLd for final solution thereof. Recommendations Based upon the investigation and studies which developed this basic Master Plan, it is recommended that the Honorable City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopt the plan as presented herein, and ;instruct the staff to proceed with the administration of the plan with particular refer-- ' once to: 1. Solve the problem of the Sunset Beach Sanitary District special. agreement. 2. Negotiate the final sale$ purchase, or exchange of facilities called for herein. 3. Prepare a schedule of capital improvement budgets over a period of time, which will provide the proper relief for the necessary deficiencies with the following limits: < ; a. Proposed schedule of County Sanitation District No. 11. b. Capital Improvement Budget requirements of the City of Huntington Beach. ..S �1z-- - .t/4..r.t:i...o..lc:xr,o-..�..�....�,u•x'._..-.:c}:.• ..... •,t. .. ......_.. ..:.t , •.... .......�_. .�..._�—.r•.. .. .......�r.....ru'.x-- . ; •., .. 'iil'- w.\aav?31.L'.4..j�i'i'3C:]R:3'Z':'.'Lt2":t;•/i7:Y�1 is 1 30 0 W[! WIW [R AM WORTH • .� AM O YIL[i [ . N04! AVE. MA'FAD q AVE. Q • ��� a f . C.S.D. N0. 3 • • e = H[Il. � p AVt. 3 (@ Knott Iniorceptor Trun • Avg. Miller Hoidor Trunk - ,. r-At �s Bushard St. Trunic AA • f. A a A IZAT + � [4 Is sv x In _ .n f„t f _ ' 4 AY N IAIIA LIS • J W 9 a A • Av LEGEND. o , DISTRICT BOUNDARY -�� �' • DISTRICT NUMBER TREATMENT DISTRICT TRUNK SEWER PLANT N0.2 0 DISTRICT PUMP STATION DISTRICT TRUNK SEINER (DER) --------• CITY BOUNDARY . . •t•ge=••• CITY TRUNK SEWER CITY OF 'AUNTiNGTON BEACH, CITY TRUNK SEXIER (DEF.) ORANGE CG'INTYf CALIFORNIA EXISTING Fi, ITIES DEFICIENCY } KEITH AND ASSOCIA;ES k:':-..3.'f!. .. ........ .•: ....... .. .. . . .- ... ... .. .. . . ... `+ ... .. .-.,, ........ .. ........C;. . •9•....Cww.•y.:2:Y,.R'=M:c.....p.l.•..�+M.wwa� V y . • • � ! RA vwt le e wiu a e� .�. WORTH AVE. f AVE•DL _ FA00 8 AVE*. !DI R 11 AVE. • ., C.S.C. N0. 3•oil. AV 9. .30 II # Knott interceptor Trunk AVIK, Miller- Holder Trunk . SLAT ►-' ®ushard St. Trunk A TA leRT 7 ; C IIe J AV 1< COA�R S6 x ^ AVE. . I c% Q 1 li T R s AV9y' t Ai ADAw ZT A • � N AHA 1 � w LEGEND ------�- DISTRICT BOUNDARY V� i 0 DISTRICT NUMBER � TREATMENT . PLANT NQ Z -o�--�--• DISTRICT TRUNK SEWER (EXIST.) ® DISTRICT PUMP STATION (EXIST.) � DISTRICT TRUNK SEWER (PROP.) 0 DISTRICT PUMP STATION (PLOP.) RMOM DISTRICT TRUNK SEWER (SOLD) CITY GP HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY BOUNDARY ORANGE COUNTY) CALIFORNR ••••••- • CITY TRUNK SEWER (EXIST.) ULTIMATE FACILITIES CITY TRUNK SEWER (PROP.) '• + mwmLamb CITY TRUNK SEWER (SOLD) i KEITH AND ASSOCIATES i I I� f MASTER FLAN OF SEWERS CITY OF UMINGTONi BEACH ?ART B ...1" MASTER PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA t J , A i • IMSTER PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR C O U N T Y S A N I T A T 1 0 X D I S T R I C T N 0. 11 ORANGE COUN-LY, CA11FORNIA r� i i ilarch 1976 + ; KEITH and A55001AZE5 Conuultin- Civil Enginecra Santa .b-z, California i TABLE OF CONTENTS Pnize SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1 .. 2 SECTION II RESEARCH 3 4 SECTION III HI-TORY 5 - 7 SECTION IV EXISTING FACILITIES 8 .. 9 SECTION V PROjELTED FLOWS 10 SECTION VI DEFICIENCIES IN THE EXISTING SY'M% 11 � 12 SECTION VII DESIGN CRITERIA 13 - 14 SECTION VIII MASTER PLAN 15 - 16 SECTION IX PROPOSED SCHEDULING 17 - 20 SECTION X ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 21 - 24 SECTION XI BASIC PLAN IN RELATION TO DISTRICT 3 AND CITY OF WNTINGTON BEACH 25 - 26 SECTION XII ENVIR01MMAL CONSIDERATIONS 27 SECTION XIII SWURY AND RECOMME.''DATIONS 28 - 30 APPENDIX LIST OF REFERENCES 31 41 �I i SECTI0:1 I Z''TRODUCTXON General This Master Plan Study a" Report has been prepared at the request of County Sanitation District No. 11. County Sanitation District No. 11 is one of seven County Sanitation Districts of Orange County California that provide waste water collection, treatment and disposal facilities for the major portion of Orange County. This report is limited to the ntudy and evaluation of the collection system of County Sanitation District No. 11, consisting of existing trunk- sewers, interceptor sewers, and pumping stations, together with the future needs of the District in providing these facilities. Authorization This Master Plan Study and Report was authorized by the Board of Directors of County &.-:itation District No. 11 of Orange County at its meeting of January, 1975. The purpose of this report is to provide County Sanitation District j No. 1l with a master plan of needed facilities in order to provide proper collection, :rictout overloading of existing facilities, to the year 2000. The report also provides, separate, documents, snaps, studies and evaluations of existing estimated flows, existing deficiency facilities, expected deficiency facilities, and master plan delineations for solution of the existing or expected deficient facilities, primarily to be utilized W by the ntaff. The separate document maps delineate both County Sanitation District No. 11 faciliti•.g, and the City of Huntington Beach iacilities. A copy of the document and maps showi•ag existing flora tabulation and future flow tabulations will be on file in the District Engineering Office and the City Engineer's Office of the City of Huntington Beach. The purpooe of these separate documazts is for use by both A-enciss' staff in administering the orderly growth of each Agency's sewer facility systc.:st to provide for the proper ultimate collection of sewage within the area. The investigations that were conducted to prepare this raster Plan Report include the following: . 1. Collection of general plan data from the City of Huntington Beach for ultimate expected coning. (i 2. Field and office investigation of existing flows to be used in 4 the establishment of criteria for sewage flows. i! 3. A review of existing facilities and their capacities. (� 4. Analyzation of expected future growth patterns, projected sewage ` flows therefrom, and needed facilities to provide for the collec- tion thereof. 5. History and background of the growth of the District and problems related thereto in providing interim facilities. 5. A determination and preparation of a final detailed master plan that provides for ultimate facilities in relation to administra- tion criteria as well as engineering criteria. ` 7. An eetimate of construction costs of the Master Plan facilities. S. The establishment of a schedule of work, estimated costs thereof, sach that a financia.. ?rogram Can be derived and finances be available if growth continues as projected. { r4� i 4 SECTION II RESEARCH General Information pertaining to this report Was compiled from available Information from previous reports, other District or County-wide reports, and general plan information from the City of Huntington Beach. The information gathered and compiled is: 1. Base Map: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2. General Plan - Zoning Maps: City of Huntington Beach Planning :department. 3. Existing Facilities: a. County Sanitation District No. 11 records. b. City of Huntington Beach records. 4. Empirical data on existing flows from special high density areas derived from field measurement, i Ultimate Land Use Increased growth over the past three decades in Southern California have Indicated a need for the raster planning of co=unities. The State of California, recognizing these needs, mandated by lac.• that I all cities or communities would have in effect a general plan by Septc--ber 1, ►` 1973. This mandated general plan required certain elezents, and the entire general plan, with all elan, -its, zist be prepared and adopted by Decer.ber 31, 1976. Land use (zoning) is a function of this =4ndated general plan, azd the local agency is limited to only three (3) general plan =cndr.ents per year; therefore, for the purposes of this report, the 1974-75 zoning maps of the k ' City of Huntington Beach were utilized as a function of the design criteria. Anticipated or possible changes in zoning are not c:ontc=plated to aterially affect the design criteria utilized .crein. -3- I i i i Field Investigations Field measurements were undertaken by the staff at varied locations throughout the District. The results of the field measurements were incon- clusive in some cases (normal R-1 zoning) and varied widely. The field measurements in the high density residential area (near 0, ian Avenue) were quite conclusive, and good correlation was achieved between measurements in City local sewers, to measurements in District trunk sewere. Prior to proceeding with further studies, a discussion between the staffs of the District and the City of 11untington Beach with the following observations and conclusions: 1. Local system of the City has many pumping stations which tend to dampen flow or cause excess flow. 2. District system has several pumping stations with 10 minute storage- pump control design, which further tends to dampen or cause excels flow. Conclusions As a result of the field measurements, staff discussions and observa- tions, the following unit flow values have been utilized! I Zone Average Peak R-1 1,550 d/Ac.gp 2,790 gpd/Ac. Mobile homes 2-000 gpd/Ac. 3,600 gpd/Ac. R-3 3,880 gpd/Ac. 6,984 gpd/Ac. R-5 14;000 gpd/Ac. 25,200 gpd/Ac. Commercial 3,230 gpd/Ac. 5,814 gpd/t.c. Industrial 3,860 gpd/Ac. 6,984 gpd/Ac. School 3,600 gpd/Ac. 6,460 gpd/Ac. Parks 160 gpd/Ac. 268 gpd/Ac. Pear to Average Patio 1.8 t J i t { { SECTION III HISTORY The purpose and scope of this Report has been previously d{scusacd; however, in order to properly evaluate the proposed :faster Plan, a knowledge of the planning of the last eighteen (18) years Is almost mandatory. In January, 1957 a report by Lowry--Overmeyer and Associates was approved by the Board of Directors for a Master Plan of Sewers of County Sanitation District No. 11. The 1957 Report was prepared under a scope of work policy by the Board of Directors, based on the following: 1. County Sanitation District b'o. 11 and the City of Huntington Beach boundaries Would coincide, except for that portion of the City in County Sanitation District No. B. 2. Annexations to the west were not contemnlated by the City of Huntington Beach, therefore the facilities' design did not include any extra capacity for possible future annexations. A- In setting this criteria, the Board of Directors felt that the proposed Bond Election would pass if the plan was for existing City area only. In 1960 the City of Huntington Beach received preliminar y y plena for the development of Huntington Harbor. In addition, annexations to the west, between the 1957 westerly boundaries of tLe City and the Huntington Harbor area, were favorablyannexed. Under the original f policy o_ coinciding boundaries, these areas were also annexed to County Sanitation District No. 11. In 1962, preliminary plans for the dcrelopment of the bluff area west of Golden West Street were received by the City from the Huntington Beach Co=pany. In addition, at this same time the Bolsu Chica area began planning, and it was apparent that this area was soon to be proposed for developwcat. The Board of Directors recognized the need for this possible future capacity, and in October, 1962 adopted a new Preliminary Master Plan (Loa.y and Associates), which included capacity studies and reco.:..�cudationu to solve the future capacity problc;a of the District vita the proposed new areas (Poles Chica, Huntington Beach Co.) included in the study area. i As a result of the reco=cnded 21aster Plan of 1962, the finance depart- Mont of County Sanitation District No. 11 adopted a sound financial plan to provide financing for these new facilities when necessary out of a combina- tion of ad-valorem tax revenues plus annexation fees, such that further bond elections would not be necessary. As the rapid development of the nineteen sixties took place, and the existing sewage facilities were monitored, it became apparent that capacities of the existing facilities were being utilized more rapidly than expected, not only in County Sanitation District No. 11 but in other Districts in f Orange County as well. The evaluation of this capacity problem indicated the following- I. Zoning densities higher than single family were being utilized. 2. Increased discharge to sewers from advent of garbage disposals and dihia washers, together with two and three bathroom homes being constructed and sold. Other Districts were preparing new Master Flan Reports to solve their capacity problems, and in 1970 an Interim piaster Plan Report was prepared Cby Keith and Associates to update District 11 Master Plan facilities, with particular reference to possible capacity rights in County Sanitation Dis- trict No. 3 proposed new facilities. This report, although utilized extensively by the staffs of both the County Sanitation District and the City of Huntington Beach, was never adopted officially by the Boar: of Directors. The report could not b,,+ finalized due to complications of loca Lion and design of the proposer. Coast Freeway by the State of Cal.'.fornia. In the last few years, changing conditiocs, combined with time, have { now solved several possible preliminary design problems, and in addition, general plans for the Balsa Chica area and the Huntington Beach Company have been given tentative approval by the appropriate agcncies, as follows: 1. Coast Freeway deleted from State of California Freeway System. 2. Signal Landmark plans for the development of the Bolsa Chica area are fairly well known. 3. Tidelands boundaries settled between Signal Land=arl: and tite State of California, with the exception of certain further possible land exchange wr►ich s:culd affect location only, not capacity of the :- proposed facilities. ..f- i 4. Yuntington Beach Company general plan has received tentative . approval. As the Huntington Beach area developed over the past eighteen years, cne of the major problems was the sewage generated in District 11 boundaries being discharged into District 3 facilities. In addition, the approximate center of District 11 (north of Garfield Avenue, south of Slater Avenue, east of Edwards Street) District 3 generated sewage is discharged to Dis- trict 11 facilities. During this same period of time, to overcome District 3 - District 11 inter-district flows, joint use agreements have been in effect, capacities have been purchased in District 11 facilities by District 3, and District 11 has purchased capacities iu District 3 facilities. A further purpose of th-is report was to solve the inter-district recip- rocal flow characteristics such that final agreements between the two Dis- tricts could be consummated. The recommended Master Plan does propose to ultimately solve this District 3 -- 11 reciprocal capacity problem; however, it is a long range plan and ,point use agreements will have to be utilized until the area further develops, such that the final Master Plan facilities are installed and operating. It should be noted that over the last two decades certain facilities have been installed that later became obsolete and were abandoned as new facilities became necessary. This Master Platt Report also recommends new facilities and the abandonment (or sale) of existing facilities when the ultimate :taster Plan facilities are installed. It should be further noted, that this is not uncommon to have certain facilities become obsolete as the area develops, and the reason therefore is simply quoted as, "At the time the facility was planned and constructed the plan selected was the most economical from all areas of concern, in- cluding final costs and maintenance costs". -7- 1 1 , SECTION IV EXISTING FACILITIES The collection system of County Sanitation District No. 11 intercepts and collects st-wage from the City of Huntington Beach existing lccal sewers. Tais collection system then delivers the sewage to Treatment Plant No. 2, located near the Santa Ana River approximately 2000 feet north of Pacific i ' Coast Highway. The collection sys'. sn does not follow the natural drainage pattern. The drainage areas are divided to four areas. Thesc four areas and their common nomenclatures, together with the existing facilities are described as follows: i I. Newland - Hamilton Area 1. Hamilton Avenue Pump Station and Force Main. I' . 2. Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer. 3. Atlanta Interceptor Sewer. 4. Take Avenue Interceptor. 5. Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer. 6. Banaing Avenue Force Main Sewer. II. Slater - Springdale Area 1. Slater-Springdale Trunk Sewer. 2. Slater Pump Station and Force Pain. � 3. Golden V7pst Trunk Sewer. 4. Edinger Avenue Trunk Sewer. 5. Edinger Avenue Lift Station. > j 6. Bolsa Avenue Trunk Sewer. : I III. District 3 Area Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer. Nichols Street Bypass Sewer. In addition to the above facilities, a, was previousi; =cntioned, the following capacity rights have been purchased: District 11 in District 3 Facilities 11 MGD :filler Holder Trunk Sewer Knott Interceptor Sewer i f - 1 District 3 in District 11 Facilities 4 MCD Newland Delaware Trunk Sewer Hamilton Avenue Pump Station and Force ;lain. The size and capacity of the outlined facilities are on record in the office of the Chief Engineer of the County Sanitation Districts. t 4 Wrr.w.rrrr� SECTIo` y PAo,;ECTED FLQIIS Centl Over the past Few years, the Engineering Sanitation Districts has been collectingrecords Department of the County enablingagencies" the local sewage S local sewer systems. These records were then trans- posed to Sanitation District master atlas sheets, and are constantly updated. In addition, available atlas of Huntington Beach Engineeringromps were acg111red from the City bepartsaent. A base map of all City and District sewers was . tional sap showing the areas tributary Prepared, an addi- 4160 prepared. r'y to the District trunk sewers was As a Part of this report,p . reproducible copies of the base tributary area map and tabulated flows map, the Offices and the City Engineer's office are on file in the District both agencies in developing , 40 a future plannin P g the overalt S guide for tester plan of sewers for the area. Com utation of Average Sewage and Peak Sewage Flows I order facilities, to determine not only the existing or possible d ies,, but also the ult of-cient imate master plan facilit the tributary areas Were further reduced to area-land-use�ze and location), tart' area. To this land use type tributarytype of tribu- developed in Section area the flow unit values TI were applied. lugs then applied Co the record Capacities of The resulting values mere P the existing facilities and deficient areas were delineated an the base r:ap. , In addition, the maintenance staffs of both the sl of Huntington Beach were interviewed and District and the City deficient and near deficient facities ware observatiuns of both map, il re also delineated on the base It is anticipated that the final deficiency map, to tary arena, and projected f1uWs delineated thereon will betr,er with t ribu- in not only planning but '-ainteaarce as y b= a valuable guide conjunction with the see m ell . part. be % hcn utilized in ap delineating the Master plan ultir..ate syQtem. -10- SECTIOri VI DEFICIEICIES IN THE EXISTING SYSTEH General Field observations and measurements of the District facilities do rot indicate any i=ediate problem area of the District; however if expected growth, combined with higher water consumption continues, as expected, as in the past, it is very apparent by the examination of the deficiency nap that certain facilities will ultimately become deficient. District ected Deficiencies Distr - ^. 