Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Assessment District 7302 - Old Town Drainage A WNFN RECORDED MAIL Y0: CITY OF IiUNTINGTON 37286 %y Office of the City ClerK BK J 2472P61 568 P. 0. Box 190 1 EXEMPT - This document is solely hr Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 C 1 O official business of the City of Huntington Beach, as contem- plated under Government Code Sec. 6103 and should be recorded RESOLUTION N0. 4556 free of• charge RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ABANDONING CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 PURSUANT TO THE "MUNICIPAL IMPROVE- MENT ACT OF 1913" WHEREAS, this City Council did, by the adoption of its Resolution of Intention No. 4070, declare its intention to order the construction of certain works and improvements to be done and made pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913"', being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, in an assessment .district known as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) At this time the City Council desires to abandon the pro- ject and the improvements . . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ,by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, as follows : That the above recitals are true and correct; That proceedings, pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" , Division 12 of the California Streets and High- \ ways Code for the works and improvements proposed by Resolution of Intention No. 4070, known as : ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) are hereby ordered to be abandoned. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Fiuntington- Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November , 1977. ATTEST: • Mayor JG:ps City Clerk 1. y Bx`12472PC 1569 I REVIEWED AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM: i � f I C y Administrator City Attorne J C� INITIATED AND APPROVED: I "Pub lfc Wor Director i 2. No. 4556 S'CA BX 12472PE 1570fE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November , 19 77 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs 77 City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California BK 12472PE 1571 CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK RELATING TO ABANDON14ENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) STATE OF CALIFORNIA . ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH , under penalty of perjury, CERTIFY as follows : That during all of the times herein mentioned, the undersigned wa-s, and now is , the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk of the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH State of California. That the attached Resolution .of the City Council abandoning proceed- ings for the construction of certain improvements in the designated Assessment District in said City, being Resolution No. .S`s G , was duly adopted on the %Q,�' day of /j/�u`o ,7 c 2 1977 Reference is hereby made to Resolution of Intention No. 4070 adopted on the 21st day of APRIL, 1975 , for a further and complete descriptioniption of the works of improvement within the Assessment District. Thati a map of the proposed boundaries of the Assessment District for these proceedings was filed in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of ORANGE on the 5th day. of..' .APRIL, 1974 in Assessment District Maps Book 13 , Pages '3'1'-'3'5 Dated this _,,23AJ day of CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COJNTY, C:AisY"C)RN?A Min. 3 P M Nov 29 1977 J.WYLIE Calf YLL,�ouniy %ecorder ' RECORDING REQUESTED ; RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BY AND MAIL TO j. City of Huntington ch �. OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA r City Clerk �5J�3 P.O. Box 190 FREE MIs• 4 P.M.Past APR a 1974 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C8 g,WYLIE CARLYLI,County Recorder RESOLUTION NO. 3862 RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73702 OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BZ " 2Q�I ��� HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, State of California , in regular session assembled, that the proposed boundaries of the assessment district proposed to be assessed in this assessment proceeding to pay any part of the cost of the proposed improvement in this assessment district are as shown upon a map of the assessment district now on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City of Huntington Beach, and entitled "PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ASSESSMENT bISTPICT NUMBER 73-02 , CITY .OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA, " and which map indi- cates- by a boundary line theextent of the territory included in this assessment district. Said plat. or map is hereby adopted as the plat or map describing the extent of the territory to be included in. this proposed assessment district. The City Clerk of said City of Huntington Beach is hereby ordered and directed to endorse upon the original and at least one copy of said map her certificate evidencing the date and adoption of this resolution. Thereafter, said Clerk shall file the original of said map as .so endorsed in said Clerk 's office, and shall forthwith . thereafter file a copy of said map executed as hereinbefore directed with the County Recorder of Orange County, California. ADOPTED the 1st day of April 1974 . ATTEST: a r e _ G -1- e ! 1 112PG 1623 ""X, h � F� n I r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) BK I 1 I 1 2PG 1624 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said city, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members, of said City Council at a- regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of April, 1014 , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN. Shipley, Bartlett Gibbs Green Coen Duke Matney NOES: COUNCILMEN None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN None City C er The fora90ing instrument is a correct copy Of the original on file in this office. Ittest . DLI . .........I. ............ AL! IQ.M...W�N'fWo§&rk City Clerk and Ex•officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,Cal. SPECIAL COUNSEL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 21st day of ,April , . 1975., . by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter called "Agency") and JOHN GANAHL III and F. 14ACKENZIE BROWN, attorneys at law (herein- after called, "Counsel'.':), .. WHEREAS , this City Council did by resolution, previously employ John T. Ganahl, attorney at law, now deceased, to act as special counsel for the purpose of conducting -and carrying through to completion, certain proceedings, to be pursuant to either the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " or the "Improvement Act of 1911, " said assessment districts -covered by said Resolution of Employ- ment are as follows : Assessment District No. 7201 Assessment District No. 7301 Assessment District No. 7302 WHEREAS , at -this time, this City Council is desirous to have said proceedings carried through to completion and is further desirous to employ counsel as above set forth for said purpose. W I T N E S S E T H: IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED between the parties hereto that: SECTION 1. Counsel shall perform all legal services in con- nection with the following listed assessment districts for proceedings conducted either pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code or the "Improvement Act of 1911, " _ being Division 7 of said Code, pursuant to all the terms and conditions as set forth previously by resolution of the City Council with Mr.. John T. Ganahl of Ganahl & Ganahl, relating to proceedings as set forth_ as follows: Assessment District No. 7201 Assessment. District No. 7301 Assessment District No. 7302 SECTION 2 . Should said proceedings be financed through bonds to issue pursuant to the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915, " being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code, said fee may be reduced to the following particular.s :. two percent (2%) of the first Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.-00) of =the actual cost of construction and. one percent (1%). of' the 'balance thereof, exclusive of costs of incidental expenses. SECTION 3 . All other terms and conditions as previously re- lated to said proceedings are incorporated herein and it is further mutually agreed that, by the approval of this agreement, all costs or fees due or-. payable to Mr. John T. Ganahl will be paid by Counsel, as, above set forth.* SECTION 4 . This Agreement may be terminated by either party hereto by mailing written notice thereof to the other party. SECTION 5. The above legal fees are all chargeable as inci- dental expenses to completed proceedings and thus are not a direct obligation of the Agency. SECTION 6 . Said services shall include the following: (a) Review of the dedication and acquisition of the streets and easements or other property in which `,proposed work is to be located. (b) Examination of the. plans and .specifications for . the. proposed. work, the boundary map and assessment diagram of the assessment district, the assessment roll ,and diagram, bonds , and the' giving' of instruc tions and -advice. in connection with the.. foregoing. (c) Recommendations as to procedure -and actions that should be conducted. (d) Preparation of all resolutions, notices, contracts , bond forms , and other papers and documents required in the proceedings. (e)' Examination of -the proceedings, step by step, as taken. (f) Appear at all hearings under the proceedings and attend .any meeting where attendance is requested. (g) Issuance of an unqualified legal opinion attesting to the validity of the proceedings and the issuance of the bonds. . AGENCY ATTEST: • MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,. CALIFORNIA COUNSEL JOHN GANAHL III APPROVED AS _TO FORM: F. MACKEN ROWN DON P.. BONFA . City Attorney BY: epttty C3 y Atto -2- RESOLUTION NO. 4064 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, SPECIAL COUNSEL AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION THEREOF WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this City Council an agreement relating to special counsel services for certain special assessment districts presently initiated or in process by the City of Huntington Beach, .California; and, WHEREAS, at this time, this City Council is desirous to pro- ceed with said assessment districts as set forth in said agreement and is desirous to employ special counsel for the purposes of completing said proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON. BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That the special counsel agreement for special assessment districts in the City of Huntington- Beach, California, as mentioned in said agreement is hereby approved and execution is auth- orized by. the Mayor and City Clerk. SECTION 3. A copy of said agreement, as approved, is attached hereto and so referenced. SECTION 4. A copy of said executed agreement shall be immedi- ately transmitted upon execution to the parties as set forth in said agreement. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of April , 1975. MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK, OF THE -CITY;.OF- .HUNTINGTON1BEACH, CALIFORNIA r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 4064 was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of April 1975, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEN Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES: COUNCILMEN None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN None DATED this 22nd day of April ,. 1975. r ' I_ CITY CLERK OF'. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON---BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SEAL) Th* fO..M Ing in*timent is'it�& thQ 18fnal file in this office. r v L., ...t97s �ity Clerk .. . ... . . . . .. ...:. ..... and Ex-Officio Cle,rk of .the City CeWnell of the City of Huntington a�aah, Cal, RESOLUTION NO. 3843 a� RESOLL_-ON APPOINTING SUPERINTEND",AT OF STREETS , k ENGINEER-OF WORK, ASSESSMENT ENGINEER, AND ORDERING PLANS-, SPECIFICATIONS AND PROPOSED SPREAD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California,. in regular session assembled, as. follows: 1. H. E. HARTGE, Director of Public Works and City Engineer of said City of Huntington Beach,- be and he hereby is appointed as Superintendent of Streets and Engineer of Work of this assessment district to render all required engineering services in this assessment district. All work to be done in this assessment district shall be done under the direction and to the satisfaction of said engineer of work and all, materials used in said work shall comply with the specifications and be to the satisfaction of said engineer ,of work. 2. Said engineer of work be and he hereby is authorized and- directed to prepare plans and specifications for the performance of said work. 3. DONALD F. STEVENS , INC. , Civil Engineers, having its principal place for the doing of business in the City of- Costa Mesa, State of California, be and it hereby is appointed as Assessment Engineer of this assessment district to perform all required assessment services in this assessment district. Said- DONALD E. STEVENS is hereby appointed as the representative of said assessment engineer. ` 1 4 . Said assessment engineer be and it is hereby . authorized and directed to prepare a proposed spread of the assessment of the proposed cost of said work, including the incidental expenses thereof. ADOPTED the 19th day of February, 1974 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk i i -2- RE No. 3843 if STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more" than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February 19 74 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley, Gibbs City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California w RESOLUTION NO. 3844 ' RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NEWSPAPER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, in regular session assembled, that the' Huntington Beach News , a newspaper published and cir- culated in the City of Huntington Beach,' California, be and the same is hereby designated as the newspaper in which shall be published all notices , resolutions , orders and other matters required to be published in connection with the proceedings to be had and taken in this assessment district. ADOPTED the 19th day of February, 1974 . o . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk i -1- 7, RE No. 3 844 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF. ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M.- WENTWORTH, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February , 19 74 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Green, Coen,. Duke, Matney ( NOES: Councilmen: ( None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley, Gibbs City Clerk and ex-officio .Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California i 1} } RESOLUTION NO. 3845 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, in regular session assembled, that JOHN T. GANAHL of GANAHL & GANAHL, Attorneys at Law, of Corona, California, be and he hereby is appointed as attorney to prepare all resolutions , notices and other papers and proceedings for any work and improvements that may be hereafter authorized by said City Council in this assessment district; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said attorney bhall receive as compensation for his services herein an amount equal to two percent (20) of the confirmed construction costs of this assessment district; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said compensation shall be paid at the time of the recording of the assessment in the office of the Superintendent of Streets. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if said proceedings shall fail to be carried to conclusion, said attorney shall be paid a reasonable compensation for his services performed, as determined by said City Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said services shall not include any services for litigation, for preparation or examination of legal descriptions , or services in procurement of land, easements , and rights of way, but shall be solely for the preparation of all resolutions , notices and other papers and proceedings required -1- 1 by the provisions of either the Improvement Act of 1911, or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, and the Special Assessment Investigation , Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 in conducting the proceedings for the work herein contemplated, and the rendition of an unconditional opinion of the validity of the proceedings. ADOPTED the 19th day of February, 1974 . w y� Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -2- s Re No. 3845 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE - ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of. .the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of. said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of-Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February , 19 74 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: - Bartlett, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley, Gibbs City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California i l 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3846 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION. OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, in regular session assembled that " J the Engineer of Work of this assessment district be, and he herebyis , directed to prepare a plat or map showing the boundaries . of the district proposed to be assessed to pay the cost of the proposed acquisition of easements and rights of way, and work and improvements in this assessment district. . ADOPTED the 19th day of February, 1974 . Mayor • ATTEST: City Clerk P Re No. 3846 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE - ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council. of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council At a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February , 19 74 by the following vote:- AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None t ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley, Gibbs City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California r I i - RESOLUTION NO. 3847 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESS14ENT DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of' the City of Huntington Beach, State of California, in regular session assembled, that in the event the contractor awarded the contract for doing the work and making the improvements in this assessment district does not complete said work and improvements within the time limit specified in said contract, or within such further time as this City Council, through its Director of Public Works , shall have authorized, then and in that event the said contractor shall pay to said City of Huntington Beach, California liquidated damages in the amount of $100 . 00 per day for each and every day 's delay beyond said time of completion of said work and improvements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the specifications for doing said work and making said improvements shall contain provisions in accordance herewith. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any monies received by said City of Huntington Beach, California on account of such liquidated damages shall be applied as follows: 1. If received prior to confirmation of the assessment herein, such monies shall be applied as a contribution against the assessment. 2. If received after the confirmation of the assessment, such monies shall be applied in the manner provided in Section I - -1- 5132. 1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the .State of California . for the disposition of excess acquisition funds. 3. If a contribution has theretofore been made or ordered by any agency, other than this City Council, then a refund shall be made to said contributing agency in the proportion which said contribution bears to the total cost and expenses of the work.. ' ADOPTED the 19th day of February, 1974 . 90 A A ` r ATTEST: City Clerk { 1 i 1 -2- _ r Re No. 3847 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the .. City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of . members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is .seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at-.a regular meeting thereof held on the . 19th day of February 19 74 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley, Gibbs City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of .the City of Huntington Beach, California I City of Huntington Beach P.O. SOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649 �' JjJ ICJ." OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 21, 1978 Law Offices F. MacKenzie Brown, Jr. 1600 Dove Street., Suite 110 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Brown: 8nclosed is a copy of recorded Resolution 4556 abandoning construction of certain improvements in Assessment District No. 7302. Ik1 urther records are needed to complete your files, please contact out office. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt Enclosure i City of Huntington Beach { ' P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92W OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 23, 1977 Law Offices F. Mackenzie Brown, Jr. 1600 Dove Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Brown: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, November 21, 1977 adopted Resolution No. 4556 abandoning construction of certain improvements in Assessment District No. 7302 pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913." We have transmitted Resolution No. 4556 and the Certificate of City Clerk to the County for recording. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution and certificate for your records. / Sincerely yours, Alicis M. Wentworth City Clerk AMi:CB(;) Encl � f , i F. MACKENZIE BROWN INCORPORATED (714) 7 5 2-9 0 2 5 1600 DOVE STREET, SUITE 110 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92666 (213) 489-5006 September 29 , 1977 1 1..,�r I IUN7TI�rC7 aN©"4cN, Mr. H. E. Hartge Director of Public' Works City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, .California 92648 Re: Assessment District No. 7302 Dear Bill Enclosed herein find the following: 1. Resolution Abandoning Proceedings; 2 . Certificate of Abandonment. The enclosed Resolution is for consideration by your 'City Council at the earliest convenience, said Resolution constituting the formal abandonment of the proceedings for the previously initiated Assessment District No. 7302 [Old Town Drainage] . Upon adoption of the Resolution of Abandonment, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of said Resolution with the County Recorder. Attached to the Resolution shall be the enclosed Cer- tificate of the. Clerk so stating the fact of the abandonment and the 'date of the original Resolution of Intention. Upon adoption, I would appreciate conformed copies being trans- mitted to this office. Very.truly yours, F. MACKENZIE BROWN FMB:bw encls. A 1 1 • City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX-190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ' A f Novembei 22, 1977 k' J' 1 J. Wylie Carlyle, Recorder County of Orange P. 0. Box 238 Santa Ana, Ca. 92702 Dear Sir: Resolution #4556 Enclosed please find to be recorded and returned to the Office of the City Clerk; City of Huntington Beach, P. 0. Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648. Sincerely yo s, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:pr Enclosure RESOLUTION NO. y��b RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ABANDONING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IM_-ROVE14ENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE' "MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913" ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS, this City Council did, by the adoption of its Resolution of Intention No. 4070 , declare its intention to order the construction of certain works and improvements to be done and made pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" , being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, -in an assessment dist- rict known. and designated as ASSESSMENT- DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD- TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS, at .this time this. City Council is not desirous to proceed with the project or the improvements, and is desirous to abandon the proceedings. .NOW, THEREFORE, IT _IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH; CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That proceedings had and taken under and pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" , being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the works and improvements proposed by Resolution of Intention No. . 4070 in what is known as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) be; and the same are hereby ordered to be abandoned. APPROVED and ADOPTED this -__2 / day of MAYOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA CIT� YV Y,CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 ;f RESOLUTION N0. 4556 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ABANDONING CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 PURSUANT TO THE "MUNICIPAL IMPROVE- MENT ACT OF 1913" WHEREAS, this City Council did, by the adoption of its Resolution of Intention No. 4070, declare its intention to order the construction of certain works and improvements to be done and made pursuant to the terms and provisions or the "Muni.cipal Improvement Act of 1913" , being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, in an assessment district known as : ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD. TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) At this time the City Council desires to abandon the. pro- ject and the improvements . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City, .of Huntington Beach, as follows: That the above recitals are true and correct ; That proceedings, pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 191311 , Division 12 of the California Streets and High- ways Code for the works and improvements proposed by Resolution of Intention No. 4070, known as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) are hereby ordered to be abandoned. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November , 1977 . ATTEST: Mayor JG:ps City Clerk 1. REVIEWED AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM: J Cit Administrator City Attorne INITIATED AND APPROVED: J Public Wor Director 2. ( , as. No. 4556 S'lME OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Be: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of- the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of November 19 77 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs /fX Q.:' City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California -` CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK RELATING TO ABANDONMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD T014N DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) STATE OF CALIFORNIA . ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENT14ORTH ; under penalty of perjury , CERTIFY asfollows: That during all of the times herein mentioned, the undersigned was, and now is, the duly appointed, qualified .and acting City Clerk of the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH State of California. That the attached Resolution .of the 'City. Council abandoning proceed- ings for the construction of certain improvements in the designated Assessnent District in said City, being Resolution No. VS"J L , was duly adopted on the , _ day of Al e,S�/9z'z _ . Reference_ is .hereby made to Resolution of Intention No. 4070 adopted on the 21st day of APRIL, 1975 for a further and complete description of the works of improvement within the Assessment District. That. a map of the proposed boundaries of the Assessment . District for these proceedings was filed in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of ORANGE on the 5th . day of APRIL, 1974 in Assessment District Maps Book 13 , Pages 31-35 Dated this _g" day of —W-o&CMH � CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA ll City of Huntington Beach roP.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 82648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT C, 1L TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council '' , ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works DATE: November 9, 1977 SUBJECT: Abandonment of Assessment District 7302 -- Old Town Storm Drain STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Assessment District 7302 _cannot be formed within the boundaries initially established; therefore, the Assessment District pro- ceedings must now be terminated. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution abandoning Assessment District No. 7302 . ANALYSIS: In 1973 proceedings were initiated to form an assessment district to. ,construct storm drains in the Old Town drainage area. In 1976 public hearings were held which resulted in the tabling of the assessment district proceedings until a legal evaluation could be made-. Since that time portions of the Old Town drainage system were constructed using HCDA, Orange County Flood Control District and City drainage district funds. The Adams Avenue, Florida Street and Alabama Street portions of the system ware completed in the Spring of 1977 , while the Delaware Street branch up to < Yorktown Avenue is scheduled for completion in the Spring of 1978. The boundaries of the assessment district would now be limited to the areas where storm drains have not yet been in- stalled; therefore, Assessment District 7302 .cannot be formed within the boundaries originally established. The City' s assessment district legal council has recommended against the formation of a new assessment district to complete the remainder of the Old Town storm drain because -of difficulties in assessing costs to property owners based on benefits received. FUNDING: No expenditure of funds is involved in this action. HEH:RL: jy r . F2A Public hearing on Assessment 7302 Old Town Drainage Assessment District. This is the time and place. for the public hearing to determine whether or not- the Council will proceed with the formation of the designated Assessment - District 7302. Madam City Clerk, is everything in order? Mr. Hartge, would you like to explain the general extent of work on improvements of the bound- aries of the district. Yes, Mayor Gibbs, we will present on the view graph the map showing the boundaries of the district. The proposed district involves portion of H.B. generally bounded east by Beach Blvd. and the R.R. tracks on the west and Adams Avenue on the south and Main St. on the north with various fingers. In general, the district is bounded by some natural . and some unnatural features. The natural ones being the ridges_ on top,:-: of the hills, the unnatural ones being the embankment of .the R.R. and perhaps Beach Blvd. . There has been some question regarding the difference in_ the . boundary as you see it now and the boundary that was presented years back: 'The pri-- snary difference is the fact that we eliminated the area west of the R.R. tracks in the vicinity of Adams Ave. This came about the time Civic Center was proposed to be constructed and without 'some drainage facilities it was . pointed out and accepted by the City Council that something had to be done to take�,Qof .drainage primarily along Main St. You will recall we entered. into an agreement which lead to the construction of storm drain which we call 22nd St; storm drain which empties into the ocean and the upper end. of it .termin- ates at Utica and Main 'St. This .relieved :the pressure- of providing .drainage facilities in that area .arourid- Adams Avenue and west of the R.R. tracks so that particular section was removed. from the present district. . Another . ` area at the S/E corner at. the lower right hand. corner of the view graph south of Adams and east- of Delaware .was removed because another facility will ac- commodate that area: There will be a storm drain constructed . across Beach Blvd. and will bypass the facility. That will be constructed within this. assessment district. As you are aware past attempts had been made to form the district and they have failed primarily due to -the reluctance, you -might say, .of the citizens to accept the method of providing the facility. - In- . cidentally, I asked for rain tonight to remind ;everyone of. the need for. the facility but it didn't. rain hard enough. . In the- meantime the building. has. continued to accelerate at a pace- in the district to a point now that about 4.6% of the "total area: area. is. developed and it has reached. the point now where I am- predicting and where I have gone on record that- we will have . normal rainfall flooding. to the extent that therewill be property damage. If de- velopment continues that probability will increase. The cost of providing temporary :drainage has increased to the point that now for the past year. it costs $30,000 to provide facilities- to avoid the- flooding of properties that I. just described. - I predict again that it will increase this coming year. The complete project has been designed. . It is estimated it will cost about 2 . 