The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFile 2 of 2 - Assessment District 7302 - Old Town Drainage A +. ? v DZERT. OF PUBLIC WORKS hutj7.ri ;�, 1 1975 a:i,J1i Jr `i HUr*MNG rQN BEACH. CAUR November 11, 1975 `975frj 14 AM City of .Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302.. The City has -had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in EnvJ.ronmental Impact Report 1323 pertaining to old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number . 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envol.ved employees and members oI uit C—LL- Council that ' if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed; and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , SL713 Y rA �L.l C_.t '1..TV--yl Y J L/ E I V E D NNN� t�TB�i'� PUBLIC WORKS ,r",�?•, rho�•�,y .r l"'Nlgib,F 4 1975 November 11, 1975 �T 5 NO ja N'/yVayaM BEACH. CALIR :03 -City of Huntington Beach City ,Hall Huntington Beach, California . .Gentlemen i I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted• to -drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City. has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of. sai•d danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to .Old Town Drainage arid- .Assessment District Number 73.02.. .I hereby .notify the- City of Huntington Beach, a•ll..of it' s envoivea employees .and menwcrs - ui LIL City 'Council that .,if the proposed drainage district is ap- provedf. I will appeal to- the Courts requesting injiinc- tive 'release. If Drainage District, Number 7302 is adopted and completed.; and, if by reason thereof, my property is . flooded, •I will -seek money damages in the Court against. the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours-, .._f i • 0OILS no+ own proparit, wi*n D6;M6 ECEIVED 'At i.:11'f p` .. L74-_Pr. OF PUBLIC VIUM i INu i11N 6EA'. 1. WORKB 1975 75 t��3V b All HUN t7NGTpN BEACH. �'+AL1 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into .the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 730,2. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and menwers of Lne. Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours .. A_� gYL .0 T �OC�S YttJ�' own prof"J W A r1 b c0t'i c+ RECEIVE :ITY C1. Ff "IT Y H04[INGTQNP !,r > OF PUE3LlC INOe.?Kr; ;a 3� NOV 14 Ah. J .I r3 1975 November ll, . 1975 Hunr�rvaYcnr BEACH, CALIF City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 1302. 1 hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and meinbc.ta of LiiC C.iLy Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against .the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , - ° xas nab OLOA �rdelr-� Wi ��ih (�tbi7-i& November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees aria menwer5 cif Lilt City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my prope-ty is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , azz: io,4 O7 PT. OF W. 3Li� WOi2r�_i u i •) i 75 HUNTINOTON BEACH. CALIa. boos ono+ aWV1 L Z d fl�W I�.f l frfC b ` S November 'll, 1975 City of Huntington Beach, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be I ndangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it,' s envolved employees and meituoer5 ui L.116 Ci%y Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City. Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 67 o¢s nod- 6Wn propar+� }- E!U/yjryG11 t,e/_Ir�� CAI/F 13 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington. Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . t The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining ! to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District' Number l 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members ui Liie City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek inoney 'damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Dca -5 nod- own mFo4t, bv��c, - DI P- . OP' P'USUC WORKS 141975 (� ? HUN-MG3TON BEACH. CALIF*. November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall' Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if. additional waters are permitted to drain into. the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had. explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7.323 pertaining to Old. Town Drainage and ' Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all .of it' s envolved employees an'd menwcrs .ui L'- Cit;y Council..that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting ihjuinc- tive, _'=elease. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, aiY i U� 26, 19,8' �"Y,,.'W`tW"Y"Y"4✓..,..v..ray,.y,_.,yT.,.,.....v"-v",y""Y'"`.,•"^ Yjo� Own `?roparttj uJl*m F, CEIVEC� 0Z 1 - DEPT. of PUBLIC WORKS V 14 1975 November 'l l, 1975 MUN nNGTO?4 BEACH CALIF. City of Huntington Beach City Hail Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a -resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted .to drain into the Old Town ,Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City. has had explicit, lengthly,- warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report. 7323 pertaining to. Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number, 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envol.ved employees and ntcriu,eLS of Lhe City Council that if the .,proposed .drainage district is ap- proved', .'l will appeal ,'to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek inoney damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, -k')0QS A,t+ own 1~0 �' t tl i-tit i✓1 � G Y E D DZPT. OF PU6LIC WORKS � w .14 197.5 U! Y r, NUN1itiC I'r,•'t; HUM-nNOTTON BEAGH. CALIt:. . November 11, 1975 WS raw 14 P11 1 : 4 6 City of Huntington Beach City Hall' Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: . I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangere.d- if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of 'said . danger. in Env4:ronmental .Impact .Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. ' f hereby n6tify the City of Huntington. Beach, all of it" s envo.Lvecl employees. and menwers 6f i Lie city. Council that if the proposed drainage district. is ap- proved, I will appeal to' the. Courts requesting injunc- tive release. . If Drainage District Number 73.02 is adopted and completed, `. and, if by reason .thereof, my property: is flooded, .I will seek money damages .in the Court agaiizst 'the City and all the City. Officials responsible therefor. Verytruly yours, r , ILI III hoc no-- own rt ar-}i wAi n Dl + c, �Va %J t :0 WORKS' i1UN I ;..,� cnliF. _� OFF PUOL.%C '` , O�� HuN.ntyGTON BSgC1.1. C,AL1F'^ November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen! I am a..resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings ,of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolvec employees and member6 of Lii,e C L Ly Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting. injunc- tive. release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours; '4 � ��;� boas no-� own pmpar-, will i n 0(siric� P. C E IV ED DEPT. OF PUBL-IC WORKS HUNTMNOTOR BEACH. CAQPr. ; !f V 14 3 0 November 'll, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: t� 1 am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered. if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 17323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify .the City of Huntington Beach, all of .j_t' s envolved employees and menL,ei s of Ll-ie C.i ty Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. , If Drainage- District Number 73.02 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property. is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , f r own Yo ®)00 riO a P P FGE' IV ED D'_P7. or-* PuMUC WORKS n. � �. t k.�. �' 1 3 1975 HUNTINOTON BLACK. CALIF, 1'10V 14 A�1 10 November 11, 1975' City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington. Beach, California Gentlemen: I am -a .resident .and/or owner of property who could be endangered if' additional waters" are .permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System• by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has. .had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger inn Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to" 01d .Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 730.2. I hcreh'i notify the ,City of Huntington.. Beach, all. of it s envolvea- employees _ and meiul.)ei'S Ui. L11= Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap-. 'proved, I will appeal to the- Courts requesting injunc- . tive• release: If Drainage District Number . 7302 is adopted- and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property, is flooded, I will seek money damages . in the . Court. against., the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly -yours, yE.Y� own ?ITe u�� inDOT1:0,+ .� pas rtcr� �1 'Y RECEIVED ►' `' CLERK :. OF '47, t3}J R11 10 November 11, 1975 city of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could ,be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting propo'sed .Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of .said danger in :Environmental Impact Report 7-323 pertaining to Old. Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7.302'. I hereby notify. ,the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and menujei 5 ui L ie Cif.Y Council that if the proposed drainage district is -ap- proved, . I' will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my proper-ty is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, L boas vlo-� Own PmpariLl Uj4in Drs-}tiat 0000.0 og FRX CAI IF. November 11, 1975 14 A ? 1I City of. ,Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be . endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302'. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all "of "it' s envolvect employees ana menu;t--Lb vL i.i]@ City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the . Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage . DiEtrict Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. This notice pertains to - residential Very truly yours , property owned by me at: a. 8225 Ridgefield Dr. Huntington Beach, b. 8206 Woolburn Dr. Huntington Beach, and c. 21266 Burlington Ln. Huntington* Beach .John Stassinos DWS. vlo+ 21266 Burlington Ln. QV)n . Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 OFFICIAL SL:AI., . ..... ," F'nPKIN SIMONIAN <n X �* NOTARY PIJELIC CALIF©RNIA . Subscribed and. sworn to before me N LL'i A"JGELES COUNTY. Lf70Rx' 1 � th s 12th day of November, 1975. MY LUr'rrfz eicpiPes SEP 29 1978J O ry c In and for the Count of Los Angeles, State of California. 1 VE D 9.x_1 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: 1, am a resident and/or owriek of property v:ho, could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, 1engthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact: Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and mewoer 5 ui Life: City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive :--elease. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City a=all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, as E M1 'D oz5 y)o+ ou)n pmP6c+tj w i+h',n Ditf-rio,+ November 11, 1975 i i'l.r City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen.: I am. a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional• waters are permitted to drain into the old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in. Environmental .Impact Report _7323 :pertaining t6. 01d Town Drainage and Assessment District Nurlber 7302.. I hereby notify the City of 'Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees_ and meinbex5 cif Llaa' City Council-that if the. proposed drainage district is ap proved, I wild appeal to' the Courts requesting -injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number .7302is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, :my prope-ty •is flooded, ' I" will seek money damages in .the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. I Very truly yours, 4,4 e4 d� no+ Ott n4 i►''1 PrtPW+Ljw ��-- ;Ch.!:a(IF. 17 n11 !0 : n 3 November ll, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am 'a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings.. of said danger in Environmental- jmpact Report 7323. pertaining to Old Town Drainage an"d. Assessment-District Number 7302. I hereby no.tify -.the City of Huntington Beach, all .of ..it s envolvect employees: and inenuwer5 -uf Lhe City Council that if .the. proposed :drainage district. is ap- proved, I. wll appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tiVe release.. . If. Drainage: District. Number 7302. is adopted. and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will. seek. irioney damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, cAxfzj 1-1yct.Ti�yG►T(�N EiACN - cI�LiF . .92��b CAS ncr+ o w h �o �Q W i ► n �;s4 c. r_t.�-1ti'EO ARK h�a(IF. 17 All 10 : n 3 November 'll, 1975 City of .Huntington Beach .City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could- be endangered . if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town. Drainage System by reason- of adopting proposed Assessment ' District Number 7302. The City has had--explicit, iengthly, warnings of said danger in .Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining. to Old Town Drainage and Assessinerit District Number 7302.. I hereby ' riotify the City o.f Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and menwer5 of- Lila Ci%y Council that if..,the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I. will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District .Number 7302. is- adopted and completed_, and, if. by .reason thereof., my property is flooded, I will seek. inohey' damages in the Court against the City and all the City officials . responsible therefor. Very truly yours , K., ca Uz Cki t-ty� iT�ivGTO N ��qCN. . cAi_iF . �2by . e =c�IVE0 �'i.FRK HUNi:N.;t Fr,;,CP tIF. 145 ►OV 17 AM 10 : n3 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I. am a .resident and/or owner of property who could. be endangered if additional. waters are permitted to drain into the . Old Toeih Drainage ,Systein by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had .explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in .Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District. Number 7302. - I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived. employees, and menu.wer.s uZ i:iic Viiy council that -if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to: the 'Courts requesting injunc- tive release. : If Drainage District Number .7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , MY .. property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ; i rp P + j r November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach t City Hall ` Huntington Beach, California ( Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed .Assessment. District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302.. I . hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it',s envolved. employees and meimber5 u,i i.ii6 `;itY Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. , If Drainage District. Number .7302 is adopted and completed,. and; if by reason thereof, my. { property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the 'Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , TO 1944 GA (8.74) (Individual) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY.OF Orange } SS. On November 12, 1975 before me, the unde State,personally appeared B e t y 7: P o t t e r--- m rc m _ known to me a to be the person whose name subscribed mto the within instrument and acknowledged that she {i executed the same. t r WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature / Y�F? NO3 le Es Oe- e4 ` 1 s r November 11 1975 T City of Huntington Beach cf> City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to, drai.n into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of .said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining .to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of: it' s envolved employees and menuwer5 ui LI-le C:i.tY Council that if the proposed drainage district is. ap proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is, adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the 'Court against the City and all the City Officials responsib.,le therefor. Very truly- yours, . 2>ot"5 vaT 1��Sr.�C' fiM �1 Sl rEG November '11, 1975 aEACH• • Vol%NGjON - City of Huntington Beach City Hall. Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I .am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters. are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had ,explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City o.f Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and members. ui the Cj.%.y Council that if the proposed ,drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. -If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property .is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, i , IVED t{.CFlV�fl o pT. OF pUEguC WORKS; f';i"CA IF. i V 1. z� 1975 November 11, 1975 1975 1 I-UN"NGTON BEACH. CAL-IF- fit Y R�1 1 R 2 City of ' Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I' am a .res.ident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into. the old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The CitV'I has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I. hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all, of 'it' s envolved empioyees and meiwei5 ui �1�e C.: ty Council that if .the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release., If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason ,thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , A. 4 boas no+ Owl � ('O��C'��( W►��liK1 D�S�ef 'F- la R%C 'V p VIE O-r PT. I T Y ( ' -�'�" of PUSLIC WARKci CIT. HUNTiNGTON . tIF. r'+JV 14 1975 . 175 NON y 14 AM I. TI t . n 2 HUNN®TON F3ZAC,,, CALIF. November 11, 1975 . lei City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be. endangered if additional waters are permitted. to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, . warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and meitLers ui Li-le City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 71 t70ds no-f own propdr+� w1444ln Ice p : . D1p�, � • ue, woo 1975 November 11, 1975 ~V�^�OTpN 63e t , City of .Huntington Beach . City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: : I am a -resident and/or owner of property who could -be. :endangered if. additional wAters . are permitted to drain into the Old town' Drainage- System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323- pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District. Number _ 7302. I -hereby notify the City of Huntington. Beach, all of it' s envolved. employees . and trieit be-i vi Lha Ci .Y Council that if the proposed. drainage district is ap. proved, I .will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number - 7.302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof., my property. is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against. the. City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 7�s nerd- . . State of .Ca I i forn i a ? J County. of Orange On November 13, 1975 , -before i t�.r/�• ,�:7- A l the . unde,rs i gn.ed, .a Notary Pub f i c for the State of_ California , . l • 19 Personally appeared Fay S . Mathis known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the t;,+ within instrument , and acknowl - d that she icecuted the same . OF1'ICIAL SEAL KATHY L. LESZINSKI •�i�" =' " NOIM I: ,.!.IC CAC40RNIA y?� P.<[i•C.r.\ ovVICE IN I�a t h Y L Le s z i h_s�k i UUAVIGE CUUNTV h9.y U-;mmissicn %::puns .May 8, 1977 c: C. U` E V 4K ; r.�JV 1 / 1975 November 11, 1975 NuNTrNmoN HZACH• CALiP. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a. resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered. if . additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town ,Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit,.. lengthly, warnings-.of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage .and Assessment District-Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntingtori. Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and menuier5 Of.. ciic Ci`y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. . If .Drainage District. Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against..the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, tiC ` t L dQ -� own n pP(iW i� )% l� S � n RF.0 VIE ,) C)EP'f. OP PVELIC WORKc� j V 1 7. 1975 November 'l l, 1975 Hurrr�rvoTON BL 4CN CgL1P. City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I `am a- resident and/or owner of property who .could. be endangered if additional waters- are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System .by �:.eason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . i The City. has .had. explicit, lengthly, warnings of . said danger. in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to: Old Town. Drainage and Assessment District Number'. 7302. I hereby notify ,rhe' City ,of Huntington Beach; all of it' s envoived employees aiiu meiltuets of i..:c ::ity Council that; if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting, injunc- tive release. If. Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, • if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, . I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. very truly yours, L .y r`, T":;�•i-� mac' r, REC aEP'r. pp f V E P �. Llc WpRK.�.r 1975 November 11, 1975 ronr`6 t City. of Huntington Beach City Hall ; Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I "am a .resident and/or .owner of property:who could. be " endangered .if. additional waters are permi.tt6d. to..,drai ii into the',Old .Town' Drainage System, by ,reason of .adopting proposed Assessment' District Number 7302 . ` The., Ci-tv has had explicit, lengthly; " war nings of 'said danger ,in Environmental Impact Report 7323 .pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 730.2. I hereby notify the City .of Huntington Beach, all of it."s' envoiv,ed• emplbyees and meicLcis of - Li IC City Councilthat, if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved; :I .will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive.'re:lease. If Drainage District Number 73.02 is,, adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof ,` my property is flooded, . I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all. the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, L ,1 fO!n.E.`l '. 'tt�e"�.' ("4[;. Ft ,,. . G,. - - .. yn .(`\----�j�:��,. - ,,�"`k'��,��'+�i,-' '.}.vita•: : 'r, : ��CGS no�" OW G� rofpUQ ►V L RKa V .1. 7 1975 November 11, 1975 eEq��• eq LIP: City of Huntington Beach City. Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or wnex. of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by. reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolvect employees and members of L he City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. ` If Drainage District Number' 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Dods �o't- ow Y1 �rn�Cl � w��h'�n )CS4T-C Nj 7 kd November '11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California. Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number..7302. The City. has. had. explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to . Old Town Drainage and Assessment 'Distr.ict Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved empioyees aria ineiiwuL-b. ui - Lie C %y Council that if .the -proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive. release. If. Drainage. District Number: . 7302 is adopted and completed, and; if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek 'money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, trL J� C' W 17o¢s nlc+ swn pro c-�-- v 1 r 1975 HU"NOTON BEA CH. Cain November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am-a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional -waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System' by .reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit; lengthly, warnings of said danger- in Environmental Impact Report 7323- pertaining to. Old Town Drainage and 'Assessmen.t District Number 7302 I- hereby notify the City of- Huntington Beach, all of it s envolved employees and meniuel5 of +' Council that if 'the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I _will appeal to the Courts-'requesting injunc- I tive release. . If Drainage' District Number 73..02 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my prope::ty 'is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 'Doas not own Pr-0P0r+L) w'A i n Dist i c+ o�p cc w . d V 1 CRk NUN f 197S ' � 8�ck November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am .a .resident ,and/dr owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old. Town Drainage System .by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. . The City has had explicit; lengthly,' warnings of said danger i.n tnv4.ronmental Impact .-Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town . Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I Hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all -of it' s envolved employees and meicwf✓r5 uL Llita CiLj Council -that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I .will appeal to the Courts requesting ihjunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I 'Will- seek money .damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, �Y y &11 ,,aJJrn'hed and sworn ,,,, to before me this C cL !• 1 t_l day .of "17�^:-' ....- 19-_ S_ / -� �- ; •• k'.C4+.1.t�.��Notcsry Public •� - - ` flydnd fbr tho County of oranne. Stnto F Cr;(iforriri I .......... ...........................................y c F 5,w.-�� O FILIAL" SEAL - .. i,.JI"flii fJ i:13 C:F - CC'UNTY My Com+nission Ex;.ires April 30; 1976 Doers not o 0 h p rio p i--I-c� �, �. ;,ri..., ,c .................. . tJ�f1 oRkv November ll, 1975 ti City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain j into the Old Town Drainage System by reason 'of adopting ' proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The' City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7.30.2. . 1- hereby- notify the. City of Huntington Beach, all' of it ' s envoiv6d employees and memver5 ui ' L1ia y Council. that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved I. will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If -Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , . my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the b Court .against .the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. very truly yours , 1' )G-7� Ole -boas _ no+ own pmpar-4 wi+i f) Oi� -P iC� y f A. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND FURTHER DECLARING THAT THE "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION, LIMI- TATION AND MAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF 1931" SHALL NOT APPLY TO SAID PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS, this City Council has established a procedure for the conduct of a public hearing, pursuant to Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California, and as authorized by Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the purpose of determining whether special assess- ment district proceedings should be held without further compliance with the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limi- tation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" ; and, WHEREAS , said proceedings are applicable to a charter city and the City of Huntington Beach is a charter City and has complied with the provisions of said Section 17 'of Article XIII of the Con- stitution of the State of California; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing, for which reasonable notice has been given in the manner and form as prescribed by law has been held and this City Council has heard and considered all the evidence, both oral and written, relative to the public convenience and necessity for the construction of the public works of improvement in the special assessment district, to be known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) . WHEREAS , this City Council is satisfied as to the works of improvement as proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, . CALIFO.RNIA AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That this City Council hereby finds and determ- ines that the public convenience -and necessity require the works of aimprovement as now proposed to be constructed in a special assessment district hereinafter known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 e (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) . SECTION 3 . That this City Council hereby further determ- ines that the provisions and limitations of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" , shall not be applicable to the proceedings for this improvement. SECTION 4 . That this City Council, by no less than a 4/5ths vote of all its members and by adoption of this resolution, intends to make all the findings and determinations as required by law and specifically as specified in Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California and is authorized under Section 17 , Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Cali- fornia. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1975. MAYOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. 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 hereof held on the day of 1975 , by the following vote: AYES : COUNCILMEN: NOES : COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: DATED this day of , 1975. CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA Z � ej F. MACKENZIE BROWIt � ClE� CLERK CITY OF Gil 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE 101 (714) 979-4930 11411114GIONSEaCN- NEWPORT REACH,CALIFORNIA 92680 (213) 489-5006 - - '- 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOB ANOELEB, CALIFORNIA 90013 t9� SEP September 26 , 1975 Mr. H. E. Hartge Director of Engineering and Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re: Assessment District No. 7302 (Old Town Drainage Assess- ment District) Dear Bill• Enclosed herein, please find the following : 1. Order of Procedure for Public Hearing (October 6, 1975) ; 2 . Resolution Making Findings and Determinations. The Public Hearing should generally be conducted in the manner and order as set forth in the Order of Procedure enclosed herein, said Order of Procedure should also be helpful to the Clerk in her preparation of the Minutes. If any changes and/or modifications are so des-rable and ordered by the City Council at the Public Hearing, I will have a Resolution at that time ready and available for consideration by the City Council and for purposes of descriptions of any proposed changes and modifications , an Exhibit "A" would then be prepared and attachedi. Note that a 4/5ths' vote of the full Council is required for adoption and approval of the Resolution Making the Findings and . Determinations . If not previously transmitted to this office, I would appreciate conformed copies o h R Golt�tic�n Coverirq Preliminary Determinations Setting the Public Hearin together with the re- quired affidavits and certi icates of postincZ the streets .. mailing September 26 , 1975 Re: AD No. 7302 Mr. H. E. Hartge Director of Engineering and Public Works City of Huntington Beach Page 2 and .posting the Council —Chambers , as well as affidavit of publication. Thank you. . V�er� ly yours, F. MACKENZIE BROWN FMB:mlt Enclosures cc: Ms. Alicia Wentworth ORDER OF PROCEDURE - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 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) . Affidavit of Publicat"' n CITY COUNCIL FOR•THE PURPOSE, OF `� ]l6—LEGAL NOTICES- DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT.THE ' r s PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY v f ��; REQUIRE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED IM- '=e Published Hud`tir'�t`&ftBeach News, Sept. PROVEMENT AND-ACQUISITION. $ta"California , 1t Sept. e5, 197!& stfr . - ,Cili"ty of Orange � � ss f�i SECTION 5: 'That the City Clerk shall ESO4 T N 'NO. 4132 City of Hunt ngton"'Beach ,: . y iQ �, ton Be this Resolution .in the r of gng- RESOLtWijj _O,F•TEff,• ITY COUNCIL OF.. ton Beach News,", a newspaper of gen- George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, Says: That he is a THE CITY OF AUNTINGTON BEACH, era] circulation in the City of,Huntington citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. I CALIFQ RNIA. ,C.OVF,R,IN _PRELIMINARY Beach on two successive dates, the first That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach i OET�RMI�IATION -THK-`THE PUBLIC publication Ito be made not less than News a week) newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- CONVENIENCE 'AND NECESSITY• RE- ten (10) days prior.to the date of;the Y g p I QUIRES CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS 'IN above public hearing: lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AND SET- SECTION 6. That the City,Clerk Thal] County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination i TING.A.TIME AND PLACE FOR HEAR. cause Notice, of said hearing to' be of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide ING THEREON, posted along,the line of the contemplated subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been ' ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. 140: 7302 work and on all treats within: the i 'Assessment District ct a at t not''more' than established, printed and published in the State of California, and t-: (OLD TOWN-DRAINAGE three hundred,(300)feet in distance apart County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication I l ASSESSMENT. DISTf21CtT), one"each street.so posted. : of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not ! 'WHEREAS,. section v of Article xln SECTION 7. The City-Clerk is"directed of`the.Constitution of the State,of Cali- devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any to mail Notices of said hearing tp all foritia provides that, the; limitation ersons owning. real propehy:proposed particular Class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, Or and 'majority protest provisions of said t to be ;assessed, whose names�.and: ad- any number thereof. section shall not apply lif,' after giving dresses appear on;the last equalized-as- The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper of such- reasonable.:notice by publics- sessment roll for the city taxes, said of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in .the Superior Court tiorf .and..posting...and.-the holding of mailing to be completed at least fifteen such..pub]ic hearing as.the!City Council (15) days prior to the date set for the of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. shall have prescribed, said Council, by public hearing.not: less. than..Sour fifths: (4/5) vote of SECTION, 8..The following is a gen- all members..thereof,- finds 'and -,deter- "That the F'9n'f tiTTnN NQ 4132 oral description of the proposed works � � mines that the.public convenience and necessity require the improvement' pro- of improvement to.be_constructed.within posed.to be-made;,and. said Assessment District:,. WHEREAS,.Section.'2804'of the Streets The construction of certain 'storm of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- and Highways-Code of the°State'of-Cali- `water drain improvements together fornia provides that-char"Special As with :appurtenances, and appurtenant 1 ' work 'including.necessary .acquisition sessment Investigation; Liinitatibn .and and appurtenances in a special.assess= r at least two issues Majority -Protest Act of -1931"-shall •not . me district and general) por- 1?al?e y within apply to any proceedings otherwise sub= ject'thereto--when said•improvement lions of.the;following streets: 1 pro- :. T ceedings are by-a charter city and-said ADAMS-AVENUE commencing from the _ day of ��=3tPmber city,has complied with the.provisions.of DEL'AWARE STREET Section 17 of Article XI11 of the Consti- YORKTOWN AVENUE' � 'tution of-the State'f&California` and,. GARFIELD'AVENUE �5th day of September %BEACH BOULEVARD. 19��, and ending on the WHEREAS, the' City' of Huntington Reach is' a'charter city:of the State of and other streets and easement4i and. California - _for particulars reference'-is further made 19 � both days inclusive, and as often during Said period and t NOW, THEREFORE,'IT-IS HEREBY RE- to the -map`-attached hereto, showing times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the I SOLVED.BY THE.CITY'000NGIL•OF THE the proposed works-of improvement and regular and entire issue Of said pewspaper proper, and not in a ; "CITY, OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH,. STATE the boundaries of the assessment district, supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following I OF-CALIFORNIA AS-FOLLOWS--- said map hereby referenced and in- supplement, - SECTION 1: That the above recitals corporated.herein:' dates, to-wit: I are all true and-correct:- (See Map Below) SECTION 2. Thattit-is Ahe preliminary APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day Se')t 18 Fel3t- 25T 1925 determination-of 'said-;City Council that of Septerriber,'1975." ' the public •convenience and necessity NORMA BRANDEL GIBBS' jrequire certain storm-drainage improve- ments and acquisition in. the--City. of MAYOR OF THE CITY OF �-Huntington. Beach, .State .of California", HUNTINGTON BEACH • hereinafter-described;:be.made.and,-that STATE'OF CALIFORNIA '. the 'cost and, expense-rthereof:.be paid 'ATT.EST: for by special assessments -levied upon.Publisher the property .within the'District .bane= ALICIA-M. WENTWORTH fitted thereby; and .that ail.:necessary. City Clerk of.the City of•' Subscribed and sworn to before me this t�th day of proceedings wherefore be Chad.and taken Huntington Beach,:State of without compliance with the•provis California ions of the "Special .Assessment Investigation 'STATE OF'CALIFORNIA 9e3atemb= 19_75 Limitation.and'Majority Protest Act of COUNTY OF ORANGE `sss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH off/ LrieXc¢� NO I SECTION 3. -.That certain costs and ex- Notary PublicI, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH,- the duly menses of said,acquisition and lands elected, qualified'and acting City: Clerk ;improve- Orange County, California menfittedl to assessed Abe,iboun lands of. the City of Huntington,.Beach .and benefitted thereby,.:and :the rtsoundaries of .the..district.:of.-lands; proposed, to ex-officity Clerk of .the City. Council e ----------------------- be assessed to pay the,costs and ei. said City, 'do Hereby certify tth-' the s `---`-�'� penses of said proposed acquisition and whole number of members of the City t THOMAS D. LL�E i ( improvement are as shown upon a map Council of the City of*Huntington-Beach t of the District entitled: i, seven; that the .foregoing,resolution t Notary Publ)c-California i was passed and adopted by, the affirma- r Orange Counfy r 1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 tive vote of more than a` majority of r I (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE all the members of said 'City Council,at My CoOmmission Expires i ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) a regular meeting hereof hold-on the ------- September 12. 1978 i G previously-approved by this-City Council 15th day of September, '1975,-•by, the. P -'--`-'-------- I I following vote: "--------..- 1st day of April, 1975 by the g ••- 4068 and a AV F4 Cnunclni e---i 1l R�drA riuv'- -_ -co-py"of said map is on file in tFe Office Bartlett, Matney, Shipley,.: of the City Clerk of, this City'and is Duke, Gibbs open to public, inspection and is refer- :t� enced for all further particulars. NOES:, Councilmen: SECTION 4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Ndne, THAT ON MONDAY; OCTOBER 6, 1975, AT ABSENT:.Councilmen: �7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. IN THE_ COUNCIL Wieder, Coen CHAMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Dated tl5is 15ffi d'a of Se tembe7;`7975. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON• BEACH, y p STATE ^OF CALIFORNIA, LOCATED AT. , ALICIA M WENTWORTHy" 2000;' MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON CITY CLERK',- : : j l —I BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648,THERE SHALL, CITY OF.HUNTINGTON,,BEACH' BE -A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE 'THE oSTATE OF CALIFORNIA, K t 77 7�7 > L Ay Iw KT j/ kF 1 �¢ t•... .t # Y pS »w(FSti�w C I RKT F .� ��' t F^ is RMN Alt, r� 77 Tt f ,I F } 1 , w "..,.;Diu"�•�fu.:.h4s' •,r�+;..F�3w.."�auxr..,.»..,..'+a"».�.�,...., .., �.:.>z,., ..c ._.�.t.,a�;d.,. ->_ ..,.......w-x,«......zw..-.a�..,>,e.....y.��.r tw..._ r..........,�,,,.... � w...>.:,- City of Huntington Beach County of Orange ' State of California Jffidavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher 'Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk -To fl$ iv�kss ®aa 9' o. Rep'nTao 3 Q FP,dAu#+j RESOLUTION NO. 4132 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA. COVERING PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRES CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN AN ASSESSMENT_ DISTRICT, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING THEREON. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS . Section 17 of Article -XIII of' the Constitution of the State of California provides that the debt limitation and majority protest provisions .of said section shall not apply if, after .giving of such reasonable notice by publication and posting and 'the holding 'of such public hearing as the City Council shall have prescribed, said Council, by not less than four-.fifths (4/5) vote .o.f all members thereof, finds and determines that the public convenience and necessity require the improvement proposed to be made.; and WHEREAS., Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State. of California provides that the "Special Assessment Investi gation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" shall not apply to any proceedings otherwise .subject thereto when said improvement proceedings are by a charter city and said city has complied with the provisions of Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of 'the State of California; and, WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach is a charter city of the State of California NOW, THEREFORE , IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That- the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That it is the preliminary determination of said City Council that the public convenience and necessity require certain storm drainage improvements and acquisition in the City of Huntington Beach, State. of California , hereinafter described, be made and that the cost and expense thereof be paid for by special assessments levied upon the property within the District benefitted thereby; and that all necessary proceedings therefore be had and , taken without compliance with the provisions of the "Special Assess- ment Investigation Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" . SECTION 3 . That certain costs and expenses of said acquisition and improvement shall be assessed against the lands benefitted thereby, and the boundaries of the district of lands proposed to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses of said proposed acquisition and improvement are as shown upon a map of the District entitled: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) previously approved by this City Council on the 21st day of April, 1975 by the adoption of Resolution No. 4068 and a copy of said map is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of this City and is open to public inspection and is referenced for all further particu- lars. SECTION 4 . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975, AT 7 : 00 O'CLOCK P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOCATED AT 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648, THERE SHALL BE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED IMPROVEMENT AND ACQUISITION. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall publish this Resolu- tion in the "Huntington Beach News" , a newspaper of general circula- tion in the City of Huntington Beach on two successive dates, the first publication to be made not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the above public hearing. SECTION 6 . That the City Clerk shall cause Notice of said hearing to be posted along the line of the contemplated work and on all open streets within the Assessment District at not more than three hundred (300) feet in distance apart on each street so posted. SECTION 7 . The City Clerk is directed to mail Notices of said hearing to all persons owning real property proposed to be assessed, whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll for the City taxes, said mailing to be completed at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date set for the public hearing. SECTION 8. The following is a general description of the proposed works of improvement to be constructed within said Assess- ment District: 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: 2 . r 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 here- by referenced and incorporated herein. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of September 1975. 7(dt�� MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 . O D D 0 ,. m �- � [� GOLDENWEST ST Z _O M •• N �! m m z Z STEWART * ST � Q Q O CRYSTAL ST. t � 1 1 l � < m HOL ST LHLAKE ST. � � ��2 n GOTHARD ST r AL AB ! ,A STI ALABA �'� C1 ST ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ -< 0 DELAWARE ST. Z Q FLORIDA ST. t • m m m ❑ Z BEACH BLVD. EXIST D-01 CHANNEL o STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified and 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 hereof held on the 15th day of September 1975, by the following vote: AYES : COUNCILMEN : Bartlett, Matney, Shipley, Duke, Gik NOES : COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT! COUNCILMEN: Wieder, Coen Dated this 15th day of September 1975. CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) CERTIFICATE OF POSTING STATE OF' CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) ALICIA M. WENTWORTH , under penalty of perjury, CERTIFIES as follows : That she is the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, that she did, on the �hday of �w� XJl. _ Do';______ post on or near the Council Chamber door , NOTICE OF HEARING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) a copy of which Notice is attached hereto and made a part of this certificate; that said Notice remained continually posted for at least five (5) days after the date above-mentioned. EXECUTED on 1975 , at Huntington B teach, California. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, under penalty of perjury, CERTIFIES as follows: That the undersigned is now, and at all times herein men- tioned was, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California. That on the 19th day of September 1975 , said clerk caused to be mailed NOTICES OF HEARING, a copy of which Notice is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, to all persons owning real property proposed to be assessed for the proposed improvement, accord- ing to the names and addresses of such owners as the same appear upon the last equalized assessment roll for city taxes , prior to the date of such mailing, or as known to the undersigned. Said mailing was caused at least fifteen (15) days prior to .the date set for hearing as set forth in said Notice. EXECUTED on the 19th day of September ,. 1975 . CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA i o s r C) tea t 7 p 9-26-�f CITY 01' 11UN`1'INGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) CERTIFICATE OF POSTING NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, under penalty of perjury, CERTIFIES as follows : That the undersigned is now, and at all times herein men- tioned was, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California. That on the Y day of 1975 , the under- signed caused to be posted Notices of Hearing, a copy of which Notice is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, along the line of said contemplated work and improvement, and on all the open streets within the district described in Resolution No. qo3;,.__, passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the 15th day of September, 1975 . That said Notices were posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart along the line of said contemplated work and improve- ment, and on all the open streets within the district proposed to be assessed for the doing of said work, and that not less than three (3) Notices in all sere posted; that said posting was completed on the ��4day of 1975 . /VC EXECUTED on the o?b day of 1975 , at Hunting- ton Beach, California. CITY CLERK, OF. THt CITY,.OF .. ,'. HUNTINGTOIT BEACH, CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF HEARING Published Huntington Beach News, Sept. Limitation and Majority Protest Act of The construction of certain storm 18, Sept 25, 1975. 1931." water drain improvements together RESOLUTION NO. 4132 SECTION 3. That certain costs and ex- with appurtenances and appurtenant RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Penes of said acquisition and improve- work including necessary acquisitlon- ment shall be assessed against the lands and appurtenances in a special assess- THE CITY . COVERING RE BEACH, benefitted thereby, and the boundaries ment district and generally within por- DETER assess- CALIFORNIA. COVERING PRELIMINARY of the district of lands proposed to tions of the following streets: DETERMINATION THAT THE PUBLIC be assessed to pay the costs and ex.CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY RE- AOAMS AVENUE QUIRES CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN penses of said proposed acquisition and DELAWARE STREET AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AND SET• improvement are as shown upon a map YORKTOWN AVENUE TING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEAR- of the District entitled: GARFIELD AVENUE ING THEREON. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 BEACH BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE and other streets and easements, and (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) for particulars reference is further made to the map attached hereto, showing ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) previously approved by this City Council the proposed works of improvement and WHEREAS, Section 17 of Article XI11 on the 21st day of April, 1975 by the the boundaries of the assessment district, of the Constitution of the State of Cali- adoption of Resolution No. 4068 and a said map hereby referenced and in- fornia provides that the debt limitation copy of said map is on file in the Office corporated herein. and majority protest provisions of said of the City Clerk of this City and is APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day- section shall not apply if, after giving open to public Inspection and is refer- of September, 1975. of such reasonable notice by publica- enced for all further particulars NORMA BRANDEL GIBBS tion and posting and the holding of SECTION 4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN MAYOR OF THE CITY OF such public hearing as the City Council THAT ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975,AT HUNTINGTON BEACH shall have prescribed, said Council, by 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. IN THE COUNCIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA not less than four-fifths (4/5) vote of CHAMBERS OF THE,CITY COUNCIL OF all members thereof, finds and deter- THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ATTEST: mines that the public convenience and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOCATED AT ALICIA M. WENTWORTH necessity require the Improvement pro- 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON City Clerk of the City of posed to be made; and BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648,THERE SHALL Huntington Beach, State of WHEREAS, Section 2804 of the Streets BE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE California and Highways Code of the State of Call- CITY COUNCIL FOR'THE PURPOSE OF fomla provides that the "Special As- DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA sessment Investigation, Limitation and PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY COUNTY OF ORANGE ssr Majority Protest Act of 1931" shall not REQUIRE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED IM. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH apply to any proceedings otherwise sub- PROVEMENT AND ACQUISITION. Jett thereto when said improvement pro SECTION 5. That'the City Clerk shall 1, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly ceedings are by a charter city and said publish this Resolution in the "Hunting- elected, qualified and acting City Clerk city has complied with the provisions of g of the City of Huntington Beach and Section 17 of Article Xlll of the Consti- ton Beach News," a newspaper of gen. ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of tution of the State of California; and, oral circulation in the City of Huntington said City, do hereby certify that the Beach on two successive dates. the first whole number of members of the City WHEREAS, the City of Huntington publication to be made not less than Council of the City of Huntington Beach Beach is a charter city of the State of ten (10) days prior 'to the date of the is seven; that the foregoing resolution California above public hearing, was passed and adopted by the affirma- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RE- SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall tive vote of more than a majority of SOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE cause Notice of said hearing to be all the members of said City Council at CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, STATE posted along the line.of the contemplated a regular meeting hereof held on the OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: work and on all open streets within the 15th day of September, 1975, by the SECTION 1. That the above recitals Assessment District at not more than following vote: are all true and correct. three hundred (300)feet in distance apart AYES: Councilmen: on each street so posted. SECTION 2. That It is the preliminary Bartlett, Matney, Shipley,SECTION 7. The City Clerk is directed determination of said City Council that to mail Notices of said hearing to all Duke, Gibbs the public convenience and necessity g require certain storm drainage improve- persons owning real property proposed NOES: Councilmen: merits and acquisition in the City of to be assessed, whose names and ad- Norte Huntington Beach, State of California, dresses appear on the last equalized as- hereinafter described, be made and that sessment roll for the city taxes, said ABSENT; Councilmen: the cost and expense thereof be paid mailing to be completed at least fifteen Wieder, Coen for by special assessments levied upon (15) days prior to the date set for the Dated this 15th day Of September, 1975. the property within the District bane- public hearing. fitted thereby; and that all necessary SECTION 8. The following is a gen- ALICIA lVL WENTWORTH proceedings therefore be had and taken eral description of the proposed works CITY CLERK without compliance with the provisions of improvement to be constructed within CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH of the "Special Assessment Investigation said Assessment District: STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF HEARING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that on the 21st day of April , 1975 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, approved and adopted a Resolution- providing for a hearing as set forth in Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California. NOTICE IS HEREBY. FURTHER GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 21st day of April , 1975 , did adopt a Plat entitled "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) " showing the general na- ture, location and- extent of the proposed construction of certain public street improvements including the construction of storm drain improvements , and also on said date by resolution , adopted a map showing the boundaries of the district benefited thereby. That on the 15th of September, 1975 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach did adopt a Resolution Covering Preliminary Determination that the public convenience and neces- sity require the construction of certain storm drain improvements together with appurtenances and necessary acquisition within the City of Huntington Beach, California, and that the cost and expense thereof is to be assessed against lands to be benefited thereby in the City of Huntington Beach. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN, that Monday, the 6th day of OCTOBER, 1975 , AT THE HOUR OF 7 : 00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, is the day, hour and place fixed for a public hearing upon the public convenience and necessity for the above-mentioned and referenced improvement and acquisition without compliance with the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931. Any persons interested in ,, or owning property within the district proposed to be assessed to pay the cost and expenses thereof, may file with the City Clerk, prior to the time fixed for hearing, written protests or objections to the undertaking of said proceedings without first complying with the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" . All protests or objections shall contain a descrip- tion of the property , the nature of the protest or objection, and bear the signature of the interested person or owner. The improvements and work shall be conducted under the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" , being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; bonds to be issued pursuant to the terms and pro- visions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915" , Division 10 of said Code. Reference is hereby made to Resolution No. 4132 and to the plat and map on file in the Office of the City Clerk for all particulars . The following is a general description of the works of improvement proposed to be constructed under these proceedings : The construction of certain storm water drain im- provements together with appurtenances and appurt- enant work , including necessary acquisition and appurtenances in a special assessment district and generally within portion of the following streets : ADAMS AVENUE DELAWARE STREET YORKTOWN AVENUE GARFIELD AVENUE BEACH BOULEVARD and other streets and easements , and for particu- lars 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. DATED: 1975 . CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA ®� City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - September 17, 1975 Subject: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Property Owners: At- the:--September 15, 1975 City Council meeting, a resolution was adopted setting_ a public. hearing- for .Monday, October 6, 1975, to. determine whether or not the public convenience and necessity requires the construc- tion of a storm drain system for the area of the City where your property is located.'__. The enclosed map shows the boundaries of this area and the facilities .required. The boundaries shown follow the natural drainage- area to be served by these proposed facilities. The resolution also states that if it is• determined there is a need for the system, the costs will be assessed against the lands in the area. The problem that exists is that within the area there are natural low areas that during rains recave all the storm water runoff and create lakes. When rainfall is high these lakes fill and cause flooding of streets and residences. After the rains, as these areas have no means of natural drainage, the trapped water remains until evaporation, infil- tration or pumping by City forces occurs . A majority of this area is still undeveloped and exists as vacant land. As properties develop, covering the vacant land, less rain water is able to be absorbed into the ground and the volume of runoff is greater. Without these proposed facilities or .a stop to development., this additional storm water runoff will -increase the .flooding of the low areas to a disastrous proportion. In 1963, the City. Council directed this department to prepare plans for a Master Plan Storm Drain System for the area. In 1966 an assessment district was initiated to finance the work. This district was rejected prior to confirmation by the City Council upon objections from property owners as the cost included extensive work required outside of the district. Since that time this work outside of the area has been accomplished by the Orange County Flood Control District. Since 1966, the- City has made applications and inquiries of various agencies attempting to secure sources of major funding for the project. From all the agencies contacted, the Orange County Flood Control District was the only agency able to provide financial support and an agreement has been signed whereby they will participate with $300,000. 00 to help offset the construction costs. Property Owners September 17, 1975 Page 2 In 1973 , the City Council again instructed this department to proceed with initial steps to form an. assessment district to finance the project. Earlier this year informal meetings were held with property owners to review the project and the costs involved. At these meetings owners presented alternatives to the City plan and asked that we study them. This department investigated the suggested plans and determined that the originally proposed project is superior, based on economics and engineering feasibility. These results were given to representatives of the owners. At the Public Hearing ,on October 6 1975 , comments from all involved parties will be invited, after which the City Council may determine whether or not to proceed with the assessment district. The cost of the project is estimated at $2 ,,300, 000. 00 and would be paid by special assess- ments levied against the properties within the district. The cost to be assessed to each individual parcel would be determined by the amount of benefit received. This will mean that all properties will not be assessed the same. The lower areas; subject to flooding now and, in the future, Would be assessed at a higher rate than the areas on the higher ground, not subject to flooding. We realize that due to the size of this project and the numerous property owners involved, many owners will desire additional information prior to the Public Hearing. This department cordially invites you to attend an informal Town Hall meeting on Thursday, September 25, at 7 : 30 P.M. , Room B-8 , lower level of Civic Center, 2000 Main Street/Mansion Avenue. The staff will present the project and be available for discussion. If you are unable to . attend this meeting, we also have set aside the following times to be available for information: September 25, 5 : 00 P.M. ', Room B-8, Civic Center October 2 , 5:00 P .M. , Room B-7 , Civic Center. - Very truly yours , 00 . E. Hart e 9 Director of ublic Works HEH:JFM:ae Encl. O D X z O D 0 m - D (- \ GOLDENWEST — m D C m -4 Z O STEWART � ST � � z CRYSTAL ST. m HOIHHL ST LAKE ST. n ti GOTHARD ST r ALAB A ALABA A n � o 000 0 o aoaD n '�ti DELAWARE ST. Z Q FLORIDA ST. O • m m m m z BEACH BLVD. EXIST: D-01 CHANNEL N N F- O r _ 1----- Lo10 N LO Q Q U t" 1000' _ CLAY V o OWEN Q ^ J l7 m Q Q N N AV& QRK AVE. WIC TA N U Tui A AV = Q LEGEND __ _ r___I U DRAINAGE DIS]RICT HDHY-- Ou) � 40 m U S1 ORM DRAIN SYSTEM -o—•--`. --� �' E77 _ Q L� J H W F-' 4. N Y x W Q E. 1 CCl nnnnnr-1nnn _ P F. MACKENZIE BROWN (714) 979-4930 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 101 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 926B0 (213) 48 9-500 6 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOB ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013 September 3 , 1975 Mr. H. E. Hartge, Director Engineering & Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re: Assessment District No. 7302 (Old Town Drainage Assessment District) Dear Bill : Enclosed herein, please find the following: 1. Order of Procedure; 2 . Resolution Covering Preliminary 'Pv81� -�$ Determination; 3 . Notice of Hearing; �p_6_ �S dug kecir do','- 4 . Certificate of Posting. (Streets) ; �osT (t)� 64AA '�"�O Ll "``'� CkV1Nz 5. Certificate of Mailing; t 6 . Certificate of Posting (Council Chambers) . 0i60?1"W 30, 0?�- 75 `c.Tvez, The resolution is to be adopted in the order as set forth in the Order of Procedure enclosed herein. PUBLICATION Upon adoption of the Resolution Covering Preliminary Determination, it shall be published by two (2) consecutive in- sertions in the designated paper, the "Huntington Beach News" , the first publication to be at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date fixed for the hearing. POST STREETS 7 9- 2S-7S ptCiC6 0 (l A copy of the Resolution Covering Preliminary Determina- tion, headed by the words : "NOTICE OF HEARING" , such words to be e t t t . September 3 , 1975 Re: AD No. 7302 Mr. H. E. Hartge City of Huntington Beach Page 2 in letters at least one inch in height, should be printed on cards or cardboard, and the City Clerk, pursuant to your procedural resolutions, should cause said "NOTICE OF HEARING" to be posted in accordance with the Affidavit of Posting. The posting must be completed at least ten (10) full days prior to the date fixed . for the hearing. OA, to The Notice of Hearing should be mimeographed- or printed on postcards or otherwise prepared for mailing, and must be mailed in accordance with the Certificate of Mailing; the mailing to N , be completed at least ten (1101 full days before the date set for �,. hearing. 1$ POSTING LAS T �y -10. �oa7'' 7/, A copy of the Resolution Covering Preliminary Determination shall be posted on or near the- door of the Council Chambers at least five (5) days prior to the date of hearing. All certificates of compliance . to be. filed in the Office of the City Clerk are to have the respective notices attached there-- to. Please send me conformed copies of each of the foregoing, together with copies of the certificates at your earliest conveni- ence, and a copy of the Affidavit of Publication when you receive it. V_er xi31y yours . F. MACKENZIE BROWN FMB:mlt Enclosures cc: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk 3 ORDER OF PROCEDURE ey CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA alac ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 Ujons "WoT«e (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) DATE OF MEETING: SEPTEMBER- 15, 1975 �QsT � Ta pas T ENGINEER: Present map showing proposed works of improvement and boundaries of the assessment district and explain- ing method and formula of assess- ment spread. MAYOR AND COUNCIL: -Adopt RESOLUTION_ COVERING PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION . (Public Hearing Date: October 6 , 1975.. Tice_ D lyfifif'i�9 f ,a 041 F. MACKENZIE BROWN (714) 979-4930 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE.SUITE 101 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92880 (213) 489-5006 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013 September 16 , 1975 Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re: Assessment District No. 7302 (Old Town Drainage Assessment District) Dear Ms. Wentworth: Pursuant to telephonic contact with both your office and Mr. Jack Miller, enclosed herein is the corrected Notice of Hearing. As requested, it has been prepared on 8-1/2" x 11" bond. Should you have any comments and/or questions , please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, MO - MARCIA L. TUCKER FOR F. MACKENZIE BROWN MLT Enclosure cc: Mr. Jack Miller City of Huntington Beach s� P.O. BOX ISO CALIFORNIA /26411 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 30, 1975 F. Mackenzie Brown 4630 Campus Dr. , Suite 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gentlemen: We are enclosing the following materials for your information: 1. Resolution No. 4132 - covering preliminary determination that the public convenience and necessity requires certain improve- ments in an assessment district, and setting a time and place for hearing thereon. 2. Affidavit of Publication for Resolution No. 4132. 3. Notice of Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Notice of Hearing. 4. Certificate of Posting. 5. Certificate of Posting Notice of Improvement. 6. Department of Public Works - Town Hall Meeting Letter. Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:lo NOTICE OF HEARING CITY OF HUNTINGTON B.EAC.II, CAL,.T.FORNIA ASS[SSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that on the 21st day of April , .1975 , the City Council of the .City of Huntington Beach, California , approved and adopted a Resolution providing fora hearing as set .forth in Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN , that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , California, .on the 21st day of April , 1975 , did adopt a Plat entitled "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD. TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) ." showing the general na- ture, location and extent of the proposed construction of certain public street improvements including the construction -of storm drain improvements , and also on said date by resolution , adopted a map showing .the boundaries of the district benefited thereby. That on the 15th. of September, 19.75 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach did adopt a Resolution Covering Preliminary Determination that the public convenience and neces- sity require the construction of certain storm drain improvements together with appurtenances and necessary acquisition within the City of Huntington Beach,. California, and that the .cost and expense thereof is to be assessed against lands to be benefited thereby . in the City. of Huntington. Beach. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN , that Monday , the 6th (lay of OCTOBER, 1975 , AT THE HOUR OF 7 :00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, located at 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California, is the day , hour and place fixed for a public hearing upon the public convenience and necessity for the above=mentioned and referenced improvement and acquisition without compliance with the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 . Any persons interested' in , or owning property within the district proposed. to be assessed to' pay the cost and expenses thereof , may file with the City Clerk, prior to the time fixed .for - hearing , written protests or objections to the undertaking of said proceedings without first complying with the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" . All protests or objections shall contain a descrip- tion of the property , .the nature of the protest or objection , and bear the .signature of the interested person or owner. I — The improvements and work shall be conducted under the provigiona of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" , being Division I-Z of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; bonds to be issued pursuant to the terms and pro- visions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 191.5" , Division 10 of said Code . Reference is hereby made to Resolution No. 4132 and to the plat and map on file in the Office of the City Clerk for all particulars. The following is a general description of the works of improvement proposed to be constructed under these proceedings : The construction of certain storm water drain im- provements together with appurtenances and appurt- enant work , including necessary acquisition and appurtenances in a special assessment district and generally within portion of the following streets: ADAMS AVENUE DELAWARE STREET YORKTOWN AVENUE GARFIELD AVENUE BEACH BOULEVARD and other streets and easements, and for particu- lars 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. DATED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA O0 D 3 D g m I- \ GOLDENWESTT St z v M • � G) � m `i Z STEWART ST m z ' CRYSTAL ST • • 1 � 11 ` HOL st lHH GOTHARD ST r ALA ST ALABAtAA T St S� � .7 DDDc A DOD ' DELA~E ST z FLORUAST. • m z BEACH BLVD. EXIST D-01 CHANNEL Y� r City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT September 10 , 1975 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 19/ Honorable Mayor L�1� and City: Council .... City of Huntington Beach I ye Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District No. 7302 Dear Council Members: The attached resolution is transmitted for your review and appropriate action. The resolution states that the public convenience and necessity requires storm drain improvements in the subject area, that the cost of these improvements will be paid by - special assessments levied against the properties within the area, and that a public hearing will be held on October- 6, 1975. At the October 6th meeting, discussion and input from all involved parties will be invited, after which the Council may make a determination whether or not to proceed with an assessment district: - To proceed will require the expenditure of additional funds for the - attorney, spreading cost and bond counseling. These costs would be chargeable to the District and paid by the District if finalized and approved. The storm water problem exists in the area due to its generally flat land which has a number of natural local depresssions located near the center of the drainage basin. During the rainy season these low areas receive all the storm water run off and create lakes. When the amount of rainfall is high, these lakes fill and flooding of streets and residences occurs. After the rain, as these- areas have no means of natural runoff, the trapped water remains until evaporation, infiltration or pumping by City forces occurs. A majority of this area is still undeveloped and without these facilities or a stop to development, the additional runoff caused by new developments will increase the flooding of the low areas to disastrous proportions. In 1963, the City Council directed this Department to prepare plans for a Master Plan Storm Drain System for the area. In 1966, .an assessment district was initiated to -finance the work. This- district was rejected ;7- V Honorable Mayor and City Council September 10, 1975 Page 2 due to the cost of the extensive amount of work required outside the area and the large number of protests from the owners. The Orange County Flood Control District has since constructed these off site facilities required, at their expense. In 1972, an application to H.U.D. for a construction grant in the amount of about $1 million was made. The project was accepted by H.U.D. - but funds were not available. Since that time additional applications and inquiries have been made of various agencies attempting to secure sources of funding. None have been found. In- 1973, the City Council again instructed this Department to proceed with the formation of an assessment -district to finance the'project. The construction plans and specifications have been prepared. The environmental documents and the initial district resolution have been adopted. An agreement between the City and the Orange County Flood Control District has been -signed whereby the County will contribute a maximum of $300,000 to the project to help offset the construction costs. The agree- ment, however, stipulates that a contract must be awarded by the end of December 1975. Town hall meetings were held with owners of the area earlier -this- year. At these meetings property owners requested that alternatives to the system proposed' be investigated. This Department investigated the suggested plans and determined that the originally proposed project is superior, based on economics and engineering feasibility. Copies of this investigation were given to representatives of the citizens. A copy is attached for your perusal. We intend to have town hall meetings in City Hall, tentatively set for 7: 30 P.M. on September 25, 1975; 4: OO 'P.M. on September 26, 1975; and 4:00 P.M. on -October 6, 1975. Notice of these meetings will be included in the official notice of the hearing which will be mailed to all persons owning real property proposed to be assessed. The only known- available means of financing this project -at -this time is by an assessment district. The estimated total cost- of this project is $2, 300, 000. 00: It is recommended that this resolution be adopted to accomplish the public hearing prior to a future determination -of the District. Very truly yours, . �TH�Iartg Director of Public Works HEH:JFM:ae Trans. O D a7 Z - O D 0 m r \ GOLDENWEST z g M N . n N v" (Tl `i z Z STEWART t ST r*m O • o Z CRYSTAL ST. • • 1 I 1 m HOL ST LAKE ST. Ll u n GOTHARD ST ❑ r ALAS ! A ALABA A C1 . ST 0 S� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 DELAWARE ST rn ❑ FLORIDA ST. L t m m m Z • BEACH BLVD. EXIST. D-01 CHANNEL OLD TOWN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 REPORT ON ALTERNATE SYSTEMS BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The "Old Town" area comprises a large portion of the central mesa in Huntington Beach. Continuing development directly causing increased storm runoff and. constriction of natural retention basins has produced numerous flood problems throughout the area. In view of this po- tentially critical hazard, coupled with the fact that this section is not served by any type of master storm drain system, the City Council in November of 1973 instructed the Department of Public Works to pursue the formation of; Assessment District No. 7302 which would create the funds and provide for the construction of the much needed storm drains. For the past 20 months, the Department of Public Works has been- involved in the design and layout of a storm drain system. Design criteria is based .on Orange County Flood Control District data for the theoretical 25. yearreturn frequency storm. This data entails rainfall intensities and durations which have the likelihood of occurring once every. 