1. Newland - Hamilton Station Area a. Hamilton Avenue Pump Station. b. Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer. 1. Hamilton Avenue to Adams Avenue at D,Iaware Street. c. Atlanta Interceptor. 1. Farnsworth Street to Bluff east of Huntington Street. d. Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer. 1. Hamilton Avenue to Golden Nest Street. 2. Slater-Springdale Area a. Edinger Avenue Trunk Sewer. 1. Graham Street to Bolsa Street. b. Springdale Trunk Sewer. 1. Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue. 2. Edinger Avenue to McFadden Avenue. i c. Slater Trunk Sewer. 1. Golden Wiest Avenue to Springdale Street. City of Huntington Beach Deficiencies i Normally local seunge en.:bling agencies are not described in a District- wide report, that being a fuuzztion of the local agency; howuver, 'while the !L-ster Flan study wav underway, it beca.:.e apparent that deficicncics in the City of Huntington Beach facilities should be considered jointly with District 11 fuciliticb, in order to develop a sound and orderl. overall ASnster 1'lau for the entire: area. I i The deficient areas of the City of Huntington Beach were arrived at from actual field observations or measurements, and are: Bushard Street - Banning Avenuo to Hamilton Avenue. Atlanta Avenue - Magnolia Avenue to Bushard Avenue Adams Avenue - Magnolia Avenue to BrockhurIat Street Newland Street - Adams Avenue to Garfield Avenue. a. A relief sewer in Yorktown Avenua, from Newland Street to Magnolia Street has recently been constructed by the City, and this deficiency has been relieved. ` + Bea,' Boulevard - Ellis Avenue to Slater Avenue Edwards Street -- Slater Avenue to Heil Avenue Warner Avenue - Springdale Street to Algonquin Street Priscilla Street - East of Springdale II I ' •j k• h' -12- i ' ""LM J4F++H+.r..�wwr.r.,wu.N.♦.eura/.++.r-_...._. `. tiw+.r...r...._..... .-...._-r...._......... ,.''�'w4Nw14.Y WntwsMwi�r4�..rw.�•�-rw��:1 � I SECTION VII DESIGN CRITERIA General The final Master Plan developed herein, has been carefully analysed to solve the ultimate sewage disposal problems within the Huntington Beach area. P In this analyxation, consideration was given to the needs of the local agency (City of Huntington Beach) as well as the District needs. In addition, consideration was given to the environmental factors that always need to be considered in any master plan developed Coda+.•. Engine erin Data As the master plan developed the tributary areas and their projected flows were routed through the existing facilities, and future or ultimate deficient points bec=a known, relief sewer facility plane were developed in certain locations in order to alleviate these probable ultimate deficiencies. Administration Data As a result of the application of the engineering data, and an overall master plan routing was developed, a special conference was arranged with the staffs of the District and the City of Huntington Beach. One of the major points of discussion was the establishment of a District criteria, similar to other Districtts criteria, as to the service area District 11 would provide facilities to serve the local agency. As a result of this meeting, a definite service area pattern for District 11 facilities was agreed upon, as follows; 1. District 11 will provide facilities 01 a one-half (1/2) mile interval in tho east and west direction. 2. District 11 will provide facilities on a one (1) mile. interval in the north-south direction. 3. Certain relief sewers frill be T.revided where necessary without regard to service area patterns developed. • -13- .ff..Y..O'IiZ:Y�.}11'uw�.«..Yr +r..N^,'.w0.✓K\:.:SL:.:'r-:•C1.I.s.r+�+�..�.ar-.-.•4s.1.\:..rj'`..:. '' 'f•.-.....--- . •..•._ � _.,.._.••••�,yw.Ixw.MwntlawfR•Y..!l.iN/16RMlM..11.tNntTW 3 , 4. The Coastal area wi, he treated as a special condition and will provide new or relief facilities to the hear needs of the District without regard to patterns, but will adequately service the existing facilities of the local agency. 5. The local agency (City of Huntington Beach) will provide the Master Plan trunk facilities in all other areas. Special Consideration As previously stated, another sanitation districe s(County Sanitation District No. 3) boundaries sever the present boundaries of County Sanitation District No. 11, almost in half (Garfield Avenue to Slater Avenue, East of Golden West Street). Service to this area in relation to District bounder- lea has always been a problem to both the County Sanitation Districts and the City of Huntington Beach, 1. Plows from one district into another require special agreements. 2. Annual administration costs for capital improvements and operation of the treatment plants are based on percentage of district flows. 3. Development plans within the City of Huntington Beach were not ; f economical to adhere to district boundarles. One of the special features of this study was to consider the ultimata solution of inter-district flows, such that a permanent solution to inter- district flows could be determined. As shown on the proposed rlan, the final location for the Coastal Trunk Sewer, across the Bolsa Chica area cannot be determined at this time, depending upon ultimate development. The primary reasons for this alternate are described in Section V1IT, however, technically the proposed sewer is feasible in either location. I t yyi f -14- 1 ` .�....,. .,. .. .. .i. ,...�«� ....... .............�_...-.......,,,.v.�.nww.+r++w.rrreww^^...!r+w.a�ww.«+ it I SECTION vzir :TASTER P:.AN General As previously discussed, the proposed facilities and final Master Plan is a combination plan to solve not only D.+.strict No. 11 future deficiences, but also to solva the City of Huntington Beach, existing and future deficiencies combined with legal requirements for intra-district flows (Diotrict Nos. 3 and 11). 1 The final plan as delineated and described herein accomplishes these needs. New Sewer Facilities As shown in the Master Plan, the following now sewer facilities aawera are proposed for construction. Trunk Sewers 1. Coast Trunk Sewer - Reach 1 Treatment Plant No. 2 to Lake Avenue 2. Coast Trunk Sewer - Reach 2 Lake Avenue to Golden West Street Golden West Street to Orange Avenue 3. Coast Trunk Sewer - Reach 3 Golden West Street at Orange Avenue to Top of Bluff Westerly 4. Coast :"rank Sewer •- Reach 4 f. Top of Bluff to Southerly Extension of Springdale Street r 5. Coast Trunk Sewer - Reach 5 From Terminus oz Reach 4 at Springdale Street Southerly Extension to Top of Bluff'at Los Patos Street and Warner Avenue t 6. Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer - Reach 1 ' From Coast Trunk Sewer Northerly to Springdale Street 7. Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer - Reach 2 Prgm Springdale S;:reot to McFQdden Avenue i.:• ' • i ' s4.e _...... r'+ML . �. _....+.• I.r Yr...,..,�............. .�...�.....✓.�.-..�..�.w+awr«1�M•YIMYt w�v�—}"'^^'.wMMY—«)�. !r S 8. Springdale Street Trunk Sewer Slater Avenue Southerly to Reach 5 of Coast Trunk Sewer Intercogtor Sewern 1. Newland Street Interceptor Sewer 2. Edinger Avenue Interceptor Sewer 3. Golden West Street Interceptor Sewer Relief Setters 1. Warner Avenue Relief Sewer 2. McFadden Avenue Relief Sewer 3. Neil Avenue Relief Sewer Purchase Sewers from City of Huntington Beach 1. Grisham Street Sewer 2. Warner Avenue Sewer Huntington Borsch Sewers 1, Construct Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer in exchange for Purchased Sewers, or enter into agreemant for the City of Huntington Beach t to construct the Beach Boulevard Trunk Sewer, 2. Enter into Agreement with City of Huntington Beach to assume ownership of Slater Avenue Pump Station when abandoned as a District No. 11 facility. County Sanitation District No. 3 1. Exchange or purchase 4 MGD capacity right in Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer 2. Ownership and operation of Slater Avenue Sewer and capacity rights in Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer and Knott Interceptor Sewer. -16- ' �.. `r..a..r .`_:li►'.L4'.:.: .,.. ..1 M', :.....'.S'4'.....:{.r�1•.n ...^:.:T,-�w.r.+. �a�rwr.n'�� SECTION Ix PROPOSED SCHEDULING General During the preparation of the Master Plan study, cooperative informa- tion from the engineers for the development of the Bolsa Chica area, and the Blu`f area west of Golden West Street was in constant exchange. The cooperative information was approximate schedule of development for these two areas (subject to City of Huntington Beach approval) , and this approximate information, combined with the results of field measure- ments and maintenance staff information resulted in an approximate schedule of proposed work. The schedule is flexible and can be rearranged to adhere to annual flow increases or increasing or decreasing development trends; hostever, one 'of the primary purposes of the proposed schedule is for the develop- ment of a second "pay as you go" financial plan if possible. in this respect the schedule should be adhered to. Indeterminate Scheduling As indicated, scheduling for financing is a must, and the proposed scheduling presented herein has been developed primarily for this financ•- ing function; however, development trends might require a rescheduling from time to time. Proposed Scheduling The following schedules have been determined as the mint reasonable to expect, in accordance with expected development trends and normal growth patterns. Final alignment in all of the schedules is subject to City approval. 1976-1977 1. Coast Trunk Sewer - Reach 1 Treatment Plant No. 2 to Lake Avenue I 2. Newland Street Interceptor Sewer Coast Trunk to Hamilton Avenue 197, 7-1978 1. Coast Trunk Sewer -- Reach 2 Lake Avenue to Golden West Street Golden West Street to Orange Avenue -17- ++wttihaa i.tiT Vsw.r.w v..na.,�..a+nw.'..wsa..'• • t .......I .1'1. '!..• .. �.... ...___ +.....-�...... .i... r . a.. 1 .._„ ( . ai. r•.(. ...1.t\...«�............ w..�...^r...�^w.wr+.+wt.lwl+MlV+4rI,M a 1978-1.979 1. Coast Trunk Sewer -- Reach 3 �►� Golden West Street to Top of Bluff Westerly 1979-1980 1. Coast Trunk - Reach 4 Pumping Station 2. Portion of Coast Trunk - Reach 4 3. Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer - Reach 1 4. Golden West Street interceptor Sewer 1980-1981 1. Edwards Avenue. Trunk Sewer - Reach 2 2. 11e11 Avenue Relief Sewer 3. Edinger Avenue Interceptor Sewer 4. Earner Avenue Relief Sewer 3981-1982 1. Purchase Graham Street Sewer 2. McFadden Avenue Relief Sewer 198�3 Complete final negotiations for exchange and purchase of facilities from CSD No. 3 and the City of Huntington Beach. After 1985 As previously stated, the final development plan for the Bolan Chien area will not be known until after 1985 and the State of California and Signal Landmark Company complete their negotiations. When these plans are finalized, that the following trunk sewers can be scheduled. I. Coast Trunk Sewer - Reach 4 and 5 j2. Springdale Street Trunk Sewer Alternate Scheduling Flow measurements$ combined with maintenance staff information, indi- cate the existing Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer will have: sufficient capacity for quite no=e time; however, the future Coast Trunk Sewer in the basic outfall sewer system for the ultimate disposal of sewage generated in the area described as the Slater-Springdale system. Certain portions of the Slater Springdale system are peaking at seventy Percent of peak capacity. If normal growth patterns are experienced, it in anticipated that some relief to the Slater-Springdale Trunk Sewer will be necessary, such that partial relief for this trunk sewer will be provided. i { .._ ... ......,...,..�'^^.+.a WnaF'J M�7+nWf!=fAtW:'i1V��U"i'KtfYil:T►iI `y Since, as previously stated, the Coast Trunk Sewer is the ultimate basic outfall system for this area, it is imperative that Reaches 1, 2 and 3 of the Coast Trunk Sewer, together with Reach 1 of the Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer and the Golden West Street Interceptor Sewer be operable by 1980. Annual Schedule Verification The proposed construction schedule is based on the best information available at this time, and was derived from discussion with the uainte- nance staff of the District, City of Huntington Beach staff, and the developers' representatives of the Huntington Beach Company and Signal Landmark Company. It is, of course, difficult to predict growth patterns, or increased flows, which might of necessity alter the proposed schedule. It is therefore recommended that the District initiate an annual verification schedule program to verify the proposed construction schedule, or modify same, to fit the best needs of the District. This verification pr06_am should include the same zethods utilized in the development of the ; proposed schedule of maintenance review, :ity review, and review with the known land owners In the area. Alternate Routing The base map delineates the proposed alignment of the Coast Trunk Sewer (Reaches G and 5) through the Signal Landmark Bolas, Chica area. Delineated on this same map are three parcels of land designated as follows: 1. State Marsh Lands 2► Possible State Marina 3. Possible City Marina J These areas of ownership have not been finalized at this time; how- A � ever, agreements between the Signal Landmark Company and the State of California call for a finalized agreement in 1985 for: J , i la'.yM..a:::.'-..:✓:lR tom w..vrw«..w..s.....,..,l..r..:..�:.c....•..w w..rw..w,,.....�......rn-..,.>:a...... .�. ... •..1..-a:..».....-. .... ... ..�....—��.�...,_-�.....•+w.e.af+cwww�ruawn�..wRwr aarw+++A+.R[�ra•rr 1. State to construct proposed State Marina with outlet to 't:he Pacific Ocean with land to be donated by Signal Landmark Co. 2. if State decides to abandon Marina, then land shown for the possible State Marina remains in ownership of Signal Landmark Co. and can be developed in normal patterns. The scheduling takna the above indeterminate areas of ownership into account, and should relief to the Slater-Springdale Trunk Sewer and the Slater Avenue Pump Station be necessary sooner than expected, the Edwards Avenue Trunk Sewer, Reach 1, can be rerouted through an alternate align- ment such that relocation will not be necessary when final development plan:; ;or the Bolsa Chica area are known. 1 r 1�, r -20- •r+r+r»;:..�.f.'ti:J+'.wM>..4+r.�u+x...a1... �. ,.. • .'3 '.....:" l d.i'.L3 r >. r .e.w. ..... ..��w-..�.• ..-......«r.wsu r ;..n1 . .... . r. .. . .•• w•.+nMM1+Mw1t.'weY.i Ti�tnWNV4I1'/1.�� r SECTION X ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS General Tha estimated construction costs, presented herein, are based on the best available information known at thin time. The proposed scheduling was prepared primarily to provide a finance schedule, however, as previously stated, the schedule was also based on probable needs. In order to adhere to the proposed schedule, vrir-mrily for financing purposes, the inflationary trends of today must be considered. Many values exist today regarding these inflationary trends, however, in order to be consistent with other District financing programs, we have utilized the FWPCA Administration Cost Index, based on a 1975 index of 160. The pro- posed schedule with estirated costs, and the cost index factor is deline- ated in Table 1. Indeterminates The basic plan presented herein requires the cooperation of other agencies to finalito the final construction (• sta. These agencies are County Sanitation District No. 3 and the City of Huntington Beach. These agencies must agree to sell certain facilities and to purchase certain facilities, and in addition, the City of Huntington Beach must agree to construct certain Cityfacilities aimed •order to finalize the basic plan. It is anticipated that prior to the adoption of the basic plan pre- sented herein, agreements can be finalized with these agencies. Upon finalization, it is further anticipated that final financing costs can be more readily determined, however, at present these coats remain indetarminates. —21— ..nw.�F•'tti•T.+l.`.rttay..«.....o.w.••• a '4r,'L'..r.:V'.. .,tsa ..f.r '. r � a1_. ..t'.r .. .. ... .;la M..................'.....sa•..•.—...-.�-.+r�.r1w�.wY•re•+.+A*•wAf.M+'rhw.M.\R.t4:'TV•M4"M' r 1 Estimated Construction Costs 1, Coast Trunk Sewer Reach 1. Treatment Plant to D-4 Channel + $ 500,000.00 Reach 2, D-4 Channel to Lake Avenue + 1,527,750.00 Reach 3. Lake Avenue to Golden West St. 716,360.00 Reach 4. Golden West St. to Bluff area + 457,620.00 Reach 5. Bluff area to Edwards Street Extension + 888,690.00 Reach 6. Edwards Street Extension to Los Patos 'Street d 1,287,415.00 Total Cost Coast Trunk Sewer oSp377,835.00 2. Edwards Street Trunk Sewer Reach 1, Coast Trunk to Talbert Avenue A $ 567,732.00 Reach 2. Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue .. 154,146.00 Reach 3. Slater Avenue to McFadden Avenue + 522,140.00 Total Cost Edwards Trunk Sewer + 10244,018.00 3, Springdale Trunk.Sewer 523,135.00 4. Newland Streec Interceptor Sewer + 277 000.00 •5. Edinger Avenuo Interceptor Sewer a 82,340.00 6. Golden West Street Interceptor Sewer + 274,845.00 7. Warner Avenue Relief Sewer + 45,950.00 7a, Purchase Warner Avenue Trunk Sewer + 250,000.00* 8, McFadden Avenue Relief Sewer + 1020090.00 9. Heil Avenue Relief Sewer + 124,410.00 10, Pur,,haee Graham Street Sewer 104,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $8,4050623.00** *Subject to negotiations with City of Hunti.rgton Beach. **Includes Engineering and Administration. . I As indicated, the ostiaated costa include costs to be negotiated. In addition, an exchanga of facilities, and exchange of capacities between District 11 and District 3 are contemplated. Final costa for the exchange of facilities or capacities may reduce the estimated costs, howav©r, for purpo,:3s of this report they remain indeterninates. -22- x^cR:.:.:. ..•rv+.++..ww+ti..ar..�a..a.�,w+.,�u•..;:r......rn•.w..............�..r.....-....«.......I:.....♦'.:Qr...wn.•----..__._.............�...�........�.._.,,sue. ti•ta-..r..0 rra�r. r«'w..