3 million dollars,with an additional $300,000 to cover incidental expenses, legal fees, the fee for bonding advice, fees for the engineers to provide the spreading. Commitment. does exist at the .present time from the Flood Control District, for a contribution- of $300,000. towards the project if: the project. does become a real_ one but before the end of this year. . I have no reason to s,`y or guess.. the Flood Control District will extend this for a period of time. There is only one way to find these things out and that would be for the City Council to. ake a request to the Board of Supervisors through the Flood Control District since that is the nature of the agreement that we have now. In the past we had proposed to establish a flat rate as the .method of spreading the cost, that is on a per sq. ft. or acreage .basis. However, according to a recent court action which McKenzie Brown will expand on, it has been necessary to reevaluate that system or that method because it would come out loud and clear the method has to be in relation to benefit. rather than land use or zoning. Mr. Stevens, the consulting engineer engaged . by the City, did evaluate this method. of ascertaining cost and will present. .. t Page 2 . his findings and I must remind you that this is preliminary result that we h"' and the final one would not be known until we go to the, until the engineer' s report is made at a later date and, of course, the City Council has the final say so as to what that' amount would be. What I 'm saying here in a summary is that the problem does exist. I think we are allaware of that. The method that we are suggesting to eliminate the problem is with the assessment district. We have received from the Health Officer a letter stating that the problem does exist and that he is recommending that facili- ties be installed. 'Mr. Hartge, may I stop you there. State what you just .said again. Who recommended?" The Orange County Health Officer. We had made a request,as a matter of fact we had asked the City Council to pass a resolution making such a request. It did go to the Health Officer and we did get a response. ' He recommended that we go ahead. Is that what he. said? " Yes. " Was he aware of any causes or effects of his recommendations at all? As a matter of fact, the letter was rather positive. The last paragraph is the "nuts and bolts"of it. As. a result of our investigation I find the proposed improvements are necessary as a measure for the protection of public health. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808 of the State and Highways Code .of State of Calif. as Health Officer of County of Orange and City of H.B. : I. recommend that proceedings be instituted to provide storm drainage works in :the proposed assessment district 7302 .as described in the. map of assessment district . 7302_ and Exhibit. A. ` I understand- that I go .along with -his comment by being very narrow and specific . in ,that district. But is he or was he aware that his recommendation. of doing something here would- create 'a .problem over there. Was he aware of what problems could be. created° or did he . give judgment on that? '` I thinx he probably gave judgment on the basis of information that we applied to. him, .which was the .plan of the dis- trict showing the boundaries and the facilities that we are .planning to do. - I. am. asking questions to the Director of Public Works, would like same courtesy- ,applied to me as I would extend to you. . . . . . . . . . . . .Now, Mr. Hartge, on this would it be possible that .for whatever action that .are taken now I still would like to find out .,if we communicate with the Health Officer, because it is just like the city now that. we are dealing with ,the effects .of impacts and environmental impacts that here we are talking about the impact of costs, that if we do do something here we can create a problem somewhere else. I think. we ran into this problem before..: in the City and if we go. along I would like to have this one thing pointed,0ihat we direct a question to the..so called Health Officer as to what .effects his recommendations will create. Do you understand what' I am saying here at all? ' Yes-, I thought for a minute you were referring to the problem that in the minds of some people of the damage. . . ..."Yes, I .am. .so here I s an officer f:)f the county 'saying. this is. terrific but has he. really looked into the effects of,_what is. going to or could happen because if this is so terrific what .is going to happen somewhere else. That' s all.'' Yes, I may have a partial answer to your concern and this has to -do with another branch 'of the County government and this does. refer to the problem that has been pointed to the City. This .is a letter .from the Environmental Management Agency addressed to me.. This letter is in :response to a. telephone. conversa- tion of Mr. .Walt Hurtienne dated Sept. 29 regarding the ability of H.B. channel to accommodate the additional flow from the proposed Adams storm drain, Adams storm drain being the down stream leg- of -the facility we are -talking about. The Agency anticipates no :problems at this time in. H.B. channel as a result. of the proposed Adams storm drain construction. In the future as H.B. channel drainage area develops. it _will be necessary to increase the capacity of H.B. .pump station by an addition of 2 pumps. It may be- necessary to make improvements to H.B. .channel at- that time. " May I ask a .question at this time? Is this the channel that Surfside homeowners Are concerned about?" Yes, this passes: to the west. of it. So. the way I. en terpret this or can really guess a thought to what we can do in the past and Page .3 that is the channel is designed as it exists right now will accommodate the flow from the area as we see it. Obviously when the area, not only within this district but the balance of the district that drains into the channel develops fully, then these facilities will have to be increased in capacity# the two pumps that we. talked about in the letter plus increasing the capacity of the channel by enlarging it and/or lining it with concrete. I will have a. little bit more to say in a. moment. I would like to pass on a few more things here. �".O.K: You are not finished with your presentation yet?" No. Pretty quick though. " Jack, can we see the next view graph. This one will show the, itis getting a little ahead of the program, but it is a view graph and you may want to look at it at a later time when Don Stevens gets into his program. Again the dark line is the boundary of the district. The red area- is the area described as subject to innundation and/or sheet overflow and will receive on the basis- of benefit a larger assessment than the" non •.... red area. At the present time on a preliminary basis the non-red area will be subject to 4 cents a s.f. assessment; the red 22 cents. `� Mr. Hartge, may we have. a question on that? There is quite a discrepency _in the. cost item. . . 4 cents to 22 cents. ' Yes, and we will get into that about the third one down. ' O.K. Mr. Matney, do you have a question? That was my question and it is kind' of unbelievable so if' you are going to cover it on the third one, I : will .-wait until the third one./' This light indicates the City-owned Maxekazza zxdxxesa-ixzixx properties that are within the district:. The big glob in the upper part is where the water warehouse and reservoir is located. The horizontal lineup near Garfield is alley that is owned in fee by- the City as opposed to the..right of .way and the lower. portion i's where the old City Hall is located and those other two spots are two lots that the City owns. The old City Yard is the big one. . Jack... ..This slide indicates the areas from'where . the protes{ have come, the majority .of them which we have been iuentified is located If there is no question. on. this we -will pass on. We .can come back to this again. O.K. go ahead." This slide indicates the area of the City or rather this_ particular district that are developed. The. shaded. areas both red and blue are the shaded area. The red was developed prior to June 1974 and the blue area since then. The significance "of "this is to indicate the greater growth in .my.mind the rate of increased:problem. Jack o.k. Now this slide indicates the comparison or alternative perhaps to the assess- ment schedule. In the very left colum is the present preliminary fees that would be charged.. The first .line down or the first -group would be typical situation,is this one the LaQuesta Tract which is north of Adams and east of Delaware, 30 .x 122, the total. assessment would be $146. It it .goes to bond the. yearly payment will be, $15. This is based as indicated at the very top of over 20 year period at 8% which is present maximum by state law. Another situation which covers quite a bit of the area would. be 50 x 152:. If it is in the white area,it is $255' total or if it goes to bond it will be $26 per year. I" Mr. Hartge, have all the people been notified as to approximately the cost? ". No. . This normally •does not take place until later part of . the proceed- ings. We did have three public meetings or the town hall type meeting at" which time we had these figures available.. The normal time is after the City Council order the engineer 's report and the assessment roll. At. that time we are able- to determine or tell the peoplfa their expected charge will be. O.K. More precise than. at this time: I guess I am confused because I would think before we would have a public hearing the people within the assessment district would be aware of what they would speak against or 'for." This is very. true and this opportunity will come about . at the next public. hearing. - How many do we have to have? " As we have indicated this is a preliminary figure, best guess that we have at this particular time. �`.Mr. Hartge, I don't understand your answer to Councilman Duke. You did give a bottom line figure of that total cost of that assessment .district. . .2 million 6 hundred thousand dollars. That seems to be a non figure and I. guess in your presentatio i Page 4 there will be additional information that the City Council members has as to how this might be assessed. So there was some consideration given at this point and I think in fairness to the people who have to pay the piper' s tune that this is part of the decision making process. I don't think anyone will disagree that an assessment district or a drainage system need to be installed. there. I think everyone in this whole chamber agrees the .fact there is a problem and that it lls to be corrected but I think what we have to come to. grips in this public hearing is who is going to pay for it. And I think before we can answer that is the problem who is going to pay for it. I am going to assume that no one thinks it isn't a problem. We've learned . and read there is a .problem there. But who is going to pay for the thing that we are addressing ourselves to and I think that we ought to maybe direct the information here on in to Councilman Duke' s question. I think if you can .help us at this time in the public hearing, Mr. Hartge, with whatever back- ground information you have as to the role of the Federal Government. can play; you have already. told us about the County will participate with $300, 000 what role the 'City would and finally what proportion landowners will because we are all going to benefit.. . .this is an unique situation. (Clap) Thanks. Really I know the Mayor .asked us and I know this is wrought with .emotion because it is going to hit the pocket book; no one will argue .that; I get mad too. But n. order to do .due process because everyone here is concerned with your point of .view, .I think you should also know that we are not bad guys and the City staff aren't. bad guys. We all have a mutual problem. I think we have to come to .grip as to how we. are. going. to meet it. And.,Mr. Hartge, if you can help us, let's not address ourselves, not how we are going to do it as far as,.engineering-wise, but how can we get the tab of 2 million 6 hundred' . thousand `dollars paid for. What is the history of the Fed. -Gov. ; what is the opportunity there with Federal funds. I did discuss th' with you earlier; share some -of that conversation. I think it wouldrrelevant .and important .at this time. // The most .recent effort we made for- outside Federal funds was an application for the EDA funds in the amount of. 5 hundred thousand dollars. This application is .pendining, however from the contacts with the people in the County who are administering that application', it appears „ apparently there- isn't much of. a chance, "one chance .out of a 1000' . Why?' It related to the fact that City did recieve an EDA .grant for 470 thousand dollars for Gothard- Street and we are one of the few communities in the County that received such a _grant which puts us on the. other end of the odds. We .did 'also request- in the current year' s allocation for the -housing. and .community development funds;as a result of the Act' of 1974, we requested 575 thousand dollars out of 5--hundred thousand dollars that was available,. but .because of the nature. of it' and not being a. social-oriented type project, it did get cut early .in. the game. So those funds are behind USA Now 'it is possible for the City Council to allocate when, it is presented to you in several months, funds, a portion of the 750 'thousard dollars which will be available for. the .following year. But that remains to .be seen. I think, Mr. Harlow can. answer questions to that later if you want to examine that. in more detail. The purpose of this-slide here is to indicate to you I think my own inner feeling that the .split is too broad-=that is the 4 cents versus the 22 .cents. So if you will allow me to carry you through one example and get back down' to the second. one, 50 x 127 ft. lots, some of those are in the white .area and some in the red area.. The first column shows the present . split of 4 cents .and 22. If we adjust the split--Jack, can you point it to $255--if we go to 5 cents for the white area it will bring the red down to 22, so that the cost will be 318 and 6 and 18 will be 382 and the next one will be 446 and 510. The smaller number reflects the yearly cost if it goes to bond. . Going over to the red area in the same type of buildings of 50 x 127 . The present figure right now is1402--that is the. highest number. If we adjust to a break of 8 cents for the white area and 15 for the red that cost drops Page 5 from 1402 down to 956. We have to have '-supporting information to defend the split that we do- arrive at and I don't feel confident we have obtained enough information at the present time to hang our hats on any one of these. This information here is a result of a kind of a very skimpy budget of a thousand dollars that we have for the consultant so I am afraid we do need to go into much more detail before we grab a figure and live or die with it. ''-May I interrupt you one minute? Mr. Matney? Bill, I have been waiting for you to explain the -- in my little map it has grey or striped area in- stead of pretty pink area you had earlier. In knowing the property land, I know quite a bit of it., it makes no sense to me that you can arrive at this amount--I 'm not saying you but whoever set this up, maybe you can let me know who did- 22 cents versus 4 cents. and I understand the chart you are going through doesn't have to be 22 and 4. I want to know why it was set up the way it was and why it couldn't be 815 or whatever. Can you explain that . because just knowing the property like coming off of. Reservoir. Hill down Clay St.. ..and knowing some of the other property,. it doesn't make much sense.' I think I. would prefer to have Mr. Stevens explain this if it is covered in, _a letter received couple weeks ago and ther.e .is 6 points he did examien and weigh each. one. He may not have it. on his desk because it arrived couple of weeks ago mould prefer to have Mr. Stevens go into that if he possibly can do that.Fe Mr-. Stevens, .can you explain that? " We have already mentioned that we have in tassessment district already mentioned some 2. million 6 hundred thousand_ dollars worth of expenses including incidentals -to be paid for in some manner: This. particular type of district that has been selected under the Improvement Act of 1913. has in its sections procedures for making these types of. assessments. . The most specific one that is set forth in there says that the assessment may be made on the basis of benefits received. Bene- fits to the properties iri the district. The section in the code which has been further amplified- by its court decision.s- pretty.well . has. established' .what we may .or may not do in. a court assessment district of this type. In this -particular assessment district there are some 22 million square feet approxi- mately, of which a little over 7-1/2 million square feet is in the red: area Which is subject to flooding 'or sheet overflow: If we can eliminate the flood in this particular area, the benefit to the property is obvious. . The improve- ment in this area both public and private are protected from damage by vir- tue of having a complete drainage system. Also .those properties that are undevelopedmay be developed by virtue.. . .' pardon me .a second. . . If I may interrupt you here., but I would like to at this point, there are a lot .of people here and I am anxious to . find out what benefits are. versus unbenefits. All we have heard . is a lot of facts, lot .of figures but can we speak directly as a Council Person myself' I have to think I .can look at all these figures but I would like to hear. all the benefits and I. haven't he one yet. . . . . . I understand you impatience and all the impatience of the :pe6ple in. the audience--but let.'.s not .flood the. whole problem with facts because until you come up with a conclusion". . .The conclusions are dollars and .cents to that particular property. And I think that Mr. Hartge attempted to do that earlier . as to what a representative assessment might be. How we arrive at those .are what I am attempting to describe. IX Let' s get to the facts. If someone questions as to how we arrived at them, we can go back to it. . Let' s get to the con- clusion. Mr. Stevens,in your .explanation to us in the letter we have--I didn't see -- some of the arguments have been brought to attention from citizens Who have been objecting to the assessment district. or their being assessed is based on the fact that it should be determined I think it is a good argument. Their benefits as they are interpreting it is economic benefits and yet in your communication to us. you did not deal with that as a benefit and .I mean .this is what Councilman Duke is striving at. . I think . it is a 'good argument and yet it isn't in here. Unless you are going to verbally do so now,. What do you mean ==is it going to mean dollars and cents.. No, no. Page 6 Well, ' what is the economic benefit to that land? Will that land be increased in value because of the drainage. Is this the ratio, the formula? ' I think we did deal with that in Item 6. The improved property value resulting from the improvement of all the land in the district will be the result. ' I will tell you where I am right now. The benefit of that dist rict is going to avoid problem in that district. The dis--benefits is that it is going to create more flooding in other areas. That' s where I am now. So I don''t know if I should add another problem to'-the area.// Well, that is an engin- eering matter and I am trying to deal with the matters relating to the assessment itself and the manner in which the funding is made. I'm just trying to be realistic because the people who are fighting this assessment district are saying if you put something in this area you are going to flood our area and we are fighti ng that. Perhaps Mr Hartge of the Engineering ' ­ Dept. can explain that. I'm just talking. about benefits._" I think we should try to let him finish his. spot instead of trying to finish it for .him. Is there anything else, Mr. Stevens, you would like to add on to that or have we finished everything you were going to say? � We did •make an attempt to determine the benefits that accrued to each of the particular property in the district and assigned value to them and I will analyze these values••.and assign a particular value to that property and . relate it back. to the benefit on a; square foot basis. That is relative benefit. This is the reason for assigning the square foot cost to a particular type of property, ``When you .say you have done this, you have done this so .that .homeowners know about this.?'' That is the purpose of this hearing tonight: "O.K. That what -is forthcoming. Prior to this time they haven't known what` bene-fits in dollar and cents they would have?" That is correct. .What about thoseprevious public hearing or meetings? " We..have had . some..public meetings that were open to. the public in which the public was invited to come, in which we did invite to discuss. , • Specifically these. pelple, not the general public? The .peuple 'in the district? � That' s right, - the people in this district inwhich we .did d 'scuss the cost to each individual property. owners. "All of these people there." I doubt that. It was a poor turnout. Well, I am very concerned with that because . we gave precise instruction on this sometime ago .when we went through the motion sometime ,.ago because everyone- is concerned with their -own property. and their value and the. benefit from there. And I think a lot of it is' lack of information and I am conce.rned ,that the information is going to the people that it.' s supposed to go to. And these facts should have been brought out in the meetings you had. All of the -people. in the district were invited to attend the public meeting that we. had. I understand that a •mailing did go out at all of the meeting. It seems. strange to me thap if it went out to: evJXone 6,J, why you. didn 't get .an equivical turnout. Mr.. Hartge? Yes, the notice of this public meeting was mailed out by. law to each property owner of record and with that there was an additional correspondence inviting the people: to come to any one of these three town hall meetings which we.. did have. `` O.K. That was all, one notice, is that right?" .That' s right.. "'And did it sound like it was something exciting, they should have attempted to.: prevent this one?." . It was primarily. to enlighten them so that w en they came to this meeting they would. know perhaps as much as you know aboutF ",That isn't very much. I. should come to those public meetings too:1 But we did have very poor .turnout two meetings perhaps a dozen people each time. One -of the meetings .maybe 24 or 30 people so we did not. have a good turnout as you are having right now. ,'Well, the educative process bogs down somewhere along the, line and we get a lot of emotion instead of enlightened education and that concerns me very much. . I . don?t' know where the fault lies right now if- you did those things and they chose not to come, then it is their responsibility. That is true. Is there anything else on this? Does the Council have• anything more on this? Yes, I would like to know the benefits? (Clap, laughter) Councilman Duke, -Page 7 in fairness to- Mr. Stevens I think that you received the same correspondence from him that we did. Right.. I think it would be helpful if you would read your correspondence to the audience as to the benefits that Mr. Stevens feels will be accrued to you. I think you ought to know if you agree or dis- agree. There is a good list of benefits. Mr. Duke? Yes, just one. other question. I think I should ask this of the staff and not Mr Stevens. What problems will it create? I think the problems have been pretty well dealt with in the AR report. . Can you summarize them?11 I would have to defer to someone else who is more familiar with it than I am. " Fine. Who would be more familiar with it? Mr. Hartge, I believe. " Yes, if you 'can repeat the question. ,'-What is the problem created in the district." What are the problems if the district is created? ° Right P In my opinion there is no problems Ming created other than the problem of paying for it on the part of the property owners. One of .the greatest complaints I have received by letter and by- telephone is the flooding problem that might be created downstream. Is that correct? That complaint has been made and I attempted to clarify it a little while. ago in a letter received from the Flood .Control District. I would like to examine this, I think with .you fora moment. The storms of. last year- especi- ally the ones in December which was identified as a 1OO year storm resulted in the water being quite high' in .that channel. In looking at the. situation there is no way that enough water could have gotten into the channel under the existing condition. to cause it to back up at . that point. Now, where did the mater come from? It. came from the. D02 Channel--the one we call the Talbert .Channel which goes down the middle, of the Talber+Valley. That channel serves the area that is largely developed and, therefore, . it was full. These two channels connect together 'just .southeast of the Edison Plant so the height of the water in the .Talbert Channel influenced the- height of the water in the H.B.-channel. And so to. . .carrying. this a little bit. further the water , being introduced as a result of this facility would not in itself. cause that channel to overflow. If we had the same set of circumstances .that we did in Dec'. here a _year ago, we probably would have the samme level of water in the channel at that point, "'.I understand that you met with the group. . We have' a picture of that from last. Dec and after you explained this to them they really backed off , _did ,..they not? " Not really, no. `' Because we -have another letter here. ...we have ��sso many letters here. " The letter you are referring to. is. a letter from Sui'side thanking you very much for solving another problem of which they did a good job -on. We resolved another .problem but.. this is not the same problem. "�'Toobad. Mr. Hartge, the .biggest complaint and concern has been generated by Surfside and _I know the manager -as I can see them in the front row, the Albans, taking a leadership for their association has generated this interest and awakened their .constituency to the. fact that they better be here tonight. We should have gotten the others for the other meeting. ; We. " might have been able. to be on the same level of discussion. But, Mr. Hartge had, and this presents the Surfside, stated once and let me state it again so that 1- can be. sure I heard -it right that the complaint .and concern is .not valid, that you have been told that there will not be a problem caused by this establishment of this drainage system to the .property owners most concerned--the Surfside Association.. Is that what I understand you to say? 4 Yes, that is entirely correct. `' .When did you learn this information?1' We learned it in .our conversation with the Flood Control District several weeks ago but we did get in the- mail today firm statement to that effect signed by Carl Nelson, the assistant. director of that agency. `VWell ,` I think this will help in the public hearing discussion when the participants want to speak to that. I would like to continue this out so' that we can hear the citizens out at this time. Are you gentlemen just about finished?// Yes, I am just about ready to wrap it up and I will shorten it as much as possible. . I did report to you the results of the 3 town hall type of meetings we had and the biggest concern that I could see is that similar to the concern you have and that is the division in the 2 assessments--4 cents versus 22 . That is one reason Page 8 that prompted this investigation of alternatives of financing. I would like to suggest alternates that you may want to consider. Now I recommend that you adopt a resolution of convenience and necessity tonight. You have another alternate and that is the "do nothing" alternative which would do just that. It would not solve any problems. The third one would be the possibility of continuing your action until:the evaluation of the future housing and community development funds which as I said before will take place early in 1976; now, if you choose either alternate 2 or 3, that is do nothing on to continue the action, I would suggest further that you announce your intentions to process the establishment of. a moritorium on further building in this district until a solution is found. Now I say this very reluctantly because a moritorium is not going .to solve the problem. But I don't believe that the majority of people :within that district realize .how-: .... : .serious the problem is. If you did choose alternate 1 and that is to adopt a resolution of convenience. and- necessity that does not in itself-obligate the City Council- to expend any further funds or to lock you into this situa- . tion. In order to get to the -next step and that is to receive the engineer' s report andassessment rolls, this will necessitate an agreement between. the. City Council and the consulting engineer to do. this work. It is estimated that ,this .will cost between 20 and 25 thousand dollars. That may be re captured if the district does become a reality. It would not be recaptured, ..of course; if. the- district does not .succeed. At this time I think, perhaps, before you:open the public hearing, I believe it would be well to spend a few moments,. with McKenzie Brown;_the attorney -for the .assessment district, and Mike. Whipgle, the consultant concerning the bonding process. Thank you, Mr. Hartge. I will take a few minutes of the Council ' s .time. Most- of the matterj�have been covered. - .Under the procedure the program as proposed -did provige for 2 public hearings. This is the first ofthe 2-public hearings.. At _this time the .Council and the staff have been dealing basically with the general nature, location and extent of the proposed works of improvements: When or if the Council decides to proceed and if the City Council does Authorize the balance of the -engineering,. then the engineer ' s report the detailed spread of. the assessment and the apportionment could be brought back to .the City Council for your consideration., The City Council,.of course, will be the. final judge whether or not the assessments have been spread ri proportion to' the benefits. to each parcel receive&; . the staff and the engineers will be making their recommendations. The law does require the assessments be spread in .accordance with benefits and the matters 'generally to be con sidered by .both the staff .and. the City Council are specifying direct benef.it to the land, We . must distinguish between .general. benefit and specific benefit. To be a valid speci&l - assessment we .must have something that is direct specific benefit to the parce]5of property within the . boundaries fines oil. the 0&*Ao s district. At this time we are dealing with a preliminarehod af .spread'. We all agree that it hasn't been dealt or defined so again if the council does proceed, does authorize the balance of the engineering, the consultants could proceed with the preparation of the detailed assessment spread. That matter will also then be brought back and be the subject.;matter of the second public hearing and also I would be. recommending if the Council does decide to proceed that the construction bid would also be before us at the second public hearIng,' So unless there is any question I _think'that is a general summary in my opinion of where we are and•.where we could be going.