25 years.. . The system is composed of a network of catch basins .at various pickup. points connected by a series of underground conduits which transport storm runoff to the Orange County Flood Control District facility D-01 Channel. Estimated .cost for the system' -is $2 , 300, 000, of which $306,000 has been pledged by the Orange County Flood Control District .for main line construction. The remaining $2 ,000,000 trans- lates to $3,500 per gross acre. In recent months, . several informal "Town Hall" meetings have been held between department staff and various groups of Old Town property owners, who .will be asked to directly bear a major. portiori of the costs involved. Being faced with the possibility of an added financial ob- ligation, the Old Town constituents have every right to expect that the most efficient system possible for the least expense is planned, thus optimizing the return on monies outlayed. It was with this principle in mind that- the affected property owners requested the staff to re- search several alternatives to the department' s system. It is an examination of those proposed alternates to which the remainder of this' report is directed. /� J Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 2 Alternate 1 : Spreading Basin One suggestion was the idea of a spreading basin which entails diffusing storm waters across a plot of _ land and allowing it to settle out. The basic concept was well taken and, therefore, the department carried out an in-depth research to determine its feasability. The basic theory involves spreading a relatively shallow depth of water over a large section of land , thus permitting percolation into the soil. This has been a popular method for recharging the ground water. The advantages of -this option are generally three-fold: 1. Storm water is .retained in the spreading basin,. thus preventing the loss of a natural resource directly to the ocean. 2 . By locating the basin within the district, certain storm drain lines can be: reduced in length and some eliminated, thus reducing the total cost of the system by $430,950. 3. The existing ground water structure may . be re-charged, thus raising the water table and increasing well supply. Disadvantages to this option, however, seem to be more numerous: 1. It is estimated it will require a basin of 8 . 6 acres to adequately contain the 86 A.F. of runoff. Based on current market price of approximately $35,0.00 per acre, the purchase price for the. necessary land .would be $302,400. 2. Land excavation and preparation for the basin would be approximately $557, 000: . 3. The estimated cost of the diffusor structure and spread- ing system is $250,000. 4. Installation of .sampling wells to monitor the chemical make-up of the ground water under the basin would cost $45, 000: These wells would represent an annual operating and maintenance expense to the City. 5. The required 8. 6 acres would- be taken off the City tax roles and would result in lost revenue due to non- productive land. 1 ' Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 3 6. By electing this alternative , the district would forego the $300, 000 pledge by the County. 7 . The process of percolation may be somewhat questionable since a sand strata could interrupt the downward flow and carry the water out to the ocean. Also, a dense . clay strata could seriously impede percolation and cause standing surface water which could become a health hazard. The foregoing information deals with the major concerns of the proposal.. . Its estimated price of $2 ,724 , 000 represents a much higher initial investment to the property owners, -In addition, maintenance operations .would constitute an annual long.-:run expense to the' City. It is, therefore, the concensus of this department that no further consideration need be given to .this alternate. Alternate 2 : Retention Basin This departinent 'in its preliminary design considered the use of a retention basin, but the idea failed to materialize, due to the high land costs involved. Recently, however, this alternate has been studied using a concept of combining the retention basin and a park site. The function of a retention basin is to store and retard high volumes of storm runoff during and immediately following the storm. The basin is then drained at a controlled rate after the storm has passed. The major design. purpose is that down-stream facilities can greatly be reduced in size. Of particular interest in this case is that the basin site can double as a neighborhood park, thus serving the recreational needs of the residents. There are two general advantages gained through the use of this concept: 1. Certainly a. major portion. of the .costs . for the depart ment' s original design lie in the down-stream sections of the system. The employment .of the retention basin affords the use of smaller tail-end sections in the storm drain. This savings is estimated to be $375, 900 from the present design. Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 4 2 . As previously mentioned, the major non-economic benefit is that of combining the retention basin with the proposed park site between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, south of Yorktown. The 9. 08 acre site will cost An estimated $381 , 360 which will be paid out of the City' s general fund. It can be expected the grading and site preparation expense of $250,000 would be split between the district and park funds. The basic design of the basin involves gently sloping sides down to a flat bottom. Grass could be used over the entire site with landscaping and park facilities on the fringes of .the actual basin. The park would not only serve recreational needs but would also enhance and benefit the area as a whole. The disadvantages. are Aas follows: 1. By reducing the size of: the downstream lines`, the district would .forego the $300, 000 pledged by. the Orange .County Flood Control District. The District ' s funding policy involves-consideration of larger sized conduits to which this ,alternate would not qualify. Therefore, the actual savings would be minimal,. with the per-acre assessment remaining at $3,500. 2 . . As with any retention structure, the basin would require \ maintenance for clean out, debris removal, and possible re-grading. This would represent an annual expense to the General.. Fund. 3 . 'One point of consideration with this dual use is the possible, whether remote or not, hazard to park users. During summer months only an insignificant stream- of nuisance water would run across the bottom section of the basin; however, the rainy season with its unpredictable storms could fill the basin to capacity, thus producing a potential danger to children of the neighborhood. In analyzing this alternate, , it seems to be an economic toss-up in comparison with the present design. No particular monitary benefit is gained over other alternatives, and it is necessary to Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 5 consider the contingent hazard brought about by the bi-lateral use. The department' s proposed system would eliminate storm runoff as it is collected and rid the area of it permanently. It is therefore recommended that the retention basin alternate be abandoned in favor of the present design. Alternate 3: Storm Water Injection The injecting of storm runoff into the sub-strata by means . of abandoned oil wells was another alternate popularly voiced at the meetings. The department has contacted numerous agencies in an attempt to analyze this suggestion. The procedure involves the collection and storage of storm runoff in numerous individual basins throughout the district. Water is then pumped through refurbished oil well shafts at a controlled rate and injected under high pressure into the water bearing •strata below. .This process has been. used to rejuvinate oil bear ing ,stratas, thus increasing well production, and the same principle could be used to recharge the water table. Advantages with well injection seem to be two-fold: 1. Since the injection sites are sporadically located throughout the district, the main trunk .storm drain line would not be required., but instead small individual collector systems would be used. Although it is difficult to estimate the. actual net savings involved, one could expect them to be great. 2. Again, as with Alternate 1, a direct possible benefit derived would be the partial recharge of the ground water supply. Disadvantages and uncertainties have been compiled as follows: 1. According to the THUMS island operation off Long Beach, the maximum injection rate per well is 5,000 bls/day'. This .translates to . 146 gal/min. Using this criteria and based on total storm runoff volume of 28. 2 million gallons, over 200.0 wells operating at 150 gpm would be required to keep pace. Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 6 Relying more on the interim storage capabilities of the individual basins, it would then require approximately 50 wells pumping 150 gpm continuously for 3 days to drain the storm. 2. Some of the economic concerns on a per well site basis are listed below: (a) Purchase price for an abandoned well and the land is extremely difficult to estimate on an individual basis. It would seem $50, 000 could be considered as a minimum. (b) Well preparation, oversizing, pressure adaption, and general refurbishment would cost approximately $50, 000. (c) Purchase and installation of high pressure pumping and injection equipment would run $80,000. A minimum .total cost, therefore, of $180, 000 would be required to get the well operational . The cost would be considerably higher if a .producing well were involved. The total. price for 50 wells, therefore, would be a staggering $9, 000, 000. 3. One uncertainty connected with high pressure injection is Whether in fact storm runoff can be introduced into' the strata and for how long. Past experience with injecting reclaimed water from a sewage treatment plant showed .the fluid contained too many suspended solids and that the oil bearing formation was soon plugged. If this occurred in the district, the property owners would be out the money used in the injection system and be in the same situation as they are currently (including the ravages of inflation) . 4. Since the district is believed to be crossed by a number of fault lines, what effect water injection would have on fault activity is difficult to say.' Monitoring devices would, no doubt have to be installed to record sub-grade conditions, again at an additional expense. Report on Alternate systems AD 7302 Page 7 5. With the Department of Oil and Gas regulating injection into oil sands and Department of Water Resources (and Water. Quality Control Board.) regulating injection into water sands, it may be difficult to comply with all re- quirements. 6. To maintain the current high quality of ground water , any storm water to be introduced into the water strata must first be filtered and treated. The cost of even a small treatment plant would be extremely high. Based on the foregoing information, it is recommended that. the injection alternate be rejected as- a questionable and economically unfeasible approach. Although the three suggested options are all viable alternatives, it is the opinion of this -department that, based on economic and engineering feasibility, the present design is superior .in solving the problem at hand. It is, therefore, recommended that ' any assessment district formation incorporate the presently proposed design. O D_ ;0 z O 3 � 0 m r \ GOLDENWEST St Z 0 M •� cN ,7 :LJ m m 'z z STEW ART ST CRYSTAL ST. 1 • 1 1 m HOL 5T lHH n GOTHARD ST r ALAS I A ALABANJA n 00t0 [ D 0 D DDDD �'ti D DELAWARE ST. Z FLORIDA ST �. • rn m m m m z BEACH BLVD. EXIST D-01 CHANNEL aw NOTICE OF HEARING V 1 CTTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAI,TFORNIA ;U ASSI SSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN , that on the 21st day of April , 1975 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , California , approved and adopted a Resolution providing for a hearing as set forth in Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , California, on the 21st day of April , 1975 , did adopt a Plat entitled "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) " showing the general na- ture, location and extent of the proposed construction of certain _ -public street improvements including the construction of storm drain improvements , and also on said date by resolution , adopted a map showing the boundaries of the district benefited thereby. That on the 15th of September, 1975 , the City Council of the City of. Huntington Beach did adopt a Resolution Covering Preliminary Determination that the public convenience and neces- sity require the construction of certain storm drain improvements together with appurtenances and necessary acquisition within the City of Huntington Beach , California, and that the cost and expense thereof is to be assessed against lands to be benefited thereby in the City of Huntington Beach. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN, that Monday, the 6th clay of OCTOBER, 1975 , AT THE HOUR OF 7 :00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, located at 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California , is the day , hour and place fixed for a public hearing upon the public convenience and necessity for the above-mentioned and referenced improvement and acquisition without compliance with the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 . Any persons interested in , or owning property within the district proposed. to be assessed to pay the cost and expenses thereof , may file with the City Clerk, prior to the time fixed for hearing , written protests or objections to the undertaking of said proceedings without first complying with the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investiqation , Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" . All protests or objections shall contain a descrip- tion of the property , the nature of the protest or objection , and bear the signature of the interested person or owner. --a : The improvements and work shall be conducted under the provisi , of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" , being Division 1.2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; bonds to be issued pursuant to the terms and pro- visions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 191.5" , Division 10 of said Code. Reference is hereby made to Resolution No. 4132 and to the plat and map on file in the Office of the City Clerk for all particulars. The following is a general description of the works of improvement proposed to be constructed under these proceedings : The construction of certain storm water drain im- provements together with appurtenances and appurt- enant work , including necessary acquisition and appurtenances in a special assessment district and generally within portion of the following streets: ADAMS AVENUE DELAWARE STREET YORKTOWN AVENUE GARFIELD AVENUE BEACH. BOULEVARD and other streets and easements, and for particu- lars 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. DATED 7 CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA O D � D 8 oG 0 r \ GOLDENWEST ST zo m .. Vf V1 "� U 1 � m - z STEWART ST rn - o Z CRYSTAL ST. 11 HOL ST lHHl� GOTHARD ST ALA A ST � ALABA S� o T EY ST N o o D � o i In O'D ALE ST. z FLO ST. m z BEACH BLVD, EXIST. 0-01 CHANNEL s A City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 19.0 CALIFORNIA 92646 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT September 17 , 1975 Subject: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Property Owners: -At •the.:September 15, 1975 City Council- meeting, a resolution was adopted setting a public.. hearing- for .,Monday, October 6,, 1975, to determine whether or not the public- convenience and necessity requires the construc- tion of a storm drain system for the area of the City where your property is located. The enclosed map shows the boundaries of this area and the facilities required. . The boundaries shown follow the natural drainage area to be served by these proposed facilities. The resolution also states that if it is determined there is a need for the system, the costs will. be assessed against the lands in the area. The problem that exists is that within the area there are natural low areas that during rains recave all the storm water runoff and create lakes. When rainfall is high these lakes fill and cause flooding of streets and residences. After the rains, as these areas have no means of natural drainage, the trapped water remains until evaporation, infil- tration or pumping by City forces occurs. A majority of this area is still undeveloped and exists as vacant land. As properties develop, covering the vacant land, less rain water is able to be absorbed into the ground and the volume of runoff is greater. Without these proposed facilities or a stop to development., this additional storm water runoff will increase the flooding of the low areas to a disastrous proportion. In 1963, the City Council directed this department to prepare plans for a Master Plan Storm Drain System for the area. In 1966 an assessment district was initiated to finance the work. This district was rejected prior to confirmation by the City Council upon objections from property owners as the cost included extensive work required outside of the district. Since that time this work outside of the area has been accomplished by the Orange County Flood Control District. Since 1966, the City has made applications and inquiries of various agencies attempting to secure sources of major funding for the project. From all the agencies contacted, the Orange County Flood Control District was the only agency able to provide financial support and an agreement has been signed whereby they will participate with $300,000. 00 to help offset the construction costs. Property Owners September 17, 1975 Page 2 In 1973 , the City Council again instructed this department to proceed with initial steps to form an. assessment district to finance the project. Earlier this year informal meetings were held with property owners to review the project and the costs involved. At these meetings owners presented alternatives to the City plan and asked that we study them. This department investigated the suggested plans and determined that the originally proposed project is superior, based on economics and engineering feasibility. These results were given to representatives of the owners. At the Public Hearing on October 6 1975 , comments from all involved parties will be invited, after which the City Council may determine whether or not to proceed with the assessment district. The cost of the project is estimated at $2 , 300 , 000. 00 and would be paid by special assess- ments levied against the properties within the district. The cost to be assessed to each individual parcel would be determined by the amount of benefit received. This will mean that all properties will not be assessed the same. The lower areas , subject to flooding now and in the future, would be assessed at a higher rate than the areas on the higher ground, not subject to flooding. We realize that due to the size of this project and the numerous property owners involved, many owners will desire additional information prior to the Public Hearing. This department cordially invites you to attend an informal Town Hall meeting on Thursday, September 25, at 7 : 30 P.M. , Room B-8 , lower level of Civic Center , 2000 Main Street/Mansion Avenue. The staff will present the project and be available for discussion. If you are unable to attend this meeting, we also have set aside the following times to be available for information: September 25, 5 :00 P.M. , Room B-8, Civic Center October 2 , 5 : 00 P.M. , Room B-7, Civic. Center. Very truly yours , � E rtge . afI rt Director of ublic Works HEH:JFM:ae Encl. s City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT i September 17 , 1975 r Subject: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Property Owners: At - the.,'September 15, 1975 City Council meeting, a resolution was adopted setting_ a 'public. hearing- fok .Monday, October 6, ' 1975, to determine whether or not the public- convenience and necessity requires the construc- tion of a storm drain system for the area of the City where your property is located.. The enclosed map shows the boundaries of this area and the facilities .required. The boundaries shown follow the natural drainage area to be served by these proposed facilities. The resolution also states that if it is determined there is a need for the system, the costs will_ be assessed against the lands in the area. The problem that exists is that within the area there are natural low areas that during rains recave all the storm water runoff and create lakes. When rainfall is high these lakes fill and cause flooding of streets and residences. After the rains, as these areas have no means of natural drainage, the trapped water remains until evaporation, infil- tration or pumping by City forces occurs. A majority of this area is still undeveloped and. exists as vacant land. As properties develop, covering the vacant land, less rain water is able to be absorbed into the ground and the volume of runoff is greater. Without these proposed facilities or a stop to development, this .additional storm water runoff will increase the flooding of the low areas to a disastrous proportion. In 196.3, the City Council directed this department to prepare plans for a Master Plan Storm Drain System for the area. In 1966 an assessment district was initiated to finance the work. This district was rejected prior to confirmation by the. City Council upon objections from property owners as the cost included extensive work required outside of the district. Since that time this work outside of the area has been accomplished by the Orange County Flood Control District. Since 1966, the City has made applications and inquiries of various agencies attempting to secure sources of major funding for the project. From all the agencies contacted, the Orange County Flood Control District was the only agency able to provide financial support and an agreement has been signed whereby they will participate with $300,000. 00 to help offset the construction costs. Property Owners September 17, 1975 Page 2 In 1973 , the City Council again instructed this department to proceed with initial steps to form an assessment district to finance the project. Earlier this year informal meetings were held with property owners to review the project and the costs involved. At these meetings owners presented alternatives to the City plan and asked that we study them. This department investigated the suggested plans and determined that the originally proposed project is superior, based on economics and engineering feasibility. These results were given to representatives of the owners. At the Public Hearing on October 6 , 1975, comments from all involved parties will be invited, after which the City Council may determine whether or not to proceed with the assessment district. The cost of the project is estimated at $2 , 300 , 000. 00 and would be paid by special assess- ments levied against the properties within the district. The cost to be assessed to each individual parcel would be determined by the amount of benefit received. This will mean that all properties will not be assessed the same. The lower areas, subject to flooding now and in the future, would be assessed at a higher rate than the areas on the higher ground, not subject to flooding. We realize that due to the size of this project and the numerous property owners involved, many owners will desire additional information prior to the Public Hearing. This department cordially invites you to attend an informal Town Hall meeting on Thursday, September 25, at 7 : 30 P.M. , Room B-8 , lower level of Civic Center, 2000 Main Street/Mansion Avenue. The staff will present the project and be available for discussion. If you are unable to attend this meeting, we also have set aside the following times to be available for information: September 25, 5:00 P.M. , Room B-8 , Civic Center October 2 , 5 : 00 P.M. , Room B-7 , Civic Center. Very truly yours , E. aS rt e g Director of ublic Works HEF3:JFM:ae Encl. s City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT September 17, 1975 Subject: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Property Owners: :At the;:-September 15, 1975 City Council meeting, a resolution was adopted setting_ a 'public. hearing- for _Monday, October 6, 1975, to determine whether or not the public convenience and necessity requires the construc- tion of a storm drain system for the area of the City where your property is located. The enclosed map shows the boundaries of this area and the facilities .required. The boundaries shown follow the natural drainage area to be served by these proposed facilities. The resolution also states that if it is determined there is a need for the system, the costs .will be assessed against the lands in the area. The problem that exists is that within the area there are natural low areas that during rains recave all the storm water runoff and create lakes. When rainfall is high these lakes fill and cause flooding of streets and residences. After the rains, as these areas have no means of natural drainage, the trapped water remains until evaporation, infil- tration or pumping by City forces occurs. A majority of this area is still undeveloped and, exists as vacant land. As properties develop, covering the vacant land, less rain water is able to be absorbed into the ground and the volume of runoff is greater. Without these proposed facilities or a stop to development., this additional storm water runoff will increase the .flooding of the low areas to a disastrous proportion. In 1963, the City Council directed this department to prepare plans for a Master Plan Storm Drain System for the area. In 1966 an assessment district was initiated to finance the work. This district was rejected prior to confirmation by the City Council upon objections from property owners as the cost included extensive work required outside of the district. Since that time this work outside of the area has been accomplished by the Orange County Flood Control District. Since 1966, the City has made applications and inquiries of various agencies attempting to secure sources of major funding for the project. From all the agencies contacted, the Orange County .Flood Control District was the only agency able to provide financial support and an agreement has been signed whereby they will participate with $300, 000. 00 to help offset the construction costs. Property Owners September ,17, 1975 Page 2 In 1973 , the City Council again instructed this department to proceed with initial steps to form an. assessment district to finance the project. Earlier this year informal meetings were held with property owners to review the project and the costs involved. At these meetings owners presented alternatives to the City plan and asked that we study them. This department investigated the suggested plans and determined that the originally proposed project' is superior, based on economics and engineering feasibility. These results were given to representatives of the owners. At the Public Hearing on October 6, 1975, comments from all involved parties will be invited, after which the City Council may determine whether or not to proceed with the assessment district. The cost of the project is estimated at $2 , 300 ,000 .00 and would be paid by special assess- ments levied against the properties within the district. The cost to be assessed to each individual parcel would be determined by the amount of benefit received. This will mean that all properties will not be assessed the same. The lower areas, subject to flooding now and in the future, would be assessed at a higher rate than the areas on the higher ground, not subject to flooding. We realize that due to the size of this project and the numerous property owners involved, many owners will desire additional information prior to the Public Hearing. This department cordially invites you to attend an informal Town Hall meeting on Thursday, September 25, at 7: 30 P.M. , Room B-8 , lower level of Civic Center, 2000 Main Street/Mansion Avenue. The staff will present the project and be available for discussion. If you are unable to . attend this meeting, we also have set aside the following times to be available for information: September 25, 5 : 00 P.M. , Room B-8, Civic Center October 2 , 5:00 P.M. , Room B-7 , Civic Center. Very truly yours , • 101.0e E. lYa rtge Director of ublic Works HEH:JFM:ae Encl. s A'A & City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT September 17, 1975 Subject: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Property Owners: 'At - the September 15, 1975 City Council meeting, a resolution was adopted setting_ a public. hearing- for Monday, October 6, 1975, to determine whether or not the public convenience and necessity requires the construc- tion of a storm- drain' system for the area of the City where your property is located. . The enclosed map shows the boundaries of this area and the facilities .require.d. The boundaries shown follow the natural drainage area to be served by these proposed facilities. The resolution also states that if it is determined there is a need for the system, the costs will be assessed against the lands in the area.' The problem that exists is that within the area there are natural low areas that during rains recave all the storm water runoff and create lakes. When rainfall is high these lakes. fill and cause flooding of streets and residences. After the rains, as these areas have no means of natural drainage, the trapped water remains until evaporation, infil- tration or pumping by City forces occurs. A majority of this area is still undeveloped and exists as vacant land. As properties develop, covering the vacant land, less rain water is able to be absorbed into the ground and the volume of runoff is greater. Without these proposed facilities or .a stop to development., this additional storm water runoff will increase the flooding of the low areas to a disastrous proportion. In 1963, the City Council directed this department to prepare plans for a Master Plan Storm Drain System for the area. In 1966 an assessment district was initiated to finance the work. This district was rejected prior to confirmation by the City Council upon objections from property owners as the cost included extensive work required outside of the district. Since that time this work outside of the area has been accomplished by the Orange County Flood Control District. Since 1966, the City has made applications and inquiries of various agencies attempting to secure sources -of major funding for the project. From all the agencies contacted, the Orange County Flood Control District was the only agency able to provide financial support and an agreement has been signed whereby they will participate with $300,000. 00 to help offset the construction costs. i Property Owners September 17, 1975 Page 2 In 1973 , the City Council again instructed this department to proceed with initial steps to form an. assessment district to finance the project. Earlier this year informal meetings were held with property owners to review the project and the costs involved. At these meetings owners presented alternatives to the City plan and asked that we study them. This department investigated the suggested plans and determined that the originally proposed project is superior, based on economics and engineering feasibility. These results were given to representatives of the owners. At the Public Hearing on October 6 , 1975, comments from all involved parties will be invited, after which the City Council may determine whether or not to proceed with the assessment district. The cost of the( project is estimated at $2 ,300 , 000. 00 and would be paid by special assess- ments levied against the properties within the district. The cost to be assessed to each individual parcel would be determined by the amount of benefit received. This will mean that all properties will not be assessed the same. The lower areas, subject to flooding now and in the future, would be assessed at a higher rate than the areas on the higher ground, not subject to flooding. We realize that due to the size of this project and the numerous property owners involved, many owners will desire additional information prior to the Public Hearing. This department cordially invites you to attend an informal Town Hall meeting on Thursday, September 25, at 7: 30 P.M. , Room B-8, lower level of Civic Center, 2000 Main Street/Mansion Avenue. The staff will present the 'project and be .available for discussion. If you are unable to . attend this meeting, we also have set aside the following times to be available for information: September 25, 5 :00 P.M. , Room B-8, Civic Center October 2 , 5:00 P.M. , Room B-7 , Civic Center. Very truly yours , E. aS rt e 9 Director of ublic Works HEH:JFM:ae Encl. ._.� `RECEIVEIr 41t CITY CLERK' • 'ITT ,F HU�1TMITC ;icGCH.CALIF. 43 FINAL • 0 7Eo5=1 ON "OLD TOWN" DRAINAGE. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 CITY OF HUNTINGTON- BEACH, CALIFORNIA ENVIRON MENTAL_ RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SEP 2 C' IP74 • P. O. Bo. 1gp liuniingon Beach, Calif. 92348 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 73-23 ON I "OLD TOWN" DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT':`NO. 73-02 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA • Prepared by HUNTINGTON BEACH • ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT • • JUNE, 1974 • • The Final report consists of the following: 1. The draft Environment&& Impact Report. •, 2. Comments from public and private agencies. 3. Responses to public and private agency comments. All elements ofjlthe final report are bound together. Deletions• from the draft EIR- are noted by having. been struck. through, while additions and corrections are printed in italic type. Where comments necessitated a lengthy response, addi- tional pages were included. Additional pages have the same number as the page .of reference but contain an appropriate letter postscript (e.g. , pages 1-a, 1-b) . Comments and responses are cross-referenced as follows: Ref: p. 185 See Reference page 185 • • i • TABLE OF 'CONTENTS List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii • List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Synopsis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 • Authorization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 • Demographics. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Public Utilities. . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Community Services. . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Transportation Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Acoustical Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Aesthetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Paleontology, Archaeology, Historic Landmarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Geology and Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 1 Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Flora, Fauna, and Related Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . o . . 116 DISCUSSION. . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . 127 Alternatives to the Proposed Action. . . , 139 • Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Ternj , . . . . . . . . 144 Productivity Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. , . . . . . 145 Growth Inducing Impact.,_ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . o . . 146 Impact Area Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 148 • REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 BIBLIOGRAPHY. o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . 155 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 A. Computer Smog Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 158 B. Water Quality Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 159 C. Letters Relating to the Formation of A.D. 73-OZ . . . . . . . . 163 D. Consultation Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 F. BnviAonmentat Review BoaAdD"cu&6konb 177 F. Comment6 Received on .Dna6t FIR . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 183 ii a • LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1. - Vicinity Map of Huntington Beach 6 • 2. Vicinity Map of the Assessment District in the City of Huntington Beach 7 3. Map of Assessment District Boundaries, Proposed Drainage Line Routes, and Bakes- Ponda 9 3a Graph of Rai,6aZC Inten6 ty - Vunati.on Cunva Jon 25-year Recumence Storm 12-a Rei: P. 3b GAa.ph of Runobj Coe6jici.ent Curves bon Soil Group V 12-b 187 3c Hy&%otogy Map o6 46eadment Di6th%ct 13-a 4 . Map of Assessment District, Existing Land Use 15 5. Map of Assessment District, Existing Zoning 17 6. Map of Open Space Values in Huntington Beach 20 7. Graph of Residential Unit Growth in the Assessment District 23 8.. Graph of Population Growth in Huntington Beach 26 9. Graph of Population Growth in the Assessment District 30 10. Map of Existing School Capacities in the Huntington Beach Area 50 • 11. Map of Traffic Flow in Huntington Beach (1973) 57 12. Map . of Traffic Flow in Huntington Beach at Ultimate Development 64 13. Graph of L50 Plots for Automobiles as a Function of Volume Flow and Average Speed 68 14. Graph of HUD' s Noise Acceptability Categories for Proposed Housing. Sites 69 15. Figure of Highway Noise at Various Distances . from .Highways 73 16. Map of Existing and Proposed Bicycle Trails in Huntington Beach 82 17 . Map of Topography in Huntington Beach 100 18. Map of, Faults in Huntington Beach 101 19. Map of Epicenters and Faults in the Orange County Area 103 20. Map of Geotechnical Land Use Capability in Huntington Beach 105 21. Map of Flood Control Channels in Huntington Beach 109 22 . Groundwater Contour Map of Orange County ill • • iii • ' LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE • 1 Population Characteristics of A.D. No. 73-02 27 2 Chemical Analysis of Huntington Beach Water 39 3 Summary of Combined Effluent to Submarine 42 Outfall 4 Trip Generation Rates 62 5 Park Inventory 79 6 Orange County Air Quality 91 7 Orange County 1972 Emissions Inventory 93 8 Vegetation Inventory 117 9 Wildlife Inventory 119 10 Immediate Abatement Potential of Construction 128 Equipment 11 Summany ob Quantitative Gnowth-Inducing Impacts 130-a f • • • iv. • • SYNOPSIS The proposed project involves the construction of a drainage sys- tem to serve. an approximate 580-acre assessment district in south • central Huntington Beach. Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02 is generally bounded by Main Street on the north, Memphis Avenue on the south, Beach Boulevard on the east, and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the west. i Most adverse impacts associated with the construction phase of the project will be slight and/or temporary in nature. However, a • ;potential significant adverse impact exists for fossil resources as line ditches are dug 15 feet in depth at a length of almost 15 , 000 feet. Another potential significant adverse impact exists to local • property if heavy rains occur during the rainy season and disperses .excavated earthen materials. The drainage system will contribute to the development of the • assessment district, but will not necessarily be the most important factor. At worst, it is expected that 3 , 577 new residential units and 10, 016 persons will be added to the assessment district at full development. Moreover, about 112 acres of industrial and commercial uses would be generated. As the assessment district develops, there will be slight to mod- erate increases in utility and community service demand, traffic, noise, and air quality deterioration. There will be a significant adverse impact on the educational fac- ilities of the Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the -1- - Huntington Beach Union High School District as attendance exceeds ' existing capacities. The drainage system will be located within the Newport-Inglewood structural zone, and will. be subject to a potentially significant adverse impact from earthquakes. As water is drained from the assessment district, there will be a moderate storm water load increase on downstream drainage systems. This impact will become progressively adverse as the assessment dis- trict develops (increasing runoff) and/or storms approach the intensity of a 25-year storm. The downstream flow of suspended solids, dis- solved solids, and toxic materials will also moderately increase. Beneficial impacts of the project will include the following: There will be a decrease in the local flood hazard and associated health, safety, and property damage problems as most of the area' s 40 runoff is absorbed by the drainage system and intermittent -lak0s pondb are filled. Rej : As storm water is moved out of the district, there will be a p. 181 decrease in water contaminants flowing into Civic Center Lake Pond land Newland Marsh. The cost to the City of protecting the district from floods and a property damage will be reduced. As the assessment district develops, there will be increases in City revenues, school revenues, and employment opportunities. • i -2- INTRODUCTION AUTHORIZATION • The objective of this report is to present the environmental im- pacts that will emanate from a drainage system to serve a 580 acre assessment district in the City of Huntington Beach, generally bounded by the. Southern Pacific Railroad on the west, Beach Boulevard on the east, Memphis Avenue on the south and Main Street on the north. The • report was prepared using the Environmental Impact Report Guidelines as outlined by the City of Huntington Beach, and as required by the California Environmental Quality Act as amended in December 1973. Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02 was initiated on November 11, 1973, when the Huntington Beach City Council authorized the Direc- tor of Public Works to proceed with the preliminary formation of the assessment district boundaries, the preparation of plans and specifica- tions, and the employment- of special legal counsel. An Exemption Declaration prepared by the Department of Public Works was denied by the Environmental Review. Board at it November 20 , 1973 • session. The rejection was based on concern about the project's growth-inducement, impact on existing downstream systems, location within a geologically "hazardous" area, and its conformance with the City's environmental plans and goals in light of the growth-inducement -' factor. This, in effect, authorized the Environmental Resources Department to proceed with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the assessment district. On February 19,. 1974, the Huntington Beach City Council approved s -3- • the boundaries for the proposed assessment district. Actual formation of the assessment district has, as of the present, not been completed or adopted by the City Council. The City has made past attempts (in 1972) to secure financial aid from outside sources, the Department of Housing and Urban Development • Re6: p. I anc�-tlaa-Or=ariga�o r�-t -E4lood-Gera r-o-��i-r i-ate, so as to reduce the 189 financial burden on local property owners. However, these efforts failed. This situation has changed recently. In May 1974, the Orange Re6: P. Count I or • y Flood Control District agreed to finance 11-5- percen 13 t 189 $300, 000 of the total construction cost of the proposed drainage project. • AUTHOR The Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Charles L. Clark, Environmental Intern for the Huntington Beach Department of Environ- mental Resources. Mr. Clark has a B.A. in Geography, and is progressing toward an M.A. in the same subject. Specialized academic background within Geography includes industrial location and land use analysis in the urban environment. The author's M.A. thesis is partially re- lated to environmental analysis, and deals with the role of national ! and local government planning and environmental policies as they affect industrial location in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. • The author wishes to extend appreciation to Jeremiah D. Jackson, Environmental Engineer for the Huntington Beach Harbors and Beaches Department, who spent numerous sessions in upgrading the author's • knowledge in such environmental fields as air quality, water quality, hydrology, and acoustical quality. • -4- • PROJECT DESCRIPTION City Location The proposed project involves the construction of . drainage facilities • in Assessment District 73-02 within the City of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach is located in the west central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 -miles southeast of the City of Los Angeles and. 10 miles southwest of the City of Santa Ana. Huntington Beach is bounded on the north by the City of Westminster, on the east by • the Cities of Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach; on I the south. by the Pacific Ocean, and .on the west by the City of Seal Beach (Fig. 1) . Service Area Location Drainage Assessment District 73-02 is a 580-acre area, located in • the south central portion of the City predominantly within the bounds of what is known locally as the "Old Town" area (Fig. 2) . • It also corresponds with the greater part .of Area 8C as designated in the City's Master Drainage Plan. The service area is bounded on the east by Beach Boulevard. The southern limit extends along • . Adams Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Delaware Street, south along Delaware Street to Memphis Avenue, and then west to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The west boundary consists of • the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to approximately 500 feet north of Yorktown Avenue, and Goldenwest Street between Garfield Avenue and Clay Avenue. The drainage district is bounded on the • north by Garfield Avenue at Crystal Street, and a line which extends approximately northerly along Main Street to Beach Boulevard. -5- • s•• j S �• In•1\aer � I �• • L I ciIr I .�..! r.wn � I ,� Q •r.1' v� jo •... r- ti 30 mi. " ----- a M O Y•1.r0 •aa• O C .71 •---- a•r ..••f.r <a•.Y — 1 •� � 1 , .•rr•ii.c� ` .• YSC Jc•.•f•cs t0 1 w °' i 1:� A�� r � TI � _•' ` Ol- �. M..w. O n LCIS Aa:.i L E S CCU. I �� """' ..Ia\f•ws Y i7s[•.wa. �ORnwGE- COUNTS sF41 J aY� I _- ra••a\• � lJJ •'w..�. � arfa•..r at.u� •• C 9i O )r..c1.. r••ar+r gl 9 1 .•\ ...a•000 � . 9pZ\�P w. •fRf I C n str.f•r.cr - _ 1 .... 1 .YO@ vt&OLS I "� [a.•q iY.�STAT itirE( -._. (34ulltingtook Zr. beach � - \ �G- r .•Wl0[M• O� �\ GGy• a.`r � 'Go4itu' FIGURE I C.IRYIME j s _ • ,f VICINITY MAP a. SCALE w MILES of ' o HUNTINGTON BEACH '� � �....... ....... ! t. ° . KOISA 3 ` - MdA00B/ 777 a WAMW 4 '\ ' e �' �.\ I :.............. �....... ....... ASSESSMENT .us its ' DISTRICT L � NO, 7 -02 011RFRLD Cia � . i f. IDRXTOWN \* \ AOAMf Memphis , \,� "-••� .....i....... ........... ......... _ —--------- WIANAFOLK \ / i ••-•••-•- -t•� ATLANTA �•' o..e.. HAMLTON n\ FIGURE 2 ALL VICINITY MAP OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 73-02 huntington beach planning department -7- • Problem The purpose of this project is to provide for construction of flood control facilities within a localized area of the City subject to • drainage problems of flooding and lake pond formation during the rainy Re6: p. season. The hydrologic history of the area is that a series of in- 187 termittent lakes ponds have formed and served as retarding basins • along a north-south natural drainage system. The lakes pond, are be- coming filled and adjacent areas are being developed which results in greater runoff and property damage potential. The cost of protecting these properties by pumping in the rainy season has increased from f $9, 000 in 1970-71 to $30,000 in 1972-73.1 There have been no previous drainage projects of significance to • rectify the area' s problem. Several catch basins with connector pipes have been constructed since 1950, but have proven ineffective. In some instances, the overflow of the catch basins have contributed to Red: p'. the formation of lakes pondb most notably in the areas north of 187 Garfield Avenue, south of Adams Avenue, and east of Beach Boulevard along Adams Avenue.2 All -lakes pond.b are illustrated in relation to the proposed project in Figure 3. The City attempted to form a drainage assessment district in 1964 to deal with these problems, but encountered opposition from property owners in the area who felt that they should not have to bear the entire financial burden of the project. Consequently, the City Council disapproved the proposed district in 1966. In 1972 , efforts to secure financial aid from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Re6: p. the-orange-eenntp-Pieed-centre+-Bistriet also met with failure. • 189 • FyGUR.E 3 187 0 r� 41 5-4 5 f. i:. Line 5 yyJ r • 9orfi�ld .,. . • ��0 12 / Line 4 State St �9 y^ .......::::ti::::;::•:;:.:f..: to X. pmansion 9 Line 3 orktown • ��`/� Civic .; "Drainage District Center Boundary X. X Pond g ��/��j, Pond Areas 1 M 6��/g/p, /l1� ON Proposed Storm :f f�Ip,7 Utica Newland Drain Line Marsh- Existing Storm f Drain Line 5 4 a a a o E � Line 2 • Oswego Orange Co. Nashville s Pump o l o Station & 0 2 a DO1 Channel Remphis • -9- Project Character The currently proposed project will provide for construction of Red: p. flood control protection facilities consisting of reinforced concrete • 189 pipe, kei,n�onced eoneAete box, manholes, junction structures, catch basins, connector pipes, and appurtenant facilities. The cost will be approximately • served. $2,308,352.3 The estimated annual maintenance and opera- tion costs, including repair and replacement, will be $2, 000. 4 Con- struction is estimated to begin in August-1974 Maneh 1975 and be • 185 completed within 4-te-6-Menths 8 monthb . 5 This would place project completion at approximately January NovembeA, 1975. The storm drain system will consist of a mainline (Line 1) and five contributing lines (Line 2 through Line 6) estimated to include 14 , 825 feet of pipe of which 13,925 feet will be in public streets and 900 feet in easement. These facilities are delineated in Figure 3 and described as follows: Line 1 - -7 9ee 7,480 feet of reinforced concrete pipe varying in size . • from 45 inches to 96 inches and appurtenances in Adams Avenue between the-Arrange-eeuntp-Pleed-eentrel-Hrstrietls-Bei-ehan- Re6: p, ne-I Beach Boutevand and Delaware Street, and in Delaware • 189 Street north of Adams Avenue; 405 beet ob ne.in6mced conr-Aete box (10 6.t. x 15 4t. ) and 15 6eet of zitt z thu.e tune along Adams Avenue ea4 t o6 Beach Boutevand. • Line 2 - 1,150 feet of 42 inch reinforced concrete pipe and appurten- ances in Adams Avenue west of Delaware Street and 1, 000 feet of 39 inch reinforced concrete pipe and appurtenances in Alabama Street south of Adams Avenue; -10- • Line 3 - 2 ,300 feet of 42 inch and 51 inch reinforced concrete pipe and appurtenances in Yorktown Avenue between Delaware Street and Huntington Street, in Huntington Street between Yorktown • Avenue and State Street, and in easement along proposed State Street between Huntington Street and the Southern Pac- . ific Railroad tracks; • Line 4 - 600 feet of 30 inch reinforced concrete pipe and appurten- ances in Seventeenth Street between Delaware Street and Clay Avenue , Clay. Avenue between 17th Street and Florida Street, and in Florida Street south of Clay Avenue; Line 5 1,300 feet of 42 inch reinforced concrete pipe and appurten- ances in Garfield Avenue west of Delaware Street; and • Line 6 - 575 feet of 133 incli reinforced concrete pipe and appurten- ances in Florida Street north of Adams Avenue. Re6: p. oU indicated in Figure 3, an exi 6ti.ng 39 inch dta i.nage tine extending 6h.om Fton i_da 0187 StAeet to Vetawate StAeet above GaA6ietd Avenue w.iU be maintained and ineotpoAated into the proposed byatem. The remainder of the drainage system will consist of 61 catch basins, 32 manholes, and one silt structure. The catch basins and manholes will be distributed in the vicinity of the drain lines as follows: Line 1 - 33 catch basins and 19 manholes; • Line 2 - 8 catch basins and 4 manholes; Line 3 - 9 catch basins and 3 manholes; Line 5 - 8 catch basins and 3 manholes; • Line 6 - 1 catch basin and 1 manhole. Catch basins have been sized to receive the total street flows tribu- tary to the location of the catch basin. The siltation structure is essentially a baffle box which -filters silt deposits from the drainage • -11- • Re6: p; lines before water leaves the service area. This is a requirement 189 as per California Water Quality Control Board and-Grange-eeuntp-Bieed eentrel-Bistriet regulations. • Design Criteria The preliminary design was done by the Orange County Flood Control • District and VTN Consolidated, Inc. , and final design was completed by the Huntington Beach Public Works Department • The criteria employed for the design of the various facilities were as follows: 1. Desigri basis ' for storm drains and storm channels is for storms of 25-yeir recurrence intervals; 2. Design basis for major channels is for storms of 25-year recurrence intervals; 3. De- sign basis for storm drains and storm channel service areas where adequate overflow receptors do not exist is for storms of 25-year • recurrence intervals. Based on the above criteria, all the proposed storm drain facilities have been designed to provide protection from 25-year frequency storms for the life of the facilities (estimated • in excess of 1.00 years) . 6 The-eatcutation-of-rainf ati-runoff-rates-was-determined-by-tire-use e€-tie-Grange-Eeunty-��eed-Eentre�-B�etr�et's-re.ne€�-eeef€�s�en�-aad • �ntens�t�*-durat�en-eur�esT--Bei�-e�ass��eat�ens-e€-tie-s�ed�-area were-determ3ned-trey►-the-8:8-s-Bepartment-ef-Agrieu1ture7-Sezil-Eee- servet-ien-8erv3ee-Maps-€er-Grange-Eeaety.--The-deter-inattiea-a€--1aad • uses-der-eemput3ng-rain€all-runeft--in-the-study-area-wae-derived- �re�-E3t�r-et-i�uat3t�gtea-$eaehs s-6enera�-plan-and-�e��des-ter-e�cpeeted rune44-frem ult-imate-develeigmeat. 7 • • -12- •o.•.0 uouuu=••ruamong 2 n.• •■ • _:::. •a u.::. •. rIM .+ .uu.aauu.u44u.o.•.uu • uni.-Ii•:ui• ... .. I�.. a . .. . • .. ■, . •. ...::::�::::isP:i� :fie.:: .a ;i ! ii�i � a.1 iii6iii ' iii i iiiI M�iiiiii [iii Sm . : � : ibiiiiiiii q�iiii� li �i i i f: 01 ::::::::::• N• ■. •u.. MI: •. ' �® ■uo MUM •. u.uouut a u.u. . ...- ■ t� ::• M son Nis IMMUNE mu owl 11 . 10 ' N� 'IIIis . 19. NONE e�: iii=i - _�° ' � �1f ... son N "mil-INN o so! looms "NIME no NE � �� I1] 0 m ilrr� . IN E . NJ E FIGURE 3b RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCHES PER HOUR) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6_'_. 0.6 j I ! I O f I D O w v i �j is BASIS FOR CURVES r t� U. +C �'xa w EQUATION: LL w r , 00.4 0.4 OWHERE. U C a RUNOFF COEFFICIENT I RAINFALL INTENSITY '-1 ' i i , - a, ■ % IMPERVIOUS =100 f = LOSS RATE . .. as■ % PERVIOUS_ 100 SOIL COVER: LAWN, URBAN WITH SHRUBS ! 0.3 CURVE NUMBER = 65 , FROM PLATE B-2 -�• 0.3 D. f = .42 , FROM PLATE B-3 ' - E. % PERVIOUS _ 100, FROM PLATE B-2 ! as= .05, COMMERCIAL a=a .55, SINGLE FAMILY ,J l ! ; s .20, MULTIPLE FAMILY a .60, SCHOOL i s .25, 'TRAILER PARK ■ .80, PUBLIC PARK 0.2 F. % IMPERVIOUS =100, a, • 1.00-as 0.2 G. I FROM PLATE A-2 OR A-3 SOIL GROUP D _!. 1 I -_.... ._� __._._. _. -i�- 0.1 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCHES PER HOUR) LEGEND: I. COMMERCIAL 4. SINGLE FAMI,-Y ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2. MULTIPLE FAMILY 5. SCHOOL HYDROLOGY MANUAL 3/69 3. TRAILER PARK 6. PARK COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF CURVES 12-b Reb: p. The on i.g.inat h ydnotog y study ban the proposed dna%nage pAoi ect was accomp.P,us hed 187 by .the Orange County Ftood ContAot D.istA.ict in 1972-73 .in ondeA to deteAmi.n.e the size ob ne.inbonced concAeze box Aequ Aed bon connection with the DO1 Channet. The caecueation ob na.inbaU n.unobb hates was detenmdned by the use Aain.ba,PZ -i.n- tens.c ty-dutation (F.igune 3a) and hunobb coebb.icient cuAves (F.igune 3b) bhom the Orange County Ftood ContAo._ .D"ttict's HydAotogy Manuat. Rainbatt intensities weAe deAived bhom ,the 25-yeah hecu4unce intensity-duAati on ghaph and then ptotted against hunobb coebb.ic%ents ban six basic .hand use types (commeAcc,at, muZti,pte i bamity, thaiteh poAk, b.ingZe .bamity, schoot and paAk) on the so.it group D ghaph. Soil c Ws.ib.ications o b the study area were detehmined bhom the U.S-. Depahtment ob Aghicuttutrte, Soit Consenvaxi.on Sehvice Maps bon Orange County. Soil group D hebehs to soitz possessing a .how. degree ob pohos.c ty utati..ve to ghou.ps A, B, and C. The deteAm.inati.on ob ta.nd uses ,bon computing tain6att hunobb in the study area was deAiived bnom the City ob Huntington Beach GeneAat Plan. 7,7a .The ke.6utt,ing hydAotogy and hunobb expected bhom u ti.mate development ob the assessment d.vsth.ict are phesented .in F,iguAe 3c. i All conduit sizes were determined on the basis of using reinforced concrete pipe with Manning ' s coefficient of roughness of N=. 013. The pressure plus momentum theory was employed in the design of transitions and confluences .8 Catch basin systems are master planned at locations whereby runoff flows in the streets will not exceed top of curbs for tent-pear 25- year frequency. storms. 9 � _�3_ S rl' ' . ' 'r y • l;k'Wing rl tP r t T••� b 1 r nano••--• ■ • *a. m. - • an Y it a ILI Wool J • `� - • :; .. . • � 110 . . . • . . ' 63 �i,. i, • . .. a one 7 I. " • - _- • m none of o - L. 0.80 ease no a Ono • a O 64231 ...... • • 39 no mot 'j . .. -• . . • • �1 O •� • sea _ al 0 o 5 an l an! + oe: soon ones ... \; HYDROLOGY e ' s ' :e Drainage Area E O N - �';� ■ Boundary •, A Subarea Boundary ° •r z; O ; Concentration Cfs•�� r I L F Point • —jT* i. Source: OCFCD Hydrology 10 e 42)U - 1 3 r ' Report,Facility D01P66, January 1973 I !KfL� ;,I FIGURE 3c ,• , ,� " • ST 00 ►'?X ILL _ `> , I 1 3-a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION LAND USE Existing Land Use Assessment District no. 73-02 is located predominately within a- defined • planning .area of the city known as the "Old Town" area. However, that portion of the assessment district outside of the "Old Town" area (i.e. west of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and north of Garfield • Avenue) tends to be similar in character. The area covered by the assessment district, as well as adjacent areas are characterized by heterogeneous existing ,land uses and degrees of development and re- development. This area is in a state of long term transition from oil extraction uses, old xesiden tial areas and vacant land to new residential and commercial community areas.10 Existing utilization of the 580 acres of land within the assessment district is shown in Figure 4, and consists of . the following: • Vacant and/or oil extraction 305..22 acres 52. 7% Transportation 118. 83 acres 20. 4% Single-Family Residential 22. 71 acres 3. 9% • Multiple-Family Residential 78. 04 acres 13. 5% Commercial/Office 23. 07 acres 4 . 0% Industrial 10. 48 acres 1. 8% • Institutional 18. 00 acres 3 . 1% Public 3. 65 acres . 6% 580. 00 acres 100 . 0% • The largest portion of the 305 acres of open and/or oil extraction land use is located in the western half of the assessment district. North of Yorktown Avenue, this area extends west of Huntington Street. South of Yorktown .Avenue, the open area extends west of Delaware Street and north of Adams Avenue. Smaller parcels of undeveloped land are interspersed with other land use categories in the eastern half of • the service area. . -Id- • 1 1 • - i• 1 � 1 1 • • 1 / 1 i • r �� r yr lR i•PYrti I,..::. r,F'•'r�: r.. .:\ v •x Current zoning of the 305. 22 acres of vacant land is shown in riqure L; , and includes the following major categories: R1, R1-0 , R1-0-CD 22. 17 acres 7. 30 R2, R2-0, R2-0-CD 94. 62 acres 31. 0% R3, R3-0 37. 96 acres 12 . 5% R5 28. 78 acres 9 . 4% RA-0 32. 31 acres 10 . 6% C2 , C4 30. 88 acres 10 . 1% • M1 18. 28 acres 6 . 0o M2 , M2-0 , M2-0-CD 40. 22 acres 13. 170 I 305. 22 acres 100 . 0% Examination of local maps indicates that the proposed drainage lines will be constructed along traffic arterials primarily contiguous to developed uses. an use along e Line roue (Delaware Street P d l d land Land l the Li 1 t (Dl P.' I 9 • and Adams Avenue) is predominently single and multiple-family residential. Vacant frontages on the west side of Delaware Street are presently in oil extraction utilization and zoned either R2-0, R3-0 , or M2-0 . Minor drainage line routes front residential uses for the most part. Re6: However, part of the Line 3 route is located in easement across vacant P-9 property covered by a low-growth grass cover or by oil extraction uses. • Zoning in this area is currently R2-0-CD and I•:2-0-CD. • Impact Since drainage facilities will be constructed underground predominantly along streets , direct impact on the area' s land use is expected to be minimal. Only where construction disturbs the grassy vegetation cover in certain easement areas will the duration of this slight impact extend for a time beyond the construction phase. . N�1. . F Al ly OF 1 "71.1.%'. llT..lN?flN(.;rl`0N BEACH Wi .kNGF. (AWNT)" CALIFORNIA A.D. BOUNDARY 7 ml MI-0-CD R2 c m 1 2 RA-0-CD: 3 R3 M2-0 _R3 R5 MI-0 R3 Ej� R5 RA-0 R2 R5 R5 R5 R3 C41 R5 R5 I'l M2-01 -0 m I m I RA-0 R5 R5 R 2 R 95 PS 2 R5 RA-0 It;R t R3 R5 ml C2 R3 RU R2 RA-0 RA-0 R3 R2 R2 R3 MI R2 R5 C2_0 c 3 R2 *4 R2 Rt Rb RI-0 RI-0 o c RI C2-0 i i ; R2 C2-.0 2-0-CD 1-0-CD R2 R2 R2 3 C4.. ..-I CF-C • CF-E CF-E-CD I—&a'w" R2-0-CO M2_0 R 2 R2 C; R2 C4, ? ? a cc RI-0RFO 0 Rb 0 RI-0 R Erl C2 c PRI R R, HylCF-E RI R3-0 RI "I RI R3-0 R5 R r Hi 5-0 �R)1 � _ R3 R5 CF,l A YRI Completion of the drainage project will stimulate development of the assessment district' s 305 acres of open land. However, the indirect impact of this project on land use must be conditioned by the fact that the region is already in the process of rapid transitional development due to a number of other factors operating in the area.. One such factor includes rising land valuations emanating from the district' s location • in an urban environment which increases the demand for higher intensity use. A second factor that renders this area more developable is the increased demand for an atmosphere of ocean-oriented living. A factor • operating in conjunction with this is the co-jurisdiction by the California Coastal Commission over development within 1000 yards of the mean high tide. As a consequence, increasing attention has been directed to open areas , such as that occupied by the assessment district, which lie beyond this zone, yet are close enough to the ocean to preserve the "beach-oriented" image.11 • As oil extraction land utilization phases out and facilities are • consolidated within the next 20 years, some portions of the assessment district will become susceptible to development. However, residential construction has not been retarded immediately adjacent to oil facilities. • Only the areas now occupied by oil wells would be delayed. A final factor which has, and will, greatly influence the shift of • vacant land to developed uses within the assessment district focuses on the city' s zoning and open space policies. Approximately 61. 4 percent of the district' s vacant land is currently zoned for residential • use and there is a reasonable possibility that this figure could increase in the future from zone changes of discordant uses (such as the M2-0 and M2-0-CD designations south of Garfield Avenue) . It is anticipated that • i -18i the portion of the assessment district within the "Old Town" planning area will be master planned for residential development. That portion of the district west of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and north of Garfield Avenue is in the early stages of various planning alternatives , but it is likely that the area will be planned for • development to some capacity and not left as open space.12 This is supported by the Open Space Element of the General Plan which does not designate any part of the assessment district as a priority • conservation open space area (Fig. 6) . The only exception to this Res : rule would be the proposed use of the Civic Center lra*e Pond area p. 187 P. 9 as a park site and open space area. • With such a wide range of factors affecting development of open land within the service area, it is; difficult to estimate the precise • indirect. impact of the proposed project on land use and its rate of development. However, an attempt will be made to do -so. • First- and foremost is the consideration that any future development within the area will probably be in conformance with existing zoning (and any zone change) and the general type of development planned for • the area. In addition, development indirectly stimulated by the proposed project will not be in conflict with the City' s designated priority .areas of open space. It is assumed that any residential • developments would conform to the various City Ordinances which set minimum standards for recreational and open space allotments for residential developments. . Hence, land development emanating from the • proposed project is not likely to cause any significantly adverse impacts upon land use within the framework of the City' s established zoning, planning, and open space codes and policies for the area. • i -19- } I i ie4sT L.._?3' OPEN SPACE VALUES ARE RELATIVE FROM LEAST TO MOST, i ;S a ♦^ — _ , I N' LIGHT TO OARK,INOICATING ♦ � �v� THE MOST VALUABLE AREAS i •�. +`� I MIN FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION --/ 1 ♦ MOST ----'J � C ♦ j Yvs - \ y� n 9� 1 fir— NY _..;u. ,,:�� '• :� ice` �'� � .v' _J � � .� ♦ Lam. I a` � 4 r• .. ; y Tin 1— 1� O �✓' c '." - .� *�/, -��S i' _ ✓ _ 1 _— ice` _ /-i X FIGURE 6 HUNh✓NTNiNGCDEPRTMENT uFoaNIA OPEN SPACE VALUES SOURCE: Conservation Technical Report,Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974 . At the least, it can .be said that the proposed -project, upon drainage Re6: pondb P. 187 of the 3�^ intermittent 3-glees in the district, will raise land values on approximately 31. 9 acres of former vacant flooding areas making them more susceptible to development. Approximately 23. 22 acres of these flooding areas are located in areas where developed land densities are •. highest Current zoning of the vacant land subject to flooding problems (excluding Je6: Pond p. 187 Civic Center lma�te) .includes the following: P. 9 R2 14.155 acres R3, R3-0 11.100 acres M2=0-CD 6.'35 acres 31.9 acres Assume current code densities for residential developments : Rl 1 DU/6000 sq. ft. or .7. 26 DU/acre R2 1 DU/2000 sq. ft. or 21. 78 DU/acre R3 1 DU/1250 sq.. ft. or 34. 85 DU/acre • RA 1 DU/acre Dwelling units per acre times zoned acreages yields the number of residential dwelling units expected to be constructed in the formerly flooded areas : R2 14. 55 acres 317 D.U. R3 11. 00 acres 383 D.U. • 25. 55 acres 700 D.U. M2 6. 35 acres 6. 35 acres of factory space 31. 90 acres i -21- At full development of the entire assessment district, 61. 4 percent of the vacant land would be residentially developed and yield the following number of dwelling units : RA 32. 31 acres 32 D.U. R1 22 . 17 acres 161 D.U. R2 94 . 62 acres 2 , 061 D.U. • R3, R4 37.96 acres 1, 323 D.U. 187. 06 acres 3,577 D.U. Therefore, the proposed project would have its greatest tangible • impact in indirectly generating 700 new residential units and opening 6.. 35 acres of land to manufacturing use in the former pond • areas . At full development, 3,577 residential units and 112. 46 acres of other uses would be generated. However, most of this development cannot be entirely attributed to the proposed project. Thus , this would represent a worst case situation. Figure 7 'indicates how rapidly these developments may be expected. • to occur. Assuming that residential development serves as a frame pond Re6: of growth reference for other land uses , and that the 3etke areas p. 187 pond will develop before non-3-eke areas, a worst case situation, it is • seen that the 700 residential units would develop within three to five years, depending on whether growth followed the projection of the City' s growth study of the area or the faster past rate which has occurred since July 1972. Projection based on the past growth rate is a worst case situation since development occurred at a slower rate from 1960 to 1972. By the same reasoning, the maximum develop- . • ment of 3,577 units would occur within 15 to 25 years . The 3=5 -22- 5015 5015 5000 00, 000 0000 4000 • 3650 00, 000 4000 N ; - ~ 3000 P, --- Z - ♦ 0000 - Q10 Z W W 2250 2250 [v a W U. _ O' 2000 O 2 • 1438 1030 GROWTH OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1000 IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 73-02 99S FIGURE 7 O 1969 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90.91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 ACTUAL PAST. GROWTH YEAR SOURCE:SPECIAL CENSUS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, PROJECTION BASED A 1 ORN DEPARTMENT OF ON PAST GROWTH RATE FINANCE, NOV. 1973 PROJECTION BASED ON CITY'S GROWTH STUDY ESTIMATE GROWTH POLICY STUDY, HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT, OCT. 1973; REVISED MAR.1974 • year period will from .this point on be referred to as the "short- term" , and the 15-25 year period as the "long-term" . From this same graph, it is apparent that growth of residential land use has occurred in the assessment district over the past two years at a much faster rate than future projections would • indicate.. It must be concluded, therefore, that the proposed project will help speed the area' s development, but that it will weigh as one factor among many already in operation. Land develop- ment `which could be attributed to the project would not significantly alter the growth rate now occurring within the assessment district. • 1 , • • i -24- • DEMOGRAPHICS Existing Demographics • The assessment district is located within Huntington Beach, the fastest growing city in Orange County. In 1960, there were approximately 11, 492 persons living in Huntington Beach, but by 1970 the popula- tion reached 115 , 557 . (Fg--8}. According to the most recent City cen- sus taken in November 1973 , the population of Huntington Beach was 143;325 142, 742 . Accotding to the C.r ty'.6 Gn.owth Poti,cy Study, the poputati.on o4 Re6: •p. 187 Huntington Beach is ptofected to peach 191,200 by 1980 (Figure 8) . Population growth within the assessment district has tended to be slower than the City except during the past several years. The popu- lation of the assessment district was approximately 3 , 027 by 1969 , and no more than 3 ,146 in mid-1972 . However, according to the Novem- • ber 1973 City census , the population numbered 3 , 571. While the City has grown by 4. 6 per cent since June 1972 , the assessment district population has increased by 13 . 5 per cent. Based on data provided from the 1973 census in Table 1, the community aspects of the assessment district can be described. The age distri- bution of residents in the project area resembles that of the City. However, the study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65 , and slightly fewer persons under 18 years of age. Household and dwelling unit densities tend to be lower than for the City as a whole. Most of the project area residents have come from outside the City . limits, but the proportion of residents moving from points within -25- POPULATION . CITY OF HUNTI NGTON BEACH 200 FIGURE 8 - Ref a p. 1.87 190 I _ i • -1 180 i 170 -�— — — — POPUL ION PROJECTION 160 ISO S ate Fi an e Dept 140 130 ;4�13r3%9000-1-72)PD. ES TIM. 124,3000-1-71) PD. ESTIM. j � I 120 115.557(4-70)U.S. CENSUS 1 10 — 5� -- _a I 100 CEN -{---) • I � 90 - —�--� 80 Of - -- � f.. 70 — - ;= s0 64"R(I I CENSUS SO • 40 i 30 tA Lis 20 — —-� • 10 --- - - 7 o — EW 61 62 63 64 63 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 1990 POPULATION PRIOR TO 1960 19109 1920, 1930, .1940, 1950 815 1,687 39690 39738 5,237 • Projection based on revised Growth Policy Study, Prepared by the .Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974 . -2.6- TABLE 1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO-. 73-02 Population. D.U. Pop./D.U. Households . Pop./H .H. 142,742 46,520 3.07 - 3.07 Rp. 187 ' City 3-4-3-,-329 49-,-t18 2:9-r 46 ,520 • A.D. 73-02 3, 571 1,438 2.48 112.71 2 . 80 Median Age Under 18 Over 65 City 26 51,419 (35%) 6 ,242 (4%) • A.D. 73-02 25 1,241 (33%) 469 (12%) Moved From Within Moved From Other Moved From Out- Huntington Beach Place in So. Ca. Side So. Ca. City 9 ,09.2 (23%) 24 ,931 (63%) 5 ,181 (1.4%) • A.D. 73-02 575 _(43%.). 1,241 (44%) 152 .(13%.) Motor Vehicles/D.U. Bicycles/D.U. City 1.63 1..13 • A.D. 73-02 1. 37 1.02 Work in H.B. Work Outside H.B. Unemployed Retired City - 6 ,434 (16%) 27, 715 (70%) 1, 314 (7%) . 4,062 (11€ • A.D. 73-02 348 (25%) 720 (52%) 116 (8%) 175 (12% Median Income Income Under .Income Over Range $5,000 $20,000 • City $10 ,000-$15 ,.000 3,032 (9%) 6 , 842 (21%) A.D. 73-_02 .$ 7 ,000-.$10 ,000 271 (.29%) 71 (7%) Source: Special Census , City of Huntington Beach, California, State Department of. Finarice', November,_ 1973. • -27- 1 • the City is twice as high as for the City as a whole. Similarly, almost all of the workers ride in automobiles to and from work, with most of them driving their own vehicles. However, the • average number of cars per dwelling unit tends to be lower in the assessment district. This is reflected in the higher proportion of residents working within Huntington Beach, and the higher unemployment rate in the project area. Median income • is lower in the assessment district, and almost one-third of the population is below $5,000 per year as opposed to less than ten percent in the same category for the City. Impact The growth rate of the assessment district's population will be determined by various conditions discussed in the Land Use section. One such factor will be the post-construction drainage of intermittent ponds and the reduction of local flood hazards . The most tangible impact of the proposed drainage project will be to stimulate development and population growth on approximately 25. 55 acres of residentially zoned land formerly subject to • flooding. Assuming a multiplication factor of 2 , 80 persons per dwelling unit, development of the formerly flooded areas will generate • the following population increases: R2 317 D.U. 2 . 8 Pop./D.'U. 888 Persons R3 383 D.U. 2 . 8 Pop./D.U. 1,072 Persons At full development of the entire assessment district, 61. 4 • percent of the vacant land would be residentially developed and yield the following population increases: RA 32 D.U. 2 . 8 Pop./D.U. 90 Persons R1 161 D.U. 2 . 8 Pop./D.U. 451 Persons 112 2 , 061 D.U. 2. 8 Pop./D.U. 5, 771 Persons • R3, R4 1, 323 D.U. 2 .8 Pop./D.U. 3 ,704 Persons Totals 3,577 D.U. 10,016 Persons Therefore, the proposed project will have its greatest impact by indirectly generating 1,960 new residents in the former lake areas. At full development, 10,016 residents would be generated. • However, since it has been concluded that other growth-inducing factors will be equally important in the assessment district, • not all of the projected population increases can be attributed: to the proposed project. Thus., these projections would -represent worst case situations. Figure 9 indicates how rapidly the assessment district -.population may be expected to grow. Assuming that former -lake- pond areas will develop before non-lake -non-pond areas, a worst case situation, Re6; it . can be seen that 1,960 people :would be added within about p' 187 • four years. The maximum addition of .10 ,01.6 persons will :occur within 23 to 25 years. Slight variation in the long-term -projection reflects the closeness of the City's growth study. estimate for the area :(25 years) and the slightly faster past rate which .has occurred since July 1972 (23 years) . From the same graph, it is apparent that population .growth in the assessment district over the past two years has occurred_ .• at a -faster rate than future projections would indicate . It must be concluded, therefore., that the proposed drainage project will probably be no more important than other _factors already stimulating land development and population growth • in the area: Population .growth which could -be attributed to the project would not significantly alter the growth rate :now occurring within the assessment -district. • In terms of the future ,population character of the assessment district, the. construction of .higher valued residences . is likely to attract .persons resembling the City average. Thus, the district' s median imcome might be expected to rise slightly, which would present a positive impact on local commercial enterprises and school revenues.. Moreover, household size might be expected to approach the City average. i -29- 1s 14 13,587 13,587 13 ! ! ♦ ' it 12 11 i ♦ ♦ i i 9973 10 9973 N 9 000 Z I z7 o I I I 1 ! I 1 16181 I 6 ! 6181 I 3146 POPULATION GROWTH IN 3 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 73-02 —�-T- +--? 3027 I j FIGURE 9 2 i 0 1969 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 7.7 78 70 30 8! 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 4 : ?: ='i 93 44 S'5 y6 4. 98 5�4 24-: vr_A ACTUAL PAST GROWTH "` SOURCE:SPECIAL CENSUS OF HUN t ING1014 BEACr. Ai - A, DEPARTMENT OF ® � PROJECTION BASED ON PAST GROWTH RATE _ " FINA ICE, NOV. i973 GROWTH PROJ>T STUDY r BASED ON CITY'S �R= GROWTH POLICY STUDY, HUNTINGTON H STUDY ESTIMATE BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. • • • • • . • OCT. 1973; REti:.S0 MAR. 1974 0 • ECONOMICS • Existing Economics Although the City of Huntington Beach has been experiencing rapid popu- lation growth, it is an economically healthy city. According • to the 1970 U.S:. Census, a population of 115,960 had a median family income. of $11,845,. which was above the Orange County median of $10, 550. The special..census taken in November 1973, indicated that the city' s . • 142,742 population. increased. to t#3;�24 with a median income in the $10, 000JRe6: p• 1&' $15,000 range. -The actual median income is probably in excess of $12., 000. The median income range . in the same census for A.D. '73-02 • was $7000-$10, 000, which -would place the real median at least $2 , 500 below that of the city. • According to the. 1970 census, the employed people living in Huntington Beach were. predominantly professional, technical and kindred workers, craftsmen, and service workers. In terms of economic sector., one-third • of the labor force was concentrated in manufacturing, 24 percent in trade,_ 21 percent in_ government, and 10 .percent in services. _ The .most :_recent census indicates an unemployment rate of 7 percent, which is • about the .same as the county average.. Employment characteristics of the .assessment district tend to resemble the. City' s, except that un- - employment. was found to be higher at 8 percent. The City of Huntington Beach derives major revenues from property taxes ($1. 