++....w..rrr it - Schedule of Expenditures: The proposed construction schedule was developed in Section VIII, and the construction cost index has previously been stated. To assist the Diroctorb and the etaff in developing a financial progtan all factors are combined and shown in Table 1. Engineering and surveying for the Coast Trunk Sewer, Reach 1, should be completed in 1976-77 fiscal year in order to *advertise for bids in September 1977 when su=or season hau ended, in order to construe the sewer in Coast Highway, I TABLE 1 SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED E.%'PEh'DITURES I. 6-YEAR IMMEDIATE NEEDS Fiscal Facility Cost Index Estimated Year Nomenclature Factor Coat 1976-77 City Connections to Bushard Trunk 160 ; 15,000.00 Engineering - Coast Trunk, .,.•' Reach 1 6 2 160 125,000.00 Coast Trunk, Reach 1 160 500,000.00 Total 1976-77 $ 640,,000.00 1977-76 Coast Trunk , Reach 2 165 Uj575,492,00 Newland Street Interceptor 165 2852656.00 Total. 1977-78 $1 861 148.00 1978-79 Corot Trunk Reach 3 170 76111, 33.00 Total 1978-79 $ 761,133.00 1979-80 Coast Trunk Reach 4 175 $ 500,522.00 a: Total 1979-80 $ 500,522.00 1980-81 Coast Trunk Reach 5 180 $ 999,776.00 Edwards Trunk Reach 1 180 638,699.00 Golden West Interceptor Saw= 180 309.200.00 Total 1980-81 S1,947,675.00 �^•"w,••K>.n•cantw••+e..vaac.•.y.,•w.,• i..•u...,,y-..i.r` •...y•a. ....,....., .. .,... .... .. .a..,......, '•". ._ ..,.,.......»....�..._.....—....,.�....+..+..•.r.....www..r.•.....+.»,..,wwa n�.. S � TABLE 1 Continued Fiscal Facility Cost Index Estimated Year Nomenclature recta Cost 198.1-82 Coast Trunk Reach 6 185 $1,488,574.00 Edwards Street Trunk Reach 2 185 178,192�.00 Total 1981-•82 $1,666,766.00 GRAND TOTAL - 6-YEAR M=IATE NEEDS $7,377,244.00 11. 5-YEAR LONG RANGE NEEDS 1982-83 Warner Avanuo Relief Sewer 190 $ 54,566.00 Purchase Warner Avenue Sewer 250,000.00 • i•,I Total 1982-83 $ 30k,516.00 1983-84 McFadden Avenue Ral;of Sewer 1.95 $ 124,422.00 Edinger Avenue Interceptor Sower 195 1003352.00 ,�•��, Total1983-84 $ 224.774.00 1984-85 Edwards Street Trunk Sewer, Reach 3 200 652,675.00 Total 1984-85 652,675.00 ram--- ��•g.� 1985-86 Hail Avenue Relief Sewer 2001559513.00 Purchase Graham Street Sewer 104,000.00 Total 1985-86 $ 2599513.00 r 41l 1986-47 Springdale Trunk Sewer 205 670,266.00 Total 1986-87 $ 670,266.00 GUM TOTAL - LONG RANGE NBEDS $2,1116791.00 t ' j • Y • • t —24— ••�'VMr�.V.wwMaM H.p•..+.h'! K•+F••,r.� .••w..HR;, •..3,•.Y•r.�._.......•.....�.............•... _ .. _.. ._.. .. ' 1, SECTION YI BASIC PLAN IN RELATION TO DISTRICT 3 AND CITY OF WTINGTON BEACH General The varied topography within the area, combined with the man-made County Sanitation District boundaries, have resulted in capacity exchange problems and special agreements. This tact, when combined with overlapping City of Huntington Beach boundaries, and further combined with economical, financial and political considerations, has resulted in further complica- tions. In order to alleviate technical, administrative, and financial considerations, the basic plan requires cooperation between certain sewage enabling agencies. County Sanitation District No. 3 Prior to the adoption of the Master Plan prescribed herein, negotiations with County Sanitation District No. 3 must be undertaken and.approved for County Sanitation District No. 3 to: 1. Sell their 4 MGD capacity right in the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer to District No. 11. 2. Purchase that portion of the Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer from Newland Street to Gothard Street. 3. Sell, if possible, a 39 MGD capacity right in the ItUler- Holder Trunk Sewer, from Nwguolia Avenue to Treatment Plant No. 2. a. If this is not possible due to capacity problems of District No. 3, the basic plan can be ultimately designed such that: the Coast Trunk Sewer can be constructed to Treatment Plant No. 1 at Brookhurst Street. 4. Ptrchase the 15 MGD capacity right of District 11 in the ' I Knott Interceptor sewer. a. Studies should be made jointly with the staff of the Dictrict and the Engineer for District No. 3 to provide �I possible diversion from the Miller-Holder into the Knott Interceptor to utilize this capacity and possSbly provide the 39 MGD capacity in the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer. i ...�.. wR, ... ........ • ,.,...• ., ...». ...... ..__. .. —�—. ....�.. ...•.. aw ...w.^ntva:]�w•.:.wsif.dl.a Mult\- I y II ; �� L1''1 •�iil�#i�flfl��f1 1 F i' Yi 11���A3 t-,�'` Pt 1. Y Z 7 f � k 1 �+ i �,. .�..c�Y. ,� YSai1 uCi. sV�I,` -�r�i•Si _ �' City of Huntington Beach In addition to the negotiations with District No. 3, negotiations with the City of Huntington Beach should be conducted for the City to: 1. Sell the Warner StreetTrunk Sewer to County Sanitation District No. 11. 2. Sell the Graham Street Trunk Sewer to County Sanitation District No. 11. 3. Purchase the Slater Avenue Pump Station and Force Main fro^ County Sanitation District No. 11. k. agree to construct the new Master plan size trunk sewer in Beach Boulevard and Main Street to intercept flows from I , District No. 3, and divert flows from the Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer (CSD No. 11) into the Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer. Sunset Beach Sanitary District At the present time, the Stinset Beach Sanitary District discharges into the Warner Avenue Trunk Sewer of the City of Huntington Beach, by.. special agreement with the City of Huntington Beach and County Sanitation District No. 11. ' It is recommended that the District actively pursue the cancellation of this special agreement and require the Sunset Beach Sanitary District to conform to the same requirements as any other sewage enabling agency. State of California - Parks and Recreation The office of Architecture for the State of California has under preparation additional plans for the improvement of the Bolsa Chica State Park lands. ` -I It is further recommended that prior to the issuance of any permit for connection of the State Park's sewage collection system to a District 11 trunk sewer, that final right of way negotiations be completed for location of future Master Plan facilities near or adjacent to State lands. T25,, l�sTL46SL.7e�'dtrr�r'r16�FhLlYstirx�:R'�v'L'r�,'"`'4sFFiQ�Yl.51f+1��1�i`.�:"�='�"'n••,ru.Kc..uaia � .:1 I SE;TION XII MWIRONNENTAL CONSIDERATIONS General In order to properly evaluate any project or any master plan report, State mandated environmental considerations must be adhered to. It is anticipated that prior to the final master plan program under- taking, an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. In this respect / this toaster plan report should address itself to this consideration, such that not only- the Board of Directors can study the plan, but t1ae prepara- tion of the Environmental Impact Report can be assisted by the information presented herein. Growth Inducing The master plan has been prepared to provide for the needs of the ultimate projected generated sewage flows from the area, however, the , scheduling of the proposed construction of the master plan facilities were projected upon expected plans that trust be approved by other governmental agencies, and it is anticipated that growth will be in accordance, or within the constraints of these other agencies. z; No Proiect rr' The possibility of no project would not be conducive to 'the health and welfare of the area, as expected normal growth patterne will noon tax the existing facilities of County Sanitation District No. 11 to capacity. (.%. In addition, due to the varying topography of the area, the system � . . facilities rely on a series of pumping stations which, in the event of a power outage or curtailment, could allow sewage to overflow. t The master plan proposes will provide bypass capabilities in the r<�• event of these possible emergencies. ' r In addition to these bypass capabilities, the new pump station facilil i ` ties Land existing facilities where necessary) will be provided with standby emergency power of an alternate source of fuel, such that overflow would be at a minimum if not entirely precluded. f' •..w\ra�r.tC.•,x........«...+......w�..,.�...-,.;...rcr....a,....,•.,...,K........._.._..,......._._.....,..a .«.»..�..`..._........►�...I..r+,raw..«,..�.�.»w».•+ � .• • 1 �iFi�'li5tl.lii•..*I�'�i�ssnz}�scu�.�tia,.W.,.-.,�.�a'._." _ _ _ SECTION XIII SU1 IARY AND RECOKMENDATIONS General The proposed basic :faster Plan developed herein is based on a com- bination of projected flows in relation to existing facilities, a combin- ation of topography boundaries together with man-made political (District 3 - 11) boundaries, health and safety of the overall area in relation to emergency requirements (such as power outage or curtailment), together with administrative and maintenance considerations of the County Sanitation Districts in general. Existing System The existing system generally divides the area into two drainage basins, separated by topography and County Sanitation District No. 3 bouOaries. The separation of the two (2) drainage districts requires not only pumping stations, but also special agreements, capacity rights, and other considerations which need cor.stant change and updating. Based on recent flow measurements, the existing system is adequate for the next few years, however, flow measurements, combined with expected growth (past records of the City of Huntington Beach combined with further predictions by the City) indicate the existing system will require addi- tions or modificatious Within the next few years. Proposed System In the preparation of this Maoter Plan, consideration war; River. to providing sufficient interceptor, relief and outfall trunk sewers in a j logical pattern consistent with other Sanitation Districts. Consideration was also given to diversification, that is bypass capabilities in the event of a po�.er outage or major stoppage or break in the existing or proposed system. -28- jrrtMYMa4T:7•i.<rir•ww..+++rw.w,ha.11.n.Y 7... r:.}:.»'ra t.........wr ....r .... y.:/:ti..il:;..'Li... ,.• •��• ..�•.•.•�•���••••••••• •-�• MVM.I•w , Ag111VR.tIf} MVw 1 Consideration was also given to normal expected growth, combined with known future development pattern, such that a sound :Saster Plan when adopted will provide ultimate facilities on a long range plan. Proposed Schedule Plow measurements, combined with normal expected growth indicate certain facilities will need relief by 1979-80, however, in order to pro- vide the necessary relief within the time limits of financing and con- struction scheduling, certain facilities should be undertaken to design f construction beginning in 1976. or cons 8 S The major basis of the proposed scheduling is the Coast Trunk Sewer, which is the proposed major outfall trunk sewer for the major portion of the W.sting system, and which will provide capacity for expected develop- ment areas, and will further provide relief for the existing Ocean Trunk Sewer that traverses the high density coastal area of the City of Huntington Beach. Special Conditions The basic proposed Master Plan will overcome several administrative problems of the Sanitation Districts. These problems are being solved by special agreements at this time. One of the basic intents of this report St was to try and solve inter-district flow problems, such that finalized agreements would be possible. i< If the basic plan is approved by District 3, District 11, and the 1�1 r.. City of Huntington Beach, the inter.-district flow agreements will be kept to a minimum and can be finalized. Indeterminates The special capacity agreements between the City of Huntington Beach, County Sanitation District No. 11, and the Sunset Beach Sanitary District should be finalized in accordance with the recommendations heroin, however, this remains an administrative indeterminate problem at this time, j i 1 nn !v rtw w:f:.t".J',.•�•.... ♦ k. : '. .. J....... ..t.. . .� .. .>. ......�......w •...�. ..................-.........r�....-..r-�..w.....w«....w..wrr.� w 1 t t ell) Recommendations Based on the investigation and studies which developed this basic Master Plan, it is recommended that County Sanitation District No. 11 adopt the plan as presented herein as tentative. Instruct the staff to initiate the. possibilities of: 1. Exchange or sale of facilities between County Sanitation District No. 11 and County Sanitation District No. 3. 2. Exchange and sale of facilities between County Sanitation District No. 11 And the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Construction of new facilities by the City of Huntington Beach from funds derived from sale or exchange of facili- ties to adhere to the basic Master Plan. 4. • Sand copies of the Master Flan Report to the appropriate concerned agencies that have State mandate requirements fu: approval, with request for approval by those agencies. S. Further instruct the staff to prepare a supplementary report �,.. to this report, summarizing the final negotiations between >. County Sanitation District No. 11, County Sanitation Dis- trict No. 3, and the City of Huntington Beach. «30- t i i .� •F1 ty r r +' t k 1 T i JVPENDIX LIST OF REFERENCES 1. "Preliminary Engineers Report of Sewerage Facility Requirements" for County Sanitation District No. 11, Orange County, California, October 1962, Lowry and Associates. 2. "Engineers Report" County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, :larch 1966, Lowry and Associates. 3. "Engineers Report" County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, April 1966, J. R. Lester Aoyl.L--Sidney L. Lowry. 4. "Waste Water Disposal and Reclamation for the County of Orange, California, 1966-2000", July 1966, Lowry and Associates and Engineering-Science, Inc. S. "Master Plzn Trunk Sewer Facilities", County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, June 1968, Doyle and Lowry. : 1 6. Interim Engineers Report of Sewage Facility Requirements of County Sanitation District No. 11, February 1972, Keith and Associates (not in print). `I i '>a►.1n„?:...u.:`tV-K-41YJ".T,.�T4.►.".tia..tZ' ._:•:l'."...:... . t ...n•....w . .. .. . a gar.....«......-._ �......�..........�.-.-.� I j � b i r r , .� • • • • � ,1 � �Y yew • ll�«��711 i VW pm ID i .j - � � ' • ' • mill! y" Ave.y h���� T� - •• . �� - 1 • y�J iSACrAJ� N ') • M.N. R 1 q AYEsa W• � J 7 co iz WARN IT i .i a "'•"'a 'I-�.�•..r..l:nuli•►� 1•'i 1 f��.t ►.V a 1.v i •, f SLAT a t �'i • e• y �::+{3:iiZfvi�i ��• i i La.:. I • M ^w r• CGRft�L� �_� jn �moo Anku(� u AVf. KIIN.IANAt1) IS v evr i Li • LEGEND o t . �tr ' • • '' �a1 ���t� t�Trt� I� GT 1: • w�«.•..... DISTRICT BOUND • '• �-1 Jr • ' ' DISTRICT WN." E �,. R E nAM i•,."�-�,.. j ,►... • Qw"W Owft. TRUNK SEWER •. .. PLfiN • ' . o PUti;P STATION !, •/ i • ' .'"mum" TRUNK SEWER (DEF.) SAJNJ TAT 10N DIS"" IC:' • OF o:�A;�GE caul i Yo Cr:LI:OR.%:.:; EX.STING IACIL, I i :_� . . , . 'DEFICIENCY MAP: KEI t r: ;MD ASSOCIA: ES -Ayr.. • 'a tlEC.itIN£TEfi ar AV?. c�.»•J 1 . c I:ORT.1 AC 0 • .J AVr. ' a Avr. u1tE:+ LR 1 . •. . Da t u r FADD N , AV• V1 EDtl:C�R �! AV« ; C.S.D. Al0. N � II HEIL o AVE. —•�=Knott Intorcontcr Trun1k; 0 0 : 5J.` V to WRRN r O AVE. r� f .r r Wllic� - HolcloJ Tru�it 4LAT R a M' ,Bustard St. Trunit .. 9 it; �q TAI or-R•r t�q A P l • /. • �SLLIS) = AVE • I"n ` L �aAR_I'IcLpl wl h IAVE. C% .. I! vo;tbt JwN- v AV 01 j. ADAN '� AVE f IN.1ANAf' LI" -t AvF w a a A LANT1 AVE. LEGEND • � MIJ -,htr Intl+ � sr. ---•*- DISTRICT BOUNDARY • TREAT AIENT?r (Q 3 DISTRICT .NUMBER O PLANT NO.2' ��»-•«�� TRUNK SEVER (EXIST.) '- PUMP STATION (EXIST.) , TRUNK SEWER (PROP.) • PUMP STATION (PROP.) . j TRUNK SEWER (PURCHASED) SANITATION. DISTRICT NO. II TRUNK SEWER (SOLD) • • OF ORANGE COUNTY, CAL11FORNIA ULT i MA T E FACI LIT[ S • t . KEITH AND ASSOCIAT ES Ate.-aar.!:.Qt Cai•....�--»•-.�.�..�.............».......�-r.......•.......�...»�....__ ..__ ...»«,. ..nay.'„.. •.,. -....»..��... ...........�.._......�.--.»...+.. .w+wr�rwow.n...rnrl+.w.+w. J. . t r 1 1 . .�J City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 140 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I' July 22, 3.976 01ft Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Huntington Beach I Attention: Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator Subject: Sanitary Sewers in Industrial Area Deter Council Members: The industrial area fronting Stewart Street is without, sanitary sewers. . It ,is recommended, that the City install the sewer line by contract and charge the owners on a front foot basis upon development. This will. ease the burden on the front. end and encoura a development of the industrial properties. A 9 P P P ..� sketch is attached showing the involved properties. If •the City Council is in agreement, I recommend that you authorize .this department to prepare the plans and specifications and to further authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids. The estlinated total cost would be $16,000 and the estimated con- nection cost would be $10.00 per front foot. Very truly yours, j � 1. H. E. Hartge 1. Director of Public Works HEH:mc i Encl. i � I ^'t V. lY7n :1.'.r..)r.Y•+:'..'1..bi .t.:'f..... aw ...• ...`,I:aT.:a..t+rw... r... •.a... •....... .a..... . ..:Yy _..,:wrae«r.+r.Z„i.; .a, a..w.>t..t.<'t ., aY'[:iS�:'1bl`.-':Mr.lif(jk1fLR.i'hT.MY.1fr��'jv yr • 4`, ',ti , it "' •i:��"s ,�s.) ,1 � {1 � • � + � Iv wu 'f' r C� i)�,54 r,..- ` - i�� ��� • ��` r` h y ,, : .4:� ' ,,�.� �, +F �f1 ,�1 y r, r � �+ rt Mr { � ' 1 `' ,1 �`'�^' �F�� 77 t,, .kf t.Y C' s 1,, v b � ; 'i >•,.� ^\,. }. �,4'�� " A x'�'r f i "� r� 'fit ti. �,.',� ", ! � tip.� ti ':+, ,� `+ �f tr�l�y;,F{F`�1`.a��•r� �} ,�s��; � •'i';r I:f. 1f�:i\'.." 'y#f d'�.4S J( '.y,��'�'t� >.1����i�'#p �!...� �� >y- ,'�; l� �r *r`■� .11■1` "y fit.. . ,�.:r�r5 • ., All" . i 1 .,i � •t. rw;, .r:, it ±1"� Ian ,��d ���`�''���t�����i�.'+Lfr. 1s e`f `,���#f��r5�'��� ;;�.# � �, '♦*t� d �ti � �k. �� � � �� ��t � '��' � ,,� 1, / r � � •w r �� � 1h'y+�1� � .1 _ r, , d.� ,ll�� ��.1�' ��5f �� 'trefi��� d����.1,'(I!�•Y �y€�f��+�l�r�7�t��,�s ��� ^ t,�lw �tp �yyh}"'LL '�,j��`y(' ,� f t�. �,�}! 1.f ��Ftj '(yM�� � �, �1 .�y u1 J k tad,1��"rlV" .}7."J{'!t;Y.�,!'d,$h�i'�r1t'll�"i1{�K�i Ei�dNi�id""+iL�.���t i'ttX�n ;vN. ��,!".1.1.���1Ti�4f Y�f�1�i5 7f Irt.,•��7�SS1�.l�f�r��'" .a.. s �i`Z11 ri�i'Y '.'� , 1��ys`�..� t i• t��tiF .�#.y?# '4 1� Il .x r - l�r1r � �-- urrirrr G � ' r r aij�iru r�r n �1 Xllilr 1111 ��1� ■ IIIIM ' 4 ! t A -�� City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX t90 CALIFORNIA 92540 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT December 30, 1974 r Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator + Subject: Sanitary Sewer Master Plan j Gentlemen% '{ In order to continue to provide for the orderly development of. our sanitary sewer system a master plan for the ultimate system should be undertaken. Since all of District No. 11 of the Sanitary Districts of Orange County is within the city of• Huntington Beach (a part of District No. 3 is also in the. City) , the plan should be undertaken concurrently with a study by District No. 11. The Directors of District No; 11 have•.been requested by their staff for approval for the study. 