` Yes, . there are two people. Mr. Bartlett, first. , My question was going back to Bill, .and I 'll skip the time right now and I will bring it back later on. O.K. Mrs. Wieder? The additional engineering consultant report did come, those facts, did come at our second hearing? Is that .what your are saying? Yes, the work product would be the .subject matter of the second public hearing. Yes. But tonight that would be only dependent if we determine to go ahead and establish an assessment districts That's first. And then how it will be :5 paid for will be determined in the second public hearing? The exact appor- tionment , the detailed work. - No , my question, we 've got two very important decisions to make , rather one important decision but inherent to that are two very important variables. No. 1 , if we determine that an assessment district is necessary and needed, we will then be commiting ourselves to 2 million 6 thousand dollars. " No, that commitment is not made this evening. Well , if we determine to have an assessment district out of necessity and what else did you say here in this resolution, we are not tied to any dollar figures yet? We are dealing with preliminary estimates. " Yes, the $25 , 000 fc,)r the cost for the engineers. The only financial commitment the City would be incurring would be the consultant fee of 25 or whatever, is that correct? " That is correct. " But you are getting away from my question. There will no vested rights in the City to proceed until the conclusion of the second public hearing and if City Council decides to proceed at that time. You mean to say we can go through a hearing tonight and go ahead and say, for example, ddopt resolution 4141? By 4/5 votes. O.K. and we have done that and now we have skipped a couple of months or weeks or something and we have another public hearing and we pay $25, 000 for the cost for engineer. '/ Two steps to get to the next presentation, the adoption of the resolution, 2-- authorize to the consultant for the preparation to make the report. For the engineers. And at that time we can either accept or reject the engineer' s report. That point of time the engineer ' s report will be presented to the City Council for your consideration. Upon review, again then that matter will be scheduled for a public hearing. Wait a minute, I am taking this further. It sounds like the City has to put thei money where their mouth is by either we pay in it or it ' s going to cost us $25 , 00 to do so or not. But there is another thing I want to bring, another alternative -inn here and I don 't know what the time frame is. If tonight we establish the district and that will be the initial step down the road, and we have to make the start, we get the report of the engineering consultant, that would have specific amounts in it and proposals for assessments, is that correct? Yes, O.K. The next thing I want to ask Mr. Hartge , would we be able to explore Federal funds " T in that same time reference? Yes. That could enter into the picture as far as the preparation of the engineer ' s report is concerned. ` But, Mr. Hartge, you just told us that you applied to the EDA and asked for $500, 000. There is another proposal I made to Mr. Hartge this afternoon and it has to do with the community development funds and although the Fed. Gov. under community development funds imposes upon the City, then in order to determine how we are going to spend the Fed. funds in the City of H.B. you the citizens have to tell us how to spend it. The first year of the 3 year fund has already been appropriated because the citizens who came to those hearings told us how they want us to spend the money. And it wasn 't for this. Now we have next year to consider, but I have another thought that it does have a social welfare or social--what was it you said that wasn 't. included in the first. . . the City had social concern. Since the thrust of those Fed. funds is for hous- ing, because it comes under HUD,can 't we, Mr. Harlow, can't we possibly wed funds if money is to be spent for low cost or moderate cost housing and in order to develop housing in some of that area, we have to have •the drainage district there. Am I right or not? Well , anyway, I don 't want. . . . I think that is one avenue of. . . . .Wait let him answer your question. Is she right or not? " Mr Hartge suggesting to proceed to have moritorium,in order to have housing you would have to have the drainage district. But I 'm talking about the low cost moderate housing would be available to us through community development. Well there are some 108 residential units which have been allo- cated to the City of H.B. How many? 108 . There were originally 360. The housing and community act legislation was intended to tie in housing with community development, so that you are correct. The manner in which Page 10 the programs are carried out is entirely left up to the discretion of the City Council and when the Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev. .proposed in a act of . this legislation, they withdrew from the City many other specific grants which would have also related to community development. So although on one hand, attempts to tie into programs together they withdrew from the City the other sources of revenue. ` Except they gave the City freedom of choice? '� They did. ' I can't understand why you need a moritorium. We have EIR' s that no house or nothing is to be developed unless it is compatible with the environmental impact report. How can building be compatible there if it contributes to flooding problems. How can it pass an EIR. That is why the moritorium:�• We don't need a moritorium then. It doesn't qualify an EIR. You deny it. I don 't know why we need a moratorium for. It will get us legally involved./,, There. are properties- within the district that could not be logically be developed at this time because of the location in respect to the water course itself or to the location of a ponded area. We can have a mori- torium so to speak on those isolated cases without the 'Council adopting one formally, but on other properties that are not in the low area,they may be on- top of the hill, if they develop, they will .contihue to. contribute to .the problem. So that- would be the reasoning for a inor.i torium. , There. is one point.here I would like to make . sure that you are clear on and this is in relation to the next step after .tonight, if the Council did pass the. resolu- tion .and that is you are not commiting by that .act the City to .spend any , more money .on this district. This will not take place until the City council. enters into an agreement with the consultant to prepare. the engineer' s report. O.K. Mr... Matney, then I _would like to get on to the public. That is exactly what I was. going- to .suggest. I haven't heard an answer . to .a question..yet.. I haven't heard anything yet but fast shuffling and talking'about -community development . funds. We keep giving those away to. balance last year's budget and I imagine we will give away next year's funds to balance this year's budget so that unless we. . . ...That' s not true, Jerry. . That is exactly true. If we hear something from the public it might make some sense around here. If I may be allowed to continue the meeting, I would like very much to get on. At this point I am going to assume,_ Mr. Hartge, you are finished with your presentation. Right. . And Mr. Stevens and Mr Brown? Just a moment. . . .how this came out in one of these town house meeting. but it wasn't brought up here. Want to ask the gentlemen how he arrived at this figure. Can I ask that now? We. will get there. May I ask are you finished with the presenta- tion you had. in mind? . . . .Mr. Whipple, the bond consultant. Mr. Whipple, we hate to miss you. My name is Mike Whipple. T am financing consultant with the firm of Stoney Youngbird, a municipal consulting firm, and I am going to keep this very brief. 'I think the guts of the quest ion really is really how do you pay. I think most of .the people here have recognized that there is -. some problem. The question is, is this the City:s problem in general, is it. the property owners' problem who reside here, is it the problem of the. residents Your problem is to finance it, not to tell us how to do it. Now, look, Councilman. . . . You have the floor, Mr. Whipple. Thank you. . The problem with the project is that it costs 2. 6 million dollars. If this were a project that were being funded totally by the City' s general fund, we would not be here tonight. No one would be complaining about the flooding of the other areas that would occur as a result of the construction. . The principle thing that would be .needed t.o. be done here is to arrive a method of allocating the costs which is equitable and which is also justifiable on the basis to 'financially bear the burden. Based on the alternates that are available we know there is no HUD money. That money was taken away, and there would have been at one point in .time money that could come under the HUD program with this project. The money substituted was the community grants fund and it was the Council ' s choice . to allocate that money. It would be my recommendation that if the Council were to proceed with this project that they either contribut Page 11 from the general fund a substantial. amount of money or, which is the same thing,- . contribute the community development grant fund money because after all it is the Council who must decide how the money is to be allocated. Based on precedences and pratices in other areas, the amount of money should be in the order magnitude of 25%. I think that will be a reasonable share. . . . . . Wait a second. I don't understand you. You are saying that City can afford 25%. No, I am not saying you. can afford it. I am not saying that you can pay for it. What I am saying is in my opinion there are general benefits of any flood control work that. in 'most cases in most projects are recognized by a contribution .-from some public agency and all I am suggesting that in my opinion as a financing consultant who I'nas been involved in other projects of this nature, that Jxt would be appropriated if the Council were to proceed that they consider .making a contribution. I think if such an contribution is not forthcoming that under no circumstances would the property owners' or'- . the public in this. particular area be willing to support it. Want to make a..motion that we discontinue this .whole public hearing because the City .does not-: have 25% of this.. . . . .O.K. ONe more thought then, and that is simply how does the people pay their share. There are a couple of alternates. One alternate would involve what is commonly known as 11 act bond which is a .fixed .li'en against the. property, it is a short term bond only paid out -in 10 years. What we are proposing here is a 15. year act bond which. can be ex- tended out over a. longer period` of time . arid sold at a very favorable rates.. What .we are suggesting here is a. 20 year. term, .it could be 25 if the Council chose. The legal maximum interest .rate is 8_% The annual cost for this -type of financing is very...low in comparison to other. types of financing with what homeowners are traditionally involved in. The. interest portion of it is that. it is tax- deductible for income. tax purposes. In my. opinion the project based on--what I have seen of the project, as. Mr. buke . has-.stated, , is really coritingent upon the :contribution from the City and- Mr. Hartge h as suggested and I would concur in that perhaps an appropriate thing would be f.or the Council to defer or may then study until. such time as a. decision is made upon. the community development grant fund. . . :But that would not recuit us from making that first step? Not. at all.- The real question ha' been stated by the engineers,. have been stated by the attorney, that is before you, and that is is there a. problem and if there is a problem is the. construction- of a storm drain required" to alleviate that ..problem. And the second question that has to be resolved later is .how are those costs paid. But. the question that is before you now- that has to be resolved is .there -a problem. The en- gineers says there is and the County_ Health .Officer says there is, and secondly will storm drains solve that problem. Again, the engineers s.ay.s that i-tciwill and the County Health Officer says that it .will. O' K. _Pre sumbly we should solve both. problems .tonight rather than in making a decision. Thank you. We recognize there' is a problem. But' what we do with the problem that is the problem, isn't it? I mean the .financin:g :part. :; Isn't that the jist of the whole thing? And we .c`an say :tonight there is a problem and . let it go at that but what we are trying to do- is how can .we solve the .problem in which the financing problem is the most important. Mr. -Coen? Thank you, Madam Mayor.. I purposely sat back and listened and it is not my idea .to in- - tervene because I feel 1 ke I have to hear what everyone has to say if necessa;y but I would like to ihhke a general observation about ,ahe proceeding this evening and :I would suggest a method that would deviate somewhat from the agenda perhaps, even though the City Council has had much reason, has even in fact participated in the preliminary public hearing prior to this eveing I had hoped we would act more- as fact finders this evening and look at th e issues somewhat more objectively than we appeared to this evening. It appears to me that if a vote were taken at this point at least 2 members of the -Council would vote against the formation of an assessment district, which" would cause "it to fail for the lack .of majority. I can't. see . any: point Page 12 in wasting our time or your time in going forward with the public portion of this public meeting. I would suggest that at this point that the Mayor place .a straw vote and if we do not get the 4/5 to go forward with this matter then we just terminate the proceedings at this point. I think that for whatever reasons certain members of the Council have already prejudged the facts that would hopefully have been presented to this City Council this evening and are prepared to vote accordingly without giving full credence to both sides of the story. I can do that but I want to make it clearly understood that the first thing we are supposed to be doing is to vote on the issue, is there a need to form an assessment district in the old town district. Right? Is this right? I think the problem is, is there a prob- lem existing in this defined area, not necessarily an assessment district need to be formed. Is the problem. O.K. That is more evasive than what I said. Is there a problem in the assessment district. We can call for a vote on that. How many of the Council. Obviously Mr. Matney and Mr. Duke are opposed to the formation of the assessment district. No. I have my light on, Al, because I think what you are doing is you are assuming before a public hearing but what I am asking is that I have had a lot of people call me regarding the assessment district and asking the questions and really I am sort of asking the questions they have been asking and that is. . . . ...You are not being fair, you are abusing some of the speakers, you haven't been giving them an opportunity at all to present their case. You have ob- viously taken a position that you feel is being meritorious but I don 't think you approached it in the proper manner. For whatever the manner may be, I feel that our problem has been. .and remember,Al, I was the only one on the Council , whether I was right or wrong, that I voted against another assessment district based on the fact there is no public communication be- tween City staff and the public and again I am fighting on the same basis same issues and because of that I again I, too have taken the. . . if I was to vote again on something else, you are right, you are absolutely right'„, I would vote against it because I have no facts. The only facts I have�,' is based on what has been presented to us fromstaff and that is the so-called. 'Juestion mark benefits but I don't see the benefits or the so called unbenefiiil of the people around the assessment district and that is what I am questioning because I think that is what the people calling me have questioned.. What are we going to do 3 years from now after we have formed this assessment district. Will Mr. Hartge and Mr. Stevens say I will lay my job on the fact that there isn't going to be any problems about flooding in Surfside. If they are willing to do that then I think the public will be satisfied with their comment. But I don't think it is fair at this point to ask Mr. Hartge or Mr. Stevens in his job and the only reason I'm asking the question is be- cause they have made comments, and not what Mr. Hartge and Mr. Stevens or even the Finance people or the Stoney Youngman people, and with due respect to what they have said and said afterwards, is that they don't come and say you have the choice of doing certain things as to how you goabout helping; we have obligations. Our obligations is nothing. What they have to tellus is how to finance; it is not their job to tell City Council' s obligation to the people is. O.K. That was what I was fighting, Mr. Cohen; but my point is that it's unfair for you to go and say Mr. Matney and I are prepared to vote against j it when we haven' t even had a public hearing. Well, we are back to the issues here. Would you like to take straw vote or not. Is there a motion to that effect? I would, Madam Mayor. We are all aware of the camps out in the audience and I am not suggesting that all of them do not have mayor's disposi- tion. We all know what they are and assuming what they say to us publicly is the same thing they said privately. Then why go through a public hearing, if in .fact we are going to come with the same conclusion. Schedule them and we will sit through it but I'm trying to avoid a lot of. . . . . . . I'm not ready to vote, 6F!uaupe I .ha.ven'!t ; herd the public yet.. Madam ;Maly6r',, I a� oppdsOdl t I taking a l straw vote. :Now, Mr. Cohen you. ale b eing absolutely pr;actic'al be aufse' Page 13 t4e 'discussion really, hasn' t been. . . .we laze the best1 show in the County and; I ! ; don' t like to be , a wart of a comedy team. ilthink, we are addressing ourseXves to the thing �we all sense here. Henry isn't (here. j He can hear me. It's piped back there. . . . .,(laughter) But I really agree with Councilman Cohen that the bottoMe lines is ' that we have not all of up been addressing oaupelI I to aue process and and he' s trying to be very practical--why waste our ''time , why waste your time. But in due process peo le pa-;q here to be heard and this ids what we have to have. ' But I do think we have got, to understand and I want to mlake sure I'. understand it, Mr. Hartge# that ,if we should vote to establish an assessment districtj, that at ou� 'second public hearing we could rescind than action? Could we? Mac, I need some help; on that, ! Mr, Brown. That is! correct. , bntil you have held ,and conducted the second plullic hearing and taken the required actionlat that time you do not have an assessment dist:ric't. The only risk we wold, be taking is the monies we would put out for consultant fees? Also, we 'would go out to bid on the construction so that bidders wound have to put in heir time on the rojectl. Well, that'sitheir gamble. Well , I ; don 't care, to are going to g=le and they are going to (make' thle money. An investment that we willmake when I saiO the City will jhave to stand up and b�e counted is that I hink the role of stand we have to tape. So another words weiwould not be', cbmmitting the land owners of that lIassessmeht 'district by' taking that' action? �o, not until the conclusion of the, second publlic �hearing. Is that very clear. . �Henry, wherever you are. That was re�eated 15 m�nutes ago. O.k. Mr. Bartlett. . . I would just like to say a few lords. I a, not going to 'ake very much time 'as the Igomen' are. I went' through this assessment district twig: now and I think I voted both times against it ?b;ut every time we have voted against its ,it: has (gore up maybe I another million dollars and that is unfortunate; past about ;it when we votedl against itthe first time. ] I know when I have been out on Clay 1 have seen 8 or 9ifeet ofwater. Listen, you might laugh. W�re you here in 137' ' I saw it. I was 'out there. Youldarn right there was 8 feet of water. ' Regardless,; even if there was only 4 feet' of it, it got into your home,, and at thp' cost of many, many homes. There want many homes 'then but today the east $ide is filled up with homes !and' i know in those homes you couldlhave 4 or 5 thousand dollars damage. It 'will cat up your' assessment I tell you; but � voted against it twice axed I I tho�ight I did the right thing. I hated to see it but I 'm ,pretty conscious of money myself , I have ;a, little Scotch in me. But I would like ,to if we are gong ahead with this, , if we are going, to spend another 25 or 35 thqusandidollarislIiand then we have 'assurance that, it is going to be voted down, I would rather, save that 25 or 35 thousand and forget it. The City needs the money a,s back as the people do and I know the people need it. I, went out to the oil 'fielfl in Hots that I was messed up with, with women and different people where welhad an assessment district. Wei had good assessments, gleaning ,up 50 ft.; lots that cost us 5 thousand dollars and I �wasn 't very � happy about that either. ' But, nevertheless, if we are going to go ahead and finish this up or get ready forithe next round, of applause and spend 25 or 30 thousand dollars anq we, have the assurance almost that it is going' to be voted down, I would rathericall it off right now. "Call a vote." "'I am trying to pore a straw vote in the, background here. Find out the the. . . . .The one purpose in making this suggestion! was that I' feel that certain 'statemonts made by certain members of t o Council have been prejudicial to a point where I I cant see, where ' they can genuinely vote after hearing the public on this matter.! I little bit object to that, Al, because you give menthe impression that you don 't �,thinkiI have the intelligence to determine , which way to vote. And I do feel I have the information; I feel I have looked into it' and I feel that] I have a lot of input. I feel I am going to hear, theisame input I already had.l Ism willing to listen to it. "I take affront to that just because if 'we're asking questions ,and you are not doesn' t me n 'we are negative.. And I 'take �affront to it just from this standpoint I Page 14 that I camel here td .c'onduct 'a' public hearings and so fair' all we has e gotten ' is! t . . .so I ha;vq 'alioc46d you to go ahead ' because I see my role :as facilitator ; to ',give ,eve'ryone; t eir chance to voice their, opinign.l O:K. �I actually think . this is; my feeling but I am ,not going, to sit here and conduct a ,public hearing with everybody is coming and saying the same thing: So what' i would like to c o ; is] put time! limit, on the pros and cons.; And hen, if you 'ar.e ; repeati.ng we Piave ''petition'sv itch a 460 signat'ures,. lone with 144 ;and tl Is t'o ; me is whit is , signif icant. We 'don ►t need all ; 144, to came: up one at 'a time. , Is that clear? If ;that is 'alright; then I will go ahead and :conduct a public{ hearing) and say written protest you piled up how zany written protest we have received. No,. many came in this eveing. ! I know we have a new :pi le. lit says 144 . Everything that has dome in has been turn'ed ,over to ;yogi. I am !going to give 15 minutes 'to the tle thing. Each speaker' ' can' come up and just briefly state what the problem isl, the way in which ,] you wish to do' it jnd if you are speaking for a group and 'a lot ;of you are say speaking for your street and we can see after 15 ;minutes what, happens,,. ' if, we wi''gh �to continue we can l add on to that'. I would like 't;o hear; from those; who hav!e 'si ned a protest and; I would like to have you make it as distinctl ' as possible�becaus we all ; do understand really we do. It .sounds like we don''t attimes but I think we o. st ntC i sat the Problem is. If you oa�a� �just state: it in a minute or P wo. jO.K.!? St4rt in wJith' your name, please. Sign; in as ydu tell ' us your name. �I am i Joanine Ogel son from Surf side and I bought with �Me a petition with 240 more signatures that request that Counoil. consider other possibiiit.ies. ! We 'haven;°t talked about that at all toinigtf it was brought up in the' past.! The consideration of other possibilities 'forj channeling water elsewhere by way ;of a lake, draining ,through oil channels, wa,s '. talked about but we received no feed back as to what was finally, decided, whether it was economically feasible or what not. O.K. That was not finally decided but we do have that information'. O.K. Also I am looking. here at 'the old town drainage assessment environmental impact report, page 114, which ' , states that the alleviation of a flood problem in the area we are considering increases the burden on the flood control system to the southeast, that's his: And it also states that D01 and D02 channel are designed for a 25 year storm with an estimated carrying capacity of 1500 cubic ft. it goes on to tell how .much this assessment district will add which is stated in the report as 50% of the capacity of that channel. You have seen the pictures from last year's storm and I have another roll of what our area looked like at that point. It was disasterous. There was water in my garage as well as many other garages in the area. Needless to say, that is our concern. Thank you. You represent how many signatures? 240. That the Surfside? Yes. Can they answer the question as the comments come up? If we are going to solve the problem, can staff or whoever answer the question? That' s getting into the alternative. She' s asking a specific question and that is what is in the EIR which says there will be. It ' s different from what the County said. He sent material that is not quoted in the impact report. It ' s the discrepancies you are concerned about? Mr. Hartge, can you answer that. Yes, the 711 cubic ft. per second represents the runoff with ultimate development not under present day development. So if we 're relating the present day runoff, rather the 711 , which is the ultimate, that should be related to the ultimate capacity of the . channel. So these facts in here in the EIR arre not accurate in that respect. Does that sound clear to you? Well, my concern is that you based your deci- sion on inaccurate information then. That seems like it 's kind of incongruous. You are saying that the EIR is not correct? No, I"m sorry, the interpretation that someone has made based on information on the EIR is incorrect. These numbers are right but when the statement was made that this figure represents 50% of the capacity in the channel , it ' s like comparing apples with oranges. O.K. Go on with the next one---sir. . . . .Wait a minute, have we solved the problem? It' s who can we believe. No we can't solve the problem® At this Page 15 point- it is the creditabil.ity .of the EIR and he says it is apples and oranges comparing the, so we can't solve the problem right now. There is another question because we are frustrated and we are fRaing the possibility of sewer water damage in the future, I wonder if there is any kind of guarantee we can get preceding this effort from the City that would state any flooding as a result of this drainage district might be absorbed by the City? I could back the lady on that. My name is Don Middendeff; I used to work for the City- 1-did the original assessment district. At that time we were using a smaller drain we thought we had more than that amount of runoff, I believe more than 750 that was 84. inch drain. I believe there was about 96 largest hose on Admas "Ave. and that means you would probably have more than 1,000 cu. ft. per second.. And..as .far :as_ what .Mr.. Hart sags, if you create a system of drain capable of collecting it, there is the possibility you cowl"d. 'have"~a "storm t3�at: would fill. those drains if they. are there. And the point I want to make, in the. flood control manual. that the- Flood Control district advises engineers to design. to they don't consider that possibility. . They generally require even. though it is rather foolish upstream end of system to be designed greater capacity than the .down stream and based upon using given storm like .the 25 year.. 'storm, but there -is: always. the possibility that .yo.0 .would have a greater storm- And you are .creating a system arid. you. are investing in a .destruction if you 1.create a system by .which you" can take _this water in and spill it out because that would be a disaster. . Like Mr. Hartge. had done. the .Del Mar Mobile Home Estates back in Dec: , 3d of this year .you had .flooding and that was only about . 2.00 acreas.; here you are talking about-9 900 acreas. I.. am sure there could be loss of lives if this happens. O.K. .. If conditions were just that bad. I see it. Next one. My name is Ernest Dunkin, 801 S. Garfield.. Please sign in. sir. All right.. I am an. attorney at law and I have been retained by the committee against the. a sessment drainage district and being an attorney, my comments are going.. to be more legalistic than you have heard thus far except the other attorney who spoke before you. I want to make clear there is "an established principle of, law that order to subject a tract .of land to. a special assessment,. there must: be some . special benefit .conferred upon that property'. As a basis .for special assessment, improvements must confirm special benefits upon property assessed. I .refer to the case of San .Diego County versus Charles 217. COW 10;7, case of. Loyd. versus City of Redondo Beach .124 COW. . . . excuse me - Ls this something you have already submitted to Us? In writing? I don't know if this- has been submitted to you or not, maybe it has. Signed by a Talbert K. Tiffany? I am :glad. you are doing the research. Maybe," I" .don't know. That will save .much of my time..: In addition to that the case of Harris versus .Bd. -of Supervisors 44 -COW, . this. case was handed .down by: the Court of Appeals I believe last. February and in. reading this case -the court pointed out the_ mere fact there is some incidental "benefits' to some land, like preventing the intersection from being flooded. That is not a basis upon which to assess . the neighboring land. I have heard you read what staff reports indicated; there is going to . be a .benefit to the land that is in the white .rather than the land -that .is in the red and I. .submit it wouldn't . stand the .test laid down, by the Harrison versus..Board of Supervisors case. The fact, it will eliminate some.,flooding in certain sections,the fact it will cut down the mosquitoes, ' the fact it will cut down . some other indidental benefits is not sufficient to go ahead and assess the land that is in the white area.. I further submit .the land :that is really going to benefit: is the raw "unimproved-"land. I urge upon . You to redraw the,bo.undaries of this :assessment .district to. include the land that is going to benefit from it`. The reason you are going to need this district is because you are going to improve certain raw.. land.. Yoke going to have a flooding problem when you improve that land. . That is the land that is going to really benefit. Limit the district to that. (Clap) I believe that the Council needs further staff report, further engineering. You have Page 16 not really gotten complete answers; you have gotten an estimate as to the cost of this.. I don't think it is a firm figure. I don't think staff will try to tell Council it is a firm figure. It is an educated guess in my opinion. And I don't think this Council has sufficient facts to pass upon a resolution, and I urge this Council send it back to staff or appropriate some money for further engineering so that you know what we are talking about. . . .the way of dollars and cents. We may be talking about 5 million dollar project. Also, I would urge this Council to look at the HUD money available. I think you have got some HUD money available next year which can be used for this project. You have got a problem that is . not a serious problem now. The only time it is going to be - serious one is when you improve that raw land. So I. urge the Council go ahead and send :it back to staff so that the whole Council has all the facts it need. Thank you. Mr. Dunkin, you said based 'upon Harri'sori versus Board 'of Supervisors, what supervisors-? .