62/$100 assessed valuation) , from an Oil Production Business License Tax ($0. 05/barrel) , and from a utility tax ($0. 05) . . The estimated assessed valuation for -fiscal 1973 was $410,283,199 .13 As oil production declines in the future, a greater proportion of the • -31- • Revenues will be derived from the taxes and fees which are assessed on property owners, residents, and visitors.14 Impact As discussed previously, the estimated cost of the drainage project Re6: will be $2:e29:8eA $2,308,352 or $3,5:;9 $3,980 per acre for the 580 • p. 189 acres served.. Approximately $300, 000 of the total cost, or 3:4-8 13 per cent, will be. financed by the Orange County Flood Control District. 15 The remainder of the cost will be allocated to property owners within • the assessment district at the rate of $.;966 $3,463 per acre. 16 Some owners may feel this per acre cost -is prohibitive, but this must be weighed against the consideration that the project will alleviate the • local flood hazard and potential property damage in the area. The assessed cost will probably be perceived as beneficial or minimally ad- verse to persons whose property is most subject to flooding problems, • but highly adverse by those whose property has few flooding problems. the-east-te-the-City-ef-preteeting-prepertp-iri-the-assessment-district bp-pts�tping-in-the-rainy-season-steed-at-$39,988-in-i9��-�3---�1°iis • east-was-exgeeted-te-rise-as-the-area-beea.Me-tnereastngip-deve�eped. If-eenstrueted7-the-estimated-ann,dai-maintenanee-and-eperatien-east, ineie�ding-repair-and-repiseernent;-wiii-be-abent-$�;889---�herefere; • eenstreetien-e€-the-dresnage-pregeet-�re�id-represent-s-htghip-bane- fie3ei-ia►peet-en-the-Citpls-sa�aings-free►-inaintenanee-casts. Re6: The cost to the City o6 protecting pnopenty .in the assessment distAi.et by pumping • pp. 187 8 188 was $30,000 .in 1972-73, which nepnesents a thnee6otd .i.n.ctea6e since 1970-71. This cost is expected to Aise as the area becomes .incAea6ingty devetoped. Regatdtess o6 the costs .involved, howeveh, the City ob Huntington Beach's Pubtic Wo,%U De- • pahtment has .indicated that .it wi.P,e be a physical imposs.ib.c,P.i ty bon the City to -32- continue pumping the area .in o&den to protect deve Q.opment-6 Jnom 6tooding. Rain- ba t bon the past boon .ye vu has been teP.ati,ve2y .P,i.ght (as compared to the heavy • n.ai►vs ob 1969)," a towing seUr iou6 damage to be aveh ted. Onty by constant pumping .bong abzeA the na.iny season had ended was it poss.ibte bon the City to protect pnopexties in the assessment ddstni,ct. Even at vastly ineAeased expend.i tunes and. • a moutnium on deveeopment, existing pumping bac tides wowed be .inadequate .in a season ob moderate to heavy nainbatt. Pumping costs- wout-d nepnesent onty a bnacti.on ob the ovenaU b.eood damage costs to the area's pnopenty owner. Ib the proposed drainage project is constAu.cted, the estimated annuaC maintenance and openati.on costs, .inctud.ing %epa.iA and tepeacement, wilt be about $2,000. This would nepnesent a highey. b Ineb.ici.ae impact on the C.f ty's. savings bnom mainten- ance costs. MoneoveA, xhe Iptevention ob sehious b.eooding woued pneceude. high pnopeAty damage costs within the assessment distAi.ct. Completion of the drainage project will help stimulate development • in. the assessment district. Although the project .will represent one growth factor among others already in operation, a cost/revenue analysis will be undertaken to estimate the approximate impact on city and . • • -32a- school finances at short-run and long-run development of the assess- • ment district (see the Land Use section for definitions of "short-run" and "long-run") . • To analyze the short-term and long-term impacts, the City' s Revenue/ Expenditures Analysis of Land Uses was utilized. For computational purposes, the following assumptions were made: • . 1. R1 zoned land will generate 5 units per acre i 2. R2 zoned land will generate apartments at 20 units per acre 3. R3 zoned land will generate apartments at 30 units per acre 4 . RA zoned land will generate 2 units per acre 5. R5 zoned land will be assigned to the "Office Professional" category 6.. C2-4 - zoned land will be assigned to the. "Community Commercial" • category . 7. M1 zoned land will be assigned to the "Inventory" industry category 8. M2 zoned land will be assigned to the "Non-Inventory". industry. • category 9. Revenue/Cost per acre of all land uses will be the same as provided in the City Is Revenue Expenditure Report.17,18 ,19 ,20 Therefore, using the Revenues/Expenditures Analysis of Land Uses, the following projected city revenues and expenditures were determined: In the short-run at development of 31. 9 acres of vacant land: • Land Use Revenue Expenditures R2 (14. 55 ac) ($2 ,930) _ $42 , 632 (14. 55 ac ) ($2 ,564) _ $37 ,366 R3 A 11 ac ) ($4,172) = 45,892 ( 11 ac ) ($3,293) _ 36 ,223 • M2 ( 6. 35 _ac) ( $ 881) 5,594 ( 6. 35 ac) ( $ 845) = 5 ,366 $94 ,118 $78 , 895 - 78 ,895 Net Gain +$15,223 -33- 1 Revenue Expenditure Property Tax $24 , 855 Police $27 , 508 I Retail Sales Tax 26,083 Fire 8 ,581 Per Capita Revenue 26, 320 Public Works Maintenance 4 , 593 Business License Fees 4, 075 Misc. General Fund 6 ,412 Utility Tax 12 ,785 Non-General Fund 31, 801 $94 ,118 $78 , 895 In the long-run at full development of all vacant land: Land Use Revenue Expenditure I R1 (22. 17 ac) ($1, 370) = $ 30, 370 (22. 17 ac) ($1,773) = $ 39 ,307 R2 (94. 62 ac) ( 2 ,930) = 227 ,237 (94. 62 ac) ($2 ,564) = 242 , 606 i R3 (37. 96 ac) ($4 ,172) = 158 , 369 (37 . 96 ac) ($3 , 293) = 125 ,002 RA (32. 31 ac) ($961) = 31, 050 (32. 31 ac) ($1,186) = 38 ,320. R5 (28. 78 ac) ($2 , 898) = 83 , 404 (28.78 ac) ($1,816) = 52 ,265 C2-4 (30. 88 ac) ($5,118) = 158 ,004 (30. 88 ac) ($2 ,708) = 83 , 623 Ml (18. 28 ac) ( $687) - 12 ,558 (18. 28 ac) ( $845) = 15 , 447 M2 (34. 52 ac) ( $881) - 30,412 (34. 52 ac) ( $845) = 29 ,169 $781, 447 $625 ,739 625 ,739 Net Gain: + $155 ,708 1 Revenue Expenditure Property Tax $255 ,131 Police $232 ,011 Retail Sales Tax 268 ,385 Fire 80,571 I Per Capita Revenue 144 , 881 Public Works Maint. 48 , 841 Business License. Fees 27 , 351 Misc. General Fund 60 ,203 i Utility Tax 85, 699 Non-General Fund 200 , 085 Refuse 4 , 028 $781, 447 $625 ,739 1 -34- Therefore, development of the assessment district in the short-term • would generate a net gain to the City of $15 ,223 per year. This bene- ficial impact would become more substantial in the long-term, in- creasing the net gain to. $155 , 708 per year. • In similar fashion, school revenues and expenditures derived from development of the assessment district were determined as follows: Elementary Schools. • Revenue Expenditure R2 (14.55 ad) ($1,42.3) $20, 705 (14. 55 ac) ($2 , 100) _ $30 ,555 R3. ( ll .ac) ($1,9-89) = 21, 879 ( 11 ac) ($2 ,100) = 23,100 • M2 0_.-35 'ac) ($1,150) = 7, 303 -0- $49, 887 $53,655 - . 53,655 • Net. Loss: - $ 3, 768. . Re6: p. 186 High Schools Revenue Expenditure • R2 (14.55- ac) ( $972. ) _ $14, 143 (14. 55 ac) ( $768 ) _ $11,174 R3 ( 11 ac ) ($1,.359) = 14 ,949 ( 11 ac ) ($1,152) 12 ,672 M2 ( 6..35. ac) . ( _ $779 ) = 4. 947 -0- . $34 ,039 $23, 846 - 23, 846 Net. Gain: + $10 , 193 • Thus , the .total net gain for the school districts is: $3, 768 Elementary Schools +, 10 ,.193 High Schools • + $6 ,425 . Total Net Gain • -35- In the long-term: Elementary Schools Revenue Expenditure R1 (22. 17 ac) ($1,166) = $ 25, 850 (22.17 ac) ($2,293) = $ 50 , 836 R2 (94.62 ac) ($1,423) = 134=;644 .(94. 62 ac) ($2,100) = 198, 702 R3 (37. 96 ac) ($1,989) = 75,502 (37. 96 ac) ($2,100) = 79 ,716 RA (32. 31 ac) ($1,137) = 36 , 736 (32. 31 ac) ( $917 ) = 29 ,628 R5 (28. 78 ac) ($5 ,025) = 144,620 -0- C2-4 (30. 88 ac) ($1006) = 40, 329 -0- I M1 (18. 28 ac) ( $806 ) = . 14 ,734 -0- M2 (34. 52 ac) ($1,150 = 39 ,698 -0- • $512 ,113 $358, 882 358,882 Re6: p. 186 Net Gain: + $153,231 High Schools Revenue Expenditure . • R1 (22 . 17 ac) ( $796 ) _ $ 17,647 (22.17 ac) ( $928 ) _ $ 20 ,574 R2 (94 . 62 ac) ( $972 ) = 91,971 (94.62 ac) ( $768 ) = 72 ,668 R3 (37. 96 ac) ($1, 359) = 51,588 (37.96 ac) ($1,152) 43,730 • RA (32. 31 ac) ( $777 ) = 25,105 (32. 31 ac) ( $371) _ 11 ,987 R5 (28. 78 ac) ($3,401) = 97, 881 -0- C2-4 (30. 88 ac) ( $884 ) = 27 ,298 -0- • M1 (18. 28 ac) ( $550 ) = 10,054 -0- M2 (34. 52 ac) ( $799 ) = 26 , 891 -0- $348, 435 $148,959 148,959 0 Net Gain: +$199 ,476 • Total Net Gain is: $153 ,231 . Elementary Schools 199 ,476 High Schoolsv $352 ,707 Total Net Gain Therefore,. development of the . assessment district in the short-term would generate an overall net gain of $6 ,425 per year to .the City' s school system. However, this gain reflects the higher revenue in- crease -to the high schools which offset the loss of . $3 ,768 per year • by the elementary schools. The impact on. the school system in the long-run will be substantially positive, increasing. revenues by ' $352 ,707 per year. As .commercial and professional office -areas de- velop, the impact on the elementary school system would become posi- tive, with an increase of $153,231 per year. . The impact on high schools would remain positive, with an increased generated revenue • of $199 ,476 per year. Another beneficial_ impact on the City' s economy will be to increase employment . opportunities. It was roughly estimated in the City' s • cost/revenue study that manufacturing designated as "inventory" and "non-inventory" (Ml and M2) generates 13 employees per acre.21 Similarly, ;it was found that "community commercial" and "office pro- • fessional" establishments generate approximately 16 employees per acre.22 • Thus , in the . short.-term about 83 employees would be generated by 6 . 35 acres of M2 zoned land. In the long-term, approximately 686 additional manufacturing employees would be generated on 52. 8 acres of M1 and • M2 zoned -la nd. On. 59.66 acres of commercial and _office zoned land, approximately 955 additional employees would be generated ' Thus , total employment increase would be 1,641. • -37- PUBLIC UTILITIES Existing Utility Demand • Water The City of Huntington Beach obtains 47. 9 percent of its water from eight wells having a combined production capacity of 19,000 gallons per minute. The remaining 52.1 percent of the city' s water is ob- tained from three connections into the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California with a combined maximum capacity of 20,700 gallons • per minute. 23 Water .quality data for the eight wells and the Metro- politan Water District are presented in Table 2. t i • The city has four reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 41. 8 million gallons. This storage system has a total .production capacity of 26, 600 gallons per minute. 24 • The pumping capacity of the system from all sources (wells, reservoirs, and the Metropolitan Water District) is 60,000 gallons per minute. At the end of 1913, the water district served a population of almost • 145 ,000 people with 34 ,000 water services. The average daily water consumption- was 22 million gallons per day, with a minimum daily con- sumption of 11 million gallons and a maximum daily consumption of 35 • million gallons. The average daily consumption per person per day is 147 gallons. 25 • Based on these consumption figures, the present consumption of water within the assessment district for the 3, 571 residents is 524 ,937 gal- lons per day, or 2. 39 percent of the city' s total consumption. • Gas Utility Natural gas is presently supplied to the City of Huntington Beach and CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Of WATER TABLE 2 • Analysis of WELL Parts Per Million M.W.D. Wa ter Dissolved Solids ke H.H. 1 H.B. 2 H.B. 3 H.B. 4 H.B. 5 H. B. HOLTZ_ Silica........(9102)... 22.0 22.0 17.0 23.0 17.0 20.0 8.5 7.5 IFon... ..... .. .. ....... 0.39 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.07 .06 Calcium.......(Ca)..... 70.0 51.0 27.0 52.0 39.0 50.0 6.0 87.0 Mognesium.. ...(Mg)..... 10.02 8.9 4.0 8.4 5.0 6.7 0.6 33 Sodium..... ...(Na)..... 37.0 32.0 57.0 33.0 42.0 .36.0 83.0 113.1 Sulfate,.......SO4)..... 67.0 36.0 33.0 41.0 34.0 41.0 23.3 330.l Cbloride......(CIN..... 23.0 15.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 '16.0 14.2 100.1 Carbonate.....(CO3)... , NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE 15.0 0 Bicarbonate...(HCO3).,. 239.0 215.0 190.0 215.0 187.0 204.0 170.8 149.4 Nitrate.......(NO3).... 0.53 0.24 0.29 0.60 0.19 0.70 0.88 0.9 Manganese.. . ..(MT1).... O.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 N.D. Potassiuw•....(K).. .... 4 3.6 1 2.4 3.6 1 2.9 3.6 j 2.2 5.0 Total Disolved Solid4 354 277.0 248.0 283.0 248.0 276.0 214.0 751.( Total Hardness as CaCO3 217.0 164.0 85.0 164.0 118.0 154.0. 17.5 353.1 • DETERMINATIONS Spec. Conductance ' M.lWOS/rM I 555 1 _{oo I ►C�:) 450 39F: - A : ,cntratiu h 7.9f 8 . 0j 8. 0 i i wluoT 1d'? (P) in PPM 04118 :.5 i 0.48 0.S7 + 0.40 ;.1: :; ' `!+ 0.40 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 7.0 7.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 14.0 1.0 SOURCE: Annual Report for 1973 , Huntington Beach Water Department, 1974 . • • -39- to the assessment district by the Southern California Gas Company. . In 1973, the Gas Company served approximately 440 ,000 -customers in Orange • County on an integrated system of gas lines. The average customer used about 375 cubic feet of gas per day. 26 However, average gas consump- tion is based on the number of customers or meters served, which could • represent several units hooked up to a single meter, such as might be the case with apartments. Since most units in the assessment district are multiple residential, assume two units per meter. This will yield • an average yearly gas consumption of 68 , 000 cubic feet per dwelling unit. Based on estimated gas consumption from the Huntington Beach Industrial Park EIR, a rough estimation of industrial consumption of • 35, 600 cubic feet per acre per year can be made. 27 Assume the same gas consumption rate will apply to the assessment district and other non- residential uses. Based on these criteria, the approximate yearly gas • consumption within the assessment district at the end of 1973 was 99. 8 million cubic feet, or . 14 percent of the total supplied by the Gas Company. • Electric Utility Electricity is currently provided to the city and the assessment district by the Southern California Edison Company. Present electric consumption • in the assessment district does not present a burden to the supply capability of the Edison Company. Assume an annual consumption of Rej: p. 5, 700 189 a;-490-KWH per dwelling unit. 28 Based on estimated electricity consump- • tion from the Huntington Beach Industrial Park EIR, a rough estimation of industrial consumption of 154, 800 KWH per acre per year can be made. 29 Assume the same electrical consumption rate will apply to the assess- • ment district and other non-residential uses. Based on these criteria, the approximate yearly electircal consumption within the assessment -40- • 16..5 district at present is million KWH, or . 03 percent .of the total Re6: p. 189 supplied by the Edison Company. • Sanitary Sewer - Sewer service is contracted for through the City of Huntington Beach, • which is a member of the Orange County Sanitation District. The sewer system serves a population of almost 145, 000 with about 35, 000 hookups. The system transports approximately 14 million gallons • of sewage per day. The total capacity of the system is 21 million gallons per day, leaving a reserve capacity of 7 million gallons per day. 30 The assessment district presently contributes about 649 ,000 • gallons per day, or 4. 63 percent, to the city' s total sewage generation. Sewage generated in the assessment district is treated in the Orange • County Sanitation District Plant No. 2. The treated sewage is dis- posed of into the -Pacific Ocean through a 120. inch diameter sewer out- fall that is five miles long, with diffuser ports located along the • last portion of the pipe. 31 Effluent quality data for the Orange County Sanitation District is presented in Table 3. The total capacity of the Orange County system is approximately 184 • million gallons per day. The system presently treats 152 million gal- lons per day, leaving a reserve capacity of 32 million gallons per day. The total. capacity of the system is expected to be reached in 19.78 . 32 • Solid Waste Disposal ,Solid waste pick-up service is provided by the Rainbow Disposal Company • in Huntington Beach. When picked up, the trash is trucked to the Coyote Canyon landfill. Remaining capacity is about 10. 5 million tons, to be reached by 1977. • -41- • TABLE, 3 SUM+IARY OF COMBINED EFFLUENT TO SUBMARINE OUTFALL • Average Flav 146.8 MGD (September 1972) Suspended Solids Total 150 89/1 Suspended Solids Volatile ' 111 W . • Grease 36 Mg/1 Five Day B.O.D. 180 mg/1 Alkalinity 359 m9/1 • Chloride 678 mg/1 SOURCE: E.I.R. 73-15 (TT5483) ,Houghton Bay, Prepared by Environmental Impact Profiles, August 13 ,1973 . • • • -42- • Based. on an average trash generation of. 5..5 pounds per person per day. for residential areas33 and 100. 9 pounds per acre for non-residential uses (estimated from industrial generation in the Huntington Beach _Industrial Park EIR, and assuming that this rate will apply to other non-residential uses) 34 , it is roughly estimated that the assessment • district presently generates 12 . 6 tons of solid waste per day. Impact • The impact of the proposed project on public utilities is important in relation to the amount of post-construction growth in population and land development which are likely to occur in the assessment district. • It should be pointed out that projections for public utilities demand will represent secondary impacts from the proposed drainage project. Moreover, these projections must be viewed in light of the fact that the • proposed project will be one factor among many causing growth in the area. Thus, the impact projections will represent worst case situa- tions which are likely to occur in spite of the drainage project. Projections will . be based on short-run and long-run criteria established in the Land Use and Demographics sections. Although most of the impacts were found to be slight, it should be re- membered that the cumulative addition of many developments in the county might yield an adverse impact on utilities. This is especially true of • power resources and, of _the current sewage and waste disposal facilities, which are expected to exceed capacity within three to four years. Water • The addition of 1,960 residents within .3 to 5 years would. increase average daily water consumption in the, city by 288,120 gallons per day, or 1. 3 percent (based on 147 gallons per person per day) . A popula- • . -43- tion increase of 10, 016 persons at full development of the assess- ment district would increase average daily consumption by 1,472, 352 gallons, or by about 6. 69 per cent. Therefore, if all growth could be attributed to the drainage project, the impact on the city water services would be slight in the short-term, but would approach moder- ate in the long-term. Gas Utility The addition of 700 dwelling units and the development of 6. 35 acres of industrial land in the short-run would increase yearly gas con- sumption by 47. 8 million cubic feet, or . 06 per cent (based on 68 , 000 cubic feet per dwelling unit and 35,600 cubic feet per acre of non- residential land) . An increase of 3,577 dwelling units and the devel- opment of 112 . 46 acres of non-residential land in the long-run would raise annual gas consumption by 247. 2 million cubic feet or . 34 per cent. thus_, these increases in gas consumption will have a trivial impact on the Gas Company' s supply capability. Electric Utility The addition of 700 dwelling units and the development of 6. 35 acres of industrial land in the short-term would increase yearly electrical Re6: p. consumption by 5-9- 4.9million KWH, or . 01 per cent . (based on 6;ee9-KWH 189 5,700 KWH per dwelling unit and 154 , 800 KWH per acre of non-residential land). An increase of 3 , 577 dwelling units and the development of 112 . 46 acres of non-residential land in the long-term would raise yearly electrical consumption by 4-7437.4 million KWH, or 7e4 .06 per cent. Therefore, these-sMe��-tnerenses-tn-e�eetrreitp-e�emend-wt�� babe-en�p-Q-9�3g$t-ilripttet-en-tl�e-sttpp�p-eepnbt�ttp-ef-the-He��sen-eem- peny. the pno1ected .i.n.cneaae in eZectAicity demand w tt be sti.ght. However, in � • -44- • tight o6 .po#enfii.at, 6uet shontaged, ►►cwxtaitment and intetuption" o6 et.ectA c Re6: p. AeAvice could become a neaeeity and yietd a po#entiae signi6icant advevuse impact 186 • on .the etec Ai.cat suppty capabit ty o6 the Edition Company. • • I • • • • • -44a- • Sanitary Sewer • The addition of 1,960 residents and the development of 6. 35 acres of heavy industrial land in the short-run would increase the effluent in the city sewage system by about 348,500 gallons per day, or 1. 66 -per- • cent (based on 135 gallons per person per day and 13 ,220 gallons per acre per day for heavy industrial users and 5,288 gallons per acre per day. for light industrial and commercial users. 35 This increase • is 5 percent of reserve capacity. An increase of 10, 016 persons and the development of 112.46 acres of non-residential land in the long- . term would increase the effluent in the city system by 2 ,220,650 gallons per day, or 10. 6 .percent. This is 31.7 percent of reserve capacity. `. Therefore,_ the impact on the city' s' sewage system will be slight in the short-term but moderate in the long-term. • The addition of 348 ,500 gallons per day into the Orange .County system in- the short-term would raise the amount of sewage treated by . 23 •. percent and would use ,1. 09. percent of the reserve capacity of the sys- tem. The addition of 2,220,650 gallons per day in the long-run would. increase the amount of sewage treated by 1. 46 percent and would use • 6. 94 percent of the reserve capacity. Thus, the impact on the County' s sewage system will be slight in the short-term, but slight to moderate in the long-term._ • Solid waste. Disposal The addition of 1,960 residents and the development of 6. 35 acres of industrial land in the short-run-would increase solid waste by 11,421 • pounds per- .day which is an increased rate of fill of the Coyote Canyon r disposal site of . 07 percent (based on 5..5 pounds per person per day, and 100. 9 pounds per acre per day for non-residential uses). The • -45- • addition of 10,016 residents and the development of 112 . 46 acres of non-residential land in the long-term would increase solid waste by • 66, 435 pounds per day, which is an increased rate of fill of the Coyote Canyon disposal site of . 46 percent. Thus, the impact on solid waste disposal will be slight in the short-term and in the long- term. • � I it • • • • • -4F- COMMUNITY SERVICES Existing Community Services Police Service The City of Huntington Beach currently has an operating force of 170 patrolmen, an administrative staff of about 40 persons and 84 non- sworn assistants. 36 The present level of police manning is about one officer per 1, 000 persons. Protection is provided from one station located near the corner of Main Street and Mansion Avenue in Huntington Beach. This facility is . less than one half mile from the assessment district. The City is patrollediby 60 four-door sedans.. In addition, the force has 13 motorcycles and 11 utility vehicles, five helicopters, and one airplane. 37 The force, .in addition to providing community protection normally expected in a city the size of Huntington Beach, also incorporates • several special squads, including a K-9 squad, bomb squad, and special. enforcement detail. The Police Department also has. mutual aid agreements -with adjacent cities to provide emergency- service to • border areas. 3.8 Fire Protection Huntington Beach maintains seven fire stations to provide fire pro- tection to the City. The station located closest to the assessment • district is at the corner of Lake Street and Indianapolis Avenue which is less than one half mile to the south. . • -47- The City provides for a total of approximately 150 firemen with a minimum of three on duty at each station during each shift. The manning rate is approximately one fireman per 1,000 persons . 39 • Hospital Service • There are two hospitals located within the City of Huntington Beach. Pacifica Hospital is located within the assessment district along Delaware Street between Main Street and Garfield Avenue. Huntington • Intercommunity Hospital is located near the corner of Talbert Avenue and Beach Boulevard less than one half mile from the assessment district. • The Pacifica Hospital has 79 beds, and provides 24-hour emergency service. The Huntington Intercommunity Hospital has 141 beds and also provides 24-hour emergency service. Other hospitals located in the general vicinity are Hoag Memorial • Hospital in Newport Beach, Costa Mesa Memorial Hospital in Costa Mesa and Westminster Community Hospital in Westminster. • Education The assessment district is located within the Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District consists of ten • schools with a current total attendance of 8,075 students and a • -48- total capacity of 8 ,330 students (Fig. .10) . Students from the assessment district attend either Perry. (enrollment:.801, capacity: 930) , Smith (enrollment: 863, capacity:810) , or Dwyer (enrollment:750 , capacity:990) schools.40 Approximately 360 students or 14 .9 percent of the total enrollment of these three schools or 4 .5 percent of • the District's total enrollment is generated by the assessment district. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools • with a current enrollment of 16 ,808 students and a total capacity of 14510 students (Fig. 10) . The present student overload is being accomodated by temporaYy structures and extended day schedules .41 • Students from the assessment district attend Huntington Beach High School and constitute approximately 200 students or 7.6 .percent of the school's total enrollment of 2 ,641 or 1. 2 percent of the District' s • total enrollment. Huntington Beach High School is the only school functioning below capacity (2 ,687 .students) within the Huntington Beach Union High School District. • College age students in the area .attend Goldenwest Community College, .Long Beach or Fullerton State Universities , or University of California at Irvine. Library Service • The central facility of the Huntington Beach Library is located at Main Street and Fifth Street, and has 10 ,000 square feet of floor space and contains 100,000 books and records.42 Two branch libraries are located at 9281 Banning Street and at the corner of Edinger Avenue and Graham Street. Most residents of the assessment district . • probably use the closest library, i.e. , the central facility on Main -49- 1 OCEANVIEW SCHOOLS NOT SHOWN: FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOLS NOT SHOWN: WESTMLNSTEk HIGH SCHOOL 2 715 Nueva View 92 Cox 854 McDowell 728 Fountain ':a1Lev High Star View 690 ti Fountain Valley 717 MoioLa 849 3,062 `¢a Vista View¢47210 4,ti �o�°� Fulton 719 Nieblas 722 Gisler 876 Oka 732 °' ••• Harper 725 Plavan 482 • + 62.4 � r�r Talbert 821 • * • , Tamura 663 • }c+ � '+358 Juarez Preschool 75 510 +° 910 369' • /1669 \ 452 35 •� - rj •P98 • !' �c /782� r�•i O570 � , 630 .r,'821 . 737 ,ss" 40 • 62 �� 4 • !! • ••f r• s510� f �930 ~•: 7 • sy �y 510 40 690 ........ • 75 • ♦ iL.:::. 840 a 660 :: ::::::: het•• 687 990 462 i - • MUNTNCTO1d •'� �� 4Lt ErrNr 750 �` • SEAL BEACH i — •�• • •::.•R�... U.N.XX YN.LE�S1 " ' O `810 v>> EL ENTNTARY �••••�'p� ••�° ^ �• ,Ps � -^ Own ✓. oc.C. rq O ' 1 PEESENELY IWNEC "CU.MN CE f! COUNT•K.C. ; - emu 1 SipE t pE�CN AC)f NLWiNo.0.1MCi Coo,EK" —WIFN TO MTV . � HUNTING.-ON BEACH CALIFORNIA FIGURE. 10 CAPACITY Street. Services offered by the library include book loans, film loans, business referrals and community information service. Impact Like public utilities, the impact of the proposed project on community services is important : in relation to the amount of post-construction growth in population and land development which is likely to occur in the assessment district. Projections for community service demand will represent secondary impacts from the proposed drainage project. . Moreover, these projections must be viewed in context of the proposed project as one factor among others causing growth in the area. Thus, the impact projections will represent worst case situations which are likely to occur in spite of the drainage project. Projections will be based on short-run and long-run criteria established in the Land Use and Demographics sections. Police Service Based on the present level of police protection of one officer per 1,000 persons, the addition of 1,960 persons to the assessment dis- trict in the short-term will require the addition of about two officers to the city force to maintain that ratio. In the long- term, an increase of 10 ,016 persons at full development of the assessment district will require the addition of ten officers. Thus, the short-term impact on police protection capabilities would be slight, but would tend to be moderate in the long-term. -51- Fire Protection Based on the present level of fire protection of one fireman per 1,000 persons, the addition of 1,960 persons to the assessment • district in the short-run would require the addition of about two firemen to the city fire department to maintain that ratio. An increase of 10,016 persons in the long-run will require the addition • of ten firemen. Therefore, the short-term impact on fire protect- ion capabilities would be slight, but would tend to be moderate in the long-run. Hospital Service The two hospitals in Huntington Beach primarily serve the City' s population of approximately 145, 000. About 2,500 people are served at the Huntington Intercommunity Hospital in some capacity every • month. 43 The addition of 1,960 persons to the City's population would amount to a 1.45 percent increase in the short-term. This increase would add about 33 .7 persons per month served by the hospital. • In the long-term the addition of 10 ,016 persons would increase the population served by 6 .9 percent, or about 172 .5 persons per month. Therefore, the short-run impact on the Huntington Intercommunity • Hospital would be minimal, but would become moderate in the long-term. Approximately 350 people are served at Pacifica Hospital every month. 44 • The addition of 1,960 persons to the service area would amount to a 1.45 percent increase, or 4 .7 persons per month, served by the hospital in the short-run. In the long-term, the addition of 10 ,016 persons would increase the population served by 6 .9 percent, or about 24 .2 persons per month. Thus, the short-term and long term impacts on -52- • Pacifica Hospital would be slight to moderate. • Education The Huntington Beach Elementary School District indicated that elementary . school child generation within the assessment district is • much lower than for the City as a whole. A generation factor of .5 children per dwelling unit was considered a good worst case estimate for the area.45 The predominance of medium and high density residential units will probably not significantly alter this child generation factor.. However, based on the large number of residential units expected in the area, total pupils generated will be quite high.. In the. short-term, 350 elementary and junior high school students will be generated by 700 new dwelling units . This would . increase the school district's attendance by 4 .3 percent and exceed total capacity by about 10.0 students . In the long-term, the addition of 1, 789 students would increase the school district's attendance by • 22. 2 percent and exceed total capacity by over 1,500 students-. Therefore, unless present facilities are expanded and/or new schools constructed, the short-term impact will be slightly adverse, and • the long-term impact will. be significantly adverse: The addition of 1,500 students over present capacity would be enough • to require two new schools within or near the assessment district. However, generation trends are showing a decline such that existing schools could potentially support the entire student load. The elementary school district indicated that only one new school is . definitely planned, but not within the assessment district. With this school and adequate busing facilities, the long-term adverse • _$3_ impact could be mitigated.46 The Huntington Beach• Union High School District used their computer data-link with the University of California at Irvine to provide projections of student generation for the assessment district for each grade. For computation purposes , a population of 2 . 8 per dwelling unit was assumed. Each grade level was assigned a student generation factor(9th grade: .294 , loth grade : .306, llth grade: . 294 , 12th grade: . 247) . An additional multiplication factor was used based on house type ( .03 for multiple residential and . 07 for single family residential units) .47 The final multiplication factor was the number of anticipated dwelling units: 700 multiple units in i the short-term, and 193 single units and 3,384 multiple units in the long-term. Based on the above criteria, the assessment district will generate about 67 high school students in the short-run and 367 in the long-run. With the high school district already over capacity and. no new high schools planned for construction in the foreseeable future, any short or long-term increase in student attendance must be viewed as a significant adverse impact on the school system. • Library Service The Huntington Beach Library primarily serves the City and an • approximate population of 145 ,000 . The addition of 1,960 persons to the library service area would constitute a 1.45 percent increase in demand upon facilities in the short-run. In the long-run, the addition • of 10 ,016 residents would increase library demand by 6.9 percent, Thus , the impact on library services would appear to be slight in the short-term and long-term. This is especially true when it is considered i -54- that a new facility of 70 ,000 square feet will soon open at Talbert Avenue and Goldenwest Street. • • • • • • • -55- • TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION Existing Circulation • There are three dominant means of transportation of people and goods within the assessment district; i.e. , motor vehicles , trains, and bicycles. The motor vehicles have the highest volume usage and are utilized for most of the essential trips. Railroads are used for occasional freight hauls north of Garfield Avenue. Bicycles are utilized mostly as recreational vehicles. Some exceptions in- clude the utilization ,of bicycles for transportation to and from schools and for miscellaneous short range shopping trips. Assessment District No. 73-02 is presently served by the following arterial streets and highways: STREET DESIGNATION AVG. DAILY MAX. DAILY • TRAFFIC VOLUME CAPACITY Beach Blvd. State. Highway 24, 000-27 ,600 45 ,000 Main Street Primary 11,900-15, 800 30 , 000 Goldenwest St. Major 13 ,200 30 ,000 Garfield Avenue Major 2 ,500- 4, 000 20,000 Adams Avenue Major 6,400 20,000 Yorktown Avenue Secondary 3 ,660 20 ,000 • Lake Street Secondary 2 , 800 5, 000 Seventeenth St. Secondary 2 ,500 5 , 000 • Average daily traffic counts for these and other surface streets were taken in January, 1974, and are shown in Figure 11. The Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way traverses the assessment -56- N O = SOL SA AVE. eoo amo aeon � WFADDEN-IVE. - - - \r NOO � 9100 10600 w Q800 Inoo 20700 21600 28100 �.7528 EDINGER 4VE 500 .4900 5800 6800. MOO 75M Ta00 n Se00 HEIL AVE. - j 1 "moo I6400 K6400 now 1 sm M06 woo 21 WARNER At _ 0t 5200. 9200 7200 1600 H10o 03T . SLa R AVE. ssoo 4000 4100 / AA ayti I R 400 I100 OOD ELLIS AVE. =AVERAGE TRAFFIC VO In - PER 224 NOUN PERIIODE - p N O It 5000 M4 co 4OOO 6500 MOO 7900 8600 5400 190o GARFIELD AVE. 000 20000 1 I $ 50000 5600 ..4200 A. 5200 suo Ieoo" " " TORKTOWN AVE. 40000 50000 45400 B100 RI00 Ba00 " - 6p0pO � 6400 �$� 4DAM4 AVE. 70000 CC?, . Sly 3000 - 4700 4700 420D a400 . - MDIdNAPOL/5 AVE. 073 1 $400 am 0000 6900 SOO a ATLANTA AVE. 4.0 A ■ I1600 HAMILTON AVE. CITY OF BANNING AVE. O S, HUNTINCTON BEACH ` TRAFFIC FLOW F ICU 11 MAP 6�aso:m S.Y.JAN.B74 • district in a north-south direction, and parallels Gothard Street in the north and Lake Street in the south. That portion of the tracks north of Garfield is used for occasional freight hauls, while the south- ern portion is used once per day to keep the line open. In the future, it is expected that railroad activity will cease south of Garfield, but the right-of-way will be maintained as a possible rapid transit cor- 48 ridor. Bicycle circulation relates primarily to recreational use and will be a covered adequately in 'the Recreation section. 1 Impact Motor vehiclejcirculation will be the primary transportation 1 • mode impacted by the proposed project. In the construction phase, the proposed project will have an unavoidable temporary adverse impact on traffic circulation and access within the assessment district and ad- jacent areas. Construction of drainage lines will be laid along 13, 925 feet of arterial streets. Consequently, the greatest disruptions in circulation and access -may be expected to occur along the drainage • line routes detailedlin the project description. Circulation .will be disturbed to the extent that some motor vehicle traffic may be diverted into fewer street lanes on the same street- under- construction, or • diverted to other streets by closure of the line route. Thus, traffic congestion would. be temporarily increased along the line routes and/or other routes not directly related to the project. In addition, con- struction along the drainage line routes will make egress and ingress temporarily difficult and inconvenient for vehicles related to resi- dential areas and commercial and oil extraction activities fronting • the routes. Trash and emergency vehicles may also experience some access and maneuverability difficulties. • -58- • These temporary adverse impacts will be minimized by several measures First; drainage lines will be. constructed along either four-lane • (Garfield Avenue and Adams Avenue) or wide two-lane (Delaware Street + and portions of Seventeenth Street) traffic arterials. In these situ- ations, drainage facilities will be constructed on one side of the • street, thus leaving at least half of the street width .open. Moreover, if a street has to be completely closed over its entire width, the lengthwise closure will occur in short sections, thus maintaining ac- cess along most of the street. Upon completion of a section, it would be opened and then a new short section closed for construction. There- fore, brief detours will be required where short street 'sections are • completely closed. 49 . ;Complete closures will most likely occur along Portions of the narrowest routes (Florida Street, Clay Avenue, Hunting- ton Street, and Alabama. Street) and at points where one drainage line connects with another line of a different route (such as at the corner of Adams Avenue and Delaware Street) . • Another factor to consider in local congestion and access involves the present number of vehicles currently operating in or near the assess- ment district. There are currently between 2 ,000 and 2 ,500 motor • vehicles owned by persons residing within the assessment district. Expected minor re-routing of these vehicles to other secondary streets within the district will increase congestion on these less frequently • used streets, but. the number of vehicles added would not cause any secondary street to exceed its presently designed capacity of 5,000 vehicles per day. (Current daily traffic volume' on such streets as • Clay and Utica, not shown in Figure 11, is probably between 2 , 000 and 3, 000 vehicles, based on volume generated on surrounding secondary streets. ) • -59- A final traffic consideration during the construction phase is with reference to access requirements of the city' s Fire Department. It is desirable from its viewpoint that the entire length of streets not be • closed and that at least an alleyway be left open in the most inac- cessible areas. 50 Overall, therefore, the proposed project will have a minimal adverse impact on motor vehicle circulation during the • construction phase. The proposed drainage project will be a contributing factor in- the development of the remaining 305 acres of vacant land within the assessment district. Increased traffic congestion can be expected as a result of this development. Based on the Land Use section of this report and on a traffic study at full development prepared by Herman Kimmel & Associates, Inc. , for the city, post-construction impact on traffic circulation can be determined. For assessment purposes, traffic impact will be calculated on a short-term (3-5 years) and. on a long-term (15-25 years) basis. (See Land Use section concerning assumptions about these projection criteria. ) Future traffic generation increase was determined as follows: Short-term impact (3-5 years) : • 1. 1. 63 vehicles per D.U. (based on the Huntington Beach average taken from the November, 1973 , census) multiplied by 700 D.U. yields 1,141 vehicles from new residential uses. 2. 13 employees per acre (based on the city' s cost/revenue study) times 6. 35 acres of M2-zoned land yields 83 employees; assuming one vehicle per employee and 20 company vehicles (assume 25 per- . • cent of 83) gives 103 vehicles from new manufacturing uses. • -60- 3. The trip generation factor per vehicle will be 4. 5 for residential land use and 3. 4 for manufacturing uses. These figures represent • weighted averages derived from the Los Angeles Regional Trans- portation Study in Table 4. Trips per dwelling unit and per acre were converted to generated trips per vehicle. • 4. Therefore: Residential uses: (1141 vehicles) (4 .5) 5 ,135 trips/day. Manufacturing uses : (103 vehicles) (3. 4) = 350 trips/day • 5 , 485 trips/day Based on. current land use, the assessment district generates approxi- mately 2 , 000 to 2,500 residential vehicles and an overall 27 ,273 trips • per day from all uses. The addition of 1,141 residential vehicles will raise the district' s vehicle population by about 50 percent. The addition of 5, 485 trips per day will increase traffic generation by • 20 percent. If .the 5,485 trips per day are distributed (based on• cur- rent. percentage of. trips generated by each street) onto the major, primary and secondary arterials. associated with the district, there will • be an approximate increase_ of 10 percent in traffic generation on each artery. Thus, in the short run, this increase will represent a small adverse- . impact and traffic will remain well below design capacity on • these streets. Long-term impact. (15-25 years). : 1. 1. 63 vehicles per D.U. multiplied by 3 ,577 D.U. yields 5,831 vehic- les from new residential uses. 2. 13 employees per acre times 52 . 8 acres of M1 and M2 zoned land yields. 6.86 employees_ ; assuming one vehicle per employee and 172 company vehicles (assume 25 percent of 686) gives 858 vehicles from new manufacturing uses. • -61- TABLE 4 1&21 GENERATION RATE:a • • I f 1 i • Single Family Residential - 10. 3 T. E. per dwelling unit Condominium Residential - 8. 6 T. E. per dwelling unit Multi-Family Residential - 6. 3 T. E. per dwelling unit Residential Marina 6. 0 T. E. per dwelling unit • Mobile Hoare - 6. 0 T. E. per dwelling unit Retirement Village Residential - 4. 0 T. E. per dwelling unit Neighborhood Commercial - 800 T. E. per acre Community Commercial - 400 T. E. per acre Regional Commercial - 300 T. E. pe r ac re Strip Commercial - 300 T. E. per acre. Public Buildings - SO T. E. per acre Civic Center - 4SO T. E. per ac re Commercial - Industrial - 200 T. E. per acre Light Industrial - SS T. E. per acre Public Utility - 60 T. E. pe r ac re Hotel 300 T. E. per acre Public Marina - 100 T. E. per acre College - 100 T. E. per ac ro Golf Course - S T. E. per acre Regional Park - 40 T. E. per acre SOURCE: Huntington Beach Industrial Park Traffic Study, Herman Kimmel and Associates.Inc - ,April 1 , 1 -62- • 3 : 16 employees per acre (based on the city' s cost/revenue study) • times 59. 66 acres of. commercial and office zoned land yields 955. employees; assuming one vehicle .per employee and 239 company and related vehicles (assume 25 percent of 955) gives 1, 194 vehicles . from new commercial and office uses. 4. The trip generation factor per vehicle will be 4. 75 for residen- tial land use, and 3. 4for manufacturing and commercial uses. 5. Therefore: Residential uses: (5, 831 vehicles) (4.75) 27 ,697 trips/day Manufacturing uses: (858 vehicles) (3. 4) - = 2 ,917 trips/day Commercial uses : (1,194 vehicles) (3. 4) = 4 ,060 trips/day 341, 674 trips/day 6. If 59. 66• acres of commercial-office area is multiplied by .trip generation rates determined by the Los Angeles Regional Transpor- tation Study, it is found that- commercial generation is 20,989 trips per day. Subtraction of employee and company trips (4 , 060) from this figure will yield 16 ,.929 trips per .day by customers. If a generation factor of 3. 0is assumed, customer. vehicle popu- lation will equal 5 ,643. Thus, total trips per day will now equal 51, 603 and -vehicle population will equal 13 , 526. The addition of 5 , 831 residential vehicles will raise the district' s vehicle population by almost 250 percent.. The addition of _ 51, 603 • trips per day will "increase traffic generation by about 190 percent. Similar. estimates of traffic generation by Kimmel and Associates, Inc. , will permit the use of that study' s maps to distribute traffic "genera- tion onto the streets within the assessment district by use of gravity models. (Figure 12) . Several assumptions regarding this dis- tribution are as follows: 1 -63- S v Z z 13 `^ 1 Y 4 20 30 .4 3Z A 2t P 23 ;JEM9v AVE 43 19 34 24 Sy 21 70 HEIL AVE • 'tl If yf 17 29 2.f 47 19 GI y a y 9 11 y SS Sz4 wMNER AVE • J J7 ! G as y� 1 t 6J' s If 20 2011 20 SLATER AVE 37 I ! yl So • rc 20 �� 20 7s 403 7 TAME] AVE E 37 �1 y9 • 19 1 #7 ELLIS AVE �Z 33 .41Z y O 2 7 1 )a &WIELD AVE • 3.r 1s CLAY 1L 322 11 y® ` I 1' YORKTOWN AVE o • G 7 i3 JI 9 �0 IG t• 37 • ADWS AVE s 3,340 • �`� a ' � s 1! 19 INIOIAIbAPAt15 14 it"TA AVE • NS �,�� 3 r i Y Z J - C o P� FIGURE 12 �• ,��► SOURCE: Circulation and Transportation Study Parameters , \ Huntington Beach Planning Department , September 1973 . • -64- 1. The Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways, which would traverse the assess- ment district if constructed, will remain indefinitely deleted from the .city' s master traffic plan.. 2. There will be no ocean cut. on Pacific Coast Highway near the Bolsa Chica area. 3. Talbert Avenue will be deleted between Edwards Street and Gothard Street. 4. Traffic generation rates based on the Los Angeles Regional _Trans- portation Study will be similar for Huntington Beach and the assessment district. Therefore, with reference to Figure 12 , the following traffic flows are expected to impact the district' s traffic arteries: Long-run. Average Daily Traffic at -A-.D. Full Development Increase (%) Capacity Deficient Beach Blvd. . 39,0.00 54. 7 450, 000. No Main Street 13,750 1. 7 30, 000.. No • Goldenwest St. 34 ,000 157. 5 30,000 Yes Adams Avenue 10,000 56. 2 20,000 No Garfield Avenue 28,250 _ 707. 1 200,000 Yes Yorktown Avenue 17 ,500 386. 1 20, 000 No Lake-Gothard St. 19,000 442. 8 5 ,000 Yes Delaware St. 10,500 191. 6 5, 000 Yes As seen from the above table and associated map, the relative increase in traffic generation will be quite high on most streets within the assessment district. _ If no improvements were implemented, two major • .streets (Goldenwest and Garfield) would be rendered deficient by excess capacity. . Most of the .two-way secondary streets would probably also -65- t • become deficient as evidenced by Lake-Gothard and Delaware Streets. However, the above calculations represent worst case situations be- cause, as pointed out in the Land Use section, not all future .develop- ment within the assessment, district can be attributed to the drainage project. Likewise, most of the increase in traffic generation and • congestion will occur in spite of rather than as a result of the pro- posed project. A final consideration which reduces the adversity of the long-range impact is that all customer commercial trips are assumed to be gener- ated from outside the assessment district, a worst case situation. At least some small percentage of the 16 , 929 trips related to customer • commercial generation could be expected to be generated from residential areas within the assessment district. • Overall, therefore, motor vehicle traffic circulation can be expected to be moderately impacted . in the long-run. , There will be no apparent impact during project construction, or after, • on the present railroad facilities in the district. • • • • -66- .ACOUSTICAL QUALITY • Existing Acoustical Quality At present, the only major source of acoustical energy within the assessment district is that associated with motor vehicle traffic. Minor noise sources include railroad traffic and occasional overhead flights by aircraft. Based on peak hour traffic flow ( . 1 of ADT) and average speed equal to the speed limit (assuming worst ..case), present • noise levels for residences along the various traffic arterials can be estimated from Figure 13 : dBA at 100. ft. • �'' with no. barriers. I Beach Boulevard 66 Main Street 62 • Goldenwest Street 62 Garfield Avenue 54 Adams Avenue f. 58 • Yorktown. Avenue 54 Lake-Gothard Street 54 Seventeenth Street 52 • Delaware Street 54 (estimation based on traffic and noise levels at nearby secondary streets) If the above figures are compared with the criteria for non-aircraft • noise in Figure 14, it is seen that at L50 (A-level (dB) exceeded 50 percent of the time) noise levels at residences. fronting Beach Boulevard, Main Street, and Goldenwest would be classified as "normally unacceptable. " • At the present time, however, there are mostly commercial establishments bordering Beach Boulevard and mostly vacant property fronting Main • -67- so 70 60 x 50 D 40 o AUTOMOBILES 0100 3055 70 — — c 00 20 O POO O AVERAGE SPEED s - - (MPH) m0-00 1 W rn > c W � J 2 40 Q 30 ` 1 z 20 3 4 5 6 78 100 2 3 4 5 6 731000 2 3 4 5 6 7810,000 2 3 E HCORLY AUTO VOLUME, YA - vph a PLOT OF L50 FOR AUTOMOBILES AS FUNCTION OF VOLUME FLOW AND AVERAGE SPEH) FIGURE 13 • ! -HUD's 'Acceptrbility Categories for .~ Proposed Housing Sites t 1 Clearly Acceptable- the noise exposure is such that both the Indoor and outdoor en- . vironments are pleasant. • Normally Acceptable: the noise exposure is @real enough to be of•some concern but common building constructions will make the indoor.environment acceptable, even for"sleeping quarters, and the outdoor environment will be reason- ably pleasant for recreation and play. ttormally.Unar.ceptable: the noise exposure is significantly more severe so that unununl and costly building constructions ere necessary to ensure soma trnnqu111ty • indoors, and barriers must he erected between the site and prominent noise sources to make the outdoor environ- ment tolerable. lenrly C::nceeFtable: the noise exposure at the site is so severe that the construction costs to nwke the indoor ersviron- ment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment. would still be intolernble. We 99.9 • 99 S CLEARLY' " UNACCEPTABLE " 99 99 ' 95 80 W B0 W 70 NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE W 60 ►- SO . o 40 NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE 30 20 W 4 10 p L0 Q6 CLEARLY ACLFPTABLE a: 0.1 40 90 so To s0 90 A•LEVEL cd91 FIGURE - 14 11R0110SEU AL"rER11ATlvE rnRr'AT Fog won-t umrr11"nu " ruff ;4u1-AjRCR.AFT ;IOISE Street and Goldenwest Street. Thus, there are probably few residen- tial areas within the district currently receiving a noise level above • 60 dsA. The railroad presently represents a relatively insignificant noise source in the assessment district. The right=of-way south of Garfield • Avenue is used only one time each day, while that portion to the north is used occasionally for loading and unloading freight. Moreover, the rail line traverses the western vacant portion of the district. Only • residences south of Adams Avenue are located within 300 feet of the railroad right-of-way, but these are subjected to train noise only for a very brief time each day. • Present exposure of the assessment district to aircraft noise is also minimal. The nearest airport, Meadowlark, is located about four miles from the project area; but ita. runway is not in line with the drainage district, nor does it produce frequent overhead flights in the area. Impact • Construction noise from the use of heavy equipment for digging and pipe-laying will predominate within the assessment district for a tem-p. 8 185 porary period of 4-t-U-6 months. The construction phase will probably • be an unavoidable annoyance to local residents. The annoyance factor will be minimized by confining construction activity to normal work- ing hours (7 a.m. to 6 p.m. ) . • As a contributing factor to the development of the assessment district, new residential areas will increase motor vehicle traffic and noise • levels in the area. However, there will be virtually .no impact on post-construction railroad and aircraft noise. • -'7n- • For assessment purposes, noise .levels produced by future increases in • motor vehicle traffic and received by adjacent residences can be es- timated from Figures 13 and 14. - Computation of future noise levels will be based on traffic. volumes produced at til.timate development of • the assessment district (15-25 years) . The following assumptions will .apply: 1. Peak hour traffic flow will be .1 of average daily traffic volume. • 2. Motor vehicle speeds will approximate 35 . to 45 miles per hour, depending on the speed limit of the given street. Therefore, increases in L50 levels for residences at 10.0 feet from • streets at full development of the. assessment district will be: dBA. level Change .over No Barrier Present dBA Level Beach Boulevard 68 + 2 Main Street 62 0 Goldenwest Street 67 + 5 Garfield Avenue 65 +11 Adams Avenue 60 + 2 Yorktown Avenue 63 + 9 Lake-Gothard Street 63 + 9 • Seventeenth -Street 60 + 8 Delaware Street 60 + 6 If these results -are compared with HUD's acceptability criteria • (Figure 14) , all residences .fronting these streets would be receiving "normally unacceptable" noise levels. However, these- noise levels represent worst case situations. Most of the residential areas within the assessment, district will be .located beyond 100 feet of the study streets, but within approximately 300 _feet. . Since increased distance • -71- will attenuate traffic noise by approximately 5 dBA, only those resi- dences near Beach Boulevard, Goldenwest Street, and possibly Garfield • Avenue would be subject to "normally unacceptable" noise levels. An- other consideration is that completion of the drainage project will be one factor amongmany affecting the area' s development. Thus, not • all, and perhaps not even a significant portion, of the future devel- opment with concomitant traffic generation and noise levels can be attributed to the proposed project. • For those residences t' 100 feet from potential noise generating streets, noise levels !could be minimized by use of drnzbY� gTa �atn= Rei: P. I • 186 dews awdyor a six foot high barrier. Noise levels would consequently be reduced by the following levels based on an attenuation of 10 dBA (Figure 15) : dBA Level at Full Development of A. D. 73-02 with 6 ft. Barrier Beach. Boulevard 58 Main Street 52 • Goldenwest Street 57 Garfield Avenue 55 Adams Avenue. 50 • Yorktown Avenue 53 Lake-Gothard. Street 53 Seventeenth Street 50 Delaware Street 50 When all factors are considered, the proposed project will have a slight to moderate adverse impact on residential noise levels. Although • noise levels may approach a moderate adverse impact in a few areas • FIGURE 15 HIGHWAY NOISE (dBA; Lip) AT VARIOUS HIGHWAY NOISE WBA, L10} AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM EDGE OF 6-LANE hSG:a',AY i DiSTAi\:CES FROi:i EDGE OF 3-LANE .tilGti'�'s1AY. TRAFFIC:."8.000 VEHIC:ES PER HOUR, 5"'. T:,vCKS, S3 N'TH T�.a.FFIC: T1,C.'] V=!?IC_cS P'cR HJ��, �'.e -.;CrS, 53 ?i; FT =51 Fp-" 400 '0 — ` ---. 1C] 25 200 .: 4CG MAY r.:. W GMT Gr P:it A l= .7877 74 71 69' �Z;0 79 75 72 70 NO DAMRIER NO 8ARF.:ER 73 72 71 69 66 - 64 %5 74 70 67 . 65 �. 4 67 66 64 61 58. i .� 0 69 66 63 61 Ln 0 I NOISE i'tlnnRiER . A'ATEC[NT I ES Al4TE'. T MEASYAEI — — � KEA:u 1 63 62 .60 56 54 65 65 64 61 55. 1 iz bd:;f.EN D 7. 73 72 69 64 61. ; ; '. \r:', :....::.::'.: 75 74 68 65 _62 17 DEhtESSLD .. _ . _ ( 77 UL?A�SSE� ' (residential areas within 300 feet of Beach Boulevard, Goldenwest Street, and Garfield Avenue) , proper mitigation measures can reduce • these to acceptable levels. EI • 1 • • i • • -74- RECREATION Existing Recreation The location of the: assessment' district is in.. .close ,proximity to the San Diego and Garden drove Freeways, which lend easy access to moun tain and desert resort areas, as well ,as to many other Southern California attractions such as Disneyland, Knott' s Berry Farm, Marine- land,, Ports O'Call, the .San Diego and Los Angeles Zoos; Lion Country Safari; Japanese Deer Park, Orange County Raceway, Sea World, Cunning- ham Auto Museum, Anaheim Stadium and various horse racing facilities. 51 • Considering the close proximity of this site. to the sea, ocean-oriented activities are likely to play an .-important role . in the -lives of . the inhabitants of the assessment district. Huntington .Beach State Park • and City beaches offer surfing, swimming, and sun bathing to the residents. Some residents may also. ,partidipate in •power and _sail boat- ing activities. 52 The City of Huntington Beach also. maintains a system of regional, com munity and neighborhood parks. . The regional park facility nearest to the project area is Huntington Central Park at Talbert Avenue and Goldenwest Street: Huntington Beach Central Park will eventually en- compass over 400` acres and consist of a -diversity of functions: picnic areas., boating; recreational trails, and a wildlife reserve. It is the cit ' s y policy to locate community parks near to or adjacent to high schools to avoid duplication of facilities. 53 Thus, the community park -nearest to the assessment district will be the planned Huntington Park which will be adjacent to the Huntington Beach High School at Main Street. -.7-5 • The city' s policy on neighborhood parks is to provide them adjacent to local elementary and junior high schools wherever. possible. 54 The • neighborhood park located nearest to the site is the Perry Park adjac- ent to the Perry School, less than a quarter mile east of Beach Boulevard. Other parks are located along Main Street. These parks • include Lake Park and Farquhar Park. There are presently some biking and equestrian activities within the assessment district. The number of bicycles in the area (based on the November 1973 census) is 1,480, with an average per dwelling unit of 1. 02. For recreational purposes, bikers probably utilize the only existing trails along Mansion Avenue and Yorktovm Avenue between Adams Avenue and Huntington 'Street. There are presently four equestrian stables within the district (two along Main Street and two along Dela- • ware Street) . Horsemen from these stables probably use informal equestrian trails within the large vacant tracts within the area with or without permission from the property owners. 55 • Impact During the construction of drainage facilities, biking and equestrian activities will be slightly impacted. Existing biking trails will be • temporarily. disrupted as construction occurs along Yorktown Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, and. then extends north along Huntington Street, causing a brief segmentation of the Seventeenth • Street bike route. Equestrian activities in vicinity of the two horse stables near Delaware Street and. Garfield Avenue may be temporarily disturbed .during drainage construction along those arterials. However, • since there are few established equestrian trails in the area and the • -76 • fact that horsemen use diverse paths- 'of their own making across private • property with or without permission,' disruption of this activity will be minimal. As discussed in the Hydrology section, completion of the project will • 14 of the 15 Re6: p. probably mean the permanent drainage of fhe._fat-teen_ intermittent ponds I187 Pond and a slight diversion of. runoff .from Civic Center Vwke and _Newland Rebc p. 9 Marsh. None, of the intermittent lake areas have been .planned or pro- Posed as park sites. Because there are .no pubti.c parks currently located Pond within the assessment district; perennial Civic Center lake and an ad- jacent area to total 51to 8 acres of land is planned for acquisition and development as a neighborhood park by the bity' s Recreation and pond Parks Department in the 1915-76 fiscal year. The take is to function as an aesthetic attraction in. the park. 56 Thus; the diversion of run Re6: p • pond pond's 187 off from the lakL represents a potential adverse impact on the lama`s water level, aesthetics, and existence as a park attraction. - However since runoff diversion is expected to be very small, this adverse im- pact will be minimal. Newland Marsh, which is also proposed as a recreational/scenic area and wildlife reserve, will be. impacted in. a Pond similar fashion as Civic Center -take. Re6: p. • 187 P. 9 A secondary impact of the proposed project will be to contribute . to the future development of the assessment district. -Since .most .of this de- velopment will be_ residential, there will be an increase in population and demand for parks and bicycle...trails in- the local area. Based on total population and area developed and/or acquired for com- • munity and neighborhood parks, ' the city provides an overall average of 2. 9 acres per 1,000 population. At ultimate development of the assess- • -77.= ment district, there will be approximately 13, 600 persons residing in the area. This would require that about 39. 5 acres of park space be provided within the assessment district or in the immediate surrounding area. Table 5 shows that the city has presently acquired and/or devel- oped 39. 0 acres of park space within a quarter mile of the assessment Re6: p. Pond • 187 district. If the Civic Center fake (973) and Huntington Community p' 9 (845) sites are acquired, at least 10 additional acres would serve the assessment district. 'Thus, there will be no apparent adverse impact on the recreational park and open space requirements of the local popu- lation. Assuming an average number of bicycles per new dwelling unit of 1.13 • (based on the city average in the November 1973 census) , the number of additional bicycles in the area can be estimated in the short-run (3-5 years) and the long-run (15-25) years: Short-term Projection: 700 D.U. times 1.13 bicycles per D.U. = 791 bicycles Long-term Projection: 3,577 D.U. times 1.13 bicycles per D.U. = 4,042 bicycles These changes represent 53.4 percent and 273. 1 percent increases in the short-run and long-run respectively. Thus, it is apparent that bicycling is likely to be a very popular form of recreation to the future residents of the assessment district. Although these increases seem high, it is anticipated that future implementation of the city' s Phase I bicycle trails plan will accommodate most of the local bicycle enthusiasts. It is planned to provide bicycle routes in close vicinity to the assessment district. 57 These routes include the extension of the Seventeenth Street' trail to Pacific Coast Highway, a new route -7f2- PARK_INVBMRY - • TABLE 5 Acres Leased or Acres under joint Acres Park Name I.D. No. . ._A u9.irO-d_ .._PoNers - ----MO 1-.0 0d -- -- Schroed 700 . 2.3, 2.3 er Greer 70S 10.3 10.3 Irby 710 T1,0 3.0 Nurdy Community 71s 14.6 14.6 • Nardlow 720 .2.3 1).3 Rec. Center 72S 2.0 2.0 Lake 730 4.0 1.8 • t OMAL73S 3.0 3.0 Hope vier 740 5.1 3.1 Lefard II 74S 3.0 2.0 5.0 Per i 7S0 2.2 2.2 Gisler 755 . 1.0 11.0 12.0 , leader .760 2.7 2.7 Hunt. Central 76S iS0.6 167.0 • Oak View 710. 2.S 2.5 Hurt. Harbour 775 2.S Gym Pool. 780 .S .5 Sun View 78S 2.5 2..5 • Chris Carr 790 10.0 10.0 Hering Community: 79S 9.7. Circle View 600 2..0 2.0 Clegg-Stacy 60S 3.0" 3.0 �. Harbour View 610 3.S 3.5 Lake View 61S 3.0 3.0 College View 620 2.S ..3 3.0 • $ushard 62S 2.5 2.S $*abridge 130 3.S 3.S Edison Community 63S -27.0 )3.0 40.0 Lark View $40 2.9 .5 3.0 M»t. Community 845 Arevalos 8S0 3.0 3.0 • Springdale 85S 2.0 2.0 Golden View 860 2. 5 2. 5 -79- 2/74 Acres Leased or Acres ender joint Acres Park Noe I.D. No. Acqui14!d �+nwtre Dalnloped Pleasant View 865 H.B. Co. 870 Burke 875 2• S 316 Sowers 880 2.S 2.S S8 Adams 4 Bush. 88S 2.6 Terry 89S I.S Wellington Mini 900 .S .S Davenport Mini 90S 1.0 1.0 Marine View 910 3.o 3.0 Haven View 915 3.0 3.0 Peterson 920 • Robinwood 92S Glen View 930 3.0 Lambert 93S 3.S Howland 940 i Talbert 94S 5.4 5.4 H.B. Co. 9S0 H.B. Co. 9S5 Signal Oil 960 Westmont 965 H.B. Co. 966 N.B. Co. 967 Signal Oil 968 Signal Oil 909 Bartl- et-NCwLAND 970 ?S•• Signal Oil 971 �•i NW Graham 4 Slater 972 York. 4 Del. 973 Del. 4 Ind. 974 SE Graham 4 Slater 975 S SE Adams 6 Beach 976 2.6 Sth 4 Main 977 3. 5 Yorktown comm. 979 6: 1 Solsa Chica Comm. 979 TOTALS 415.8 S l). H 34 7.7 -80- • along Lake Street from Yorktown Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway, and • anew route. along Garfield Avenue (Figure 16) . • . i • • -81- 1 I LEGEND fREEWAY MAJOR 120'R/W PRIMARY 100'A/W --- SECONDARY 80'R/W NOTE •� \ !OLIO LR[.AMOS EXISTING Rr.N1 OF. /• y `� RDt IrQS7YlY UIW1C RgNT OW M DRltp Uri INDICATE AREAS .MERE b Iowa Or .NIT EXISTS — -..--.— _ — .4"%V INl O<ROTcS NOMYRT EOWLIF 1 i r 1" existing trails phase I proposals r MMMN \ ; o. c, bicycle trail fund grant. , I CITY OF .�ty ; HUNTINGTON 9EACl1! ``• -�-mum COUPITY C"WOWA Source: Recreational Trails Phase. I , Huntington Beach. .Planning Department, October 1973. FIGURE 16 CONSTRUCTED AND FUNDED BIKE TRAILS (AS OF SEPTEMBER 1973) 0: • -82- AESTHETICS Existing Aesthetics Presently, Assessment District No. 73-02 is approximately 52.7. percent undeveloped and 47.3 percent developed. Most of the 305 • acres of undeveloped land is either covered with- a relatively unattractive low-growth weedy vegetation cover, or often unsightly oil extraction uses. In the developed areas, landscaping and • generally compatible architectural styles offer some aesthetic improvement over the vacant areas; • There are several. opeA areas -which may possess potential aesthetic Value. These areas include the two knob hills west of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks (]Reservoir Hill and Huntington Beach • . " . . .. Pond~ Company. Hill) , Civic Center fake` and possibly three .-of the Rej: p. Ponda 187 intermittent lakes (ba"s 9, 14, . and 16) . Another area. which P. 9 should bp included, though located outside of the assessment district, • is the bluff and marsh near. the Newland House at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. • Impact During the construction phase of the project, there-will be a • temporary slight to moderate adverse impact on the aesthetics within the assessment district. The construction of a drainage line in easement across 960 feet of vacant property west of Huntington Street • will temporarily disturb the weedy vegetation cover in the area. However., this impact is expected to be minimal because of the generally low utility of the area as conservation open. space • (according to the City's Open Space and Conservation Element) and -83- the inherent unattractiveness of- the vegetation. The impact on aesthetics will be moderately adverse along the proposed drainage line street routes as heavy equipment and the excavation of earth material become--features on the arterial landscape. However, this impact will be minimized by its short duration. • ma.bt Upon completion of the drainage project, art flooding points and Pond ponds (excluding Civic Center bake) within the assessment district will be eliminated. Drainage of flooded intersections and developed 0 private property willihave. a .beneficial impact on local aesthetics Re6: p. during the usual periods of heavy_ rain and flooding. Drainage of 187 9 most of the intermitte P. nt ponds will not substantially alter local aesthetics because of their short . standing duration and minimal value as conservation open space areas. At least in two instances Pond Pond Mm-ke 7 at Utica Street and Delaware Street, and bad 13 at Florida Street and Clay Avenue) , drainage of the ponds and subsequent development will have a beneficial aesthetic impact because of their present status as trash collection points (i.e. , bottles , cans, children's_ toys, etc. ) . As mentioned previously, there are about three ponds which have a long standing duration and some potential aesthetic value due to their marshy appearance and wildlife content. Although not highly • rated as conservation open space areas, their elimination would represent an adverse. impact and aesthetic loss to the local area. This adverse impact, however, will be minimized in the instance of Pond Re6: p. Laker 9 by its close roximity to a similar aesthetic environment 187 Pondp P. 9 at Civic Center bake, which is being maintained as part of a park 0 -84- -Pond site. Moreover, . if the area of bake 9 is residentially developed, Pond Reb: p. Pond companying landscaping would mitigate this loss. -bake 14 and 187 • ira*e- 16 are located relatively close together north of Garfield Ave-- p. 9 nue. khan;-tf-nt-genet-ere-ef-these-Wrens- {prefernb�y-bake-l6-n�ereg ��ertdn-Street-dose-te-its-2Here-nttrnettve-appenrnriee;-darnbt��ty;-een • Ni�d�tfe-eentent}-eets�d-be-negesrred-ns-n-parse-s�te�-the-ndeerse-�m- pnet-en-the-netarn�-ne'thettes-ef-the-Wren-eoets�d-be-mtntmn�---�f-net aegntred;-eabsegnent-residentYnf-dedefepMent-nnd-�nndsenping-wets�d R187 p' • else-of feet-the-hatarnl-nesthetle-+ess-s-1+ght1-p. Pond 16 uitt be penman p. 9 en f-y maintained as pav t ob a one-ache pa hive pah-h in the proposed Zinngna.be 200-bed nes.i.denti.at cane bac City bon .seniors c i ti.zen,a. Atthough a pn i.vate deve.e-op • ment, the pond itt .i,mpnove the 'ahea.'d aeatheti a' and .serve to mitigate the to.6.6 aJ neahby Pond 14. Pond Civic Center bake- and the Newland Marsh are currently proposed as park sites and/or reserves. Moreover, the drainage project is not ex- pected to significantly alter the water supply of these areas. There- Re6: 1 187 • fore , in light of these circumstances, there will be at worst only Pond P. . 9 a slight adverse impact on the aesthetics of Civic Center bake and. Newland Marsh pond . In reference to non-flooding and non-bake areas , subsequent develop- Re6: ment will result in the removal of low priority open space (weeds and 187 oil extraction uses) . If new residential and commercial developments are in conformance with the City' s landscaping, open space., and ap- pearance requirements as specified in the various ordinances, this will represent an improvement in the area's aesthetics. • -85- PALEONTOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORIC LANDMARKS Existing Environment Paleontology A survey of paleontological , archaeological, and historical resources within the City of Huntington Beach was conducted by Archaeological • Research, Inc. , in 1972 and submitted to the city early 1973. This report indicates that information regarding fossil locations in • the city are sparse. It is quite possible: to encounter marine vertebrates and invertebrates, as well as terrestrial vertebrates, anywhere within the city. However! ! it is most probable to find fossils on Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa which consist of older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Fossils would most likely be encountered within the assessment district where . the surface soil has been disturbed more than five feet or by soil erosion. 58 Archaeology Artifacts of archaeological interest which may be found in Huntington • Beach or in close proximity to the project area are those associated with primitive Indian tribes. There are approximately thirty areas of prehistoric occupation within the city. Approximately 40 percent • of the sites have remained relatively undamaged by human activity and are substantially complete. None of the intact sites, nor any of the destroyed ones, are located within the assessment district. 59 • Historic Landmarks There are approximately 20 historic properties in the city, but only two are considered significant, the Newland Ranch property and perhaps the • Morillo Adobe, if it can ever be precisely located. Only the Newland i -86- • Ranch lies adjacent to. the project service area on the northeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Minor historic sites located - within or near the assessment district include =a warehouse- and sugar beet factory at Main Street and Garfield Avenue and the Huntington Beach Company office on a domal hill at Mansion west of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Impact Paleontology Fossil specimens, if present_, are probably dispersed individually • throughout the Huntington Beach Mesa and project area at depths ex-.. ceeding five feet. During construction, pipeline ditches will be dug approximately 15 feet in depth at a length of almost 15 ,000 feet. " It is possible, therefore,: that some fossils could be encountered and destroyed. In addition, although none have been discovered, the pres- ence of large complexes of. fossil materials is remotely possible.There- fore, unless precautions are taken, the project may have a significant adverse impact on feaaii: pattontotog.icat resources during the construction phase. • Archaeology There are no designated archaeological sites within the project ser- vice area; thes;-the re-wiii-be-ne-impact-en-this-resenree. However, given • the c e.os a pro x imi ty o f a major aheha.eotog.icat site on the Newland Btub i east o f Beach Boutevand, the remote posy ibi i ty ex 4td that Indian, aAti 6acta could be un- lRej: p. 183 • coveted .in .the vicinity of the phojeet. . Thub, unte�s6 pnecautionb are taken, the project may have a .6.ign.i6icant adveue -impact on anchaeotog.ieat netounces duAin.g the eonbtnucti.on phaa e. • Historical Landmarks Although located nearby, the construction-of drainage facilities will not affect the continued existence of the Newland House or any of • the minor structures located within the assessment district. -8.7- • CLIMATE Existing Climatic Environment • The climate in the vicinity of the project site is. typical of the coastal zone of Southern California and is generally classed as "Mediterranean" in type or semi-arid/sub-tropical. The winters are mild with most of the rainfall occurring then and the summers are mild and comfortable. The mean average temperature for the year is 61. 70 F. with an average minimum of 53.20 F. and an average maximum • of 70. 80 F. The average annual rainfall is approximately 12 inches and the mean relative humidity is 60 at noon. 60 The prevailing westerly winds are superimposed on a diurnal cycle of onshore (sea) breezes during the daytime and offshore (land) breezes during the .night. This also contributes to the fogs and overcast which occur frequently during late winter and spring. These usually "burn off" during the day.61 • From late fall through spring, occasional strong warm and dry northerly to northeasterly winds pass through the area (Santanas) . These can cause some blowing dust and high fire hazard in the coastal • chaparral areas. Hazy offshore conditions and colorful sunsets are common during these periods. 62 • Impact In the immediate future, evapotranspiration will decrease to some. Re6 n p. ponds 187 imperceptible degree as the intermittent makes are drained. -88- With the adequate provision of drainage facilities, the rate of residential development (for which the area is primarily zoned) • will increase; and evapotranspiration will increase in the long- term to some trivial extent due to year around maintenance of associated residential landscaping. . • j i • • 8.9_ • AIR QUALITY Existing Air Quality • Drainage Assessment District 73-02 lies within Orange County, which is a part of the meteorological system commonly known as the South Coast Air Basin. Air quality control and monitoring in Orange County • is conducted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) . The sta- tion closest to the proposed project is located in Costa Mesa, while others are located in Anaheim, La Habra, and E1 Toro (formerly Los Alamitos) . The most recent data (1972) is presented in Table 6. and summarizes the air qu lity for the four individual stations in Orange County and the county! average showing the number of days the standards were exceeded. (These state standards are based on health considera- tions. ) The standards for allowable gaseous contaminaihts were exceeded. 126 days out of 365, .which is an appreciable reduction from 1971, when this figure was 170 days. This data, in addition to' a series of computerized air pollution maps • of the area compiled by the Air Pollution Research Center at U .C. Riv- erside in 1971, also supports the assumption that the immediate coastal areas are the least contaminated with the air quality becoming progres- • sively worse as one moves toward the interior of the basin. (See Appendix A) Daytime sea breezes usually move locally formed air con- taminants inland. However, the air mass is often capped by an inver- sion layer, tending to retain the air in the basin. Therefore, contam- inants at any locality may not have originated locally, but could have been generated earlier at some other point in this basin. • -90- TABLE 6 AIR QUALITY 1972 CALIFORNIA DAYS CALIFORNtA STANDARD EXCEEDED 1972 MAXIMUM"* POLLUTANT " AIR QUALITY ANAHFIM COSTA LA HABRA L0S COUNTY • REASONS FOR AIR QUALITY STANDARD READING STANDARD MESA RLAMITOS WILE Oxidant prevention of eye irritation and possible including 0.10ppm for lhr 61 29 115 25 126 impairment of lung function in persons 0.40 ppm Ozone with chronic pulmonary disease. Nitrogen Possible health effects could occur at Dioxide 0.25ppm for ihr 6 4 7 _ S 14 slightly higher dosage. 