6 The cost of the entire study to cover all of District No. 11 and all of the city of Huntington Beach will cost approxi- mately $10*000.00. It is planned that the City and the District share the' cost on a 50-50 basis. The City's share of approximately '. $5,000 can be financed from the Sewer Fund,, It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Director of Public Works to receive proposals for the professional service of the preparation of a Master Plan for Sanitary Sewers in the city of Huntington Beach. Very truly yours, E. Ha e Director of Public Works HEH:ae 1 .._.__. .....................r.---. ......�,.,.--,A.n...::rti�..rt,.,r,r......«......++......:«...,.a+:r.r:.:'::Aj•;..I.n...r ..__..�. ....+.r»-+•.w•�w�.�ynAr.awwwarrns�'..-w...,..-w...awr..w«.+ , 4 1 ' '�'iw .�,t Sa Yi i n_f,. - 2 S, H 'X 1 �.. 3 ! .+ •4 ____ ly. r ' t�i of Huntington. Beach C ( p P.O. BOX 100 -'--- -- -- CALIFORNIA 92640 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT November 20, 1974 A Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention : David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement to J . H. Hedrick Construction Co. Gentlemen : Transmitted herewith is -a resolution authorizing pay» ment of $ 1 ,312 . 16 to J . H. Hedrick Construction Company. .Y for public dedicated sewer facilities built to conjunction with a dental clinic at 5102 Warnor Avenue, and depicted on the attached drawing. Payment Is to be made from the sewer fund. recommend that your Honorable Body adopt the resolu» Lion. `s\ 'f Very truly .yours, II . H E. Hartge Director of Public Works Donald W. Kiser Acting Director of Public Works HEH:DWK:DLC:,jy Trans. 1 4 I r-........+ ..�..........._..��� ++n.v.a.V w:....✓111 Y.:n 'Y..T 1'r .h•(M'r<!S.♦ .. ... .. .r. ...aip .r F«.. .;t'....v....:7.i.w......a•:7:..ti1� ,:%.{.�^4'1�'I+r1.'..1.�.,{'�rr�,T.%1:'i.''�?1'�±,E�•Y.AFL1F1D'!� S n+t uZif� � rti!!{t.. dil'" 4•.. t!'31ijfe,) 13?E"yi• i .r s f '.Jia',.E F3iWILL .rya City ®f Huntington Beatk P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 82648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT �. December 5, 1974 OQ� � y Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands Subject: Reimbursement- to Henry Brooks Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is a resolution calling for reimbursement to Henry Brooks in the amount of $4,708.70 for water and sewer lines built in Lynn Street between Warner Avenue and Pearce Street. .Funds for the reimbursement will be derived from the sewer fund in the amount of $2,858.70 and from the water fund in the 'amount of $1850.00. The subject facilities were built in 1972 prior to the establishment of Assessment District 7201. I recommend that your Honorable Body adopt the resolution. Very truly yours, •Ii.`E: liartgef Director of Public Works IIEH:DLC:mc Encl. ..... _.......-...,...�....�...:�. ,-+_...,�n...•ti:ur.'..1;'t:an.a..........,....-w.n,w.:.r't....'a',,.......,..,...a....a«..m.,..�....-....«.n...«.,.-..�-.....�...._._�.. ......-....,.�.....- ........,....o.. r "Tum M xY `I I City of Huntington Beach P.O. YOX too CALIFORNIA sxsa8 ENGINEERING DEPARTM04T October 31, 1979 �I Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Sewer Fund Reimbursement to Margaret S. Oliver Gentlemen: fTransmitted herewith is a resolution authorizing 4 payment of $1,816. 501 to Margaret S. Oliver fora sewer line built on the west side of Holsa Chica Street from Warner Avenue to approximately 285 feet north thereof. Payment should be made from the sewer fund, and it has been determined that sufficient funds are available for this reimbursement. I recommend that your Honorable Body adopt the resolution. Very truly yours, i Zel. E:�Krg . Director of Public Works HEH:DLC:ae Trans. 62 {i i I TELE PH rim Ea. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS � �� AREA CODE 7114 '( 54p•2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ,r ',s 962-2411 P. O. BOX B12' . FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS A'vENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, 5AN DIEGO FREEWAY) Al [ItUti'►;L V 1-W/UL1,L October 25, 1973 4.,I7...... Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach City Hall' Post Office box 190 Huntington Beach, California Subject: Construction of Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer for County Sanitation District No. 11 through your City .1 This letter is to request the concurrence of the Huntington Beach City Council for the' location of the abovementioned facility in accordance with Section 4759.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The District's engineers and staff, along with the consulting engineers, have discussed this facility and the realifnment thereof with the City's engineering department. This alignment is consistent with the alignment as shown in the Duster Plan of Trunk Sewers for District No. 11 and also has been incorporated in the drainage area for the Knott Interceptor Sewer in that agreement between Sanitation District Nos. 3 and 11 for mutual capacities therein. In June of this year, an Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City for their co=ents an this project. On the behalf of the Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11, we are requesting your concurrence of the elignment. If the District's engineers or staff can supply any additional information which might be required for your consideration in this matter, said information will be supplied as requested. Fred A. Harper General Manager FAH:REL:hjm cc: Henry M. Duke, Chairman District No. 11 Keith and Associates H. E. 11artge A,.. I'.sr- .. r :!I'r'c. '" `I. • .. .'/+II• .0 .. ,.,. ,.• et,,.-. ..` I "o . • ® EnVIROAMEMAL REVIEW BOARD 14 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 190.92648 TO: Honorabl! Mayor and City Council FROM: Environmental Review Board DATE: December S, 1973 I SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FROM ORANGE COUNTY SANITA- TTON DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTENANCES IN �. SLATER AVENUE FROM NEWLAND AVENUE TO GOTHARD STREET The Environmental Review Board, at its meeting of December 4 , 1973, reviewed the final environmental impact report and supplementary information thereto on the proposed trunk line in Slater Aveinie for its environmental impact. The Board found that the report, along with the supplementary in- formation submitted for review, adequately covered the questions i raised by the Board on the construction activity and the areas to be served by this facility. The trunk line as proposed would fac- ilitate development of approximately 2200 acres of vacant property within the city, a large portion of which is the city's industrial property along Gothard and the Lusk Industrial Park. It should be further pointed out that the installation of this facility will have a growth-inducing impact within the City of Huntington Beach; however, the facility is not proposed to provide service for the Bolsa Chica area, should it be annexed to the city. The Sanitation District has informed the Board that the Bolsa Chica ' area would be served by a subsequent trunk line to he constructed in Pacific Coast Highway. The Board would also like to point out that there is a critical situation existing, as the lines are to 100 per cent capacity and, as outlined in the supplementary information, there have been overflows at the intersection of Slater and Nichols which required the district to install a leak-proof manhole cover. r ct ., ames •a n, airman ' Environmental Review Board Attachments: 1) Memo of November 30, 1973 2) Letter from Keith 4 Associates - December 3, 1973 3) Letter from O.C. Sanitation Dist. - December 3, 1973 77 t t f i 1* o Y;� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION r+vy n,crov r+e{err ' ' To Environmental Review Board From Carol Schwartz i f Subject O.C. SANITATION DISTRICT - Unte November 30, 1973 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTENANCES ON SLATER AVE. FROM NEWLAND TO GOTHARD ST, As a follow-up to the Board's concerns on the inadequacies of the final EIR on this proposed project, I have written to and then talked to James ►Vybenga, of the O.C. Sanitation District. ife have agreed that he will submit to us, hopefully by Tuesday, December 4, responses on the • following; (These will be included in a letter which the Board can then consider an addendum to the final EIR) 1. The question of the sewage flows resulting from the possible annexa- tion and development--o-F the Bols`a Chica appears to be resolved. There was some question as to which way the flow would go; i.e. , it might not be included in this trunk line. I spoke to Bill Hartge today and lie indicated that even if the Bolsa Chica were annexed, and even if it were developed residentially, the flows probably would not go into this proposed line. 2. Construction impact-: Although the Sanitation District submitted plans a us wiici we xscussed at our meeting of two weeks ago) , the Sani- tation District will submit a narrative indicating precisely that there will be no detours , no street closures , simply a reduction to one lane in each direction during the time of construction. Other of the details that are on the plans will be summarized in a narrative fashion. 3. The question of growth-inducing impact of the construction of the lines was discussed. Typically, sewer lines are built to receive a capacity larger than projected growth. This sewer line is being proposed basically to terminate our use of the Miller-Holder line; the additional. 40,000 population grot�th that it allows for is accounted for in the lS milion gallons per day design capacity. The major question which tite City Council will have to face is that putting in the Tines will certainly allow for. considerable population growth. Although the engineers for the Sanitation District obviously cannot indicate at : trltr.tt year that 40,000 additional will be reached, they estimate some- thing like 15 years. 4 . The EIR dial not go into the question of alternatives to th,� project except to say that the only alternative was no project.' Rointedout that there are at least three other alternatives (listeelow) , and these will be discussed in the addendum: (a) Continued use of, the Miller-Holder line (tile EIR will have to"indi- cate what the temporary agreement says regarding use of that line and also hoer much of the capacity would be used by District III; is . i it possible that the Miller-Holder line could be shared by District 9f.,.r.. ..rv.-•.a...°.an. .a..rr.:• .. .. ..., '.r r; ..t..+ .. .. - .•l,.• ° �.e 1:,�1. ... .-.. .. r �tr......•..;Ia!if-. _ ... _.r ,_`•r. .. .. .. :.ir!'•.: s.. ''rr.C'.KY•.1'i�{t °:.!rw: r , t 'Environmental Review Board ;November 30, 1973 III and District 117) . (b) Possibly: re-routing of the lines . (c) Possible lower capacity of the lines (and the attendant problems that would bring) . S. 1Vater__Quolity: Wybenga indicated that as far as ultimate discharge is concerned there is no problem in terms of the treatment plant; the only problem is having sufficient trunk lines . The water quality dis- cussion will also go into the question of reserve capacity. For the Board's information, I am informed that the permit which the Sani- tation District will need from the City is an excavation and construction permit, which the City Council can authorize the Public Works Department to issue . With the above five questions answered, I feel that the Board can probably communicate to the City Council indicating that we have reviewed the EIR and that with the addendum it provides the necessary information; however, we should certainly alert the City Council to the growth-inducing impact that: this project, if approved, will have. I i I • t i t. f fl trtl 1 1 1 r � tt 1 • 1 T/^•"•^•IwMw.'Jr•.>uf/.S1Yt.Nf%�ui].V.'f'.1`.'.I:::: •,• •.` ... . .. ., r..... y ,+: ..I•,..... .....�`.:.•.r4f.,.,.. :r,.,.na. r.s.:r±,c':,yra•i'•alrr'.•NIr.•.w.r....«.. 1 i •1 t.r, , 1I 1' KEITH AND AGSOCIATES 1020 oouy" ORANo AVCNut + �'rIGINEERS SANTA AN^, GALIF6RNIA 92705 f�-� CONSULTING CIVIL 4714164I.530a December 3, 1973 F Mr. James Wybenga HUNTINGTON BEACH Orange Co>.••►:ty Sanitation Districts PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10844 Ellis Avenue Fo►:nt'ain Valley, California 92708 DEC 4 1973 Re: Slater Avenue Sewer - Newland Avenue to Gothard Street P. 0. Box 190 Dear Mr. Wybenga: Huntington Bea+ch, Calif. 92648 As a result of a letter of further inquiiy from the City of Huntington Beach, and our subsequent conversation with you, sic submit the followinr,: A. Construction Impact 1. No street closures are anticipated, therefore no detours, as I outlined before in my letter regarding the requirements of the Districts' Standard Specifications. 2. During construction through traffic 1.11 be mai.ntaincd, in most cases two-way through traffic, however, in certain portions of the work one-way traffic will be maintained due to right of way restric- tions, as I previously outlined. H. Alternates 1. This routing is the shortest route to the Knott Interceptor Sewer of CSfl No. 3, therefore the least interference to the overall area during construction, as tine is of the essence. routes investigated, in the planning of the sewage facili- ties of the area, resulted in greater lengths of construction, , therefore longer time of construction, and in addition the entire sewage facility system of County Sanitation District No. 11 would � have to be upgraded. i a. Eninrged pumping station i b. Enlarged new sewers through the most populated area of the City of Huntington Beach. 1. Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer. In respect to the above consideration, this routing is more desirable than any other possible route. t i s i Flvnoa111.IC.f3 NJUNICIPAt acnVicca •.:sir'.:re..:a'..rs.=...iv.,,._.i. .� . .✓:..a.:. .. ,. _ ... _ .. ..... .•.'..'_ _^1.. .,. .�:,,'•��I;`... ., .... .. .... :'N"S+ .r�..,i.• . +.,`:...+ :��.i, .-.':1;a.;,i:��+IJIi E��::d::i:Tw rs,^.aaw. a Mr. James Wybenga Orange County Sanitation Districts 12-3-73 Page 2 3. The alternate of no project is not feasible for the following reasons: a. Present sewage flows are di!,posed of to the Miller--Holder Trunk Sewer of County Sanitation District No. 3 at Nichols Street and Warner Aveziue, under a year to year lease agicement between CSD No. 3 and CSD Yo. 11. 1�. i 5T+ xx tu:ac .tli.=.� ifr F�.c. C':it • �T� Jam.--av!a lets ro/z er.. 1. The Miller-holder Trunk Sewer is flowing to capacity as of thin date, and CSD No. 11 will be required to dispose of present District 11 flows into the Knott Interceptnr in which they have purchased capacity rights, upon com- pletion of this project. b. The upstream sewage facilities (savers and pumping stations) are designed for ultimate expected flows, however, pumping capacities are installed to pump current flows, plus expectcd increase flows fora five-year expected volume increase. 1. Additional pumps are installed, or existing pumps replaced with larger capacities. c. Present metered flows average a total volume of approximately nine million gallons per day (9 MGD). The capacity of the down- atream existing facilities (Slater Avenue and Nichols Street Sewers) is 10 MD. With normal annual expected increases of 0.'5 to 1 MGD per year these downstream facilities will be at capacity sometime in 1974. 1. During extreme flow periods in the last year, overflow from the manhole at Slater Avenue and Nichols Street has been experienced. To preclude this, the District has installed non-overflow ' manhole lids at this location, however, there is a flow limit to this temporary methods and future expected high flows could cause overflows in other locations. G. In view of the above, a reduction in line size would not he adequate for some high day flows, and certainly would not be adequate for average flews within two years, thus requiring additional construc- tion of new facilities within a two-year period. ' I G 'el ij:. .:�: • ... ..q ., e.« .w 7.::',2YFr:. .,« �". .'.".f� �;...,. ,i�.. ... rf.. .. .......1"[Lrf.. ..w.:}'L:;::vt.,.-�7e1..." '.' Y:.•k+• t ' 1 t r Mr. James Wybenga Orange County Sanitation Districts 12-3-73 Page 3 C. Master Plans 1. County Sanitation District No. 3: ' i The proposed facilities to be constructed conform to the Piaster Plan Facilities for District 3 for disposal of District 11 flows to the Knott Interceptor, as approved by the Directors of CSD No. 3 and CSD-No. 11. t 2. County Sanitation District No. 11: The proposed facilities conform 'to the Plaster Plan Facilities of District 11 as adopted by the Hoard of Directors of CSD No. 11 and approved by the City of 11untington Beach in October of 1962. a. All facilities installed since this Master Plan was adopted have complied with the Piaster Plan. This proposed facility Is the final unit of this Master. Ilan, as amended, and provides capacity for a portion of the Bolsa Chica area. 1. That portion presently under development by the Signal Land and Development Company, lying north of the State Tidelands settlement line. This area was recently annexed to the City of Huntington Beach and County Sanitation District No. 11. b. The balance of the Bolsa Chica area, when and if developed as expected (within 15 - 20 years) %?Ill be served through expanded existing facilit-ics of CSD No. 11 (Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer), as called for in the Master Plan. D. Health and Safety Code Under Section 4700 of the State of California Health and Safety Code, County Sanitation Districts are formed to provide for the collection and treatment of sewage from Sewage Enabling Agencies (Incorporated Cities, Sanitary Districts, Sewer Maintenance Districts). In providing for the collection and treatment of sewage, County Sanitation District No. 11 must provide the necessary new facilities required as a result of the growth of the Sewage Enabling Agency. In so providing these expanded facilities, planning of the Jurisdictional body (Planning Commissions, *City Councils or Board of Supervisors) for growth is utilized. The long term effect of inducing population ,growth by expanded facilities of the County Sanitation Districts is not a factor, as the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts have no control over the growth characteristics of the area, but must provide the proper facilities � to collect and treat sewage from the Sevabe Enabling Agencies should growth be approved by these ngencies. i, «.._.._ «..,..���... ..e..+ ...,.....a...:,p6r,.,.., n'M-4.l rvf .. .1 ,- ... aj.= ,: . � .., ........ .:<�.. .. ..at..t t. ...::a'. ��S•T9..'7:hW1[A.L�t't+�'�'—+"^"�I Mr. James Wybenga Orange County Sanitation Districts 12--3--73 Page k Z believe the above explanations will adequately answer the questiow (letter and verbal requests) of the City of Huntington Beach, however, additional } information will be supplied upon request. Very truly yours, Keith and Associates • Milo K. Keith f Consulting Engineer for County Sanitation District No. 11 MKK:m r �yt•JU•thr'wr..M� ""'^'�'�"'�v.•H wt's Jet lwl M,:V.'.`_.,,w'T.l';. .:'?� � •. . . � t.4:::.yr.:i* ,'.. .a.