---San-, Mateaa�;XV Thank you. My name is Larry Suskis.. I am speaking as a representative of La Questa Villa .homeowners which there is' approxmately. 150. people. Since I have lived in .La. Questa Villa for about .2 years I observed no drainage problem in the tract even after heavy rains.. When I purchased my home I did so with the. understanding that all the necessary. improvements had been made to the property and, of .course, the .purchase. price covered the cost of these improvement. To verify this fact I contacted the Ayres .Construction Co. and spoke with Mr: Mike Jager. who agreed that the LaQuesta tract had adequate drainage system installed by Ayres, and neither does LaQuesta have a drainage problem nor does it contribute to any drainage problems in the surrounding areas: Since the runoff of the LaQuesta Villa drains off into _existing DO1 channel located east of Adams... I frankly could- not ''see why LaQuesta.*Villa should be included .in the proposed drainage distric . . I, therefore, do not . believe that LaQuesta homeowners should be forced to pay for improvements which we evidentally .need and if the amount we are supposed to be assessed is in proportion to' the benefit received, . I_ do not see that we .are receiving any benefit by having a system put in. . Thank you. - (Chap) Are you from La Questa and are you repeating or not? I am from La Questa but I am not re- peating .what Larry just .said. All right. Basically each and every councilman received a .letter, from Mr.-.Leslie Watson, which .basically, said what Larry just. now said; however, .Larry did not have the pictures which Mr." Watson has pre- sented to each and. every councilmen,. which shows not only that the drainage is not necessary to be put into LaQuesta Villa but that. there is already there.. Each one of. you have received copies of these. pictures which I have and Les took one real good close .up. Do you, see those?. Stamped right on that. plate is City. of H.B. I believe the City must have put. those in .in ' 73 when those homes were built. I am repeating a portion of. a letter which was read at a meeting here April 26 ,.. 1975 which says, it is directed to the. Dept. of Housing Urban Development which has not too much..to do with the. drainage district except that I happen .to be a real estabe broker, I applied for a FHA loan in LaQuesta Villa, I went to the City to get proper information because it was not built under HUD. You must get letter:s from the City to specify that the tract -is properly built. This one- said, "Gentlemen," and it is dated Apri1. 6, 1975., "we can certify that. the street, storm drain structures; sanitary sewer and water system have been dedicated and accepted by the City for .maintenarice. The subject. tract. has .been properly graded in accordance with the approved grading plan and is not subject 'to flood danger and is not in a flood hazard area as determined by the Federal .Insurance Administration. , The grading plan shows- an original contour line of elevation 29 at the subject lot and its finished pad elevation of 33.8 indicating fill approximately 5 feet. We have revised the preliminary soils report pre- pared .by 'Kenneth G. Osborne and Associates dated May 1, 1972 and the soil compaction report by the same soils engineers dated Oct. 6, 1972 and Dec. 27, 1972 , and ,we have found all reports to be satisfactory .and in line with .our Page 17 field inspection and observation during the grading operation. Yours very truly, H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works. " (Clap and laughter) Mickey, what is the date of that letter? April 7 , 1975. O.K. :. . .audience. Mr. Wampler? About 5 more minutes of this group. I am wearing a couple different .heads tonite. I own property on Florida St. ; I own a piece of property at Pacific Sands 100 feet from' the channel and I am also a consultant for Surfside, and if you want to clean this audience out tonight and make them satisfied, then put the assessments where they belong. The assessments belong to the people who .are going to benefit from this drainage canal. At the present time, I don't see anyone walking around with their pants rolled up walking through water but whenever it is developed with high density housing this will happen. We all admit there will be a drainage problem. Now, if these assessments are put on undeveloped land and purchased by the developer or the `man. devel:oping the' land 'it will 'be "absorbed'.•in "t'hat manner: Some of;..;.,,-,:�,w.•.. the opposition to this is it is- going to take a longtime; it is going to slow up the development of the City. Let' s take on a couple of things that came out in. the last few .days. one in .point is the Dwyer School. It has to be rebuilt for 2 million dollars. The district doesn't have the 'moriey to do it with. Now, if we go ahead and throw up .this assessment on and. hurry up' the development, the windfall will play with the people going to the- develop- ment and buying" and .developing. .the land.. But the. schools will become over- loaded and according .to the EIR, Dwyer School will not support the students coming in. So it will mean not building one 2 million dollar school but . Perhaps building 2 million dollar .schools if- you hurry this project along. The premise of which is- based on who is going. to benefit- is wrong. - Who is actually going to benefit are the future development., the people who own the land and develop. it. . If I took and built a parking lot next to the Mayor's property and drained the water into her lot and said, "Oh, my*, you have a drainage. problem, you better solved .it, " that is what is.-. going to happen. So.."let' s put the premise where it belongs, on future development. and you will. see this audience leave. (Clap). Thank you_,. "Mr. .Vampler. Next. I am" Charles Geers. First of all I think our time deadline is rather bad because we were_ -called out to- your study session• with a lot of this stuff "prepared and then all of a sudden told to .go _home. So it. really cuts it short on that 15 minute time. Let 's .compare. the map' I passed out with the map that. is up here. This map was taken from an actual photograph of a map that. was presented to the public at the townhouse meetings. If you will look at it rather closely you will see there" are differences in it which needs. some explaining.,' Second is that the map as it is shown now is not covered by .the EIR. The EIR as I * may point .it out here; I don't know how to use one of these things,. but let' s_ say it comes right down this area here,chops it off,the area up in this area was not incuded in the original EIR. So. EIR does not cover those two areas, and we are prepared if we have to be to go to court and stop the project under those circumstances. We do "not want to .do this but we have to fight fire with fire. - I am. speaking fora large group .here tonight. Sorry they -were not out at .the .town .house meeting because. there were se-Veral things that did come out that was rather interesting and I- am sorry that a question wasn't - asked of the engineer of how he came about in determing 'this red factor. We were told and I have this on tape so if anyone of you doubt my word. I have, taped that he studied typographical map .dated = 1963. Now, as most of - you `know .who have. driven in that area there has been over a iterally hundreds " of thousands -of cubic yard of dirt. brought into that area to- raise may of those points. Good ekample, of the land I own, at the request "of engineering I spend over $101000 raising that land from my or fill _because "they said probably there would. be a problem with rain water. Now all of. a sudden I am in the 22. cents area which I am 4 inches higher than one section east of me in the 4 cents area; I am 4 to 5 inches higher than land .west of. me which is in the 4 cents area. And they think it's great I really don't -appreciate- it so I. have Page 18 not been justified in my own mind to that. I asked how I could be justified, I was told in looking out of my front window I would probably not see the little lake out there, I would have less mosquito which I have never have killed mosquito since I have been there, I would have less odor from decay- ing matters which I have never smelled except possibly when we had a few horses parked out in the parking lot. So that these points are not valid and as our attorney did point out there that. you must justify as a point of law . to say people who do own the land that you are increasing our value of our land the given amount of assessment or more and to me it hasn't been done and it hasnf.t been done to too much of you people up there. In looking at some of the area here in the red up- in Reservoir Hill, part of that is in the red which is probably some of the highest ground in H.B. , which I can't quite un- derstand it but maybe there is a definite reason. .Also along Beach Blvd. , I' drove the area street by street and along Beach Blvd. , let' s say specifically Lumberland, the gentlemen spent over $10,000 putting in a drainage system for his whole lot. His whole lot drains underneath Beach Blvd. to the east side of Beach .Blvd. down Beach Blvd. and .ties into County or City drainage system. There would_ be absolutely -no water that would come off the land but he is still going to be assessed in .the 4. cents area or the 5 or final determination .if there is going to be a determination. So he is very upset.. We get down to where the car dealers are which is little north of the red section there. There is water that intercepts there and. actually flows from Beach Blvd. on east side underneath and comes over to our side over here. Now another point and if you will. look at the second. street from right to. left there is a little triangle up there. that .is definitely on a high point That whole parking lot drains toward Pacifica Hospital so .they are a large contributor but. they are completely outside the drainage district. So I would like to point that out as some of . th'e few things that is unjust to' the whole system. Again- we feel' half.. the assessments is put on the undeveloped land which would affect me as well as many. of the .other 'people when' we do develop. we should pay for it. In fact, I asked the question at the town house meeting how did the other areas develop and was told it was. developed as a _pay as you go plan which I think is a very good idea for us to adopt through in here. Let' s start all the developers in here paying into '.he assessment district which I understand that the engineering did put into effect as of July 1. . . They have a fund started to this effect, so apparently they have been. planning on it. in speaking about- this canal I would like to say I didn't have enough time to do some research on it, I did some quick calculation on- it -and roughly we are going .to be dumping around 19 million gallons an hour into that canal. If any of you have been on the water project and seen the film of the .project that is bringing this water . from the Colorado River;• it will give you some idea of how much we are talking about if you paid some attention to the acre fee, cu. ft. . flow rate and so on. But. in . all seriousness we do .: have a problem here, I think it can probably be solved with a little bit of leadership from everybody. I think this is what it' s going to take rather than all of us jumping off deep end and getting all excited about it. I think if you will show us some leadership and engineering will show some leadership, I think this problem can be solved. It may take a few years to do it but I .think you can do it. I think the possibility of doing it is there through engineering, through you fine people through O.C. Flood Control District, possibly through. Feder"al. money. We do have one of the largest unemployment rates in H.B. in that area. Something to consider_ . We have on*he of the .largest areas of senior citizens in that area. This is in the EIR, don't take 'my. word., for it. We have one of the largest minority groups in that area. I hope these are things you will consider. Drive into the area before you make a decision. Take a look at it and if you can take the map we have, actually follow your flow water down there, see the area that is going to be affected and Page 19 can truthfully come to me and say, Hey you are going to be flooded across the street or to some of the other people who have brought in several thou- sand cubic yards of dirt to bring this area up to overcome it, I believe I will be for it 100%. Thank you. Mr. Matney, did you have a question. Chuck, you didn't finish your story of how they came up with this pink area. You said they used a 163 map but you told me they were some other methods you used. Yes, there was. I 'm sorry I didn't. To me it' s rather humerous. We were told that they asked the City employees where they had the problems. Now the problems of course mainly are down here and mainly where they have the problem is when the City employee takes a manhole up and dumps it into the sanitary sewer system. Those of you who sit on the Sanitary Board get very unhappy about that but to me they had no reference point to say this is going to be high ground, this is .-high ground. They didn't show us any flow. of this overflow project that they said. They said they talked to the people .who vacumed up the water and so forth. Well, their job is to vacuum up water wherever the water is low, and then they pick it up and dump it on a spot on Clay St. there and cause a little bit of .a problem there which some people told me about today. So to ine ' I don't think there has been enough input into this thing or : study as to where the water problems are. I think we should do a good. engineerin ' plan. and say this is our low. .spot, follow it down just_ exactly as we would 'a new typographical map. Thank you.. Sir?. My :name is Adamazion. I own .this. property since 1913, which is 62 years and this has been a:- drainage basin for the last 45 or 50 years. Since they put in. these: streets. They grade those streets down where it make' a river to run into that basin. There is no way for water to get out of there.. . In other..words, they could make their choice. Regrade those streets so the water will not be flowing' into that basin so :ghat it will go down Beach to the .low .lands and flow into the canals . and towards .the ocean. About 10 years ago we had the same thing. came up. It was exactly :half of" what it is estimated now. In another 10 ' years. it -will be 3 times as much as it. is. today.. So it is up to the City one way or another because all that upper land if they are going to develop that is this. concrete sidewalk .is going to goiin there.; where is the water. going .to go. It' s going to flow in' that their lake and that lake is going to grow. It started with the oil companies,in earlier years it was a farm land but when the oil companies. came in, it became a permanent lake. So it is up to the City, -I believe everyone in here . is' favoring to - -have a drainage . system but what kind we need? And we need one bad in that area because that is the only part in .H.t. starting. to be. developed and as you develop it 'you Will have concrete sidewalk, people watering their lawn, water ruhning, down the street, . where is it going to wind up? And longer we wait on that thing the higher it' is going to cost, the longer we. wait .the higher it will. get. Each Ahd everyone of us is going to - say we should have had. it 10 years ago. I take it you are for having the drainage district exept for haveing the .City pay for It? I think .I have the picture. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak. We have a long 15 minutes heres. Everyone has spoken who. i_s against it-. Because we are now .in the fors. Do you have anything .you wish..to add, sir? I am interested in my own. piece of .property. I am general manager of Cambro Mfg.. My name is Dick Hammond and we do not see where this. district is going to benefit. us in any manner. We don't have a drainage problem. We purchased that piece of property quite a few .years ago. . Since then we have been spot. zoned into a 1M '.area when originally it was manufacturing. We do . not feel that the development of the property around there .is going to enhance the value of. our piece of .property in any manner. _ Then you don 't see yourself in any jeopardy? No jeopardy, whatsoever. Ok. Thank you, sir.. My name is Don Smith and I requested an opportunity. to speak last Thursday. I attendbd•- the informational meeting that was held on Thursday of last week and listened to what Mr. Stevens had to say and actually I am speaking in favor of the assessment district. However, I listened to Mr. Stevens who is the consulting Page 20 . . engineer. I was a consulting engineering for 22 years .myself. He spoke about the subject which .told -us .ahout such things as undesirable insects, stench from rotting vegetation, hazards to health and safety and so forth. I think I have figured out how you arrived at this 22 cents. In this discussion he was very vague. It was admitted that the higher areas would. benefit to some extent and for lack of better figure about 4 cents sq. ft. The higher mak- ing up 65% of the total area are the, area where the main inconveience is hav- ing to detour around the flood section. . So the way it figures out it is 65% of the property within the assessment area pays 4 . cents .per square foot, . the remaining 35% have to. pay. 22 cents per square foot to make up the difference. In other words; 1/3 of the property pays 3/4 of the cost. These are very precise figures. The low- ground owners pays 5 1/2 times more than the. higher ground owners. and receives 5 .1/2 times the benefit. So there is where we get the 5 1/2 times.- Now originally we started in 1966. The assessment districi was proposed in which the assessed value per acre to the land owners would be $2500. This was voted down by the voters' at that time. In Feb of. this-year it was discussed, the-. same assessment district, $4500 a-year. Now the rate at 22 cents. .an -acre is 9,600 -dollars per .acre. For example .the •owner .of. a 50 x :125 foot lot, this gets back to Mr. Hartge' s No. 3' slide, will be assessed at $250 total -on the rate- of 4 cents per square ft. On 7 .1/2% payout over a .period of 25 years this will raise his tax. bill 1.85 . a month to 22.20 . per year. If he owned the same lot in the -red area his assessment . is 1.37.5 at' the 22 cents .rate. Now• this is a 50 x 125 lot._ . At 7 1/2%. at 25 years his tax bill be raised 10.17 a month or 122...04 a- year This. is mostly for taking care of other person' s. water. In my .own .per.sonal •case I own block. 22404 on Delaware; .it will cost .m6 .21 ,054 ,over a peiod of time the .total .cost . tome over. the peiord of the assessment will be $6, 67.7 . Frankly,. I can't afford it. Is your block developed, sir? It isn't developed- but it is raised in its entirety above ' he street level-. Would you be in favor of an assessment upon development? . I would' be, yes,. that would be one way out or`I would be in favor of much greater equality between who gets,-the-most and who gets the least. I am not protesting the construction of the drainage system but I strongly protest the grossly unfair disparity in rates. That' s why I :am . . quoting. these figures because - I have gone to the trouble to figure _them out . and I have checked on the total value of what .is going- to cost me arid .I am a person .of average income. The cost. to me. of construction not including any interest is $2 ,374 more than what the County assessor says is my total net value -that is the resale value. This constitutes in legal language so I understand taking without due process of law. I am not-. exaggerating in any way when I say I cannot -afford these• 22 cents .per sq. ft. I will have to sell the property in order to be able. to afford `it.. With this. much at stake;. I would say we. cannot afford not to fight. . Thank you. The initial statement you made was. that you were for. the . assessment?: . I .am for the setting up of an. assessment district but at a much fairer distribution of cost. Right, you didn't like the disparity of .rates. O.K. thank. you very much. Is there anybody else who hasnA.t . been heard? . O.K. There is two .more and that should do it. I am Dwight Elickson. I own property on England between Yorktown and Utica and it 's on the higher--there is no drainage problem--but Planning Commission has seen fit to have this property built, this apartment house: complex on Delaware and I.. have had my property in escrow 3 . times and I have been here at least 15 times trying to contact someone in Public :Works, and. .in the Planning Commission and I get nothing but the run- around and it comes to the City and it falls through. And I am ready to . sell it tonight at the appraised value because I can't get out from under, like I •am in -a barrel: It unavoidable. You can't find. but anything down. here' They sign up on c•ont ingency on" getting. Building permit probably from the .City and whatever is necessary[,#�hd something happens. This. has been going on for 5- years., •and I am s�` : need:.of money and will .sell at for the appraised value. I just want to sell I -Page 21 and get out from under. The widow lady who owns the property next to mine has the same problem. It is. `unbelievable the property that was developed there. They left the bank there and the water goes into these garages. I have talked to people out there who can't believe they left the place in that condition. I am against it because I have got something I can't get rid of. It is white . elephant. I am paying $242 I think it is now. You are against the formation an assessment district? I am. Thank you very much. Just a minute,Mayor, Mr. Ellickson said he is getting the run around from the depart- ment. Did you leave your phone number and address when you signed in? Because we will bring you together and let' s get the facts because we found that in most instances it was a misunderstanding and we. might be able to alleviate your problem. Sure would appreciate it. My name is Robert Gerrard and I-. was up here to throw some water on the fire, but I 'm. going to add some gasoline. I am in favor the assessment district. I am a property owner in the area and I am also a developer and I _would like to comment on the inconsistency of the Council if I may and I hope it is not disrespectful.. That in this City right now. we have a principle of first in what 's in the development. That means if. a developer .comes into the neighborhood .he has got frequently to- do developments that do not directly .bene£it his. projec because. he is the first. one in.. This .is . including running water mains that►�aren.t going to use on your project, to improving streets that your future tenants aren't going to .drive on and paying. park and recreation fees for parks and recreation . areas that aren '.t anywhere near your development. And by and. large we have gone with this scheme and I feel tonight that there is ..a certain tendency, I believe Mr. .Duke has sor*i voiced his .opinion, that let the developer that is coming in . now on the tail end of the development in� the neighborhood pick up the burden for the people already .living in their own developed properties and now you are, going to tell me that your principle is going to change from first in pick up the cost of development to last in pick up the cost of development and. I say that the waters that is coming down these streets is. not falling out of holes. It is coming off of lots that are shedding water into. the drainage systems. We all are draining water. into the drainage system.. The water is falling off the high lots it will fall off .the low lots if they are raised but they.. will come from a drainag.e. system. . No matter how you get to it, the 'rain just doesn't fall on the lots. It is coming from all .over. Now you can say we are not going to develop until it is economically feasible' if you are going to put the cost :of the storm drain system on the undeveloped property and you are right, and you can say that sooner or later the property will be worth enough money that someone �f",�;,����� come along and pay .it and develop it and pay more than the property' sA*orth of assessment district costs and you are right in that , re_ spect also but you are going to have more like this poor gentlemen .who are not going to sell their :,.property for many years to come because it' s impossible to raise the cost of developing land above..the. market situation and still have people buy it and develop it.. Now we can say fine, let ' s not- develop, but people don't buy property and people don't come in, live in residences who already own a residence in which they wish- to live. Population pressure. and housing pressure exists. If. you are to say fine, we don't want. them to .live in H.B. , we don't want them to live in the. old town area, let ' s come out and say that honestly.. But let's say if we don't provide housin.g,. people aren 't going to have babies because that is justa�'the case. The realism of -the situation is peop7 wiT have kids and people will need a place to live. It.'s our responsibility to have a safe environment. including housing and all -the rest of the humanities . that go with it. - By and large developers in this town are trying to do that. I don't like the ownness of the burden shifted to us just. because you feel that we're perhaps more able to afford it when the reality of the situation is. that we. have a profit margin on top of our production just like any other businessman who .are trying to markeet what we have made. So I would like 'Page 22 to say at this point is that I feel there is an unfair split in the cost of this assessment district trying to say 4 in 22 1 in 78--I don't care what you say, it is an unfavorable decision that has been made in the courts that forces us all tonight but nonetheless we have to live with the situation, we have to live with it., And I think probably the most equitable decision is own up to the fact that� you are going to tell the people in this neighborhood that an assessment district is needed, that in the years gone by those who were allowed to develop prior have not paid their assessment cost. That these people who have owned homes for 20, 30, 50 years should have paid 20, 30, 50 years ago to pay their share of the drainage district and it is unfortunate they haven't. paid it yet, but now is the time to pay the piper. It is a tough decision to make. It is a hard thing to stand up and tell these people they are going to get a benefit and they will have to pay .now, but I don't know what else you can do unless you want to come up with the alternate solution, that is do nothing or perhaps that has been suggested initiate a moratorium in which case you are going to deny those people who .have not built the right. to use their property and that is condemnation and .there is . no doubt .in my mind that that is what that is. Now I don't like to have to come. up' and say these things here because it would .have been much easier if we .could have settled this 50 years ago but: it didn't happen and -it' s got to have to .happe-n now and if it isn't going to happen, now,in the near future. The .water is not.:going_ to go. away and neither is these angry people. Neither are those of us who .own land who might want to. build on it. but that is why we bought it for we didn't buy it for a _green belt to donate to the citizens of this: City. _ If they wanted to buy. it -for such they could come by and I would be glad to sell it. I ask tonight for a decision that act more Along those lines than along emotional ones of what we can and .can afford; . Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Gerrard. Next one. Mayor Gibbs and . Council Members. I am Ralph_ Lee.- ' I was raised on 308 Cleveland Dr. . I no longer live there but my mother does. She .is. an elderly woman on a .pension and there was a point made. this evening that I would. like to restress. It -is a point that has been lightly touched on. It hasn't been emphasized enough. The population base that is in the area under discussion this even- ing is'.one that is heavily represented by low income group to. put it very. frankly. with you. But were we talking about Huntington Harbour or some of the other better areas in H.B. , I. don't think there .-will quite the amount of opposition that you are going to find over the property that is under dis- cussion. And..I think one reason. for that is that it . represent-s very heavily a low income .group and when you .are talking. about. 50 x. 100 ft. lot with a. $1300 assessment on it and that is not a guarantee top end either because it could go even higher. It could go: to maybe $3, 000. ' And when you are talking about $3, 000 on apiece of property and a house probably only. worth $30, 000 that is quite..a bit of money and it is..a burden.. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lee. My name. is. Richard Young and I represent Mr. Louis Jacover who- owns an acre and a quarter on- Florida Avenue and he .would like to go on record as supporting this assessment district. - Thank you. He' s for it-: O.K. Thank you. is there anyting else in the audience at this time?. Yes, that waga long 15 minuntes. . . . . . I can't believe that you will _disagree with your partner? No, T have something.. of my own to" say. O.K. Jim Fox,. several people have said that some of the higher property here--why�_should they have to_ pay any- thing because the are going around flooded intersections or. their property in particular doesn:'t have a flooding problem now but everyone of the properties within the assessment district—well not every one--but some -people said their specific property drains outside the assessment district. I don't know about that. But I would say that most of the property in this assessment district contr?butes to the flooding problem of the district itself. Every- body knows that there is a drainage problem. We have got to do something About it. This specific house, maybe it was built 50 years ago. It has got a roof and it sheds and the City forces you lco grade a lot to drain and Page 23 everyone of those lots--the high lots, the low lots, every one of them-- are contributing to the problem in the area and I think that any person that thinks about it in . a fair manner--if my property is contributing-.tosa problem for my neighbor who is down the hill from. me, is it fair for me to turn my back and walk off and say it' s your problem? Your lot's the low lot. Fix it. If I 'm dumping half of my water onto his lot, then I should help with the cost of keeping it from damaging his property and that' s where we _ are at--the high lots are damaging the low lots. The people who own the low lots are the injured. Everybody ought to get together and get the problem solved. Whatever it takes. I .don't know that this plan--some people say this plan won't work; some say another will work--but whatever the engineers say is fine for me--I will pay my share but we all have to quit worrying about it and get it done. The little people, the big people, everybody. Okay,: Mr. . Fox. Thank you very much. One more and that is it. My. name is George Graten. I. am in favor of doing something about the drainage but maybe some- thing could be done that wasn't so. costly. I have 25 oil well--this may seem like_ an absurd idea--you can inject the water, you can take the points that are most susceptible to flooding and inject the water into the ground, let the water run down .the street from the developed. area and catch it in some catch basins and run your pumps and inject the waters into the ground instead of. spending 2 1/2 .million dollars. . O.K. Mr. Hartge and Mr. Stevens, is. this feasible? No?. Sign. your name, George, I didn't get your last name. . I have a water injection well that. I 'm not going to use right now. We used to put 1500 barrels of water/day there. That would be 1500 x 42 gallons--that is a lot of water-. You are talking about periodically couple. of times . a year: I . don't see why .it wouldn't work. They did it .in Long Beach so I don't think why Iit wouldn't work here either.. O.K. I assume there is no one else who is going. 'to. give .us .any new facts: or ideas. Alright, I will close the public . hearing and it'up to the City Council and I wo».ld like to say at this point that the discussion and consideration of -the possib.le ..changes and modifica- tions that we might be going through, that I would like each Council Members to confine .themselves to. one comment originally. First Mr. Duke and Mrs. Weider_. As far as my comment is concerned .in the public. hearings, . it seems that there is disagreement even in the people who are. in favor of it,. not in the actual assessment district, but how it should be done because some. say we have housing, .you shouldn't assess.i��but . you should assess the ones that are undeveloped and the people who have raw land say, well why you should assess us and people who are here .are involved in. the whole thing. And then another disagreement is the people around the -assessment district who . are .also so called house with a parking lot next to it,the. parking lot being the assessment district and saying o.k. if you set up. this assessment district, al.l: the water is going to. drain into our area so therefore we have a problem so I. say this at this point that if we are going to solve this problem which it seems to me that how we .go about assessing the district is really the major problem .and until we solve that, that going on further: w-ith. the public hearing is really to me incidental. All right. Mrs. Weider, briefly. Question first, Mr. Hartge, .in earlier in one of your comment.s you made reference that we just spent a thousand . dollars for consultant fees and you seemed to imply that wasn't adequate.. I had the. feeling that if we paid more money and spent more time, we would have more information.. Yes, that is correct. In the Spring, I had discussed with you a proposal to engage Mr. Stevens to undertake the full blown report which Would cbst -somewhere around $20,000. At that time it was already obvious .to us this money was not. available. so we backed away from that and we did go ahead with the report that Mr. Stevens has given to us and it is sketchy and Don knows it and I don't like the idea of him have to take an abuse from any of us because it is a low budget report. I held up referring to that comment. Al , you weren't right. Henry and Jerry,. you were. I am. not ready at all to vote for the resolution now. For these Page 24 reasons--yes; we need an assessment district, so far it. is .agreed but where . and then how--and there seems to be so many conflicting facts that has been presented in the testimony in the public hearings that I would like to have more answers to it and I am sure you would like to answer to them too, Mr. Hartge, if you had an opportunity. I don't think we can rush ahead' on sketchy information. I think we would like to say how dare we pass such a. resolution, how dare we pass on such flament, so the city is short, the land owner is short andlif we are talking about due process and delib erate planning--correct planning for our City, we would be doing a terrible dis- service=-the staff as well as the City Cuncil. So I don't it is in otio ayor, b_ut let m�thoe - �' I ould like to move eturn this to staff and that staff proceed to ctmelback with more facts and we ' set up another public hearing at another time where we will have more information as far as Federal - funds, community development funds are concerned. We will have an opportunity to explore that, that we .will have to come to grips with the investment--that it isn't .fair to a professional con- sultant to sell him short and if I were he, I wouldn't have taken a sketchy contract because 'it didn't serve us and it didn't serve him and the bottom line is that we do not have adequate information which I thought we had in all the .stuff around And so. I would like to move that we return this to staff acid come back with a thought in mind .that we have to spend money for adequate information whether we do it with passing .this resolutionjwhere ._ we .would have to , involve ourselves with complete. engineering report with a $25,000 consultant fee--that we not even go that far, that we know that if there is. a problem, we would have to spend money to get the correct informa- tion before we can .make any important decision that we have facing us tonight.. And. so I shall move. The motion is on the floor. I .would like— to hear from each Council Members. Mr. Shipley and Mr. Bartlett., Madam Mayor, I .think it is quite clear to us that we need additional information to balance this out _n_x more. equitably between the property owners large and small: I am not prepared to vote for it tonight. ! .support this motion". Mr. Bartlett ` and Mr. Cohen. I am sure we need the Flood Control District but on the other side of the -line information isn't quite clear. I would like to ask Mr. Hartge in regards to this $300,000 of Flood Control money---would they allow us to .use any of that for research.. No, there is a commitment that money . can -only be spent only j�n conjunction with the project construction itself and if. it is undertaken before the end of this calendar year.: Well, .the gentlemen who spoke, the. .lawyer, . he . seemed to be pretty sure that HUD had money for . flood control... I don't know anything. about it and where he got .the informa- tion, I don't know, but I understand that through our information from the City, there. is no � money available at this .time. We have. examined every avenue that we know of and there is no money- available to our knowledge and if some- one does have such information, we certainly would appreciate knowing about it. Well,, on' this housing and community grant, . I think we have 4 or 5 -million dollars coming in the.- next three years.. If that is a sure thing, isn't it po.ssible. we can- allocate some of that in the 3 years towards flood control? Is that possible in the flood control area? That. would be. a City Council decision, yes. First we have to get the money. No, no, first we. have to get the rest of the citizens who don't live in that part of H.B. to agree on how they .want that Federal fund spent. Certainly, there i s a lot of building out there. They would certainly agree to have homes built that would be flood proof because they .certainly .don't want a building a home and find out they have three feet of water in the kitchen. . Mr. Cohen, Mr. Matney and Mr. Rowlands. ' I want to pose a motion because I think a definite question has been raised that needs further explanation but I think it would be unfor- tunate to just give the matter back to staff without better direction than - Page 25 . just give us better information you have already given us what you consider to be valid information and you should know more exactly what we would like to have you . respond to rather than open motion like that. I think MY concern and the concern of many people out there is the criteria you used in order to determine the perimeters of the district. It is my concern you using a map which is obviously conceivably outdated. •At ` least it was alleged it was. It might have been based on more accurate information. So I think we should know specifically the basis of your determination and the boundaries of the 'district. I don't think you probably had an opportunity to determine the exact number of property owners who have. . filed written protest who might have already protested at this meeting tonight compared to the number of. . . . to the amount of power proposed into the district. I would also like to know specifically the criteria. that might ultimately be used to determine' the difference between a general and specific benefit. . Mr.. Brown indicated that it would be one of the objective of engineering study that would be ordered and funded. The general criteria .that were used by Mr. Stevens, I didn 't feel were very helpful and I am sure many people out there didn't either. If we are going to get into the specific areas, I would like to know, hypothetically at least what benefits -are intended to accrue to the various properties. Also would like to have. something more specific from Mr. Stevens perhaps as to the weighing .method he. used 'in determining the difference in . assessments on the alloquent . apportionment. He said he used the 6 criteria, . that 'he weighed each one. and evaluated each one- .on the- basis as I understood. it. but he.. didn't have one reason or another, perhaps he wasn't afforded the opportunity, he- didn t give us, any specific .clarification. on the method he used- to determine the difference in . cost. I think Mr. Hartge must also necessarily address. to the alternatives to -the- one method proposed. . Mr. Geer.s indicated that question has been asked. And I .remember that one when we had a hearing in April and Mr. .Geers did ask that question. To my recol- . lection we have� not had a succinct response to that. Cwt I think primarily it is the boundaries of the district and the percentage of. contribution if any to be borne by-the City of H.B. in that respect. ' Mr. Matney, did you wish to comment at: this time? No, I .agree with Mr. :Cohen' s comments. I think it most° .important thing is the boundaries of the district', how they. are assessed so that there is some equitable method and other alternatives which we really haven't answered-=the questions what hhppens to the channel that goes down to. Surfside. O.K. Other alternatives, too. Mr. Rowlands? Mayor and Council Members, I just want to stress the alternative method and remind you that what you have said about housing community development. funds-=those .observations are correct. You. have certain public procedures--hearings- that have to be held. Certainly it is within the purvue of the Council so . after the hearings are held to make certain determination of how much you want to allocate for this purpose. We would also, of course, during the coming .weeks and months on behalf of. the Council ask the County to let. those funds be made .available. Perhaps put them in abeyance until this can be cleared. up because it took a lot of pursuasion to get the 300.,000 dollars set . aside two years ago. So I think all of these things would come out in the alternative package. .Then you don't object strenuously if we followed .throuJh with a motion? I .don't .know what good it would do if you did, come to think of it. : Seriously, if you have all heard the motion, it is no point in. which I disagree with it. I would like to state that I am very much in favor of going ahead. and hav ing an assessment district because ' I feel that this is something that should have been done centuries ago, certainly 50 years ago. And one of the problems is constantly postponing something like this . is it doesn't get any cheaper. - It gets much more expensive and I don't think any- one here can attest to the . fact that this is something that is needed. I will go along with the motion because I feel that. perhaps we can find a more Page 26 equitable way of disbursing the assessments. That is the only. thing that really bothers me. I really feel we went no further. than just go ahead and - adopt resolution that. would not bother me, but I feel that this is something that need to. be done. I don't want to adopt the alternative do nothing because I think that has gone on too -long. I think we need to continue the action and not ready to establish a moratorium as yet. So on that basis we will call - .for a vote. Mrs. Gibbs. . . . . . .On -Councilman Weider's motion she asked for a postponement of another hearing. Would the hearing be- one hearing or. reconvene for two hearing or a public hearing? I assume that it would be in the beginning for a couple of public hearings. But I think if we start it because initially we would. inform everybody. We would start all over again. We, start from point zero. Again it is a research project and I am very reluctant to give up the mone% the 300, 000 dollars we•managed . to get from the County for this. If we can ' also get some of the community develop- ment. funds ,which really the Council is more or less allocated for the next couple of .years, -that I don't want to encourage anybody here that is going .to be an automatic thing. . Because I. don't think the way it is. This is one segment, of the-.'.City and we 'need to on a .community development fund need to consider the -entire City. One more question?. ... . . : . . . ...No., we .have .gone through this procedure before but because of public. input we have chosen. to take the alternative by feeling that we are taking it again tonight to postpone and look into: .it. further to .see if anything. better can come up. This is not a first hearing on this by .any means. . We have gone through this before. Mr. .Cohen? Before we take. a .iiiotiin I would like to ask _Mr. Hartge how long he feels staff would need in order to come back with a report. . ._incorporate a time in the motion. Can you answer that,. Mr. Hartge? I think most of these items you have requested .further information on we have. I think it is a matter of addressing ourselves to the questions. that were . asked_ by the protestors. Most of 'these we have addressed ourselves. to and we can provide this loan within a month however- , I am not ,sure that will do any good. I don't think we can accomplish anything honestly unless we are able to. come up with alternate source of money. It also bothers me. you have not given me the green light and I know why you. haven't is because you -don't have the money to hire Mr. Stevens to perform th.e 'more detailed report so that we can proceed upon this hurdle- that we are .bucking right now and that . is the actual split of the cost. Mr. Hartge, within that information we would like- from staff what would be the actual . consulting cost. Now, right. now: I don't know what is .the ball park figure, $25,000 or what and I would like to know what it specifically would do and I .would like to 'know' is this something we would go to. bid. I .don't fee1' I can give . you green light until I .have the answers to that.. .Well., I. believe in perhaps the best course would be to continue this as a public . hearing to a certain date, about a month, whereby we would not then have to go to. the expense and problem of remai.ling notices because this probably costs us 7. or, 800 dollars to do that .alone. What about 6 weeks. You said Nov. _17 which i.s' the second meeting. . ...would that be a plausible. figure to shoot for? Yes. Which is .the second meeting in Nov. Can you do that? That would be satisfactory. O.K. Let' s put that date down. Did you want. to sa- somethhing, Jerr ? Yes, from what I .am hearing, it sounds like it is going to be a little bit like wastelof time' if we don't have the money to provide for Bill to provide us for a study we are asking for and the type of data they are asking for and alternatives, then how can we continue on that thing. What are you talk=.ng about, 20;000? If we can't come up with 25,000, we are waAng our. time. on it. But Jerry, that is the thing we are asking. Even if we had passed the resolution, we would have had to come up with $25, 000 that we would only have. gotten back if we went ahead with it.. I understand. All I 'm saying is that you are putting a dead line on a report--Nova when you aren't going to have the money to provide the data we are asking for. Do we have any contingency money, Mr.. Rowlands? Page 27 For _this kind of consulting fee? There is money in the contingency fund and the Council has a right to appropriate money out of that fund. Of course it isn't too plentiful and the budget is tight but we do have a contingency.. I would like to incorporate this motion. . . .I think we should also refer this to staff and the Economic Advisory Council. We are meeting this Thursday night. And let them seek out the contingency fund and make some recommendations. It is not a .budgeted item. I think we are obligated not to spend money on funds that are not budgeted unless we refer it to the Economic Advisory Council for their recommendation. So I would like to incorporate that with the time certain and call for ' the question. O.K. Do you all understand the motion that is on the floor? Did you put_ a deadline. I said Nov. 17. We can always extend that, it is just to see if it is possible to bring it back at that point. O.K. It does not conclude money expenditure at this time. O.K. Call for a vote. I would like to call for a 5 minute recess right now. i JOHN R. PHILP, M.D. HEALTH OFFICER SANTA ANA OFFICE U NTY O F 645 NORTH ROSS STREET ® SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE: 634-3131 Matting Address: P. O. Box 355 U \ AN CA E Santa Ana, California 92702 6 ANAHEIM OFFICE 1011 SOUTH EAST STREET ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE: 776-3551 HEALTH DEPARTMENT Mailing Address: P. O. Box 355 Santa Ana, California 92702 April 21, 1975 The Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach 1975 Post Office Box 190 MAY ]. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Attention: Mr. H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Subject: Proposed. Assessment District 7302 Gentlemen: As requested by Mr. H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works, , in his letter of April 3, 1975, the Health Department has investigated a proposal for an improvement district known as Assessment District 7302 in the City of Huntington i Beach. The proposed district consists of approximately 580. acres bounded in general by Main Street, Beach Boulevard, Memphis Avenue, and Goldenwest Street. Our staff has reviewed the plans and specifications of the proposed improvements and photographs of large ponded areas in the proposed district provided by the City's Department of Public Works. We have also conducted inspections of the area involved and have interviewed personnel of your public works department. As a result of our investigation, I find that the proposed improvements are necessary as a measure for the protection of public health. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, as Health Officer of the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach, I recommend .that proceedings be instituted to provide storm drainage works in the proposed assessment district 7302, as described in the "Map of Assessment District 7302, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange., State of California" and Exhibit "A" thereof. Very truly yours, 9HN �R. PHILP, M.D. Health Officer ' City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange JRP/HGS/se Attachment - Exhibit "A" N {A rr�rwr� �• °' ° ° tY 0 ° N E 0ARFIEL a ° (A pie' N J � u v 1000' ►- CLAY CA 41 AV E Q ° `? w p N I N VE. YORKT N AVE. � y E LEGEND C] 01 A DRAINAGE DISTRICT BORY( ft *ww El� ❑ W STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 0 0 0 (A � � D PK0-r06r -A90-% OP SSG 4-oV74 G a PKofociLAP+s oP lt�trZGr+v 119�P5 O '� p g 0 , ] v � mall ,J• OQ • Exhibit A ° L4J t � nC n.nnnr-1nnn 0 o UNTY OF o . © ANC E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPNONE:834-2300 AREA CODE 714 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION H. G.OSSORNE 406 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST MAILING ADORE!! DIRECTOR SANTA ANA, CA. 92701 F•O. SO[1075 SANTA ANA, CA. 92702 C.R.NELSON ASSISTANTDEVELOPMENT FILE FILE DO1 P06.20 OCT 3 1975 Mr.. H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works City of 'Huntington Beach P.O Box 190' Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Sir: This letter is in response to the. telephone request'.of Mr. Walt Hurtienne on September 29, 1975 regarding the ability of Huntington Beach Channel to acco- modate the additional flow from the proposed Adams Storm. Drain. The agency-.anticipates ►io .problems at this time in Huntington .Beach Channel as a result of the proposed Adams Storm Drain construction-. In the future, as the Huntington Beach Channel drainage area develops, . it will be necessary to increase the capacity of the Huntington Beach Pump Station by the addition of two pumps. At that time, it may be necessary to make improve- ments to Huntington Beach Channel . Very truly yours, C. R. Nelson, Assistant Director MAC:j b i 5*P.O. 1 Box 763 — 8176 Atlanta, Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 Phone (714) 536-8714 April 15, 1975 D APR 171975 Mayor Alvin M. Coen CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City of Huntington Beach (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 We, the Board of Directors of Surfside Homeowners Association No. 1, located at Atlanta and Surfwood (block east of Beach Blvd.) , are asking you, as Mayor,to please force action on the hydrology pro- blems we are having here. We have fresh water from underground sources surfacing in six locations in our area. This water started to surface and flow before the winter rains, which eliminates rain as a possible cause; its volume, however, has increased out of all proportion to our rains. Our management company has talked to representatives of the Orange County Flood Control, the Water Pollution Control District, the Huntington Beach Water Department and the Orange County Waterworks District No. 8. Each has discounted the others' conclusions, but no one has found the cause or even expressed an opinion as to what would be a solution to the problem. One very probable cause is the Flood Control canal on the west side of Surfside which empties into the ocean. The pumping .of fresh water into a salt-; water canal changes the composition of the chemical base of the soil on the bottom and sides of the canal, as well as increas= the water pressure. . This could be the cause of the water sur- facing at Surfside. Another possible cause could be the injection of fresh water underground by the Orange County Waterworks. Because of the possible causes of our problem, we are a'skting,-you-as Mayor to "cease and desist" all action on the "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" which will pump still more water into the canal on the west side of Surfside. We believe that raising the level of water in the canal will increase the underground pressure and aggravate the condition that already exists. Residents are commenting on the raised level of the canal. We want to reiterate that fresh water pumped into the canal will dissolve the salts in the floor and walls of the canal making them more permeable to water flow. We, the Board of Directors of Surfside, are taking this opportunity to inform you that we will claim restitution for all damages resulting from drainage actions. Mayor Alvin M. Coen -2- April 15, 1975 Our goal is to solve small problems before large problems develop. We desire as little publicity as possible on this hydrology problem to prevent possible real estate hysteria. We are requesting that members of our Board of Directors be present when the problem is studied and, that representatives from Orange County Flood Control, Water Pollution Control District, Huntington . Beach Water Department and Orange County Waterworks District No. 8 and any other jurisdiction concerned with water control be present. Attached you will find a petition supporting .our requests. Waiting to hear from you before further action. Please contact our management company, Ulvan Enterprises, 960-2852. SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION NO. 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS r 1 President ,, Vice President kk�rF,✓w Secretary Treasurer Board Member � Board Member � DS:vb Attachment We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and deist in any further development of the drainage system identified as `the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. AT ... _ ,lam^�: �-� •��:�/ v ,j _ , .�- t-'�!'�{--(/�}-(�)`I-^ `yam I1/` 1{.j( •(//'•f� We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of 'Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. NN IA We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system idpc}tified s the "Old Town: Drainage essment s.. ict No. 73-02. 4�1 L; cl/c- ku R122 FL�RALLIk _ (Ja, �v/ 1 " I1 C4- a v We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology- studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And-,- furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of" the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. 71 76 4- r5 V ji+:� � � `� LAC-1 -,✓ �/ ' /t-c�c'_,/�, e ,. Z2A Li We, the residents of Surfside located south �of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of -the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. �f5 A • ' VX l z, �T��mor .dam, PA At �d2,1 L H�, i - 41 We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington : Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of-new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system • identified as the "Old .Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. �. Ib Igg -2)z ,f t - f � 4 . • r ' • We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system identified as- the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. lac-/—•biGf� � 1-7 ( ( 11_c�P_cXlwL0,«- j n "'V `�J / ✓ C We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington . Beach City Council. to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore,to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. / G z L►-et_z;_ � We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Conncil to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, •to- cease and desist in any .further -development of the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. F/�L l� 7 We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system identified as the 'Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. rL is L / I J U /' // `.l '!I / J.i/'/)/!/Ji �..•' / o( �/ /J // �/[ 7 We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, ftrthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system identified Lthe "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. � tij IN _ 0 X �L/2:n,�Ujl lk1�3� 4A jj .,J�Jf►.�1: ,.1� �(c.C,�\�.+`"�171^ !L-� � C1,� �\-�..._^ it l -'-�t".� 001.a.y cx v�• 8 l g S w LD w o 1) 21 V, 6 �' We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in/any further development of the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. yz 572 y ; > 1�%,����J We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system identified as the 'Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. c r � �. a We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Huntington Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, furthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of "the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. We; the residents of Surf side located south of Atlanta it -Su:r"fwood known as Tract 5581,_ do hereby petition the members of Huntington • Beach City Council to activate extensive hydrology studies as to the causes of new fresh water springs in our tract. And, 'furthermore, to cease ana' desist in any further development of the drainage system identified as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. ORDER OF PROCEDURE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: OCTOBER 6, 1975 MAYOR: Announce that this is the time and place for the public hearing to determine whether or not the Board should proceed with the formation of the special assessment. district in what is designated ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAIN- AGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) CLERK: Announce that notice of this, public hearing has been given as designated and that the following affidavits are on file in his office: a. Affidavit of Publication b. . Certificate of Mailing c. Certificate . of Posting Streets STAFF AND CONSULTANTS : Explain general nature and extent of proposed works of improvement and boundaries of the district. Explain procedures to be followed under special assessment district financing. CLERK: Announce number of written. protests received and read protests in full OR Announce .that copies have been delivered to each member of the Council. MAYOR: Ask. first to hear from those who have filed protests. MAYOR: Ask to hear from anyone else who wishes to speak for or against the works of improvement as proposed. CITY COUNCIL: Discussion and consideration of Possible changes and. modifications to works of improvement and pro- ceedings . CITY COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS [To be presented, if. necessary, at this time] . CITY COUNCIL: By motion, declare the public hearing closed. CITY COUNCIL: By motion, overrule and deny all protests. CITY COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERM- INING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECES- SITY. (4/5ths vote required) . I 2 . ORDER OF PROCEDURE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: OCTOBER 6, 1975 MAYOR: Announce that this, is the time and place for the. public hearing to determine whether or not the Board should proceed with the formation of the special assessment _distric.t in what is designated ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAIN- AGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) CLERK: Announce that notice_ of this public hearing has been given as designated and that the following affidavits are on file in his office: a. Affidavit of Publication b. Certificate of Mailing c. Certificate of Posting Streets STAFF AND CONSULTANTS: Explain general nature and extent of proposed works of improvement and boundaries of the district. Explain procedures to be followed under special assessment district financing. CLERK: . Announce number of written protests received and read protests in full OR Announce that copies have been delivered to each member of the Council. MAYOR: Ask first to hear from those who have filed protests. MAYOR: Ask to hear from anyone else who wishes to speak for or against the works of improvement as proposed. CITY COUNCIL: Discussion and consideration of possible changes and modifications to works of improvement and pro- ceedings . CITY COUNCIL- Adopt 'RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS (To be presented, if necessary, at this time) . CITY COUNCIL: By motion, declare the public hearing closed. J I ' CITY COUNCIL: By motion, overrule and deny all protests. CITY COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERM- INING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECES- SITY. (4/5ths vote required) . 