0.43 ppm (NO2) - Produces atmospheric. discoloration. Carbon 10 ppm avg for _ 12 hrs. 17 12 44 14 62 Prevention of interference with oxygen 23 ppm Monoxide (CO) transport by blood. 40 ppm for lhr 0 0 n 0 0 34 ppm 0.04 ppm avg - i Sulfur 24 hrs. 0 0 2 6 a Prevention of increase in chronic 0-06 Rpm �o DiOkide (s(12) respiratory disease .on- long term ex_vsure O.SOppm for lhr 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 ppm EA-ad 1.5 ug/m3 30 12 5 12 9 12 Higher levels have shown progressive 6.0 ug/m3 (Pb): day avg. months months months. months months increase in storage of lead in body. 60 ug/m3 annual Avg. Long" continued exposure may be associated geometric mean 105 67 120 85 AGM 120 ug/m3 caith "chronic respiratory disease. (AGM) u4/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 tag/mI 94ug/03 Exposes to a combination of suspended Suspended _ particles and sulfur dioxide may produce Particles acute illness. .lsi 100 ug/m3 Sit of days > 19% 67% 39% 45% aA-ug/m3 24 hr avg 100sig/m3 * This is number of days standard exceeded at one or more stations in Orange County. *• t;ighest reading averaged .over period prescribed by air quality standard. • The APCD identifies forty categories of emission sources in the county, including both stationary and moving sources. Table 7 is a summary of • the county' s total average daily emissions. In the entire county, 98 percent of all emissions are from motor vehicles. Identifiable emissions currently found in the vicinity of the project are: Petroleum production emission Fuel combustion for domestic and commercial space heating I • Motor vehicle exhaust Motor vehicle crapkcase blowby Evaporation of motor vehicle fuels in storage and transfer Diesel truck emis�ions • Assessment District 73-02 is approximately half developed and is pre- sently in a state of transition from oil extraction uses, old residen- tial areas and vacant land to new residential and commercial develop- ment. Therefore, the major emissions generated by this area are primarily from resident and commercial vehicles and diesel trucks as- sociated with the petroleum industry. Due to the partially developed • nature of the area, emissions from motor vehicles could be slightly less than the county average -of 98 percent of total emissions. Although there are a large number of active oil wells in the area (over 1,000 • wells in the city and 110 in the project area as of 1973) , this source is considered a minor contaminant. 63 • Impact Since it is anticipated that construction of the drainage system will Res: p. 8 185 require 4--6-months, there will be a temporary increase in air pollution • on the site. This project is extensive in areal coverage, and it is likely that at least two.. or .three crews would be working on different • -92- • ORANGE COUNTY 1912 EMISSIONS INVENTORY AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF AIR CONTAMINANTS INTO AT140SPHERE (TONS PER DAY) TABLE 7 • _..Hydrocarbons (. EW SSION SOURCE Parti- Total All Reactivit culate NOX SOX CO Emissions High:- Low ITotal :flatter Combined • STATIONARY SOURCES. PETROLEUM 1. Production 4 2. Refining 3: Marketing 10 10 20 • 4. SUBTOTAL. 10 10 20 4 24 ORGANIC SOLVENT USERS 5: Surface Coating j 9.0 4.0 6. Dry Cleaning- ! 3.0 3.0 7. . Degreasing 1.2 1.1 3.3 8: Other 1.0 11.0 12.0. 9. SUBTOTAL. ..- ! 2..2_ 27.3._ 27.3 CHEMICAL 10. Peirocheinical - 11. Sulfur Planti • 12. sulfuric Acid Plants 13. Pulp and Paper 14. Other 0.1 0.3 15._ SUBTOTAL 0.1 0.3 0.4 METALLURGICAL 16 Ferrous 0.1 17. Noh� rerrous 18. SUBTOTAL ._ . - - 0.1 0. 1 .4I NE RAL 19. Glass and Frit 0.15 0.50 1 20. Asphal• eatching 0.45 0.15 .21. Asphal• Roofing 22. Cement eroduction 23. Concrete Batcning 0.10 24. Other ^.10 0.05 1.4 26.- SUBTOTAL 0.80. 0.701 1.4 2.9 • INCIIIERATION 26. Open Burning. (dumps) 21. Open Burning (backyard) ' 28. Incinerators 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.2 2§. Other . 3". �UBT01'AL 0.06 '�. 14` 0.06 0.21 0. 5 NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen �rax Oxl-jes of -Sulfur - cu Carbon Monokide • NOTE: 1973 data not yet available =93- ORANGE COUNTY 1972 Ei'IISSIONS INVENTORY AVERAGE E.1IISSIONS Of AIR CONTAOINANTS INTO ATMOSPHERE (TONS PER DAY) Hydrocarbons EMISSION SOURCE Reactivity Parti- Total All culate NOx Sox CO Emissions High Low I Total Matter Combined STATIONARY SOURCES COMBUSTION OF FUELS _ 31. Steam and Power Plants 32. Yearly Average 1.8 11.0 12.8 •� 33. 34. Other Industrial 0.7 6.6 0.1 a 35. Domestic and Commercial 36. Yearly Average 0.9 1.8 5.5 1.7 •• 37. 31. :,UBTCTAL (Daily Av.,.Yr.) 0.9 4.3 23.1 12.8 1.8 42.9 .. AGRICULTURE 39. Debris Burning 0.08 0.07 O.Oi 0.28 - 40. Orchard Heaters 41. Agr.Product Processing Plts. 42. SUBTOTAL 0.08 0.07' 0.01 0.28 0.4 43. TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES .:2 35 48 6 24 18 2. 98 [IOGILE SOURCES MOTOR VEHICLES � 44. Gasoline Exhaust 267 99 366 8.4 244 7.5 3880 or 45. Gasoline Blowby 6 2 8 0.2 1 a6. Gasoline Evaporation 22 26 48 47. Diesel Powered 4 4 1.9 26 1.0 16 �r 48. SUBTOTAL 29S 131 426 10.5 270 8.5 3897 4612 �• 187 91 278 10.2 194 8.5 1727 (2218) ** .+ AIRCRAFT 49. Jet Driven 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.1 1.7 50. Piston Driven 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 13.1 51. SUBTOTAL 3.0 1.4 Y` 52. SHIPS AND RAILROADS 53. TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 296.5 132.5 429 12 271 8.8 3,312 4v33 •* 10t5 92.5 281 12 195 9.0 1742 2239 ** • 54. GRAND TOTAL 09 t68 477 I8 275 27 333.4 4731 _? �• 01 28 329 18 1219 27 1744 (2337) ** .10x = Oxides of Nitrogen **Calculated under former 7-Mode Cycle Sox = Oxides of Sulfur CC - Carbon Monoxide -94- • sections simultaneously. - Consequently, .the use of .several heavy _cranes, • trucks; bulldozers,and digging -apparatus will be the major emission sources. . Vehicle emissions from construction activity will .increase slightly in a regional context, but may constitute a major nuisance to • local residences and commercial uses fronting streets along which the- drainage lines are . constructed. Excessive dust particulates from the excavation of 80, 000 cubic yards of ground material may prove annoying, especially so if construction extends into the early winter when San- tana winds are most frequent. Another temporary increase in emissions will be in asphalt odors during pavement of streets. The proposed project will be a contributing factor in speeding the de- velopment of the remaining 205 acres of vacant land within the assess- ment district. There will be' a. major increase in the major emission .source (motor vehicles.) as a result of this developments hydrocarbons (HC) , particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) , oxides of sulfur (SOx) and carbon monoxide .. (CO) .6.4 • Impact on air quality will be calculated on a short-term (2-5 years) and long-term (15-20 years) basis. (See Land Use section concerning assumptions on which -the projections are. based. )- The following data should be considered for assessment purposes: Short-term number of vehicles generated: • residential use 1,141 vehicles other land use 103 vehicles Total: 1,244 vehicles • Long-term number of vehicles generated: residential use: * 5,831 vehicles other land use .7 ,695 vehicles • Total: 13,526 vehicles • Considering the countywide average number of vehicles as of December, 1974 (1, 043, 991 cars and trucks) , 65 and pollutants per vehicle gener- ated daily as taken from the APCD data for 1972, the emission genera- tion rates for the county in 1973 and the assessment district in the short-run and at full development can be calculated. . Projected daily emissions for Orange County, 1973 : Hydrocarbons . 00044 ton/car/day x 1,043,991 cars = 459 tons/day Particulate Matter . 000'008 " " =. 8. 4 tons/day NOx . 000�252 " " " = 263 tons/day sox . 000007 " " = 7. 3 tons/day CO . 00405 " = 4213 tons/day Total 4,950. 7 tons/day Projected daily emissions increase for A.D. 73-02 in the short-run: Hydrocarbons . 00044 ton/car/day x 1,244 vehicles = . 5474 tons/day Particulate Matter . 000008 " of it 11 if 11 = . 00994 tons/day NOx . 000252 " = . 3135 tons/day sox . 000007 " _ . 00871 tons/day CO . 004035 " 5. 020 tons/day Total + 5. 89955 ton/day (or 12%) Projected daily emission increase for A.D. 73-02 at full development: Hydrocarbons . 00044 ton/car/day x 13,526 vehicles = 5. 9514 ton/day Particulate Matter . 000008_ " to it it of = .10821 ton/day NOx . 000252 " ofif " if = 3. 4086 ton/day sox . 000007 " to " = . 09468 ton/day CO . 004035 = 54 . 577 ton/day . Total + 64 . 13989 ton/day (or 1. 29%) These projections represent worst case situations. If all of these vehicles are new to the county, the Orange County air could be expected -96- • to deteriorate by . 12 percent in the short-term. and .by 1. 29 percent • at full development. However, all -of- the' vehicles will not be new to the county. Moreover, it should be- noted that over half of the ve- hicle population will be derived from commercial, office, and indus- trial areas. These land uses would be' expected to attract most of their vehicle population from outside the assessment district but from within the county. Therefore, if only vehicles generated by" residen- • tial areas are considered as real additions to the county vehicle population, emissions could be expected to increase by . 11 percent in the short-run and by . 56 .percent at full development. Emissions could. • be even lower within the next few years as a' result of emission control legislation. The projected air pollution figures, by themselves, represent a trivial • .increase.. However, it should be remembered that the cumulative addi- tion of. many individual developments in the county. would .yield a significant adverse impact. • -97- GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY Existing Geology and Topography The proposed project area lies on the seaward margin of a general coastal plain (Downey Plain) in northern Orange County, which has been built-up over geologic time by sediments deposited by flood waters of the Santa Ana River. The river has from time to time entered the Pacific Ocean through breaches in the coastal mesas. Points of entry have apparently occurred between Landing Hill on the north and the Newport Mesa on the south. Breaches in the coastal mesa have been. designated (from north to south) as Sunset Gap, Bolsa Gap, and Santa Ana Gap. The Santa Ana River presently discharges into the ocean through the Santa Ana Gap. The three breaches are separated on the north by Bolsa Chica Mesa and on the south by Huntington Beach Mesa. 66 • Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02 is located entirely within the central portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa which is elevated 25-50 feet above the surrounding. floodplain and is commonly bounded by a pronounced scarp. That portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa covered by the assessment district possesses a relatively wide variation in topographic relief, ranging from 20 feet above sea level in the southeast to 110 feet in the northwest. The most common elevations, however, range from 25 feet to 75 feet, and generally decrease from north to south. The highest points in • the district are represented by Reservoir Hill and the Huntington Beach Company Hill on the northwest fringe. A natural drainage depression bisects the northern half of the district from north • to south along or in close proximity to Delaware Street, and then Re6: p. Pond 187 extends southeast from Civic Center -Lake to the Newland Bluff at P. 9 • -98- • Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. The topographic slope of the district is typically less than five percent, but tends to exceed • 15 percent in the vicinity of the two knob hills and along the depression south of Yorktown Avenue (Fig. 17) . 67 Huntington Beach Mesa consists of late Pleistocene alluvial deposits which are older than the more recently formed sediments of the adjacent river gaps. The mesa is characterized by unconsolidated to partially consolidated interlayered fine- and coarse-grained sediments. Marine and non-marine silt-clay layers are probably in the neighborhood of 25 'feet to 75 feet thick. Sand-gravel layers probably range from 50 feet to 100 feet in thickness.68 Major topographic irregularities on the Huntington Beach Mesa surface are related to faulting within the Newport-Inglewood structural zone (Fig. 18) . This fault zone is topographically expressed within the district by minor series of hills and depressions, the most • prominent of which extends in a line from Reservoir Hill in the Pond Rej: p. northwest through Civic Center 1,ake-to Newland Bluff at Adams Avenu 187 in the southeast. This part of the zone coincides with the North P. 9 • Branch Fault which has been designated as one of the three faults having the highest seismic risk potential within the city69 Another major fault (Bolsa-Fairview) extends across the northern extremity of the assessment district near the southwest-corner of Beach Boulevard and Main Street. The minor Yorktown Avenue Fault traverses the district northwest-southeast from Main Street at Clay Avenue to Beach Boulevard at Yorktown Avenue. The third major fault trace, • -99- I i ya 1 ® OVER TOO FEET j G7 50-75 FT. 25-50 FT. i T„ :ate:} ,::�Sy i' s; F'%:::'•k:. I 15-25 FT. i :::.--: ::tw��: � ::r :•fa�i`{3'•zi:x:'.;:;�`:.;.�: '�c:"s'r.� ! , 10-15 fT. R;.',:..ry.' r...? C}$:ii}:•i:}i 4::}.., f-.:Si'.:�:.Fit:•i?Ci r � � :\�i:?S:{Y\ ^.:[ii]}i v.{h:y '' ,:•:o;;::+r:y.}{{ �v?ti':i•`';:: `• {'••r :�:`:a�'•x:a;�} : f>:� I �-: 5'lO FT. ..... I1 s •.k ••h Lt!t rA„ X. r. •.,r. ••}E:. ma,yy. - •l' -. - - - - - 1 f R•f' yr' •:ti: f 1 ++f •.ti'. / 1 f I I X` :•,..i •.{'i',';%1.�/..�.: ,� •:• :•:-:}.•f I .{ I III I I I I I I t r :t��•i•�: •:i:. /1 I �''•}:,t�::f�.��',�: I Ii I I III , I I i: ``•..• ' ��::,•'.• - _ I , III � •'�"...•.;. }`%"�•:�::� �. ( I I I I I` ��. �,,.. - I III,., •.:;`':' 1�1 i` ` I. f,i LLI ti:,'ll,,.•r. [;: 1;[i::%``.: ttt ft. I: :ili I I a2` :•:•.71:•''ai �" I "il ,.�•'', 1,t !,,h , � •1.. :'t• .. �IIII III '':ti: .c.{• t• l., -��;..a - tI.II- rl,• ��' :i ill: I �"4,•, +• f ,,;I,pi•,II II 1:PI S• :f• 11 ',,,I;fE•udl:,,;b. j• �..h,l. 1lll'"` i. ,j,..l.,,�. �I::I.I I. �nl �11III`'rt - :I 1 IT' ,I ,f. ..�� i.. y}.:: �,'•:�:,� 'il!.. E I 'llil II 4I I• ;{r: ,111�! �1, �'}`�..n:_„.F u.:. a� t,;'s"R W1 .1 ['i'. II Il Il:•i 4,1I4 I!• •�:.,.= I I} t i 1•` 1 •G-1 - _ - - - .. nll' II I' '.I�I :.Ih 1 II ::::7F: - .....•,fit• '�, .. - -�.w. __- i �• .- �t 11 'I I,I.Illl l^(;:,' - � I I 'Q.' R1+�•_'.': .. rff:�. ,� - _ --...:Ew1 .I,Illii1lif�I1�, 11 � �•'ll - ._ - - - .�`' - . -- •- _- S MME-EEI RA1080 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA FIGURE 17 TOPO06RAMY:RELIEF BY ELEVATK PLANNING DEPARTMENT SOURCE: Conservation Technical Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974- a O HIC4EST SEISMIC RISK - (GREATEST SURFACE RUPTUR POTENTIAL WITHIN CRY ®AREA OF INTENSIVE SHEAR ar TRACE OF +� t WTH BURIED 400'ZOtE FAULT _I ©UNCERTAINTY AS TO EXISTE OR EXTENSION OF FAULT cl Y SOUTH ANCH I FAULT -------- - ��-- --"- - --------------------------- -----------.N_ ------.--- —- -- -- - --- i �,n • PACIFIC «A.I z �-- - OLIVE 5L FA11�t ? W'q a SL !XT �a ' - = - - ---- -- some LmmoM-vm a.soc.s Ash HUNTINGTON FIGURE 18 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CH LIFORNIA FAULT MA SOURCE: Geotechnical Inputs,Leighton-Yen and Associates ,February 1974. • the South Branch Fault, passes within one mile of the drainage dist- rict to the south. • Impact The construction of drainage facilities will take place within the geological area known as the Newport-Inglewood structural zone. Of • significance is the fact that proposed drainage lines will intersect the North Branch Fault at three points: Huntington Street south of Yorktown Avenue, at the corner of Delaware Street and Utica Avenue, • and again at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. The occuxtence o5 be-i,6mic Rej: p. activity could xepx"ent a potent at unavo.idabZe adveue impact on the pnopohed 189 dhai.nage pnofect. Evidence of activity along this fault as early as the • Miocene has been recorded. 70 This fault has been the focus of numer- ous tremors in the Huntington Beach area, the most significant of which occurred in 1933 (magnitude 6. 3 on the Richter Scale) . Other • epicenters and magnitudes are presented in Figure 19. A seismic report by Leighton-Yen and Associates has estimated ground • rock motion characteristics for the estimated maximum probable earth- quake (magnitude 6. 6) at the Newport-Inglewood Fault. Based upon presently available empirical relationships, the maximum base rock ac- celerations could range from about . 10g to . 65g; the maximum ground accelerations could range from about . 18g to 1. Og. 71 Peak ground motion for an earthquake equal in magnitude to the 1933 earthquake • (6. 3) was also estimated by location within Huntington Beach. On the Huntington Beach Mesa, peak ground acceleration could be expected to range from . 15g to . 35g, which represents a lower acceleration • than for adjacent floodplains (typical range: . 27g. to .70g) .72 It has also been evaluated that the probability of surface rupture • -102- • s• FATN • GARDEN G V • ,4'� � R SEAL BE 0U IN VA L �NN • • HUNT I NGTON BEACH .::a' �.� h*% �. .�C( J MESA BE .o NEWp� • 4%� CH sip 4,0 \ 1 FIGURE 19 SOURCE: Geotechnical Inputs, Leighton-Yen and Associates,February 1974 . �ICOWERS/FAULTS huntington beach planning department -103- occurring within the next 100 years on any of the three major faults is relatively low overall, but tends to be higher to the northwest of Bolsa Chica Lagoon.73 • phis-information-wetx�d-seem-to-downgrade-the-importance-ef-faafts traversing-the-asaessmen�-district-reiatide-te-ad?aeem-areas.---Bt�t nnieas-aeeeieratien-factors-are-ta�een-into-aeeennt-dt�rrng-planning; � the-faait-zones-represent-a-potential-adverse-smpaet-en-the-proposed drainage-faeiiitiea-ttndergrennd-and-any-snbsegnent-deveiapment-at the-atdrfaee-JFigure-29}. • Excluding the fault hazard, the mesa areas are "the most suitable for high intensity .development and critical facilities" within the city (Figure 20) . Aceotdi.ng to the Geotechnica:2 Inputs Study. by Leighton-yen and Associates, ti.que- Jacti.on is de6ined as "the sudden tatge deetease ob sheati,ng t aistance o6 a • eohesionteas saie caused by cottapse of the soil sttuatute, produced by seismic .shaking or smaU shear stkainb, associated with sudden but temporan y inc&eas e o 6 Rej: p. wateA pressure in the soil voids. " The necessary conditions Got tiquebacti.on axe 188 • that the soil be JuUy satutated and in a retativeCy .loose condition and that it be subjected to shock, viMation, or shearing stnai.n, which tends to cause %educ- ti.on in soil volume. Labotatoty testa indicate that uni 6oiunty graded mateh is 4 • (i.e. , ptedom.inately one size, such as beach sand) ate mote susceptibZe to Zique- Saetion than weQ,l graded matefeiats and that, sot uni otm.ey graded soils, btno- sands ate mote subject to Zi.quejacti.on than ate coame sands, grave ty soit.6, sitts, or • ceaya. Peat and organic soil deposits would be h,i.ghty su6ceptibte to ti,que6ae- tion. Moreover, .loose soil deposits wilt tend to tique6y mote teadi ey than denser deposits and shattoweA strata mate than deepen strata. Since the intensity and • • -104- • duna ion ob ground bhahi.n.g ate pnoponti.onat to eaAthquake magnitude, ti.quebac- ti.on is mane ti.k.eZy du ing moderate to .6tAong eaxthquaku The shaUowet the water tabte, the hi.ghet the t i.que6action potenti.ae. The oZd aZtuviat soils within the assessment district possess no • detectable peat deposits, and .the mesa .Location ptacea .the wa.tet tabZe at conzidetabZ e depth. This decreases the potential for lique- faction of subsoils and-grerind-shaistnq during a major earthquake. In • the Leighton-Yen report, that portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa covered by the drainage district was not considered a high potential area for liquefaction. Low atead o6 pooxZy con6otidated tecent alluvium • Re6: p. w.ithi,n, one mi.Pte of the coast and aneaz ob 6atuAated peat and otganic zo-itz oven- 188 .dying Gandy"depo.6it6 on the 6ZoodpZain.6 were evatu.ated to have the higher t i.que- 6ac ti.on hazard potenti.atA .in the city. • The expansive soil hazard was likewise rated low to moderate (6 per cent to 27 per cent clay content) . 75 • The proposed drainage project will not significantly alter the in- ternal geology of the Huntington Beach Mesa, but the area' s topography will be slightly to moderately impacted. Upon completion of the • po n.ds drainage project, the areas now occupied by intermittent lakes (28. 88 Pond pond acres, excluding Civic Center-raft& and one lame on Garfield Avenue) - Rep p. po nd6 187 will become more attractive for development as the Ia-knes are drained. • p. 9 These depressions will be drained primarily by using earth fill to raise the ground level to a sufficient elevation to permit water to run into the system' s catch basins. This will require raising • • -104a- t p>` W HIGH RISK-EXTEENSMt PRC�L: DIFFICULT OR BNPRATICAL T( F�'i `I';f`'�I `� \� ' r°?•a ° OVERCOME 3 •�` ( C ) HIGH RISK-MAJOR PROS iN �•,� /� ° "� BUT CONTROLLABLE TrgOLI( DESIGN AND,/OR SETBACK ' ye PROVISIONAL RISK-MINOR MODERATE PROBLEMS � � C NORMAL P.ISK-MINOR ° I PROBLEMS Bpi ., �• .r� `----- -- ------- SC+ it u I.�y CwEo,W 51.EA Cu R �, :P%r r..: �� " - - 3,-• •'�:a" - V.lr:}CS-'S glft R1W_KX}NE-rC.:'. ?5/ TIONS Crai GWN¢E aK✓_Ra OEH)STS. J.•4.LCTF_} �, - '•� ,� c �.. PGT:Ni4l.0Ca•D EPOS:ON IA AMA}N Mii.a9^, Ct[SU tx .s sm s.ElAiION NE2'v+C•J} � ~ �+1 '�' �tia \� .f%•~ •::i.4�alCw FWnSM SGAS.4lEAC IAMC S.c Si:Xa -t_�" •'--_L .saJl IDWIt PWL*:EMS uif)FLOW A.A=i ul W Z. HAwcf;iE 0ff0M yw&Aum ® HU 1TINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA FIGURE 20 pJECHNiCAL LAND USE CAPABILITY MA lop PLAINNING DEPARTMENT SOURCE: Geotechnical Inputs,Leighton-Yen and Associates,February 1974. • • 0 • • • • • • • • ground elevation by two to four feet in most cases and by as much as seven to eight feet in several small isolated areas . The • average increase in elevation should be about five feet. 76 The greatest rises might be expected in the depressions north of Garfield Avenue and west of Huntington Street north of Seventeenth Street. • Only one depression at Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue would require a rise of 10 feet (Pond 1 ) . However, the Public Works Department • has agreed with the landowner of that site to provide a stub pipe R181 p.9 pond p' connection to this lake' for drainage purposes. �� Therefore, the topography of this depression will not be changed. • It should also be pointed out that the drainage project is not expected to alter the appearance or elevation of the two domal-shaped hills within • the district. • • • -106- • HYDROLOGY Existing Surface Water and Drainage The area covered by Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02 is part of the lower Santa Ana River watershed. Surface water within the project service area tends to flow into a natural drainage system which bisects the northern half of the district from north to south along or in close proximity to Delaware Street. Water is then Pond Rej: p. directed southeast from approximately Civic Center -bak-e- to the 187 r Newland Bluff at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue where it empties P. 9 into the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. Water either collects at this point or is dispersed by sheetflow until it outlets into • the Orange County Flood Control District D01 Channel (Huntington Beach Channel) . • The boundaries of the assessment district approximately coincide with a watershed of 580 acres drained by the area' s natural trough. Most of the water collected from this watershed is retained on the • surface by a relatively impervious clay subsoil and about 275 acres of developed surface area. However, much of the downstream flow is precluded by the presence of a series of depressions along the • natural drainage system which serve as retarding basins. At times Re�81p. ponds of heavy rainfall, the depressions form into 1-akes and cause flooding much of streets and private property. Therefore, Most- of the water • originating within the assessment district remains there, thus reducing donstream drainage problems. • Accumulations of storm water runoff within the assessment district may be carried into several existing catch basins with connector • -107- • pipes, but these facilities have not alleviated the flood problem Rej: p. ponds 187 as evidenced by the continued existence of the la-kres. • As shown on a previous map (Figure 3) , there are 16 ponds and major flood areas within the assessment district which are capable of • covering approximately 37. 6 acres of land area. All of the ponds Pond are intermittent except for perennial Civic Center bake (5. 7 acres) south of Yorktown Avenue along Delaware Street. There are srx 6OUA ponds intermittent lakes- having a potential standing duration into the 187 dry summer season. These are located at the northwest corner of P. 9 Pond Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue (Lak-c- 14) ; along Florida Street Pond • north of Garfield Avenue Mak-e- 16) ; along Seventeenth Street south Pond of Yorktown Avenue (117ale- 9) ; and at the northeast corner of Utica Pond Avenue and Delaware Street (ileke 7) . 78 • The small amount of water flowing out of the assessment district may either collect at the Newland Marsh area on, the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue or move into the OCFCD D01 Channel south of Adams Avenue. Runoff in the D01 Channel is trans- ported south and southeast to the OCFCD DO2 Channel (Talbert Channel) • which then enters the Pacific Ocean near the mouth of the Santa Ana River Channel (Figure 21) . • Existing Groundwater Groundwater of variable quantity and quality is confined to several well-defined subsurface aquifers within the Huntington Beach area. Freshwater aquifers are limited to within several hundred feet of the ground -surface, while deeper bodies of groundwater are brackish and saline due to dissolved mineral content. The various faults • -108- CHANNELSCOUNTY COUNTY PERMANENT UNDERGROUND CHANNEL CITY CHANNEL -- - it '.r - , '' C y f CMAPM � A 1 ! y SOUK! M! ILAN.W,V_I. lop® HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA FIGURE 21 FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL PLANNING DEPARTMENT SOURCE: Conservation Technical Report,Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974. • • • • • • • • • • • • of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone, particularly the North and South Branch Faults, act as permeability barriers with re9pect • to the flow of groundwater. Aquifers landward of the Newport-Ingle- wood zone tend to be sources of fresh groundwater, whereas saline water is dominant on the seaward side. 79 o • The groundwater table within the project area tends to be low by virtue of the elevated nature of the Huntington Beach Mesa relative • to adjacent floodplains. Although depths vary from year to year due to variations in the rates of depletion and replenishment, the groundwater elevation (based on seven feet below sea level average • depth over the past three years) has ranged from approximately 30 feet to 80 feet (based on the area' s most typical topographic range- Figure 22) . 80 Groundwater depth generally increases landward. • The traversal of the South Branch Fault retards sea water intrusion . within the assessment district. The water of the southern one-third of the area, consequently, is mainly saline, while that of the • northern two-thirds is predominantly fresh. However, sea water intrusion is possible to at least the northern extremities of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone, and water quality may not be as • high as in the aquifers farther inland. But this is difficult to assess because of data scarcity on a local basis. Impact Surface Water -3 -is�rnti tpated-tizat-constructroTr f-tiTe-drainaig-La-system-wrrl • -rec nice-4-G-months-zrrrct-is -fr3 l-y-trr-extend-iTrto-t1Te-raiZTy-winter- -�easfxr.--- -ga ssi�iiity-.exists-tiTat-�r-pertod-bf-snstainved-heavy-- • -110- ease -9 r *:ce--I'cm+a£ �tyre--sits-and id7isl�e -removes-err rnatMrr-I-,ft • ay.pr f1r- immcr�ii ai c .j„c-LiZE�£ `Q} i-Ctrsi�rg"mtzrk�Y'tr�rffz�-artez-ia-ia-ark damage-�o—gr3�te- .---irr irdz}it-itm-,-'�vmjriati'on'off't'h'8-Z��a�.Aa�- trf-tftem2--ev-em-t-57, thex - a- s ivnz-ft-an- -ativers-e--imp-am. The Huntington Beach Uepaxtment o4 Pubtic Woks has .indicated that a precise schedute 4ox the project is not possible at this time, because o4 the uncertainty o4 the Zength ob the assessment process and pubtic hearings beJoxe the City Councie. However, a tough estimate was that the project wowed begin in the ea ty spring (March) and tequirte eight months Jot comp.Qtetion. Since the ptofect's timing has been %evised to begin aJtet the twiny season, it woued appear that .6i t escape • due to the exposure of a taAge portion o6 the 80,000 cubic yards of temoved earthen maten iae witt be a tesserc prob.eem than o1c i.g.i.naUy anticipated. 1� conisttuction Res: • begins .in the wintex ahead o6 the above tentative schedule, 6i t escape, tine . 185 ditch inundation, and bxeah a .in the adjacent exposed s eweA and watex tines could tesutt 6tom sustained heavy xai.n6aU. These occuttences coned cause property damage, heaPth pnobtems, and project deta.y. The occuAAence of these events woued • teptuent a s.ignijica.nt adverse .impact. Thus, a.?though a remote po4s.ibc,2ity exists that the pto f ect coned commence in mid-Febtuaty at the eatt iest, it is recommended that construction be decayed untie spking to avoid pote tc:ae ptobtems. • Upon completion, the most beneficial impact of the drainage project will be to substantially reduce- the local flood problem within the assessment district. Drainage basins and pipelines will absorb the area' s runoff at full development estimated for a 25-year storm at 711. 2 cubic feet per 'second for the 580 acre area, or 1.22 cubic • feet per second per acre.81 Most runoff will be directed to the • -110a- r, Caoi t -20 �' ) 6 a�1.. 2^'1f s- lit .` 0 ».. I � �' _S — 1 OHM- .�•• 25 610 �'� X. GAO AO . c, •` 20 20- • --- - 10 = ,f� � O AI A l MY�10/ 3 ,N O FIGURE 22 ti ''F -`.. `r I � r" Source : 197.1 Engi peers Report on Ground WLcer Conditions. • Water Supply, and Basin SCAM 0/ YIlf1 �•.`e •►. 3 �: . Utilization in the Orange Colony Water District r:. GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP • huntington beach planning department system' s catch basins, thus preventing the formation of intermittent -lakes p9nd6 and flood areas. The lowest depressions may be expected to continue collecting small quantities of water. However, it is • Res: p. expected that completion of the proposed project will render approxi- 187 P. 9 mately 31. 9 acres of former pond area (excluding Civic Center Bake • Pond ) more suitable for development. To develop the areas where run- off continues to impound, it is anticipated that landowners will raise the ground level by several feet with landfill so as to drain • further runoff into the system' s catch basins. Fxce66 wateA 6tow 6nom Pond 16 pAe6ent2y empties into two catch ba6.i.n6 at Ftnida StAeet and .cis conducted by a 39-.inch :Pine we6t to Ueeawah.e StAeet, where it • empties and conthi.bute6 to the 6oAmation o6 Ponds 14 and 15. The exizting 39-inch dwinage tine witt be maintained and .inconpoAated into the pupozed dhai.nage Reb: p. 6 y6tem. The utitizat,i,on o6 the exi.6ting tine .in conjunction with pnopo6ed Line 1 • 187 Witt receive oven .how Aom Pond 16 and wi,P.2 b 6 pneceude the extensive devetapment ob P. 9 Pond6 14 and 15. A6 duscus6ed .in the Ae6thetic,6 6ecti.on, Pond 16 w U be penman- entty maintained a6 paxt ob the pnopo6ed Z.inngAabe Ae6.cdentiae cane baccZity east • o6 Hon i.da Street above GaA6.ieZd Avenue. The devetopeA w.iU complete a 6tohm dAa,i,n. 6y6tem between the exerting 39-.inch pipe we6t o6 Ftonida Street and an ex.i,6t- .ing 24-.inch cukvent on the east 6.i.de ob the pnopo6ed adult compbex pnopenty. • Since the Huntington Beach Mesa surface lies well above the ground- Pond water table, it is probable that Civic Center Bake receives most of R117 p` its supply from surface runoff within the local watershed. Most of • P. 9 the lakels pond's runoff is drained from the northwest and west be- tween Yorktown Avenue and Utica Avenue. However, the elevation of • Huntington Street confines much of the actual runoff area to that • -112 pond area between the lake and Huntington Street. Runoff actually reach- pond ing the -IAke is approximately nine cubic feet per second for the e6: p. 187 eight-acre watershed. Line 3 of the drainage project will be capable P. 9 of draining 143. 3 cubic feet per second from the western portion of the district, but the nine cubic feet per second draining into the • pond 82 lake will not be part of this total. Therefore, the proposed pond'e project will, at worst, have a slight impact on the lake-La water level by reducing inflow. • As the remaining 305.2 acres of vacant land are developed, either as a result of the proposed project or from other factors, the volume of surface water flow will increase. Using the runoff criteria of 1. 22 cubic feet per second per acre, a, minimum of 38. 9 cubic feet per second (for the 31. 9 acres of land currently subject to ponding) and a a maximum of 372. 3 cubic feet per second (for the total 305. 2 acres of vacant land) would be generated from new. development under heavy storm conditions; therefore, 372 . 3 cubic feet per second added to 338. 9 cubic feet per second (for currently developed property) gives 711. 2 cubic feet per second generated by the assessment district. Construction of the proposed drainage project Pond divert a small Re • b: p. amount of runoff from flowing into the Newland Bake and Marsh area 187 outside the assessment district at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. P. 9 Newland Marsh presently receives a maximum runoff of approximately 580 cubic feet per second from its various sources. The assessment district now contributes an estimated 30 cubic feet per second, or 5. 2 per cent to the marsh' s water supply. 83 Tkere€ere-,--impeet--o+-the • p�opose�-��o-j�t-on-New-l-mad-�a�sh-€gem-�I�e--s�a�d�rnt-v€-�tx3o€f�id- • -113- • eraien-evi��-be-s�tght:--Heeveder;-the-earna�ntiere-effect-ef-inane-sneh pre�eets-rn-the-nietnitp-ef-the-n►nrsh1s-ether-�eetersheds-eet�le� • petenttn��p-prednee-nn-adverse-Y2npnet-te-the-rnnr'hls-a+nter-se�pplp. 16 the pond is to be pe,manentty maintained, the toss o6 5. 2 pen cent to the "Otd Town" drainage system wou.2d not s.ign.is.ieantty aP.ten the water tevet os Newtand Res.: p. 186 • Pond. 16 a t natwtae drainage is pnectuded Snom the pond due to s.cmitoA dnain- age pro f ects and/on the pond iz peAmi ted to neveAt to its previous .intehmittent nature, a potentiae adveUe impact would exist. The adveue impact would be man,%- • Seated .in a tendency Son the pond to cease existence through drying and/on zZow invasion by pen ipheut wateA-Zov.ing ptants. The Orange County F.eood ContlGoZ D.ustni.ct's Huntington Beach Storm Drain Fac.c,?,ity • No. DO 1 PO 5 is the o nt y dna.inag e pro f eet cuAAentt y proposed and under eo ns truet i o n within the wateuhed o6 Newtand Marsh. The reader is re6med to pages 9-11 o6 FnyixonmentaZ Impact Statement, Unange County Hood ContAot Diztn iet, Huntington • Beach Storm Drain Facitity No. D01P05 by Reyno.eds and Associates San a detaited descAiption o6 the pro feet and its %etationsh.ip to Newland Man,sh. • FundamentaUy, an underground conduit wilt drain most o6 the area. north o6 Vonh- town Avenue and diAect it to the D01 pump station. A second phase o6 the project wi,P,e be to drain a portion o6 the devetoped area north o6 yonktown Avenue and un- Re6: p. 186 • deveeoped .land above the b&66. This water. wilt be conducted to the Newtand pond, theneb y retaining the tines h water males h as palc t o 6 a pnopos ed neeneatio n and oAchaeotog.icat site. Newtand Pond wilt spilt high 6tows through a weir. system .into a conduit and then .into the DO1 pumping station. The pumping pta.nt wizt not pump diAeetCy 6nom the pond. It is anticipated that the second phase o6 the project w.LU atAo .intAoduee water • to provide 6or a pelrmanent mesh water marush. This would acceteAate vegetative • -113a- • auccuzion and development ob emelcgent and peni.phekat aquatic vegetation, and nequ to a min.imat management pnogham. Thebe would be bene6iciae impact6. • Alleviation of the local flood problem will mean an increased burden on flood control systems to the southeast. At full development, • the runoff drained by the proposed project would be moved by gravity into the OCFCD. DO1 and D02 Channels, which are located in that por- tion of Orange County most subject to severe floods in a standard • project storm. The D01 and D02 Channels are designed for a 25-year storm, each with an estimated carrying capacity of 1,500 cubic feet per second. 84 Thus, the 711. 2 cubic feet per second generated by • the assessment district represents almost half the capacity in a 25-year storm. The Orange County Flood Control District indicated that the carry- ing capacity of the D01 Channel decreases to an estimated 1200-1300 cubic feet per second as it crosses Newland Street. 85 Although the channel could still absorb the runoff from the assessment district, • the contribution of the district would rise to greater than 50 per cent of the channel' s capacity at that point. However, it was noted by the Huntington Beach Public Works Department that funds • for the correction of this problem and the widening of Newland Street .at that point will be proposed for the City and County 1975-1976 budgets. 86 In addition, since the assessment district will not be fully developed in 2 to 3 years, somewhat less than 711. 2 cubic feet per second would be expected in the D01 Channel, thus reducing the flood hazard slightly. • Taken overall, the proposed drainage project will at least have an immediate moderate impact on the carrying capacity of the downstream • -114- • drainage systems, and will become progressively adverse as the assessment district develops increasing runoff and/or storms ap- proach the intensity of a 25-year storm. Groundwater Based upon 4965 test bokings conducted by the Huntington Beach Uep"ent o6 Pubtic wo&k.6, three tocat ions along the present tine routes weAe bound to possess perched groundwateA within 15 beet o6 the surbace. PeAched gtoundwateA wilt be encountered at depths hanging 6rom 2-6 ,f eet along De2awaAe Street approx i,mateey • 600 beet north. of Cta.y Avenue, and at depths ranging 6rom 3.5-5 beet along Adams te6: p. Avenue between Ata.bama Street and Huntington Street. Moving groundwateA w.cU 185 be encounteAed along Adams Avenue 6rom Beach Boueevard to the OCFCV D01 Hunt • .ington Beach Channet. - as Line 1 descends the Huntington Beach Musa onto the 6toodptain o6 the Santa Ana Gap. Any groundwate►c dewater.ing discharges Witt be disposed through sanitary sewer as per Orange County Sanitation D"tkict %equ,iAe- • men s. A %epoxt w.cU atzo be 6ited with the CaP.i6ornia. Regional wateA QuaZity Cont of Board ph for to construction. As the assessment district becomes increasingly urbanized, water • percolation will be reduced on the 305 acres of currently open land. This will result in a lowering of the groundwater table with a subsequent loss of surface soil moisture in the area. However, at • least a small portion of the lost groundwater would be replenished from groundwater flow from outside the assessment district. There- fore, the resulting impact will be small overall. • -115- • • .FLORA, FAUNA AND RELATED WATER QUALITY Existing Environment • The project site represents a man-disturbed floral and faunal environment due to residential and commercial construction and oil extraction 0 activities occurring within the general area. Undisturbed portions of the assessment district where natural vegetation and wildlife • species might be encountered include the large vacant tracts in the elevated western section and the small areas occupied by perennial and ReA: p pond6 487 intermittent lakes-. Since the nearby Newland Bluff and Marsh resembles these habitats and has been extensively surveyed in a previous report, flora and fauna lists can be extrapolated for application to the present study area (Tables S and 9) . Flora The existing vegetation of the assessment district is an admixture of • both native and introduced, annual and perennial, weedy and tree species commonly associated with southern California coastal mesas and small fresh water ponds and marshes. Mesa-inhabiting flora species are composed * of many naturalized weedy annual species and distributed- throughout much of the district. Introduced Blue and Red Gum trees are dominant tree species in the northern portion of the district along Pain, Florida and Delaware Streets , while California Palms dominate along Huntington Street. In the pond and marsh areas, non-native but naturalized species such as cockle bar, bermuda grass, sow thistle, russian thistle, • rag weed and pig weeds tend to dominate. $? Further mesa and marsh- inhabiting species are listed in Table 8. Fauna Red: pond #87 Excluding the -1--else areas, the predominance of low weedy vegetation species would tend to support only small vertebrates, such as the house mouse, ground squirrel, pocket gopher, fence lizard, and foothill alligator • lizard. The tree species are being used as roosting sites for -116- TABLE 8 VEGETATION The following list is derived from two sources: a personal site visit + July 9, 1972 by Dr. Gordon Marsh and lsits of plants which were recorded by several biology classes from Orange Coast College since 1968, as provided by Professor Gary James, of Orange Coast College. Associated With General Mesa Areas CALIFORNIA PALM TREE Washingtonia filifera CASTOR BEAN Ricinus communis BLADDER POD Isomeris arborea AUSTRALIAN SALT WEED Atriplex semibaccata COULTERS SALT BUSH Atriplex coulteri ICE PLANT Mesembryanthemum crustallinum a PRICKLY PEAR Opuntia sp. WESTERN RYE Elymus glaucus MUSTARDS Brassica spp. WILD RADISH Raphanus sativus HOREHOUND Marrubium vulgare WESTERN BLACKBERRY Rubus ursinus r WESTERN VIRGINS BOWER Clematis ligusticifolia WESTERN GOLDENROD Solidago occidentalis COMMON SOW THISTLE Sonchus oleraceus WILD OAT Avena fatua SLENDER WILD OAT Avena barbata RIPGUT GRASS Bromus diandrus • SOFT CHESS Bromus mollis CANARY GRASS Phalaris sp. WILD HYACINTH R rodiaea pulchella RED GUM TREE Eucalyptus rostrata BLUE GUM TREE Eucalyptus globulus Associated with Marshlands and Lakes SALT HELIOTROPE Heliotropium curassavicum BERMUDA GRASS Cynodon dactylon COMMON FOXTAIL Hordeum lepo rinum PERENNIAL RYE Lolium perenne RUSSIAN THISTLE Salsola kali FIVE HOOKS Bassia hyssopifolia POISON HEMLOCK Conium maculatum COCKLE BUR Xanthium strumarium COMMON SOW THISTLE Sonchus oleraceus WESTERN RAGWEED Ambrosia psilostachya COMMON PLANTAIN Plantago major MULEFAT Baccharis viminea ALKALI MALLOW Sida hederacea CHEESEWEED Malva parriflora -117- Associated With Marshlands and Lakes continued NETTLE Urtica holosericea JI,MSON WEED Datura sp. LAMBS QUARTERS Chenopodium album NETTLE-LEAF GOOSEFOOT Chenopodium murale INDIAN SWEET CLOVER Melilotus indicus WILD LETTUCE Lactuca serriola COMMON SUNFLOWER Helianthus annus NUT GRASS Cyperus esculentus • CALIFORNIA BULRUSH Scirpus californicus RUSH Juncus sp. MARSH FLEBANE Pluchea purpurascens HORSE WEED Conyza canadensis BRASS BUTTONS Cotula coronopifolia CATTAIL Typha sp. CLUSTERED FIELD SEDGE Carex praegracilis SWAMP TIMOTHY Heleochloa schoenoides PICKLEWEED Salicornia sp. SHEEP SORREL _ Rumex acetosella CANAIGRE Rumex hymenosepalus WILD RADISH Raphanus sativus YELLOW WILLOW Salix lasiandra BLACK WILLOW Salix gooddingii ARROYO WILLOW Salix lasiolepis COTTONWOOD Populus sp. FILAREE Erodium spp. PHLOX Gilia sp.. �. MOCK BLACK NIGHTSHADE Solanum nodiflorum SOURCE: E.I .S . ,Orange County Flood Control District,Huntington Beach Storm Drain Facility No. D01PO5,Reynolds and Associates, September 1972 . • • i " -118- TABLE 9 WILDLIFE The following list of animals is based on Orange Coast College biology class records and includes other species which can be expected to occur in a coastal plain fresh water marsh and mesa area in Orange County, California. Amphibians And Reptiles CALIFORNIA SLENDER SALAMANDER Batrachoseps attenuatus WESTERN TOAD Bufo boreas PACIFIC TREEFROG Hyla regilla BULLFROG Rana catesbeiana AFRICAN FROG Xenopus sp. FOOTHILL ALLIGATOR LIZARD Gerrhonotus multicarinatus COMMON KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis getulus GOPHER SNAKE Pituophis melanoleucus WESTERN AQUATIC GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis couchi WESTERN FENCE LIZARD Sceloporus occidentalis SIDE-BLOTCHED LIZARD Uta stansburiana Birds GREGE - eared, pied-billed, horned and western EGRET - common, snowy and cattle HERON - great blue, green and black-crowned night BITTERN - American and least GOOSE - white - fronted MALLARD GADWALL AMERICAN WIDGEON PINTAIL TEAL - green-winged and cinnamon SHOVELER CANVASBACK LESSER SCAUP BUFFLEHEAD RUDDY DUCK MERGANSER - hooded .and red-breated COMMON SNIPE RAILS AMERICAN COOT KILLDEER LONG-BILLED CURLEW GREATER YELLOWLEGS SANDPIPERS DOWITCHER AMERICAN AVOCET BLACK-NECKED STILT PHALAROPES GULLS - california, ring-billed, bonapartes ' and herring TURKEY VULTURE i -119- • Birds Continued WHITE-TAILED KITE • HAWKS - sparrow, marsh, rough-legged and red-tailed RING-NECKED PHEASANT MOURNING DOVE OWLS - barn, burrowing, short-eared and great horned ANNAS HUMINGBIRD BELTED KING FISHER RED-SHAFTED FLICKER • BLACK PHOEBE SWALLOWS - cliff and barn RAVEN CROW LONG-BILLED MARSH WREN MOCKING BIRD WATER PIPIT LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE STARLING WARBLERS (several species) YELLOWTHROAT • BLACKBIRDS - yellow-headed, red-winged and brewers WESTERN MEADOWLARK HOUSE SPARROW HOUSE FINCH GOLDFINCHES - american and lesser BROWN TOWHEE SPARROWS - savannah, song, white-crowned (underlined'species represent sight records) Mamma 1 s OPOSSUM Didelphis marsupialis JACK RABBIT Lepus californicus COTTONTAIL RABBIT Sylvilagus audubonii MEADOW MOUSE Microtus californicus HOUSE MOUSE Mus musculus GROUND SQUIRREL Sperniophilus beechyi DEER MOUSE Peromyscus maniculatus . HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys megalotis POCKET GOPHER Thomomys bottae SKUNK Mephitis mephitis WEASEL Mustela frenata RACCOON Procyon lotor DOMESTIC DOG Canis familiaris DOMESTIC CAT Felis catus Fish MOSQUITOE FISH Gambusia affinis SOURCE: E.I.S. , Orange County Flood Control District, Huntington Beach Storm Drain Facility No. D01PO'5 ,Reyn6lds and Associates, September 1972. • -120- resident birds , such as, the western meadowlark and sparrow hawk which hunt over the declining, agricultural, grassland and wetland open space in the area. These trees , also attractive to many insects, are visited by resident and migratory birds seeking both food and protection.88 Based on personal observation and information provided by reports Pond ReA: P. on the Newland Marsh, wildlife in Civic Center Lle and the inter- 187 mittent lakes is probably dominated by various species of amphibians , p' 9 • and ducks. . These species are included in Table 9 . Impact • Flora Since construction of the proposed drainage project will occur mostly under streets , there is expected to be minimal impact on the current vegetation cover in the assessment district. Of the 14,825 feet of pipeline, only 900 feet between Huntington Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks will be in easement across • vacant land. Vegetation is dominantly low growth weeds and grasses in this area, and disturbance would be temporary and confined to approximately .21 acre, No trees will be disturbed. Completion of the drainage system will help induce development of 305 acres of presently vacant land. Thus , the secondary impact on A the low-growth natural vegetation would become increasingly adverse with time. Unless set aside as reserves or park areas , the many plant species near local intermittent ponds and marshes could also • • -121- be expected to be eliminated as development occurs. However, it must be pointed out that much of the weedy area in the district, excluding the marshes and ponds , are relatively uninteresting in appearance. Residential construction with concomitant landscaping would represent a beneficial mitigating impact. No rare or endangered floral species are believ ed to occupy the area or be adversely impacted from the proposed project. • Fauna During the construction phase of the proposed project, small vertebrates, such as the house mouse, foothill alligator lizard, and pocket gopher, will be disturbed in vicinity of the weedy easement area west of Huntington Street. Since this area covers only .21 acre, however; the adverse impact will be minimal in terms of eliminating food sources and protective habitat. Upon completion of the drainage system, the immediate impact on wildlife wll be with reference -to the 31.9 acres of presently Pond intermittent pond and marsh area (excluding Civic Center-Lwk-e) . Rej r p. mort pond6 0187 As -bIre-fi-f+eerr 1-akee- are landfilled and drained for subsequent P. 9 developmental purposes, it is expected that wildlife associated with an intermittent pond and marshy habitat would be eliminated from the assessment district. This would have special application to the amphibian species now present in several of the ponds. r _ -122- The drainage project will help stimulate development in the area. pond . Rej: p. Unlike the small vertebrate species of the non rake- areas which 187 might remain relatively unaffected as urban development occurred (due to landscaping) pond-associated wildlife would be irretrievably lost. Once the ponds are destroyed and residentially developed, similar habitat conditions could note be easily recreated in the • new urban environment. When the City's Harbors and Beaches Department recently conducted po nd,6 • water quality tests of , several of the lakes, it was found that Pond Civic Center bake (which will be maintained as a park site) had the greatest diversity and abundance of wildlife. 89 It was emphasized • that the reason for this situation was its perennial nature. The other ponds tend to suffer drastic seasonal fluctuations depending pond upon seasonal rains. Moreover, only one intermittent le was R�8; p•lake Pond • found to have standing water and wildlife MM 9) . There would P. g probably be more wildlife present during the rainy winter season. It would appear that the amount of wildlife from all 15 of the • intermittent ponds taken together is somewhat less than that in Pond Pond Civic Center bake-. If Civic Center hake is altered (which is not expected to be the case) , this would represent a significant adverse impact. However, the drainage of the intermittent ponds may be expected to have only a slight adverse impact on wildlife through most of the year, but could probably become moderate in the rainy season when wildlife is most abundant. No rare or endangered faunal species are believed to occupy the • area or be adversely impacted from the proposed project. 7 -123- • Related Water Quality .Water quality as related to the proposed project is significant as - it affects the existence of floral and faunal species in the ponds • and marshes within the assessment district and nearby Newland Marsh. It has been determined by the City's Harbors and Beaches Department 40 that the water in Civic Center Pe is generally of better quality pond than the water in the Central Park lakes, and supports a fair amount of wildlife. • pond.6 Five of the longest. standing intermittent 3-aloes were also examined, Pond Reb: p. but only one (bakes 9) was found to have standing water. Water 187 •p• 9 quality data is summarized in Appendix B. According to Jeremiah Jackson, Environmental Engineer for the Pond • Huntington Beach Harbors and Beaches Department, Civic Center bake water tended to be generally higher in quality than that of the intermittent pond. Although BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) was found to be moderate in both ponds, "concentrations were not • excessive to cause an anaerobic situation. 1190 Both ponds were moderate in grease and oil content as a result of nearby oil extraction activities. Bacteria concentrations (e.g. ; fecal streptococci) for both ponds were also moderate. This reflected the presence of domestic animals from nearby residential areas, • horses from equestrian stables, and wild ducks. These contaminants were mitigated somewhat by a high dissolved oxygen content. Completion of the drainage facilities will tend to have .a beneficial impact on the water quality and wildlife suitability of Civic Re6: p. Pond 187 Center Lake, Newland Marsh, and any of the intermittent ponds which •p. 9 -124- might be considered for preservation. This beneficial impact will be reflected in the reduction of water contaminants draining into pond the lake. areas. Most of the assessment district 's common contaminants will be diverted into storm drains and either filtered from the system by the siltation structure or carried out of the area to the Pacific Ocean. However, the beneficial impact on at least Pond • Civic Center bake and Newland Marsh is expected to be minimal because the drainage system is not anticipated to significantly alter the Red: p. 187 total volume of runoff received by these areas (The drainage p. 9 system will divert about five percent of the total runoff from Pond Newland Marsh and probably less than that from Civic Center I.- 3ce) . ponds a Although local Ie4ses and marshes would be beneficially affected by the proposed drainage facilities , there exists a potential detri- mental impact on oceanic vegetation and wildlife as contaminants are carried out of the assessment district to the sea. Moreover, as the assessment district develops, increased runoff with suspended and dissolved solids which have accumulated on impermeable surfaces (roofs, walkways, and streets) will enter the drainage lines and impact downstream ecological systems. As mentioned above, a siltation structure will be included in the proposed drainage system to mitigate these downstream problems. Based on present specifications of the silt basin, an approximate • assessment of its effectiveness can be determined. • • -125- i • Design principles of the siltation structure may be briefly described- as follows: 1. As the cross-sectional area increases from inflow pipe to the silt basin, water velocity will decrease as it enters the silt basin. 2. The size and thus amount of suspended material will also decrease with water velocity as it enters the silt basin. • 3. Therefore, if water velocity (and particles) is decreased by in- creasing the cross-sectional area of the system , the size of the suspended particles will decrease; i.e. , more material will be- • come unsuspended and settle out in the silt structure. Re6: p: 4. AU 6toating matehi.at w.itt be removed by the silt sttu.etuAe. 189 For example, assuming a suspended particle diameter of one millimeter . • (i.e. , the approximate size of sand) and an equal distribution of particles between zero and one millimeter, effluents entering a mod- erate size siltation structure will have 40 per cent of their suspended • solids settle out and 60 per cent will be moved downstream. The siltation structure will be ineffective against dissolved materials, but it is assumed that toxic solids will adhere to particulates .and • be deposited in the silt basin in the same proportion as suspended solids. Overall, therefore, the siltation structure will be moder- ately effective in retarding downstream flow of materials. Like- wise, downstream flora and fauna might be expected to be subject to a lesser adverse impact. It-aheuid-apse-ire-pointed-ent-that-this-#9-per-sent-a€€eeti�*eness-e€ the-ai�t-strnetnre-ntep-be-imprebed-beeanse-final-sere-and-design Reb: p. 2nnst-be-in-eanfermanee-with-ea�i€ernga-Water-Qtsalitp-Eentre�-�eare�-�ri-. 189 teria-eAhieh-has-net-yet-bees-dete�tineel-€er-this-�artiee�ar-gre�eet. • • -126- DISCUSSION • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Construction 1. Impact: There will be an increase in traffic congestion and a de- crease in accessibility to local residences and businesses due to the presence of heavy construction equipment and excavated material on the streets. • Mitigation: Most construction activity will occur along one side of the widest streets, thus preventing complete closure. Construction will occur in short sections, and no arterial will be closed along its entire traversal of the assessment district. Narrower arterials will be unavoidably closed across their entire widths, but this will .be temporary. 2 . Impact: There will be an increase in local noise levels due to the presence of heavy trucks and construction equipment. Mitigation: Excessive noise will be a temporary annoyance over a Re6: p. k •185 . period of -4--r months, and will be restricted to normal working hours. Require noise levels generated by construction equipment not exceed those levels estimated as obtainable in Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, as shown in Table 10. Possible noise reduction would be 5 to 10 dBA. 3. Impact: The .use of local biking trails and equestrian activities . will be slightly adversely impacted due to construction and street closures. Mitigation: This will be an unavoidable temporary impact. Construc- tion will be limited to small areas at any given time. - 4. Impact: There will be a slight adverse impact on aesthetics as vegetation is disturbed on .21 acre of easement area. There will • -127- • TABLE 10 IMMEDIATE ABATEMENT POTENTIAL OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT • Noise Level in dB (A ) at 50 ft Important Equipment With Feasible Noise Usage ' Present Noise Contit- t ' Sources t • Earthmoving front loader 79 75 E C F I H . 4 backhoes 85 75 E C F I H . 16 i dozers 80 75 E C F I H . 4 tracLor•s 80 75 E C F I W . 4 scrapers 88 80 E C F I W . 4 graders 85 75 E C F I W . 08 truck 91 75 E C F I T . 4 paver 89 80 E D F I . 1 I Materials Handling concrete mixer 85 75 E C F I T . 4 concrete pump 82 ?5 E C H . 4 crane 83 75 E C F I T . 16 derrick 88 75 E C F I T . 16 Stationary pumps 76 75 E C 1 . 0 penerarnrs 78 75 E C 1 . 0 compressors 81 75 E C H I 1 . 0 Impact pile drivers 101 95 W F E 04 Jack ha mers 88 75 P W E C . 1 rock drills 98 80 V E P . o4 • oneurnatic tools 86 80 P W E C . 16 Other saws 78 75 W . 04 vibrator 76 75 W E C , 4 . Notes: 1. 'E�tlnatcd leve:s cDtain3G3e oy selectinir quieter Fr�ced-4res or nacnines ant n.tse cuntrt.l reatures requirinw no r..ajor redesign or extreme cost. 2. In order of importance: T ?oaer .ransnission System, c Cooling Fan Gearing C Engine Casing W To:i! ' crk Interaction E Engine Exhaust H HcJr.,uI!c? F Fneur..atic L%x .aust Eng:ne lrtace 4 3. Fercentage of t!:me eq,,:;sera :s operat!r, _ a: :. !a:e=. ..cde In most used phase on sate. 1 -128- • be a moderate adverse impact on aesthetics on streets where heavy equipment and excavated material are located. Mitigation: These will be unavoidable temporary impacts. In most • cases, the disturbed weedy vegetation would be considered inherently unattractive flora. 5. Impact Since line ditches will be dug 15 feet in depth at a length • of almost 15, 000 feet, a potential significant adverse impact exists Rebo p, on fessi+-reset:rees pateontotogicat and anchaeotogicat tesouAcez. 183 Mitigation: A qualified paleontologist and/on anchaeotogizt, if present during excavation, could readily evaluate any fessiis &ebouneeb should they be exposed. Excavation ptarvs ahoutd inceude a statement pehmitti.ng . such penaonne.2 to remove keaou Lce 6ind.6. 6. Impact: There will be a slight increase in vehicle emissions, dust, and asphalt odors. . Mitigation: These air contaminants will be temporary in nature for 8 Reb: p. 4-6- months. Dust can be reduced by applying sufficient water to 185 excavated earthen material. f7. Impact: There will be a slight increase in solid waste generated by construction spoils. Mitigation: Unusable materials will be sent to the county solid waste • disposal site, while usable materials will be sold to developers. 8. Impact: Aeenrrenee-ef-eenstraetien-daring-tire-reinp-lessen-een�d getentie��p-disperse-e-urge-pertien-ef-the-89,688-eabie-pards-of-re- • tneded-earthen-2nnteria�-crier-tine-inunediate-landseage;-eatxsing-tnt:ddp traffic-eirteria�s-and-damage-te-pribate-prepertp:--phis-�etsid-be-s- signifieant-adverse-impact. Con4tAucti.on iz expected to began in the eaAty Reb: p. �185 epking, but a remote chance ex,i6t6 bon mid-winteA. Ib eon6tAucti,on beginz in the win- teA,* nainbatt eoutd produce 6itt escape ob the excavated mataiat, .Pine ditch inundation-, • -129- • and bneaU .in adjacent expoeed sewer and water ti.nu. Pnopenty damage, hea.Pth pnobtem, and pnojeet decay woutd ne3utt. Mitigation: Since construction will occur in short sections , not • all of the 80, 000 cubic yards of material would be exposed on the street surface at any given time. 2enstrnetion-si�ettid-be-eamp�eted in-tine-si�ertest-pessib�e=time-before-tine-rniny-season-begins. I� • eonbtnuction i6 heady to begin ahead ob schedute, the project .6houtd be decayed Ri6S p. unt.i.0 at tea6t Maneh, when the gneate6t dangeh of modetaZe to heavy pheai.pitati.on has pa,6a ed. 9. Impact: Since tenches w.itt reach depths ob 15 beet, perched groundwater w.iu be eneountened at devenae po.int4. Re6: p. 185 Mitigation: Any gnoundwaten dewateAing discharge witt be dizpo.sed through 6an i- • zany sewer a6 pen Change County Sanitation D"tki t nequ,inements. 10.: Impact: There will be a slight adverse impact on weedy vegetation and small vertebrate wildlife in the vicinity of . 21 acre of pipe- . • line easement. Mitigation: This will be an unavoidable, temporary impact. Land Use • 1. Impact: There will be an indirect impact on land development, but the proposed project will rank as one factor among others already stimu- lating growth. At the least, the project will be a major factor in • the generation of 700 residential units and 6.35 acres of industrial establishments as the former pond areas are drained. The project will decline in importance as a factor affecting development of the • remaining 2, 877 residential units and 106. 11 acres of industrial and commercial uses. Future development attributable to the project will not necessarily be adverse, since it would be in conformance • with the city' s zoning, land use, and open space objectives. -130- _ SHORT-TERM INCREASE LONG-TERM INCREASE I. LAND USE A. Dwelling Units + 700 D.U. Moderate +3577 D.U. Significant B. Nor.-Res.idential Acreage + 6. 35 Acres Slight +112. 46 acres Moderate II. POPULATION GROWTH + 1960 Persons Moderate +10, 016 Persons Significant II. ECONOMICS A. City Revenue +$15,223. Slight +$155,708. Moderate B. School Revenue +$6,425 Slight +$352.,707 Moderate G� 0 C C. Employment + 83 Employees Slight +. 1641 Employees Moderate x W IV. PUBLIC UTILITIES K o A. Water Demand + 1. 30 Slight + 6. 69.E Moderate i W C 0 B. Gas Demand + . 06o Slight + . 34%. . Slight M y C. Electrical Demand + . 01% Slight + . 06% Slight yy D. Sanitary Sewer Demand + 1. 46% Slight + 6. 94% Moderate H 1-j ro C E. Solid Waste Demand + . 07% Slight + . 46% Slight c� N V. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. Police + 2 Officers Slight + 10 Officers Moderate B. Fire + 2 Firemen Slight + 10 Firemen Moderate C. Hospital + 1. 45% Slight + 6. 9% Moderate D. Education + 417 Students Significant + 2156 Students Significant E. Library + 1.45% Slight + 6. 9% Moderate VI. TRANSPORTATION +54R5 Trips/Day Slight +51,603 Trips/Day Moderate II. ACOUSTICAL QUALITY - - - - - - - - - - - 0 to +11 dBA Slight/Modez III, AIR QUALITY + .11 Emissions Slight + . 56 Emissions Slight Mitigation: Whether or not the growth impact is considered an ad- verse impact, there will be a possible mitigation to this growth if the proposed code amendment on the reduction of zoned residential • densities is adopted by the city (see Growth Inducing Impact sec- tion for a more detailed discussion of the proposed code amendment) . If adopted, the number of additional residential units expected in • the assessment district would decrease 30 per cent below present pro- jections in both the short-term and long-term. However, it is the objective of the city' s Planning Department to change all RA and • M2 zoned land below Garfield Avenue to medium density resi- 1 • • e • • • -130b- • dential. If these zone changes occurred in addition to the resi= dential density changes, the number of residential units expected • in the assessment district would decrease 17 percent in the short- term and only 5 percent in the long-term below present projections. Demographics • 1. Impact: There will be an indirect impact on population growth, but the proposed project will rank as one factor among others already stimulating growth. The project will have its greatest effect in • the generation of 1, 960 new residents as the former pond areas are drained. The project will decline in importance as a factor gener- ating the remaining 8 , 056 project population at full development of the assessment district. Any population growth attributable to the project will not necessarily be an adverse or beneficial impact. Mitigation: Whether or not the population growth impact is consid- ered an adverse impact, there will be a possible mitigation to this growth if the proposed code amendment on the reduction of zoned residential densities is adopted by the city (see the Growth Induc- ing Impact section for a more detailed discussion of the proposed code amendment) . If adopted, expected population estimates for the. . short-term and long-term would decrease 30 percent below present projections. However, if RA and M2 zones are also changed to R2 , the presently projected population would be 17 percent less in the short-term, and 5 percent less in the long-term. Economics 1. Impact: Most .of the project' s cost will be absorbed by local pro- perty owners in the district on an equal basis. This arrangement will be viewed as beneficial or adverse, depending on the benefits -131- derived from the project. The cost impact will tend to be most adverse to those whose property is least subject to flooding prob- lems. Mitigation: The possibility of distributing costs according to benefits received should be investigated. 2. Impact: The cost to the city of protecting the district from floods and property damage will be reduced. Mitigation: This will be a positive impact. 3. Impact: Asthe area develops, there will be an increase in city rev- • enues. Mitigation: This will be a secondary positive impact. 4. Impact: As the area develops, there will be an overall increase in • revenues to the local elementary and high school districts. Reven- ues will unavoidably decrease in the short-term for elementary schools, but the long-term would increase revenues. • Mitigation: This will be an overall beneficial impact except for the elementary school district in the short-term. 5. Impact: There will be an increase in employment opportunities in y the city. Mitigation: This will be a positive impact. • Public Utilities 1. Impact: As the area develops, there will be a slight to moderate increase in water consumption. 2. Impact: As the area develops, there will be a slight increase in natural gas demand. 3. Impact: As the area develops, there will be a slight to moderate increase in sanitary sewage generation. 4. Impact: As the area develops, there will be a slight to moderate • -132- • increase in sanitary sewage generation. 5. Impact: As the area develops, there will be a slight -increase in solid waste generation. Mitigation: These impacts will be unavoidable adverse impacts, but are capable of reduction by either expanding utility supply or dec- reasing growth in the assessment district through the city' s adop- tion of the residential zoning density code amendment. • Community Services 1. Impact: As the district develops, there will be a slight to moder- ate increase in police protection demand. 2. Impact: As the district develops, there will be a slight to .moder- ate -increase in fire .protection demand. 3. Impact: As the district develops, there will be a slight to moder- ate increase in demand on hospital services. 4. Impact: There will be a significant adverse impact on the educa- tional facilities of the Huntington Beach Elementary_ School District • (in the long-term only) and the Huntington Beach Union High School District (short-term and long-term) as attendance exceeds existing capacities. 5. Impact: As the district develops, there will. be a slight increase in demand. on library services. Mitigation: These impacts will be unavoidable adverse impacts, but are capable of reduction by either expanding city services and ex- panding school facilities, or by decreasing growth in the assess- ment district through the city' s adoption of the residential zoning density code amendment. • -133- • Transportation Circulation 1. Impact: As the district develops, there will be a slight to moder- ate increase in traffic generation. Based on current capacity, • four streets would be rendered deficient in the long-term (Golden- west Street, Garfield Avenue, Lake-Gothard Street, and Delaware Street) . 0 Mitigation: This impact will be an unavoidable adverse impact, but is capable of mitigation by either widening projected deficient streets, or by decreasing growth in the assessment district through • the city' s adoption of the residential zoning density code amendment. Acoustical Quality • 1. Impact: As the area develops and traffic generation increases, there will be a slight to moderate increase in noise levels. Noise levels will tend to approach a moderate adverse impact at residential areas • within 300 feet of Beach Boulevard, Goldenwest Street, and Garfield Avenue. Re6: p. Mitigation: The use of a six foot high • 186 barrier at residences most vulnerable to the highest noise levels would tend to reduce these noise levels to the "normally acceptable" category. Future noise levels might also be slightly reduced by • decreasing growth in the assessment district (and hence motor ve- hicle traffic) through the city' s adoption of the residential zon- ing density code amendment. • Recreation and Aesthetics Red: p. Pond 1$1 1. Impact: The slight diversion of runoff from Civic Center Lake and P. 9 Newland Marsh will have a slight adverse impact on their water levels,* aesthetics, and existence as future park attractions. • -134- • Mitigation: This will be an unavoidable adverse impact, but diver- ponds ersion of total water supply of these 1-akes- is expected to be less than 5 percent. 2. Impact: As the intermittent ponds are drained for development, there will be a slight adverse impact on local aesthetics and poten- • tial open space to be used as park sites. pand6 Mitigation: Only three intermittent 3akes- have reasonable standing pe18 durations to be considered as aesthetic attractions in potential p. 9 Pond • park sites. The proposal of Civic Center 1.7rke, 'Newland Marsh,and Pond 16 as park sites (which have been rated as high priority open space areas relative to surrounding areas) would tend to offset the loss of the athen • arty erf--t-he- intermittent ponds. In addition, landscaping from resi- dential developments would minimize the loss of the ponds. In at least two instances, the elimination of the intermittent ponds would have a beneficial impact on local aesthetics, due to their present status as trash collection points. Climate • po nds 1. Impact: As the intermittent lames are drained, there will be a R�J: p. 7 slight decrease in local evapo-transpiration. Little is known about whether this would be beneficial or adverse. Mitigation: Landscaping maintenance from new developments will minimize this impact. • ; Air Quality 1. Impact: As the district develops and traffic increases, there will be a slight increase in motor vehicle contaminants emitted into the • atmosphere. Mitigation: This will be an unavoidable adverse impact, but is . -135- capable of reduction by either state emission control legislation on new vehicles or by decreasing growth in the assessment district through the city' s adoption of the residential zoning density code amendment. Geology and Topography 1. Impact: The drainage system will be located within the Newport- Inglewood structural zone, and will be subject to a potentially significant adverse impact from earthquakes. Mitigation: �esee�-on-peace-gree�nd-aeeeeratiens-determined-in • the-e4tp1s-seisx:ie-report-hp-teigi�ten-den-and-�ssoeiates,-the system------shenid-be-designed-te-absorb-a-mnxi2neun-aeee�eratien ef-.-36g-and-a-�tntmtut�-ef-:i6g-in-an-eart3�gnake-on-the-2nngnit�de � Re6: p. ef-the-1933-earthgaake-4magnitade-6:3}. Since the phoposed dnai.nage 189 a ybtem .c.viteu ee to mat on Jau,et t i,ne.6 at thnee point6, th z witt be a poten- ti.at unavo.i.dabte adveUe impact. 2. Impact: Local topography will be slightly to moderately impacted (an increase in elevation of 2 feet to 10 feet) as depressions are filled to permit drainage of runoff into the system' s catch basins. Mitigation: This would be a positive impact in the sense that water impoundment and flooding will be precluded on 31. 9 acres of land. Hydrology 1. Impact: There will be a decrease in the local flood hazard and associated health, safety, and property damage problems as most of the area' s runoff is absorbed by the drainage system and • Re6: p. pondb 181 intermittent lakes are filled. -136- i • Mitigation: This will be a significant beneficial impact. 2. Impact: There will be a moderate storm water load increase on downstream drainage systems of the Orange County Flood Control District. This impact will become progressively adverse as the assessment district develops (increasing runoff_) and/or storms approach the intensity of a 25-year storm. Mitigation: This will be an unavoidable adverse impact unless the carrying capacity of downstream systems are increased. • 3. Impact: Asthe district develops, percolation will be reduced, thereby lowering the local groundwater table. Mitigation: This will be an unavoidable adverse impact. Flora, Fauna, and Related Water Quality 1. Impact: As the district develops , weedy and pond-related vege- tation would be eliminated from the area. • Mitigation: Residential landscaping will provide an improve- ment over the existing weedy flora. At least a representation of pond-related vegetation will be maintained at Civic Center bake and Newland Marsh. pond.a 2. Impact: As lakes are drained and the district develops, a slight to moderate amount of wildlife associated with an inter- mittent pond and marshy habitat will be eliminated from the local area. Mitigation: This will be an unavoidable adverse impact. However, • Pond the maintenance of Civic Center hake and Newland. Marsh (which Rej: p• have greater wildlife abundance and diversity) will represent a 187 P. 9 positive mitigation to faunal losses from intermittent ponds. • Pond 3. Impact: The slight diversion of runoff from Civic Center Lake and Newland Marsh will slightly reduce their water contaminant = -137- 1 • content (grease and oil, suspended solids, and bacteria con- centration) . Mitigation: This will be a beneficial' impact. 4. Impact: As the area develops, there will be an increase in suspended solids, greases and oils, and bacteria drained into downstream systems (Pacific ocean) which will adversely affect • their flora and fauna. Mitigation: The project will include a siltation structure which is estimated to be at least moderately effective in pre- venting the downstream flow of suspended solids and toxic material which might adhere to these solids. • Paleontology, Archaeology, and Historic Landmarks 1. Impact: No post-construction impacts are anticipated on these features. • • -138- ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION I. The first alternative is that of taking no action. The im- plication of such a decision would be as follows : 1. The assessment district' s flood hazard with associated health, safety, and property damage problems will in- crease as the area continues to develop near its present rapid rate (due to increased runoff and decreased percolation) . 2 . The cost to the city of protecting flooded property can be expected to rise above the most recent figure of $30, 000 per year as the flood hazard worsens and main- tenance costs are subjected to inflation. It shoutd be Reb: pp. eon6idetced that nai.nbatt ban the past boun yeas ha6 been utati.vety 187-188 tight, attowing .se ious b.bood damage to be averted. Onty by con- stant pumping tong abteA the na,i.ny heabon had ended waa it po.6,6ibte bon the city to protect pnopextim in the a zeszment diztu.et. Even at v"tty incAe"ed expendctunes and a monatoAium on devetop- ment, ex i.6t i.ng pumping bacititi m wound be inadequate in a .seaaon o b modeAate to heavy nain6aP.2. Pumping cost wou.ed.neptu ent ont y a .small bnacti.on ob the oveA&U btood damage to the area',s pnopenty owneu. 3 . Population growth and residential development would be retarded slightly (mostly on 31. 9 acres of intermittent pond area) , but would at least continue near present respective rapid rates of 420 persons and 215 dwelling units per year. 4. Although the assessment district will develop rapidly in spite of the project, generated tax revenues without -139- • the project would be lower than generated tax revenues with the project. The lower revenues would reflect • the continued high yearly maintenance costs of flood protection. for the area. 5. The demand upon community services and public utilities • could be expected to increase at or near the present rate of growth, but might be retarded or decreased slightly on the 31. 9 acres of intermittent pond area. • 6. Traffic volumes on the district' s streets and related noise and air pollution generation would increase in spite of the project, but will be decreased slightly if • development of 31. 