�:.:�:,.. '1..w+»•.:*+••:.F:.1�ii•..il�� ::i:.,.ri:'t\t+Y.•.�1.E3�Lilyi ap-}i�%t:{\Vi:+.Li.P.:C'.572!'�>V'l"" .e l f 1.1 .. . ..• ( 1 J*taw" tC1.EPNpNEE: f COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA CODE 714 ; s OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA •���, ao-24f I ! 962- .411 i P. 13. BOX 13127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 927013 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN OIEGO FREEWAY) December 3, 1973 1 1 City of Huntington Beach (, Environmental Review Board � . P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Treatment Plant Capacity , There is capacity in the Sanitation Districts' treat-- merit facilities for an additional five million gallons per day discharge. This is the vcllume which has been estimated for the tributary area to be served by the Slater Avenue Sewer. It is the Districts' policy to expand treatment facilities as needed or outlined by land use patterns developed by local planning agencies. Aa noted in the final. EIR on the Slater Avenue Sewer, the proposed improvements for secondary treatment at !, Plant No. I and improved treatment at Plant No. 2 "coin- cides with the State Board's intent for implementation of the Ocean Plan." The Ocean Plan being water quality limitations placed on the Districts by the State Water Resources Control Board. clarify Hopefully, this will P Y any questions you may have ;. had on treatment facility capacity and water quality. % ,fin ames Wybenga Industrial and Permit � . Division JW:ch • HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEC 4 1973 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Bench, calif. 92W 9 ...�...........w.......�.,+.....d.+or na. ,,,. ...... ..a+• .._.:..,..r:..... tT. .. e. , , .. .......•.. ,d. y:... -..., ..�L�i\�•..r.:,3,•<...�:I.,�j,.t,r. 4!�'�],^L].tlsWscn.7.K?J3xra.w.w j 1 ,, ti 'a. Environimental eounil CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NINTINGTON11401 Post Office Box 190 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 December 3, 1973 Mrs . Carol Schwartz, Secretary Environmental . Review Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Environmental Review Board Members: The Environmental Council has reviewed the September Final EIR (received November 12) for Sanitary Sewer and Appurtenances in Slater Avenue from Newland Avenue to Gothard Street, and makes the following comments : General This EIR is very belated and should have been available long ago. I am very thankful that a number of public governmental agencies notably the OCFCD, the CRIVQCB and D413 made comments I would have made and I believe are to the point and in the interest of Huntington Beach. The pertinent question which remains unans- wered is where the appropriate city agency was when this matter was supposed to be being considered. h%o prepared th3:: EIR and what is the authority base and quali- fications of the: preparer7 The Environmental Council supports the comments made by other reviewers , but feels that those on pages 17 and 18 relating to protecticn of the domestic water supply and the effect of ad- ditional effluent on ocean water quality have not been answered satisfactorily. Growth It appears that projected developments are used as a basis for overcapacity projection of the requested expansion and for rejection of the whole "no project" alternative. Such an approval is clearly growth enducing and requires a detailed EIR on the effects of this growth before approval can be granted, since the side effects generated may be much more serious and pertinent to the welfare of the City than this project itself. Rough calculations seem to indicate that these figures represent a 25% increase in population and will result or can result from �. the excess 5 x 106 gal./average day excess capacity to be- gener-ated. This is certainly growth inducing and should be discussed in detail. / .fu++...w«....+�....o.•.....—...- �,.,.rts'.r.i.........t:, . . ... ._ ...., .... .. ... .. .e..i:..... ".r ... .,. .- d.....,, •4li-�'i'�.._.:a;t�nlr:.weC"SF.:Qi%.::��'.I:?+�r •1, � . Airs. Carol Sc"rtz, ERB 2 December 3, 1973 A statement on page 24 patently neglects the excess capacity projected. There will indeed be an impact with or without the proposed project but there is also a matter of degree in terms of 10 versus 15 x 106 gals . /average day. In the context of the extra 5 x 106 gals ./average day, the statement is untrue. Air and Plater The statements presented on pages 25 and 26 still do not ansiver the questions about water quality and the effect on duality raised by replying agencies . The implied loin percentage effect does not obviate or answer the questions . The question of air quality effect is totally inadequately answered on page 28 and must be. ANY adverse environmental effect , even the 4% chance of flooding, must be considered thoroughly. Geo10 The section on geology is totally inadequate. For instance, the effects of earthquake generated movements have not been considered and the position of ground water and its effect on construction are not understood or dealt with. Further, the statement on ,ground water here contrasts strongly with the statement on Page S . A proper EIR would have dealt with this matter adequately. Roads and Traffic Road construction statements on page 3 regarding existing paving on Slater is inaccurate. Many sections are NOT fully improved yet that are indicated, as complete (such as Newland to Beach) . Will the entire length of project be closed for 140 days? Are the sections being phased? Is a bond being posted to assure completion by a given date? Tie-ups like on Newland and Warner this year (and still) are absolutely unnecessary, with phasing of 1/3 mile at a time, with road finishing and traffic returning in a reasonable time. It must be assured that the street will be repaved' to first duality, not being left with irregularities as many are . Miscellaneous If cost burden is to be a factor in consideration of alternatives , as it properly should be, why has not the cost factor been considered in regard to installation of an over capacity system which may never be used or which may have side effect costs from an environmental standpoint far beyond the cost of•.this project. Alternatives Any adequate consideration of alternatives must separate present need from excess capacity projected to be valid. The alternative of "no project" does not do this and winds up using added capacity as justification for rejecting the "no project" alternative, even !r though the added capacity has not been justified. ' . ,:....,.. ... ... ,,.. . ......-4..., ,.. •`i:. . ... •. ...' '....:i S: ,x.T.... e, .... -..:y•.:.'':.Fr•::1::t�tte-•.+.«..n....«..wisroastwx+r r.er.• 7 � I y Mrs . Carol 5ch"-"'rtz , ERB 3 December 3, 1973 it Recommendations Because of the growth inducing effects of this project , and the capacity planned for 40 ,000 more than our present population sewer needs , it is recommended by the Environmental Council that this project be reviewed by the !Tanning Commission. The City should: �I a. Require a full detailed EIR of professional quality by an un- biased, qualified, outside consultant to: � i 1. Assess the full impact of this project on the environment k ; and quality of life in Huntington Beach and to include a detailed consideration of the effect on air, water, noise, j and land use which may he generated as side effects of the capacity of the system. 2. Substantiate the need for minimal capacities requested. b . Act to delete or place a moratorium on the excess capacity requested even if the minimal capacity is approved until excess capacity need can be substantiated and the effects of this added capacity can be adequately assessed and/or mitigated as a i basis for sound planning. r. a fi . ..aar4�1.:••,:I1,C••`.`1'+w'ov«.r T•.I rA�1 -w, - ..i: ... ;f` ...il'... .. , .:y-. . .,.. :' :a•.. .^.t1.2'.'. ,.. `a.a•x . ,1<::,.':Y}iNs:.r x.:►w.rv..w«+,wq.. Kw... ' a • ` a J i . Q EnVIROnMEnTAL REVIEW BOARD %� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-CALIFORNIA � ire ( 'C� �:►-- t� P.O. Et X 190.92648 •1 / i, TO: �onorable Mayor and City Council ; FROM: &vironmental Review Board DATE: December 5, 1973 SUBJECT: ENV-TRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FROM ORANGE COUNTY SANI- TATION DISTRICT FOR SANITARY, SHWER AND APPURTENANCES IN SLATER AVENUE FROM NEWLAND AVENUE TO GOTHARD ST. • The Environmental. }`Review Board, at i`ts mectivg of December 4 , 1973, approved the \,,nvironmental impact report for the above pre- jest. The final EIas received"by the Board on November 12, 1973; and on December 4 supplementary information was received in respcnse to the conc�rns expressed by the Board on that final EIR. The Board wishes to point o 't that the installation of these trunk { lines, plani►ed partly for Ahc,exi:;ting population and partly for projected population, will have a growth-inducing impact on the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed trunk lines are not in ended for the development of Bolsa Chica if-axnexed;-• that would be handled by other trunk lines, are c wartz bcretar Environmental Review Board Attachments: 1) Memo of November 30, 1973 x) Letter from Keith F, Associates - Dece ber 3, 1973 3) Letter from O.C. Sanitation Dist. De ember 39 1973 i r .1 f r ....... -•.+o»...»...�... � "'.._. .. .."""......... ..-.—."r.•.._ a.......w....• . .1., . ..1�... ...... .. .. .....• ..... ...2.a.,• »Mar.L.,r.•af... . ..:.1%L.j..ic M.yy ry1Y-.a{•,r'»..... ,. - j r DISTRICTS ��'��, TCLKpH0NtD2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT t . wnLA CODk 714 Sao 2 10 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IJ62-2411 P. O. 130X 0127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CAUraRNIA 92700 f 101344 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DICSO FRCEWAY) December 3, 1973 i City of Huntington Beach ' Environmental Review Hoard P.O. Box 190 + Huntington Beach, California 926118 : I • Subject: Treatment Plant Capacity___ j . I There is capacity in the Sanitation Districts' treat- } meat facilities for an additional five million gallons per day discharge. This is the volume whinh has been estimated for the tributary area to be nerved by the Slater Avenue Seger. It is tho Districts' policy to expand treatment facilities as needed or outlined by land ttse patterns developed by local planning agencies. As noted in the final EIR on the Slater Avenue Sewer, ' the proposed improvements for secondary treatment at Plant No. 1 and :improved treatment at Plant No. 2 "Coin- j cider with the State Board's intent for implementation � of the Ocean Plan. " The Ocean Plan being water quality limitations placed on the Districts by the State Water Resources Control Board. Hopefully, thl s will clarify any query tibna you may have 1 had on treatment facility capacity and w ter quality. ? ameny K W ben a : Industrial and P armi.t- Division JW:c h 1 HUNTINGTON oEA PLANNING DEPART&IENT • f D E C A. 1973 P. U. ecz 190 ��•� S. Huntington gaach, calif. 92648 _ 1 • F 4 w CITV OF HUfNTIl�GTON BEACH CA 73-123 f COUNCIL • ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION Htt\TI\GT04 lrIACH To Honorable Mayor and From City Administrator City Council Members Subject CONSTRUCTION OF SLATER Date October 31 , 1973 TRUNK LINE SEIVER FOR 1! COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 (AGENDA ITEM M-1) County Sanitation District No. 11 has requested the concur- rence of the City Council for construction of the afore- mentioned facility. The Environmental Review Board has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report for this project .and found that ,-the report was lacking in several areas. ; Tha Environmental Review Section has contacted the 1 Sanitation District and requested the additional information. f This information will. be submitted tb the Environmental t; Review Board as an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report. This .information should be available within the nex week or two. Recoinmendation: (. Action on this matter be continued until November 19th so that the questions raised by the Environmental Review Board may be answered. Respectfully st:umitted, ';. 4:1 49- David D. Rowlands City Administrator a I • _..-v...,,.........,.,.-•s............ ,..r_ ...... ,.. .., .. ... ... .., .., ... .. . . .. ..... ._., ...: .. .. .'i. t. ...,.. .:r»ti»�...'t;r.'1: .1Ja.a..-1 • ,I li t CITY Or- H1UNTING T N BEAC9 i To RichArd :A. lfAilaw Dole 11-6,o73 .4 !� Executive Assistant CONSTRJCTION OF SUTr:R TRUNK LINTi SfiWER t' The, City Council .continued consideration of ° —,concurrence for t o. construct on �df q the et T Trunk_Lind.'Sivor L. 1 3ts'.tne6t3n of..-November 19, 1973, so that questions ': . rai-.sed by 'tho Env rgnme t l Hal cw Board- might be answered. RETURN To --->- City Adidfiistia � + f f�_ lz Date• Sipnod {, f Redd , 4S 465< SEND PACTS T AND 3 wires,CAttoNs INTACT. ' rwrrsuor.•,Ia►us PART wni of mutruo wniI it? 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON MACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Hl'h11aGtDti�t1U'H ' To Environmental Review Board From Carol Schwartz Subject O.C. , SANITATION DISTRICT - Date November 30, 1973 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTEN) :.ES ON SLATER AVE. FROM NEIMM TO GOTHARD ST. s- a follow-up to the Board's concerns on the inade uac..1cs of the final A p a EIR on this proposed project, I have written to and then talked to James Wybenga, of the O.C. Sanitation District. tide have agreed that he will submit to us, . hopefully by Tuesday, December 4 , responses on the • following: (These will be included in a letter which the Board can then consider an addendum to the final EIR) 1. The question .of the sewage flows resulting from the possible annexa- tion and development o:f"the" Holsa Chica appears to be resolved. There was some question as to which way the flow would go; i.e. 2 , it. might .not be included in this trunk line. I spoke to Bill Fiartge today and he indicated that even if the Bolsa Chica were annexed, and even if it were developed residentially, the flows probably would not go into this propo:;ed line. Z. Construction impact: Although the Sanitation 'District submitted' plans o us 01 icn we, iscussed at our meeting of two weeks ago) , the Sani- tation District will submit a narrative indicating precisely that there will be no detours, no street closures , simply a reduction to one lane in each direction during the time of construction. Other of. the details that are on the plans will be summarized in a narrative " fashion. 3. The question of gmwth-inducifig im act of the construction of the Iines: t: ` was discussed. Typxca ly, sewer lines are built to receive a 'capacity larger than projected growth. This sewer line is being proposed basically to terminate our use of the Miller-Holder line; the additional 40',000 population growth that it allows for is accounted for in the 15 million gallons per day design capacity. The major question which the City Council will have to face is that putting in the -lines will certainly allow for considerable population growth. Although the engineers for the Sanitation District obviously cannot indicate at what year that 40 ,000 additional will be reached, they estimate some- thing like 15 years. 4. The EIR did not go into the question of alternatives to the project except to say that the only al-arnative was no project." pointed out that there are at least three other alternatives (listed below) , and these will be discussed in the addendum: (a) Continued use of the Miller-Holder line (the FIR will have to indi' Cate what the temporary agreement says regarding use of that line and also how much of the capacity would be used by District III ; is it possible that the Miller-Ilolder Line could be shared by District . • .w•a .. .:,;u1a:.«raw ....w:'1 L'.L. 1:.. ...... a'f'. . .'!s♦I...w./• ti� ' ,.VL=• ,.L't�.., ..� u ..t::,. .. .... .. �1. .. :t� :x., '�' -.. .....}: ..... i:.�'.'1H�..^�..v; Y.•T1•7'.r�A'ai9LrtY", � r• f 1 ( 1 Environmental Review Board November 30, 1973 III and District ll?) (b) Possible re-routing of the lines . 3 (c) Possible lower capacity of the lines (anct the attendant problems that would bring) . S. Water Quality: Wybenga indicated that as far as ultimate discharge is cOnCeTned there ., is no problem in terms of the treatment plant; the only problem is hating sufficient trunk lines. The water quality dis- cussion will also go into the question of reserve capacity.. POT the Board's information, I am informed that the permit whic}t the Sani- tation District will need from the City is an excavation and construction permit, which the City Council can authorize the Public Works Department to issue . V With:the above five questions answered, I feel that the Board can probably communicate .to the City Council indicating that we have reviewed the BIR and that with the addendum it provides the necessary information; however, we should certainly alert the City Council to the growth-inducing impact that this project, if approved, will have. T I . r 0 .. ._,....._,.. _. .. .. ,,.r.{:.,r:rxL.`^.;�.ya:1a".,n,'a5':(as,;.7;;:.. .:e37•++r� -. 4 •1 x. 'KEITH AND ASSOCIATES tEAR LsOUTH GRAND AVCNUtC •/ .• I1 GANTA ANA. CALIFOpN1A 927011 J' CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 171AI GAI-5306 December 3, 1973 Mr. James Wybenga HUNTINGTON 13 ACH Orange County Sanitation Districts PLANNING pl:PARTMLNT 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 O E C 4 1973 ! Re: Slater Avenue Sewer - Newland Avenue to Gothard Street P. 0. pax 190 Dear Mr. Wybenga: E3unttngtan peach, Calif. 92648 ' j As a result of a letter of further inquiry from the City of Huntington Beach, and our subsequent conversation with you, we submit the following: A. Construction Impact 1. No street closures are anticipated, therefore no detours, as I outlined before in my letter regarding the requirements of the Districts' Standard Specifications. 4 ` 2. During construction through traffic will be maintained, in most °.•i cases two-way through traffic, however, in certain portions of the work one traffic will be maintained due to right of way restric- r; tions, as I previously outlined. B. Alternates 1. Thi3 routing is the shortest route to the Knott Interceptor Sewer of CSD No. 3, therefore the least interference to the overall area r during construction, as time is of the essence. 2. All other routes investigated, in the planning of the sewage facili- ties of. the area, resulted in greater lengths of construction, therefore longer time of construction, and in addition the entire sewage facility system of County Sanitation District No. 11 would have to be upgraded. a. Enlarged pumping station b. Enlarged new sewers through the most populated area of the City " t . of Huntington Beach. 1. Newland-Delaware Trunk Sewer. In respect to the above consideration, this routing it more desirable than any other possible route. N , N ' LIVt�AA111JGR. MUNICIPAL SCRVICITS �c'',. ,..a;:aLr L.:Ac+r...