2 . MINUTES 1 Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, May 5, 1975 Mayor Gibbs called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL ' Present: Bartlett, Coen, Shipley, Gibbs Wieder - .(arrived 5:50 P.M.) Matney, Duke - (arrived 5:35 P.M.) . Absent: None 05 PRIVATE BOATING ON HUNTINGTON LAKE The Recreation and Parks Director informed Council that they had been provided with copies of a report regarding the feasibility of allowing private boating on Huntington Lake. He presented reasons why it was the recommendation of the Recreation. Commission and staff that private boating on Huntington Lake not be permitted. Mr. Michael Miller, Deputy City Attorney, addressed Council regarding the City's liability relative to the safety of persons utilizing the lake. The Director of Harbors; Beaches and ( Development recommended. that private boating not be permitted due to safety factors and proper managment of the resources. Mr. Charles P. Taylor, representing Taylor Enterprises, Huntington Central Park Concessionaire, Corona del Mar, addressed Council and distributed a brochure on the 'Huck's Huntington take Sailing Club' and explained the Club'.s function. He also. reported on the types of boats available for rental to•the public and stated. that the con.cession's sailboats were only available for club use because of safety factors. Discussion was held between the Council and Mr.. Taylor regarding his operation. The Director of Harbors, Beaches and Development suggested that a method be estab- lished to provide a means to monitor those who are qualified to operate sailboats so that persons who are not members of the sailing club can utilize the concession's sailboats. Discussion was held between the Council and the Recreation and Parks Director regarding the alternatives available. A notion was made by Councilman Coen that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare an ordinance incorporating the recommendations of the.Recreation and Parks Commmision regarding prohibiting the operation of private boats in Huntington Lake and the fee structure for services. The motion was passed by the following vote.: AYES: Wieder, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Shipley, Duke NOES: Gibbs A�SF;Y$T a NbnO OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - AD 7302' The Director of Public Works reported on the meeting which had been held between the City staff and property owners of the Old Town Drainage Assessment District on April 29, 1975. He stated that the property owners were opposed to the method of A Page #2 - Council Minutes - 5/5/75 spreading of costs and had proposed alternate methods to the formation of the assessment district. The Director of Public Works recommended that this matter proceed in the' same manner as has the Townlot Assessment District whereby a public hearing to determine need and necessity would be held prior to incurring costs. He stated that this would allow further study on the matter which the property owners had requested and that a request for funding would be made to the Economic Develop- ment Agency. , The City Administrator informed Council that the property owners and the Surfside Homeowner's Association would be kept apprised of the situation. TOWNLOT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - AD 7302� The Planning Director informed Council that his Department would be contacting Southern. California Edison Company to determine the possibility of utilizing. underground utilities. funds for the portions of Goldenwest and 17th Streets within proposed Assessment District 7302. He explained the procedure involved in the undergrounding of utilities within an assessment district as compared to the undergrounding of utilities under city ordinance. Mr. Edward Selich, Planning.Program Administrator, also reported on. the process for undergrounding utilities within an assessment district. He distributed the "Summary Report on the Townlot Specific Plan Area Two Ordinance and Townlot Assess- rent District 7302", dated May 5, 1975. Discussion was held between the Council and Planning Department Staff on various aspects of the matter. . ' y EXECUTIVE SESSvION CALLED Mayor Gibbs called an Executive Session of the Council to discuss pending litigation and personnel matters. RECESS .The Mayor called a recess of the Council. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened by Mayor Gibbs. ADJOURNMENT On motion by Bartlett, the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned. The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES:. Wieder, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Shipley, Duke, Gibbs NOES: None ABSENT: None Alicia M. Wentworth City ,Cl_erk and ex-officio Clerk ATTEST: of the City Council of the City of Huntington -Beach, California Alicia M. Wentworth Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk BY/ r � C ti' " Deputy City Clerk Norma Brandel Gibbs Mayor Page #7 - Council Minutes - 4/21/75 s° Discussion was held between Mr. F. Mackenzie Brown, Special Consultant for the Assess- ment District and Councilman Coen regarding the intent of Resolution No. 4065. I } On motion by Wieder, Council directed the City Clerk to read Resolution No. 4065 by title; waived further reading and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES: None ABSENT: None RES NO 4066 - ADOPTED - ADOPTS PLAT - AD 7301 - TOWNLOT ASSESSMENT DIST The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 4066 for a reading by title - "CITY OF HUNT- INGTON BEACH.,. CALIFORNIA - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A PLAT SHOWING. THE GENERAL NATURE, LOCATION AND EXTENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT WORK AND SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED FOR SAID IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7301 - (TOWNLOT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) ." On motion by Shipley, Council directed the City Clerk to read Resolution No. 4066 by title; waived further reading and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES: None ABSENT: None - RES NO 4067 - ADOPTED - SETS PUBLIC HEARING - MAY 19, 1975 - AD .7301✓ The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 4067 for a reading by title - "CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COVERING PRELIMINARY .DETER- MINATION THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRES CERTAIN ACQUISITION IM- PROVEMENTS IN AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING THEREON - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7301 - (TOWNLOT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) ." On motion by Bartlett, Council directed the City Clerk to ,read Resolution No. 4067 by title; waived further reading and adopted same by the following roll .call vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NOS 4068, 4069 and 4070 - ADOPTED -' AD 7302�- OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT On motion by Bartlett, Council directed the City Clerk- to read•Resolution .Nos: 4068, 4069 and 4070 by title; waived further reading and adopted same by the following roll call vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, ,Gibbs NOES: None ! ABSENT: None i RES NO 4068 - ADOPTED - READOPTS MAP SHOWING BOUNDARIES OF AD. 7302 "CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA - RESOLUTION READOPTING A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED FOR CERTAIN STORM TER DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 - (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) ." .-Page #8 - Council Minutes - 4/21/75 RES NO 4069 -ADOPTED - REQUESTS OPINION OF COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER - AD 7302 "CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA - RESOLUTION REQUESTING OPINION OF COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SANITARY STORM WATER DRAIN IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM AS A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) ." 2� RES NO 4070 - ADOPTED - DECLARES INTENTION TO ORDER CONSTRUCTION & PROVIDES FOR ISSUANCE OF BONDS - AD 7302✓ "CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES AND APPURTENANT WORK IN CONNECTION THEREWITH IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE BENEFITED BY SAID IMPROVEMENT AND TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY THE COST; AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) ." ORDINANCES ADOPTED On motion.by Coen, Council directed the City Clerk to read Ordinance Nos. 1974, 1975 and 1976. by title, waived further reading and adopted same by the following . roll call vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES: None ABSENT: None �. . •fe. ORD NO 1974 - ADOPTED - AMENDS CODE - CITY'S REFUSE COLLECTION CONTRACT. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 3111.11 THEREOF PERTAINING TO THE CITY'S REFUSE COLLECTION CONTRACT." �11 ORD NO 1975 - ADOPTED - ZONE CASE NO 73-28 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE .NORTHWEST CORNER•'OF GARFIELD AVENUE AND NEWLAND STREET (ZONE CASE NO. 73-28) ." -/0-s•) ORD NO 1976 - ADOPTED - INSURANCE LIABILITY LIMITS "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 7496 THEREOF AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2328; 6189.9, 1495 AND 7912.1 THEREOF ALL PERTAINING TO INSURANCE LIABILITY LIMITS." ORDINANCES - FIRST READING On motion by Duke, Council directed the City Clerk to read Ordinance Nos: 1977 and 1979 by title and waived further reading by the following vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES: None . ABSENT: None ti � i Page #3 - Council Minutes - 4/28/75 Councilwoman Wieder suggested that a Council Committee be formed to evaluate the information which has been provided to the Council. Mayor Gibbs appointed a Council Committee compr.ic;ed of (­ jncilman Ship.Ley, Councilwoman Wieder and herself for this purpose. OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - AD 7302 The City Administrator reported that a meetin,.3 b(�I_ween the staff and property owners within the Old Town Drainage Assessment District had been scheduled on Tuesday, April 29, 1975, regarding the formation of the proposed district. The City Administrator suggested that some of the Council members may wish to attend this meeting. The Director of Public Works reported on a proposal to obtain the services of Don Stevens Engineers relative to performing the spread of costs. Mr. Charles Geers addressed Council and stated that he would prefer to see alternate methods used in lieu of forming an assessment district. _11 1,x SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - WATER PROBLEMS Discussion was held between the Council and the Director of Public Works regarding the Surfside Homeowner's Association water problem, and the association's repre- sentatives were invited to attend the meeting on the subject which will be held between the Department of Public Works, the Orange County Flood Control District and the Water District on April 29, 1975. REPORT - SAN JOA UIN RESERVOIR Mr. Michael Miller, Deputy City Attorney, reported on the San Joaquin Reservoir Lease Agreement between the City and the Irvine Ranch Water District. /IR - ' WATER RATE STUDY The City Administrator informed Council that they had been provided with copies of the proposed water rate study prepared by the Water Division of the Department of Public Works and that a report would be forthcoming from the Economic Advisory Commission on the matter. HUNTINGTON CENTER OFF-RAMP - AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED The Director of Public Works reported that proposals had been received from two traffic engineering firms to perform a study relative to the need for a freeway offramp at Huntington Center. He recommended that. Donald Frischer, Engineering Consultant, be retained to perform the study due to his familiarity with the sub- ject. He informed Council that the expenditure of funds could be derived from Gas Tax Funds with the City to pay one-half with the property owners to the north and Huntington Center sharing the remainder. A motion was made by Councilman Shipley to approve in principle the procedure I described by the Director of Public Works and authorize the preparation of a doc- ument effecting an agreement between Donald Frischer, Engineering Consultant, in an amount not to exceed $3,000 to be derived from Gas Tax Funds, and auth- orized the City Administrator to execute same on behalf of the City. The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Wieder, Coen NOES: None •'1w(� ABSENT: Mdtney, Duke ` ' f Page #4 - Council Minutes - 4/28/75 �1 L EXECUTIVE SESSION CALLED Mayor Gibbs called an Executive Session of the Council to discuss personnel matters. RECESS The Mayor called a recess of the Council, excused the City Clerk from .the meeting and appointed Councilman Bartlett to act as Acting City Clerk .at such time as Council is reconvened. RECONVENE. The meeting was reconvened by Mayor Gibbs. ADJOURNMENT On motion by Bartlett, the Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned. The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Wieder, Coen NOES: None ABSENT:. Mdtney, Duke City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth Norma Brandel Gibbs City Clerk Mayor so RESOLUTION NO. 4068 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION READOPTING A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED FOR CERTAIN STORM WATER DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS , this City Council has now received an amended map showing the proposed boundaries of the area proposed to be assessed for certain storm water drain improvements in a special assessment district in the City of Huntington Beach, in what is to be known as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That a map of the assessment district showing and describing the boundaries of the proposed assessment district and lands and property to be specially assessed to pay certain costs and expenses of the proposed improvements designated as "Proposed Boundaries of Amended Assessment District Boundary Map of Old Town Drainage Assessment District, Assessment District No. 7302 , City of Huntington Beach, California, " hereby submitted and the same is hereby approved. SECTION 3 . That the original map of said proposed boundaries of the assessment district, and one copy thereof, be filed in the office of the City Clerk and a copy thereof in the office of the Superintendent of Streets . SECTION 4 . The City Clerk is directed to endorse on the original and on at least one copy of the map of the assessment district as herein referred to, a certificate evidencing the date and adoption of this resolution, and said Clerk is further directed to file the original of such in his office and within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the resolution fixing the time and place of the hearing on the formation or extent of said district, the Clerk is further di- rected to file a copy of said map with the endorsement thereon with the County Recorder all in the manner and form provided for in Section 3111 of .the Streets and Highways Code of the State of -California. SECTION 5 • That the proceedings for the construction of said improvements are proposed to be conducted pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and further, to be financed through bonds to issue pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915, " being Division 10 of said Code. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2 day of Anril , 1975 . C�- _ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ATTEST: HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON P. BONFA City Attorney CITY CLERK OF THE.,�CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA I i BY: Deputy City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH , City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 4068 , was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of April 19 75 , and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES : COUNCILMEN: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES : COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None DATED this 21ct_ day of _ April 19 75 . CITY CLERK OF THE CITY,' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 4069 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION REQUESTING OPINION OF COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SANITARY STORM WATER DRAIN IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM AS A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS, this City Council is now considering the formation of a special assessment district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construc- tion of certain storm water drain improvements, together with appurte- nances and appurtenant work in what is known and designated as : ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS , this City Council has received information that the construction of certain storm water drain- improvements, together with appurtenances is necessary as a public health measure and this Board requests the opinion of the Health Officer of the County of Orange, California, relative to said necessity; and, WHEREAS, the area proposed to be included within the boundaries of the proposed assessment district and the general nature, location and extent of the proposed sanitary sewer works of improvement are as shown on a plat attached hereto, referenced and incorporated. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That the Health Officer of the County of Orange, California, is hereby requested to investigate the necessity for the installation and construction of a sanitary sewer system, together with acquisition of necessary easements and rights of way where necessary, including appurtenances and all appurtenant work, as it relates to the proposed special assessment district so designated and entitled: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) SECTION 3 . That the proposed improvements and the area pro- posed to be assessed for said improvements are as shown on a plat previously referenced and attached hereto. SECTION 4 . That the Health Officer shall further make a recommendation as to the necessity of special assessment proceedings under the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " as a health measure and this request and recommendation is made pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTION 5. That a copy of this Resolution, with the map attached, shall be immediately transmitted to the County Health Officer and the written opinion and recommendation of said Health Officer shall be returned to this Board for consideration at the earliest convenience. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of Avril 1975 . MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON P. BONFA CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF City Attorney HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA By. Deputy City Attorney -2- F-' Ul •• O O OC $ O ~ a LF (A 0 5(A1 0 0 LA 713 LA CLAY-------j 1000' u o n Q O W7/ O ^^ MANS ION AVE. Y TC AVE. ICHITA N EE A LEGEND CJ WTICA DRAINAGE DISTRICT BDW�••mmmw H $y STORM DRAIN SYSTEM � Elv PH0?OGr�VrK OF Dw, (-I I V 7 4 G l--PKOTO Q$LAPMy QP N AI LGN(i 1-;Pb C) a W O F+ vpump cK IGGIrTJon15 13 13 »<AEaTsAV la 00 nrnnnnnnn STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. nntia , was duly passed, approved and adopted .by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of April 19 75 , and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES : COUNCILMEN: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES : COUNCILMEN : None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None DATED this 22nd day of Ajar;1 19 75 . . • � arc%/�� - CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. '4070 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC •IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES AND APPURTENANT WORK IN CONNECTION THEREWITH IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE BENEFITED BY SAID IMPROVE- MENT AND TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY THE COST; AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS . ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT SECTION 1 . In its opinion, the public interest, conven- ience and necessity require , and it is the intention of said City Council to order the following work and improvements, to wit : The construction of certain storm water drain improve- ments together with appurtenances and appurtenant work including necessary acquisition and appurtenances in a special assessment district and generally within portions of the following streets : ADAMS AVENUE DELAWARE STREET YORKTOWN AVENUE GARFIELD AVENUE BEACH BOULEVARD and other streets and easements, and for particulars, reference is further made to the map attached hereto, showing the proposed works of improvement and the boundaries of the assessment district, said map hereby referenced and incorporated herein. Fur further particulars as to a description of the proposed works of improvement , reference is hereby made to the previously approved pro- posed boundary map on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. A. Said streets and highways are more particularly shown in the records in the Office of the County Recorder and shall be shown upon the plans herein referred to and to be filed with. the Clerk of said City. B. All of said work and improvements are to be con- structed at the places and in the particular loca- tions , of the forms , sizes , dimensions and materials , and at the lines , grades and elevations as shown and delineated upon `the plans , profiles and specifications to be made therefor, as hereinafter provided. r C. The descriptions of the improvements and the termini of the work contained in this Resolution are general in nature. All items of work do not necessarily extend for the full length of the description thereof. The plans and profiles of the work as contained in the Engineer ' s Report, shall be controlling as to the correct and detailed description thereof. D. Whenever any public way is herein referred to as running between two public ways , or from or to any public way, the intersections of the public ways re- ferred to are included to the extent that work shall be shown on the plans to be done therein . E. Notice is hereby given of the fact that in many cases said work and improvement will bring the finished work to a grade different from that formerly existing, and that to said extent said grades are hereby changed and that said work will be done to said changed grades. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SECTION 2 . That the said work and improvement is of more than local or ordinary public benefit and this City Council hereby makes the expenses of said work and improvement chargeable upon a' district, which said assessment district said City Council hereby declares to be the district benefited and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, including incidental expenses and costs , and which is described as follows : All that certain territory situated in Huntington Beach, California, included within the exterior boundary lines shown on the plat exhibiting the property affected or benefited by or to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses of said work and improvement in said special assessment district, which said Plat is titled and identified as "Proposed Boundaries of which said Map was heretofore approved by the City Council of said City, which said Map or Diagram is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, EXCEPTING from the area shown within and delineated upon said Map or Plat hereinabove referred to, the area of all public streets , public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives , public courts , public alleys and all easements and rights of way therein con- tained belonging to the public . For all particulars as to the bound- aries of, the assessment district, reference is hereby made to said Proposed Boundary Map. REPORT OF ENGINEER SECTION 3 . This proposed improvement is hereby referred to X William Hartge, Director of Engineering and Public Works, and he is hereby directed to make and file with the City Clerk a "Re- . port" in. writing containing the following: 1 . Plans and specifications of the proposed improvements . 2 . An estimate of the cost of the proposed improvement, including the cost of the incidental expenses in connection therewith. 3 . A Diagram showing the Assessment District above referred to, which shall also show -2- r r the boundaries and dimensions of the respective subdivisions of land within said City, as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention, each of which subdivisions shall be given a separate number upon said Diagram. 4 . A proposed assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the proposed improvement upon the several divisions of land in said City in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such subdivisions , respectively from said im- provement , Said assessment shall refer to such subdivisions upon said Diagram by the respective numbers thereof . 5 • Description of the works of improvement and easements to be acquired under said proceedings . When any portion or percentage of the cost and expenses of the improvements is to be paid from sources other than assessments , the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be deducted from the total estimated cost and expenses of said improvements , and said assessment shall include only the remainder of the estimated cost and expenses . Said assessment shall refer to said subdivisions by their respective numbers as assigned pursuant to subdivision (4) of this section , BONDS SECTION 4 . Notice is hereby given that serial bonds to represent the unpaid assessments, and bear interest at .the rate of not to exceed eight percent (8%) per annum, will be issued hereunder in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915 , " being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the last installment of which bonds shall mature a maximum of and not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from the second day of July next suc- ceeding ten (10) months from their date. The provisions of Part 11. 1 of said Act, providing an alterna- tive procedure for the advance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds shall apply. The principal amount of the bonds maturing each year shall be other than an amount equal to an even annual proportion of the aggregate principal of the bonds , and the amount of principal maturing in each year, plus the amount of interest payable in that year will be , generally an aggregate amount that is equal each year, except for the '. first. year 's adjustments. Said bonds shall be payable at the office of the City Treasurer, City of Huntington Beach, California, and said assessment installments will be collected along with the general county taxes in the manner and form as set forth by law. -3- "MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913" SECTION 5 , Except as herein otherwise provided for the issuance of bonds , all of said improvement shall be made and ordered pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code . SURPLUS FUNDS SECTION 6 . If any excess shall be realized from the assess- ment, it shall be used, in such amounts as the City Council may determine, in accordance with the provisions of law for one or more of the following purposes : (a) Transfer to the general fund of the City, provided that the amount of any such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000 . 00) or five percent (5%) of the total amount expended from the improvement fund; (b) As a credit upon the assessment and any supplemental assessment; or (c) For the maintenance of the improvement. SPECIAL FUND SECTION 7 . The legislative body hereby establishes a special fund designated "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 , ADVANCE ACCOUNT" into which the City Council may at any time transfer funds to expedite the making of the improvement herein authorized and said funds are a loan and shall be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of assessment bonds as authorized by law. PRIVATE CONTRACT SECTION 8 . Notice is hereby given that, in the opinion of the City Council, the public interest will not be served by allowing the property owners to take the contract for the construction of the improvements and that, pursuant to Section 10502 . 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, no notice of award of contract need be published. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY SECTION 9 . That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California and Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code, notice is hereby given that a hearing will be held by the City Council to find and determine whether the public convenience and necessity require said work or improvement and whether the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" shall apply thereto. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of April 1975. ATTEST: �1? MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA :.. AS TO FORM: DON F. BONFA .CITY CLERK OF THE_. CITY OF C-ax HUNTINGTON BEACH, •CAI,IFORNIA 4_ Bq.. --, ��.: .. .�..a..�.... Doh ,tv City Attornei+ H N •• O O C� cx O ~ O O RRE 0 AV F0 A o H W A J v 1000' `r- U CLAY o p Q Z Oo w p YORKT N AWE FIQMANSTNAV .. EE p LEGEND JVTICA DRAINAGE DISTRICT 10 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM N t- PKoU&a AVrW of Dbr.. (o,iV 7 4 G FHOT04>LAVHI� OF HAIWKV 09% p D1:1 p P4Mp1t lGc13 tt>(,OrTIoN$ o W 9AWAEATS g D la ,J a C.� D nnnnnnnn STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 4070 , was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of April , 19 75 , and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES : COUNCILMEN: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES : COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None DATED this 22nd day of April 19 75 . r CITY CLERK OF THE 'CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.,-. CALIFORNIA (SEAL) April 1, 1975 W E APR 3 1975 VTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Mayor Alvin M. Coen, Councilman ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Huntington Beach City Council , ~' P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mayor Coen: We, Committee for review of alternate proposals for alleviating the problems of drainage in "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD73-02" , are asking you as Councilman to postpone all actions planned by city staff until we have an opportunity to study, "in depth" , different solutions. We realize that it is the easy solution for staff to solve all problems with taxes and more taxes; but, a little more work on their part and a little more input on our part will circumvent a heavier burden for the already overloaded taxpayers. You an elected Councilman and taxpayer realized before you decided to run for office, that many inequities happen in all forms of government. We are requesting a study session with city councilmen and what- ever city official you deam necessary, to study the various facets of the problem. We are confident that you as our elected representative and our committee will be able to reach a more satisfying solution to all concerned. Very truly urs, Mr. Charles Geers Mr. Clyde Wampler other members of the Committee Mr. Rodney B. Lauter, AIA Ms. Mildred Standifer Mr. Mike Perez Ms. Frances Tjomsland Mr. Larry Seskes Mr. Dick Hammond CERTIFIED MAIL PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUCIL . • We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings .on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what we believe . are inequities in proration of costs and- benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23, PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER 44. ell I , ! ILI 3 qq J17� rAl l:► 1 llpl,3z •�� � a¢ /,/ �YZ-- �y� z -c- 7zXz jz .17 !.r SWi )-; -. `) I.is 3.7 Y3 t'-? �Lt�� :fit tie- 9 3 2 E� . 