9 acres of intermittent pond area is delayed. • • • -139-a- • • 7. No runoff would be diverted from local ponds, including Pond Much Reb: p.. Civic Center Ina-ke and Newland Marsh. Mast of the watershed' s • 187 P. 9 storm water would remain in the district, thus reducing the burden on downstream flood control systems of the OCFCD. 8. Water quality of all local ponds and downstream water bodies • would remain unchanged, and related flora and fauna would probably not be distrubed in the short-term. However, since local land values are rapidly increasing, property owners • might be expected to landfill ponds for development purposes. Thus, without an adequate drainage system, residential devel- opment and. disturbance of local flora and fauna would be de- layed but not entirely prevented. 9. Some landowners will be subjected -to economic hardships where flooded areas are less suitable for development yet are sub- ject to increasing land values and higher property taxes. Without a drainage system, the cost of permanently draining the ponds would be prohibitive, and development of these • properties would be delayed until higher land values produced a suitable economic return to the owner. • II. A second alternative is to consider a realignment of the drain- age line routes. The impact of such a decision would be as follows: Web: p. 9 1. If the primary drainage line (Line 1) is constructed along Huntington or Florida Streets: a. Less runoff would be collected by the system. The reason • for this situation is that the natural depression which traverses the assessment district approximates Delaware • -140- Street. The other alternative routes lie at high eleva- tions relative to this natural drainage system. Thus, less runoff would collect at the alternative routes, while maximum collection would occur along Delaware Street, the proposed route. b. A flood hazard with associated health, safety, and proper- ty damage problems would continue to exist along Delaware Street, since it is the natural collection point for storm water. c. Flood protection costs would be higher than the presently estimated annual $2 , 000. d. Secondary beneficial and adverse impacts (i.e. , land use, • population growth, public utilities, traffic, etc. ) would remain relatively unchanged. ptectude e. No alternative routing of Line 1 would -pr-eve*t an inter- • 6AOm Re6: p. 9 section wi-L-h-at least one major geological fault line. 2. If the secondary drainage lines (Lines 2-6) are altered: a. Less runoff would be diverted into the drainage system, since there would be less correlation with the secondary watersheds within the assessment district. b. Post-construction drainage of the intermittent ponds would be more costly and inconvenient for some property owners. The present system of secondary lines is located such that all 15 of 'the ponds are closely or adjacently accessible to a drainage line. c. Secondary beneficial and adverse impacts would remain rela- tively unchanged. III. A third alternative is that of delaying construction of the pro- • -141- posed project for a period of two to five years. . The impacts of such a decision would be as follows: 1. The assessment district' s flood hazard with associated health, safety, and property damage problems will increase as the area continues to develop near its present rapid rate (due to • increased runoff and decreased percolation) . 2. The cost to the city of protecting flooded property will rise above the current $30, 000 per year over the delayed period. It shoutd be con-6ideAed that aain6a.t2 boa .the pa6t boun yews hays been aeta ivety tight, attowing beh i.ou,5 6tood damage to be aveh ted. Ont y by Reb: pp. eondtant pumping .bong abtea the aainy ze"on had ended was it po.6.6ibte 187-188 boa the city ty to paoteet paope ties in the a,5,S u6ment d uustA i.ct. Even at va6tty incAeased expend.ituA" and a moaatotium on devetopmewt, ex.usting pumping bacititi.eb wowed be inadequate in a sea6on ob modeaate to heavy • aainbatt. Pumping cost would tep&esent only a .smaU baacti.on ob the ovea- ate 4tood damage to the atea's paopenty owne&z. 3 . The total cost of constructing the proposed drainage system • could increase by 12 to 15 pea cent as a Re b: p. result of inflated costs for .eaboa, and raw mat- . 189 erials. This projected increase is based on past trends in • estimated costs for the project. eted;-estixtateel-n-teta�-eenstraetien-east-ef-$�;�BA-A88---the estimated-east-far-the-drainage-spstent-in-i9�4-is-$A;8A8;888. • 4. Population growth and residential development would be re- tarded slightly (as development in vicinity of the intermit- tent ponds is delayed) , but would continue near present respective rapid rates of 420 persons and 215 dwelling units per year. • -142- • 5. Because the assessment district will grow rapidly in spite of a delay in construction of the proposed project , second- ary beneficial and adverse impacts (i.e. , public utilities, • air, traffic, etc. ) would remain relatively unchanged. 6. Some landowners will be subjected to several years of econ- omic hardship until construction of the drainage system. • Economic hardships would reflect rising property taxes can intermittent pond property which is less suited for devel- opmental purposes. • • • • 142-a- • • IV. A fourth alternative would be to modify the proposed pro ect so - pon� Rei: p. as to maintain the existence of several intermittent rakes asl187 • parks and/or wildlife reserves. The implications of such .a decision would be as follows: 1. The disturbance of marshland and pond-associated flora and • fauna would be minimized. 2. Although approximately. 10 acres of pond area might merit con- sideration for preservation, these areas represent marginal • conservation open space. Since the ponds experience wide seasonal fluctuations in water level and are relatively low in aesthetic value and wildlife content, the cost of preser- • vation would be prohibitive relative to benefits derived (in terms of use as parks or wildlife reserves).. Moreover, parks Pond and reserves are proposed for Civic Center Lake and- the New-r187 p • land Marsh area which have much higher value as open space and p. � would adequately meet the needs of the local area. 3. Land development and population growth would be precluded on • about 10 acres of land. 4. With growth retarded slightly, there would be a slight reduc- tion in the magnitude of secondary beneficial and adverse impacts. • -143- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY It has been determined that the assessment district will develop rapidly in spite of the proposed project. Not to implement the project at this time would serve to increase the local flood hazard (as devel- opment increases runoff) and property damage potential in the dis- trict. This is further evidenced by the rapidly rising cost to the city of protecting these properties by pumping during each rainy season. If constructed, the drainage system would provide long-term protection from 25-year frequency storms for the life of the facilities, estim- ated in excess of 100 years. ponds Re4: p In addition to the flood hazard, several of the intermittent lakes- 187 stand for a long period in close vicinity to residential areas. These ponds serve as safety hazards to young children living in the area, and as .trash collection points which also makes them unhealthy. Thus, the project is justified on the basis of providing long-term safety and health protection to local residents. Development stimulated by the proposed project will be in conformance to present zoning, open space plans, and master planned land use goals, for the area. The ponds tend to have' limited value as open space marshland because of the intermittent existence of the ponds, which reduces the abundance and diversity of wildlife using them as habitats. Pond Only perennial Civic Center make- possesses significant open space Re4: p. pond 187 value. This kak8- has, therefore, been planned as the center of a park P. 9 site and is not expected to be impacted by the drainage project. -144- I • IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Formation of the assessment district and construction of the drainage system will result in the drainage of intermittent ponds and elimina-_ tion of marshland flora and fauna within the assessment district Pond • (excluding. Civic Center Lake-) for developmental purposes. This will imply an irreversible shift of land resources from open space to ) R187 p' P.9 residential, commercial, and industrial uses. However, according -to • the city' s open space element, most of the Vacant land, including the intermittent ponds, represents marginal conservation open space. More- over, development of this land is consistent with master planned land • use goals. Another irreversible commitment will be the increased consumption of energy resources as a result of the expected development of the area. • As with any construction activity, there will be a commitment of con- struction materials, some of which will represent non-renewable re- sources, such as metals for manhole covers. • • • -145- • GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT Implementation of the proposed project will rate as a contributing factor in the development of the remaining 305. 22 acres of vacant land within the assessment district. Drainage of storm waters will render about 31. 9 acres of former flooded area more suitable for de- • velopment, and generate 700 new residential units and 1, 960 new resi- dents within 3 to 5 years. Ultimate development of the assessment district can be expected within 15 to 25 years with a growth induce- ment of 3, 577 units and a population of 10, 016. Other than growth inducement on the 31. 9 acres of formerly flooded land, it cannot be concluded that the proposed project will be the • most significant factor which will cause development of the remaining- vacant land area. The assessment district is already experiencing a growth rate which is faster than that of the city. It appears that • other factors now affecting the area' s growth will continue to have a greater effect than construction of the drainage system. Even land development which could be attributed to the project (31. 9 acre area) • would not significantly alter the growth rate now occurring within the assessment district. It should be noted that the overall growth impact could be substantially less than current projections if the proposed code amendment on the reduction of zoned residential densities is adopted by the city. Bas- ically, residential densities would change as follows: From: To• R2/2000 ft. 2 or 21. 78 D.U./acre R2/3000 ft. 2 or 14. 52 D.U./acre R3/1250 ft. 2 or 34. 84 D.U./acre R3/1750 ft. 2 or 24. 89 D.U./acre R4/1000 ft. 2 or 43. 56 D.U./acre R4/1250 ft. 2 or 34. 84 D.U./acre -146- • If adopted and applied to the assessment district, the number of dwelling units generated in the short-term would decrease from 700 to 485, whereas population would decrease from 1, 960 to 1, 358. In the long-term, the number of residential units would decrease from 3,577 to 2 ,512 , and population from 10, 016 to 7 , 034. - These revisions represent a 30 percent decrease below present growth projections. It is assumed that impacts on growth-related features (public utilities, community services, traffic, air quality, etc. ) would also decrease 30 percent below present projections. However, a current planning objective of the city' s Advanced Planning • Department is to change RA and M2 zoned land below Garfield Avenue to medium residential (R2) . If these zone changes occurred, in addition to the residential density changes, the number of residential units would decrease from 700 to 578 (17 percent) , and population from 1, 960 to 1, 618 (17 percent) . In the long-term, residential units would decrease from 3 ,577 to 3, 386 (5 percent) , and population from 10, 016 to 9. 481 (5 percent) . • • -147- IMPACT AREA BOUNDARIES Most impacts, direct and secondary, will be confined to the 580 acre • area within the assessment district boundaries. During construction, the areas most directly affected by the project • will include the various arterial streets utilized for drainage lines (Adams Avenue, Beach Boulevard, Delaware Street, Florida Street, Ala- bama Street, Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Street, Seventeenth Street, • Clay Avenue and Garfield Avenue) ; and nearby residential, commercial, and industrial areas within the assessment district. After construction, the areas most directly and tangibly affected • within the assessment district will include the 31. 9 acres of inter- mittent ponds and flooding points. As storm water is collected from the 580 acre watershed and moved out of the district, downstream water bodies (Newland Marsh and the Pacific Ocean) and drainage facilities to the southeast (Orange County Flood Control District channels) will be impacted by the project. The various environmental aspects will have their own regional impact boundaries as follows: 1. Land use impact area will include the 305. 22 acres of vacant land within the assessment district. 2. Demographic impact area will include the 187. 06 acres of vacant land which is currently zoned for residential uses. 3. Economic regional impact boundaries will include the city and county limits , and the tributary areas of the Huntington Beach Elementary School and Huntington Beach Union High School Districts. 4. Public utility boundaries are the Huntington Beach Water Supply -148- and Pumping District and the Orange County service areas of the Orange County Sanitation District, Rainbow ,Disposal Company, Southern California Edison Company, and Southern. California Gas Company. 5. Community service regional boundaries will be the city limits and the Huntington Beach Elementary and High School Districts. 6. Traffic impact will be confined primarily to all streets within and bordering the assessment district. 7. Noise impact areas will include residential, commercial, indus- trial and institutional (church and hospital) establishments within the assessment district. 8. Recreation impact boundaries will include the city limits. 9. Aesthetic impact boundaries will be the assessment district limits. 10. Archaeological and paleontological impacts will be confined to- the assessment district. 11. Air quality impact boundaries will include the limits of the South Coast air basin. 12. Geological impact area will be the assessment district. 13. Hydrological impact boundaries will include primarily the assess- ment district and, to a lesser extent, the Newland Marsh area and coastal drainage facilities of the Orange County Flood Control District. 14. Flora, fauna, and related water quality impact boundaries will include primarily the assessment district and, to a lesser extent, the Newland Marsh area and Pacific Ocean. -149- • REFERENCES PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • 1. Letter from H.E. Hartge, acting Director of the Huntington Beach Department of Public Works and City Engineer, to the Mayor and City Council of Huntington Beach, October 31, . 1973. 2. Doolittle, Richard, Drafting, Huntington Beach Public • Works Department, personal communication, April 12 , 1974 . 3. Hydrology Study for Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, 1974 . 4 . op. cit. , personal communication with'Richard 'Doolittle. • 5. Ibid. 6. Engineer' s Report, Storm Drain Construction, Huntington Beach, Project No. SCH 71091315 , V.T.N. Consolidated, Inc. , Irvine , August 1972 , p. 3. 7. Ibid. 7a. Op. cit. , Hydnotogy Study ion Dnai.nage Aussuzmevtt DatAi.ct No. 73-02 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. • LAND USE: 10. Land Use Element, Phase -I , Huntington Beach Planning Department, November, 1973, p. 4. 6. • 11. Bellavia, Savoy, Assistant Planner, Huntington Beach Planning Department, personal communication, April 17, 1974 . 12. Montes, Al, Assistant Planner, Huntington Beach Planning Department, personal communication, April 17, 1974 . • ECONOMICS : 13. An Area Study Inventory, Huntington Beach, California, Huntington Beach Economic Development Department, August 1973, p. 14. 14. Environmental Impact Report 73-15 (TT 5483) , Houghton Bay, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Environmental Impact Profiles, August 13, 1973, p. 117. 15. Hurtienne, Walter, Division Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, telephone conversation, May 29 , 1974. 16 . Ibid. • -150- 17. Revenue/Expenditures Analysis of Land Uses; Huntington Beach Planning Department, October 1973 , p. 11. 18 . Ibid. , pp. 50-53 . 19 . Ibid. , p. 69. 20. Ibid. , p. 83. 21. Ibid. , p. 65. 22 . Ibid. , p. 78. PUBLIC UTILITIES: 23. Annual Report for 1973 , Huntington Beach Water Department, 1974 , p. 1 ! 24 . Ibid. 25. Ibid. , p. 2. 26. op. cit. , EIR 73-15 (TT 5483) , p. 78. 27. Environmental Impact Report 73-16 (TT 6948) , Huntington Beach Industrial Park, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Westec Services, Inc. , December 26 , 1973 , p. 105. -�-Swnteie;-Pang;-�i�e-Heer1s-6nide-te-tk�e-Preteet�ea-et-tlge Envirenrnent;-{Be��snt�r�e-Beeks;-�r�e-;-}9�9};-p--98- 28. Compton, G1.i.2Q,i,am, Dint i.e t Manageh, Southehn Ca,Pi 4o4nia. 6dizon Company, tetephone eonveuati.on. 29. op. cit. , EIR 73-16 (TT 6948) , p. 107. 30. op. cit. , EIR 73-15 (TT 5483) , p. 80. S 31. Ibid. , p. 81. 32 . Ibid. 33 . Jackson, Jeremiah, Environmental Engineer , Huntington Beach ! Harbors and Beaches Department, telephone conversation, May .21, 1974 . 34 . op. cit. , EIR 73-16 (TT 6948) pp. 100-101. 35. Kiser, Donald, Division Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, personal communication, May 23 , 1974 . COMMUNITY SERVICES: 36. Borwich, Gene, Huntington Beach Police Department, May 23 , 1974. ! 37. Ibid. 38 . Ibid. -151- • 39. Vanderlaan, Andy, Deputy Fire Marshal, Huntington Beach Fire Department, personal communication, May 28 , 1914. 40.. Huntington Beach Elementary School District, telephone conversation, May 28 , 1974. • 41. Huntington Beach Union High School District, telephone conversation, May 24 , 1974 . 42. op. cit. , E. I.R. 73-15 (TT5483) , p. 9.4. •. 43. Fredette, Ruth, Medical Records Librarian, Huntington Intercommunity Hospital, telephone conversation, May 28, 1974. 44. Pacifica Hospital, telephone conversation, May 28, 1974 . - 45. op. cit. , telephone conversation with Huntington Beach Elementary School District. 46. Ibid. 47. . op. cit. ,telephone conversation with Huntington Beach Union High School District. • TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION: 48. Land Use Alternatives, Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit, Huntington Beach Planning Department, May 1974 , p. 28 . i 49. op. cit. , personal communication with Richard Doolittle. 50. op. cit. , personal communication with Andy Vanderlaan. RECREATION: • 51. op. cit. , E.I.R. 73-15 (TT5483) , p. 96 . 52. Ibid. 53. op, cit. , Land Use Element, Phase I, p: 2.10. 54. Ibid. 55. Recreational Trails, Phase I , Huntington Beach Planning Department,October 1973, p. 23 . 56. Moseley, Tom, Administrative Aide, Huntington Beach • Recreation and Parks Department, telephone conversation, May 29 , 1974 . 57. op.. cit. , Recreational Trails , Phase I , pp. 7-9 . PALEONTOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORIC LANDMARKS: • 58. Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Archaeological Research, Inc. , January 1973, pp. 9-10. • -152- 59. Ibid. , p. 45. • CLIMATE: 60. op. cit. , E.I.R. 73-15 (TT5483) , p. 15 . 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. AIR QUALITY: 63. Conservation Technical Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974 , pp. 32-33. 64. Petroleum emissions are included in the county 's 2 percent of non-vehicle emissions, and contribute 24 tons per day to the atmosphere. This figure is so small relative to vehicle emissimns that even if the 110 wells are phased out, the impact on air quality in Orange County will not be perceptible. 65. Ludwig, Walter, Manager, California Department of Motor Vehicles, telephone conversation, April 25, 1974. • GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY: 66. op. cit. , E.I.R. 73-15 (TT 5483) , p. 20. 67. Based on personal interpretation of local topographic maps. 68. Geotechnical Inputs, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Leighton-Yen and Associates, February 1974 , p. 13. 69. Ibid. , p. 119. 70. op. cit. , E'. I.R. 73-15 (TT5483) , p. 25. 71. op. cit. , Geotechnical Inputs, p.. 24 . 72. Ibid. , p. 29. 73. Ibid. , p. 47. • 74. Ibid. , p . 45. 74a. Ibid. , P. 31. 75. Ibid. , pp. .37-38. 76. op. cit. , personal communication with Richard Doolittle. 77. Ibid. HYDROLOGY: 78. Based on personal observation. • 79. op. cit. , Geotechnical Inputs, p. 40 . • -153- • 80. Engineer' s Report: Groundwater Conditions, 1971-1972 , Orange County Water District, February 1973, pp. 12-14 . 81. op. cit. , Hydrology Study for Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. • 82. Ibid. 83. Ibid. 84. op. cit. , personal communication with Richard Doolittle. • 85. Schwarze, John, Planning Division Engineer, Orange County Flood Control District,telephone conversation, April 23 , 1974. 86. op. cit. , telephone conversation with Walter Hurtienne. • FLORA, FAUNA, AND RELATED WATER QUALITY: 87 . Environmental Impact Statement, Orange County Flood Control District, Huntington Beach Storm Drain, Facility No. D01P05 , Reynolds and Associates, September 1972 , p. 16. • 88 . Ibid. , p. 17. 89. Memorandum from Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director of the Huntington Beach Harbors and Beaches Department, to Carol Schwartz, , Huntington Beach Planning Department, May 23, 1974 . • 90 . Ibid. 91. op. cit. , personal communication with Richard Doolittle. • • • • -154- BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. An Area Inventory, Huntington Beach, California,Huntington Beach Economic Development Department, 1973. 2. Annual Report for 1973, Huntington Beach Water Department, 1974 . 3. Bellavia, Savoy, Assistant Planner, Huntington Beach Planning Department, personal communication, April 17 , 1974. 4. Borwich, Gene, Huntington Beach Police Department, May 24 , 1974. 5. Circulation and Transportation Study Parameters, Huntington Beach Planning Department, September 1973. 6. Conservation Technical Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974. 7. Doolittle, Richard, Drafting, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, personal communication, April 12 , 1974. 8. Engineer' s Report: Groundwater Conditions,1971-1972 , Orange County Water District, February 1973. 9. Engineer' s Report, Storm Drain Construction, Huntington Beach, Project No. SCH. 71091315, V.T.N. Consolidated, Inc. , Irvine, August 1972 . 10. Environmental Impact Report 73-15 (TT 5483) , Houghton Bay, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Environmental Impact Profiles, August 13, 1973. 11. Environmental Impact Report 73-16 (TT 6948) , Huntington Beach Industrial Park, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Wes'tec Services, Inc. , December 26 , 1973. 12. Environmental Impact Statement, Orange County Flood Control District, Huntington Beach Storm Drain, Facility No. D01PO5 , Reynolds and Associates, September 1972 . 40 13. Flood Hazard Study, Huntington Beach Planning Department, April 1974. 14. Fredette, Ruth, Medical Records Librarian, Huntington Intercommunity Hospital, telephone conversation, May 28 , 1974. A 15. Geotechnical Inputs, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Leighton-Yen and Associates , February 1974. 16 . Growth Policy Study, Huntington Beach Planning Department, October 1973, revised March 1974. 17. Huntington Beach Elementary School District, telephone conversation, May 28, 1974. 18. Huntington Beach Industrial Park Traffic Study, Herman Kimmel and Associates , Inc. , April 1974 . -155- • 19. Huntington Beach Union High School District, telephone conversation, May 24 , 1974. 20. Hurtienne, Walter, Division Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, telephone conversation, May 29 , 1974 . • 21. Hydrology Study for Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02 , Huntington Beach Public Works Department, 1974. - 22. Jackson, Jeremiah, Environmental Engineer, Huntington Beach Harbors and Beaches Department, telephone conversation, May 21, 1974. • .23. Kiser, Donald, Division Engineer, Huntington Beach Public Works Department, May 23, 1974. 24. Land Use Alternatives , Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit, Huntington Beach Planning Department, May 1974. • 25. Land Use Element, Phase I, Huntington Beach Planning Department, November 1973. 26. Letter from H.E. Hartge, acting Director of the Huntington Beach Department of Public Works and City Engineer, to the Mayor and City Council of Huntington Beach, October 31, 1973 . 27. Ludwig, Walter, Manager, California Department of Motor Vehicles, telephone conversation, April 25, 1974. • 28. Memorandum from Vincent-G. Moorhouse, Director of the Huntington Beach Harbors and Beaches Department, to. Carol Schwartz , Huntington Beach Planning Department, May 23, 1974. 29. Montes, Al, Assistant Planner, Huntington Beach Planning Department, personal communication, April 17 , 1974 . •' 30 . Moseley, Tom, Administrative Aide, Huntington Beach Recreation and Parks Department, telephone conversation, May 29, 1974. 31. Open Space and Conservation Element, Phase I, Huntington Beach Planning Department, November 1973 . 32. Pacifica Hospital, telephone conversation, May 28, 1974. 33. Recreational Trails, Phase I, Huntington Beach Planning Department, October ,1973. • 34. Revenue/Expenditures Analysis of Land Uses, Huntington Beach Planning Department, October 1973 . , 35. Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory, Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Archaeological Research, Inc. , January 1973. • 36. Special Census of Huntington Beach, California, State Department of Finance, November 1973 . . -156- • 37 . Schwarze, John, Planning Division Engineer, Orange County Flood Control District, telephone conversation, April 23, 1974. 38. Swatek, Paul, The User' s Guide to the Protection of the Environment, Ballantine Books , Inc. , 1970. • 39. Vanderlaan, Andy, Deputy Fire Marshal, Huntington Beach Fire Department, personal communication, May 28 , 1974. 40. Compton, G1.c,Q,Q,i,am, D.ustAict Manageh, Southehn Ca.P 6otnia Edition Company, tee.ephone convwation. • • • • • • -157- i I Computer Maps Help to Clear Air in Smog War lrr��s ANGELES NATIONAL ANGELES NATIONAL jfO GELES NATIONAL ANGELES NATIONAL e.Mkn. FOREST Je,•".¢'"_•^ FOREST REST I I I a FOREST 12:30 PM 8:00 AM 10M AM 11..00 AM . .� , I ro:o.,:;®• s.M.AwMr I I' ,.M.wLvc.l kkL PAC/p/C I xuMntirox ma ANOOLION¢A01OCoc- P�d• OC sANatsra sar sua¢em uramm a I x 005 so 0211.TIP Oida Prs IYLUON 1.01 AR ~ t I 0.00 TO OM PAK m OTOM Pn MOIrdI PASIS 01 AR O SJ 10 O.SS PALT d OtOLB PR LmIrON PAPiS W An. O ao ®-•MO CONSIOfRED I AGa1CVLTIA.T ISOCAL IU MIICi N AI M SSCHO NOLSAL ENYaONMBa4I IOrScro 1 AOBICT Art noRICT fOl "RSOS C "AR, LEM POLLUrHON CONTROL Z Ul HIS LIMB RUs LBO¢m HaRRI COUNIr Alt POLLUTION i Cokrm DRS-CT SCHOOL.SMOG.AUR1 UVB. 04 .--I K t ANGELES NATIONAL ANGELES NATIONAL ANGELES NATIONAL - ANGELES NATIONAL a]w`�IIII• FOREST sw'riwi..mo I IA:Is�o 1:30 PM FOREST FOREST FOREST 390 PM f:00 PM I 5:00 PM ''III .,:>• I \�:��aa ��:yF, ' �{��" 3Yhei.H:n,w0.<.- :. �I�•.,l • .. I 11,,� t it`Of:Tlu;�a 'III,` : I LOS.nG1U 'B¢ LOf. N i •I4 U),i�•: ��...�`� .f%p r• I ¢NIL.MOI•CA'I I � '' —IA LMI �MOMC. I Rmume¢Aa I Rr_LrNw¢saI• I '"""'0" ®voBLaLOL '�fOO BnONoe¢uI PA .! P.! P4 I I C7PlC I CIPIC _ CIPI 1 C CIPIC IIIIIII MnlmRcsmrsua flux=,05¢AOI BlsnwcrOR¢AaI XONIILifON¢ICN !I i I i I OCP' OL,�' •Y � H 4• I�I I p II tI.I I: uNaruML LANarraar sRNclumnR L•NarwMl ON THE MOVE—These eight mops are part of a series showing the 1970—a typical smoggy summer day.The full series shows fairly clear clearing skies again by S p.m. The maps ore result of 14 month% - actLrol movement of smog across the Los Angeles air basin on Aug.21, skies at 8 a.m_,a smog buildup through midday,then a decline and planning and replanning in which a computer was fed atmospheric facts. Ti—maps by MOAtd Ctemeel Continued from First Pogo Computer Maps Help limlbbut below the River side County Air pollution Control District's schnr' smog-alert level (from.0� Vicar ppmin27ppmnfomne! --Air with more than.2. Clear Air. in Smog ppm of ozone(up thrnuah .i4 ppm, which was th•. BY JOHN DREYFUSS dev's'hlgjles,reading t. stir . T"Staff r The maps cM•er ahn"' RIVERSIDE—Dr.Joe Behar is a He cares a Int.He wants to trans. two-thirds of the An chemist who 'got tired of reading late his knowledge and,skill into partpaten err basin, incclulu ding and wanted to start doing," so he somethin anyone can understand ef4id., Los Angeles,Ri g y erside, San Bernarditm made same breathtaking maps.� and use. At a glance those maps show 'I read my way through rnllege Orange and.Ventura cnun, where you can breathe easy--�and and a master's degree and then a ties. In the mapped arra - where you can't. doctorate," he said. 'Pretty soon I live more than 90%of the They show a clear day turning got tired of reading and wanted to air basin population,-Be- -dirty yellow-brown, and back to start doing—doing something to har said. clear, help a lot of people." On Hehar's maps one can watch He decided in do it at the State- s Smog is depicted on a . the morning smog build up'along wide AirPollution Research Centel geherl said uhest day. But could show the Santa Monica and San Gabriel a4UC Riverside. mountains,then crawl south to San There he pored nver thousands of any day of the year. Clemente and east to Riverside, tables related to smog. 'They were Getting data for the hard for me to understand,'the 34- maps was not easy.Behar Breathing Filthy Air year-old scientist said. "The guy In Itad to send four worker- The maps are scary.They reveal the street wouldn't have a chance.•, in ropy starks.of statistics how by 10 a.m,half a million people Giving you that chance became the filed at fnur air pollution - -from San Fernando to Anaheim are goal of Joe Behar and his computer rnnirni districts. breathing air so filthy that River- programmers,Ron Matyas and Mrs. "Byt we could automate side County children would be for- Dfinn Poe. air moiiitoting et finds Ibr bidden to exercise in it. They spent days and nights and EI,000 each toe Ll�•e r By noon 3 million people are weekends preparing information for breathing that kind of air, an IBM 360/50 computer. right to our friendly com- But as the day wears on the smog Project Takes 14 Months puter all the data we need moves south and east and disperses It took 14 months of planning and In make the maps,"Behar upward until or 7 p.. the skies are replanning and feeding the compu- 'said- clearhauntil morning. ter thousands or cards punched with ."For another $9,000 'Just Behar'.maps show Aug',2l,i said. information about ozone,an indica- each, the stations could ".lust a typical smoggy day," s said. automaticsfl "Not the worst,not the clearest;and tor'of photochemical smog. y deliver in. with average meteorological cbndi- Then,late one night a few days of- formation to make maps tions." ter last Christmas,nut of the compu- for predicting smog three +. Smog maps can be made for any ter rolled strips of paper covered or four days in advance.- day.it's even possible to make them with X's and O's and little black (Some experts question three or tour days in advance. spots. whether it will be possible "We can make reasonably accurate They were maps—maps shaded to predict certain rondi- predictive maps,'Behar said."With• from light to dark, indicating air lions, such as winds, ac- in two years we'll-be able to make from clean to filthy. curately enough in make them extremely accurate. The maps were crude and full of predictive smog maps.) 'Then we'll go on to something errors." Behar said. "They showed Behar Is developing data more than telling where smog's been 10 different smog-cnneentratinn lev- to feed his IBM machine and where it will be. els.They were confusing maps,and sn It will tell him just 'For a couple of hundred dollars of I wanted to inform the public,not -1•V.should be done to m • computer time we'll be able to tell confuse it." d,�A-smog. the best ways to get rid of it." errors Behar spent monthsng th eliminataps ing 'InIp the computer will Ti do so,Beharforma will pour millions among other things, consolidating go".fnformation related to to bits of Information lee s compu- the 10 smog levels into three more such alternatives as reduc- ter programmed to reveal a pub- inclusive ranges.The ranges are: In motor vehicle traffic methods of smog reduction the pub 6 lic will pay for and stand for. —Air considered healthy by the by specific amounts,elim. It's no accident that Behar,who federal Environmental Protection mating fuel oil as a power holds a doctorate in kinetic chemis- Agency(with from zero to.0 part source for electric plants, try, is a mapmaker. People who of ozone per million parts off air). and limiting population. know the man don't even find —Air exceeding the EPA health It sue- "And we have social prising. Pleas Turn to Pare 7,Col,J scientists finding out what t limitations the public will accept, what regulations are likely to be ignored and what penalties may be required to achieve com- pliance. All that will go into the computer,too,"ha said. Within three vears we'll have some answers.' APPENDIX B J� City of Huntington Beach * 1'. O. BOX 190 • CALIFORNIA 92648 • 'I'1{LI?PIIONF (714) 536-5281 103 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF HARBORS AND BEACHES VINCENT G. MOORHOUSE, DIRECTOR May 23, 1974 Ms. Carol Schwartz Environmental Resources t' Planning Department City of Huntington Beach Dear Carol• Attached to this letter are the results of the water quality survey which was conducted at your request. I trust this information will be useful in the preparation of your environmental impact report. If our department can be of further assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, ce t G. o rhouse, Director Harbors, Beaches & Development VGM:JDJ:da Enclosure • Address all communications to the Director, Harbors and Beaches Department -159- • APPENDIX B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH • To VINCENT G. MOORHOUSE From JEREMIAH JACKSON DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER Subject POND WATER QUALITY Date MAY 23, 1974 i On May 2, 1974, this department received a memo from C. Schwartz requesting water analyses of five ponds within drainage assessment district 73-02. These ponds included: 1. Northwest corner of Delaware and Garfield. 2. Directly across Delaware from Pacifica Hospital. 3. Southwest corner of Clay and Florida. . 4. Northeast corner of Utica and Delaware. 5. On 17th Street, south of Yorktown and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad. • On May 6, 1974, staff surveyed the five sites but found water at the latter two locations, only. Additional samples were taken at these sites on May 20 and May 21 to confirm and supplement resulting data from the first sampling date. The results of these tests are found on the attached page. • In general, both ponds were of fair water quality with the Delaware pond being the better of the two both in water quality and in wild- life abundance and diversity. Both ponds were high in dissolved oxygen with a moderate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The BOD concentrations were not excessive to cause an anaerobic situation, however, as was reflected by the immeasurable total and dissolved sulfides levels of both ponds. Iron was the only detected trace metal; toxic metals such as copper, cadmium, lead or chromium were not detected. Both ponds possessed moderate amounts of grease and oil within their waters--presumably a result of the nearby oil oper- ations: Bacteria concentrations were moderate in both ponds, with • high fecal streptococci to fecal coliforms ratios, indicating bacteria loading from domestic and wild animals (viz. horses, ducks, dogs and cats). Specifically, the Delaware pond had a moderate salinity and total dis- solved solids (TDS) concentration. These data conflicted with pre- vious data (from a March 14, 1974 sampling); our files indicate that there was rain within the first sampling period, which would account for the discrepancy in data. The Yorktown pond appears to be a less stable body of water (with respects to volume), and more dependent upon seasonal rains for its existence. This conclusion is based on its low TDS and salinity con- centrations, moderate grease and oil values (presumably a result of storm runoff), and high suspended solids and BOD concentrations. • -160- w APPENDIX B Mr. Vincent G. Moorhouse May 23, 1974 Page two When sampling the Delaware pond, Thomas Rayl (Water Quality Analyst) again noted the abundance and diversity of life present; I feel that this observation should again be emphasized since it is apparent that this pond is permanent in nature, not suffering drastic seasonal fluctuations. v - remiah D. J cson nvironmental Engineer JDJ:da Enclosures • • • • • ` -161- DEPARTMENT OF HARBORS AND BEACHES RESULTS OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS Pond at Delaware and Utica Streets and Pond at Yorktown and 17th Streets Samples Collected May 6, 1974 PARAMETER DELAWARE POND YORKTOWN POND UNITS TECHNIQUE(1) Temperature 17.5 18.2 °C Thermometer Dissolved Oxygen 11.4 .10.1 mg/1 Winkler (218 B) Biochemical Oxygen Demand 7.6 13.2 mg/1 Winkler (219) pH 8.1 8.2 pH Meter Salinity 3.54 (2) 0.14 %o Argentometric (112 A) Suspended Solids 5.8 (2) 453.6 mg/l Weight Difference (224 C) Total Dissolved Solids 3713 (2) 377.0 mg/l Weight Difference (224 A) ro Grease and 0il 1.1 25.5 mg/l Extraction (137) r Total Sulfides <0.05 < 0.05 mg/l Methylene Blue (228 B) z N Dissolved Sulfides <0.05 <0.05 mg/1 Methylene Blue (228 B) d Nitrates < 0.1 < 0.1 mg/1 Brucine (213 C) X Ammonia < 0.05 <0.05 mg/l Nessler (132 B) Sodium 1392.6 (2) 55.1 mg/1 Argentometric (112 A) Chlorides 2147.4 (2) 84.9 mg/1 Argentometric (112 A) Hexavalent Chromium < 0.02 <0.02 mg/1 Colorimetric (117 A) Total Chromium < 0.5 <0.5 mg/l Atomic Absorption Iron 0.35 0.89 mg/1 Atomic Absorption Copper <0.5 <0.5 mg/l Atomic Absorption Cadmium <0.5 <0.5 mg/l Atomic Absorption Lead < 0.5 -0.5 mg/1 Atomic Absorption Total Coliforms 50 (3) 190 (3) per 100 ml Membrane Filtration (408 A) Fecal Coliforms 10 (3) 5 (3) per 100 ml Membrane Filtration (408 B) Fecal Streptococci 40 .(3) 1192 (3) per 100 ml Membrane Filtration (408 B) (1) Tests conducted per 13th Edition of Standard Methods. (2) Arithmetic average of two samples (May 6 and 20), average deviation = 5%. (3) Second samples taken May 21. Page #6 - Council Minutes - 11/5/73 APPENDIX C � Following discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Duke to defer the matter pending action on the Bylaws by the Environmental Council , at which time said Bylaws should be referred to the City Attorney's Office for preparation and to the i City Administrator for presentation to the Council at the November 19, 1973 meeting. The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Green HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL ON AGING BYLAWS - ADOPTED - COUNCILMAN BARTLETT APPOINTED S COUNCIL DELEGATE - CA 73-121 The City Clerk presented a transmittal of Bylaws of the Huntington Beach Council of Aging for Council 's consideration. . The City Administrator'addressed Council regarding the proposed Bylaws and suggested the appointment of a Councilman as delegate to the organization. Councilman Bartlett was selected to serve as Council 's delegate to the Huntington Beach Council on Aging. On motion by Duke, Council adopted the Huntington Beach Council on Aging Bylaws by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Green ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR DRAINAGE - "OLD TOWN" - AD 73-02 - APPROVED The City Clerk presented a communication from the Acting Director of Public Works recommending that an Assessment District for drainage facilities be created in a section of the "old town", generally bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad on the west, Beach Boulevard on the east, Memphis Avenue on the south and Main Street on the north. The' City Administrator reported on the proposed Assessment District and requested that the Acting Director of Public Works make a presentation on the matter. • The Acting Director of Public Works addressed Council and explained the reasons for his recommendation that an assessment district be formed in this area. He displayed a map of the area and presented several slides showing the problems in this area. 0 On motion by Duke, Council authorized the Acting Director of Public Works to proceed with the formation of the "old town" Assessment District; to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications and authorized the employment of special legal counsel . The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Green i 163 • APPENDIX C RESOLUTION NO. 3862 • 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 to be assessed in this assessment proposed 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 DISTRICT NUMBER 73-02 , CITY OF HUNTINGTON f 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 19th day of Febru 1974. ATTEST: 70 a r • • LA -1- APPENDIX C m�; � I I L,-f-64. kow 7 J I 14// p/e LJ - J 1 ".fZ nnF-1nF� APPENDIX C 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 19th day of February, 1974 , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN Shipley, Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES :. COUNCILMEN None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN None J"r-4 V� City Clerk The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. • Attest....... ........... 1�1 .... ALICIA M. WE NTWORTH --- -----•----- -------- -•------------ •-------------- C;ty Clerk .nd Ex-Orl*cio Clcrk cf the UP, Council of the City of I,intington Beach,Cal. ..�-�... eput► APPENDIX C A • aw I_" hLy lov� A lu, CALI,�rO.-INIA 9264a P.O. CWOX 1-F'.) OFFICE OF THE MAYOR February 28 , 1974 Ai b OF IC: v,10RK pUE3 Supervisor David L. Baker P. O. Box 637 Santa Ana , California 92702 BEACH. hear Supervisor Baker : The purpose of this letter is to request your support in gaining the assistance of the Orange County Flood Control iDistrict in the construction of drainage facilities in this • city ' s Assessment District 73- 0% The area covered by this District is shown on the attached map and is located in the -ou-1i central portion of Huntington Beach. 'fhe project is a portion of the City Master Plan Storm Drain System and is necessitated by the increasingly dangerous • Flooding problem within the district' s boundaries . During rainy periods , five intermittent lakes form along a north- -ah natural drainage system causing flooding of streets , dosing of intersections , and flooded lawns and garages . more of the vacant land in the district is graded for the increased runoff poses a greater risk to tsicienis and there is a strong possibility that flooding of r2sidences r)ay occur next winter unless the needed facilities a-re constTucted. , h itv attempted to form an assessment district for drainage in 1964 but met opposition from property owners in .,i c irea ...,ho felt that they should not have to bear the entire ..inancial hurJen of the project . As a result of this opposi- lon t10 f,* It'_y Council disapproved the proposed district in 1966 . , 1 01 1972 tl,c� City reques "Lcd a orant from. the Housini, tyain fundino r t n ;tnd Uri.lan 1)0VC10J)--1CT1t to • .1 (1 ,-: in-i !,,o project , but the request -.:as turn--d down due to of funds . L:-.st Lall the proicct was submitted to 1'nuinc,r' s Vlocot! Control ' dvisoi-y CoiiiiTfitzee of the,C L CIO County I-lood Control District , but the project was not ,-Jth the floodinc, problem growing more dangerous to each tvintor , 1 feel that it is absolutely essential APPENDIX C Supervisor David L. Baker - 2- February 28 , 1974 • to construct the needed facilities . Steps have been taken to initiate the district once again. Preliminary engineering has been undertaken and drawings for the project should be complete within forty-five (4S) days . The City Council has • passed the preliminary legislation to form the district and I anticipate that a public meeting will be. called on the issue in April. Despite the urgency of the problem, however, there is reason to believe that residents of the area will oppose formation of the district if they are expected to finance the entire cost of the project. A spokesman for the residents has pointed out that they have been paying taxes to the Flood Control District since its creation and that the residents feel that at least part of the financial burden should be borne by the OCFCD. The cost of the entire project is estimated to be two million dollars. It seems 'reasonable to me that the OCFCD could provide a quarter of these funds in light of the dangerous situation that exists and the urgency of the problem. In order to safeguard existing structures and allow further development • of the area, drainage facilities must be constructed. Your assistance in gaining OCFCD support for the project will be most sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours , • q r.6 Jer A. Matney Mayor JAM:eh cc: H. G. Osborne Chief Engineer , OCFCD • • • i APPENDIX D /i• 1 • EnywonmEf 1TAL REVIEW BOARD J/ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•CALIFORNIA • i 0 P.O. BOX 190 92648 April 5, 1974 Orange County Air Pollution Control District 1010 South Harbor Anaheim, California Dear Sir, The Environmental Resources Department of the City of Huntington Beach is currently involved in the preparation of a draft environ- mental impact report on Drainage Assessment District 73-02. Pursuant to Section 15085 (b) of the December 17 , 1973 Amended Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act, the lead agency is directed to consult with during the time of the prepara- tion of the draft EIR, any person or organization it believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the project. Briefly, the project involves the construction of drainage facilities in Assessment District 73-02 of the City of Huntington Beach. The following will be included: (1) 13, 500 feet of reinforced concrete pipe under streets and 1, 500 feet in easement, (2) 61 catch basins and 32 manholes , and (3) one baffle box siltation structure to filter silt deposits from drain lines. The project is intended to . correct the problem of flooding and lake formation in the rainy season. A map indicating the project boundaries is attached.. If you have concerns or problems to which we should be alerted in regard to the EIR on this project, please write to me at the above address or call Mr. Charles Clark at (714) 536-5279 or myself (714) 536-5473 by April 24 , i974 . Your cooperation in helping to make the draft EIR as complete as possible is appreciated. • Cordially, OA,_� J.I ' Carol Schwartz Associate Planner 21v Attachment CS :mc �• ��Ir APPENDIX D • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Carol Swartz , Associate Planner From Norm Worthy, Director Planning Department Recreation & Parks Department Subject Assessment District 73-02 Date April 10 , 1974 In regard to your memo of April S , the Recreation and Parks Department is considering acquisition of S- 8 acres of land which would include the lake on Delaware Street just south of Yorktown Street for a neighborhood- park.. We would be . concerned that the propsoed drainage be designed to allow the existing lake to remain as a beauty spot in the park. It would be our intention to both acquire and develop the property in the 197S- 75 fiscal year. • L e. •GL, Norm Vort y, Dir ctor • Recreation & Pa ks Department NW: ac cc : Mr. David D. Rowlands , City Administrator Recreation $ Parks Commission Mr. Ralph Duran Mr. Bill Hartge , Director , Public Works HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT • rl 1 ig74 P. 0. Dox 190 liuntington Beach, Calif. 92648 • APPENDIX D • ,ntr,w, TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ok AREA CODE 714 54 -29 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-24110 1 • P. ❑. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 9270B 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) IIUNT�GIQNIERTT • April 11, 1974 PN TTD�FfA LAN I 1 A 15 19�74� P. O.�Qox D '". H��n gin Beac '_. �f."91G • City of Huntington Beach ! Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Carol Schwartz, Associate Planner Reference: Drainage Assessment District 73-02 The District is very anxious to see this storm drain project implemented. The flooding of the streets involved in this project during storms causes considerable inflow into the Districts' facilities. With the construction of your planned project much of this unauthorized inflow can be eliminated thereby decreasing the load on the Districts' facilities. It is requested that the design of this project be coordinated with the • District so that any conflicts with the location of the Districts' facilities and this project can be eliminated in the early design stages. Please feel free to call on us if you have any question . _-Blruce E. Witcher Senior Engineer • BEW:ss cc: Bill Hartge • a APPENDIX D STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- SANTA ANA REGION 6833 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 1 11UNTINGTON BEACH RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92306 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PHONE: (714) 68*9330 APR 1 74 April 12, 1974 • P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Environmental Review Board P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 • ATTENTION: Carol Schwartz, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Drainage Assessment District 73-02 It is suggested that the E.I.R. detail the advantages of the type of catch basins and the siltation structure to be used so as to minimize ecologic damage.. An analysis of the construction practices including specific references to the season (rainy or dry) 'of the scheduled construction should be included. • Thank you for the opportunity to comment. `John M asadzinski Staff Engineer JMZ/tt • • • • APPENDIX D STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1025 P STREET r' SACRAMENTO 95814 • April 25, 1974 HUNTINGTON REACH PLfiyNtflR DEPARTMENT G ION OL-i,.. PLANNING DE^'?TMENT APR 2 9xii Ms. Carol Schwartz, Associate Planner P. o. Box l90 Huntington Environmental Review Board Reach, Calif. 92645 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Schwartz : • Your letter of April 5 and the map of the proposed drainage facilities in Huntington Beach Assessment 'District 73-02 is not sufficient to permit even a tentative estimate of the effect of the project on air quality in the area. A meaningful evaluation can only be made if information is developed as described in the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended December 17, 1973. Particular attention should also be paid to Section 2133(c) o:f the Clean Water Grant Program Regula- tions of 1971 as amended on August 16 , 1973. • Sincerely, William C. Lockett, Chief • Evaluation and Planning • • • e l ^l A FORM 460A CONTINUATION SHEET �. FOR FILING ADIAII41STIZATIVE REGULATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE APPENDIX D (Pursuant to Government Code Section 11380.1) Article 9. Requirements and • Limitations of Treatment Works 2132. Capacity Requirements. All treatment works shall be designed to accorr.-moaate normal anticipated growth and reasonable reserve capacity. • 2133. Ca acity Funding Limitations. (a) All treatment works should ordinari y be designed to prove e at least that capacity set forth in this section. That portion of the cost of construction allocable to providing capacity_ in excess of the limits contained herein is not an eligible project cost, and a grant shall not be made for this portion_ of the cost, nor shall this portion of a proj- ect be' certif ied to EPA pursuant to the Federal Act. (b)' (1) Eligible project cost of treatment plants shall not include the cost of capacity in excess of that required to serve the projected population, and associated commercial establishments, within the proposed service area within 10 years of commencement of erection of the treatment works, and the industrial establishments which are in operation at commencement of erection of the treatment works: W (2) Eligible project cost of interceptors, outfalls and sewer lines shall not include the cost of capacity in excess • N of that required to serve industrial establishments which are in operation at the time erection of the treatment works is 7 commenced and the projected population and associated commer- W cial establishments, within the proposed service area within 20 years of commencement of erection of the treatment works. 40 o (c) Population projections shall be based on the most current o Department of Finance population projections in existence at the ° time the municipality is instructed to proceed with preparation of a project report, provided the projections have been approved by the state board. Disaggregation from such projections to service. areas will be determined by the division and approved by ;,he area- wide planning organization designated by the State Office of Plan- ning and Research. For fiscal _year 1973-74 projects, population projections for service areas within critical .air areas shall be based on Series E fertility and 0 net in-migration, and all other projections shall be based on Series D fertility and 150,000 net • in-migration. For subsequent fiscal, years, the state board tnay elect to use more recent Department of Finance projections. In such an event, the municipality shall be informed of the projections which are to be used to determine eligible capacities in the letter which instructs the municipality to proceed with preparation of a project report. • (:UNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING-DEPARTMENT 1974 18 • P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 09186-750 9.71 251.OSP APPENDIX D Tot Carol Schwarlp From EIR Review Committee of the Environmental Council • Dates April 29. 1974 Topics Suggested topics for inclusion in Old Town Drainage Asses- sment District EIR The EIR Review Committee has discussed some aspects of the Townlot area, and is desirous that the following topics be discussed: 1. There are a number of areas of standing water within the project boundaries. The quality of these "ponds" , their ability_ to support wildlife, and their future are important especially • as drainage is considered. 2. In considering the future of some of the "ponds", are there any plans for neighborhood parks in the project area to serve the high density population that is planned for this area, that might utilize existing natural features? 3. How would this drainage plan fit in with the water retention area of the Newland Marsh? What is the quality of the existing standing waters in the project area, and what might get into the runoff from the oil operations etc . that might be hazardous to the wildlife invited into the Newland Marsh? • 4. Will there be any land form change occurring to the Huntington Beach Company hill? 5. Will the timing of this construction be phased in with any street improvement projects planned for this area, so the • construction impact would be minimized? • • • APPENDIX E Minutes , Environmental Review Board • November 20 , 1973 Page 3 0 property within the proposed Assessment . District 7302 , and 6) removal of the present oil designation from the property. It was the consensus of the Board that at some point an EIR will need to be pre- pared on this project , and a discussion took place on the question of at what point in the process an EIR should be called • for. It was generally felt that an EIR " at the earliest possible time in the plan- ning process would be most helpful both : to the City and to the applicant. Jim Palin made a motion that this request be continued for one week to allow the secretary to contact the attorney' s office to -ascertain whether the calling for an EIR at any certain point in the environ- mental review process is a policy question or a legal question. Motion seconded by • Ralph Leyva; motion carried. c. ED 73-223 (UP 73-86) Proposal to construct a 9-unit apartment project located on Hoskins Street at the Warner Avenue intersection -by Blaise J. Subbiondo • ACTION: The Board discussed the possibil- ity that Hoskins might be terminated in a cul-de-sac when the new assessment dis- trict is completed and the effect this would have on access to this project . It also was the consensus that the driveway • in relation to Warner Avenue would create a potential traffic hazard. The setbacks , turning radius , and the tandem parking shown on the plan were found -to be improper, and the lot coverage exceeds allowable limits . • Jim Palin made a motion to continue this request and encourage the applicant to meet with the BZA at staff level to amend his request pursuant to the requirements of the Ordinance Code . Motion seconded by Ralph Leyva ; motion carried. AGENDA ITEMS REJECTED : a. ED 73-228 (Assessment District 7302) Proposal to con- """""""' struct a storm drain designed to drain 580 acres of land bounded by Memphis on the south • -177- APPENDIX E • Minutes , Environmental Review Board November 20 , 1973 Page 4 • and Beach Boulevard on the east , following the Southern Pacific railroad tracks to Yorktown and thence westerly to encompass an area northwest of Main Street , meeting Beach Boulevard at a location south of 5- Points , by the Department of Public Works . ACTION: Chairman Jim Palin questioned wwhethe'r this system had been designed in conjunction with the proposed land use elements , and whether in fact it would not • be directly contrary to the City' s growth policy. Some of the points considered by the Board in regard to this request were as fol- lows : 1) Size of the facility, 2) the dis- ruption of traffic during construction, 3) increased storm drain runoff and the . consequent increase of the channeling of suspended solids into present systems be- low this district , 4) the growth-inducing impact of the project and the subsequent effect on schools , streets , utilities , etc . , 5) the question of how certain uses for property will affect runoff (i .e. , com- mercial or industrial as opposed to resi- dential) , and 6) possibility of phasing in the project over a period of time to miti- • gate the growth-inducing impact. Jim Palin made a motion that the Board re- ject ED 73-228 with the findings that the project will tend to accelerate growth greatly within the Assessment District , the facility when ultimately constructed will eliminate existing catch basins and dump the sheet runoff with its suspended and; dis- solved solids into existing downstream systems (which may have an adverse effect on those systems) , the project is located with- in a geologically hazardous area which requires that it be designed to withstand certain G-factors , and the growth-inducing impact of the project is in conflict with the environmental plans and goals of the City. For the above reasons , an environ- mental impact report is required. Motion seconded by Pat Spencer ; motion car- ried . -178- • o C • o APPENDIX E • EnVIRWMEnTAI REVIEW BOARD / CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•CALIFORNIA • P.O. BOX 190 92648 • TO: Department of Public Works FROM: Environmental Review Board . DATE: November 21 , 1973 • SUBJECT: Exemption Declaration No. 7 rx:• (Assessment District No. 2) The Environmental Review Board, at . its meeting of November 20 , 1973 , rejected the above exemption declaration , having found • that the project may --have a significant adverse impact on the environment . Thererore , an environmental impact report is re- quired. . The rejection is based on the following : 1 . The project will tend to greatly accelerate growth within the assessment district . , 2 . The facility when constructed will eliminate existing catch basins and dump the sheet runoff with suspended and dissolved solids directly into existing downstream systems , which may have an adverse effect upon- those systems . . 3. The project is located within a geologically hazardous area , and the system must .be designed to withstand certain G factors . 4 . Due to its tremendous growth- inducing impact , the project is in conflict with the environmental plans and goals of the City of Huntington Beach. • Carol Schwartz e tary Environmental Revic Board • -179- APPENDIX P • Minutes, Environmental Review Board july 2 , 1974 Page 8 • that the Board accept the proposal submitted by Westec, Inc. , and instruct the secretary to prepare a contract for the preparation of the environmental impact report. Motion seconded by Eric Lovejoy; motion carried by vote • of all members present. C. EIR 74-3 (Ring Brothers) The Board reviewed the draft EIR, and found that the list of personnel ' preparing the report had not been included; also missing were the dividers stipulated in the contract. • Consultant will .be required to provide the above. Eric Lovejoy noted an inconsistency in treatment of the revenue data from the water section of the report; however, he did not feel it was of enough significance to postpone posting. Pat Spencer made a motion that the Board accept for posting, and authorize distribution of the report after • submittal of the supplementary information on personnel noted above. -Md'tion seconded by Dave Eadie; motion carried by vote of all members present. d. EIR 73-23 . (ZC 73-33 - "Old Town Assessment District" The .draft report was distributed for review; the Board will • determine its adequacy for posting at the next regular meeting. e. EIR 74-1 (Brock) The draft transmittal was submitted to the Board for its approval. It was the consensus of the Board to continue this matter to the next regular meeting, so that the draft might be reworded to reflect comments made by Board members. when the report was adopted. f. EIR 74-2 (Gothard Street Improvements) The draft transmittal was submitted tothe Board for its • approval. Questions were raised on the recommendation con- cerning the Bruce Brothers pit, with the consensus of the Board being that the recommendation should be for the ultim- ate use of this pit to be determined as quickly as possible so that the street alignment can be determined. Dave Eadie indicated that recommendation No. 1 would be more • properly worded "the city should pursue underground districts" rather than "shall . " Jim Palin suggested the inclusion in the transmittal of a recommendation on the treatment and consolidation of the small lots at the southeast corner of Slater and Gothard. • The transmittal will be reworded and submitted in final form at the next meeting for the Board ' s approval. -180- • APPENDIX F Minutes, Ervironrriental Review Board July 9, 1974 0 Page 8 • 'fim Patin made a mot".on '-hat the Board grant tentative approval to Leis request, post it for the 10-day public input period, and issue a Negative Declaration for the project, hav- ing found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the phy- sical environment. No environmental impact report has been prepared for this project; 'find- ings are based upon information contained in the exemption declaration request. • Motion is to include the following recommenda- tions, based upon environmental impact reports prepared on similar projects in similar envir- onmental settings: 1. If the developer proposes to provide air conditioning, the in- sulation in the exterior ceilings should be a minimum of R-19 and that in the exterior walls should be a minimum of R-11; if no air conditioning is to be provided, the insulation in the exterior ceilings should be a minimum of R-13 and that in the exterior walls should be a minimum of R-7 . • 2. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, should be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 3. Natural gas and electricity should be stubbed in at the loca- tion of clothes dryers, and natural gas only should be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. Applicant is required to submit to the Board prior to the expiration of the posting period information on the quantities of material to be removed from the site through the demolition of the existing structure. Motion seconded by Pat Spencer; motion carried by vote of all members present. EIRs: • a. EIR 73-23 "Old Town" Assessment District 73-02 1� The Board reviewed the draft of this report; it was the con- sensus that the document as submitted was adequate for posting and distribution. Jim Palin made a motion that this EIR be posted for the 30-day public input period. Motion seconded by • Pat Spencer; motion carried by vote of members present. b. EIR 74-1 Brock EIR The Board reviewed and approved the draft transmittal for this, project. • -181- APPFNUR E • MINUTES ENNVIRONMENTAL RE-VIEW BOARD • Room B-306 -- -Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1974 - 8 : 30 AM • BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Palin, Eadie, Lovejoy BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Spencer OTHERS PRESENT: John Cope (filling in for Eadie during • latter part of meeting) , Jerry Jackson, Mel Tooker, Chuck Clark, David Elliott, George McCracken, Sue Vaughan, Jim Chaffin, Casper Breuer APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Dave Eadie made a motion that the Board approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 30, 1974 , as transcribed. Motion sec- onded by Eric Lovejoy; motion carried by vote of the three members present. • PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. EIR 74-3 (TT 4664 and C.U.P. 74-07) Proposal for the construction of a 150-unit condomin- ium development on a parcel of land zoned R-2 at the southwest corner of the inter- section of Brookhurst and Bushard Streets by Ring Brothers Chairman Palin opened the hearing to comments from the public, noting that written comments have been received and distri- buted to the consultant and the Board members. There being • no one present to speak for or against the proposed project, the public hearing on EIR 74-3 was closed. EIR 73-23 (Assessment District No.. 73-02) Formation of "Old Town" assessment district, encom- passing 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. Chairman Palin opened the hearing to comments from the pub- lic; there being no one 'present to speak for or against the • proposed project, the public hearing on EIR 73-23 was closed. It was announced that the Board would postpone its own dis- cussion and comment on the above two EIRs to an adjourned meeting on Thursday, August 15 at 10: 00 a.m. • APPENDIX F © o �OUNTV OF TELEPHONE: 894-2000 AREA CODE 714 p. O. BOX 4108 • © ANGE 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BCACFI PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 23, 1974 J U L w +:; 1974 P. 7. PDX 190 Huntington ... :;:1, Calif. 92648 • Mr. James W. Palin, Secretary Environmental Review Board P.O. Box 190 City of Huntington Beach, California 92648 � U1) ;Re: (C ity EIR "Old Town Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02." Dear Mr. Palin: This is in response to your letter dated July 11., 1974, in which you solicited our review and comments on the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report. The project will have no effect on unincorporated County territory. The following comments may, however, be helpful . The report reflects the comprehensive and objective viewpoints which are desired -in all EIR's. In particular the section on "Environmental Impact Evaluation" • concerning utilities was found to be quite inclusive. This is important since Rej: p• the impact of this project on public utilities is very relevant in relation 87 to the amount of post - construction growth in population and land develop- ment which is likely to occur in the assdssment district. Our main concern ?�• 129 here is the vast amount of data presented. Since the report is designed for public review, too much data can make ease of readibility a chore. The only point, which the County Planning Department would like to make re: your City's Draft EIR involve paleontologic resources which may be uncovered in digging a pipeline ditch approximately 15 feet in depth and 15,000 feet in ' length. To mitigate the possibility of destroying any paleontologic resources, a qualified archeologist could be notified and permitted on the site during • excavating operations. Should artifacts be found during excavation, provisions could be made allowing for these items to be removed in a scientific manner. It would be meaningful if excavation plans include a statement to this effect. A condition to this effect has been standard on most county approved projects. • -183- Y APPENDIX F -2- Thank you for including the Orange County Planning Department in your review process. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Harold M. Keple at (714) 834-2439. • Very truly yours, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT H. G. Osborne, Interim Director John L. All ay, Senior anner Environmental Services Division • JLA:HMK:cc cc: File 1 • • • — 184 - i APPEMIIX P STATE OF cALIFORN1A--RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD KAGAN, Go-r— CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- 'SANTA ANA REGION 6833 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 1 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92506 . PHONEt (714) 6"9330 I'MITINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT r July 24, 1974 1974 P. 0. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Huntington Beach Environmental Review Board P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: James W. Palin Subject: EIR 73-23 We do not believe that the possible impact of silt escape from the project has been satisfactorily dealt with on page 129 . As requested in our earlier letter, page 173 , the specific schedule Rej' p. for the project should have been provided in. light of the miti- 110a gation explanation offered, pp. 129-130 If the trenching necessary for the project must reach 18' depths, the possibility of perched groundwater dewatering should have been addressed. Any discharges from such dewatering activities Re p. would require a report to be filed with this board 115 q p prior to. any construction activity. p, 130. � r f ohn M. Z s dziJ' ki Staff En i eer JMZ:sam • -185— t APPENDIX P • l lUN i ING T ON DEACH PUNNING DFP/TTMFNT TO: Environmental Review Board 1'. 0. Sox 190 FROM: EIR Review Subcommittee Huntington 13cich, Calif. 92648 Environmental Council DATE: August 7, 1974 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report 73-23 "Old Town" Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02 Re6: p. 130a 1. The drainage assessment would definitely y be growth-inducing, with additional demands placed upon City services. • Re6: 2. It would be helpful to have some indication of the effect 35-36 on all of the taxpayers in the high school district by the addition of more high school students. Re6: p. 130a 3. Quantitative information on the effects of the drainage assessment district on public services would be valuable. Res: p. 72 4. Double glass windows would probably require air condition- p. 134 ing during summer months. A six-foot barrier might possibly be a more effective measure. (p. 72) Res: 'pp. 5. While the effect of this drainage district on the water 113a-114 supply 'to the Newland Marsh might be slight, this Subcommittee • is wondering what other projects might affect the marsh in a similar way. What would the cumulative effects be? (pp. 113- 114) Re6: pp. 44- 6. Attention should be given to the Edison Company' s letter in 44a the Draft EIR on the Ring Brothers' Condominium, Appendix III, which indicates that the problem of electrical supply is • very real and of great importance for the near future. (p. 44) • • • • -186- i APPENDIX F Minutes, Environmental Review Board August 16, 1974 Page 3 EIR 73-22 (ASsesSmPnt Diatrir_t No 73-02) Proposal for the forma- tion of "Old Town" assessment district, comprising 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. The Board reviewed the report; it was the consensus that this::ia..an excellent report containing a wealth of useful information on the area in question. Chairman Palin made a note that it contains almost too much information, making it difficult to assimilate at times; however, given the definite growth-inducing impacts the district will have, it is extremely difficult to determine at what point the con- sultant could have stopped investigating secondary impacts. Specific comments made by the Board follow: •Re4: p• 9 1. Figure 3 indicates retarding basins within the district, but no specific referencing is included. This could be cleared up by cross-hatched areas showing location of the ponds. Also, the lines are not referenced. All material on the lines and the . ponds should be cross-referenced. •Red: p. 9 2. Pond 16 will be drained by an existing storm drain line. Rej: p. 853. The report should contain an explanation on those ponds which p. 112 are designed to remain in already-approved plans; e.g. , No. 16 will be retained as a scenic feature by Zinngrabe in .his adult complex. A. f Wei: P. 4. There are alsa hydrology maps available showing how the area 13a presently drains; these could be referenced in .the report, if not actually included. 5. The nomenclature should be changed from "lakes" to "ponds" _ throughout the report. Web: PP. 6. Calculations on railfall rates, runoff coefficients, and in- 12a-12b tensity and duration curves should be included in the report. Rej: p. 7. Report should reference the Orange County Flood Control Design 13 1971 in the text. Re6: p.26 8. The most recent Planning Department graphs relating to popula- tion should have been used in the report. Re6: p. 9. Prior discussions of the Environmental Review Board on this 177, 182 project should be included in the report. Re6: p. 10• It should be stressed in the report that the "no project" al- 32-32a ternative, in the opinion of the Department of Public Works' representative on the Board, would result in disaster for the p• 139 area in question. • -187- APPOOTX F 1 • Minutes, Environmental Review Board August 16, 1974 Page 4 11. Soils liquefaction is referenced on page 104. The Board would 40 like to see additional information on this subject, with ref- erence to soils types and the presence of water. (Solid inform- Re6: pp. ation on this subject is presently lacking, and this seems a 104-104a good place to make it available for future reference. ) 12. In the section on impacts, consultant could gather all the in- • formation and tabulate it; so that not only do we have the Reb: p. impacts but also have quantified relative impacts and the con- 130a sultant' s interpretation of those impacts as "moderate," "triv- ial, " "significant, " etc. In regard to No. 12 above, Eric Lovejoy indicated that he feels the • report does not adequately address what would be the results of a "no project" alternative. He said that, regardless of the costs in- volved, it will be a physical impossibility for the city to continue to pump this area in order to protect the developments from flood- ing. Rainfall for the past four years or so has been light, enabling damage to be averted; but even at vastly increased expenditure of funds it will not be possible, in a season of moderate to heavy rainfall, for the city to accomplish this. The above holds true even for the present level of development, which cannot be expected to remain static. Mr. Lovejoy will attempt to get some written comments from the Department of Public Works concerning this problem; he will have these available to include in the addendum to the report, if possible. Discussion followed on the form the final report should take. A sug- gestion was made that an addendum would be adequate; however, Mr. Palin said that he had hoped to disassemble the report and rearrange it into just one volume, in order to have it available as a future reference work. It was decided that this will certainly be a • valid report for the area for a number of years to come, and that the suggested format would be acceptable. The secretary was instructed to supply consultant with a copy of all comments received. The revision to the report will be expected in approximately two weeks' time. Meeting adjourned. • James W. Pa in, Secretary Environmental Review Board • -188- • APPENDIX F • MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS BV THE HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BV THE AUTHOR - AUGUST 27, 1974 AD Rej: 1 . On pages 4 and 8, %e6etencez to Otange County Ftood Contnot p4 .8 D.istt.ic.t funds shoutd be deteted. Rej: 2 . Line 1 w.it.l' consist o6 405 fleet ob re.in6orced concrete box, P. 10 • sized 10 beet by 6 fleet. Re6: 3 . The OCFCD does not set tequitements jot s.ittat.ion structutes . p. 12 Red 4 . A mote accurate 6igure Aor rezidentiat etectt.icaZ demand .in p. 40 Southern Catijotn.ia .is 5700 KWH pet dwelt ing unit pen year. • Rej: 5. Designs iot eatthquake g jactots. ate mote apptopr.iaze 4ot sut- p. 136 bace sttuctutes than undetgtound bac.i.-.it.ies . • Rej: 6. AU itoax.ing matet.iat w.itt- be removed by the s.ittat.ion sttuc- p. 126 lute. Re6: 7. Siltation sVtuctutes are a requitement, but the Cati�otn.ia Wate.t p. 126 • Quatity Conttot Board w.itZ not set d.ischatge standatds on this ptoj ect. Re6: 8. The .initat.ion o 6 pro f ect costs can be expected to be 12- 15 pet p. 142 • cent per year .i6 consxtuct.ion .is delayed. The V.T. N. estimate of $1 , 100. 000 was 4ot a system designed 4ot a 10-year storm. The cost of the cuttent project has been tev.ised to $2 , 308, 352 . • OCFCD contt.ibut.ion Witt be $300, 000 , of 13 pen cent. • -p. 189- E.l,i+ � •CAI IF. 8112 Foxhall Dr. , Huntington Beach, California, 92646 �975 C►C�� 24 R1'9 !1 : 0 8 October 20, 1975• City Council. City of Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: I own a home and live adjacent to the Flood Control near Atlanta And Beach Blvd. , in Surfside . I feel very threatened by the action pending before your body,relative to loading more water into that Flood Control which at times, seems to be straining to keep within it*s bounds already. Before you .take action on this critical matter consider carefully if you are prepared to compensate 330 homeowners to an. amount in money alone of possibly $20, 000,000 Or more, in addition to loss of lives and personal injury and other considerations beyond a price tag. As for my- wife and myself and our heirs, we hereby- put you and each of you on notice that we will hold you and each of you .responsible for any losses that your actions may cause . I think that it would be safe to say that all the tenants and owners of property here would be of the same mind. We hope that your good judgement will bring an action to .release us from this anxiety. Yours very truly, RMG/R Ralph M. Gumberg Y .