-.......»...+.i...r.wW •t:.. .... ..s.•: .... :, ... .. . .. .. . , , , _ - •r+,.•w......•a.or+.++crr.wr.. J Mr. James Wybenga Orange County Sanitation Districts 12--3-73 Page 2 3. The alternate of no project is not feasible for the following reasons: a. Present sewage flows are disposed of to t2;e Puller-Holder Trunk Sewer of County Sanitation District No. 3 at Nichols Street and Warner Avenue, under a year to year lease agreement between CSD No. 3 and CSD No. 11. �- ��:. tu. c c. .c!/�.�%y i i�r_' i..i_G C':�t •i• �� y'` f�i ovibISD A'V/z rT: 1. The Miller--Holder Trunk Sewer is flowing to capacity as of this date, and CSD No. 11 will be required to dispose of-present District 11 flows into the Knott Interceptor in which they have purchased capacity rights, upon- com- pletion of this project. b. The upstream sewage facilities (sewers and pumping stations) are designed for ultimate expected flows, however, pumping capacities are installed to pump current flows, plus expected increase flows fora five-year expected volume increase. 1. Additional pumps are installed, or existing pumps replaced with larger capacities. c. Present metered flows average a total volume of approximately nine million gallons per day (9 MGD). The capacity of the down- stream existing facilities (Slater Avenue and Nichols Street Sewers) is ld MGD. With normal annual. expected increases of O.S. to 1 PIGD per year these downstrean facilities will be at capacity sometime in 1974. 1. During extreme flow periods in the last year, overflow from the manhole at Slater Avenue and Nichols Street has been experienced. To preclude this, the District has installed non-overflow manhole lids at this location, however, there is a flow limit to this temporary method, and future expected higl: flows could cause overflows in other locations. G. In view of the above, a reduction in line size would not be adequate for some high day flows, and certainly would not be adequate for average flows within two years, thus requiring additional construc— tion of now facilities within a two-year period. Hr. James Wybenga Orange County Sanitation Districts 12-3-73 Page 3 C. Master Plans 1. County Sanitation District No. 3: The proposed facilities to be constructed confotn to the Master Plan Facilities for District 3 for disposal of District 11 flows to the Knott Interceptor, as approved by the Directors of CSD No. 3 and CSD•No. 11. j 2. County Sanitation District No. 11: The proposed facilities conform to th3 Master Plan Facilities of District 11 as adopted by the Board of Directors of CSD No. 11 and approved by the City of Huntington Beach in October of 1962. i a. All facilities installed since this Master Plan was adopted have complied with the Master Plan. This proposed facility is the final unit of this Master Plan, as amended, and provides capacity for a portion of the Bolsa Chica area. 1. That portion presently under development by the Signal Land and Development Company, lying north of the State Tidelands settlement line. This area vas recently annexed to the City of Huntington Beach and County Sanitation District No. 11. b. The balance. of the Bolsa Chica area, when and if developed as expected (within 15 - 20 years) will be served through expanded existing facilities of CSD No. 11 (Ocean Avenue. Trunk Sewer), as called for in the Master Plan. D. Health and Safety Code Under Section 4700 of the State of California Health and Safety Code, County Sanitation Districts are formed to provide for the collection and treatment of sewage from Sewage Enabling Agencies (Incorporated Cities, Sanitary Districts, Sewer Maintenance Districts). In providing for the collection and treatment of sewage, County Sanitation District No. 11 must provide the necessary new facilities required as a result of the growth of the Sewage En?tiling Agency. In so providing these expas,Jed facilities, planning of the jurisdictional body (Planning Commissions, 'City Councils or Board of Supervisors) for growth is utilized. The long term effect of inducing population growth by expanded facilities of the County Sanitation Districts is not a factor, as the hoard of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts have no control over the growth characteristics of the area, but must provide the proper facilities to collect and treat sewage from the Sewage Enabl Agencies should growth be approved by these: agencies. Mr. James h'ybenga Orange County Sanitation Districts 12--3-73 Page G y I believe the above explanations will adequately answer the questions (letter and verbal requests) of the City of Huntington Beach, however, additional information will be supplied upon request. Very truly yours, Keith and Associates i • J • Milo K. Keith Consulting Engineer for i County Sanitation District No. 11 MKK:m 1, ' 1 t A ,.1 "•^c'i:.tt-.f•;.t',.tiR':waw,•r..wr,....,w• .r,.. .aT-r .41..., .�.. ...«,+,e.v.v..•wso-.s.. •.,.w ,..•....«,«..- ,... .... ..a.•:u�.• rae:.,`i•.e•.•.�*.-•*.s^:. :r.:.•... _.,rk»}F)'.r.'�'+•..izx:ase wrfr•tw,^ t i JA City of Huntington Beach it I P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT { { April 30, 1973 Honorable Mayor 'and City Council City of Huntington Beach .t Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Construction 'of Off-site Sewer Main at 19082 Crystal- Ave. Gentlemen: Kordick and Son, Inc. conotructed the subject sewer main. Fees in the amount of $5,211.60 have been collected from developers who have connected to this line and said sum is t refundable to the developer. t It is r este th t sum a reimbursed, the check be made payable to ordick .and Son, ,I . , and the check be mailed to 19082 Crys al Avenue, H gton Beach,' California 92646. Very truly yours, s es R. Wheeler Director of Public Works ,; a. JRW:TM:ae is i y. / y• r' +r.Y+1rt.. ,..:'l.-.:..:';<r:.x•.•.rn.na-....u.....r ..sa..t..,:7. 108s May 1, 1973 � To: City council From: City Attorney Subject : Resolution Authorizing Expenditure from Sewer Fund At the request of the Director of Finance and the City Administrator, we transmit re::olution authorizing expenditure of $5,211.60 from the Sewer Fund, payable '. to Kordick & Son, Inc. for off-site sewer construction. This amount has been collected from other developers who have connected to the main sewer line on Crystal Avenue south of Garfield . Respectfully submitte , N P. ONFA, ity A orney Br L1� S FNIS Assistant C y Attorney DPB:WM:er Attachment • r 1 • , 7 May 1, 1973 To: City Council From: City Attorney Subject : Resolucion Authorizing Expenditur from Sewer Fund At the request of the Director of Finance and the City Administrator, we transmit resolution authorizing expenditure of $5,211.60 from the Sewer Fund , payable to Kordick & Son, Inc. for off--site sewer construction. This amount has been collected from other developers who have connected to the main sewer line on Crystal Avenue south of Garfield . Respectf lly submitte N P. CNFA, ity A orney B L IS Assistant C y Attorney DPB:WM:er ; f Attachment w•.:.ut"27.^r.,ur.:+........w«-w.. �....«,..•....�..•-w.....s.l........,.,....,..,......_...._...... ..Y.l"M.i::.yw..,.+�.w,.�.-....r.. :. .� ... ,_ ...�.._ .....» ..r i April 10, 1973 ,2 ,� 7� To: City Council From: City Attorney I Subject: Resolution Authorizing Expenditure from Sewer Fund At the request of the Director of Public Works, we transmit resolution authorizing--ek-p-L,nd re of $955.20 from the Sewer Fund, payable o Henry E. Br2qjLa3for off--site sewer con- struction. This amount has been collected from other developers who have connected to this main. Respectfully submitted, • I DON P: BONFA City Attorney /er i i i s !a l . ..r ... . .... ....nit-.. .. .. ..•... r•.•..... ._.._._-... . ...........�..._. .�.._.___'�ewra.th i 1 27 November 1972 TO: City Council Uu� .............. LFROM: City Attorney --SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing ExpendiLQZ--��j �".....Sewer Funds as Full Reimbursement for Interceptor Sewer At the request of the Director of Public Works, ,the attached resolution is transmitted for approval of an i expenditure of $7,022.50 frost-th�ewer•"F n s,S- sum to be made payable to Palos Verdes Developersjad s full reimbursement for an 1; t-ta-maptor--sewer—,r nested by the City to serve other developers . 4 Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:lm Attachment I i ; I I ; II ,I r ti c ;s 1 M City of Hunt.,. ', ton Brach ' P.O. BOX ISO CALIFORNIA 92640 ENGINEERING DEPAPTMEN November 22, 1972 iII I t Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Construction of Off-site Sewer Main Heil East of Algonquin Gentlemen: Palos Verdes Developers constructed the subject sewer main. Fees in the amount of $7,022.50 have been collected from developers who have connected to this line and said sum is refundable to the developer. This amount is the full balance due for this construction. It is- requested that sum be reimbursed, the check be made payable to Palos Verdes Developers and the check be returned to this office for transmittal. Very truly yours, ,lames R. Wheeler Director of Public Works tt. E. Hartge City Engineer JRW:IIEH:TM:ae ,i I +*..`.';�rl:at,-an';Crtt.i.+.vrr._..,rt...«..r.w.,... �:.... ,. a.......>..._. _.. . ....,......,......__`__................-_.._... .... .....,..,......._........_,... ' r a r I� S� • 'k r 1 i I I 27 November 1972 TO: City 'Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolutio.: Authori,111ir.g Expenditure of Sewer Funds as Full Reimbursement for Interceptor Sewer At the request of the Director of Public Works, thc- attached resolution is transmitted for approval. of an expenditure of $7,022.50 from the Seuer Funds . Said s►in to be made payable to Palos Verdes Developers as full reimbursement for an i,- terceptor sewer requested by the City to serve other developers . Respectf illy submitted , Do!" P. F:OI!FA CSLy Attorne, DFP : liu j Attachment. i 7 August 1972 TO: City Council 03'0 FROM: Director of Finance SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Expenditure of Money .from the Sewer Fund for Work Performed by Covington Bras. At the request of the Director of Public Works, the attached resolution is transmitted for approval of the expenditure of $2,635-A from the Sewer Fund payable to Covington Bros. as full reimbursement for offsite and oversize sewer main construction from Qoldenwest to Oothard on Warner in connection with Tract 5257. x Respectfully submitted, i Frank ly. Arguello Director of Finance FBA/b Attachment i 1 7( i/f Alk �y -�� City of Huntington ]Beach P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT June 7, 1972 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Bench Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Construction of off-site Sewer Main a: 17331 Beach Blvd. Hazda Agency Gentlaaen: A. E. Ruoff constructed the subject sewer main. Fees In the amount of $1,902.34 have been collected from developers who have connected to this line and said sum is refundable to the developer. Enclosed is a resolution. It is requested that sum be reimbursed, the check be made payable to A. E. Ruoff and the Finance Departmen: trans- mit same to him at 9950 Garfield Avenue, Space 51, Huntington Beach, California. Very truly yours, i James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW`Tt:t uc Encl. 1 9 June 1972 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Expenditure of Money from the Seger Fund for Work Performed by A. E . Rouff At the request of the Director of Public Works, the attached resolution is transmitted for ap— proval of the expenditure of $1,902.34 from the Sewer Fund payable to A. E. Rouff, for construction of an off site sewer main at 17331 Beach Boulevard . Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA ! City Attorney 1 1-�- DPB:'.)c Attachment , r I I . WHITE•CITY ATTORNEY %, 1!!' CITY OF 11UNT1NGTON REACH No. a1LUE CTY CLERK CANARY-CITY PARTTMEINTALATOR REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request nude by Department June b, 197 James R. 'Wheeler Public Works INSTRUCTIONSt File rcgt:cst:n the City Adminientor's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon,one week prior to the Council Aleeting et which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for Gty Attorneys use in preparation of ordinance.I t a separate - parigraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approval by the Directot of Fins cc before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested. Whesnast the Q ty Council of the city of Huntington Beach has adopted a budget for the Fiscal Year 1971-%2 by Ordinance No. 165, and Whereas, Section. 5 of said Ordinance No. 1651 provit3cs the procedure for authorizing expenditures from be severei Spacial Funds mentioned in said Section 5, and Whereas, the Director of Public Works and the City Administrator have recomended an expenditure,. and Whereas, the City Council hereby approves said recommendaticus, Be It Therefore Resolved that an expenditure in the. amount of One Thousand Hine Hundred Two and 34/100 dollars ($I,902.34) is hereby j authorised to be made from the Serer fund. Fund payable to A. E. Ruoff . n. for work performed. i A. E. Ruoff constructed off site sever main at 17331 Beach Boulevard (Hasda Agency). Per code bets entitled to reimbursement at 90% of his cost which in equal to $1,902.34. `1 C•� t r' t t 3 UcCltd rllctttvr%lilt S,fntd Appty%rd its to araitabdity of fund+ _ 111rrCl Vf I,f 1 il,a tilt City AtNaney - I'ksw ptg,sts■nt1+ut,t„it 1'111t%,1 tvpitt to this I%Mt r t,%' _ lO y City o��.i it f Huntington Beach COO P.O. Cox 190 CALIFORNIA 92640 3 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT March 20, 1969 I Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement of Sewer Funds on Beach Blvd. S/'Talbert Gentlemen: j It is recommended that funds in the amount of 5507.84 be transferred from the se-er fund account and that reim- bursement be made to Jones g Jones, Attorneys, as was ! previously agreed for their construction of off-site sewer across Beach Boulevard. Sewer fees of $180.00 from Huntington Valley Mortuary and $327.84 from Der Wiener- schnitzel International, which are served by this off-site sewer, have been collected. The remaining balance due cn this reimbursement will be $3,315.16. Very truly yours, den R�14 er cctoblic Worlta lJRW:111:a Tra=. ,I i �.., Cr �l City of Huntington Beach P.O. 9OX 190 CALIFORNIA 526i8 PIE3 8 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT January 11, 1972 1.1 l Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Brander Castle Acting City Administrator Subject: Easement for Sanitary Sewer Warner east of Grldenwest Street Gentlemen% The Department of Public Works is proposing a joint project with Covington Bros. to install a sewer line in Warner Avenue between Guldenwest Street and Gothard Street. In order to save on construction cost and to relieve a problem of traffic control and a torn-up street we investigated the possibility of obtaining a seer easement outside of existing right of way. It is estimated that there would be a saving of $10,000.00 if the line could be constructed in the easement. Of six (6) property owners contacted, three have indicated they will dedicate the Easement and three have not responded. It is requested that the City Council authorize this department and the Attorrey's office to proceed with condemnation, if necessary, to obtain the easements. Very truly yours, Fiames R. Wheeler j Director of Public Works JRW:1�Elle re [ridCity of Huntington. Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFOR 11A 92644 ENGINEERING DEPAUTWNI' August 19, 1971 t Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Millar City Administrator Subject: Heil Ave. Sewer Construction CC-159 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is a resolution to pay from the sewer fund $12,529.65 .to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County for City as er work done in Heil hvenue, incorporated in their contract 11-12, per agreement dated February 11, 1970. This work is completed and costs are now payable. Therefore, it is recommended that your Honorable Body adopt the resolution and authorize the finance Director to pay from the sewer fund $12,519.65 to the County Sanita- tion Districts of Orange County. Very truly yours, OJw es R. Wheeler 1 Director of Public Works � r JRI+':JFIl:ae + Trans. i i f i 1 i 1 t� f 1 ` *� TELCPHDHCS: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS �,r ARSrA aO DE 714 13 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ,�, ^` 962.241 1 P. O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92703 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) RMFER■ iiEV' July 22, 1971 3Y COUNCIL City Council City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Construction of a Portion of Knott Interceptor Trunk Sewer Through Your City Beginning early next year County Sanitation District No. 3 proposes to construct the above designated 96-inch diameter reinforced concrete newer which is needed to expand the District'-, present trunk sewer system which is rapidly reaching capacity. The District's engineers, after careful study, have recommended to the Board of Directors the route for this facility as shown on the enclosed sketch. It will be noted that the route will be within or continrious to your City boundaries along Newland Street from Slater Avenue to Edinger .Avenue. 'E This letter is to request t:he concurrence of the Council on the location of this facility in accordance with Sectton 4759.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The District'-i engineers and staff will supply additional information to the Council, as desired, and will continue to work closely with your Department of Public Works staff on detailed requirements such as construction procedures, traffic control, etc. Fred A. Harper General Manager FAH:PGB:lm Enclosure cc ! Mr. Doyle Miller, City ;ianager Mr. Joseph Hyde, Chairman, Diat. #3 Department of Public Nork3 Doyle Engineering 6 p1 KF'OTT INTERCEPTVI' 1 t CONTRACT NO. 3 HAZARD AVE. i I KNOTT IN ERCEPTOR BOLSA RELIEF I i { FUTURE )'-"- TRUNK- BU SA AVE too I WESTM NSTER i ; W OF CITY Mcl=ADDEN AVE. Y 1 ° NNI EDINGER A/E ! r +` " ,,, 3 W a.•�«-s•zap.:rr UJ cb I pC �.6 i V • O F 1 z �tC =I iH HEIL AVE. I 60 C"_ 0w ��% t �1 z WAMER�' IAVE. t�i:• -rr:-:rrzr=rszT. F' in k j ' 0 1 �-! SEATER cn t ') i 1 � , o w w k � .t NAVE. m x m , .� 1. TALSERT 1 J j I ok .�_ LL15 • w ,•• r�v�w�atiw�n raw w!w w w. I i + '•III VEQPL.ANT r��lc�E�asr_D ALIGNI'AE:N r i INTc:rCEPTOR 1960 MASTER PLAN ALIGNIt�1E NT � IiI f COUNTY SANITADON U1S7� ICT NO. 3 OF 0P ANG(= {;C7UNTY JULY 1y71 BOYL EN01NEc�Rlf�lt3 PIS City of Huntington Beach • P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 926" ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT August 2, 1971 1S�Q.Jl Honorable Mayor and City Council City .of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement Agreement for Constriction of Off-site Sewer gain at Eolsa Chica d Heil Avenue Gentlemen: Philip L. Gabriel constructed the subject sewer twain. Fees in the amount of $1,377.81 hpve been collected from developers who have connected to this line and said sum is refundable to the j developer per tke conditions of the agreement. Enclosed is a reso- lution to authorize this transfer. The above amount is the remaining balance of this agreement. It is requested that sum be reimbursed, the check be trade payable to Philip L. Gabriel and the check be returned to this office f for transmittal. f Very truly yours, James R. 