1 PETITION TO HUNTINGTO,,, BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town. Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what vie believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and .to provide time for the people to consider alternate pr000sals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73--23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER 4A , �7. ,' � ,/ f.'l'.. ,✓ .. .:41 G 1. �76-Lt.�,�c�_; i�F. !-'.�Lz ti' ��� ��i h PETITION TO HUNT INIGTON. BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed -assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate pr000sals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact .Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS ( NUMBER �r .'Yi.r�t: .`,�l�l:(V t�l.ti' ✓ / C` �.( 1�?C.i.-r< C✓ _'fi.l 3 { o , -3 Cl, 6-4 �, Sod �'IR,t;�6 s 3(� q 3v +,•sir "�, .L. !/ ./Iv Lie. _4 5�JZ41? 4 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ° We, the undersigned, °hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings -on "Old Torn Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER .i -o 7 1 _ /`C L•��1� /7 V ' _J Lr' � 1 ed 0 � s , 1;�t:.T•. An7)':Z:;S� T3TC���-� 't;�.r:`.Fil�t N ����. �° �Ja.:coC_ �lD 7 ���` c ,...c�- 5 310 -/� 93 • 167/ jet f �orn , t` 53. 77 4 PETITION TO 4U�INTaI'GTON BEACH CITY COUiXIL Vie, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the 'Lormal ,hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-0211 in order to review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time forthe people to consider alternate proposals, and tho.se presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER J o 1� 1 //� , J,�, i t t'lLC 1-)())1L t t-4a �FIL�U�(1 ��'z���C. L 0, 1' i If Al C- x" �Y, n / _�3 '��J . '� 'V �';' / ✓ 7 /.ems" fir.' rne,/�;�.,,� `w �.A`_t/ iJ /CJ I'~ r O �'r1+`.r'r � A 0 }�A'••T•, A�)7)tt'�SS 1 �. - r3iC��� � ?'?:�3 1 ' t ; n - + i. PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District -AD 73-02i1 in order to review what we believe aie inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in th.e Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER ' ) r \ , - / na Ire '/ ,�,, •,fir.." .riti..p. ./. .r 77 '041A _ ":'i� ! J +GdCt! ,.J: .d% i! 1!_r+'•'r'�rrj-,,`! i...f �,'� .�':� � r I x- cam, j� Cho U c. art CP G J 2- S PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COui\rIL We, the unders'gned, hereby resolve that the .City Council d of Huntington Beay postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town � R e�ssesmt is* 2 in or er o review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in ;the;,Environmental Impact Report 73-23, PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER ko �•_fin_- - �- �.L-k �/ / 7 �Z e, / -� �� _ 'f / c5 71,1 IJ-1 11 4P o o r-. 5 (�.�- ;,�, w u. } �.,1�.i�,.�M o-�•t� 1£o l FkAo o,a � C .S`3 J - a ti PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL we, the undersigned, hereby .resolve that the City Council. of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what vie believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time -for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER v / � 2 S) 02 6 2 CA jj26 0 zq 4 LOA 41 kf,a A.C�_`,� (`moo?l d ►L _ _ . .. o ' � 2 �z o, r- A 1 tl/� J I ern' r. nn7�Tt�s F11031•: ?:T.r:rB1 r f N/ZlL- � tl�y�'✓ / a c�-� c�/� /I / r'e!\ C-cA /V 3 V6IT All/z. O . PETITION TO HUNTIhGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment Distript AD 7.3-02" .in order to review what vie believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the- many people involved in the proposed assessment district, I� \' and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, ` . and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER r 1 ` Ac 76 ( 94/ 7 Y..Z. a * 3� � �5 v Via. t 1�M.TT 3 r A G �� r a PETITION TO, HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in .the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER S" d OT16PGC► i b 41111 .91 t� � y 1� 6 zi i ✓u S5 6 - 7 � le d ? - 7 -J'-� G �' 6- eLo I x rn't -rhAl g 1 rrnC:r �'h4 kc j a f — /81D AL _ PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL. We, the undersigned, hereby resolve thatDthe City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, . and those presented in the' Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE, v NAME ADDRESS NUMBER L G f ftt��'9 �� n ` t e� 7799— tr Alc - 739� .l viol. 3� ,i O i v ' l/7 '��'� q '�` •G./ /'ice �3''• C�.,� "o l•� .-�..Gc.-�C- G C.G=i.iC�.�-t �C-��'`.'!�� f �� �i $ '.}'�!.( `�-T / ,,`b��;..�' l AA ZW Al a -a M ..� r ,tG ! S�• 1 ; 11A'.•T.•. A�7)�t��S Flfn�•. �;(r,:`BIR . 70/ .� 0. 7.1 r 71r &-��&Je c 06 Lk la i:Da G SAC h 6� -V /� �� n�`Z� tic��'• �G�j' ii�� .C�Cam. . . eA �� a PETITION TO' HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve thatcthe City Council of Huntington Beach Postpone `the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District,,AD 73-02" in order to -review what we believe are inequities in proration "of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, ' . .. and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER L G��Yt6C L 'mot. ✓ C d ` ��L '�/ 5 3 . LL 7l ire 4r —D U ' _ 1�11'.T . ,_ , t_ n � C _f .t+� � i . ' � _-- .�. . -.. t -� � � - PETITION TO HUNTIN*TON . BEACH CITY COUNICIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to. review what we' believe are inequities in proration of costs and be to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER Y / �.4Z � .v..,v-mac.n 1.9, `7��•-cp-�Q..� � '�r��� ��.,t'�.-�,�.�� 8 �. �. .2 � 7L ci 9- %, .('�/5� /d 6 �� �` 1`'L-!�l`�•rri i�L� /7'-(�►�L�t-:Ji ch-y/ �•-�o� G/�h7' ...�1 i�T'��j�(�•�iLfi 1-C�.%C.� / f E.:� �.:- / =�G�"�Z.Lf�i./yG� � CJ T' 7 I-A �✓ '. -. '��� .. 7.S'.5l S/%f' ��< Comae' f� J�✓s cS'Y— 2 LiA 7219 -S�A I i M PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved' in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Repot 73-23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER �� el.4 C 3��" PETITION TO HUNTINGTOi\i BEACH{ CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what vie believe are inequities in proration of costs .and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report -73--23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER .-J {Ji��L�• 4. �. L� J X 1. � : ry i I PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach. postpone the formal hearings on. "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in. •order to review what vie believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to .the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented. in- the. Environmental Impact Report 73-23. PHONE NAME. ADDRESS NUMBER , U C 3 6. Ad L�C.J C•. tip' _ J�� � �5 � r i 2- it ^ 11 -3 .3 ? A' PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL 101e , the undersigned , hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" in order to review what we believe are inequities in proration of costs and benefits to the many people involved in the proposed assessment district, and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73-23. �-�Y� -�✓�-_._ - _ _- PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER � - �Jl ��)•% f,7 7 1 i J� = .1 T 3 Ohx� If ,I, 04< q&C) -1�s.ss.=C/`cel � c ✓��r���is � ����(��..�.-��C/✓rL� ���. "��d -%y���j 4 , PF'TTT1OH TO F{MUTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach postpone the formal hearings on "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02'" in order to review what we believe are inequitie's in proration of costs and benefits to the many people irivolved in the proposed assessment district, _ and to provide time for the people to consider alternate proposals, and those presented in the Environmental Impact Report 73--23. PHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER ��.I7, �//) ..) � / /C-� J-- `+„� ' Y•erg,. � r �S/��/��/ . IL12 csJnScca-ALI o 3 _. �S ' L -36 lvt (IC\2 4,Z 7 rf 2-1 2U G��v FLi� 5 36 - 73 1(2 �. ak, 3 ) r c1_eJe + +October 11, 1975r`. City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Members of the City Council: We attended the October 6 Council meeting concerning the Old Town Assessment District and you are to be commended for the honesty, integrity and particu- larly your insight which resulted in some kind of reasonable action. You were all particularly honest about admitting that sufficient facts had not been made available to you previous to this meeting nor did they seem to be available for you and the public at this public hearing. It was obvious that you had not been given the proper homework to make such an important economic and environmental decision. ' Although we do not live in the Surfside area we could easily sympathize with those who do since it seems that there has been little or no thought given to past actions of city departments (the letter of acceptance read by a local realtor) or to what will actually happen when the proposed storm drain empties into the already existing facility. ti Surprisingly, and distressingly, most of the direct and useful information that eventually resulted came from members of the audience and we would like to briefly mention some of the points made. The man who has been a consulting engineer for many years gave a very concise evaluation of the speculative figures used by City staff members. He, as an owner of undeveloped land and another participant who also has undeveloped land, were more than fair in offering to carry the future burden of this assessment district; however, they both had the complete support of the audience when they suggested that a more equitable allocation of the costs must be made. Another participant mentioned that the water could be pumped back into the ground since this flood condition only occurs once or twice a year and although Mr. Karche mumbled his dissent, the Mayor evidently has seen this very thing accomplished in Long Beach. With all of the leftover oil drilling pumps which were sometimes used to pump water down into a well to force oil out in this area, this idea may be worth more than a mumbled dissent. A younger man spoke about the costs to the landowner with undeveloped property and seemed to think that because nothing was done fifty years ago ((when every drop of rain was needed for crops and when undoubtedly what would have been sufficient then, would not serve now) the property owners who have built since then must bear most of the costs now. These lontime property owners have been taxed for many years for streets, schools, sewers, libraries, parks, etc. (and even a storm drain item appears on our current tax bills) so that he and his family can enjoy modern suburban life. We agree that this project should possibly have been done ten years ago, and since Mr. Bartlett admitted to his shortsightedness, we can blame him for our current predicament, but just possibly he recognized then, as was indicated last Council meeting, that the Huntington Beach City staff employees had not provided adequate planning or clearly developed conclusions. Huntington Beach City Council (2) 10/11/75 We were touched by Mr. larche's concern to keep costs down by eliminating the $700 mailing to homeowners for the November 17th public hearing. Since this would only be about 3% of the $.2-5,,,000 estimated for a preliminary study i perhaps it would not be unreasonable to expect a fact sheet on findings could be included with: a recommended course of.action to be taken to inform and educate the Council and the public on"this issue. Sincerely, Jeanne Andrew-`Mitchell N611 e Carroll Dorothy Madrid Hedda Murphy a HUNT±NG fi; i I A.C:Ii,.CAI IF. October 11, 1975 V-5 OCT OCT 171975 DU Dear Council Members: I would like to commend each of you for the objective, patient inquiry you conducted at last week's Council meeting about the Old Town Assessment District problem. But I also feel it may be your duty to reprimand employees of the City of Huntington Beach, particularly Mr. Karche, Public Works Administrator and members of his staff who prepared such a disastrously poor presentation. His ambiguous, factless report represented the prevailing attitude of many public employees that the public should hever be given direct answers, but must be satisfied to meekly accept bureaucratieze and go home frustrated but helpless. This situation was, in fact., mentioned by one of the speakers from the audience. Mr. Karche seemed to believe that, as our elected representatives, you members of the Council were not entitled to clearly stated conclusions. However, he indicated if ample funds are allocated for preliminary study, without the need for justification by the department, the staff may have more information for you and for us. I don't believe anyone has to be a genius to translate the figures he had already received. In fact, another person in the audience explained them very'understandably. Even though his conclusions may have been faulty (using someone else's figures) it was at least worded in simple English and given in a straight- forward thoughtful manner. I object to the expenditure for maintaining a `Public Works staff for planning, engineering and proposal work is evidently done by business firms. Possibly the funds necessary for a preliminary study could be saved by reductions in the Public Works staff; the Economic Advisory Committee could then assign the job to a.,4siness firm who must guarantee to present some reasonable figures and conclusions at the November 17th public hearing. One yearly salary or one and a half would easily cover this cost. My proposition is that we can't really reduce government costs altogether by kicking around elected officials only. In fact I believe in your cases we're even getting free or very cheap labor which we appreciate once in awhile. As citizens we also need to insist that civil employees earn their salaries and the complete security they enjoy. Last week's meeting was a flagrant example that we're not getting what we're paying for. Sincerely, Jeanne Andrew 730 ;, F. MACKENZIE BROWN 979-4930 _ 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE 101 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 (213) 489-5006 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013 April 11, 1975 Mr. William Hartge, Director Engineering & Public Works Z/O71 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Assessment District No. 7302 (Old Tow'nDrainage Assessment District) Dear Bill: Enclosed herein find the following: 1. Resolution Readopting Boundary Map 2 . Resolution Requesting Opinion of County Health Officer 3 . Resolution of Intention These three resolutions , it is my understanding, will be presented - to the City Council for consideration at their meeting scheduled for the 21st of April, 1975. Upon their adoption, the Resolution Re- questing Opinion of County Health Officer, together with a map show- ing the boundaries of the proposed assessment district, should be transmitted to said Health Officer for his report and recommendation as to the necessity for the construction of storm water drains within the proposed assessment district. At this time, it will not be necessary to file with the County Recorder any amended maps showing the proposed boundaries of the assessment district, and I will further instruct you at the appropriate time for the filing of said maps. Upon adoption of the enclosed resolutions , I would appreciate conformed .copies transmitted to this office. Thank you. Very truly yours , F. Mackenzie Brown FMB/j Enclosures CC. Alicia M. Wentworth /� RESOLUTION NO, 4070 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES AND APPURTENANT WORK IN CONNECTION THEREWITH IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO, BE BENEFITED BY SAID IMPROVE- MENT AND TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY THE COST; AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT SECTION 1. In its opinion, the public interest, conven- ience and necessity require , and it is the intention of said City Council to order the following work and improvements, to wit ; The construction of certain storm water drain improve- ments together with appurtenances and appurtenant work including necessary acquisition and appurtenances in a special assessment district and generally within portions of the following streets : ADAMS AVENUE DELAWARE STREET YORKTOWN AVENUE GARFIELD AVENUE BEACH BOULEVARD and other streets and easements , and for particulars, reference is further made to the map attached hereto, showing the proposed works of improvement and the boundaries of the assessment district, said map hereby referenced and incorporated herein. Fur further particulars as to a description of the proposed works of improvement , reference is hereby made to the previously approved pro- posed boundary map on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. A. Said streets and highways are more particularly shown in the records in the Office of the County Recorder and shall be shown upon the plans herein referred to and to be filed with the Clerk of said City . B. All of said work and improvements are to be con- structed at the places and in the particular loca- tions , of the forms , sizes , dimensions and materials , and at the lines , grades and elevations as shown and delineated upon the plans , profiles and specifications to be made therefor , as hereinafter provided. C. The descriptions of the improvements and the termini of the work contained in this Resolution are general in nature. All items of work do not necessarily extend for the full length of the description thereof . The plans and profiles of the work as contained in the Engineer' s Report, shall be controlling as to the correct and detailed description thereof. D. Whenever any public way is herein referred to as running between two public ways , or from or to any public way, the intersections of the public ways re- ferred to are included to the extent that work shall be shown on the plans to be done therein . E. Notice is hereby given of the fact that in many cases said work and improvement will bring the finished work to a grade different from that formerly existing, and that to said extent said grades are hereby changed and that said work will be done to said changed grades. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SECTION 2 . That the said work and improvement is of more than local or ordinary public benefit and this City Council hereby makes the expenses of said work and improvement chargeable upon a district, which said assessment district said City Council hereby declares to be the district benefited and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, including incidental expenses and costs, and which is described as follows : All that certain territory situated in Huntington Beach, California, included within the exterior boundary lines shown on the plat exhibiting the property affected or benefited by or to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses of said work and improvement in said special assessment district, which said Plat is titled and identified as "Proposed Boundaries of which said Map was heretofore approved by the City Council of said City, which said Map or Diagram is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, EXCEPTING from the area shown within and delineated upon said Map or Plat hereinabove referred to, the area of all public streets, public avenues, public lanes , public roads, public drives , public courts , public alleys and all easements and rights of way therein con- tained belonging to the public . For all particulars as to the bound- aries of the assessment district, reference is hereby made to said Proposed Boundary Map. REPORT OP ENGINEER SECTION 3. This proposed improvement is hereby referred to William Hartge, Director of Engineering and Public Works, and he is hereby directed to make and file with the City Clerk a "Re- port" in writing containing the following : 1 . Plans and specifications of the proposed improvements . 2 . An estimate of the cost of the proposed improvement, including the cost of the incidental expenses in connection therewith. 3 . A Diagram showing the Assessment District above referred to, which shall also show -2- the boundaries and dimensions of the respective subdivisions of land within said City , as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention, each of which subdivisions shall be given a separate number upon said Diagram. 4 . A proposed assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the proposed improvement upon the several divisions of land in said City in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such subdivisions , respectively from said im- provement . Said assessment shall refer to such subdivisions upon said Diagram by the respective numbers thereof . 5 . Description of the works of improvement and easements to be acquired under said proceedings . When any portion or percentage of the cost and expenses of the improvements is to be paid from sources other than assessments, the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be deducted from the total estimated cost and expenses of said improvements, and said assessment shall include only the remainder of the estimated cost and expenses . Said assessment shall refer to said subdivisions by their respective numbers as assigned pursuant to subdivision (4) of this section. BONDS SECTION 4. Notice is hereby given that serial bonds to represent the unpaid assessments , and bear interest at the rate of not to exceed eight percent (8%) per annum, will be issued hereunder in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915, " being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the last installment of which bonds shall mature a maximum of and not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from the second day of July next suc- ceeding ten (10) months from their date. The provisions of Part 11. 1 of said Act, providing an alterna- tive procedure for the advance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds shall apply. The principal amount of the bonds maturing each year shall be other than an amount equal to an even annual proportion of the aggregate principal of the bonds, and the amount of principal maturing in each year, plus the amount of interest payable in that year will be generally an aggregate amount that is equal each year, except for the first year ' s adjustments. Said bonds shall be payable at the office of the City Treasurer, City of Huntington Beach, California, and said assessment installments will be collected along with the general county taxes in the manner and form as set forth by law. -3- "MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913" SECTION 5. Except as herein otherwise provided for the issuance of bonds , all of said improvement shall be made and ordered pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " being Division 12 of the Streets and highways Code . SURPLUS FUNDS SECTION 6 . If any excess shall be realized from the assess- ment , it shall be used, in such amounts as the City Council may determine, in accordance with the provisions of law for one or more of the following purposes : (a) Transfer to the general fund of the City, provided that the amount of any such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of One Thousand Dollars ($1 , 000 . 00) or five percent (5%) of the total amount expended from the improvement fund; (b) As a credit upon the assessment and any supplemental assessment; or (c) For the maintenance of the improvement . SPECIAL FUND SECTION 7 . The legislative body hereby establishes a special fund designated "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 , ADVANCE ACCOUNT" into which the City Council may at any time transfer funds to expedite the making of the improvement herein authorized and said funds are a loan and shall be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of assessment bonds as authorized by law. PRIVATE CONTRACT SECTION 8 . Notice is hereby given that , in the opinion of the City Council, the public interest will not be served by allowing the property owners to take the contract for the construction of the improvements and that, pursuant to Section 10502 . 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, no notice of award of contract need be published. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY SECTION 9. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California and Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code, notice is hereby given that a hearing will be held by the City Council to find and determine whether the public convenience and necessity require said work or improvement and whether the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" shall apply thereto. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2 st day of April , 1975. ATTEST: MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA _ AS TO FORM; DON F. $ONFA CITY CLERK OF HE CITY OF C1tz At.L9=03 WAA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA --4- Bps - ►.• - �+ ••w*--� Do-- .v City Attorr,« ' � f i •s ° O lQY x LA v `^ 0 �� O a pp ❑ LA } J U t" Iwo, LA C LAY Oo LMANSIQN- -AV YORKTC A��/E. CA ICHITA (A EE LEGEND = U DRAINAGE DISTRICT HOR't 10-4� #(A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 0 0 0u' Photo(xQ AP►4* IF Pt<- I V 7 a o ❑ o $ PHo TO 4iZA?Hly OP H A I LGN(,119 r6 0 WW O PNMPIwiG wv.A'TIONS o Q ° AVE O W >EAEaTs J D Iq J Q D D nnnnnnnn STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 4070 , was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of April 19 75 , and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit : AYES : COUNCILMEN : Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES : COUNCILMEN : None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN : None DATED this 22nd day of April 19 75 . CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 4069 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION REQUESTING OPINION OF COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SANITARY STORM WATER DRAIN IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM AS A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS, this City Council is now considering the formation of a special assessment district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construc- tion of certain storm water drain improvements, together with appurte- nances and appurtenant work in what is known and designated as: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS , this City Council has received information that the construction of certain storm water drain improvements, together with appurtenances is necessary as a public health measure and this Board requests the opinion of the Health Officer of the County of Orange, California, relative to said necessity; and, WHEREAS, the area proposed to be included within the boundaries of the proposed assessment district and the general nature, location and extent of the proposed sanitary sewer works of improvement are as shown on a plat attached hereto, referenced and incorporated. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That the Health Officer of the County of Orange, California, is hereby requested to investigate the necessity for the installation and construction of a sanitary sewer system, together with acquisition of necessary easements and rights of way where necessary, including appurtenances and all appurtenant work, as it relates to the proposed special assessment district so designated and entitled: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) SECTION 3. That the proposed improvements and the area pro- posed to be assessed for said improvements are as shown on a plat previously referenced and attached hereto. SECTION 4 . That the Health Officer shall further make a recommendation as to the necessity of special assessment proceedings under the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " as a health measure and this request and recommendation is made pursuant to the provisions of Section 2808 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTION 5 . That a copy of this Resolution, with the map attached, shall be immediately transmitted to the County Health Officer and the written opinion and recommendation of said Health Officer shall be returned to this Board for consideration at the earliest convenience. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of April 1975 . MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM.- DON P. BONFA CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF City Attorney HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA By: Deputy City Attorney -2- H� N l L I r. C] 1 o 1- ° 0 t~i► L' 0 y1.GABEiELD— p O pAVFa LA 7939F ❑ H h 444JJ1 lA J tA- ct v 1000' u CLAY Op �^ > MANSION AVE. YORKT N ANE. I N LEGEND UTICA DRAINAGE DISTRICT BORY��••"`r ~ �N STORM DRAIN SYSTEM --� D t, PHoTo&QADi-K of Df<, v1177a G Q►W TO 4tZAvli�s aP N AILGH v I I'75 Q O N I AVE. PuMRIrtG IDGIcTIarJS o Q p � (.i �Q nnnnr1nr� n Y a, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. antiA , was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council , approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of April 19 75 , and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES : COUNCILMEN: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES : COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN : None DATED this 22nd day of April 19 75 . CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 4068 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION READOPTING A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED FOR CERTAIN STORM WATER DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS, this City Council has now received an amended map showing the proposed boundaries of the area proposed to be assessed for certain storm water drain improvements in a special assessment district in the City of Huntington Beach, in what is to be known as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That a map of the assessment district showing and describing the boundaries of the proposed assessment district and lands and property to be specially assessed to pay certain costs and expenses of the proposed improvements designated as "Proposed Boundaries of Amended Assessment District Boundary Map of Old Town Drainage Assessment District, Assessment District No. 7302 , City of Huntington Beach, California, " hereby submitted and the same is hereby approved. SECTION 3. That the original map of said proposed boundaries of the assessment district, and one copy thereof, be filed in the office of the City Clerk and a copy thereof in the office of the Superintendent of Streets. SECTION 4 . The City Clerk is directed to endorse on the original and on at least one copy of the map of the assessment district as herein referred to, a certificate evidencing the date and adoption of this resolution, and said Clerk is further directed to file the original of such in his office and within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the resolution fixing the time and place of the hearing on the formation or extent of said district, the Clerk is further di- rected to file a copy of said map with the endorsement thereon with the County Recorder all in the manner and form provided for in Section 3111 of ,the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTION 5 • That the proceedings for the construction of said improvements are proposed to be conducted pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , " being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and further, to be financed through bonds to issue pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915, " being Division 10 of said Code. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of _AprilT, 1975 . i MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ATTEST: HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVED AS TO FORM: D011 P. BONFA -� City Attornov CITY GLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTIM(­n T �1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 4o6a , was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of April 19 75 , and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit : AYES : COUNCILMEN: Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES : COUNCILMEN : None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN : None DATED this 21ct day of _ April 19 75 . CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SEAL) a RESOLUTION NO. 4064 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, SPECIAL COUNSEL AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION THEREOF WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this City Council an agreement relating to special counsel services for certain special assessment districts presently initiated or in process by the City of Huntington Beach, California; and, WHEREAS, at this time, this City Council is desirous to pro- ceed with said assessment districts as set forth in said agreement and is desirous to employ special counsel for the purposes of completing said proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That the special counsel agreement for special assessment districts in the City of Huntington Beach, California, as mentioned in said agreement is hereby approved and execution is auth- orized by the Mayor and City Clerk. SECTION 3. A copy of said agreement, as approved, is attached hereto and so referenced. SECTION 4. A copy of said executed agreement shall be immedi- ately transmitted upon execution to the parties as set forth in said agreement. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of April , 1975. MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: Pa. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON P. BONFA City Attorney By: bPty City A for y 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 4064 was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting of said City Council held on the 21stday of April , 1975, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES : COUNCILMEN Shipley, Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Wieder, Duke, Gibbs NOES: COUNCILMEN None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN None DATED this 22nd day of _April 1975. CITY CLERK F THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SEAL) F. MACKENZIE BROWN (714) 979-4930 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 101 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 (213) 489-5006 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOB ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013 April 11, 1975 Mr. William Hartge, Director Engineering & Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Assessment District No. 7302 (Old Town Drainage Assessment District) Dear Bill: Enclosed herein find the following: 1. Resolution Readopting Boundary Map 2 . Resolution Requesting Opinion of County Health Officer 3 . Resolution of Intention These three resolutions , it is my understanding , will be presented to the City Council for consideration at their meeting scheduled for the 21st of April, 1975 . Upon their adoption, the Resolution Re- questing Opinion of County Health Officer, together with a map show- ing the boundaries of the proposed assessment district, should be transmitted to said Health Officer for his report and recommendation as to the necessity for the construction of storm water drains within the proposed assessment district. At this time, it will not be necessary to file with the County Recorder any amended maps showing the proposed boundaries of the assessment district, and I will further -instruct you at the appropriate time for the filing of said maps. Upon adoption of the enclosed resolutions , I would appreciate conformed copies transmitted to this office. Thank you. Very truly yours, F. Mackenzie Brown FMB/j Enclosures cc: Alicia M. Wentworth Topic FILE NO. Assessment Districts: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RECORD 27 Assessment District #7302 DETAIL .DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTE BOOK VOLUME PAGE 11 15 73 Assess Dist for Drainage - Old Town - AD 73-02 - apProved - auth DPW-to proceed with P&S and auth employment of special legal counsel 15 163 2-19-74 Res 3843 - Adntd - PiD 73-02 - A :its Su t of Sts Eng of Wk Assess Eng - Plans & Specs - Spread of Boundary 15 280 2-19-74 Res 3344 - Ad td - AD 73-02 - Designa . Newspaper . 15 280 2-19-74 Res 3845 - Ad td - AD 73-02 - Appits Attorney 15 280 2- 9- -0 Asspss Dist Boundary -aap 15 280 2-19-74 Res 3347 - Aad td - AD 73-02 - Prov, for Liquidated Dam jz 15 280 4-1-74 Res 3862 - =;,dT d - i n rvs AD Boun,lary Pia - AD 73-102 01.d 'Town Drainage t?ssessmen:_ Dist 1.5 329 10/21/74 EIR 73-23 -. AD 7302 Adopted subi to mitigating measures set for h in re ort & u on added recomm & info in ERB Transmittal 16 62 TOPICFILE NO- 27 Assessment Districts: Assessment District #7302 - "Old Town" 11 141 1 1 1 1 1 110 1 1, 1 1.I I'I 11 101 11"i i-CI 1 1310i 1 1 *i"1 1- 1' 1`i4wi-l'i i i-t i7ISib-I-1 'I I`1 `I'i1�1�b1 i'i i i i 1 1 i7i6i i i 1 1 i i i iek TYPIST PLEASE NOTE—THIS SCALE CORRESPONDS TO TYPEWRITER (PICA) SCALE—SET PAPER GUIDES SO THAT CARD SCALE WILL REGISTER WITH MACHINE SCALE WHEN CARD IS TURNED INTO WRITING POSITION. START INDEX THREE(3)POINTS FROM LEFT EDGE OF CARD. USE OTHER POINTS OF SCALE FOR OTHER DIVISIONS OF VISIBLE TITLE,SET TABULATORS TO INSURE PERFECT ALIGNMENT OF EACH DIVISION OF INFORMATION. FOLD BACK OR REMOVE STUB AFTER TYPING. USE NEW TYPEWRITER RIBBON. REMINGTON RAND =20 DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION MRe t-islet CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNHNGTON BEACH To David D. Rowlands From H. E. Hartge City Administrator Subject "Old Town" Drainage - ct Date April 3 , 1975 Assessment Distr ' t 7302 This is a status report of the purpose of the "Old Town" drainage district. You will recall some citizens met at the City Council Chamber the night of March 24. Approximately 40 citizens appeared at the meeting. My impression of the reason for opposition to the Assessment District was the method of spreading the cost. The spread of cost on a uniform acreage basis was the intended method. However, recent court cases indicate that this would be an improper procedure. in the eyes of the law. The spreading of cost on a benefit basis would be more acceptable to the property owners, as well as improving the chances of serving a challenge in the courts. It is planned to present to the City Council at the meeting of April 21, a resolution of intention and a resolution readopting the map, and proposals from the land consultant, the attorney and the engineer who will spread the cost. It is further intended to present to the City Council on May 19, the engineer' s report, at which time a request will be made- to the City Council authorizing the bidding of the project. The bids would be due to be submitted to the City on June 16. It is requested that you sound out the Council as to the possibility of having a special meeting on June 23 , for the purpose of conducting a public hearing and the considera .tion of thebids. • At that time it will be necessary to receive a minimum of 4/5. vote of the entire Council. This, of course, necessitates a minimum of six affirmative votes.• It, would be appreciated if you would determine from the City Council how many could attend the meeting of June 23, if they are. willing to call a special meeting. This is as tight a schedule as we are able to put together, considering the time limits imposed by the procedure. I would anticipate that if the City Council is not able to meet on the 23rd, or as an alternate the 30th of June, that vacation schedules would be such that it would be difficult to obtain the necessary six votes until the vacation season is over in late August or early September. H. E. Hartge- Director of Public Works HEH:ae IC Assessment Districts` OISLATIVE NI TORY RECORD FILE NO. 27 ' Assessment District #7302 1 AIL DATE ACTION OF COUNCIL OR BOARD MINUTE BOOK VOLUME PAGE 15 73 Assess Dist for Drama - Old Town - AD 73-02 - approved - auth DPW to proceed with P&S and auth employment of special legal counsel 15 163 !-19-74 Res 3843 - Ad td - AD 73-02 - Appts Su Pt of Sts En of Wk. Assess En - Plans & Specs - Spread of Boundary 15 280 !-19-74 Res 3844 - Ad td - AD 73-02 - Desi na. Newspaper 15 280 I-19-74 Res 3845 - Ad td - AD 73-02 - A is Attorney15 280 ►_ !-19-74 Res 3847 - Ad td - AD 73-02 - Prov, for Liquidated Dameg 15 280 4-1-74 Res 3862 - Ad td - ARRrvs AD Boundary Ma - AD 73-02 Old Town Drainage Assessment Dist 15 329 FILL go, TOPIC 1 27 Assessment Districts: Assessment District #7302 - "Old Town" b *1 1 1 1 1 1I01 1 1 1'1 1 11 1'2101 1'rI"I rl r131011'i 'I r rf ►'I41ol"7'1 "i'i t I "i ljNr'll I`1" PI'I 'IhOt f I I i f 1 I ItIGI 11 I i 1 1 1'la TYPIST PLEASE NOTE—THIS SCALE CORRESPONDS TO TYPEWRITER (PICA) SCALE—SET PAPER GUIDES $0 THAT CARD SCALE WILL REGISTER WITH MACHINE SCALE WHEN CARD IS TURNED INTO WRITING POSITION. START INDEX THREE(S)POINTS FROM LEFT EDGE OF CARD, USE OTHER POINTS OF SCALE FOR OTHER DIVISIONS OF VISIBLE TITLE,SET TABULATORS TO INSURE PERFECT ALIGNMENT OF EACH DIVISION OF INFORMATION. FOLD BACK OR REMOVE STUD AFTER TYPING. USE NEW TYPEWRITER RIBBON. REMINGTON RAND —20 DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION ,,,,A�.,►,�, r PUBLIC MEETING -- FEBRUARY 24 , 1975 Oldtown Storm Drain Assessment District 7302 Agenda 1 . Introduction (H.E. Hartge) 2 . The Assessment District (H. E. Hartge) A. Description of the problem. B. History of previous attempts to resolve the problem. C. Proposed solution. 3. Assessment District legal aspects (J. Ganahl and M. Brown) . 4 . Assessment District financing (M. Whipple) 5. Land Assessment (D. Stevens) . 6 . Discussion (H. E. Hartge) . Assessment District 7302 Personnel H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach Assessment District Engineer of work. John T. Ganahl, III, Attorney at Law Assessment Attorney F. MacKenzie Brown, Attorney at Law Michael F. Whipple, Stone and Youngberg Financial Consultants Donald E. Stevens Donald E. Stevens Inc. Civil Engineers Assessment Engineer • City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT February 24, 1975 Subject; Assessment District 7302 Description of the District The proposed storm drain Assessment District has a very irregular boundary which approximately follows the below named street. East side Beach Blvd. West side Lake St. and Goldenwest North side Main St. and Garfield South side Memphis Ave. and Adams These boundaries were determined primarily from the existing natural topographic features of the area. In some cases the storm drain system was extended beyond these features into other, areas, but was done only in the interst of economy. The concept of drainage district's, as specified in the State Subdivision Map Act, permits the grouping of adjacent land areas into one large area for the collection of storm waters which are conveyed by gravity. An important point of this concept is that even though a parcel is high in relation to the adjacent lands and is not subject to flooding, and if it drains onto low lying prop- erties, this high parcel contributes to the problem and therefore is required to participate in its solution. A copy of the Assessment District boundary map is attached. for your review. Storm Water Problem The land within the Assessment District is generally flat with a number of natural local depressions which are located near the center of the area. During the rainy season, all storm water run-off would become trapped within this District and fill up these depressions and form lakes. If the amount of rain fall was high, the water in these lakes would gradually flow towards the south and final drain into the Talbert Valley. s .... Assessment District 7302 [?ebruary 24 , 1975 Page 2 Although some- water made it out of the District, the major would remain trapped it, these lakes until it was eliminated by either evaporation or infiltration. As the land became urbanized' (i.e. land development, street construction, etc:. ) these natural lakes and drainage swales have been altered :end reduced in capacity. This situation has now resulted in numerous homes, apartments and streets in the area in being flooded out for various periods of time. To some people in the area, this condition is only a minor irritation, to others, it results in financial hardship and property damage in addition to being a health hazard. Prior Attempts_ at Problem Solving In 1.963, the City Council directed the Department of Public Works to prepare plans for the construction of a Master Plan Storm Drain system for this area. This attempt at assessment district formation was .rejected in 1966 due to the extensive amount of off-site construction required (work outside the assessment district itself) . Since 1966, the Orange County Flood Control District has performed this off-site work at their expense. In 1972 , the City applied to HUD for a construction grant for this storm drain. The project was accepted by HUD as a valid project, but sufficient money was not available to finance its construction. In 1973, the City Council again instructed the Department of Public Works to start proceedings for the, formation of an assessment district. To date, the City has prepared the construction plans and specifications, environmental documents and have acted upon the initial district resolution. In addition, the City has entered into an agreement with Orange County Flood Control District whereby they will contribute $300,000.00 to the District to help offset the construction costs of the District. Proposed Solution I The proposed solution to the storm water problem is to construct a underground storm drain system which has its discharge end at the County Flood Control Channel south of Adams and east of Beach Blvd. and then proceeding west along Adams and then north along Delaware. Off this major trunk line, there will be built various branch storm drains to serve all of the District. The pipe sizes will r_anae from 18" to 96" (8 feet) in diameter. The total length of pipe tobe installed is 18,774 lineal feet (approx 3.6 j miles) . In addition, the District will require 30 manholes and 30 catch basins. Upon completion of construction, all ponding areas will be eliminated and travel ways will remain open. I A copy of the storm drain map is attached. 1 F s �n p O D a z p D O m D O \ GOLDENWESTT ST Z N ^ U1 N C D m z Lnn STEWART ST. z0 CRYSTAL ST. l m HOL STTI IHHILI LAKE ST. n GOTHARD ST r ALAS I A ALABAtldA .D< n _ AE DO IH 1 71 n EV ST. ❑ ❑ c❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 00 DELAWARE ST. 2 Q FLORIDA ST. 0 _ D D D 0 < m m m m z BEACH � BLVD. EXIST D-01 CHANNEL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA STONE & YOUNGBERG MUNICIPAL FINANCING CONSULTANTS, INC. ONE CALIFORNIA STREET • SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94111 • (415)"9.7700 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FINANCING The theory of special assessment is based on the concepts that the cost of public. improvements should be borne by the properties which benefit from the public improvements and that the cost should be alloca- ted to benefited properties in proportion to their respective benefits. Special assessment has a long history as a means of financing public projects . Special assessment theory was incorporated in the English Drainage Acts of 1427 and was used to reconstruct London following the fire of 1666. The English system of special assessment was brought to America during the early formation of this country, and accordingly, colonial sta- tutes provided that the cost of local improvements be paid by local assess- ments . The method of special assessment was generally accepted through- out the colonies by the end of the eighteenth century. Although the courts have universally sustained special assessments, the legal authority or principal which justified special assessments was not always clearly defined . In some early court decisions, special assess- ments were sustained as an inherent power of local government, or as an exercise of the police power or the power of eminent domain. It is now generally recognized that the authority to levy special assessments is not an inherent and automatic right of local government, but is an exercise of the power of taxation and must be delegated by the state. Special assessment practices and procedures vary greatly among states and even among cities within the same state. There are, however., certain constitutional principles which are common to all special assess- ment procedures . The principal requirements of a valid special assess- ment are: 1 . The use for which the assessment is levied must be for a public purpose; 2 . The improvement for which the assessment is levied trust beneficially affect a well-defined and limited area of land; 3 . The total assessment must not exceed the cost of the improvement; 4 . The actual assessment must be proportional to the benefit received; 5 . The owner of the land assessed must be given an opportunity for a hearing on the extent of benefit to his land . -1- Although the power of special assessment originated in the power of taxation, special assessments are markedly different from property taxes . Taxes may be levied for any lawful purpose of government. Special assess- ments , on the other hand, can be levied only where the land of a property owner will be specially benefited by the improvement and/or acquisition for which the special assessment is levied. The methods of apportioning taxes and special assessments also differ. The Constitution of California requires property taxes to be apportioned on an ad valorem basis; that is , in proportion to the value of the taxable property. Special assessments can be constitutionally apportioned upon any basis which will reasonably measure benefits . Apportionment usually is based on frontage, area, units , or in some combination. Any formula of benefit must, however, be uniformly applied to all properties which are similarly benefited. The basis of the power of special assessment is the special benefit that the public improvement confers upon the assessed lands . Most public works which improve the use or occupation of lands result in special benefit. The public improvements which may be financed by special assessment proceedings include parks , parking, storm drains , pedestrian malls, curbs, gutters, side- walks, street pavement, water distribution systems, and sewage collection and treatment facilities . In the interest of clarity "assessment acts" , "bond acts" , and "regula- tory acts" should be distinguished. An assessment act specifies a procedure for the formation of a district, the ordering and making of an acquisition or improvement, and .the levy and confirmation of an assessment secured by liens on land. It is not necessary for such acts to contain detailed bond pro- visions and most do not. A bond act provides a procedure for the issuance of bonds to represent liens resulting from proceedings taken under an assess- ment act. A regulatory act does not provide a procedure for the creation of an assessment lien or for the issuance of bonds, but regulates the use of special assessment procedural and bond acts . The most commonly used assessment acts are the Improvement Act of 1911 (1911 Act) and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (1913 Act). The common bond acts are the Improvement Act of 1911 (1911 Act) and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (1915 Act) . The Improvement Act of 1911 is both an act for the creation of a lien against property and an act which provides for the issuance of bonds . The other commonly used acts provide either a procedure for creating an assessment lien or for the issuance of bonds , but not both. The principal regulatory act is the Special Assessment Investigation, Limita- tion and Majority Protest Act of 1931 . -2- 07 730 a w - ~` Enviizon lEMAL REVIEW BOARD J A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•CALIFORNIA f�a�l P.O. BOX 190 92648 arli-2-0�" Z TO. Honorable Mayor and City Council Y Attention: David D. Rowlands , Administrator FROM: Environmental Review Board DATE: October 8 , 1974 SUBJECT: EIR 73-23 (Assessment District No. 73-02) Proposal for the formation of an assessment district comprising a 580-acre area bounded on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the south by Adams Avenue, on the west by the Southern Pacific railroad tracks; and on the north by Main Street APPLICANT: Department of Public Works BACKGROUND: This Environmental Impact Report No. 73--23 for Assessment District No. 73-02 has been prepared to allow the City of Huntington Beach to review the environmental effects of the requested action. The Environmental Impact Report, as prepared by Charles Clark, Planning Intern, was completed in draft form for review on July 2 , 1974 . A public hearing was held on August 13, 1974 , to solicit public com- ment. The amended report, which comprises the final EIR for the project, was completed on September 20 , 1974 , for review and final action. This document was distributed to the City Council on October 1, 1974 , to provide time for review prior to the Council ' s consideration of the report. RECOMMENDATIONS: .The Environmental Review Board concurs with the mitigating measures as set forth in the EIR, and adds the following: 1. The City should pursue acquisition of the -Civic Center pond for park site purposes and for a natural retarding basin. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Environmental Review Board recognizes the growth-inducing poten- tial of formation of this district. However, it is the feeling of the Board that there are overriding concerns for public health and safety and the need to eliminate emergency pumping of flooded properties which outweigh that growth-inducing impact. Subsequent development that may take place in the interim between possible establishment and implementation of the -assessment district will only serve to compound the drainage problems; therefore, the Board recommends that no physical improvements take place within the district until implementation. City Council - Assessment District 73-02 October 8, 1974 Page 2 ADOPTION: The Environmental Review Board adopted the Environmental Impact Report No. 73-23 for this assessment district on October 1, 1974. CONCLUSION: Based upon the information contained within the final report, as. well as upon the added recommendation and information as set forth by this transmittal, the Environmental Review Board recom- mends that the City Council adopt EIR No. 73-23. � ) a James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review Board JWP:df • APPENDIX C rs In- I N All zeac ,Fr 710r oq 00i �j Jo, 71 x. —166— RECEIVED- ? ;I?Y CLERK OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN�"1f'UN ���Y7INGTC4 3EAEACH.CAIA'a!44 JLq- �q 33 Notice is hereby given that a .public hear t `GJT1 b�'he�d bey the Environmental Review Board of the City of Huntington Beach in Room B-307 at the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, at the hour of 8: 30 A.M. on Tuesday, August 13, 1974, for the purpose of considering the Environmental Impact Report for the following project: EIR 73-23 (Assessment District No. 73-02) Proposal for the formation of "Old Town" assessment district, com- prising a 580 acre area bounded on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the South by Adams and Memphis, on the west by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, and on the North by Main Street. Purpose of this assess- ment district is to eradicate a local drainage and. flood problem. This Environmental Impact Report has been posted in the office of the City Clerk on July 9, 1974 . All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said project. James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review .Board DATED: July 30, 1974 RESOLUTION NO. 386.2 �L'V14C rz RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, State of California, in regular session assembled, that the proposed boundaries of the assessment district proposed to be . assessed in this assessment proceeding to pay any part of the cost of the proposed improvement in this assessment district are as shown upon a map of the assessment district now on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City of Huntington Beach, and entitled "PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ASSFSSMF..NT DISTRICT NUMBER 73-02 , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA,'" and which map indi- . cates by a boundary line theextent of the territory included in this assessment district. Said plat or map is hereby adopted as the plat or map describing the extent of the territory to be included in this proposed assessment district. The City Clerk of said City of Huntington Beach is hereby ordered and directed to endorse upon the original and at least one copy of said map her certificate evidencing the date and adoption of this resolution. Thereafter, said Clerk shall file the original of said map as so endorsed in said Clerk's office, and shall forthwith thereafter file a copy of said map executed as hereinbefore directed with the County Recorder of Orange County, California. ADOPTED the 1st day of April 1974. -ATTEST: a r e _ -1- f i , f In i l. . - - Lx 1"e .f 'lee, _l ►; r � w o U LI • - - .,ry.S,,it STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) . COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA WENTWORTH , the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach; and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said city, do hereby certify that the whole number .of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of April, 1974 , . by .the. following vote: AYES: . COUNCILMEN Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: COUNCILMEN None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN None City Clerk 1 .27 J� City of Huntington Beach +�7 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT March 15, .1974 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands Subject: Old Town Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02-Boundary Map Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the boundary map for the proposed Old Town Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02 and the resolution approving said boundary map. The preparation of this map was offered by Resolution No. 3846 adopted February 19, 1974. It is recommended that Your Honorable Body adopt the resolution and direct the `City Clerk to record the map as directed in the resolution. Very truly yours, H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works HEH:JFM: el cc: Attorney' s Office �raax /j April 17, 1974 John T. Ganahl , Attorney at Law P.O. Box 666 Corona, CA 91720 Dear Mr. Ganahl : Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3862 adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on April 1 , 1974, re- lating to Assessment District No. 73-02 - Old Town Drainage ?Sincerely Assessment District. The Assessment District Map was recorded April 5, 1974, in Book 13, Page 31 of Assessment Maps- Document #6552. yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:cb enc. s 6� February 21, 1974 John T. Gana&&, Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 666 Corona, CA 91720 Dear Mr. Ganahl: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Tuesday, February 19, 1974 adopted Resolu- tions 3843, 3844, 3845, 3846 and 3847 - Assessment District 73-02 - Old iown Drainage Assessment District. DEnclosed are certified copies of said Resolutions for your files. Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:smc _ R r �J 160 • 4A City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX ISO CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT October 31, 1973 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Assessment District for Drainage for "Old Town" - A.D. 73-0-2 Gentlemen: I ask the City Council to create an assessmentdistrict for drainage facilities in a section of the "old town" of Huntington Beach. The area- is bounded, in general, by the Southern Pacific Railroad on the west, Beach Boulevard on the east, Memphis Street on the South and Main Street on the north. The cost will be in the neighborhood of $2 million or approximately $3, 500 per acre for the 580 acres to be served. The City requested a grant frcM HUD funds for the project but was turned down in the spring when funds were no longer available. The hydrologic history of the area is that a series of lakes have served as retarding basins and have reduced downstream drainage problems. However, the lakes are becoming filled and the surrounding areas are - being developed which results in a greater runoff. With or without further -development of the area it is inevitable that property damage will occur from flooding unless drainage facilities are constructed. The cost. of protecting these properties by pumping in the rainy season has increased from $9 , 000 in 1970-71 to $30, 000 in 1972-73. An alternate to the assessment district would be to establish a moratorium of construction in the area. However, this would be delaying the inevitable. The problem is localized and the burden of obtaining proper dranage should be borne by the owners of the property. Funds have- been requested by Orange County Flood Control District to aid in the construction, however, this is not high on their priority list. 1" w Honorable Mayor and City Council October 31, 1973 Page 2 Transmitted herewith are prints showing the drainage district and the drainage system. View graphs and slides will be available to be shown at the City Council meeting.. If the City Council is in agreement, appropriate action would be to adopt a Minute Order to "Authorize the Director of -Public Works to proceed with the formation of the district, to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications and authorize the employ- ment of special counsel. " Very truly yours, H. E. Hartg;� Acting Director of Public Works and City Engineer HEH:ae � Trans.' J I ELLIS I r AVE. I I MMOD E. ERNEST Pon ' L W Q I I CONSTANTINE a = cn GARFI D j AVE. Z N , Q P 0 t a � � cr z 41 W U J H E•• O Z 0 N CLAY 0 = Z AVE. W m lowt W lox: MANSION AVE. YORKT N AVE. U WICH F-: ENIC N UTICA ❑ AVE. Ld SCALE 1" 1000 Q Z TO D 0 2 Z d a Q Q U Z SPRI GF LD ❑ PT Q w _ Z O m V OC ST f© w -i / o ❑ ADAM AVE. F LEGEND W W DRAINAGE DISTRICT -41 osw Go I STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ASH ILL ❑ �QPQ a LIN LN 0 ❑ , City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT February 7, .19 7 4 3� W� Honorable Mayor- and City Council 1 ba� City of Huntington Beach 3 O All Attention: David D. Rowlands 1% City Administrator Subject: Assessment District 73-02 Old Town Drainage Assessment District Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith are the following resolutions in connection with the Old Town Drainage Assessment District 73-02. 1. Resolution appointing Superintendent of Streets, an Engineer of Work and Assessment Engineer. 2 . Resolution designating newspaper. 3. Resolution ordering preparation of Assessment District boundary map. 4. Resolution appointing attorney. 5. Resolution fixing liquidated damages. The above resolutions are first .of the required legal steps to process this district. The attorney for the district has determined a preliminary schedule for processing the district which would bring to Council by the latter part of April resolutions giving preliminary approval for the work, ordering engineer' s report, calling for construction and bond bids and setting the dates for public hearing in the latter part of May. Construction would be anticipated to commence in July of 1974. Preparation of the drainage improvement plans and specifica- tions will be accomplished by the City Engineering Department. It is recommended that your Honorable Body adopt the resolutions. Very truly yours, Q H. E. Har Director of Public Works HEH:JFM:ae kv �tlerIgme.fo lal on File wi i er M. r f^ ■