`LNJ/NCr/tiT � I°rs NQ lr4ry 0 � KURT KORNREICH 8 Q 4 11547 DONA DOROTEA DR. STUDIO CITY, CALIFORNIA 91604 November 71 1975 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Old Town Drainage District #7302 Dear Sir: As a property- owner in the above drainage district with property on Huntington Avenue, I am most definitely in favor of the proposed water district that is now under consideration. Very truly your, Kul' Kornreich KK:pz JLM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 9171 WILSHIRE BDULEVARD-SUITE 420 BEVERLY HILLS,CALIFORNIA 90210 TELEPHONE 275-0111 t November 4, 1975 EST r City Clerk +okT 6'r; X City of Huntington Beach rx ,"� �� `/ fl Box 190 IL Huntington Beach , California 92648v pi Q Re : .Old .town drainage district , #7302 2 Dear Sir : 4 As--a property owner in the above drainage district , with property on Huntington Avenue, I am most definitely in favor of the proposed water district that is now under consideration . U++e truly yours , Lewis morgen P . O. Box 24801 Los Angeles , California 90024 AREA OFFICES! 11500 STEMMONS FRWY. #187 1030 EAST WENDOVER AVENUE DALLAS, TEXAS 75229 GREENSBORO. N• CAROLINA 27405 LOUIS JACOBER 18782 Gregory Iane Huntington Beach, California 92646 October '6, 1975 City Hall Council Chambers Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 Subject: Support of Proposed Drainage Assessment District Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen, I own 14 acres within the proposed drainage assessment district. In the Thirty Sears that I have lived in the Huntington Beach area, I have seen several major floods completely destroy the homes, personal property and crops of the people who lived in the area. Unfortunately, I was one of those people. I lost my entire life savings in two of the floods. With the thought of the previous disastrous floods still deeply embedded in my mind, I strongly urge you Mr. Mayor and all of the City Councilman to vote YE3 on the drainage assessment district. I fully realize that a YES vote will not be popular with the majority of citizens that own property within the assessment district. Hiwever it is your responsibility to to what is best for the city and what will protect the present and future investments of the citizens that live within that city. It is unfortunate that the citizens who are opposing this project could not (pryor to the hearing) witness the damage that flood waters can do. If they had witnessed such a disaster, I know they would wholeheartedly support the project. As the area becomes more developed, the potential flood danger within the assessment district, is not going to deminish. It will become worse. In view of this, I again urge all of you to vote YES on this project. Sincerely I,ouis Jacober / LT/ey z City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT October 20, 1975 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Honorable Mayor and City Council -,�0J �197 City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands CITY CLERK City Administrator Subject: Old Town Assessment District Gentlemen: At the meeting of October 6, 1975, the City Council requested that- the matter of the proposed assessment district for drainage facilities in "Old Town" be referred back to staff for further study and to report back at a Public Hearing on November 17. At that time we can respond to all the issues, except a more acceptable method of spreading the cost, and to the matter of financial participation by the City. In'order to make a proper analysis to determine benefit which has to be the basis of spreading, it is necessary to obtain an up-to-date topographic map. This can be done in one of two ways: (1) survey parties and plotting by City crews which would take four to five months, or (2) aerial mapping which could be done in two to three weeks after authoriza- tion to proceed. The cost of obtaining aerial topography, being less than field survey work and with the advantage of a time saving, the aerial method is favored. The estimate of cost is $12 ,000. 00. Since the collec- tion of drainage fees in this area went into effect July 2 , 1975, we have collected about $1, 500. 00. Drainage fees to be collected in about one month for the approval of Tract 8971 will provide us with an additional $14,000.00, therefore; at that time funds will be available for the mapping. It is- planned that after obtaining the aerial topographic map our staff perform the task of devising a formula for the cost spread. This will save the district approximately $12 ,000. 00; The assessment roll should still be performed by the consultant at an additional cost of approximately $12,000. 00. The. matter of. City participation must be addressed by the City Council. It appears that there will be a general public benefit (as opposed to a local benefit) as a result of the improvements. Therefore, some City con- tribution- would be in order. At this time it appears the only. source of funds- would be the Housing and Community Development funds for future years. Honorable Mayor and City Council October 20, 1975 Page 2 Regarding participation, transmitted herewith is a copy of a. letter from Bill Morgan stating that, "In summary then, the chances for any substantial federal assistance for the proposed assessment district at this point look slim. We will continue to monitor the funding situation here, and will let you know if any additional possibilities arise. " Recommendation Authorize the staff to issue a request for professional services from a minimum of three reputable firms engaged in the business of• photogrammetry. Note If this can be authorized at the October- 23 meeting, we should have the aerial maps by the middle of November. We should then be prepared to present our "spreading" report to the City Council at the December 15 meeting, which could be a Public- Hearing. Very truly yours, H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works HEH:ae Trans. v E C V E DAFT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 1975 cmsoftium cit1pr". HUNTINOTOP4 BEACH. CALIF. of Vlame county, calib • •'a anaheim Fullerton Wiliam �l. ®fi'ga6� garclen grave assistant city manager hunti to an beach Santa ana intergovernmental relations combined population:719.000 October 6, 1975 Mr. H. E. Hartege Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Bill: This is in. response to your letter of September 2nd requesting a follow-up check on .possible Federal funding sources for the proposed drainage improvement assessment district. As you know, we had explored possible funding for the Adams-Delaware project at the beginning of last year, and determined that there were no immediate possibilities for federal dollars (reference letter to David Rowlands, January 7, 1974) . We have been following the funding prospects for projects of this type since then, and unfortunately we don't have an encouraging report to make on the prospects now. J As we had indicated in the 1974 report, the Basic Water and Sewer Grant Program administered at that time by the Department of Housing and Urban Development was being held in abeyance pending passage of the Community Devel- opment block grant legislation. As you know, since then the CD legislation was passed, the Basic Water and Sewer::program was permanently discontined. Projects of the Adams-Delaware type do qualify for funding from the Community Development grant which Huntington Beach receives, but most communities re- ceiving block grant funds have far more needs for the money than present funding levels can meet. I understand that in making .its local decisions on priorities, the City of Huntington Beach decided not to fund .the Adams-Delaware project out of the initial community development grant. Under certain conditions, drainage improvement projects can be funded through grants from the Economic Development Administration. However, since the city has received an EDA grant fairly recently, and since the funds avail- able under EDA's program are extremely limited, it is unlikely that the city can expect an additional grant from EDA in the near future. Congress has created an emergency program under a newly enacted Title X of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. Unfortunately, the grant distribution procedure for this program is strongly biased towards rural washington office 0 1620 eye street n.w. 0 washington d.c. 20006 0 202-293-7444 .y Mr. H. E. Hartege Page 2 October 6, 1975 areas with extremely high rates of unemployment. While Huntington Beach's unemployment rate (8.5% -in July) is far higher than we would like, it is still much lower than many rural areas and Indian reservations, where rates can run to 20 or 30% or more. Largely for this reason, it is now virtually certain that Huntington Beach will not be receiving a Title X grant for the Adams-Delaware project. Congress is presently considering additional funding for emergency public works grants as an anti-recessionary measure. However, with some indications that the recession may be bottoming out, Congressional action on the additional funding is uncertain, and Huntington Beach would still be in an unfavorable position to compete for any funding that might become available because of the city's relatively low unemployment rate. In summary then, the chances for any substantial federal assistance fdz', the proposed assessment district at this point look slim. We will con- tinue to monitor the funding situation here, and will let you know if any additional possibilities arise. Sincerely yours, William H. Morgan cc: David Rowlands WHM:hb PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL / We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. . off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. . (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE -�J6235'- 2 age 30 s 6 (0-S.. 7 - -O Z Z 1 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un - developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE Yo Y ""nL b, IV - 7 71 . 8 AJ j i Jj :21L__14�eZ�se, 7C w 1011 tee- 1 12 7�.I 2 2r 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CT5;''COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby pet=-45:Lo:>_the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Tcn:.: n�_.=.;dr•,!ssessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area -of undeveloped land, and base .all. assessments on the coefficient of run. off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the D01. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73=-02. (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE G / DATE 2 sd, „C-P , � E N 7-p ,3 ^3 0 6 �J n $'�/c� /2 6 Q /0 3 7 5r •'/ `� 7 S o - 3 - S 9 10 p �� ir i/ io5 • �%�Z � �7 �7 3 - ems lid ^3 - 13 15 16 }� 17 D 9. 10 D �� 18 20 . 21 2 2 2 3 1 ' PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. . off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 2 u Q,r,G�V �-..� ?lop 3 Id-3- 7j 10 12 Z /� - 13 ,_�"� �. _ 77 0 14 > i ��Cs� Ii 1 � � f 15 9 20 �0 7s 16MIA 17,:2 . i 17 18 2,1/2'sL 19 2 d\ S-V -,6)-703 6-_3 22 2 3 �_ � -c� 12 4- i r PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DOl. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 25rl�j S z ' 3 �` -Z2 2 /D -y-7 8 5 � i -;, to �� ► � � `� 4--_7 12 �v L [� 1374 15 - c�--�c�2 �< j D ` P J, i0- - 7 16 " 2 -lam 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. . off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the. Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 4f 1/9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DOl . channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 1 r' s- .2 3 /� S - 9 iiy - • �S 6 7 lyl �.4� C/ 2'Z ; , b f 11 11Q 12 13 �� .�✓�'" �� 7 /� S1171 15 _ t4 - V 6 oo&lgy 17 18 4 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DOl. channel be found .in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE O - 7477 77 4cr s� ra 7 4Z.. //,J3- (96 /D -57- 7 _ 8 _ 13 / k-aa Q" 1-3. 43 f 3 7 /D -._ 7 S' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18. 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby resolve that the City Council of Huntington Beach adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to include only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run off according to the present zoning map on . the undeveloped area, and further resolve (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the D01. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02. (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments . (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 1 2 � 5 7 8 s / 61 7 6/,:7 9 -.2).. 10 -4 12 r ,,O p/z 13 14 15 16 . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. . off according to the present zoning map on the un- . developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 1 2 4 9 1 — 7—Z 10fl,'P. / a �1 a� lU[J. C1 �d. 8-0 12 13 Q -a-�-k y�o --.z 7 14 15 16 SA, 17 1 i3 3 19 7 /7'!� S,�eO�O,vV.77.2 715 21 ZSZ .tee, 6-Z� D z 22 ;�r 2 3 CE I F, August 8. 1975 All Mh City Council 4i I I V City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St AOG Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Dear Honorable Council Members: As a result of the numerous and severe flooding conditions of the immediate area surrounding my property, I am quite concerned with tho future actions which will either eliminate this problem and/or those decisions and actions which will further aggravate this serious situation. j-4 The .proposed Old Town Drainage Assessment District No,, - 7302 is a definite solution to this problem. I support its earliest formation, so that proper drainage facilities may be constructed. However, many property owners do not -sapp9irt- it and- beca-uso of this,, the City Council has apparently decided to postpone the establisment of the district. Despite the fact that this serious problem has not been solved, the building of more apartments continues. ' To be more specific,, the City of Huntington Beach has approved the construction of apa' rt- ments on Assessor Parcel # 111-200-33 which Is located at %6 inter- section of Florida & Clay St. In addition, construction has- also begun on Assessor Parcel #Is 111-200-15*16,J701,384 41. 'My concern is that by allowing this c9n6truction, my .*roperty is being further endangered by flboding, The Assessor Parcel '# 025-110,-72 which Is located directly across from Clay and Florida is presently subject to severe and frequent floods. The additional water runoff caused by this new construction is a definite danger to My residence and that of my tenants. For the above reasons, I vigor,"ously appose this now tonettua- I ion, If t white ark located at ' *yresidence or that of my tenanIs AUG It h 2722 Forida St. , Huntington Beach, suffer from any -form of flood damage ..in -khe future, I. taunt hold the City of Huntington Beach reepansible� < ti .. .' I., am sure you would feel .the same if it was your property i ., opardy. I certainly hope.,that you as leaders of. City Govern- t t, take the necessary action to solve this flooding dilemna. Tf this is not possible, your only alternative is to. stop all new oonstruction in the Old Town area. Thank you for your cooperation ph this matter. Very truly yours, Aq Gary J. Cowan r. '5V y' WUIS JACOBER 18782 Gregory Lane Huntington Beach, California 92646 October 6, 1975 City Hall Council Chambers Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 Subject: Support of Proposed Drainage Assessment District Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen, I own lu acres within the proposed drainage assessment district. In the Thirty years that I have lived in the Huntington Beach area, I have seen several major floods completely destroy the homes, personal property and crops of the people who lived in the area. Unfortunately, I was one of those people. I lost my entire life savings in two of the floods. With the thought of the previous disastrous floods still ,deeply embedded in my mind, I strongly urge you Mr. Mayor and all of the City Councilmen to vote YES on the drainage assessmeht'distriht. I fully realize that a YES vote will not be popular with the majority of citizens that own property within the assessment district. However it is your responsibility to do what is best for the city and what will protect the .present and future investments• f"'.the citizens that live within that city. It is unfortunate that the citizens who are opposing this project could not (pryor to the hearing) witness the damage that flood waters can do. If they had witnessed such a disaster, I know they would wholeheartedly support the project. As the area becomes more developed, the potential flood danger within the assessment district, is not going to deminish. It will become worse. In view of this, I again urge all of you to vote YES on this project. Sincerely Louis Jacober W/ey ORDER OF PROCEDURE - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 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 MW DETERM- INING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECES- SITY. (4/5ths vote required) . F. MACKENZIE 13A010vr#ECVV RI 611 CC11 eFaK 47W 979-4930 *yr11NGt1111$EAC11•!�r �sa0 C,aMPUS DRIVE. SUITE 101 NOWPOM g/ACN.cAI•IIORNIA W"O 48131 409-5006 4S6 UWTw S/NING STREET. SUITE 600 v.► : LOB ANOSLSO•GALI►OON1A 00012 �V5 SEP 24 September 26, 1975 Mr. H. E. Hartqe . Director of. Engineering and Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California . Re: Assessment District No: '7302 (O1d. Town Drainage Assess- ment District) Dear Bill Enclosed herein, please find the following: I . Order of Procedure for Public Hearing (October 6, 1975) ; 2. Resolution Making Findings and Determinations.. - Res 11H1_ The Public Hearing should generally be conducted in the manner and .order as set forth in the Order of Procedure- enclosed herein, said Order of Procedure should- also be helpful to the Clerk in her preparation of the Minutes. If any changes and/or modifications are so des sirable and ordered by the City Council at the Public :Hearing, i will have a Resolution at that time ready and' available_ for consideration by . the City Council: and for purposes of descriptions of any. proposed changes and modifications, an Exhibit "A* would then be prepared. . and attached. Note that a 4/5thsvote of the full Council is' required . for adoption and approval of the Resolution-Raking the' Pindings and Determinations. ° if not previously transmitted to this office, I would q' appreciate conformed co ies n cnveri:1d Prel+_ 'inA Detezminati ns ett n the . Public Hearin together with the re- qu re a day is an cer cotes o "at ng the struts, wai_ 1'i and postina�the Canacil.. j, as well as affidavit f_pudlicstion. Thank you. Veryyly yours, F , MACKFNZIE BROWN i i xr r SU SZG ASSOCIATION No. 1 u.{: C. EjgK P.O. Box 763 — 8176 Atlanta, Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 ItU.N?I ;7 Y''.F CAL,IF.- Phone (714) 536-8714 October 1 , 1975 g All9 ; � 1 The Honorable Norma. Gibbs, Mayor U City of Huntington Beach, P. 0. Box 190 0 C T 2 1975 Huntington Beach, Calif., 92648 Dear Mayor Gibbs: The upper left hand corner of the accompanying photograph will demonstrate to you our real concern regarding the use of Flood Control Channel D 0 1 for additional water from the Old Town area. This picture was taken last winter and, as you can see, the channel was nearly at full capacity. We earnestly urge you to find other methods of directing the asters from the proposed new drainage area: We are also enclosing copy of a petition now circulating in our development and thus far signed by over 200 people. The signed petition will be submitted later. Yours Respectfully, Board of Directors Surfside Homeowners Assn. PETITION We, the undersigned owners and residents of the Condominium known as Surfside, located adjacent to the County Flood Control Channel at Beach B1. and Atlanta urge the Huntington Beach City Council to reconsider the use of this channel for further water collection; ie the proposed Old Town Drainage District. In our opinion this plan presents immediate prospect of severe flooding of our development. Should this occur we would promptlu file a law suit against the City of Huntington Beach. We urge you to consider alternate plans; impounding in another lake for slow release, building another channel and as a last alternative increasing the capacity of the present channel by heightening and concreting its walls i C1 rY CL P Les :datson w NUt��rNuTny t I.Cf. 1812 Delaware St. Huntington Beach Cal 92683 ,y • i�� ,��,t � � 10 2-75 Dears AUCIA M On 10-6-75 you will be asked to consider, among other things, a storm drain assessment district. I will be unable to attend that meeting, and wish to make you aware of my view, and the follawin" facts; Tract 7755 (La Cuesta Villas) , bordered by Florida ("ast) , Adarrs(South) , Delaware(;,est) , and Utica('North) already has a functioning storm drain system. Attached please find pictures of the 6 storm drain inlets, -the a,ddreases where these six inlets are located, and a diagram of tract 7755 showing these inlets. These storm drains are already installed-and. function most adequately. This tract is neither subject to flooding nor does this particular section of land contribute runoff water to any area that is withift the proposed assessment district. Therefore, for you to include this tract in +. i— assessment district is unwarranted. I suggest that the city council .reconsi_.ler th_dr mapping of the area and del6te this tract .from the plan. R13MEMBER: The residents of tract 7755 .:already have a funct_onal storm drain servicing th6m and their property does not contribute runoff water to the area you are trying to help. n MEMB-: Rs Ther residents cf the La Cufsta Villas will derive no new benefits from your plan, yet they may be required to help pay for it. Your plan reminds me of a monopoly such as GTE: requiring everyone to pay for a new phone when their old one works just fine. The plan is totalitarian. Also, it is my understanding: that previous storm drain projects have been financed by general bonds. .;ith that Precedent, how can you justify an assessment district? Long-time residents and property owners within the proposed district have already been taxed for other Storm drain projects outside their Immediate area., and yet now you want to assess these people -for their own storm drain without assistance. If the project is necer;sar; , it should follow precedent and be done as a general bond issue. And it SHOULD NCT include tract 7755. Thank you for your consi.dr_,r•atiun of my views, and I sincerely hope"that the facts presented herewith will help you reach a fair. conclusion. P,eg-..rds I:eslie Ti. "Faa.tson &AZ V%_ l kil FLOR/6 3 ✓nVA - OVA wA,26 !Do's F UT►CA PQo �Ma ✓� ZAK 77 1)r1A/A/ •v e-E%5 C Ty C.4,tl2 r< r t, ,; aieurr v E..S' y, i ' ♦ 1 1 _ ' CM"�.�•�,.;•^^�,r`"ter,•^."-r"r-_ - _ � I i I I - i I Q 1 f rw� 1 � k .I I s ft� I - � r ' ' .�—y�,a",•_.--sue-"' . i I t175 OCT M 9 : d 0 September 29, 1975 0 r T 1 1575 Ms. Norma Gibbs, Mayor City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Ms. Gibbs: I received the letter regarding the proposed formulation of the above mentioned assessment district which will have a direct effect upon me as the co-owner of one acre of property on Clay Street north of the shopping center presently being constructed at Main and Mansion Streets. This letter is in leiu of my attendance at the City Council meeting , as I am unable to drive at night. I feel it is most unfair to assess property owners into a new drainage district who have had no drainage problems on their property. As half owner of this oil property I am not planning to build, and I feel strongly I should not have to share the costs of others who have purchased less expensive property in the lower areas. They should have to pay their own expenses. Please take this letter into consideration and leave this property out of the proposed assessment district. Sincerely yours, (Mrs. ) Ila N. Dabney cc: Mr. Matney Dr. Shipley Mr. Bartlett Ms. Wieder Mr. Duke Mr. Hartge Mr. Cohen r WNALD A. ABBOIT 8145 WOOLBURN DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAUR 0 C T 2 1975 � 3 'F ` � 1 Iluo V§ qC,-T. AN 9 12 1 -7 9715- 55 - - ___� _cow r_fd_�_8�� _: �-- �i/�--- ��l�o�o,�� ? - o t,�Io4R 5, oll w-,A)i94 vk A Fe,q A-,qa D'- 6-14, ,a As )Oft 5 6 - -8-5-o-R 8 9A-Q,6 -A Alo LA) SLP 2 91975 II ,� REG iu SAP 3 0 1975 /� OCT rJ. � : 12 � ill 11 LJ SEP 2 91975 �iv'L�,,��,�- 2 Au 1 4 V LR+ D. M. Smith 13282 La Vaughn Drive . Garden Grove California 92644 October 2, 1975 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I am the sole owner of Block 2204, East Side Villa Tract, City of Huntington Beach. This property is located on the West side ofDDelaware Avenue, one block North of Utica Avenue. It consists of 2-1/2 acres of 95.,700 square feet net. I wish to voice a protest at the meeting of the Council October 6, 1975. My protest is not against the construction of the storm drains, but I am opposed to the manner in which the costs are -pro-rated. Donald M. Smith, Owner DMS/le frF1 ID) � UflyE 1975 _. BANK OFAMERICA GLENN E.CARTER A Vice President lQ` , Mr.and Mrs.Glenn E.Carter 8185 Eastport Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Hzln' ,t�v1e',.L /1e 'n,0,W •�' 1 �� 74� aV yev. ....... tua ug h zzt'-'t-e BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION•LONG BEACH 90812 1 l � C V Z,;- �� 5161 r ' `JACKSCiN; 40 �ECEIVB� tT f C<EP►( CF gtlN?ING7i}ti dEACN:CALIF: '475 OCT 2 iqjj g ; 2 September 29, 1975 FpT L/eLIC ti'V 0 1 OR�s �`�n► 1975 Ms. Norma Gibbs, Mayor OT�weEq City of Huntington Beach 0944P Civic Center Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Ms. Gibbs: I received the letter regarding. the proposed formulation of the above mentioned assessment district which will have a direct effect upon me as the co-owner of one acre of property on Clay Street north of the shopping center. presently being constructed at Main and Mansion Streets. This letter is in leiu of my attendance at the City Council meeting, as I am unable to drive at night. I feel it is most unfair to -assess property owners into a new drainage district who have had no drainage problems on their property. Rs Ha M owner of this oil property I am not planning to build, and I feel strongly I should not have to share the. costs_ of others who have purchased less expensive property in the lower areas. They should have to pay their own expenses. Please take this letter into consideration and leave this property out of the proposed assessment district. Sincerely yours,n (Mrs. ) Ila N. Dabney cc: Mr. Matney Dr. Shipley Mr Bartlett Ms. Wieder Mr. Duke Mr. Hartget/ Mr. Cohen ✓t/ ��- - ell' e oi3� a � Ev _. �Cb a tYi t..`'.a�u.• i � 807 FRANKFORT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 SEPT. 249 19?5 . MR. H. E. HARTGE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. Box 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 DEAR MR. HARTGE RE: 'OLD TOWN DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 7302 I .AM THE OWNER OF ONE (1) ACRE LOCATED ON GOLOENWEST, SOUTH OF GARFIELO THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS AREA. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN MY F.AM.ILY SINCE 190.4 AND AT NO TIME HAS *HERE EVER BEEN A PROBLEM WITH ORA.INAGE, STANDING WATERS RUN—OFF, OR ANY RELATEO PROBLEMS. CANNOT SEE HOW T!+•IS STORM DRAIN WILL BENEFIT ThIS PROPERTY. IF THERE WERE ANY PROBLEMS OF THIS SORT THERE WOULD, SURELY, HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE OF IT AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST SEVENTY—ONE YEARS. I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE THIS INTO -CONSIDERATION AT THE' TIME YOU ARE EVALUATING THIS PR O- CEOURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. SINCERELY 14 (MRS. ) WILVIAN JEWELL ,ENNER QXl Fps, - . •r 2J� J9�S A% k 0� Dnw 9/3� Wd "21 �/ / v C&z� avX g 2�;�, ;fie. �-u,�'c�,tu�.�•c� ,t2c.�-� Zu-e-a.�Z. , J cawt plt.o ,,�.� ✓�c,, c�Ihs�� wa, P-C� 6-CAJUV,"t. 4 9�6�t4- ,.vvujreNt-e.,y✓(a.�Cnz _ �J.LeaaR-hea--oe- 9 5': 6 tid OE d35 SLi 'ii7vs•xov�s xa i�x�ixnx YM311 : i11 boy 0 o? MARCO AND MARTHA VELASTEGUI 3412 Hackett Avenue Long Beach, Calif. 90808 September 30, 1975 AJNT:rai t_ _%kr ,CAL I& Mrs. Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, C a�if. 92E48 REFERENCE: Old Town Drainage District Assessment District 7302 Dear Mrs. Wentworth: i Our properties at 704; 708; 720 and 724 Clay Avenue never got flooded but we think that the "Storm Drainage" will benefit us indirectly; therefore, we do believe that the Rain's Water Drainage will be of General Benefit for District~7302 and not of local benefit as you have out- lined in your map. Other districts will also benefit from it; because; tf,10,Y 1. They will be driving thru FLOOD FREE Streets; consequently, their cars will not deteriorate fast. 2. There will not be any mosquito plague jencuvation in trapped waters. 3. There will not be an un lea y p t odors from rotten swamps in various areas. ! We urge the City Council to reconsider and have the City pay for all expenses rather than property owners, specialty considering that the actual proposal is enequitable as far as cost of square footage is concern for the red and white area. Should expenses be covered by Orange County and property owners, it should be paid on equal basis by everybody in the district. Very truly yours,' Marco Velaste Martha Velastegui 7 ( ' Marco & Martha Velastogui P: .E Acl� 34U Hackett Avenue ' Long Beach, Calif. 908081 29 SEP 19 7� n ... _._...... K<1 M- - Bunker Hill 1775 by Trumbull US Bicentennial IOc Mrs. Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 I i U Cal rF OCTY 197 PETITION 9t, 9 - 0 We, the undersigned owners and residents of the Condominium known as Surfside, located adjacent to the County flood Control Channel at Beach Bl. and Atlanta urge the Huntington Beach City Council to reconsider the use of this channel for further water collection; ie the proposed Old Town Drainage District. In our opinion this plan presents immediate prospect of severe flooding of our development. Should this occur we would promptlu file a law suit against the City of Huntington Beach. We urge you to consider alternate plans; impounding in another lake for slow release, building another channel 'and as a last alternative increasing the capacity of the present channel by heightening and concreting its walls S 8l, 6¢y%— Z Z sod tf?`�c � _�; cR ��YY r1F �G7ii Nr+aC9,CALIF, J OCT f?-r. -el Qom`-off�'l Lvf /7v L� 74 re �d//7p"d� /-jy/'/C7`, pss� syrn�l -Q �Q,x�/ u r Ve t 2 0 D 0 d v srfP� Aer 3 /f71. I�Z� qnd j,,O,-Ver7X' 1//0,7 Do o,vrd vr, 4JylGi e-AvvIn- y, 'DO l- . c gel,el 74,117� �0�'✓1� mil i�ol/Y�' S,'S�P� f'��l.S f��' d�P�^ c:�,r��i/��/y� �/I�o f1l'� T� At r /he 47 7�9- 7�6e ,9,1 CAW)�'Xlel G bVfb rIX l_ ,Do , #e niqm` r , 64 ff 4Dr � J2, s sf��-rl cis l.`j� C� M c��SfrGt G TGo�j y/ pa"d 4' AeO& e 7�/— 5' 1 -�wWASHINGTON. c' 1. F S. a e-P, •1�71�L'`(,Id�v �,� � `� /� ..�1 a!�(�'�Ew., 4 x �f � _ f Cry c1t94 9261``� Y No. 5�7$92 �� 11915 7-K'ul I-Row latic October 1, 1975 .4A � k City Council + hr4r/'C,41 City of Huntington Beach 'j P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Assessment District No. 7302 Old Town Drainage District Honorable Council Members, I am writing as the owner of undeveloped city block #1904, Vista Del Mar Tract, Section 5, located on the northwest corner of Delaware and Springfield Streets , and also the owner of undeveloped city block #2104, East Side Villa Tract, located on the northwest corner of Delaware and Utica Streets , both parcels being located in subject District. The purpose of this letter is to state my opposition to the construction of the storm drain improvements proposed under Assessment District No. 7302 for the following reasons : (1) The excessively high cost of the overall project will not yield benefits commensurate with the costs to be levied against the properties in the area so improved. (2) The proposed method for levying assessments against properties in the District to cover the cost of the project is unfair and inequitable . The arbitrary assessment against one group of property owners at a rate of 5-1/2 times the rate assessed against a second group of property owners in the same project area is not realisti- cally feasible. I urge the Honorable Members of the City Council to proceed against the adoption of this project. Yours truly, r (i()94�� R. W. Shull gb v i October 6, 1975 To: City Clerk Huntington Beach, California �r Subject: Assessment District No. 7,,302 �, Description of property: County assessment A9 T�yP No. 025-062-17 and 18 c A� Dear Council: . This is my legal notice of complete rejection to your plan of development. I demand that you do not vote on this assessment until you have been Given all the correct and unbiased alternatives and have mitigated all the negat veneffects as outlined in the EIR final report. I want to say that I can not appreciate your attitude toward the people whom you are supposed to serve. This project has long been known ever since 1964 and rejected in 1966 only because you rationalized the problem with the people at that time. It was then you should have stopped this whole process of development, not now. You are now faced with the same problem but with a greater magnitude in the near future. It now has led you to forcing the land owners into an economic suicide. I have been a owner of this parcel of land since 1958 and built my home in 1960-1963. In 1964 I master planned for development a first phase 5 unit apartment. But because of an economic-financial squeeze I only develped a duplex. In 1973 I was allowed to develope 16 units as a master plan, but your staff changed your minds to reduce it to 12 units. I received permission after three and a half months to obtain a permit to build 11 units. Because of the high cost of money, 15-18 percent, I chose to wait. Then I found out that the permission expired and now I am faced with another reduction to 10 units with - more stringent open space requirements which will not satisfy the old plan. All this adds up to a direct devaluation of my investment. On a straight line computation this amounts to a 39% reduction which is unbelievable with the threat`. of further reductions in the near future as stated7by the planning staff. You speak of dollars and cents which you want on one hand to develope this portion of the city while on the other hand have reduced the economic side to support this development. That to me is in direct opposition to the object you ' re trying to achieve. For myself I can not afford any increase of taxes in any form without direct devaluation of my property. page z Assessment District No. 7302 County assessment No. 025-062-17 and 18 By no streach of the mind or computation can you prove to me or any court of law that what you are proposing will increase the value of my property by a direct proportion, either by a short or long range project over the life of the bond. As I understand the system, you can not impose a debt on anyone unless there is a direct cost value increase. The assessment map that you have shown me is so unbalanced that no court of law would accept it. This display of assessment, is in direct conflict- to your written statement that the land was to be assessed relative to elevations. I reject the whole assessment scheme. I myself have gone around and talked to at least 40 land owners and not one has told me he wishes any increase of taxes relative to your drainage proposal. This gives one? more assurance that this project is Ill planned .for economical financing and so called benefits to the majority of landowners. I support this reasoning because all developed properties have not had any abnormal flooding since I have been here. There has at recent date been a high rate of development within the area that is now going to increase the flooding demand. They, not I , have in effect caused the unbalance and should bear the cost. Therefore, let them pay the cost among themselves for they had full knowledge without restrictions on buying a flooded parcel . They then are committed by their own act to pay the cost of improvement of any flooding. It ' s the same reasoning as any utility, rather sewer., water, street, or any other convenience. You pay for any direct benefit. For me, I bought on high ground and therefore receive no direct benefit from your proposed drainage. I demand that I be exempt from any assessment related to propossed assessment district No. 7302. I bring to your attention the fact that the city has had knowledge of this potential flooding problem ever since 1964. But yet you have taken the policy of allowing development of the area despite the obvious effect it would cause. By your own acts you have caused this increasing flood damage and should bear the responsibility. The EIR is for the purpose. of full disclosure of all aspects to 'the related project and not only within the boundary limits but also outside the scope:! of the project. There is nothing mentioned to the possible positive or negative effects of all the property founded on. the. Orange County flood control channel D=01. This was brought to the attention of your staff in charge of public works_, and they will not even discu ess the question only that the Orange County Flood Control will accept the discharge. This seems to be in conflict with. the law of the court as being required as a full disclosure- to the public. The EIR talks about a civic center. -park as being developed and would be a positive asset to the community. One of the alternatives suggested was to dredge out the proposed site to receive this overload of flood drainage and utilize the area as a dual purpose. One as a catch basin for two months out of the year, and a recreational park the remainder of the year. There is good reasoning behind this scheme and it was presented to your staff for evaluation. The answer was that this was too costly but without any explanations. This is a mitigated alternative that was not addressed properly. I suggest that the burden of proof is to be investigated without any biased conclusions and must be a full disclosure with the EIR. (Refer to page 179 final EIR) page 3 Assessment District NO. 7302 County assessment No. 025-062-17 and 18 One of the negative affects within the propsed project will be the revenues and expenditures of land uses and the support of the Elementary and High School districts. On page 33 of the final EIR it identifies #2 reference to R-2 zoned land as generative 20 units per acre. I find fault with this statement because the city has reduced the density in that zoning to 14.5 or 30%. Therefore this would have even a greater negative affect- to the support of our school system. I demand a review of all revenus expenditures analysis and that thsy be mitigated with the respective school districts and so revealed as a full disclosure within the final EIR after review, reproof and acceptance. The existing economics are far from being identified by any conclusive evidence. There should be substantial support to show the district can readily pay for such a project with out undue hardship. There should be included a means of alleviating those property owners who can not support their responsibilities in taxation of their property because of a fixed income or ,just plain economics. There is still the fact of not being able to have certain things because we have not the ability to pay at this time or ever. This is a poor time to enter into a project of this financial obligation. I refer to page 32 where the Orange County Flood Control -District is, participating in the financial support of this proposed project. The foot note 15 refers to a telephone - conversation on May 29,1974 . This is totally unacceptable as an accurate accounting of the taxes collected. There should be a full cerified audit. Along this same thought I question.'the city' s creditability. This project was within the old t-own drainage system and paid its fair share without seemingly any improvement and therefore is entitled to an accounting of credit or even a debt. I demand the city to have a full disclosure of said accounting and some be in eluded in the final EIR for review, reproof, and acceptance. The subject of boundaries has been discussed very briefly with staff and I was given the answer it was changed because it was a topographic alteration. These boundary changes have caused a considerable reduction in our size, thereby giving greater costs by prorating to each property within the district.. The 1966 propsed district map and the 1973 map has considerable size alterations. I suspect within that time -frame of 1966 to 1973 there were some gerrymandering because in 1966 the property owners just realized they were up for grabs and by some persuasive means they talked themselves out of the district. The questiom is what makes the 1966 plan not valid over the revised 1973 plan. This Is an unjust constructive act which demands proof with substantial evidence. In conclusion I wish to restate that I am very discouraged with the councils attitude in handling this project and the spirit by which you have reflected. The whole object of this project is to make the environment better without' an unjust financial burden on the people. This you have not demonstrated. to me or to all the people I have spoken with who are equally property owners. page 4 Assessment District No. 7302 Cbunty assessment No. 025-062-17 and 18 This project does not meet the demands of the majority of people, rather it meets the demands of the city and its future potential revenue. You the council, as a governmental body, entrusted by the people, -have demonstrated to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not wish t`o be confronted by the people until the very last mement, strictly legalistic through the core. Not once did you notify one by letter form to discuss these problems when they were being reviewed. You had full knowledge of the conflicts involved and choose to hide behind legal procedures by proper postings. This act that you have demonstrated ,just verifies the credibility gap between government and the people who ultimately must pay for all the decisions government makes - right ob wrong. This is my opinion based on your past and present performance as a council. I suggest you start over by including the people and determining what they can afford and want to pay for with equal ability. 44 Ro ney LY ter 2525 . Delaware Street, . Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 Phone; 536-2651 1 � t DONSPENGLER (714) 837-0380 10666 WESTMINSTER AVE.. GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92640 IVEO e, � rrv+r;,he, 4 'F ("i"i„(.IF. P11 October 1 , 1975 City of Huntington Beach , P. O . Box 190 , Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Attn : City Clerk : Gentlemen : I am the owner of property located at 2710 Delaware Avenue , Huntington Beach , which is : Parcel 1 : The South 66 feet of North 198 feet of West 125 feet of Block 2705 , East Side Villa Tract of Huntington Beach , as per map recorded in book 4 , page 65 of Miscellaneous Maps , in the Office of the county recorder Parcel 2 : The South 66 feet of North l 8 feet of East 165 feet of Block 2705 .of East Side Villa Tract of Huntington Beach , as per map recorded in Book 4 , page 65 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of said county recorder . I object to the proposed assessment District �7302 improvements . Sincerely , Donald H. Spengle DHS :vas DON SPENGLER 10666 WESTMINSTER AVENUE GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92643 � r• O O c+ c+ r� td O aq O C+ O x trtd +o � (D J r• t" �� o1 1� C1 O a td m Co w �r ;� yUyj "�lyCFjy OBJECTIONS TO CITY OF HUNTINGT N BEACH f9T `ycT°ti:�4F�R� 0 S cy ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ?3o2 A# � Sa 1. There is no Basis for Special Assessment of the Property Located at 2607 17th Street, Huntington Beach. It is an established principle of law that in order to subject a tract of land to a special assessment, there must be some special benefit confered upon that property. "As basis for special assessment, improvement must confer special benefit upon property assessed." San Diego County V. Childs., 217 C. 109; Lloyd v. City of Redondo Beach, 124 C.A. 2d 875. Consequently, "property not benefitted by a municipal improvement cannot be subjected to an assesscen:t imposed for that purpose". Taylor v. Palmer 31 C. 240, 666. In the case of the property located a 2607 17th Street,, there are no special benefits which Justify this assessment. This property is not in a low lying area. The property has never been flooded and in fact the residents have had no drainage problems whatsoever. Consequently this property will receive no special benefits if a drainage system is installed as. proposed, and therefore should not be subject to special assessment for such a system. 2. Those - Property Owners Who Will Incur the Primary Benefits Should Bear the Cost of . Drainage. The property owners who really stand to gain from the installation of the proposed drainage system are those individuals who own low lying property. This property currently cannot be used for development pur- poses due to drainage problems. However once the proposed drainage system is installed, this property will be- avgilable for apartment buildings to be constructed at great economic advantage to these select property owners. While certain. individuals stand to profit from the proposed drainage system, the rest of the smaller property owners in the surrounding area will be forced to subsidize this "windfall". The burden for this proposed drainage system should fall on those who really stand to benefit most,. those whose land will be made available for development. 3. The Amount of a Special Assessment Must be Limited to a Demonstrable Increase in Land Value. It cannot be disputed that "return to property owner by way of benefit is the basic foundation upon which the right to levy special assessments rests. " West' s Annonated Streets & Highway Code ; 35100--35705, 35111; Safeway v. City of Burlingame, 170 C.A. 2d 637. Furthermore "assessment must be limited to increased value of lot". People ex rel. Doyle v. Austin 47 c. 353. Consequently, unless the City can demonstrate that there will be an actual increase in the property value of the tract at 2607 17th Street, it is not legally permitted to assess that property for the present purpose. 4. The City Council has Abused Their Discretion in Drawing the Boundaries of -the Assessment District. The manner in which the assessment district was ? drawn tends to indicate an attempt to gerrymander around certain property, such as that owned by to railroad. This results in the property owners included inside the boundaries of the assessment district being forced to bear a larger share of the burden than is proper. The City Council should be -required to explain why the boundaries were .drawn in this manner and Justify the exclusions which result in the peculiar shape of the proposed assessment district. Unless this is done to the satisfaction of the property owners to be� assessed, the City Council will be defenseless against a charge of abuse of discretion in drawing the assessment district. 04 YA ' I 6 r �l PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, + the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to 'ad�pt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the. Drainage District #73-02. (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as 'to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE <?/-If/7 j f �rD �Z 4 s 9 11 r;eW 6 --2. v 3 7 l 12 s 0 107 13 C4 Lei S� 14 S'z.o cv es()- / d 9 a s— 1s / / (D v' - 3j,9�_ /3o -� 16 14 P It �lk ?C____ 18 19 G .e y � 20 21 22 :0 23 Q PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington. Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the _coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the Dol . channel be . found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 1 80 o G S _ - 75- 2 CZ IS61 a&12 9 _c0r, 21 5 kv - a 7 4- -,�-6 - 7-5 7 /.� &r� _a - - 7 _;2 d;�,ZKS 22 l0 3,571 534 -/o a- 7 1 3� G 3R s r I- z.q - 7 1-2 13o S --QS777 "7� — 8- �, 14 Wouhlj ct�5_ 960_ P 44 2 �_ ag_ 15 � 11 _ Z� 16 .L C1 C C�- = 7 1 3� 5"� r d 2-�' s 19 Q 7 2 ` ,-_,g S3G- 21 96 22 2 3 r�%�� - 3 g 6 0 �3 ` PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the D01 . channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02. (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) - Dredge Civic Center, pond, making it larger and much deeper so as : to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 2 /(1'7 q&�� /1, is 3 I tj1 �A LA&AWA 44, 15, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02. (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 1 a. 9G' o - /-apg 75J 3 7 16( o '3!� 3 c'2ff- s 11 8 S 1 I �/9 O d36 15 157 54- ^ d - 0,5 7S 16 7& r P � '1_6e�rw IPjx&,"� 19 20 21 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 1 2018 f 4 5 ao 717 - I 6 Q. avo_ 7 z) l c) 7 s s 4 9 -3� -i7 a�. 10 Z6,/ 12 4J -364 -21/ e � -711 13 rZo ti l / 14 9 /7I 15quo- 31 /�� 16 /7 �CEa � �7 lCo O -37 c/- — -7S' 17 / r yi-/ t" 18 19 77,— 9 a - 7- 21 3g, 2218, q4 ` 2 3 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1 . channel be found in which to dispose of the .water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS i PHONE DATE 3 5 7 9 ion 1 l�9 C �LD 6 3 �S 13 - " 7,7 14 Z � GdA � � Z�� z 5� 15 16 r iIy1rZ11Wq, ZaS - D 17 1 41/l cwIWC',— 40 -�� 1 LL0 c o sr 6 v —a LcZF 176- 20 21 E3 611239 7�` 22 23 - 3 s29 7, PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Pie, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the . coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Pnother area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 2 2 Ave O -2-Of -7 t _ 5 7 -/3 8 a `- 9 17d 7 10der- 536 , - ( 02 11 �' " as f 6-3 - /�(a 2,s 12 30 2 13 14 9X6 L r .15 / l7 / Gfni�i� . Zl` - 7Sf 16 17 / 7-- 3-8 ace 172 19 , Jis� G�7 L /'�G - �yrlZ y 2- 9./sue 20 0 2 7 c� , - 22 q6 2 3 C�✓ v U A 6 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- . developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the D01. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. AME ADDRESS PHONE DATE CP `7 16 1&1-467 2 9 1 �,. . 4LAar� 6 / / /sue. L� 5-76-30/2) 7 zF- �s AA 9 QrV �o �/� � to 11 12 ( Z 2?�7S 13 14 15 q 6 o —a 0 9 1/'s 16 L C,� — Q �E g `��o-2 1 z9 17 f� 19 tL 21 (� (� `S3� �7�� o 22 23 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL . We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 3 7J 2 , _y6 _7J— ,� ,- d 6'_G sG `1_ 2- 6 zql C! 0 — 1973 ZZ 9 7 a-e s3s 10 SL- 3 G Y2 2-7 9 2C 12 g Ir xz 7 lj- 13 /� /� / r4 C/!/ s-4/ o. 14 - 15 16 ",ZA111- L/U- -1 y —2,E, 17. 18Aazuj IR3 3G-Osa o s 19 7� 20 S - 2 3 �c� 1,�1A2t� /9i 3 �[.S4n ti- Gh y/ ��l _ PETITION TO HUN TINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. off according to the present zoning map on the un - developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DOl.. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE 1 2 -z 3 ,u.�.c.e�. n quo o -/ S7 73' Sib e - v 9 7<_ 5 ��- i 6 7 a , 7 7 S� 9 - — --1� 10 o 12 Q�fJ L o - .-75- jQ 13 9oZ r 9,`0 _.�?� 9_ Z 14 15 UtA 17 �' 6 18wu, 6 0 XY-U �S 19 -PY 20 -Qi S3 b7, ~oa 2 i /a'o 6 9�o -a3 �'a `�-a�- 71 ' PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt. "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run. off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to . dispose of the water by the Drainage District #73-02 . 4 (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for. flood water. i NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE sjri- //S- 9 a> >s J 2 0 3�� -IT93 9 7� 3 ,- 4 3 S` 5 6 7 6 36 ' 30 Y� z 8 � 195 9SZ. 7 1 119 d 717J 13 /7L.0 14 D �5_34 - 15 / G S�� - - 7 16 17 %f�G 53(,- 71 V. 7— 18 2 ik4 ell 53 - 2i . 22 wufo z'- -46 s #Mr 2 3 1-36- 3 l-,ZoP- 75 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council of Huntington Beach to adopt "Old Town Drainage Assessment District AD 73-02" to in- clude only the area of undeveloped land, and base all assessments on the coefficient of run: . off according to the present zoning map on the un- developed area, and further petition that: . (a) Another area, or means of disposal other than the DO1. channel be found in which to dispose of the water by the Drainage District 1#73-02 . (b) Exclude all presently developed areas from assessments. (c) Dredge Civic Center pond, making it larger and much deeper so as to provide a reservoir for flood water. NAME ADDRESS PHONE DATE - 2 UTIL-IT 4 A'/ Ad aA,-.) 1_5�3 6 0 7& -S 4D Y !OD - ,2 d 77 7 8 ' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ` 4 October 2, 1975 Mayor Norma Gibbs Huntington Beach City Council P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mayor Gibbs: Attached are signed petitions in opposition to the proposed Drainage District AD 73-02. We feel that' the cost of such a project should be placed on the undeveloped land as developed. The signatures on the enclosed petitions are those of taxpayers residing in the area involved. There will be more petitions available but due to the deadline of getting them to the City Clerk they are not available at this time. More will be available Monday evening, October 6, 1975. Representatives of the People in Proposed Drainage District AD 73-02 Charles Geers Richard Hammond e .i RECEnIVcoiiF El ffUNTtHG7i,Y CLERK, N i,.�t IF, LU i MV 1 7 i575 107-5 NOV l j �Pt t0 : n 3 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Towri Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report. 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members ui i..iie City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- . proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc.- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, tc)u)\ boos rl0+ own y�) Qy` G�- STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. County of _ OR Burr ) On Novembar• 14, 1925 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ar_NES Fe TR known to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that _ shp _ executed the same. WITNESS my hand end official se . fl Signature R Name Typed or Printed ♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦soe♦♦♦♦s♦o♦♦♦♦�. ♦ OFFICIAL SEAL RUTH, L. GABLER ♦ NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA j PRINCIPAL,OFFICE IN ♦ ORANGE COUNTY s My,Commi"ion Expires Jan. 26, 1977 � (This area for official notarial scl) ` a IT, JRK 11UNTrNG7t;H .0117 z;•�gCH,CALIF, `975 My ' - !7 qry t0 : 3 k U s ii � ; D rvOV 1 71975 November 'll, 1975 City of Huntington Beach ..City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoivea employees and members of the City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, _ IAUAtITf ivGTG N E Q" crAt-iF. 92b4 b c S ncr+ o W h Pro pa r�(, W A ► h �i STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. County of On November 14. 1975 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared AI,AN K FATR known to me to be the person— whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official sea]� Signature r RUTH L. GABLE - Name Typed OT Printed �000•0000vo,�®00000000000000000 • OFFICIAL SEAL • �' RUTH L; GABLER • • NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA O O PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN • ORANGE COUNTY My Commission Expires Jan. 26, 107 • eo•00000so♦ ♦oso • } (This area for 0M8,��Z•m2Aal sal) 4 r G V E {{11p' P'T. OF pU6LIC WORKS ; EfaEIVED nI2)V 14 1975 CITY!;; f1UNTitiCT04 9EACii.CALIF:' HUNTINCSTON BEAc"s CAOM November 11, 1975 ;975 P-dV 14 Pik 1 ; q 6 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property ,who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Env.4_ronmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members ui LiiC Ci%ji Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 7 �OC n0-�" own U' W A i n TO 447 C (Individual) STATE OF CALIFORNIA l COUNTY OF Orange } SS. On 1 1-13-75 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Norman U. Hampl W W = r W known to me W IL to be the person whose name subscribed _ to the within instrument and acknowledged that he ` executed the same. I es : ' Sk, rib'; ECt„ ULC `' "a' NOTARt'HII?LIC Ct�L!FOi2FliA WITNESS my hand and official seal. ,pe.��fif3' ' PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN Signature �iG?��" � �U�� ORACdGE COUNTY p..y Commission Exulres. JU!y li, Name (Typell or Printed) (This area for official notarial"at) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )) COUNTY Of Orange l SS. ON November. 12, lg 75 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Ila M_ Rart]att , known to me, to be the person—whose name_ i S subscribed to the within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that-She— executed the same. CDOROT-!Y !. PALEN' - 0 NOTARY PU3L; feR�ala WITNESS my hand and official seal.PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ' ORANGE COUNTY Expires Feb. 9, 1977 _ DOROTHY L. _PALEN NAME(TYPED OR PRINTED) Notary Public in and for said State. ACKNOWLEDGMENT—General—Wolcotts Form 233—Rev. 3-64 A SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN STATIONERY PRODUCTS CORP. 0 . ,, r Gr � t � W G AAA —v ll�d�a-obi .� r? Z � �, ��1 •r�� l� _ _ m rn i; sy ElQnDE November 11, 1975 I\iov 1 1975 C;TI Fit'll:'Ti;NG1:1 np ♦ 7,I,1 J l City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach , California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lena_ thly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 1323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Nur:tber 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, aii Cif it' s envt:i v ed employees and meii-Loci 6 u f k-i,:_ %.i.''y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting .n4unc- tive Yelease. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , . / So Dbtas n6+ oun PmPo-+u) w4'in �CEIVE K r.C .. NUVNTiN�39 ' .j C I IF l. 1975 t!U'i 14 AM November 11, 1975 i NOV 9 D City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner c property who --o ld be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolvect employees and me-1twer5 ui Liie Ci`y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive :release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City as d�all the City officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , I,As t� T -Mm oC��" 4zS Y)0+ 0 uJ n �YZP o,c,� t' Op 01 HUNiihUT"7N �%4Ci►.C,g(-IF. . November 11, 1975 !a,- City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California 'Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the Citv of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and meMbUlb uL i.IL City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is ' adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. This notice pertains- to residential Very truly yours, property owned by me at: a. 8225 Ridgefield Dr. Huntington Beach, b. 8206 Woolburn Dr. Huntington Beach, and c. 21266 Burlington Ln. Huntington Beach p e C John Stassinos 21266 Burlington Ln. own Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 OFFICIAL SEAL POPKIN SIMONIAN P�Fat '{ NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA Subscribed and sworn to before me Los ANGELES COUNTY th s 12th day of November, 1975. OF p.� N►Y comm. expires SEP 29, 1978 Nottry Publib in and for the Count of Los Angeles, State of CaliforniK. STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. County of ORANGE ) On_ Novamb r 12, 192r before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared GLENN CRT known to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that HE executed the same. WITNESS my hand- an• official seal , Signature 1 RUTH L. GABLER Name Typed or Printed o•o•oeoo••ee®o••oo•000e,eoeo.e$ ° OFFICIAL SEAL RUTN L. GABLER o NOTARY PUBLIC~CALIFORNIA e " PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN o ORANGE COUNTY j e My Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1977 oee•eeeoseoso•eso••ees•eeeoeeb; (This area for official notarial sml) a RECEIVE.0 CITY CLERK Y 1F 'NUNTiNGTON BEACH,CALW. '475 RN011 ' AN 10 p 0',;' ici November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach .City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the Citv of Huntington Beach, all of -it' s envoived employees and memuer5 ui Liie CiL.y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive -elease. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , �1 r- Own �rapa UJ,14in _01s�'ct I John Stassinos 3910 New York Ave La Cres centa, Ca. 91214 T'2323 rye �'dETt9 A A F F+To iYi� \j`y q Nr _d luUO City Council City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 i ®o 286816 ' 8 I > _ T L E, CEIVE ... DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS N1-3V 13 1975 FIU'NTINGTO-9 BF_Ac ", CAI_IR g75 1104 14 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach .City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had .explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I herehv notify the Citv_ of Huntington Beach, all of it' s en-volvea- employees anti meinner5 6L Lhr-- City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved; I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, S ?MeeWi lT) no-� ptNY1 o� `1 S_TAl E OF CALIFORNIA )ss. County of ORANar ) On Navember_12- 1925 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared RALPH M. GUKMG known to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that HE executed the same. WITNESS my hand-acid)official seal Signature RUTH L GABLER Name Typed or Printed ++++as��O��r OFFiClL SEAL . � RUTH L. GABLER i NOTARY PUBLIC--CALIFORNIA� PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ORANGE COUNTY My CommisMan Expires Jan. 26, 1977 (This area for official notarial sisal) 1 { Mr.&Mrs.R.M.Gumberg 8112 on Beal Drive = STALE K Huntington Beach,Calif. NOVIZ'75 � J �e� p0 -�1 ll 30 CQ 1ME TER • P.b.S3!9Fg tc � u�yr vr:�y. s x ... v4-Tr n1 Ta l A C H . -r H'ymoo-=- L� v Al—/ �� . • MARVIN R. BRADFORD I �Eqs m S 8176 Bushwick Drive —� O pM •C' �� ' •...�. rx""='� j Huntington Beach, Calif. c. a G¢— •j`^ _.�.=ram - 92646 " „-V o Y , rJ I 1 1 %r' DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS N O V 13 1975 HUNTINOTOR BF,ACM. CALIF: iA Y'ti M1011 a 0 November 'll, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 732.3 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it ' s envolved employees and memijers ul: uie City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is. flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. . Very truly yours, / zOas YLO+ O W h P ro pa i. RECEIVED -�� WoRKS t CAl. ctrI f: D—PT. O PUBLIC all 1 HV�NpT01�B�pGtl;CAI�F. November ll,. 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings .of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302: I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and members ui LiiE-z City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, boas no ow n fropar k, will in 0(,StH 0, - $TATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. County of TIOR ANGR On November 12. 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared REUBEK GUBERMAN known to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that HE executed the same. WITNESS my han and official se Signature RUTH L GABLE soos•0000000000e000000�000s000 Name Typed or Printed 0 OFFICIAL SEAL o o RUTH L. GABLER • NOTARY PUBLIC—CALIFORNIA °s O PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN • O• ORANGE COUNTY p o My Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1977 . ee♦000soo�00000000000000000eoi. (This area for official notarial sell) 1 _ _ U.S.PGSiAGE a = r � z NOV 12'75 gg-4ETER �A K / C A �ll.9�ikr,8Pr a U.S.Post JOC QO py /� CNJ o �� ld/y/ j \ � �; � .� ,, �� _ _ '� �1,�,�� f_.� "�o.� ,� �� 'P 1 �. �, �, RECEIVE ® DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 1975 November -11, 1975 HUNTING"roM Beach, CAugy ; City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California --- Gentlemen: -- - - I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 , The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees -.and meiiwer5 of i:iie City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Al .$ own 1-0 'G�- STATE- OF CALIFORNIA County of ORANGE ) On November 13, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared RUSSELL M. LAMBERT known to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument ° and acknowledged to me that He executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official sea . Signature i RUTH L. GABLE# �. ewc..�r��dw eE•9, ��, . ��0 I; Name (Typed (x Printed) f tir r,"nL .=L A E I tH L G40L-R o Itoili�iY PiJBLIC--CALIFORNIA 4 �~ PRIN,GiPAL OF'ME IN ORAN135 COUNTY My ComMi$sI0A Expire'Jan. 26, 1977 k (This area for official notarial seal) s , f ' e OFr PUSLIC WORK; 0 V 14 1975 ? HUt- INGTON 6$ACH. CALIF. November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach .City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and meilwer5 uL L;ie Ciiy Council that if the proposed drainage .district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive :release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my propel=ty is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City officials- responsible therefor. Very Truly yours, . TH:S....... ��......DAY OF.O.. 9.25 � OTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA 2_2 zz �Z-" 4gf)'��y lyf OFFICIAL SEAL E. A. ELLERMAN s, �o NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY 'Liroa"� My comm. expires AUG 26, 1978 boas nod- pw n ro Cl� uJ i-}�'l'►n �IS�'tic�" f VLamberts >>> > ' > "' > > "" ""' 8116 Deerfield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 .!`; No�+�OJ Q�Ik.Ltti` , -y4 IRS WURN RECEIPT RE�u S,t- i h G I fl(/N) h'C!i H 114CN,CA,. IF: !977 z ivoy 13 P 2 � 44 November 'll, 1975 City of Huntington Beach .City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report _7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and members of Li-ie City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek 'Money damages in the ;A Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. 1' Very truly yours, �J 1�DaS tlof OW n . ?m ffr+c1 t, TO 1944 CA (8-74) ('ndividual) TITLE RANGE AND TRUST STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 J SS. A71COR COMPANY COUNTY OF Orange 1 On November 12,--1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared Lee T. Car1eton***On1 v** W Ir W _ ,known to me W IL to be the person X whose name 1 S subscribed Nto the within instrument and acknowledged that h e a♦♦♦o o e o s®s a ^!e®'�'e° a s executed the same. ♦ O=r:c!At_ `; rt v • ' � `��:y Tr+I BOT WITNESS m hand fficial seal. a s L3 D.,-% crt(FORr1iA O L+ q_ NQrrRI 40 In z it NGE ml:zr L f ♦ — p Mims S �t, 2'i,1979 /. Signature ® tdlu G;;m;;siss:a�t -x= _• :r:.,,,©e 0 4,4 (This area for official notarial seal) � r• } F - A�UHT/�crr N V? ��0 s 4lpyl November 'll, 1975 City of Huntington Beach. City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be . endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report _7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and members uf LI-le City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 9a � �6 • moods no+ oWn prop¢r%+ -0, 1 11 1 I . 00 1!!!- �r 11 n 8aa; tl 3 w � �31/(3 W 11P�fn e ' November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City .H.all Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoivea employees and member-5 of Llie C1 zY Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ..Y� R�_ FF DEPT. OF PLJSLIC WORK 3 1975 HUNT►NGTON BEACH, CALIFS bOOS A V\ C)LA)YI p M per _D lsfrj C�' �1 MARVIN R.BRADFORD — f8176 Bushwick Drive Huntington Beach, Calif, 92646 t _ a arrva Ya,�ti r f RECEIYE CITY CL Ell CITY ;F 1wWriNGTON i c , C DER-r- OF PUBLIC WORKS _3 5 NOV. 14 AM . . , , a . v 13 1975 November 11, 1975 HU"HCrrerq B'40H. cat_II? City of Huntington Beach .City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, .lengthly, warnings .of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members cif Lhe City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all. the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Ot- �caas n own -Prdpar-� w4tmIi) r STATE OF CALIFORNIA Orange ss. COUNTY OF f. cOn November 12, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for U o said State, personally appeared JOSEPH L. PEPRONTO c 0 V O E Q 000O60 0 0000046000000000000 := known to me to be the person whose name e y.. CF :G;1L SEAL j ° �x" RUTH L. GABL=R e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me) �;% NOTARY PUBLIC--CALIFORNIA 6 j PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN Ythat exe d the same.> ORANGE COUNTY O c WITNESS my hand and official seal. pP My Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1977 ♦00000000000000000009070000000 �o Signature - RU i d L. GABLER Name(Typed or Printed) (This area for official notarial seal) U.S.POSIAGE* t. NOV 12'75 i►,Ji; ey : _ k o 4 5 <' c5 Pn931369 _ < } '• g , r� x T i 1%A J R Ec Ei vjE r) CITY OF , OPT. OF PUE3LIC WORKS, r,'OV 14 1975 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members c�i i.iic Cii:y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money. damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, tea. boss vio+ own Pmp" LoI44,n STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE )ss. C ounty of ) On Novembpr 12, 3975 before me., the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared RICHARD J. TESREAU known to me to -be the person_ whose name subscribed to- the within instrument and acknowledged to me that He executed the same. WITNESS my hand d fficial seal.' Signature RUTH L FABLER Name Typed Or Printed oos0000eooeoeooeoee�eoo�oeeeoo o , , OFFICIAL SEAL e o Jam'" RUTH L. GABLER e , ® "� NOTARY PUBLIC—CALIFORNIA 9 PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN e o ORANGE COUNTY e °o My Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1977 Aseeeeeee�eoeeeeeeeesee�eeeeei� (This area for official notarial sdLi) W IoC200Years of Postal Semice a is ONOV.13 Jj. r EBVE '"UN 'PUBLIC WORK: 4 fb75 November 11, 1975 oroR Bm ck, CAuFr. 3 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and menwers of ciie %i%y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ' �nx 44+f. oas no+ own Froparftjwi*n Di�Hc,4 N • �7 `kG DEBT. OF PUBLIC WORKUS A~eLy NOV 14 1975 rrutr7;i<c��rr3�rH,en .rf<: t{�y r iUNT�NGTOIV BEACH.. CALIF November 11, 1975 1Lt AM jj . � 2 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in EnvJ.ronmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it ' s envoived employees and members of i-i1e City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, t Z � boas. no+ own tyro par -` w Ai n oi��,4- Mrs. D.-bale Everly ;.8295 Pawtucket Drive Hamtington Beach, Calif. 92646I I 2 NOV13 p Im .z a.. v i i d ST'ATE"OF CALIFORNIA County of nR Awr.F ) �On November 12, 1975 before me, the undersigned,; a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared _- JAY C. EVEKTT known to me to be the person_ whose name subscribed to the within instrument : and acknowledged to me that He executed the same. WITNESS my hand and fficial sea Signature RUTH L. GABLER ' Name Typed or Printed aaooR•.�e00000a000000e0000000eo o OFFICIAL SEAL O o Z`. -RUTH L. GABLER" e �. 4_;':Y,;••j NOTARY PUBLIC—CALIFORNIA e . a y'� PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN e o ORANt;ECOUNTY e My Commis$Ion Expires.Jan. 26., 1977 �t ' OobAme400ee.�eAa►eww�sOeeee��e'ej,' (This area for official notarial sdLl) t CITY C.._ ft p O PT OF PUBLIC WgRK� CIT .:t I HUNTINGTON :lIF. v 14 1975 M5 NOV .�j OM } 4 I S!1 11 I•I '� HuNT�NGTOIV BEACF{, G`AL1P. November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City..Ha11 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and menwer5 uf L1lC Cit Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , l{. -boas nti own . propdri� wi ir) Diii,16 - � ECEI �9©p E g. at CEIu [) pF-PT. OF PUBLIC WORK f7 � r �rf' iilUN':'IG'i ± r , 1 1975 fj" ar.dCrf.CALIFCdLlf: November il, 1975 1975 AM 11 HUNTINGTON BEACH.Ift cAtIR. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The Citv has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington. Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and mefniber 5 ul Lhe k.,1 i:y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, AL 1�o¢s nod own ru �r��l W ��;n D►s tric�- Y Wort GRACE L. JACOBS ,SON 81?:1 RIDGEFIfID D C� HUNTINGTO'N BCHv C ? NpV13 �...�.. ® u„s�.� ✓10 92646 f Prt - r I � j '. STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. C minty of ORANGE_ before me, the .undersigned,_ a Notary Public in, On November 1�. 1975 and for said State, personally appeared yTi Togy n SANmq known to me to -be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ah executed the same. WITNESS my hand an officia se Signature . . !0000poo��os00000s�0000000000♦ RUTH L GAB o OFFICIAL SEAL • RUTH L. GABLER • Name Typed or Printed '� , ` NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA o PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN- ORANGE COUNTY �. • My Commission Expires Jan. 26,1977 ss00000000�000�i��o�0000000�oi . (This area for official notarial seal) yji 'T:-cF October 27 , 1975 f . ¢8 z ) Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: REQUEST: To reverse the Planning Commission decision and to delete all references to "tot lots" on Tentative Tract Map Number 7628. As a. .homeowner at Sea Breeze Villaqe Townhouses, the undersigned looks toward his elected officials to maintain and restore the democratic process in our development. We are aware of the questionable sales ethics employed by the builder ' s sales force. Hou ever, as we have voted on this issue on three separate occasions, with a majority voting to delete all "tot lots" from our tract plan, we feel that-I'Se City Council should uphold our rights and approve our permit. The true question is: Does an owner of a townhome in the -City of Huntinaton Beach have the right to control his own destiny as to how he may live, or must he be forever punished for the "sins" of the builder? Yours for justice, . Zv i I 1 4 V� NOV13 i L L November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach .� cS+ .City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of: it' s - envoived employees and memiuer5. ui Lhe Ci%y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the 'Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , OC /C • 9 v� aoFs tiar ��s,de �ti J��rT�<<i TO 1944 CA (8-74) (Individual) TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS ATICOR COMPANY COUNTY OF Orange On November 12, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said TState,personally appeared Betty L. Potter——— W It W _ , known to me aa.. to be the person whose name subscribed It��., OFFICIAL SEAL m to the within instrument and acknowledged that she '""""' ;; MARJORIE G. SlLVERA executed the same. NOTARY PusuC CALIFORNIA < y '" Y• PRINCIPAL. OFFICE IN WITNESS my hand and official seal. �'' :'� ORANGE COUNTY w J My Cnmisslon Expiros June,25, 1978 SignatuC--' y' .NN'�NN44KNN� .. r., /�'_ r (This area for official notarial seal) November 'll, 1975 is City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members of -Llle City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting. injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is. flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, � y 4' Al r Iles r- • .• � �'e M- 1 %.vw. 4N.aYi4b.'i • a �.,.,prmreu.;.»tr.a. S UNITED CALIFORNIA BAN �)\ BOX 1277 • NEW PORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 I 2nd P�ol►ce�L=� 4 q�urn NOV 14 1916 F `'`�" November 14 , 1975 f _ City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District dumber 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time , if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4a of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10 ,016 persons . Page 31 - The median_ income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest 'of the city tplacing an unjust assessiftent on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02 . Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. 1 will appeal to the Ccurts req-_-,.st-in�j injju icti7e rvia' ase, :ice tilc: Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, -I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, f, !!j/�,T;�y��•:is } �F RIB • November 14 1975 �� Novem A City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. . Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . . I maintain they are a. city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23• neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to-assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release; I -the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, r November 14 , 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. . Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves. Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest or the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 3 0 Rdel-woABee Y. OF FFUg`IC WE RCCEIVE0 I- ^LERF. ti+uN�isGr',�Jj CAL iF. vV 1 7 1975 November 11, 1975 - 9 kU"VcrroR SeAe", cgL,F Pti NNOV City of Huntington Beach -City-Hall ' Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolvea employees and members ui �ilc CitY Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to .the Courts requesting injunc- tive :-elease. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , . QS LL Own n C'1 ir1 OT E OF CALIFORNIA �ss. C owity of ORANGE On November 14, 1975 ,before me, -the undersigned, a Notary Public in And for said State, personally appeared FLORENCE M. UIESCH known to me to be the personwhose name subscribed to the within instru.�ent and acknowledged to me that she executed the same. : WITNESS my hand and) official-seal. C___ Signature •RUTH L. GABLEA Name Typed cx Printed • , . B00000000000e:eo60000e000c0000` e .OFFICIAL SEAL O ;• 1'' i' ;. RUTH L. GAKER e e r� . e 0 :fir-7; NOTARY PUBLIC--CALIFORNIAO O ;P� PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN 4 O ORANGE COUNTY e o My commission Expires Jan. 26, 1.977 n ' . ' • .' ooseoeoeee00000*�--�+ee000e000 (This axes for official notarial sal) Ep� i;; CEl'1E® r' of ivy v R ,C.