'Wheeler Vj Director of Public Works fl JRW:111:ml cc: Finance Department City Clerk j Ea.l, t F FA i� i f City o Huntington Beach P.O. Box 100 CALIFORNIA 92548 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT April ?., ; 1970 Honorable Mayor / and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Construction of Off-site Sewer Main at Brookhurst and Hamilton Gentlemen: Rinker Development Corporation constructed the subject sewer main. Fees in the amount of $2,554.74 have been collected from developers who have connected to this line and said sum is refundable to the developer. Enclosed is a resolution to transfer the above tun.^.Ui,t frUm the sewer fund. It is requested that sum be reimbursed, the check be made payable to Rinker Development Corporation, and the check be returned to this office for transmittal. Very trly yours, >� (:�James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:T19sae Enc 1. cc: Finance Dept. City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 C�1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT March 30, 1970 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach �iri rs.� rtr: Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Construction: Storm Drain in District 7F at Indianapolis and Bushard Ga•tlemen: Long Huntington Enterprises constructed the subject storm drain. Fees in the amount of $1,053.70 have been collected from developers in this district and said sum Es refundable to the developer. It is requested that sum be reimbursed per the attached resolution and the check be made payable to Long Huntington Enterprises, and the check returned to this office for trans- inittal. Ter , truly yours, ashes R. Wheeler Director of Public Wurics JRir-.Ill:ae Attach. r.c: Finance Dept. ,•�11 e (City of Huntington Beach ( q P.O. BOX 190 CAUFCRMiA 026�48 C� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Marcia 30, 1470 R'�-o �r G�•l C'G JIB i, 1 �YiLov Honorable Mayor �J19 and City Council t City of Huntington Beach . Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Construction Offsite Sewer Main Gothard, 1323' Southerly Hell Gentlemen: Kavanaugh and Beard constructed the subject sewer main. Fees in excess of $4,132.66 have been collected from developers who have connected to this line and said sum is refundable to the developer. Attached herewith is a resolution. It is requested that sum be reimbursed, the check ba made payable to Kavanaugh and Beard, and the check be returned to this office for transmittal. Very trily yours, umes R. Wheeler Df raetor of Public Works JRW:TP1:ae Attach. cc: F+.nance Dept. 2•,/ft_ t f City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 926" ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT December 249 1969 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Construction of Off-site Sewer-Main at 7542 Warner Ave. Gentlemen: Ken Joslin constructed the subject sewer main. Fees in the amount of $644.04 have been collected from developers who have connected to this line and said sum is refundable to the developer. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution. It is requested Ciat sum be reimbursed, the check be made payable to Ken Joslin, and the check be returned to this office for transmittal. Very truly yours, James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:TM:ae � . Encl. �...rsn.^.^r.:.�..�iw:i T�.l'9.::..r L:�...V 4„'nc:�'.,�.C.YK[d:i�-.._..>.:.nw..w.•.•u...,,..'49.:rS:.�...:.`... :i�.�'it'J a+...V'+.....wa�.•w.r�.�•caf•.c•ra..-....t: Iv yy.; ,a- 4 � f 1 -ulsray� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a �� ttt �_' � ENGINI:EI2ING DEPARTMENT �t � r n �1► 4`► Huntington Beach, California June 15, 1967 01.. Honorable Mayor and City Council City of. Huntington Beach Attention: Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: 8382-8402 & 8412-8422 Slater Sower Fees GentImen: Lubob, Inc. paid sewer fees in the amount of $780.00 for development at the subject addresses. They have now constructed a Getter main in Slater Avenue to which these fees should apply. Therefore, it is recommended that your honorable Body approve the attached resolution to refund $780.00 from the sewer fund to Lubob, Inc. Very tniy yours, James U. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:JKM:ae Attach. P.S. Pleas-,remit check to this office for transmittal. ♦rxrJl,.k//..tt+...`w.+e�+..++.+us..tit.1'�.:1•.tr;_�„'.t1+.r++4,.e•...•'.s."•..«._....+......... .p:i;:•; .' . •:1'r ,.!✓a.:xal'.a.'.: . ✓. • T '!h r... i.J � ��?.. �'yn` .:1'e L':....w•. . �.i'y•fflw♦tf�tl�^f Tt'fi:..jx(�t7't'.+tM t TT -�� City of Huntington Beach * P.O. BOX ISO CAL 1t.;CRNI 1 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTNtENT April 15, 1969 Iionorable Mayor t and City Council City of Iuntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Modification Pump Station I'D" Warner Avenue at Edgewater•/CC-]1 Gentlemen: Pump Station "D", a sewer pump station, was constructed in connection with Huntington Harbour. It is now necessary to add two 4 i pumps, add electrical controls, and replace some of the piping. Because of the nature of the modification, it is recommended that the electrical controls, gunps, 'and piping be purchased by the City, and a contract be negotiated for installation of the above. Follow- ing is a b!eakdonn of the approximate costa: Pumps and controls $4,032.00 Piping and valves 2,100.00 , Flectrical. 29200.00 y' Plumbing and installation 2,100.00 Total S10,432.00 VJ,th City forces we will handle by-pans pumping and install larger impellers on the existing pumps. It is recommended that $10,432.00 be transferred from the Sewer fund. Attached is a resolution making said transfer to account No. 46037. Very truly yours,C i Ames R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW,DCB:ae Attach. �iit:• '+7:"t.t�:$t:=':':.�.TOr::C:�:•.r:.'IfL�'Ya•.hv.•.�Aa.r•w.a9�.�..•..it.r.6 ClY K�•.'.a•: ••�•.Si` ~,`.� �A�ii:1 JvL tii'a. .."......*Mt"+7.t4\'y�N•i..ti�.M"+hUe•dtl0..01tL1.iG 'M\t'R'I KtA'KMA{•,`Ym4+MVr J� City of Huntington Beach ' N.Q. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 6x9 18s q�1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Ap:il 241 1969 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Emergency Replacement Pump Parts Gentlemen: Our 22 sewer pump stations have reached the age of requiring replacement parts. The time :cyuirement for a replacement impeller, for instance, is 8 weeks. . It is, therefore, necessary that we begin to maintain an emergency Bpare parts replacement inventory. + Because of a capital outlay requirement of $8,400, it is recommended that this purchase be made from the sewer fund. Transmitted herewith is a resolution transferring these finds of the sewer fund to operating accotmt Plo. 46036. Very truly yours, mes R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:DGB:ae Trans. l •, t - --,- -.�.•..-......+....�.�+ ....,....�.-.............w..w.rr.. _+....+-....�... .........ra..r^vs.:7 .,;^;...:.r:r-,w...•..»..........•,...r.,•w,..,...a...,+.e*arv.,aa+c+n arl+wr+s.r.++..ar...rr».. - � 1 I1untingtou harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. P. O. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIFORNIA I........... ....... 1g6 61j"40 Z February 17, 1969 Honorable Mayor & City Council or Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach , Calif. The Huntington Harbour A?ruperty .Owners Association would like to ask the Huintin�ton Beach :City Council to requeat the Santa Ana River. Basin Branch of the State Water Quality Control. to make .an investigation of the overflow and sewage seeping Into the channels of Huntington Harbour from the Sunset Beach Sewage Plant. Respeotrully yours, I .. Gordon President .. - '.. :�r'. :.t: :a'Y:t, .....:y:'3,:;'•x.�i.:.:j',�.;4�1*.'.K..[.,Sl.'"—`i.t+7C?�s.:T,Wtemfrrt! y •J.e City of Huntington Beach P.G. Box 160 CALIFORNIA 926" ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT December 2, 196B APIs it( No n�• c, l%.:u► �.... ------.-.................�..�' Honorable Mayor CITY c LL 1tK add City Council ' City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement for Off Site Sewer Main on Warner Avenue West of Beach Boulevarfi Gentlemen: ' Mr. J. B. King constructed an off site sewer main at the subject location at his cost and he is entitled to a reimbursement of $1,962. It is recommended that he be reimbursed said amount. Enclosed, herewith, is a resolution transferring these funds from the sewer fund. If approved, please return Hie check to this office for transmittal. Very truly yours, / awes R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRWtDGB:nt cc: Finance Department ,jQ;2:tK:t?.r smYA e+waw...............-.—........... ....,. .r ,..�..�.......�.�.....-...+..x.+tea;._ � ..a:.:.....nw+w..+...,.-.+....-.-.....�.+,r..��.,...�.....,....w..*......+.v.ev rsrti..rt++wrr,^+.�r+. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARThIENT n '•• �S Huntington Beach, California October 28, 1968 Gn�rG�t�t/ Zrro Y 19 ?... Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City AdmiaLstrator Subject: Reimbursable Sewer Cost Tracts 6510 and '6188 Gentlemen: �t�asr�G.P,fFu'� / . / M Long-DeYoung constructed offsite and oversize sewer facilities"aL a cost to them of $6,131.48, of which go% or $5,518.33 is reimbursable, and also paid their entire sewer fee. They are subject to reimbursement of that portion spent on the oversize and offaite facilities, and therefore, it is recommended that the 65,518.33 be refunded to them. Please return the chebk to this office for dispursement. Very truly yours, James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:DGBtae Attach. cc: Finance Department y.t.j.n,.,, :.T,:"r:t"t prr,w`nay. ..w.a.u.wa•.aa—•a.,a.;, .wx....,.........«.-�,..o......a'•«..`..i�R'•::?: .i. :i._. .`.�i, a.a...«s:-...•..•.•.re t. :.. ,..�:"�Y^i,S'.`,� .f::�.� a ar • I Cr cl CITY" OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -'' ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California May 28, 1968 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: S=itary Serer in Bushard Street Adjacent to Tract 5562 Gentleman: Tract 5562 located at the northeast corner of Ilunhard Street and Hamilton Avenue is about to be constructed. Included in the constructinn will be street improvements in Bunhard Stroot from Hamilton Avenue northerly to the Edison Compwv right of way. In view of the fact that our Master Plan of sanitary sewers includes an 18" line in Buc+hard street northerly from Hamilton Avenue, it in suggested that the City install this '_d,ne prior to the conotruction of the street improvements. It is eatimutod . that the cast cf the project will Mount to approximately S25,000. If it meets the approval of the City Council, authorization should be given to this department to proceed with the plans and npecificatio" eu,d to advertise for the job. Very truly yours, amen R. Wheeler Director of Public Works i dRW*.HM:ae + 1,96R .r.so-x-,a'.a,.+.c.tz.c+..a.,.s,y4nr,..:w+....s...._. ..... ,.a .....� »...,....+... ... .. _. - w.y„f.td' ..r i.1'l,. .. . ... ..+w V::a a\' .+.J .. .•.•... ». .. ... ...k.�ti a=.i�i'f•.ai+1•.:1'.•5.5.iL:°.•.X i;`A:a:';%,7�i n . r `��y1�lNGTpye� CITY UE HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTED-SNT Huntington Beach, California December 15, 1965 APPJtOVED Its' CITY Cou"m :. Honorable Mayor and City Council -.�E C 2 0 1965 . City of Huntington Beach - .. ........... Attention: Mr. Boyle Miller =••-ter-•` `�`f =�� City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement from Sewer Fund Saul Sher at Edinger Avenue Gentlemen: At the time of development of the shopping center at Edinger Avenue and Sher Lane we requested the developer Saul Sher to install an oversized sewer line to accomodate future development. The cost of this oversizing amounted to $4,912.50. It is respectfully requested that refund be paid to Saul Sher in the above amount. Transmitted is Resolution requesting the transfer of funds from the Sewer Fund. Very truly yours, James P. Wheeler Director of public Works JRW:HEH:am Trans. i tx..:.wlUl.i..T: 'fw....w�........_..«.-....._..•«,.... ... .+�...... ........ ......�.... .:3.. ,....., .. ..,_...i. ...:o..... ....-. •. „....'i....9�1.;J't.3S:.::..ia1'W%•T..ii:w.nn�ww�...r+ . t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • Y t,0U�G14 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT y'u vt' ,.r• � a • •. liundngton Beach, California. hek n�t+ ram• July 29, 1968 r,,..•• o�•tY c�'�K Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attentions .Doyle Miller City Administrator Subjects Bushard Street Sanitary Sewer - Hamilton to 13201 N/o Hamilton, CC-094 Gentlemens Transmitted, herewith, are plans, specifications and the resolution adopting wage scales to construct a sanitary sewer line in Bushard Street. It is recommended that your Honorable Body approve the plans and specifications, adopt "oe resolution, and instruct the Clerk to publish the notice inviting scaled bids upon notification by the Department of Public Works. Very truly yours, James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:DGB:mp Trans. ' l •r•—�•• -�'�r..i1.::,2t«...... .....�.^c,.v.....«•wr..r. .;a/..s•.Y.tt:..`•,'.-..7.'d::l nuw-Y+.wow.rr.a✓�yw:.wa.af•.r.•..i.+.+.+..•�...n..e+.� , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT A ;a�tti Huntington Beach, California May 28, 1968 cA honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attentions Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: 16555 Beach Boulevard Sewer Main Gentlemen: Previously, your 11onorable Body approved the participation in the constructian of a sewer main on the went side of Beach Boulevard from Warner to Chrysler Drive. The estimated cost of the work was $60,000.00, however, many problems developed in the field including ground water, traffic regnirements by the State, Safety problems with the sewer trench, time limits by the State, etc. As a result the final cost was $82,580.67. This amount has been varifl.ed by this office. It is 'recommer.ded that you authorize the city to participate to the extent of fifty percent of the final cost and that payment be made from the sewer fund per the attached resolution. Very truly yours, 0J es . rof eeler Erector Public Works JRW=JKM:mp Attach. i vvt•:..'J Y'-:.:'•G'....,.«rr- •+R4..«i�:ei�.G... •L . ._. .;.�. ,.:r. ....1..:...^/.sue ....:AWN c*t. .rii:!:S;:s�„'^+'t-tit.w••.r:wrm•vaF.vsi4wr:,�"Si a .1 CITY OF HU1'JTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California November 14, 1967 Honorable Mayor APPAON n`r . couNciI. and City CouncilHuntington v `�City of Huntington Beach � ..,.xs......., Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator ctry ct.Pax""' Subject: Sanitary Sewer in Beach Blvd. North of Garfield Avenue 18711 Beach Boulevard Gentlemen: Reference is made to a previous action by the. Council approving participation in the offsite sewer construction, installed in conjunction with the development at the subject address. Please be advised that the facility has been com- pleted according to the plans and specifications. It is recommended that your Honorable Body approve the attached resolution authorizing payment in the amount of $6,250.00 from the sewer fund to Albert J. and Stanley M. Kallis. Very truly yours, "e e ames It. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:JKM:ns enclos. P.S. Please remit check to this office for transmittal. �5 5 , . ,r e � t qq CITY OF HUNTINGTCJN BEACH n 4. • <<'� ENGINEERING DEPARThiENT Huntington Beach,California �IIMTY September 15, 1967 APPROVED CBY1CnICTY COUNCIL n( CITY CLZ" Honorable Mayor and City Council t City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement Agreement No. 129 with Craig Development Corp. Gentlemen: Reference in made to the subject agreement whereby Craig Development Corporation is due reimbursement for cost incurred in the construction of offaite sewer for Tracts 5128% 5191, 5192, 5193 and 5197. The City has collected sever fees in the amount of $20,934.49 which are subject to refund per said agreement. It is recommended that your Honorable Body approve the attached resolution to refund $20,934.49 to Craig Development Corporation from the sewer fund. Very truly yours, James R. Wheeler Dircctor of Public Works JRW:JKM:ae Attach. cc: Finance Department P.S. Please remit check to this office for transmittal. wrdr INN CITY OF I- UNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California August 22, 1967 y Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Warner Ave. hewer Hain j Replacnment +� Gentlemen: i It has been necessary to replace the hewer main on ! Warner Avenue at the bridges crossing located approximately 850 feet easterly of Pacific Coast highway. It is recom- mended that your Honorable &sdy approve the attached resolution to expend $1,521.03 from the sewer fund to Estekote Company for the necessary work, which has been completed• Very truly yours, as R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:JFJI:ae Attach. F,awn 1 it 1 � k K+ I GI Ix y_ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH o " - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT y �"Q��w••.���O`� Huntington Beach, California January 11, 1967 APPROVED Ily CIT-• COUNC.II. �..'..16.1967_._..I�....... Honorable Mayor �_•••• CITY CI,L �• and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Sanitary Sewer in Beach Blvd. Ilorth of Garfield Ave. for the Amount of 50% Gentlemen: A request has been made that the City participate 4 in the cost of a sewer line on the west side of Beach Boulevard froal 330 feet north to 1580 feet north of i Garfield to serve a proposed commercial development along 1 the northerly 350 feet of frontage. It is estimated that the total cost of the project would amount to approximately $12,500. If the proposal meets .the approval of your honorable Body it is requested that this department be authorized to proceed with the plane and to coordinate with the owner to accomplish the work. i Very truly yours 00 James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works J1?d:MI:aco „•.`..,.r.I. ..n ;a�•�'7 1".,.. ...w�..:,�. ..��.1:. .. ., . ...i: ..a }:;. . ..i�..c.�-.. .,.. . ...rvt:...t..n,.,')`.: .5.�.,.•. t.ti'•1/ ram�../•! .:1.4 ••!!-- ••., ffi('-r}�, }`' �:Yj. i; •` . !;,.;. t•.-a,�r:7. Y `,.•r. r 777 a S ' II a C 4,�titurcray�^ CITY 4E HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPAMIENT d Huntington Beach, Catlfornin �cOII�JTY February 1, 1967 0 S Honorable Mayor AnpRo t►�•D`y'""`�-�-�-•.., r. p CIT1' COUNCt� and City Council �r 6 1967 City of Huntington Beach '-�----....... / Attention: Doyle Hiller "'---- ....