`.l IF. r PVQLIC yVORKE! Hu"I i it i:�� h,�V 7 1975 November 11, 1975,975 NOV 17 P" 9 Hu NON e�°cH• cq Llp City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings .of_ said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolvea employees and memuec s cif LhV-_1. .Ci'--y Council that if the proposed drainage 1 .district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason. thereo`� my property is flooded, I will seek money damages 'n the Court against the City and all the City Official. responsible therefor. Very truly yours , l�pClS nC + � 5 State of California County of Orange Y� On November 13, 1975 , before. -� the undersigned, A Notary Public_ for the State of California , 7`C-17 personally 'ap'peared Fay S . Mathis known to me to be the person IN whose name is subscribed' to the within i h strument , and acknow l - OFFICIAL SEAL d ' that- she xecuted the same . KATHY L. LESZINSKI r . NOTARY PUBLIC CALIfURNI/1 PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN at.h I_es Z 1 k I ORANGE COUNTY My Commission Expires May 8, 1977 1 R C V � r E'F• E;6. DEpr' or= PUBLIC :i^`� �'L•t.'�'� WORKS IlfUti�l'�G3'I;ti fin' H,CwL:[F. N9V 17 1975 November 'll, 1975 Q .{ P hMNOTpNBEACH, CALIr=. City of Huntington Beach .City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify t_he City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and meiabers ui L.a C_it Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, G ppnnnnuummmuu„nnnnnmuu;nrunuunuuununn,;,uununnnuuug OFFICIAL SEAL = l9�: WILLIAM V. BULLOCK 7u� NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN =_ ORANGE COUNTY — G2 My Commission Does May 15, 1979 �//� i, uunuur , manna •n:m;:,:uuuuun �E .EiVED - P CLERf< ; vBL�cvvoRK..r nr ItUN!i?iG fCV a! A�;i.C~l!F. N y 17 1975 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings _of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members ui Lhe City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all. the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Subscribed and sworn to before me this $ P _1`n ►'chi a� te-�— �U� , daY of _, 19 7�, NOTARY PUBLIC Jn and tar es Stit.» ` P of Ca!iforni. �► `y lo� �n:nw:uunmunrm:mnm:wnnnmmnu:unua:mtmm�:u OFFICIAL SEAL ROSE S. BE NOTAP N BECK PRINCIPALIOFFICE NRNIA ORANGE COUNTY 3,_ Commission Ex fires Nov.26, 1975 •.m:umm�un°xnm°a,°nmul W�1 Y4(. W�T�`t y) �l S�{Y'i G+ u E IVED xv [IF L,c WORKS No V171975 November 11 1975 City of Huntington Beach City. Hall .Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or wet of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees ana members of Lha C��Y Council- that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City -Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , .Doan Yoh- 0 w Y-) � 'par+ w'+kl n � i STATE OF CALIFORNIA c COUNTY OF Orange ss. CL November 14 1975 Eo On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for U Charles J. Hemberger and Betty M. Hemberger w said State, personally appeared c — V E Q IL known to me to be the persons whose name m subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me WILMA L. STRATMAN� ` that they executed the same. T NOWY FWCC CAL;FORfJ1A o WITNESS my hand and official seal. "n� PRIINCIPAL OFFICE IN . = CRMIGE COUNTY E My Commission Expires Mar. 3,1978 o Signature LL Wi Wilma. L. Stratman Name(Typed or Printed) (This area for official notarial seal) 4, Aw — s :- CLERr HUNT iN'v"ii'�4 �-:,rid•E?:L!F: �C � A OtrpT OP AVE7 vs -Nov a �Z oRkO November 'll, 1975 tit► 17 City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees aria mendber5 cif i.:iie City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap--- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek inoney damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 1 17 o¢s n6+ own P ra w i_}w y) c-�- STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. ; County of M ARM? ) On Ncwpmbpr 1-4, 71925 before me, the Amdersigned. -a. Notary Public in . and for said State, personally appeared ROSE ODOR (MRS. JOHN) known tome to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that 4-,hp executed the sztme. WITNESS my hand-andZjfficial sea . Signatur RUTH L GABLER Name Typed or Printed �&A®9.4vad44490000oev4. :vi60000 OFFICIAL SEAL 40 .. S RUTH L. GABLER. • p - p NOTARY PUQLIC—CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN • r - ORANGE COUNTY • 4 My C®mmlAelon`Expires Jan. 26, 1977... 4t (This area far 'official notarial seil) R .cV � � OF pUeLIC WORK RcCEIVED J �, 7 1975 ;TYtIF ItUNTtNGist;ti c.C:i.CALIF. November 11, 1975 °a75 MOV 17 PM 4 City of Huntington Beach -City _Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: -,� I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain t into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting `y proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and menCoer5 of tiiC City Council that if the proposed- drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court. against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , / 41 y G PC s Y1�"F' Own ��4�� Wi4 i n D ISt'r'I C4' TO 1944 CA (8-74) (Individual) TITLE INSURANCE ?11 Wri AND TRUST STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATIcoR COMPANY COUNTY OF Orange SS. "On November 14, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said t I State,personally appeared Arline J. Cornwall***** w w = w known to me a to be the person x whose name IS sub$c�ribed mto the within instrument and acknowledged that--Sne o♦♦♦000mc♦000♦eoeoo♦♦o♦♦♦♦♦♦c• executed the same. a OFFICIAL SEAL WITNESS my hand and official seal, o LINDA TALBOT o ♦ Si NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA O E PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN y.. —/ ♦ e- ,, ♦ -, GRANGE COUNTY J a • My Commission Expires September 24, 1079 °o Signatp a a00000000©000000000000000Aoo♦i ti (This area for official notarial seal) RECEIVED " U ?" CLERK �© of NUNT HG TP,N ?EIKf1,CALIF; NO V 17 C `975 NOV �� PPS- 4 ;.� 8 9/S November 'll, 1975 ek cy . C'4�ila City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting :r proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . f f The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report _7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and membeYs of sue City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials ? responsible therefor. .1 Very truly yours , boss nest oWn Pm(3Tr4 i'ki h L)iS-fip iC4- y TO 1644 CA (8-74) (Individual) TITLE RANGE AND TRUST STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS.Orange ATICOR COMPANY } COUNTY OF g On November 12, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared Marion E. O S br i n k''** W X W I W known to me s a to be the person X whose name iS subscribed e��o�®ppd+e®®®®®a®®®ssm°e��a Q OFFICIAL. SEAL- N to the within instrument and acknowledged that Sale LIND'A TALBOT executed the same. 00 ( #; o b a ynjA�Y pt-18LIC-CALIFORPLIA WITNESS my hand a d official seal. 0 'c%,��^ P;ItI%j;?At- OFFICE IN o ! + ;.:fix a' c-aurtn1979 e o 24, {/j ®meel�®o��••r.�*MA+e�ka�n�eao®W.em�i e Signature (This area for official notarial seal) oFp� c s o� AU9r f'ECfwIVEO RK it 7 OF ti , �9�5 UAPP7 !075 NOV 17 Ri3 4 8 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings .of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereb , notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members i,L Llie C-L Councif that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ` 9ed and sworn to before me this ... d o p� .?,. ....... 19...?5- r �:•-..7.4.crt�i�4m9A�Notary Publle Ifnand-lbr-tho Countv of orange,state of Gailforni"o j.......... .............................................i rw • OFFICIAL SEAL PAULA 3. LINDM=1ER NOW, L:� CALIi ORAiNiGE COUNTY My Commission Expires April 30, 1976 ......... ........... ......................: Doan nod oLbn ropas4 tN'►��i�n `� - Dated STATE OF CALIFO IA �SS. COUN � , F )))))) On before me, the under- signed, otary Public i and. r said State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name IS subscribed to the within ooeeoesee�s��eeeooee000eees♦ e OFFICIAL SEAL instrument and acknowledged that executed the same. o COPJNIE A. RUMMY0 WITNESS my hand and official seal. j m� ,j� NOTARY PUCL!C-CALIFORNIA • e '4 PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN • ` A ORANGE COUNTY j 1 Signature My Commission Expire; Oc:;;ber 10, 1977 • ( U/li < rt • 0170C��.¢�l _ e0000eooeoe0000+oeoeoo►o.••evy Name ITyped or Printed) (na. Nn."M,10 runarial Nall City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT February 10, 1976 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Old- Town Drainage Assessment District 7302 Dear Council Members: The public hearing for consideration of Assessment District . 7302 was continued from November 17 , 1975 to the second City .,Council meeting in February, which is February 17 , 1976. Due to the fact we will not have at the hearing date the results of an in-depth study leading to a more acceptable method of assessing . cost, -it is recommended no action be taken at the meeting. Another factor for a delay is the question of future Housing and Community Development funds which possibly could be used in the project. I recommend the assessment district be rescinded and the pro- ceedings be tabled. After further evaluation is made a recommended course -of future action will be presented to the City Council. Very truly yours, . . E. art Director of Public. Works HEH: jy Y. C°D�y SENT TO.....P 1 6T ..... ./...................... The DATE........� ............... ................. DELMA FOR INVESTIGATION AND FOLLOW UP, ► Bare @enters .................................................... 18811 FLORIDA STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648EG RT elephone (714) 842-7724 D March 12, 1976 MAR 1-6 1976 ,Erilti'F� .CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE City Council P. 0. Box 190 - 5 Huntington Beach, Ca.. 9 Attn: Norma Gibbs, Mayor Re: Assessment District 7302 Members of the Council: It has come to my .attention that the City Council is reviewing the possi- bilities of initiating Assessment District 7302. This letter is written in support of this proposed District. We represent approximately 14 acres of land in the proposed District which are either developed or master planned for future development. For 15 years we have- struggled with the -water.problem in this area, even to the extent that my parterner and I have invested in excess of $20,000 to install a portion of what will be the ultimate storm-drain system. We are currently ready to commence construction on our new. project which will- require an additional estimated $30,000 storm drain investment. It is time, in our opinion, that the full potential of Five-Points, a major gateway to our city, be realized by solving the collective water problems in this area. Be assured you have our entire support for the approval for Assessment District 7302, and- we urge prompt implementation of this storm drain project. - Sincerely, DELMA CARE CE Robe inn e RJZ:jk flV�® C/�ivvl~1 1 C,i(IF' F. MACKENZIE BROWN "1976 FEB ?Il 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 101 (714) 979-4930 RM �l Q NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 9215580 (213) 489-5006 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOB ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90013 MAJOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS AND COURT DECISIONS RELATING TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT FINANCING Unless expressly otherwise specified, all bills enacted at the 197.5 regular session of the California Legislature are effective January 1, 1976 . _ All mentioned sections reference the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, unless so otherwise indicated. "s IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 SECTION ,5132 : Resolution of Intention/Notice. This section and other related sections relating to the public hearing,- notification were amended to now provide that the notices shall also contain the name and :tele hone number of a local de- partment or agency designated by the legislative body to answer inquiries regarding the hearing procedure. I• would recommend that this information be added to tie -Resolution of Intention as in many cases the Resolution of Intention will be the Notice used, not only for publication, but also for posting the streets . SECTION 5i95: Resolution of Intention/Hearing/Mailed Notice. This section, relating to the mailing of notices of the time and place for the hearing on the .Resolution of Intention has also been amended to include the requirement of designating- the name and telephone number of a local department or agency designated by the legislative body to answer inquiries regarding the hearing procedure. SECTION 5232: Change Order Proceedings. Under the Improvement Act of 1911 , in many cases, it is necessary to adopt, a Resolution of Intention to Order Changes and Modifica- tions ;to the Proceedings. This section 'was. also amended to fur- ,ther provide that the resolution shall contain the same informa- tion as to proceedings inquiries. SECTION 5364 : Assessment Confirmation Hearing. Prior to the confirmation of the assessment, upon the completion of the works of. improvement, it is necessary to provide mailed t r notices to the property owners within the boundaries of the assess- ment district and this section was amended to include a requirement for the designation of a name and number of a local department or agency designated by the legislative body to answer inquiries as to appeal. SECTION 5838 : Maintenance Districts. The same basic requirement as to proceedings and appeals inquiries was added to the notice requirements relating to the formation of a maintenance district pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 . SECTION 5104 : Grade Adjustments on Private Property. This section allows certain work to be done on private property to eliminate grade disparities and provides that the cost of the work shall be added to the assessment and further provides that the Resolution of Intention must so declare that it is more economical to do the work on said private property than to make the adjustment on the public rights-of-way. This section was amended to provide that nothing herein shall restrict the author- ity of the legislative body to make an agreement as authorized by Section 1263. 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1263 . 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure as added to said Code on January 1, 1976 , authorizes contracts between a public agency and the owner of property to provide for certain relocations of structures or work to be performed if the performance or relocation is likely to reduce the amount of compensation to be paid in a condemnation action. SECTION 6500, et. seq. : Treasurer' s Foreclosure . Under the Improvement Act of 1911, in cases of delinquency and foreclosure through the Treasurer' s Office of the public agency, the previous law provided that the sale would be made to the purchaser who would take the least amount of the lot or parcel and pay the full amount of the principal and interest due on said bond, together with all costs and fees . Amendments to Sections 6504 and 6509 would now provide that the sale be made to the purchaser who was willing to pay the hest price for the entire parcel or piece of property but not less than the amount due on the bond, together with the accrued interest, penalties and costs and fees as established by law. In cases where there are no 'bidders, the Code provides that the certificate of sale shall be issued to the bondholder upon his surrender of the bond to the Treasurer and upon his payment of all expenses for publica- tion, recordation, and certificate of sale issuance, together with applicable title search costs , if incurred. 2 . SECTION 6504 : Form of Notice of Sale. This section sets forth the form for the Notice of Sale to be published prior to any foreclosure sales instituted through the Treasurer of the public agency. The form has now been modi- fied to provide that the sale will be made to the person who will pay the highest price for the entire lot or parcel of land. SECTION 6509: Sale. If the property is not redeemed, this section provides that the sale shall be made as advertised and the lot now shall be sold to the person who will pay the highest price for the entire lot. The section continues and states that in the event that there are no bidders, a certificate of sale for the entire lot or parcel shall be issued to the bondholder after his surrender of the bond, including all unpaid principal and interest coupons to the Treasurer. This section continues that all costs of sale previously paid to the Treasurer pursuant to Section 5605. 1 shall be forfeited. SECTION 6509. 1: Surplus Funds. This section as added provides that if there is surplus monies remaining from the sale, after payment of the amount due on the bond, plus the interest, penalties and cost of sale, the Treasurer shall then hold the money in trust during the period of redemption or until the amount due is paid by a redemptioner. In the event of redemption, the Treasurer shall pad to the holder of the certi- ficate, the amount of principal, interest and penalties due on the bond, all costs paid by the holder, together with any surplus monies held in trust. In the event that there is no redemption of the bond, the Treasurer shall pay the surplus money to the person who was the owner of record prior to issuance of the Treasurer 's Deed, if he can be found. The legislature did not declare as to when these new amendments were to take effect, i .e. , whether they were to be applicable to only foreclosures commenced after the amendment date or whether the sections should be applicable to any foreclosure sale conducted after January 1, 1976 . There is some question and at this time I am inclined to advise that the intent was to provide a procedural change', thus the new auction and sale procedures should be applicable to all foreclosure sales conducted after January 1 , 1976 . MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 SECTION 10303 : Notice of Public Hearing. Section 10303 sets forth the contents of the notice for both the publication and posting under the 1913 Act and these notices also 3 . r now shall have the same added information for protest proceedings inquiries. (See Section 5132) SECTION 10307 : Notice for Mailing. Prior to the public hearing on the Engineer' s Report, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , mailed notice is required and this section sets forth the contents of the notice and now adds, again, the requirement for protest proceedings inquiries and the designated name, telephone number, and the local department or agency. SECTION 10353 : Change Order Proceedings. If under the 1913 Act it is necessary to order any changes , pur- suant to Chapter 4 . 5 and a Resolution of Intention to Modify the Proceedings is necessary, this resolution also shall contain the designated name, telephone number and local department or agency for protest proceedings inquiries. SECTION 10100.1 : Adjustments on Private ProEerty. This section is the same as Section 5104 of the Improvement Act of 1911 and as amended, indicates that nothing herein limits or restricts the authority for the agency to make the agreements as now authorized by Section 1263 . 610 of the Code of Civil Proced- ure. (See Section 5104) SECTION 10404 : Notice of Recordation of Assessment. This section expands the notice form required upon the recorda- tion of an assessment pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 . The section indicates that upon recording the assess- ment, the notice to be mailed shall contain designation of the property, amount of assessment, date of recordation of assessment, the time and place of payment of the assessment, and the effect of failure to pay within such time. Further, if bonds are to be issued, a statement of that fact is to be included. The section also provides curative language indicating that if the collection officer fails to mail the notice, said failure shall not effect the validity of the proceedings. For all particulars as to the contents and form of the notice, reference should be made to Section 10404 , as amended. SECTION 10600.1: Assessments Under Fifty Dollars. Original Section 10600 . 1 has been renumbered to Section 10600 . 2 and new Section 10600 . 1 generally provides that if under said Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, bonds are to be issued pur.- scant to the Improvement Act of 1911, and there are any unpaid assessments under $50. 00 , said assessments shall now bear interest at the rate of 1% per month, said interest to be computed 4 . O from the date of bond. Further, the section provides that the legislative body may order the collection of any delinquent assessment either by judicial foreclosure as set forth in the Improvement Act of 1911 [Streets and Highways Code Section 5410 , et. seq. ) or by collection on the tax roll [Streets and Highways Code Section 5450, et. seq. ] SECTION 10505. 5: Abandoned Proceedings . This section is added to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and provides that if proceedings have been initiated and incidental expenses incurred and the proceedings are abandoned, unless other- wise so provided, all incidental expenses shall be paid out of the general treasury. Any expenses though for which the City is liable and which have been paid may be charged as an incidental expense against the district so benefited for new proceedings had or taken for any work which includes substantially the same work as that which was included in the previously abandoned proceedings. IMPROVEMENT BOND ACT OF 1915 SECTION 8651: Bond Term. Under existing law the bond term cannot exceed twenty-five (25) years whereas this amendment would authorize the term to be ex- tended to forty (40) years. This amendment reads that the final series of bonds shall mature and be payable on a date which shall not exceed thirty-nine years from the second day of July next proceeding ten months from their date. COURT DECISIONS EFFECTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FINANCING Harrison vs. County of San Mateo, 44 Cal.App. 3d 852 This c4se involved a storm sewer special assessment district where the appellate court ruled invalid the method of spreading the assessment on the theory that the evidence failed to show that there was any special benefit on the assessed properties and further the assessment apportionment was declared not to be in accord with a valid formula. This case should definitely be reviewed by all engineers inasmuch as it sets forth certain criteria necessary in order to establish a valid special assess- ment. The Court points out that one must distinguish general benefit from local benefit and also one must be able to identify the special and specific benefit to the property that will be paying for the improvement. 5 . P Costello vs . City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.App. 3d 28 In this case, the Court voided an assessment within a special assessment district and ordered a re-assessment to be made in accordance with law. The assessment formula and criteria took into consideration average lot depth of 135 feet. The Court indicated that there was no basis in the record for the method and formula used for the spread. Again, all engineers should review this decision together with the Harrison case to better understand the attitude of the Court in relation to a valid assessment spread. Dawson vs. Town of Los Altos Hills , 49 Cal.App. 3d 816 In this case, a class action lawsuit was filed to invalidate a special assessment for the purchase of capacity rights in a sanitary sewer system. The Court held that the class action would not be proper to those members of the class who had failed to follow the protest proceedings as established by law and that those people had waived their rights to subsequently challenge the special assessment. This case will be heard by the California Supreme Court. Azusa Western, Inc. vs. City of West Covina, 45 Cal.App. 3d 259 This case was pursuant to the "Improvement Act of 1911" where a subcontractor had, filed a claim and pursuant to ' the statute, the prime contractor filed a release bond "so that the assessment roll and warrant could be delivered to the original contractor. The subcontractor was then unable to collect further sums from the contractor and the surety itself under went a liquidation proceed- ing. The subcontractor filed the action against the City, and the Court ruled that the City had made an error inasmuch as the City had accepted r, release bond from the same company filing the contractor' s performance and material bond and the release bond should have boen filed by a surety company other than the Lv-,diner company wr;D wrote the labor and material bond. F. MACKENZIE BROWN 6 . r ' C� rEr 8 a v f'CERK C� Q _Laur l F_ MACKENZIE HRowN 797,6 FEE ?I/ (714) 979-4930 'I 9 /► /, 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 101 NEWPORT HEACH,CALIFORNIA 92680 (213) 489-SO06 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET. SUITE 809 LOB ANDELEB,CALIFORNIA 90013 MAJOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS AND COURT DECISIONS RELATING TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT FINANCING Unless expressly otherwise specified, all bills enacted at the 1975 regular session of the California Legislature are effective January 1, 1976 . All mentioned sections reference the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, unless so otherwise indicated. IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 SECTION 5132 : Resolution of Intention/Notice. This section and other related sections relating to the public hearing notification were amended to now provide that the notices shall also contain the name and telephone number of a local de- partment or agency designated by the legislative body to answer inquiries regarding the hearing procedure. I- would recommend that this information be aced to t eo,Resolution of Intention as in many cases the Resolution of Intention will be the Notice used. not only. for publication, but also for posting the streets. SECTION 5195: Resolution of Intention/Hearing/Mailed Notice. This section, relating to the mailing of notices of the time and place for the hearing on the .Resolution of Intention has also been amended to include the requirement of designating- the name and telephone number of a local department or agency- designated by the legislative body to answer inquiries regarding the hearing procedure. SECTION 5232 : Change Order Proceedings. Under the Improvement Act of 1911 , in many cases, it is necessary to adopt a, Resolution of Intention to Order Changes and Modifica- tions to the Proceedings. This section 'was. also amended to fur- ther provide . that the resolution shall contain the same informa- tion as to proceedings inquiries. SECTION 5364 : Assessment Confirmation Hearing. Prior to the confirmation of the assessment, upon the completion of the works of. improvement, it is necessary to provide mailed notices to the property owners within the boundaries of the assess- ment district and this section was amended to include a requirement for the designation of a name and number of a local department or agency designated by the legislative body to answer inquiries as to appeal. SECTION 5838 : Maintenance Districts. The same basic requirement as to proceedings and appeals inquiries was added to the notice requirements relating to the formation of a maintenance district pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 . SECTION 5104 : . Grade Adjustments on Private Property. This section allows certain work to be done on private property to eliminate grade disparities and provides that the cost of the work shall be added to the assessment and further provides that the Resolution of Intention must so declare that it is more economical to do the work on said private property than to make the adjustment on the public rights-of-way. This section was amended to provide that .nothing herein shall restrict the author- ity of the legislative body to make an agreement as authorized by Section 1263 . 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1263 . 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure as added to said Code on January 1, 1976 , authorizes contracts between a public agency and the owner of property to provide for certain relocations of structures or work to be performed if the performance or relocation is likely to reduce the amount of compensation to be paid in a condemnation action. SECTION 6500, et, seq. : Treasurer' s Foreclosure. Under the Improvement Act of 1911, in cases of delinquency and foreclosure through the Treasurer' s Office of the public agency , the previous law provided that the sale would be made to the purchaser who would take the least amount of the lot or parcel and pay the full amount of the-principal and interest due on said bond, together with all costs and fees . Amendments to Sections 6504 and 6509 would now provide that the sale be made to the purchaser who was willing to pay the highest price for the entire parcel or piece of property but not less than the amount due on the bond, together with the accrued interest, penalties and costs and fees as established by law. In cases where there are no bidders, the Code provides that the certificate of sale shall be issued to the bondholder upon his surrender of the bond to the "Treasurer and upon his payment of all expenses for publica- tion, recordation, and certificate of sale issuance, together with applicable title search costs, if incurred. 2 , SECTION 6504 : Form of Notice of Sale. This section sets forth the form for the Notice of Sale to be published prior to any foreclosure sales instituted through the Treasurer of the public agency. The form has now been modi- fied to provide that the sale will be made to the person who will pay the highest price for the entire lot or parcel of land. SECTION 6509 : Sale. If the property is not redeemed, this section provides that the sale shall be made as advertised and the lot now shall be sold to the person who will pay the highest price for the entire lot. The section continues and states that in the event that there are no bidders, a certificate of sale for the entire lot or parcel shall be issued to the bondholder after his surrender of the bond, including all unpaid principal and interest coupons to the Treasurer. This section continues that all costs of sale previously paid to the Treasurer pursuant to Section 5605. 1 shall be forfeited. SECTION 6509. 1: Surplus Funds. This section as added provides that if there is surplus monies remaining from the sale, after payment of the amount due on the bond, plus the interest, penalties and cost of sale, the Treasurer shall then hold the money in trust during the period of redemption or until the amount due is paid by a redemptioner. In the event of redemption, the Treasurer shall pay., to the holder of the certi- ficate, the amount of principal, interest and penalties due on the bond, all costs paid by the holder, together with any surplus monies held in trust. In the event that there is no redemption of the bond, the Treasurer shall pay the surplus money to the person who was the owner of record prior to issuance of the Treasurer' s Deed, if he can be found. The legislature did not declare as to when these new amendments were to take effect, i .e. , whether they were to be applicable to only foreclosures commenced after the amendment date or whether the sections should be applicable to any foreclosure sale conducted after January 1 , 1976 . There is some question and at this time I am inclined to advise that the intent was to provide a procedural change', thus the new auction and sale procedures should be applicable to all foreclosure sales conducted after January 1 , 1976 . MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 SECTION 10303 : Notice of Public Hearing. Section 10303 sets forth the contents of- the notice for both the publication and posting under the 1913 Act and these notices also 3 . now shall have the same added information for protest proceedings inquiries. (See Section 5132) SECTION 10307 : Notice for Mailing . Prior to the public hearing on the Engineer' s Report, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , mailed notice is required and this section sets forth the contents of the notice and now adds, again, the requirement for protest proceedings inquiries and the designated name, telephone number, and the local department or agency. SECTION 10353 : Change Order Proceedings. If under the 1913 Act it is necessary to order any changes, pur- suant to Chapter 4 . 5 and a Resolution of Intention to Modify the Proceedings is necessary, this resolution also shall contain the designated name, telephone number and local department or agency for protest proceedings inquiries. SECTION 10100.1: Adjustments on Private Property. This section is the same as Section 5104 of the Improvement Act of 1911 and as amended, indicates that nothing herein limits or restricts the authority for the agency to make the agreements as now authorized by Section 1263 .610 of the Code of Civil Proced- ure. (See Section 5104) SECTION 10404 : Notice of Recordation of Assessment. This section expands the notice form required upon the recorda- tion of an assessment pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 . The section indicates that upon recording the assess- ment, the notice to be mailed shall contain designation of the property, amount of assessment, date of recordation of assessment, the time and place of payment of the assessment, and the effect of failure to pay within such time . Further, if bonds are to be issued, a statement of that fact is to be included. The section also provides curative language indicating that if the collection officer fails to mail the notice, said failure shall not effect the validity of the proceedings. For all particulars as to the contents and form of the notice, reference should be made to Section 10404, as amended. SECTION 10600.1: Assessments Under Fifty Dollars. Original Section 10600. 1 has been renumbered to Section 10600 . 2 and new Section 10600. 1 generally provides that if under said Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, bonds are to be issued pur- suant to the Improvement Act of 1911, and there are any unpaid assessments under $50. 00 , said assessments shall now bear interest at the rate of 1% per month, said interest to be computed 4 . from the date of bond. Further, the section provides that the legislative body may order the collection of any delinquent assessment either by judicial foreclosure as set forth in the Improvement Act of 1911 [Streets and Highways Code Section 5410, et. seq. ] or by collection on the tax roll [Streets and Highways Comae-Section 5450, et. seq. ] SECTION 10505. 5: Abandoned Proceedings. This section is added to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and provides that if proceedings have been initiated and incidental expenses incurred and the proceedings are abandoned, unless other- wise so provided, all incidental expenses shall be paid out of the general treasury. Any expenses though for which the City is liable and which have been paid may be charged as an incidental expense against the district so benefited for new proceedings had or taken for any work which includes substantially the same work as that which was included in the previously abandoned proceedings. IMPROVEMENT BOND ACT OF 1915 SECTION 8651: Bond Term. Under existing law the bond term cannot exceed twenty-five (25) years whereas this amendment would authorize the term to be ex- tended to forty (40) years. This amendment reads that the final series of bonds shall mature and be payable on a date which shall not exceed thirty-nine years from the second day of July next proceeding ten months from their date. COURT DECISIONS EFFECTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FINANCING Harrison vs. County of San Mateo, 44 Cal.App. 3d 852 This c4se involved a storm sewer special assessment district where the appellate court ruled invalid the method of spreading the assessment on the theory that the evidence failed to show that there was any special benefit on the assessed properties and further the assessment apportionment was declared not to be in accord with a valid formula. This case should definitely be reviewed by all engineers inasmuch as it sets forth certain criteria necessary in order to establish a valid special assess- ment. The Court points out that one must distinguish general benefit from local benefit and also one must be able to identify the special and specific benefit to the property that will be paying for the improvement. 5 . Costello vs . City of Los Angeles , 54 Cal.App. 3d 28 In this case, the Court voided an assessment within a special assessment district and ordered a re-assessment to be made in accordance with law. The assessment formula and criteria took into consideration average lot depth of 135 feet. The Court indicated that there was no basis in the record for the method and formula used for the spread. Again, all engineers should review this decision together with the Harrison case to better understand the attitude of the Court in relation to a valid assessment spread. Dawson vs. Town of Los Altos Hills, 49 Cal.App. 3d 816 In this case, a class action lawsuit was filed to invalidate a special assessment for the purchase of capacity rights in a sanitary sewer system. The Court held that the class action would not be proper to those members of the class who had failed to follow the protest proceedings as established by law and that those people had waived their rights to subsequently challenge the special assessment. This case will be heard by the California Supreme Court. Azusa Western, Inc. vs. City of West Covina, 45 Cal.App. 3d 259 This case was pursuant to the "Improvement Act of 1911" where a subcontractor had filed a claim and pursuant to the statute, the prime contractor filed a release bond 'so that the assessment roll and warrant could be 'delivered to the original contractor. The subcontractor was then unable to collect further sums from the contractor and the surety itself under went a liquidation proceed- ing. The subcontractor filed the action against the City, and the Court ruled that the City had made an error inasmuch as the City had accepted ; release bond from the same company filing the contractor' s performance and material bond and the release bond should have been filed by a surety company other than the vxs-,^.ding company wl.'D wrote the labor and material bond. F. MACKENZIE BROWN 6 . ©T*D 27 nD E WE CITY OF ' HUNTINGTON EA B C INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION FEB u �976 MUNIINCTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To City Administrator From John J. .O'Connor Deputy City Attorney Subject Old Town Assessment District Date January 30 , 1976 7302 - Memorandum of H. E. Hartge Re Rescheduling of Hearing This memorandum responds to your request for a recommendation relative to the procedural steps for delaying the public . hearing scheduled for February 17 , 1976. Either of Mr. Hartge 's recommendations of (1 ) deleting the matter from consideration, or (2) continuing the matter until a later date : appear to be a legally,- viable alternative . However, from a practical standpoint , due to the protracted delay between the original scheduled date of the hearing and . the ultimate date when the hearing is set even if the matter is continued, it would seem highly desirable to give the property owners additional notice sufficient to apprise them of the .hearing, and allow them an opportunity for input . We , therefore , would suggest that if the hearing is continued, the matter be readvertised even though on narrow, technical , legal grounds this would not appear essential . c�'OHN J . 0' ONNOR APPROVED : Deputy City Attorney JJO' C : cs DON P . BONF City Attor cc : H. E. Hartge • ( Ui l� J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE ,I�6 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION �r+_ NUNTINGTON BEACH V�{ I' :' { .. :'{is To David D. Rowlands From H. E. Hartge City Administrator Subject Old Town Drainage Assessment . Date January 23, 1976 District 7302' The publc. hearing to further consider the formation of Assessment District 7302 has been rescheduled from November 17 , 1975, to February 17 , 1976. This was to provide us with additional time to make an in-depth study as to a more accept- able method of assessing the cost. By the February date it was anticipated -that we would have. some, preliminary knowledge as to the possibility`.of HCD 'funds to .contribute toward the project. The maps forthcoming from the aerial topographic contract have not arrived as of this date. Even if it should arrive tommorrow, there would be less than three weeks to analyze the , material .and .to arrive at a formula for the spreading of -the cost. B The process of determining the disposition of the HCD funds has .just commenced and, according to the project schedule, .final determination of the allocation of the funds will not occur until May or June. It is recommended that the matter not be heard at the public hearing on February 17. The matter could be rescheduled for a time later in the fiscal year or be dropped at this time and be readvertised. The City Attorney should be contacted for a recommendation as to which step to take. . E.�Hartge Director of Public Works HEH:ae cc: City Attorney ��CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i9 i 5 ?JL INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF HWITINGFOI! BEAGill HIMINGTON BEACH - ADM INISTH.TVVF To David D. Rowlands From if. 1 1farl:g0 City Administrator Subject Adams Storm Drain Date December 24 , 1975 Assessment District 7302 You will recall the agreement with the Environmental Manage- ment Agency to provide $300,000 towards drainage facilities for the assessment district expires at the end of this year. By letter dated October 14, 1975, I requested an extension of time to July 1, 1976. I wrote a second letter dated November, 3, 1.975 opy enclosed) asking for an amendment to the agreement so that the ounty-' $300,000 would be made available if the City would provide matching funds. This would provide us with tlhe- backbone of the drainage system essential to the assessment district for old town. The Environmental Management Agency responded (letter enclosed) that they will seek approval from the Board of Supervisors to amend the existing agreement to provide a maximum contribution of $300,000 of Flood Control District funds with matching funds from the City. I recommend that emphasis be placed on allocating a minimum of $350,000 out of the 1976 HCD funds. This would provide matching funds, plus assurance of additional money to complete a contract for the first phase of the work. In addition, as I indicated in 8 my letter_, to Mr. Osborne, these funds should indicate an act of good faith to the property owners in the assessment district. . H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works HEH:ae ^� Encl. 1 Oty of Huntington Beach P.O UOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 UN(ANI ERING 1)EPA11TMEN_1_ November 3 , 197 H. G. Osborne, Director Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 1078 Santa Ana, California Subject: Facility D01-P06 Adams Storm Drain Agreement C941 Dear Mr . Osborne: Reference is made to our letter of October 14 , requesting an extension of time to July 1, 1976, of Agreement No. C941. Because of the bond payment problem in New York City, the question- able bond market further threatens the success of the assessment district in the immediate future. It is proposed that the agreement be amended such that the district' s $300, 000 for the project be authorized if the City would at least match that figure. This would accomplish several things : 1. Work could commence soon enough to provide some relief to the drainage problem in 1976-77. 2 . The present low volume of construction work should result in a favorable bid. 3 . This work should indicate to the property owners in the district an act of good faith on the part of both agencies and thereby enhance the success of the district. I would appreciate your consideration of this as an alternate in the agreement. Very truly yours , . . _E. Ha tge� Director of. Public Works HEH:ae r _ (J LJ MTY O o R�4itii1 G E 83 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE:AREA COOL' 714 78 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRE35: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 H. G. OSBORNE DEC 18 1975 DIRECTOR FILF No. DO1P06.20 No. DO1 .20 Mr. H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Sir: The Agency has reviewed your recent request for modification of the better- ment agreement for the construction of Adams Storm Drain and finds no objection to your proposal . Accordingly, Board of Supervisors' approval will be sought for preparation of an amended agreement providing for a maximum contribution of $300,000 of flood control district funds with matching funds from the city. In recent discussions between Mr. Hurtienne of the city's staff and Mr. Natsuhara of the Agency' s staff, Mr. Hurtienne indicated that the Newland Street crossing of Talbert Channel , which is to be designed and administered by the city, may not be under construction this fiscal year. It is our understanding that substructure prcblems as well as the review time required by other agencies will preclude meeting the original schedule. So that we may have a record on file, it is requested that you submit a letter to this office requesting the ' .project be included in the 1976-77 fiscal year budget. This will allow the Agency to use the funds allocated in this year' s budget for the Newland Street crossing to be used for other badly needed facilities. Very truly yours, H., G. Osborne, Director MAC:HGO:mn O �p U NTY O F 5 Nu '^l olv p� Yo C> ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: E841467E AREA CODE 714 Oil NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 November 14, 1975 4ANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR FILE Mr. and Mrs. P. Grantham 8121 Woolburn Drive Huntington Beach, California 92646 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Grantham: This is in response to your recent letter regarding the proposed storm drainage improvements in the Old Town Area of Huntington Beach. The proposed project is one of the City of Huntington Beach and not the Orange County Flood Control District, which will be a relatively minor financial partner. The city has proposed an assessment district to finance a storm drainage system which will relieve the Old Town Area from storm runoff ponding in substandard streets and vacant lots during winter storms. Contrary to your information, the new storm drainage system does not require a pump to function, but will be a gravity flow underground system carrying the runoff from the Old Town Area to the Flood Control District's existing Huntington Beach Channel westerly of Adams Street. The existing Adams pump station also enters the Huntington Beach Channel at that location and services a lowland watershed area north of Adams Street. Its construction was completed during the past fiscal year and the city has a right to drain into the channel which was constructed from general tax and bond funds. The Huntington Beach Channel is the leveed floodway near your home and it was constructed for the specific purpose of conveying runoff to the ocean from the westerly side of the low-lying areas in Fountain Valley and. Huntington Beach and the area to be served by the new-city storm drain. The land adjacent to the floodway has little more elevation than the mean high tide. Accordingly, the levees are several feet above the adjacent land and the high water you occasionally observe in the channel is the coincidental occurrence of heavy rainfall and high tide in the outlet channel . The earthen floodway was designed for 65 percent of the ultimate capacity flowing against the mean high tide and has considerable additional capacity in the form of extra levee height. Eventually, when funds become available for improving the floodway the additional required capacity will be provided by lining the channel with reinforced concrete, thus increasing the velocity (and volumetric rate) of flow in the channel . The major flood threat in the area where you live is not from this local floodway, nor the proposed City of Huntington Beach project, but from the Santa Ana River to the east. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has indicated in a recently pub- lished survey report that the Santa Ana River levees would overflow in the event -- - -�r.�� - 'r.,t•.�1.'..-.-.-.-*...-..'-"----.-.-.�'-*.-:*.,,WH.'.'.*:.--,'':..,HH.*.*.....---.-':--..-.-'*H.-.-..-...*....---�..--'.*.-.;�.-'-..'a-*.',.-...-'..-...4.-.*-..:I.:H--*.-.-*'*:*-:.:*...�'....,'...-,..�*.*......*.-...'.--.:-.�'...".--.-'.-.-�-.:-.-."-.....-.'",. ;�.' ! '•-w:-- L;;:-:";•ti• t.l: :�r.�;." .:".,.t.;i,`f"1"'' 1:\.r'•,i.•1 t , / J1 , ,~ , . - - , ,..-.,...T-...--.-*..-----:-.*--.,:..-3-...'.�.--..,..(-:.-:....-.;:.":-'.n--...:"',-.-...-'.Q-.�-*.-"--,-j.--.,...-�-.'..;.--o.:---.....H-,.......-,.---.-o-...-,...,,*.-,:H.-v:*-.:i.-:*.:%.-."'.:q�AH-...,10.-'-.-;-"1*:--'i.,.-..:-.'..--..-.C.:..'.!.y-.-'*"�.---..,.zt:*.:...-i!,---.l-V..-.'*-.n*-WH.---,..*n%.-'H-H--.-.:...*I...-�-----.---.'..'.---....-,-..-'...*.s-."**-.N.---.,.*..*---._,H-.-.--W7.-'--.-.--�.-,,--..-�...,*..--..H'4..'.-...-:..0,--..-.,-..-..!Nt*-.--...:-..-.-."....*'-i-.f-n-4-'"":0.-.,-.,.-:--..**..*..z.--..D--oM-.-'.a-.-.-.--,.1...-.-:-.'..-T'-..".-:-.H-...:.'..-:.n';,.:--*..-;..--.'�.iS-.''-'-..H.-*--.I.''..'-.,A.-.%-1...-L---..-V,:.H-....-"---.--��.;oQ�-'---..--,'.---*o-.-..:..-JiK..--'-�-..:;-.-.-.'.,*k.'.'.,,-,..,-.�'7'Hl -.,,*,*".:.....:*..**.:....-..-":........'-'--...'::-....-.:-.---.:�..-.!.--'.-.:-'.�.(..,-.--i."....�...'*...-....-,i---'.--�..."-..J.-HtI::...,.."--...'-.4 1-.. .-.:�a-.--j-!-r,".-. ._ >r . _ :! ;: �' :1. ,: i' 'J i n i 1:„ 1::. :� 4 • I. O :i- :., . :. 7 J:'•f •3 1: :; ;. :cam_ 1•: .-� - .T.•.�:. tt. i •': O '.w i'' .i-: r _:�. 1 �C + - -..f:�:• ::j:::.•. I% �. [[ .:� :.S'::::::''• :•:i . '. .y _ 1' �.i r� 1 I•: r: :�: r;•:. .a, P• O• ii: I. ti. �:: 1 :.1' 1 1 1• j :ny' '•1'. 1{t is ,i :-1 1 , j. r:t t `i' { �.: :•1.': :ti.:• ..::. 't:: .j .. ' .� t .• .J 3 1 },. :•='�:• _ 1 . F•, , O 1. ,•_J r r: :3. ., t }, v. I :1 d r . o __ ,. .:....._�..:_ :_ `: �,. _ r. -+t - I;y _i-.• :;r: f :•::/^ - �: `r::': _. :::: ? _ f>'`" �' ::�: {{-------- -: .i TY{ �. ::�: 7 i": .- :, i s.1' }: .Y ,. 1 - ' X-- -I •:i' :v:..--. i:' r..: .f ::1 f': .,. r::. ri, ;:.::: :r �-' } _ , tj 1:: �• :+: ,'t :�. :i+: •I :T• •1. `r -�f i (: 1r• _.. :J' Q' _' !r': ;:::` >: 1 - �_ :',. is a - : ;: ; : : : .: ' _t: 1 f : - :!. 1 '1- :{ 1: S _:is . } ri'r , . I:i .�'~��-ram t i` �•s •1 -p. _:; ;:. I- - �: :; : 2. : : ..ti 1 :� . f' it C t t'4 Y: \ . •.i.-.. �- - ;t; - {_ -:;. :.; _ / . ., _:: ;�' . _VLF �: :: F. .:1�. i {. 1' -:. . �;- _; _ _ i '-r` _ :i {{ 1. f_ ! `Fw_ _ ,� lal; .F ..' -: .' ��- I - ;. :`i L. -:_:__:-' %:'�:,_-: •:�) - --may; - _ :':� •.r I >L. •.:••:=�":•:�.: '• �•�^` t+' r. :. . is ;;�.;.�. 5'c :: ' I. -.I �: c.. . ^-�; �;.:.::: J 1: '.. Y• �� ` 11 J.r�. 1•. 1 i' c-: _ / ,f. ►:: i i. �. -_ 7: a -Y- : i C . }: ,;:: ..-•r: 1 ti•' r ( .v,. �: :�_ n :;.:;: ti j.: ` , . 1'.a 'Ir'. 1 �.•, t -T�•S i i ,.•. �, ,:: L. 4 :, �'J 'r- -\ �:.. J: :l :.: , L'1 , ..• t 1 :j '--- F ! l 1:1•::\. j �: fi. .; L': %'1 G :'':�'i--' �L �� 'tip. `A 1 •Jl, Y'�•y. _ ` l %a is :{ �ij' :t 1' y` _ . •' •.i: ,,• :<:: _ � JOIN: �5 s _ �I'� �.'1 '`_:: : :` `"1:,:_ :1 A rT� S :,: :4 fit: :;LAI ;1;1._..�. ;:_- :1::1 _ 1.:.�. _.-�....��1•v �:a� :I:::-.i1:1 .� .v...._. ., :1::: .t r .: .. ter'-' - --- - :�._•:r.�_._._y i .._;:-�_w.: =�ia:�:•».. :w:' ,t- .'� - -,_.� " +-•' :I. _ __ .:a r�.. -- -;- :" --- �: . -:;;- :; ••\ •• '1 L•.. 1: :'/' :i: ► i :' .. Z F.s: E1��:- Hi. � hl r: ..�:_ :s�:r:: ; l, 1 -:. : - -;.. :1: - 1. r-- ,: �i :t :1•-I ,. is ...,�'•'> t�: ': :I. •1. Y.: - .. _ t :r': ,. gin... - :,, 'rii> : . _ ( :i ;: t :I :I. , 1:1: is .�. :, :1: l: 1 �r :� ;�. 1 :�:I I :t :i�:•i. I:. :��i: -t :i f: ; . :,: :�,:; :.� i f =':•y ':` is ' -. l': f. =i'1: 1• - - f .r �: - •r.: 1• I - :is :t= - :•L.� •:�: _ TT .1. 1T -} �=1' _ I�-.:' :j is :�: ,� t y' -H: J{ 'J (: - is ��: :r - �.i•. :i.: •n :1: F. -. i s:y 1 I' %t'.. rk�:�r AI I a �o .t :•t =C: r. . z :::' - �.: ,:�.: -- t�: - { 1. :r - I��t I„ i 1. i,.." - `L.. :t ;I: �y - f �•„~ - _ 1 4 i_' /................................ _ -:::' _ .i. 7 :t. :1 -4. -:\ �/ 1.: :,•: 1' - )' I 1 _•1. '.1'i :1 I :f r r :7' -- G:G f L... .. .;-.'" :; �: :,• - - : : 1 :, j �: .. : -'I t a: 1 !• •✓ :I f. I: .: ., :1 ,l :1.:;:: 1, A� t. �� 1. 1 . 1 - I.:1: ,. t.. 1' ( :i: :� l,} ' �: :�: l�� ;,_ .* f. 1. t :r:': •a. 1 f�" ' `_ , y :�:: Z .l• J ';: 0 - :�:: . i �.1 ,_ j: .r%� 1`� J F J- =1: r _ 1 1.. .......... ...........::::::::...::::::: ::::::::::::::........ ............ ...................... . .. . ..............................: ...................... ............................... ... .t:' :i: 'r:�!� ::1 1 •4: .1 1- • ,h }:: 1- �1. i'. r: :I ...................... L.. 1 :,I .1: :1� :l. ;i I' .'S:1 , :1`. ,•_ I:. .T: i-: � : :I i ,: ,.. .. T'� � ::: 1:, :�_ . ........... .. ... - . - Mr. and Mrs. P. Grantham Page 2 of a flood having a recurrence interval on the order of once in 50 years. This is why the federal Flood Insurance Administration has identified the area being subject to inundation approximately five feet deep in the event of a 100-year flood. A copy of a portion of the FIA map is enclosed for your information. The shaded areas are those that would be flooded from a Santa Ana River breakout. You may find it advisable to add flood insurance to your residential coverage until such time as the Congress authorizes and funds the construction and com- pletion of the Santa Ana River improvements. Fireman's Fund is the one company statewide which provides insurance under the federal flood insurance program. Very truly yours, H. G. Osborne, Director CRN:HGO:mn Enclosure cy: Mrs S. J. Lyons 8216 Wildwood Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Mrs. Camilla Edwards 8156 Eastport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Glenn E. Carter 8185 Eastport Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 E. Hartge, Director of Public Works ` City of Huntington Beach Supervisor Thomas F. Riley F. MACRENZIE BROWN f (714) 979`4930 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE 101 x NEWPORT NEACH.CALITORNIA 92690 (213) 489.5006 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOB ANOLLE8.CALIFORNIA 90013 December 9 , 1975. Mr. H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Assessment District No. 7201 1 (Sunset Heights) Dear Bill: Enclosed herein, please find the following: 1. Bond Opinion; 2. Certificate of No-Litigation; 3. Receipt for Bonds. The Bond Opinion should be delivered to assignee of the contractor, Gross & Company, when the bonds are delivered to them. Also at that time, the Certificate of No-Litigation should be executed and also delivered and note that the seal should . be affixed to said Certificate. Upon your review, should you .have any comments, please call. Very truly yours, ^i F. MACKENZIE BROWN R F C h I Y E V DePT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 1 i) 1975 HUNT1NamoN BaACH. CALIF. F. MACKEN.ZIE 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 December 9 , 1975 Mr. H. E. Hartge Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, ' California 92648 Re: Assessment District No. 7201 (Sunset Heights) Dear Bill : Enclosed herein, please find the following: 1. Bond Opinion; 2 . Certificate of. .No-Litigation; 3 . Receipt for Bonds. The Bond Opinion should be delivered to -assignee of the contractor, Gross & Company, when the bonds are delivered to them. Also at that time, the Certificate of No-Litigation should be executed and also delivered and note that the seal should be affixed to said Certificate. Upon your review, should you have any comments , please call. Very truly yours, F. MACKENZIE BROWN DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 1975 HUN"nNGTOR BEACH, CALIF, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7201 (SUNSET HEIGHTS) TREASURER: WARREN G. HALL SERIES NO. : 7201 BONDS NUMBERED: 1 - 155, inclusive SIGNATURE AND NO-LITIGATION CERTIFICATE The above named and undersigned does hereby certify that he has signed or caused to be signed the following described bonds issued by the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. Said bonds are designated "Improvement Bonds, ASSESEM DISTRICT NO. 7201 (SUNSET HEIGHT9T - numbered 1 through 55 and have been issue3 by--s—ald agency under proceedings conducted under the provisions of the "Improvement Act of 1911" , being Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; with said bonds i4qued pursuant to the term and provisions of said "Improvement Act of 1911. " Said bonds bear interest from this date, to their maturity at the rate of Seven percent ( 7 %) per annum with coupon maturity dates being on January 2 and July 21 as not forth by 1&W. I hereby certify that the signature on each of said bonds is the true and proper signature for, the execution thereof, and I further certify that on the date of said bonds and on the date said bonds were executed, I held the above designated office and that now I still hold the same. I further certify that said bonds have been in all respects duly executed pursuant to my authority as such officer; that the proceed- ings or records which have been gertified to the purchasers of the bonds or' to the attorneys approving the same have not .been repealed, amended or changed in any manner, except as shown by the proofs furnished; and that there has been no material change in the facto affecting the bonds, except as shown by proofs so furnished. I further certify that there is no controversy or litigation now pending concerning the organization of said District, or our right to our respective offices, or the levy or collection of assessments to pay the principal and interest of the bonds, or in any manner questioning our right to issue said bonds, or otherwise questioning the validity thereof. Dated: TREAS (SEAL) CI OF TINGTON BEACH ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIGNATURE GUARANTEE I hereby certify that the signature on the above certificate is the genuine ignature of the official named thereon. Dated: ff CITY CLERIC F. MACKENZIE BROWN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACI� Attorney at Law Office of the City Clerk 4630 Campus Drive, Suite 101 P. 0. Box 190 New:=_.rt Beach, California Huntington Beach, Calif. 9264 ©,1,�ej F. MACKENZIE BROWN (714; 979-4930 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE 101 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92580 (213) 489-5006 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOB ANOELEB,CALIFORNIA 90013 LEGAL OPINION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS SERIES NO. 7201 DATED: September 19 , 1975 NUMBERED: 1 - 155, inclusive This is to certify that I have examined the records of the proceed- ings of the several officers and agents of the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, in the matter of the improvement of ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7201 (SUNSET HEIGHTS) in said City under proceedings inaugurated by Resolution of Inten- tion No. 3905 passed and adopted on the 1st day of July, 1974 by the City Council of said City under the provisions of the "Improvement Act of 1911" , being Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State' of California, and for the issuance of bonds under said Act. This examination covers said proceedings down to and including the issuance of said bonds by the Treasurer of said City, and said bonds have been duly issued and executed in the manner provided by law. From -said examination, it is my opinion that said proceedings have been taken in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the State of California and that said bonds numbered 1 through 155, inclusive, dated the 19th day of September, 1975, for the above designated improvement, being Series No. 7201, and bearing interest at the rate of Seven Percent (7%) per annum, providing - a Five Percent (5%) redemption premium, payable -to bearer in Ten (10) annual installments, are enforceable obligations against the respective properties described in said bonds. It is also my opinion that under present statutes, decisions, regulations and rulings, the interest on said bonds is exempt from federal income taxes and California personal income taxes. LEGAL OPINION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SERIES NO. 7201 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7201 (SUNSET HEIGHTS) Page 2 ' This opinion does not include an examination of the coupons attached to said bonds , nor does it approve the validity of any assessments against publicly owned property. Re t ully tted, /F. MACKEN E BROWN 1. FMB:mlt December 9 , 1975 City of Huntington Beach CITY OP 11UNT 1 NGTON BEACH ORDE14 OF PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) DATE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: NOVEMBER 17, 1975 MAYOR: Announces that this is the time and place for the con- tinuation of the Public Hearing to determine whether or not the City Council should proceed with the formation of the special assessment district designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN D1IAINAGZ ASSESS- MENT DISTRICT) CITY CLERK: Announces that notice of the con- tinuation of the Public Hearing has been posted in the wanner and .form as required by law. STAFF: Explain alternates to financing and method of assessment spread. CITY CLERK: Summarize status of written pro- �c�c� Try"+l Owhe-s r eppes�F'vr' 'V) aq avow vc'i tests. duq;Gv-:cf lJln.La'J i00 0v'a""�'O � MAYOR: // ac, �a acn�y to Open continued Public Hearing for ,,�p- a'jo aoa public discussion. CITY COUNCIL:,,,,, ' Discussion and consideration of possible changes and modifications. CITY COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS (If applicable and appropriate) . CITY COUNCIL: By motion, declare the Public Hearing closed. CITY COUNCIL: By motion, overrule And deny all protests , inasmuch as said protests represent less than 50%. of the area. CITY COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY . (4/5ths vote re- quired) . OR Adopt motion abandoning proceedings and direct preparation of Resolution Abandoning Proceedings . . A b NOTICE OF THE CONTINUATION OF THIS HEARING TO THIS DATE WAS POSTED IN THE MANNER AND FORM AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Vc0f300 PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTING 29 acres or district area, 100 persons renting, representing 12 acres or 2% of area. 200 persons owning property in Surfside, outside the district. S EXHIBIT A - '� ASSESSMENT' DISTRICT 7302 4 Written and Oral Protest Within District Category No. Area Percent/District Owner 300 29 Acres 4 5% Rented 100 12 Acres 2% Total 400 41 7% Written and Oral Protest Outside District Category No. Area Owner 200 32 Acres ,LRtY CIVEO •" ►fbNI1HC7 ; YLFRK • � �EACN,C4�f�ea RECEPVE ® 1975 DEC DEPT. OF PUSUC WORKS 2 " Ptj 1 7 1-= 2 1975 HUNTINGTON BEACH. CAL1F. November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved empioyees and members- ui Li1C CiA'_y _ Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, i C( Ms. Bea M. Nickerson ON THIS DATE,NOVEMBER 17, 1975 8205 East port Drive BEFORE ME LINDA POTTER, NOTARY P ! PUBLI OJIANGE COU TY, COSTA MESA Huntington Beach C ORNI APPEAR D BEA Me NICKERSON California 92646 LINDA POTTER ' •oee000000000wooese0000000000- OFFICIAL SEAL e e LINDA POTTER o NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIC O O PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN O Ar ORANGE COUNTY 0 ` My Commission Expires July 14, 1979 oee000000000's00000e00006eooAA< Ms. Bea Nickerson /� s__-'— y 8205 Eastport Drive v Fq �`°j� ' rF°� _ DEC- �7_ ; .�,..✓�"'�, Huntington Beach PN a• 4 w n .. California 92646 RETURNRECEIPT REQUESTED City of Huntington Beach City Hall ' Huntington Beach ` NO• � � � -� California 92648 , i `1111191 YP:1T J t1ETEF :r PB.s:si3zf_ ,K No. 3 �. DEC111 tr, t(u:rr�rcTCo- r, - C D�pT. OF: L W� F'UQ C fC KS 12 ; November 11, 1975 1975 • l IUN77NQTpN IsF'4CH. CALIR. City of Huntington. Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the Citv of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and menCUt!Y 5 of Lne City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive :release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, �;'/ �mm�mmnnmmmunnnnnn,,,,,,,„,,,,,,nnunnmm�nnnnnnnnnunn� ' E OFFICIAL SEAL WILLMI V. BULLOCK NOTARY FUOLIC CALIFORNIA PRINCIFAL OFFICE IN ORANGE COUNTY 1979 My Commission Expires May 15, nmumumnumuuamunmumunummuwm'mm/nunnmm nnnnun� PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 7302 - OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - CONTINUED TO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, . 1976 The City Council at its regular meeting held November 17, 1975,. continued to February 16, 1976, the Public Hearing to 'determine whether or riot the Council should proceed with the formation of the Special Assessment Dis- trict in what is designated Assessment District No. 7302 - Old Town Drainage Assessment.District, Dated: November 18, 1975 Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the-City Council of the City of Hu tirigton Beach, California n By t puty. City.'Clerk Nr'"�rnti��F Rk cqZ`� S November 'll, 1975 S City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthy, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . T her,5�bv notifv the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s O'norolvea emp-i.Uyees- Eaiu Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , RFECEIVE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS u 5 1975 HUN MCIMOR BEACH, CAUP. t"pZY b� t- 7 ' (wlTr,gSS) a a. A STlATE,,'QF C4LIFORNIA r S d: C 0 Q MTY;0F '1 before me �therundersigned a Notary�Public in and for m P said County and State personally appeared personally knownyt0 me too be the person whose name is subscribed to the within I instrument as'a wrtne'ss thereto who being by me tlul "e "� y � r sworn depdsed and said That he resides in eaR/�.tr��` @�/�1�� ,�Gd�•Tt�lid��"C�Jtid.1� � personalty known to him to be the same person u FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP ern and who executetl the said within intrument as �Jt T 5.S` part thereto"sign seal and deliver the same and CARL B.SMITH duly acknowledged`in the presence of said affiant that r . } -- executed . the same and that he Tne saad ;affiant thereupon NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA F gat . // �� request subscribed his name as a witness the eto PRINCIPAL OFRCEIN a ORANGECOUNIy WITNESS`my hand:and official sea( a � � �r My Commission Ekpirea Aug.S�1979 I m. ` ma..a....F s.wr,�mm ,°dv�w ,.�, 1 `1 City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT November'.12 , 1975 &7L L Honorable Mayor_ and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: David D. Rowlands City Administrator Subject: Old Town Drainage District AD 7302 Dear Council Members: The public hearing for Assessment District- No. 7302 on October 6 , 1975, was continued to November 17 , 1975 so that the staff could address the questions. posed by the City Council as well as the public. Council- man Co.en.' itemized the five following questions, some of which can be answered now and some of which must await the results of the study subse- quent' to the preparation of the aerial topographic maps. 1. Basis of determination of the boundaries of the District? The boundary of the District has been established along the topographic ridge line of .the drainage basin and coincides with existing drainage areas that border the area. Exceptions occur at those locations where the ridge line divides existing properties. In these . cases assessable costs are figured only on those portions within the drainage basin, however, the boundary line is. required to include the entire parcel for • the assessment to be properly assigned. The boundary map will be different, because of this, from the drainage basin map which appears in the EIR. 2. Determination of exact number of property owners who have filed written protest, and number who protested October 6 . See -attached sheet entitled Exhibit A. 3. - The criteria that might ultimately be usedto determine the difference between a general and specific benefit? This determination is to be made after preparation of the aerial topographic maps. 4. The general criteria used by Mr. Stevens to determine benefits and the weighing method used for each of the six items? \a Honorable Mayor and City Council November 12, 1975 Page 2 Since we are to use a different approach, the answer to this question is no longer important. 5. Alternates to the proposed drainage system? Three alternates were studied by the staff and were reported to representatives of the residents in June and to the City Council in September. Copies of the report and a summary are attached. Questions asked and statements made by those at the public hearing, with answers, appear on an attachment entitled Exhibit- B. Incidentally, I am concerned about the value of . the town hall meeting we have had on the subject. -At the first meeting there were about 12 citizens, about 20 at the second and another 12 at the third. The message I get is that the people want to talk to you, the Council, and not us, the staff. I will be' glad to have more town hall meetings, on the subject, but they appear to be almost a waste of time without Council members present. Request-was made� by .letter dated October 14 , to the Environmental Management Agency to extend the time limit to June 30, 1976, for the $300., 000 commitment for participation .in the project. Response to the request is anticipated by the time of the meeting on the 17th of November. Aside from the question as to why should I (John Q. Citizen) pay anything for .the drainage facilities, the obvious questions posed to you are (1) How much will the City commit to the project, and (2) How much will it cost me, the property owner. Regarding question No. 1, I believe the answer lies in priorities for the Housing and Community Development funds for. 19.76. Frankly, I. believe the pressures from the property owners in' the district--will reduce in proportion to the amount of money you. allocate to the project. starting at . $300 , 000. 00. Regarding question No. 2 , armed with an up-to-date topographic map, our office can come up with a spreading formula which hopefully will be acceptable to most. The map will be in sufficient detail to examine each of the 878 parcels in the district. It is my recommendation that -the Public Hearing be continued to January 19, 1976, to provide time to examine further the questions of City participation and a spreading formula. At that time, .hopefully, you will have sufficient information to -proceed with the district. Very truly yours, Director of Public Works HEH:ae OLD TOWN DRAINAGE DISTRICT AD 7302 Questions asked and statements made by those at the public hearing are listed below with answers. following: 1. Mrs. JoAnn Ulvan. of Surfside Association inquired about' alternate solutions -.to the drainage problem. This is discussed in No. 5 in the letter of November 12 , 1975 to the City Council. She- also inquired about a statement in the EIR that the 711. 2 cubic feet per second generated by- the assessment district represents almost one-half the capacity in the Flood Control District channel in a 25-year storm. This is true except- the 711- cubic. feet represents runoff with ultimate full development of all .the- area in the drainage basin - and 1,500 cubic feet is the present day capacity of the channel. Upon continuing development in the area, the channel will be lined and fully improved thus increasing its capacity. Attached is a letter from C. R. Nelson, assistant director of the Environmental Management Agency, regarding the question of capacity. 2. Mr. Ernest Duncan, an attorney, questioned (a) legality of method of spreading cost in district; (b) cost estimate not being a firm figure; and (c) look for HUD funds. Since the Harrison case in the -County of San Mateo overturned previous spreading techniques, we �are somewhat pioneering and obviously we will be working closely with MacKenzie Brown. There is no doubt the figures quoted so far are- estimates--the firm figures will not be known until bids are opened. We discussed previously that we have made applications for FED funds , but that none are available and the picture isn't bright for funds in the near future. 3. Larry Seskes and*.Mickey Standifer , representing La Cuesta Villa, question the need for drainage facilities to serve their property and also made reference to a letter from me dated April 6 , 1975. The drainage system constructed by the developer is on a one-year return frequency storm and was intended as an interim means of transporting runoff through the low-lying area. The district facilities will intercept runoff waters to .prevent future inunda- tion in La Cuesta Villa. It .was stated in the letter that the La Cuesta Villa is not in a flood hazard area as determined by the Federal Insurance Administration. The flood .hazard area in question is that- area which would .be. effected by .the Santa Ana River in a 100-year storm and such a statement of exclusion is required by lending institutions to avoid a requirement. to take out mandatory flood insurance. 4. Mr. Clyde Wampler says that the solution should be to assess only undeveloped property. A solution whereby 50% - of the owners were required to pay 100% of the cost would be unfair and probably indefensible. Prior to July 1975, no property. owner paid any money to the City for the specific purpose of taking care of the drainage problem. 5. Mr. Chuck Geer asked about (a) difference in assessment district map and map in the EIR; (b) Lumberland drainage; (c) drainage from car agency; and (d) . suggested the drainage system be put in on a pay-as- you go basis. The difference in maps was explained earlier- and was explained at the Town Hall meetings. The question of drainage' at Lumberland and at the car agencies will be explored further on the new topographic maps. Because of the great first cost, a pay-as-you go method is not feasible at this time. 6. - Mr. Adam Ausing is for the district, except the City should pay for it. 7. . Dick Hammond of Cambro Manufacturing spoke in opposition to the district.- 8. Don Smith is in favor of the district, but opposes the results of the preliminary spread. 9. Floyd Hellupson, who- owns property on England Street, spoke against the district but on the basis that he cannot get a building permit. As - it .turns out he owns a land-locked parcel and has no access. 10. Robert Gerrard .spoke in favor of the district. 11. Ralph Lee- spoke for his mother who is on a pension and would suffer from the burden of an assessment. 12. Richard Young, representing Louis Jacober, . spoke in favor. . 13'. Jim Fox spoke in favor. - 14. George Brayton, Jr. , spoke in favor of doing something about the drainage but something less costly and suggeststhe possibility of using oil °wells to inject the rainwater into the ground. 15. - Don Medwedeff spoke about some technique aspects of the drainage design. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATES During the Spring ' 75 public hearings on Assessment District 7302 , three alternate methods were suggested for the disposal of the storm water from this district. These methods were investigated by this office and reported back to the residents in June 1975, and the City Council in September 1975. The following is a summary of this report: 1. Alternate No. 1 -. Spreading Basin a. Design Concept: Collection and spreading of .storm water over a confined basin so the water can percolate into the ground. b. Advantages: 1. Replenish ground water basin. 2. No ocean discharge. c. Disadvantages: 1. High initial cost _ $2:. 7 million construction and $0. 4 assessment district administrative cost. 2 . No Orange County Flood Control District participation, therefore full cost borne by property owners. 3. Complete redesign of project plans. 4. High annual maintenance cost. 5. Removal of private land from the rolls. 6. Unknown subsurface soil conditions. Existing soil strata may not be suitable for .percolation. 7 . Possible Orange County. Water District, O.C.E.M.A. , and Santa Ana River Water Quality Control Board control. 8. Creates attractive nuisance. d. Recommendation: Alternate should be rejected due to the high .initial and annual cost and high degree of uncertainty involved. 2. Alternate No. 2 - Retention Basin a. Design concept:. Collection and storage of storm water in a confined basin. Water would then be discharged to the ocean at a reduced rate. b. Advantages: . 1. Possible park site/retention basin joint use. C. Disadvantages: 1. High initial cost - $2 . 5 million construction plus $0. 37 assessment district administrative cost. 2. High annual maintenance cost (i.e. , trash removal). 3. No Orange County. Flood Control District participation, therefore, full cost borne by. property owners. 4. Major redesign of project plans . 5. Removal of private land from tax rolls. 6. Loss of park usage after storm for extended periods of time. 7. Creates attractive nuisance. d. Recommendations: Alternate should be rejected due to the high initial and annual cost. 3. Alternate No. 3 - Storm Water Injection a. Design Concept: Collection and storage of all storm water . Water would then be injected into the ground through wells. b. Advantages: 1. Replenish ground water basin. 2. No ocean discharge. C. Disadvantages: 1. Extremely high initial cost. $9. 0 million construction and $1. 2 million for assessment distriC-t administrative cost. 2. High annual maintenance cost (i.e. , well and pump maintenance) . 3. No Orange County Flood Control District participation, therefore, full cost borne by property owners. 4. Complete. redesign of project plan. 5. Removal of. private land from tax rolls. 6. Unknown subsurface soil conditions. Existing soil strata may not. be suitable for injection. 