-•.„......� City Administrator ---4�� Cl r1: 4;;k7��. Subject: 8282 Slater Gentlemen: Mr. J. :'rinidad Hernandez installed offeite newer in Jefferson Street south of Slater Avenue. He incurred cost in the amount of $239.40 to which he is due reim- bursement from later developments. The City has collected ©ewer fees from the development at the southwest corner of Slater and Jefferson in excess of the refund d••a Mr. Hernandez. Therefore, it is recommended that your Honorable Body approve the attached resolution to refund $239.40 to Mr. Hernandez from the sewer fund. Very truly yours, James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:JKM:ace I Attach. E t j INGtQy� CITY OF H.UNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT .TT!� �Q Huntington Beach, California �CdUh'TY December 28, 1966 sa.e APPROVED BY C:•rr COUNCIL Honorable Mayor J M N_..3... and City Council City of Huntin-ton Beach Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Chrysler Property 16555 Beach Boulevard Gentlemen: `s r On April 28, 1966, this office forwarded to you a request to participate to the extent of 5T' of the cost of alsanitary newer on the west aide of Beach Boulevard from Warner Avenue northerly approximately 2,000 feet. It ; was estimated that the cost of construction would amount to approximately $45,000.00. Your Honorable Body approved the participation. However, due to the depth of the'pipe and the traffic conditions along this stretch of Bench Boulevard, the Division of llighwaya has imposed such x` severe conditions with the encroachment+permit that the final cast will . approach $60,000.00. The contractor hits the option of either paving a detour in the median to provide sufficient construction area or to restrict his activities to the shoulder of the road.' In order to perform the 1•atter the trench mast be solid sheeted, the • excavated material must be removed from the site and the select backfill must be imported. Under more normal conditions the project could have been accomplished below the original $45,000 estimate. However, the problem of maintaining traffic on Beach Boulevard (part!cularly close to Warner Avenue) will cause the coat of ccnstruction to increase. Alternate methods of providing sewer fII service at this location such as easements on private property, siphons, and + 1 pump station have been conuidered and could be constructed at a lower first cost, but have been ruled out due to a higher maintenance coat. It is, therefore, recommended that your Honorable Body increase the City's participation to 50% of a maximum total cost of $60,000.00. +. Very truly yours, y. i. James R. Whe-eler Director of Public Works f• 1'• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ra •••o;' ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 4 Huntington Much,CaliforniaC�►`��iia�b4�"•�� nI•t'Rc�t:n tiS• c:t•r�• • . November 17, 1966 NOV sC Gc6t1ctl. .....ice ....C.., r i Honorable Myor and City Council City of Huntington Beach _ Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Subject: Reimbursement Agreement No. 132 .Sewer Gentlemen: The City has collected sewer fees .in the amount of $240.0o which are subject to refund to Mr. Stanley 0. Anderson 4• ' per Reimbursement Agreement No. 132. It is recommended that �! your honorable'Body approve the attached resolution to refund $240.00 from the Sewer Fund. Very truly yours, amen R. Wheeler ` Director of Public Works JRW:JKM:tXce Trans. ^.YeriLGf Mcll+:i Y11�!•rw.+��w.�...wlT.MMpIAs 1 t� , r 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1 Huntington Beach, California CpUyTY G�' N n rovember 17, 1966 ��iV "f'1� COUNCIL ;... ,...... ..................._.........2�.. .. Honorable Yzyot and City Council r✓ City of Huntington Beech Attentions Doyle Miller r City Administrator Subjects Talbert Sewer Main Abandonment Gentlemens i Transmitted, herewith, is a resolutions of authorization to transfer monies from the sewer t`und to pay for :cork to abandon the 12" never main in Talbert Avenue between Cannery and Buohard. Permissien to negotiate for the work was pravioualy received from your Honorable Body& One phase of the work is completed for which we have a billing and the other phase, for which we have a firm bid, is to start within a few days. It is recomwended that your Honorable Body adopt the resolution to transfer the fLnde. very txtay ycura,`-� f amen R. reolerrector Public Worke JEWsWKImp Trans. i .t r .; •. . '^. ^i: r�i::.l"remit-':. .. ...::.� .-1:.1 a'..0•'r: 1 f al;s�.: i. :.S• «"A''..S.it.rfiits�.�'�.L fi+ K"fSiS`3'1titZaJP.'�`i.,t'2i • i ' ?i' .fv / �,f � —' r s .. r" •.t , " �, 7 r. .: r y �� S � � '� 4�,- - i,h r+s C ,ir �r ,.,r 'f '• i '.,• •l'i'i s�y + #^ «i vt� .w 1 al �'�'.•,,.; ti " 4 ';� two fk M f�' v i 5.t' 7yyr1-,t #�,��•�,. {tr, f A 1 'a.M 4i�. Ki ,1v �e4 t,,7y�;���,v. � Cr vp i,�c x � � �,1r ri .. y L tl{�•„ � "�,� •6 t1. `•F. s'�+ rd ,7.ti. i 1 M^�'1v'�{5 ,, .•`a y.i�.�•• r• i`.t •":r^ C„�� �t ht ti'• f-^Ank• d. .t� .•�;'.' �A . 'v xt �.1. ,�• ,ttt1 �:F r1,.:�.f -14 tt 7 � S 1 I�"�•'��L .1s� .�.3y+ a, j1 �ir '� �. f /v *t �,�. i�``t..' ar. f.�` F.1: ,v1 .v.Mh4: xrg.1,1 .".t•1 1 x-1.. dt R.'�1.: 5,A' Y�� 'baf,+n yliv.!,1.� 1J.1rt c.'t 1+ 5-5�1�.• t}'.. •^ ^ys' :it:A� .yl�, � A C, 'tti+.+}vy ;r C1 r } rM q,;t: ���,�kr^�� " nr;y'i,tt(,.4,`.N.� '� +�;.• .,�.� f 4" M'.kvlll4'� •�. . 'C`A 1'�/+. �� ��� � '{rnkl• rry �R�I,Z�'• ; �'t`;�4..�'^,'Sy ♦/ b;tlAl�`y� �1y }:��� s 'A. 5�.� {,a•r �,� S � 1°4 -71'; 0e{�'t•/..'1 �n .i ,..y4 .\1�� �� y / 1h `' [{..,►�' !tt, Yi! `tA� ,� Yi.�„x +�'r1' a�;���� '_f' � �.��l��W•.�',''H '��'.:�'�,. .+�7�• �� ~� �� �� 1 k:,` h#".Y.} *h�' {. � •1��•4 1 { [J�[, ) r �t �; 1 a = •u.t 1' r� � 1 1 -�t r •i �� o il,u� .�# q ",I j . �.� "'�.i ,tY�1iyP ),"�,ti. ai, t, .,♦A g y1. +,i r yi n ,Y 61 4 t dh �yl'1� �� i �.� ¢,ya''�sc e<►r��{ �� t. t•1{ A��,� Lr-,Skl��� � t � •Y t ,� ,� `'1 r ,' y�;��, r da� ,�I • r w A+ •� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' ENGINEERING DEPARThIENTHuntington Beach,California Ilonor '1 ,1 t i 1 Mayor t 1 66 Attention: Mr. Doyle HillerSubject: Brookliurst Sewer Pump Station No. 17 Reimbursement S 1 The City'has collectedfees / the amount •1Tract • • subject torefund to tMeredith'Construction Companyper the subjectagreement. It recommended your • • 7 Body approveattached resolutioni these monies •11 Sewer Pump yours,Very truly Ja mes irector of Public Works 1 . r th' 1 _ rY. iiJ������� � ��t� 4 ��� 7 t+ �' s>r+4iaQ.lf 4�'�i" ".�iYLLrifd. .'t�i�.�.i�'4Q{,►/iCLr[iw.awe+orrnr�..r.""�• o��u��ru�.r �� • CITY OFZJNNC i CAN BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California October 14, 1966 .lI'ITItU1'�:b !t1' (,1•�ty Nell. i Honorable i•inyor - :'� •'+V3�`-•� and City Council ' City of Huntington Beach • Attention: Doyle Nillcr City Adminiutrator Subject: Talbert Sewer Main Gentlemen: Your attention is directed to our recent acquirement of certain newer facilitien from Midway Sanitary Dintrict. A portion of thin acquisition is a 12" main cower in Talbert Avenue .from Iiartlund to 33ushard, most of which lies in the City of Fountain Valley. We have preparod a plan to intercept our main and enter the County system at ragnolin Street, thus allowing the abandonment of one half mile of 12" line. We feel a substantial maaintcnnnce caving will be realized by this project. Our estimate for the construction amounts to $2,200.00. There will also be an indeterminable amotu:t of work in properly abandoning the ex-• inting manholes on the half mile section of line between Kignolia and Bushard. This is a result of requesting the required procedure of ` Fountain Valley and also a result of most of the manholes being below grade and some searching may to necessary. It is requested that ynur Honorable rady approve thin project and E grant your permission to negotiate for infornal bids to complete the 1 connection and to do the required abandonment of the surplus section of main line. Very truly your trL!S R. Wheeler Director of Public Works J RW:INK:np ..w..T-......y....._.,..Y_..t...t":'7'ST--)i •:(:.f+.l....t, v i•3.: '. n:.::'1..-rr::t.• .. ;... :.^• .7iA�el.la1 a ...... .....• .. •e.Mitu+i*• .t:'t..l.It•t,-.'+....<W.7.ca T.7{ +1.^iSi T4/y1`Y tfwtYw l•pti.�a+rlwau.+ t t , a� CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California APPROVILD nr CITY COUP7CIL April 28, 1966 MAY �..21966 rsxxm Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Subjects 16555 Beach Boulevard Sewer Main Gentlemen: To obtain sower service for the subject property the developer will have to extend a sewer main from Warner Avenue northerly approximately 2000 feet alc'ng the west aide of Beach Boulevard. The possibility of providing service through an existing newer treat of the subject property is not feasible, ainca ultimate ` development in this area would over load the existing facility, which was originally designed For property zones requiring smaller sewers than needed by the present zones. The coat of the sewer main in Beach Boulevard it estimated to be S45s000.00. ,Since the cost would be an extreme hardship on a i;. single development it is roco=ended that your Honorable Body authorize the City to participate to the extent of 50 percent of the cant, said monies to come from the sewer band. It is further recommended that the City collect sewer fees from the area bene— fited by this facility at the time of development and at the rate necessary to replenish the sewer fund and ref uid the builder any cost over and above his prorated share. Very truly yours, r • I James R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRWsJKMthm i , e-y I ' 01 February 91 1966 �- APPI C !:.f] L>• �„•,• COUNCIL The City Council City Hall • �..._I9.._... Huntington Beach, Calif. . �c•cct9 _.... ..,..............._... �. Gentlemen: STR l:LL1q�r As per request of 41r. Fergueon of Building and Planning Dept. , and Mr. 5hibata, City Attorney, I am submitting this letter to ,you for permission and approval of the followings To set up a payment plan for payment of the Assessment Fee in order to obtain a Permit to connect to the city sewere for my property at 2020 Florida Avenue, Huntington Beach. I agree to pay the sum of $50.00 initially and $50.00 per month thereafter-+untill the total amount of $270.00 is paid in full. ` This arrangment can be set up as a Promissory Dote or a Trust Deed to act as security and guarantee of payment. Under normal circumstances, I would have been able to handle this' acoording to the correct procedures, but since it is n emergency action with the Board of Health ordering the wofR ' immediately, and in order to pay you and the sever contractor, I fing that this is the only method of doing ao without causing unnecessary further problems. Yours very truly, James H. i nerman, Owner ° I R iri;i . 4, A , r.. .,,j;<, .;.. .,..t.- _7',l::.y. ,;,....7 f••.1. '.w:, ,;�` •i..•,�i si'tLti iw-t': •.i�l.::«r:.'�n�•.•iG•hs'4:q«y,i'fZi� on 7 nyr. t • r iiil�.,. '`�_{�+. !'_'t�..+lkT�t !I[},.. '• bi� 1 February 9, 1966 The Citj Council City Hall I! Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: As per request of Vr. Ferguson of Building and Planning Dept., and Mr. 8hibata, City Attorney, I am ©ubchitting this letter to you for permiscion and approval of the following: To set up a payment plan for payment of the Assessment Poe in order to obtain a Permit to connect to the city sewers for my property at 2020 Florida Avenue, Huntington Boaoh. I agree to pay the aum of $50.00 initially and $50.00 per month thoreafter tuitill the total Fumount of $270.00 is paid in full. s This arrangment can be sat up as a Promissory Note or a Trust Deed to act as security and guarantee of payment, 7 Under normal circumstances, I would have been able to handle' � nn . this according to the correct procedures, but since it is n emergency action with the Board of Health ordering the woA � immediately: and i.n order to. pay. you and the never contruotor, r-� I find that tnia icy the only method of doing so without causing L.� unnecessary further problems. k Yours very truly, . dTames R, Zimmerman i Owner I , I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California Fetruary 3, 1966 AplROVrD I1Y CITY COUNCIL Honorable Mayor and City Council F G rhh D 7 1966-19....... City of Huntington Bfach Attentions rio.le '411ler CITY CE City hdministrator + Subjects liuntington and Clay Bower !"aims - Cxmbilgreetrent - �ellG44:r'- Gentlemen: Your attention is directed to a previous meeting, at which your Honorable Body authorized participation with Cambra Manu- facturing Company to construct a aet:cr main in Huntingtcn and Clay. Canbro received severtl bids which ire reviewed and a contract wan let to the lowest of three bidders. The line has now been constructed and it is recommended that your lionorablo Body approve payment of the cityts almre uu previously agrr.ed upon and itemized on the enclosed invoice. It iu recommended that tl:e Finance Department be directed to prepare a warrant to Cambro Manufacturing Company in the amount of 08,303.20, and return the check• to this office for transmittal. Very t y yourB. amcs 'E. 11celer Director of Public Works JRI►s jD�I{s hm attch. •.•••-...... '....,"�•,,•,� tl.nr..+:..h,:-:-:...+w•..a-.......uwr..f-.vw..s..w .nnw•,�.It.e_�e.M"f 11e'lfMrf"4'K'1+E..rw...+f1w..wrrfM..— • . , ' .'tom -OE NIr" y' P x ikt.�w}motif elo,A CAMBRO MANUFACTURING COMPANY--� P. 0. BOX 231 7601 CLAY STRCCT + HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA • Viking 7.3531 January 26, 1566 City of Huntington Beach Engineering Department Huntington Beach, California As per agreement on Sewer Lines on Huntington Street, we are submi6ting a bill as follows: 50% of $2,216.40 $1,108.20 For Huntington Street from Clay South All of $7,245.00 $7,245.00 For Huntington Street from Clay North Less Credit for staking done on Clay and -$50.00 Huntington South of Clay TOTAL $8,303.20 CAMBRO MANUFACTURING G�vl��' f+'GIIL RICHARD K. HAMMOND Purchasing Agent RKH:bd ,F 1 . ' -a w...•j,T1•':hl!.Ew.:.JY.iY.ht.:Ya.«xf...»......+..+..rt.w.ttrti+wf .n.Mtt/1KM'}!7M'.•tV.^.N7fN It FnM.IY.� '�'• r r < "�{j 1/ 4+�J `�:r,•}`9`' , � /(. '}�,��[Gt 'y(y ty F � j}1 ��y;� pp h y r r I ', 1 i »T. '�;!'�` '1'.: �: . •,;�C�i•.�'i� .? ,.b' � sr���'r' .•`,�vr � �jJ}y,`� s,f +yi 71±t 4+j� ��•1 '�;;'+ -''j •� i y t . r 1 nOTIOR OIL COMLETT.OH EtypTO� IQ �; t.,T.V Iit That the nontrF at harc�tofore m' rdad the Oi.ty Qounail of 'Gha City oaf Huntint;�:an Beaol�,�al.ifornia; E by turn State A`rector �aali.forrr�.a� and. sabse2uently approved by T'.la.A. to the �toa�l. �, arA Engiae9ring and Oons truation 091npany n�ao 4 4he oontraotor thereon for aging of tha f0110wiUS s tt�zk�'�ii-w�•t s Ooastruotiou of eevago diepoaal, 91uant and outfall serrrar Gt Oaunty r'On3,iforni.ap in til� ' oi.ty o4 Runt�.n on Heaah Or go t was bo letad by Bald aontraotox a000r3�tug to AWIS eaad ° qq p /� 5 j �R eA/ V� y!,` epe,bi��i+aatioxu� Hued to thQ enti.Aiaoti.on of the nity ' � .:. . :' • the Gi, y"o= Hunti.ngton Beach, and that eatd �rawage diepoe�e,r. 88"r "S aoaeptad the City Ottu=il Of e a T oftingtoa� Htoh Wb d regular adSourned sa�iaio t :,`7 i�► j0f�hdd on the Alt Of Av�gu�tt,l9� ' upon maid cantraot the United state�a �"ide19<ty aud van by esi,d we s the sweaty upon 'he 1�� given ooutraMor as roqutred by lay# Gated at Mmtitgton Bea0hJVn1if0%zia,tbim the 31st day of Auk=tj'1936: Cits Coumoil ofntho Olt of mmtington �. Beaohe elifort State of Gulifornimp ` aozmty of atame as city a-,Huntington Aeaai� de oaos UM eays that he.. is :q G R �ri=vbei, duly •esorna P i tha duly +�0+�ated� .i ad a acting, ,Ity. Qle�..and,,ex-�of9idio ale:* bf the pity of. iinti.ngton Beaoh, a;�.ttdraia# .; fhat be c road the faregait IMIOR 0" OQ1S rEi'xOx a � ' tha, aantenta thareaf, en3 that same in t'.i.W of hi.D atat ano ► Q i�f ®"Opt t0 matters therein stated an iafor�tatibA ex� belief Lud an to 'thosa mattan he ballma it to bo t rUSo .yam—�M --�- Kw!rI�t+�+�" w . to 'before me thSd the 310t MY Of s: subscribed sand sworn • , ' + = AzWatI1936. , (�('�� A� ►' ex tc �`f ( t.,�p�,�� ;�' ��,�„d �5�� ��"( !*f' �3, �'L�t%��" ��►�' i 'tf,'4 ��t��,���.�,�;�_,��}�y'T4ti�i��. �Y��;�S. �t�,i.���4y: \ 't r$r ��1 '�5�' L l } `J r � .� '7` � - t c ,i' r � '�i� ' ' _. . � �� +f r �' � '. � 1`Or/.,r!`�,''J•�-'•'f•. .• '�r:f r,�, � .^'.) �y- 'y .` r"f t-"'i?d�f Yt � .. , f .. A .tt{ ` �J. It' }r l--. �; ► �..,t r ,}'. r!rl�d«rY �i`"•��•1.,�,,• .•�a , . L �tt Y7'c tr;fir E`",r P�i�trCl't.X �\�.\,j C s fit, t11.� r. ► � ,I'C/ �� ,! ')JJ///I .s � � . .A.. Y i�` c l�. t� S.S t t s' .. t t t x�`.ti f d,I. � 1 : ., :! ,y. � ."t .. .1 � . .. i � r .:S d ` � 4' ti •� r `J . ;~ J ',. • f 'f Y'yltl f� it- . j �Yt..Y i 1,. lr l' e . « .. � ✓ .t ? t1I • 1� • � , L t *.. .f. t F1 fir. x-Y 't � ►. � - t L..rl t f C Y. s.St. t i, x \` .' '.,s • r.. � .`� l.y y.,t f s -. ,'{t t%S Yt. t'. � tiYiJ+�. \, �.� �a t �, ., .. , .. rl ,t t o n �h r i;,'t�t,r ;.:. ; Y •r R. ,1 'd� � _ I 'n :�' t ,!�l"i rr•'.► .rr J,t i1� o ' `r •i. � —. 's ,s.. .��• ,�.� .J1': f7. 1 I�Yty �{� 'Y l.y f . �'tr f J v.�l�f,��1;' �•• 1 - ''. .',t t r tt ,... a ;! ( +'Y t '� ti ! 1 Y "\ ��yy fa�; l r \l,' , y.a ^^ •i •-) f: `.i 1 t' •` � l�4Y �'.r�+,__r�,,f �� J I.x f.• j •. t 'i ,. � .S" i {n�(► s71^f( yt..{'A�. 1�' i.i It :. � � � , r � {il '' •ff � .'..�ISrt�^+•:�^�µ A':<7'�Z�i�M��r Y=!\.i E' � ti -t , � '`L' • L-� +a � 'lf � ���y' � i. � .J '�-^•Y^��, F��il+i���'�;�.N ''�7{l 5,J,,IY•ti) e �� �,� .^ "� Cf ,t •« ? t ;x : :� n d r r (. r'S�+��°i t ! t': � ;:+ ! Y 1� r•. Si t ,. I ,�'t� ,'f,'yr��(tr+� f�'�j'�{r ;«L IV t`3h '�Iltrif l�� S - `t.'l l.r� t.' � .. . � ^' `..� � "•r�" �idvt'�'.Zr�F+Jf��11`.,iY�l t Y� r fa+i r Y � ,. c � •1 .: ' r.l `} ,; {y. ,t •{ +a °r�, j'1!-'t�'=i_ 'i r (.� t.� •.i .J .'-t j `. ,{.f ''' "�Y� x L Itl ' � y -, i� Ae' ! .7'r :' � ^r �, 's.'.� f, ," lt.t•j �yJ +<_"ram. 1�fi i�� 1 C r . l�1 .-� •{' �! 't... '' r� ..! s, �-i�t.L. 9•,r 'GY l l� .fl �e '� f{ � x It'r t :, .:.i,- 1 �f �• '� f\. �> f� `� r U, L!+ Y 11tt'4+t y�< tf .1.,;� ' y� � `,`, �1+. �� r,r f it _ u �, 1 ' � ��i.. 1�f`. �l r� - L1; ,1.�. Ki.,i�il'�!+':f,j'1.�G_ lr w w •t. .'l f f-t � • t j tr. `•.± 'yt - r Y tl� "''��.`�7: f`Z 1 Y�=Y,1� � '� .�. -f �L Wr �.� .' 4 rf 1 .. f ft �t itr 1. •.��•' 1.., s��`;,ti�'i�l:w;,t �r � �.1.%' �j �� �4 �}! ..,. ,r. � l ry'±� - .. t y^�, �Y {'�.r � t�*�.j� r k `fit 9 �x ►. .t lr L . `'� �' e _ II.�. r. t1` f t 1 �1 Jf J+i{J�'}r4 .r ' t', t_' t, ° ,•1 %`' Ir �' �+ '''i•'t',Y.. a. •i t t��x i`�15' 'r � � t `�f .L7, ' � .. � .iL L .... ' ;, e; '' .. Y t:��i`f i1 1•,fi`t tt'��'f1'+J ( {Y o ,r � L�tcl, 4� `R '�- � � t . .l.S �� j. �i1 �,``,':{' r ^t l i� lfYt`rfrr ' �i: - ., t�' 4 t ;f_t� jtr�:•�`1: ,+t �,ti'f i ti'G ix''ll`•I��I�Y 4y tlfZS•S _ � Z t'r' YY� t�f tJr 1\�Olr+ri�� �lr d",.t!•1��.`�J'�l''^ ' . .. .—r.rr..+w•r+.'•"'rtiw�.r:V 14YLM7k t'tt<��i�' i s5•as'`,<�. rl:'+ .':.-i""art,t*a,7e..-.'.."`�'.".. Y "� _:t".:rr.iC;::fM y �+ ' , ,