7 . Extremely high risk. that soil strata may become plugged from . waterborn impurities. 8. Possible State .Div.ision of Gas and Oil., O.C.W.D. ; O.C.E.M.A. , and S..A.R.W.Q.C.B. control. 9. Low utilization, rate of capital improvements. d. Recommendations: Alternate should be. rejected due_ to the very high initial construction cost, high annual maintenance cost and the high risk factor involved with the injection of water into the underground basin.' It should be pointed out that no city in Southern California presently injects storm water. The injection of treated sewage, saltwater and potable water for oil production, saltwater intrusion barrier , and groundwater recharge and subsidence only. All of these systems are operated on a continuous basis and at low volumes. OLD TOWN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 REPORT ON ALTERNATE SYSTEMS BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The "Old Town" area comprises a large portion of the central mesa in Huntington Beach. Continuing development directly causing increased storm runoff and constriction of natural retention basins has produced numerous flood problems throughout the area. In viaew of this po- tentially critical hazard, coupled with the fact that this section is not served by any type of master storm drain system, the, City Council in November of 1973 instructed the Department of Public Works to pursue the formation of Assessment District No. 7302 which would create the funds and provide for the construction of the much needed storm drains. For the past 20 months, the Department of Public Works has been involved in the design and layout of a .storm drain system. Design criteria is based on Orange County Flood Control District data for the theoretical 25 year return frequency storm. This data entails rainfall intensities and durations which have the likelihood of occurring once every 25 years. The system is composed of a network of catch basins at. various pickup points connected by a series 'of underground conduits which transport storm runoff to the Orange County Flood Control District facility b-01 Channel . Estimated cost for the system is $2, 300, 000,. of which $300,006 has been pledged by the Orange County Flood Control District for main line construction. The remaining $2 ,000,000 trans- lates to $3,500 per gross acre. In recent months, several informal "Town Hall" -meetings have been held between department staff and various groups of Old Town property owners, who will be asked to directly bear a major portion of the costs involved . Being faced with the possibility of an added financial ob- ligation, the Old Town constituents have every . right to expect that the most efficient system possible for the least expense is planned, thus optimizing the return on monies outlayed. It was with this principle in mind that the affected property owners requested the staff to re- search several alternatives to the department ' s system. It is an examination of those proposed alternates to which the remainder of this report is directed. . Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 2 Alternate 1 : Spreading Basin One suggestion was the idea of a spreading basin which entails diffusing storm waters across a plot of land and allowing it to settle out. The basic. concept was well taken and, therefore, the department carried out an in-depth research to determine its feasability. The basic theory involves spreading a relatively shallow depth of water over a large section of land , thus permitting percolation into the. soil. This has been a popular method for recharging the ground water. The advantages of this option are generally three-fold: 1 . Storm water is retained. in the spreading basin, thus preventing the loss of a natural. resource directly to the ocean. 2 . By..locating the basin within. the district; certain storm drain lines can be reduced in length and some eliminated-, thus reducing the total cost of the system by $430, 950. 3. The existing ground water structure may be re-charged, thus raising the water table and increasing well supply. Disadvantages to this option,. however, seem to be more numerous: 1. It is estimated it will require a basin of 8. 6 acres to adequately contain the 86 A.F. of runoff. Based on current market price of approximately $35,000 per acre, the purchase price for the necessary land would be $302,400. 2. Land excavation and preparation for the basin would be approximately $557 , 000. 3. The estimated cost of the diffusor structure and spread- ing system is $250,000. 4. Installation of sampling wells to monitor the chemical make-up of the ground water under the basin would cost $45, 000.- These wells would represent an annual operating and maintenance expense to the City. 5. The required 8 . 6 acres would be 'aken off the City tax roles and would result in lost revenue due to non- productive land. Report on Alternate systems AD 7302 Page 3 6. By electing this alternative , the district would forego the $300, 000 pledge by the County. 7 . The process of percolation may be somewhat questionable since a sand strata could interrupt the downward flow and carry the water out to the ocean. Also, a dense clay strata could seriously impede percolation and cause standing surface water which could become a health hazard. The foregoing information deals with the major concerns of the proposal. Its estimated price of $2 ,724 ,000 represents a much higher initial investment to the property owners. In addition, maintenance Operations would constitute an annual long-run expense to the City. It - is, therefore, the concensus of this department that no further consideration need be given to this alternate. Alternate 2 : Retention Basin This department iri its preliminary design considered the use of a retention basin, but the idea failed. to materialize, due to the high land costs involved. Recently, however, this alternate has been studied using a concept of combining the retention basin and a park site. The function of a retention basin is to .store and retard. high volumes of storm- runoff during and. immediately following the storm. . The basin is then drained at a controlled rate after the storm has passed. The major design purpose is that down-stream facilities can greatly be reduced in size. Of particular interest in this case is that the basin site can double as a neighborhood park, thus serving the recreational needs of the residents. There are two general advantages gained through the use of this concept: 1 . Certainly a major portion 'of the costs for the depart- ment's original design lie in the down-stream sections of the system. The employment of the retention basin affords the use of smaller tail-end sections in the storm drain. This savings is estimated to be $375, 900 from the present design. Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302. Page 4 2 . As previously mentioned, the major non-economic benefit is that of combining the retention basin .with the proposed park site between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, south of Yorktown. The 9. 08 acre site -will cost an estimated $381 , 360 which will be paid out of the City' s general fund. It can be expected the grading and site preparation expense of $250,000 would be split between the district and. park funds. t The basic design of the basin involves gently sloping sides down to a flat bottom. Grass could be used over the entire site with landscaping and park facilities on the fringes of the actual basin. The park would not only serve recreational needs but would also enhance and benefit the area as : a whole. The disadvantages are as follows: 1. By reducing the size of the downstream lines,. the district would forego the $30.0,000 pledged by the Orange County Flood Control District. The District ' s funding policy 'involves consideration of larger sized conduits to which this. alternate would not qualify. Therefore; the actual savings would .be minimal , with the per-acre assessment .remaining at $3,500. 2 . As with any retention structure, the basin would require \\ maintenance for clean out, debris removal, and possible re-grading. This would represent an annual expense to the General Fund. 3. One point of consideration with this dual use is the. possible, whether remote or not, hazard to park users. During summer months only an insignificant stream .of . nuisance water would run across .the bottom section of the basin; however, the rainy season with its unpredictable storms could fill the basin to capacity, thus producing a potential danger to children of the neighborhood. In analyzing this alternate, it seems to be an economic toss-up in comparison with the present design. No particular ,monitary benefit is gained over other alternatives; and it is necessary to Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 5 consider the contingent hazard brought about by the bi-lateral use. The department' s proposed system would eliminate storm runoff as it is collected and rid the area of it permanently. It is therefore recommended that the retention basin alternate be abandoned in 'favor of the present design. Alternate 3: Storm Water Injection The injecting of storm runoff into the sub-strata by means. of abandoned oil wells was another alternate popu4larly voiced at the meetings. The department has contacted numerous agencies in An attempt to analyze this suggestion. The procedure involves the collection and storage of storm runoff in numerous individual basins throughout the district. Water is then pumped through refurbished oil well shafts at a controlled rate and injected under high. pressure .into the water bearing strata: below. .. This process has been used to rejuvinate oil. bear- ing stratas, thus increasing well production, and the same principle could be used to recharge the water table. Advantages with well injection. seem to be two-fold: 1. Since the injection sites are sporadically .located throughout the district, the main trunk storm drain line would not be required., but instead small individual collector systems would be used. Although it is difficult to estimate the actual net savings involved, one could expect them to be great. 2. Again, as with Alternate 1, a direct possible benefit derived would be the partial recharge of the ground water supply. Disadvantages and uncertainties have beer" compiled as. follows: 1. According to the THUMS island operation off Long Beach, the maximum injection- rate per' well is 5,000 bls/day. This translates to 146 gal/min. Using this criteria and based on total storm runoff volume of 28.2 million gallons, over 200.0 wells operating at 150 gpm would be required to keep pace. Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 6 Relying more on the interim storage capabilities of the individual basins, it would then require approximately 50 wells pumping 150 gpm continuously for 3 days to drain the storm. 2 . Some of the economic concerns on a per well site basis are listed below: (a) Purchase price for an abandoned well and the land is extremely difficult to. estimate 04i an individual basis. it would seem $50,000 could be considered as a minimum. (b) Well preparation, oversizing, pressure adaption, and general refurbishment .wo.uld cost approximately $50, 000 (c) Purchase and installation of high pressure pumping and injection. equipment would run $80, 000. A minimum. total cost, therefore, of $180, 000 would be required to get the well operational . The cost would be considerably higher if a .producing well were involved. The total price for 50 wells, therefore, would_ be a staggering $9, 000, 000. 3. One uncertainty connected with high pressure -injection is whether in fact storm runoff can be introduced into the strata and for how long. Past 'expdrience with injecting reclaimed water from a sewage treatment plant showed the fluid contained too many suspended solids and that the oil. bearing formation was soon .plugged. . If. this occurred in the district, the property owners would be out the money used in the injection system and' be in the same situation as they are currently (including the ravages of inflation) . 4 . Since the district is believed to be crowed by a number of fault lines, what effect water injection would have on fault activity is difficult to say. Monitoring devices would no doubt have to be installed to record sub-grade conditions, again at an additional expense. Report on Alternate Systems AD 7302 Page 7 5. With the Department of Oil and Gas regulating injection into oil sands and Department of Water Resources (and Water Quality Control Board) regulating injection into - water sands, it may be difficult to comply with all re= quirements. 6. To maintain the current high quality of ground water , any storm water to be introduced into the water strata must first be filtered and treated. ,,"The cost of even a small treatment plant would be extremely high. Based on the foregoing information, it is recommended that the injection alternate be rejected as a questionable and economically unfeasible approach. Although the three suggested options are all viable alternatives; it : s the opinion of this department that, based on economic and engineering feasibility, the present design is superior . in solving the problem at hand. It is, therefore, recommended that any assessment district formation incorporate the presently proposed design. "OLD TOWN DRAINAGE" AD 7302 :Injection of Storm Water Thums operation, islands off of Long Beach. Water flood operation for oil production Maximum injected for one well 5, 000 bbls/day 210,000 gal/day 146 gal/mein Peak flow of storm runoff 723 cf/sec 324 ,482 gal/min Requires 2,000+ wells @ 150 gal/min Retention basin 86. 4 ad. ft. 3,763, 584 cf 28 ,151,608 gal. One well @ 150 gal/min 134 days of operation to drain retention basin. Other Considerations to be Investigated 1. Cost of. purchase of well. 2. Cost of- well preparation $50,000+ 3. Cost of. well equipment $801000+ 4. Solids in storm water a. Could plug formation b. Reclaimed water from sewer treatment plant had too many solids to inject. 5. Earthquakes due to injection a. Monitoring devices installed. 6. Department. of Oil and Gass regulates injection .into oil sands. 7: Water Resources regulates injection into water sands. 8. This type of operation could require new well of larger casing 12"+ with high pressure materials. Other local .sources: Bermuh Oil Standard Oil Orange County Water District Department Oil and Gas Department of Water Resources EXHIBIT A ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 7302 Written and Oral Protest Within District Category No. Area Percent/District c . Owner 300 29 Acres 5% Rented 100 12 Acres 2% Total 400 41 7% Written and Oral Protest Outside District Category No. Area Owner 200 32 Acres t CITY OF HUN'rINCTON BEACH ORDER OF PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) DATE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: NOVEMBER 17, 1975 MAYOR: Announces that this is the time and place .for the. con- tinuation of the Public Hearing to determine whether or not the City Council should proceed with the formation of 'the special assessment district designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESS- MENT DISTRICT) .CITY CLERK: Announces that notice of. the con- tinuation of the Public .Hearing has been posted in the manner and form as required bylaw. STAFF: Explain alternates to financing. and method of assessment spread. . CITY CLERK: Summarize status of written pro- tests. MAYOR: Open - continued Public Hearing for public discussion CITY COUNCIL: Discussion and consideration • of possible .changes and modifications. . CITY• COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS (If applicable and appropriate) . CITY COUNCIL: By motion, declare the Public Hearing closed. CITY COUNCIL: By motion, overrule and deny all protests , inasmuch- as said protests represent less than 50% of the area: CITY COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION FINDING AND , DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY . (4/5.ths vote re- quired) . OR Adopt motion abandoning proceedings and direct preparation of Resolution Abandoning Proceedings . k, RESOLUTION NO. n141 .y. I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND FURTHER DECLARING THAT THE "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION, LIMI- TATION AND MAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF 1931" SHALL NOT APPLY TO SAID PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) WHEREAS, this City Council has established a procedure for the conduct of a public hearing, pursuant to Section 17 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California, and as authorized by Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State .of California, for the purpose of determining whether special assess- ment district proceedings should be held without further compliance with the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limi- tation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" ; and, i WHEREAS, said proceedings are ,applicable to a charter city and the City of Huntington Beach is a charter City and has complied with the provisions of said Section 17 of Article XIII of the Con- stitution of the State of California; and, c WHEREAS, a public hearing , for which reasonable notice has been given in the .manner and form as prescribed by law has been held and this City Council has heard and considered all the evidence, both oral and written, relative to the public convenience and necessity for the construction of the public works of improvement in the special assessment district, to be known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) . WHEREAS , this City Council is satisfied as to the works of improvement as proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFO.RNIA AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. That the above recitals. are all true and correct. SECTION 2 . That this City Council hereby finds and determ- ines that the public convenience and necessity require the works of . improvement as now proposed to be constructed in -a special assessment district hereinafter known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7302 O �i I� (OLD TOWN DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) . SECTION 3 . That this City Council hereby further determ- ines 'that the provisions and limitations of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" , shall not be applicable to the proceedings for this improvement. SECTION 4 . That- this City Council, by no less than a 4/5ths vote of all its members and by adoption of this resolution, intends to �make all the findings and determinations as required by law and specifically as specified in Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California and is authorized under Section 17 , Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Cali- fornia. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1975. MAYOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTEST• CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF 'CALIFORNIA 2 . I j STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) L-- COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. 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 hereof held on the day of , 1975 , by the following vote: AYES : COUNCILMEN: NOES : COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: L— DATED this day of , 1975. CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA KURT KORNREICH 8 "�- 11547 DONA DOROTEA DR. STUDIO CITY, CALIFORNIA 91604 November 7, 1975 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Old Town Drainage District #7302 Dear Sir: As a property owner in the above drainage district with property on Huntington Avenue, I am most definitely in favor of the proposed water district that is now under consideration. Very truly you , , Kul Kornreich KK:pz 0 iJ ..7'f5 EASKINIO$BINS ICE CREAM 1201 SOUTH VICTORY BOULEVARD!BURBANK,CALIFORNIA 91502 Kurt Kornreich_: City Clerk 1 City of Huntington-each Box 190 • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 z i JLM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY t'I` 9171 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD-SUITE 420 CEIV C.CLIry, • r.;...-i BEVERLY HILLS,CALIFORNIA 90210 1 C' F `. TELEPHONE 275-0111 !1(� {!i,CALIF. 'NOV 6 2 November 4 , 1975 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Old town drainage district , #7302 Dear Sir : As,Va property owner in the above drainage district , with property . on Huntington Avenue , I am most definitely in favor of the proposed water district that is now under consideration . Ue truly yours , Lewis morgen P . O. Box 24801 Los Angeles , California 90024 AREA OFFICES: 11500 STEMMONS FRWY. #157 1030 EAST WENDOVER AVENUE DALLAS. TEXAS 75229 GREENSBORO. N. CAROLINA 27405 JLM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, P rf U i 9171 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD-SUITE 420 3@,V7 BEVERLY HILLS,CALIFORNIA 90210 J Q floe vJ 1 I CITY Or HUNTINCTON BEACH Box 190 Huntington Beach , California 92643 i City Clerk i y Al IF. 8112 Foxhall Dr. , Huntington-Beach, ion o _ _ California, 92646 24 All 11 ' .8 October 20, 1975. . City Council. City of Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: I own a home and live adjacent to the Flood Control near Atlanta And Beach Blvd. , in Surfside. I feel very threatened by the action pending before your body,relative to loading more water into that Flood Control which at times, seems to be straining to keep within itkts bounds already. Before you take action on this critical matter consider carefully if you are prepared to compensate 330 homeowners to an amount in money alone of possibly $20, 000, 000 Or more, in addition to loss of lives and personal injury and other considerations beyond a price tag. As for my wife and myself and our heirs, we hereby put you and each of you on notice that we will hold you and each of you responsible for any losses that your actions may cause . I think that it would be safe to say that all the tenants and owners of property here would be of the same mind. We hope that your good judgement will bring an action to release us from this anxiety. Yours very truly, r b RMG/R Ralpl M. Gumberg O C T 2 4 1975 f ;� 10/a4('1 It IF, 8112 Foxhall Dr. , Huntington Beach, 175 California, 92646 0 8 October 20, 1975- City Council. City of Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: I own a home and live adjacent to the Flood Control near Atlanta And Beach Blvd.-, in Surfside. I feel very threatened by the action pending before' your body,relative .to loading more water into that Flood Control which at times, seems to be straining• to keep within itfs bounds already... Before you take action on this critical matter consider. carefully_ if you are prepared to compensate 330 homeowners to an amount in. money alone of possibly $20,6009000 Or more, in addition to loss .of lives and personal injury and other considerations beyond a price tag. As for my wife and myself and our heirs, we hereby put you and each :of you on notice that we will hold you and each of you .responsible for any' losses that your actions. may cause . I think that it would be safe to .say that all the tenants and. owners ' of .property here would be of the same mind. We hope that your good judgement will bring an action. to release us from this anxiety. Yours very truly, RMG/R Ralph M. Gumberg 0l� ? i J W • s i. •� F. MACKENZIE BROWN 'f (714) 979-4930 4630 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE 101 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92680 (213) 48 9-500 6 458 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 809 LOB ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90013 October 7, 1975 Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Assessment District No. 7302 (Old Town Drainage) Dear Alicia: Enclosed herein, please find the proposed Order of Procedure that can be used for the continuation of the Public Hearing on the above-captioned assessment district. Said continued Public Hearing is scheduled for the 17th of November, 1975. Please also transmit a copy of the Notice of Continued Public Hearing that was posted on the bulletin board outside the meeting place for the City Council. y my yours, F. MACKENZIE BROWN FMB:mlt Enclosure ifL F ji V p � OP PUQLIC WpRKu NOV 21 1975 Hunrnnrc3ro November 11, 1975 �BeacH� j:Clp; City of Huntington Beach City..Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s- envolved employees and meMOUrs vi i..i,;;s %-.L- Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive ?release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is .flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ��L-c�ir cam/ ( . Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned, this 19th. day of November, 1975. OFFICIAL SEAL .> . P.I;i=;TA H. DORWIN Notary Public in and for the County of Orange, :; I M1 y�� Nou;;:Y PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA State of California GRANGE COUNTY 1� °p• My comet. expires AUG 28, 1978 1 `C from the desk f: CONNIE BRO AY CITY CLERK'S\DFFiICE 536-5226 ram' L f w r • 9-CEIVEb C�iTY UtRK CITY Pr NUN7iNGT0H BEACH,CALIF.' RECEIVE D DEPT' OF PUBLIC WORKS M75 DEC 16 Pal 3 : 5 6 0 E C 16 1975 November 'll, 1975 MUMMOTOR REACH, CAL'IP. City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach , California Gentliemer_: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . i hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and hLeRW i zi ui Liles City Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly. yours, • �J STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 Ss. County Of ORAN G V On December 4. 1975 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared _ NFT,T, SF.TTZ known to me to be the person ;•_ whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same. WITNESS my hand-ancl official seal. . Signature . r RUTH L GABLER ooeecoo�oeoeo0ey0000aeatsoaeoo Name Typed or Printed eo OFFICIAL SEAL e o . RUTH L. GABLER o e NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA d . O PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN o ORANGE COUNTY O My Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1977 � e e000eooaoeooeeaoa�reaoos0000eb (This area for official notarial se?.1) I I I; 1 TO 1944 CA (8-74) (Individual) OroTITLE AND TRUST INSURANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 J} A71COR COMPANY ' COUNTY OF Orange SS. t ._ ,. November 28 1975 On a before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared Gerald D. Lewis** W tY W I W known to me to be the person X whose name S subscribed a eoeoeoeeoeoeooeeeoeeeoeoeseeee N to the within instrument and acknowledged that he o e executed the same. e OFFICIAL SEAL • O LIa1 DA TALWT • WITNESS i�y hand and official se 1. a q� 1 NOTARY PUDLIC-CALI.ORNIA r O 'ry o Pfai1C'PAI. CFi I:;E IN O ORANGE COUNTY � My CommISs?an Ex res Sartcmbcr 24, 1979 Sigti a � soeoeoeeoeoe000000eoosasooe.ot (This area for official notarial seal) pN 2 p; rN iG7 POW 5 +'y y?La G2� . t/UHTIN J TrH�'^Rk DFC Pi/ 1 ©� PUBLIC Wo V 1 1975 November 11, 1975 HuNnn►croN 13 ACry, CALIF; City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting .Ike proposed Assessment District Number 7302. ;. i The City has had explicit, lengtrly, warnings of said danger in -Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and members of Li7e- City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my r property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all. the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , 1 ' ire. k '19rS `'•c 4t�F. 8 jot, O PT. OF PUE'L.IC WORKS November -ll, 1975 9 J V 18 1975 : 1" UN ISIGM0N BEACH. CALIF'. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California __:... Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it ' s envolved employees and members of Llie C-LL.y Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is. flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ' On November 17, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Betty Fly whose name is 61 subscribed to the within instrument, 9v7 �� and acknowledged that she executed the same. �rmmmmmmmnnnmmnnnntmmnnmunmmmmrrtnrtn € OFFICIAL SEAL b � = KAREN E. LAUGHMAN NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA B PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN Karen E. Laughman 'r ORANGE COUNTY My Commission Expires May 16, 1976 WlUluluuWlll WuuWUUtuuuluWwuruullWUIDuuuuuwmWLLWUWmwIW UUWHM ,� Y X: .� kawr�,` \��_ r�� }��y (j� ¢ j�y'.+� R" \ �� Off, , November 11, 1975 oti & o� City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to dram into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and menuer5 ui LI:a CitY Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive --release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 64taD . Goff 8146 Deerfield Drive Huntington Beach , CA 92646 ��=►. of PUS!IC WORKc:November 14 , 1975 u 1975 City of Huntington Beach MuHn�cTON s= City Hall �:-4CH- CALIF. Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73=-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being "violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following -information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page. 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of. the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts. on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting in-u,.-ztive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City .and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, C,E V E DCFY. OF PU9L_1C WORKS. i_,nV 2 0 1975 November 11, 1975 Hurernlc oN g�aet�. GAS. M City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lenathly, warnings .of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and members of ilie Cit-Y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all. the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, On Nvvem6ea--/$, /9751 6e o'ke the ;�.e d, a rVvr� va the ,oerruvna aooeaA vnnoA4 onnoM p run ;to me -to .4icb�c�;L6�'L'ec��v� .o e .ti �- �canen�, nvw��'�ed #hat WLecy executed the dame. . ,dr o. =OFFICIAL SEAL LARRY R: MADICK m NOTARY PUBLIC"CALIFORIi[A LOS ANGELES-COUNTY aucope° My Commission Expt_esARr.30:1976 t{�`ry� {��y pew q ,I IStA VeRbE 3VHV t M � 19 tJ Or r rrrnr ve r. �- r 4920 Michelson - Irvine, California 9294 1 vie, � i i 1 ` tl November -11, 1975 Ee. • H�A�IrpG�.�.�.��F R/{ "E,Ct,.CAI •1F City of Huntington Beach r��S �►10V City Hall Huntington Beach, California RrJ. 8 • SS Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be , ti endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report _7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees aria meiiLer5 ui c176 C:Lty Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials . responsible therefor. Very truly yours , J C.,�c-sic-p-L�-t..C,�✓�4-�.y , y� 7'W 11-14-75 Roberit N. Apodac - Notary OFFICIAL SEAL ROBERT N. APODACA NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANOELES COUNTM Gose�bt�n lento 4, 1976 JAMES P CONNORS SCR a P31 W EC CRMAN Ad { -ST CONINA CA 91790 h Cz� r RSA , °- a _ z co � W �� bS;�a�•+ y 's it I ' I c j Fish -�G1O `� U.S.P0Sf,UL K - CERTIFIED l• 1.1J.9'��n© a 1 a f J,1/ .rl s WORK,_ r November 14, 1975 V 20 1975 City of Huntington Beach " City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being "violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . .Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure -36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, d Or•p • SQL/C� 4/0V 2 Q November 14, 1.975 S City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods or assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are' unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report. 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . - I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that or the rest of the city kpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage- assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I ta-11 appeal t^v t:7: �Ci:rtS irCgtl2Stirig ii7ju�lCtl�iE' release, if tiiv Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, November 14 , 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that or the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if tic Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, t 1 r,EcEiIET ; i. CITY CLERK CI 1 Y OF {ii13H71NG7,)H ;ZACH,CAtJF !gZS NOV 18 AM 10 : ofo� F. VED V®t,IC WORKS NOV 1975 November *ll, 1975 Hv��A B �M. CgLlp City of Huntington Beach City_Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . '-- The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said 'ftnger in Environmental Impact Report _7323 pertaining. a to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number . ____---,,.7302. I herebv notify the Citv of Huntington Beach, ail of it ' s envoived employees and membui:5 Ui Lii@ CiA.y Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is. flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, e;EIVED 3- DEFT. OF PUSUC WORKS N O V 18 1975 November '11, 1975 HuWnN=,o9 BEACH. CALIF. City of Huntington Beach ..City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental * I.inpact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and rael[Luer J Ui Uric CiL.y Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage- District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is. flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss `County of nRAMr.F _ ) On • Nnvpmhpr 14, 175 before me, the .undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared raRc PATRTrTA A NEAT, known to me to be the persons whose name subscribed to the within instrument ' and acknowledged to me that G>,p executed the same. WITNESS my hand1n official se S ignattIre RUIN L GABLER Name Typed or Printed ooeoe0000e00000eosoe0000000000 e OFFICIAL SEAL e RUTH L. GABLER 0. NOTARY PUBLIC—CALIFORNIA o PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ' :•,e ORANGE COUNTY j a My Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1977 ' �aw�e000.oei��d�o�000�o�o♦►oi•;.r (This area far official notarial sell) r_y cat {� 9 ,q'j5 �fi"a 1 c E i v E o OaftT, OF PUBLIC WORKS N 0 V 18 1975 November 11, 1975 MverMQT0RBMACH, C4��R City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings .of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and members oL Llie- CILL-y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 1, P%ECEIVED j Y I1F IIUNIINGTO)N [.ACH,CALIF: 175 NOV V 18 AM 10 November 11, 1975 ry. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302: The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envolved employees and mei.ubei5 of i.i;C City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- - tive :release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is . adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof, my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City .Officials. responsible therefor. Very truly yours, r RECEIVED C;" ' OF CLERK � CIJY t)F -41UNTAG c_N `• o 'q75 OV R A IO : 1 .9 �►� 1 1�� Res November 'll, 1975 °ewe S City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted -to drain into the Old Town Drainage System- by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. ..The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining - to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302.. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it i s envoivea empiayees and Tilen jei a- Ui L.11a Cii_-y Council that if the proposed .drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage. District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is. flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, �1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' )ss. County of ORANGE ) On Momemher 1L 1925 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared BEVERLY M. O'BRIEN known to me to be the person whose name subscribed .to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that — Shp executed the same. WITNESS my hand and of fic Signature RUTH L GABLFA z Name Typed ctr Printed o�owv®oo,IS110IIO�NteO•�•e�� OFFICIAL SEAL. ' RUT H.L. GABLER • o' NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA ° 'PRINCIPA OFFICE IN • 4 f ORAN43 COUNTY o My.commlialon Expires.Jan. 26, 1977 � . �ss�••ee��•eeeeeeeeeeee•eeeeei (This area far official notarial SEW �1Y I _lovember 14 , 1975 1 47 CA1.lF.. s )©v - 44 P/, 2 City of Huntington Beach 9 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My est�ablished occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the. district ' s vacant land will be residential use ofh coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- creasje due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . _ Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2-500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - Thb E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The. E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs -of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. �- The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to- the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive releass , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very. truly yours, / ' . TO 447 C O (Individual) STATE OF CALIFORNIA l }COUNTY OF ©range JJJ SS. On November 18, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Max' C. Lorge W m , known to me IL to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that she IL executed the same. >.-�� SAjkDDRA McCAULEYWITNESS my hand and official seal. '` � T NO ARY PUBLIC•CALIFORNIA "' ' PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L ;` Signature—`�-' �' 7 ORANGE COUNTY My Commission Expires 11IIy 31, 1979 SandrzMcCauley ----- _--- Name (Typed or Printed) (This am for.w.l.l MiNat ad) _ f November 14 , 1975 RECEIVED c-17.' CI.ERK f_'"Y CF RUtiT,NGTa9+ BEAGN.CALIF City of Huntington Beach City Hall 'a75 NOV 1R Ali Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page . 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water,- electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the- revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on. E.I.R.. 73-23 P-17 • Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-.02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, *I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly .yours, 1Ole, �— November 14 , 1975 RECEIVED- IT ,.OL.rRK. HUNTING T GN BEACH.CALIF: City of Huntington Beach City Hall '975 Kv APB IO Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant .land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons. Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that or the rest of . the city kplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E.I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas ,- water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If-. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, -I will seek re- moval of assessment and money. damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, (,6;4 0 1 , a RECEIVED CITY C.-tYF;ERK,�ALFF' FlUNT1µGTiiN oEdCH November 14 , 1975 IQ75 NOV 1 A Ali City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessicient on the aged -and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The .E..I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to. contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area -and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 p-17 _ _ Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. 'I will appeal to the Courts requesting injure-ctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. if by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Ver . truly ,yours, 1✓ • November 14 , .1975 C IVp Tf N Y �i3GN, ;HU}y1iNGTi1N iSE City of Huntington Beach City Hall sg75 ROV 1A Rt� 10,' ?S Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional -rights are being " violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently ..being- -ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential_ use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10,016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas., water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will- benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. - I will appeal to the Courts requesting injun--tive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 4 T7. A 3 _ November 14, 1975 RuEIVED CLERK 11UN'1 iNG`(t 4 nC;GNP CALIF. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, . California '475 NOV ` AN 10 Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be -residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of. people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 ueluw that or the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The. E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the . area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, q9 3 November 14 , 1975 ERK r;+Y OF .. HUN1'HG7r++ SE.ACN,CALIF: City of Huntington Beach City Hall �Q?5NOV lad 10 S Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that .is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time , if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant. land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- -crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust asse-ssiuent on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects .to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount .of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 p-17 . . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, r RcCE1VE.Q November 14 , 1975 CIT'' CLERK 'CITY O f1UNTiNGTIM4 JEACt►XALIF: City of Huntington Beach , City Hall ITS NOV lg AM 10 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen:, I am a .resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that or" the rest of the city ('placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes' Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City acticn my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 7� V 77C"fl Kw o'T { RECEIVED CITY CLERY. November. 14 , 1975 my of ItUNTiHG7c�N 3_aCH.CAuF City of Huntington Beach 10 City Hall 8 'Q75 NOV 18 AM Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report. 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time , if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district'.s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable Possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted .population increase of 10,016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes -Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate. individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for -gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop .the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. . The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- meet should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 p-17 , Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. V truly yours, i 6 FtT GF•114ER November 14, 1975 ii< � � rLtF City of Huntington Beach ,q�r� My 1$ �� • 2 9 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen:. I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. my established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The.- E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply -for-,gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. _ The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. will appeal. to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, .14 i RECEIVED November 14 , 1975 t,,T'e CLERY. i;y 0 i1t1N1i}iGTt'?+-IFAcit.ICA W. City of Huntington Beach 1475 N.OV iB RM 1U 2 9 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . - I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city t"piacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36' - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate . individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply- for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, (tr CE114E0 November 14 , 1975 t1UN1 the t cat.tF. Pin 10 2 9 City of Huntington Beach : -. City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen- I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The -E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for. :gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues- needed to develop the district. ' I will be asked to' contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, w . �^IL / - . November 14, 1975 RECF_lVED l CH,CAL W. City of Huntington Beach City Hall s075 PT*V 11S Ate 10 Z 9 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. ' The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . - I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district's vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends- to have a higher proportion of people over 65. - Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 beicw that of the rest of the city -(placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I..R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas ,-.water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. - The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release; if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible. therefor. Very truly yours, v RECEIVED ;;i :`' CLERK November 14 1975 �1*!Y.nF jUNTINGT'334 cn[F City of Huntington Beach �'S � . 1$ Atl 10 ' 9 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being. ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10,016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range- of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city tplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, _ electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to- contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land. to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 p-17 - .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting -inju:ctive release, if the- Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action My property .is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, GF IVE4 r - rk Of. fltiNj�NGf GN , n C i.CAUF: November 14 , 1975 9 'Q�5 �GU 1� Rat 10 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington. Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5. - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23' neglects to-estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a .few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 12 -Z f Lao k November 14, 1975 RECEIVES v UERK HUNT INGMiN zE.'CH.CAIIF. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California '475 NO 18 An 10 ; 2"9 Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to' zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate Tndividual costs due to school construction. The E..I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system..is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no .added water- to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I •sill appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City. action my property is assessed or subject. to assessment, 'I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in .the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, u n November 14 , 1975 RECEIVED W7 CLERK uI y 11F HUNT►NGT0N is .MCAIJF: City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California '975 NOV lA 4M !0 Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. _ Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10,016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 beiuw that or the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. - The E. I.R. Report shows. no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , .water, electric power•, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is a&equate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if t:e Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of_ assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, l�to V jL►fi(ti('iGl./ t _C31'�;i]r' - -'1 HUNTiNOTiM t 175 M 18 AM 10 : 18 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302. The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings .of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302 . I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and menwer5 ui Liie City Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor: Very truly yours, +ZECEIVED r;c • 11UNTIfi:uTt1ti B1'KF11.Cd1IF. November 14 , 1975 '975 N(fil 1$ .AM 10 : ? 0 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report_ 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem . at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the. district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income rana_e of the 73-02 District is $2500 Lelow that of the rest or the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. . 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. 1will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court- against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly ours, ST-AT 3F CALIFORNIA )ss. - County of ORANGE On November 17, 1975 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared nAVRIPORT PnWART14 AKn C AMILLA H EDW R DS known to me to be the personz_ whose name_ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand-an fficial seal. Signature r t RUTH L GABLER osee000e000e000e00000000000000 Name Typed or Printed + OFFICIAL SEAL o o s/ RUTH L. GABL ER e O NOTARY PUBLIC—CALIFORNIA o PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN A + ORANGE COUNTY O wMy Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1977 0 e000e000eeeeoeose000eeeoosooeb I. (This area for official notarial sml) ill f:CrEWED . C;F November 14 , 1975 HUNIiNG .i: CH,CAL.IF. V5 NOV 18 AM to : .20 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being "vio late d. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. I.-Lr by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, RECEIVED 11, v rLct RK Ci?Y ^F HUN7iNGTt'N raIEACH.CALIF. November 14 , 1975 x475 N10V 1 ft An IO : 2 0 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California, Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the .following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. . Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 ijeiuw Lnat of iae rest of Lae city tpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 30' - The E. I. R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. _ The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02 . Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal tc the Courts-requesting . injur.cti ve release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted.- If by reason of City action my property is assessed or. subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 1vvv/w 7-161"ef Cl mmmimmmnmmmmmmmmmmnmmmmnm OFFICIAL SEAL CARMEN ARREDONDO NOTARY PU8iJ:'-CALiFORNIA E. PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ORANGE COUNTY My Commission Expires March 11, 1976 wuuwmimuuuuuuwuuuunuwuuuuunmmuu� Sworn to before me this 17th day of November, 1975. RECENE-0 yi7y CLERK y k1UN1 i 40',4 -K ACH,CALIF. November_ 14 , 1975 -r 'Q7S NOV R City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating 'a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or. subject to assessment, -I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ttECEIVED rLFRK HUNT i Fi G i:u Y,:�G'•,'F{,CALIF. November 14 , 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . -Y•o•ur"'proposed iriethoas' of-assess- ing the established and existing structural" property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental. Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income_ranae -of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city kpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting Injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, j mkY EIVED C: ZK or November 14 , 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. icy established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time,. if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Paue 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is �,2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , . water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage ,assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injun--ztive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, uenv h, &6�_Ce�_ ^R"C�lVEa November 14 , 1975 r �%;��r '40V ; ' �t�,CAI.!F. City of Huntington Beach `Q7 .1f3 AK gfl City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-0-2 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city 1placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes' Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. 1will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ECEIVED Cr:r OF (IUN1ikGi„ti s�,1CFl,CAt.tF. November 1.4 , 1975 '1975 NOV 18 An 10 : 21 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, ' California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016. persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. 'Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount. of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, .i f the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all .the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, - r ' ^�CEIVEO C! wRK IiUN7:H5 ;;4 's�zrFi,CALW. November 14 , 1975 °97F t�av 18 All 10 : 2.1. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report _ 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present- pumping costs . I maintain they are a .city problem ' at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the. district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. .Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income ranaeiof the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city kpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs -of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution . is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. 1 will appeal to the Courts _requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City• Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, . J yy 1 November 14 , 1975 RECEIVED y Ci tiR OUN i MG-1 11-1 a iCT1=CA!IF. City of Huntington Beach City Hall -'475 NOV 18 Ph 10 2 1' Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: , I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report_ 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. _ Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- nealects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if- the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , 9a r7' RECEIVED �I T v CLERK November 14 , 1975 TY C� flF HUNT iNGTON 3EACH,CAL.R City of Huntington Beach q75 NOV 18 AM 10 : 21 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated.. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2.500 below that of the rest of the city kplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the . revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the. area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Ve truly y�rs, 1�� , W �� e7 -- November 14, 1975 6't8 City of Huntington Beach '975 NOVI3 An to : Z I City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen :_ I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - 'Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a . problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income ranee of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the citykplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02 . Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. rT � 11 appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, • f the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, d_2 Y i _ DIRECTIONS 1. Send or deliver one copy on/or before Monday November 17, 2 . Or take one signed copy to City Council Meeting, Monday night 7 P.M. , November 17th. 3. Keep one copy for your records and place with your property title. 4. If possible, have notarized before delivery. 5. REMEMBER - This is your legal recourse for future claims. BE SURE you get this into City Hall. V November 14 , 1975 ��-r :K• City of Huntington Beach 'Q1 R 10 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report . 73-23 specifically states the following -information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing^Zoning Map. -Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the. district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable-possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city "(placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. . Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. - The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courtc rcq�Ucsting i njuncti �e release,. "if- t Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, AAA 'INN IF . dR.Gz �� aAza i?,:"EIVE0. CI.'RK rr November 14 , 1975 wuH�,'i +::� - Ch•CALIF. AM 10 : 2 2 City of Huntington. Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to. the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P.-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. T- will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, November 14 , 1975 '� EIVE`a City of Huntington Beach City Hall '175 ,O 18 AM 10 2 2 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4a of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65 . Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of tine rest of the city kpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting inju.-ctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Ver my yours? �. i November. 14 , 1975 11UNI:h , _ :- .::�;..��LT, 1475 %,,"YV 18 AM 10 : 2 2 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed -methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report . 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing .Zoning Map. _ Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 40 of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income rana_e of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city kplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I.R. 73-23 p-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I :•:ill appeal to the Courts regsesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, CLERK November 14, 1975 uUNT:r+G IF. 1475 NOV 18 Ai'i 10 : 2 3 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being -violate-d. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future .development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10,016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city kplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water,.. electric power, sewage and solid. wastes. The above costs will 'be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the -lan-d to be developed. The assess- ment should be based,-upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure,:-36. I will appeal, to the Courts requesting injuncti c r`Leasc , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or- subject to assessment, .I .will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor Very truly yours, on �� I OFFICIAL SEAL CINDY R. WRIGHT m NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA b'v lrNTAw/ Ve re Al 54 a� OR/NGE COUTJTv My contra. expires MAY 6, 1979 November 14 , 1975 RECEIVEDR CLERKK CIr,Y OF 1►UN11NGNS ?EACH,CAUF City of Huntington Beach City Hall '975 NOV la AM 10 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report_ 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. _ Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply .for gas , water, • electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of. the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to -assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ,2d , k RECEIVE0 o LIF November 14, 1975 Cir t%ti�EACH,CAI.IF. City of Huntington Beach q7, NOV 1R AM City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of' the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for -gas-,. water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts- requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, / o L RECEIVED i Y G! November_ 14 , 19 75 t{u►�t tr+�TE;'� tj[A{;fi,CAOF. City of Huntington Beach lg75 i Gti A AM 10 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: c I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. ` Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time , if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 40 of the. district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust asses5merit on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , .water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessedAor.;subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment -and money damages in- the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Grip- )xv CfC RE-CEIVED CT-', CLERK ,-i, OF November 14 , 1975 Im!itiGT�118; -CN.CALIF. Q75 NOV 1 ft Rid lfl : 2 7 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the. district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 lue-low that of the rest of the city kpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed- to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will .seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, l 1f November 14 , 19.75 RECEIVED r CLERK, NUH7 l'O ti 1"CN.CALIF. City of Huntington Beach City Hall '4?5OV �� ASS Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being "violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district ' s vacant -land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons. Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess. the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36:- I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunztive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, J 1(� T° ° RECEIVED November 14 , 1975 11 CLERK r fir, HUNJ1NG-ffti ou�CH UL.W. City of Huntington Beach ,Q7; � V 7.7 City Hall lf� AM 10 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that- is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. - I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below .that of .the.- rest. of. the_..,.,c t.y: �p:iacing.__an- .ggJust_ .assessm_ e_n_t_ on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action)_.* Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for ;gas , water, electric power, . sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no . added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, i RECEIVED i;!?Y C L F R K iiyCF November 14 , 1975 1iU?WNG*C0N BEACH,CALIF. VS NOV 1$ AM 16 : ? 7 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage -Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being "violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential. use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 iUeiow that of_.the. rest of the city- (placing an . unjus-t...asses.sntle,it. -. . on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to. estimate individual costs due to school construction. . The E. I.R. Report shows - no costs for updating the costs of supply for -gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will. benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. . The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the. facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. if by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek .re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ;110 \ e4l RECEIVED November 14 , 1975 Cl `' CLERK - •iF 11UNTiNGT N;;CGCH,CALIF. City of Huntington Beach +q7 NO18 Rai 10 :.2 3 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10 , 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income ranee of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city kpiacing an . unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . .Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, . water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. T_ wi]1--appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very t my your -110�,P:,��Z,��' Lax 1 _ RECEIVED November 14 , 1975 ►T•, - L_ ' 4iTY 0- NUNI�MGTq + City of Huntington Beach '97.S jg All 10.: 2 3 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice.. My established occupancy of -ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report . 73-=23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. _ Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run -Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 40 of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65 . Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes . The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is .adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to th c Courts --requesting injunctive release-,- if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to- assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, o RECEIVED IF November 14 , 1975 Ea9 it : 2 4 , City of Huntington Beach City Hal Huntington Beach; California Gentlemen I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment- District Number 73-02 . - Your- proposed methods - of .assess- ing the established and existing structural property- owner. and residents are..unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice: My established occupancy of ownership and .constitutional . rights are being violated: The Environmental Impact .Report . 73-23. specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. . Page 17 - Figure- 5 - Existing .Zoning Map. Page. 12-6=Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves. rPage 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city: problem at the-.present.-time - if future development occurs, creating a problem-; t1 han the cost should be . paid 'by the".contributor.-.' Page 8-61.4�. of the. district's vacant •land will be., residential -use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of .in crease dde• to zone -change: Page 25_ - The study area tends to have a: higher proportion .-of .people over _65. Page .28 - Predicted population :increase .of 10, 016 persons:= Page 31 -' The median income range of the '73-02 District i. $2500. belcw that of the rest of the city (placing -an un;jusa assessment on the. aged and poor. . Constitutes Federal Action) Page 36. 7 The E. I..R.. 73-23- neglects to estimate .indvidu_al. costs . due to school construction. The E.I.R: Report shows no 'Cos ts . for updating the costs of supply- for gas; water, '.electric .power; sewage and solid wastes. The _above costs will be a few. of the..revehues needed- to develop - the: district. I will be asked to' contribute to there- costs as well as the drainage assessment although my .present system _is adequate. The drainage .assessment district will.benefit- the future. development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed: The 'only solution is to -assess the land to be developed: The assess- ment' should be .based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage -District 73--02. -Apply the facts on E.I.R. . 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 16, 'I will appeal to the Courts req;iestiag injunctive release; if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action' my property is assessed or subject to assessment-, I will seek re- moval of. assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all' the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , L ..ice rZ. :y'c7Cf` i��e FL at, ,11/3 c,C. November 14, 1975 1 Al% Ij City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach,. California- Gentlemen: : . I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- the established and existing structural. property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental. Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored:'. Page 17 . Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient .of Run Off Curves: " Page 8 - Present pumping costs.. . I maintain they are a` cty problem at the present time , if future development. occurs creating a problem, . thari the cost should_ be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4.%. of the- 'district' s vacant land will ' be: residential use of high - coefficiont run off with. reasonable .possibility of in"., crease due to- zone change. ' Page 25 - .The study area tends to _have a higher proportion_ of- people over 65. -Page 28 Predicted population increase of 10',01-6 persons.. Page Page 31 - The median income range "of the 73-02. District is $2500 , below .that of- the rest of the city tpiacing .an."unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes` Federal Action) Page 3.6 - The. E.I.R. 73-23.--neglects to estimate in ividual: costs. due to. school .construction. The E.-.I.R. Report; shows nb`dds,ts for updating the' costs. of supply for gas, water, . electric power, sewage and solid :wastes. . The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed_ tO_ `develop the district. -I will be asked ,to contribute to- -these ccsts " as -well as -the drainage- assessment although my_ present sys•iem. is'.adequate. . The drainage assessment district will•berief:it the:.future-`development of the district. I will have no added water .to the . area •and•.there.-. fore should.-not be ' assessed.- The onl solutionj. s to-assess the land to be develop.ed:" , The ass The be based upon the "amount of, water; contributed. to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply. the facts on. .E..I.R. 73- 3: P-17 'Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting..injunctive'.. release-, if tYie, Drainage. District #73-02 is adopted.' .- If by- reason_of city action my property is assessed�or subject to .assessment, I will , seek• ie-- moval of .assessment and money .damages 'in .the Court agairi`st.' the City .and all the. City Officials .responsible" therefor. :. Very truly yours, • SFr • 9t� /�1�f C� C�/ ' November 14, 1975 Ij A City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach,- California Gentlemen: I. am a' resident. and/or owner. of property in .the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your :proposed methodslof `assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair .and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional- rights are being violated The . Environmental. Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - - Figure 5 -• Existing '.Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure .36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves. Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain' they .are .a city .problem at the present time, 'if future development. occurs creating a problem,,"than the cost should be paid by the. coritributor. Page 8-61:4% of the district'.s- vacant land will .be" residential . use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of, in= crease due to zone change. Page 25. - The study area tends to have a. higher 'proportion of people over 65: Page 28 -. Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons Page .31 - The median income range of the .73-02 District is" :$2,500 below that of the rest of the city tplacing an unjust assessment on the aged -and poor. _ Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The. E: I.R. 73-23--neglects to estimate -individual costs . due to school .construction. : The E.I.R. Report shows no costs. for updating :the costs of _supply for gas, water,. electric' power, . sewage. and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed -to develop. . the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs -as. well as the. drain'age assessment although my present system is .adequate: The drainage assessment district will benefit .the future_.development of the district. I will have no added •water to the area. and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess 'the . land to be developed. The assess- ment should .be based upon the amount of water contributed to the - Drainage District 73-02. . Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-1.7 - Figure 5; . P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive, release,. if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted.. If. by reason of' City action• MY property -Is assessed or subject to assessmeht,.•I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in. the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly .yours, `�i-.C�IVE��• V 1� RM 10 ' 2 5 November 11, 1975 City of Huntington Beach City .Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a .resident and/or owner of property who could be endangered if additional waters are permitted to drain into the Old Town Drainage System by reason of adopting proposed Assessment District Number 7302 . The City has had explicit, lengthly, warnings of said danger in Environmental Impact Report 7323 pertaining to Old Town Drainage and Assessment District Number 7302. I hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach, all of it' s envoived employees and members c�i Lfie Cii=y Council that if the proposed drainage district is ap- proved, I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunc- tive release. If Drainage District Number 7302 is adopted and completed, and, if by reason thereof , my property is flooded, I will seek money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , D;rE1VcED 1 a .. November 14 , 1975 sQ75 10V 18 Ail lo 2 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the- established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page: 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is .$2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessiuellt on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . - Page 36 - The 'E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, -electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 P-17 . . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunclCive release , if the Drainage District #p73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, r HtYr November 14 , 1975 18 i�i 10 : 2 5 City of Huntington Beach City Hall . Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. - I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02- District is $2500 Below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply- for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to tho Courts requesting •injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, CAL November_ 14, 1975 �q, ) s 1s 1 : 2 b City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . - I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the. district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient 'run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the. drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I _will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, CAL November 14 , 1975 Rh At = City of Huntington Beach • �� '�'� 1'6 I�� 1� ; 2�5 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to .estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no .costs for updating the costs of supply for gas_, =water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore. should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73=02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 .1 .Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action My property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, November. 14 , 197518,g {I-s City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in_ the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income ranae of the 73-02 District is $2500 beluw that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes-. Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas,.:water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed: The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 7:.,-7-7- 71 � , P,±:CEiVED. i CI, November 14, 1975 175 Nov 18 Afi1 11 : 5 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen :. I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of-the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the .city tplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes -Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects .to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the"revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 , Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , :. November 14 , 1975 cCEfVEOSLED City of Huntington Beach City Hall '475 NOV 18 Rid 10 ' 2 5 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant -land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 _ Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District -is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of-the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 p-17 - .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #.73-02 ' is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , L • �� RECEIVED November 14 , 1975 r, ly�1F f�UN7oiGit3. 4ACH,CALIF. City of Huntington Beach '17S NOV18 At 5 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being " violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends-.to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked .to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- .fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, u ZECEIVED Z i" OF November 1 4,- 1975 MWiNGTON 3E4H,CA1.JF, City of Huntington Beach '975 NOV 18 An IO : 2 6 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing_ the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 6 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population i-nicrea'se of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E.I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for . gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues .needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02 . Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 E=17-___ Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. '` I will appeal to the "Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action . ,my property is assessed or subject to assessment, 'I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Cry d I _ R+ECEIVE0 November 14, 1975 rritHziNGTi;i� each.CALIF. City of Huntington Beach '975 NOV 1S All IO : 2 6 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4a of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 beluw that of the rest of the city tpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for. gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of- water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. - 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36.- I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , ►1uNT CK,CAL IF. November 14 , 1975 '975 �1 la Arz 10 : z 6 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being " violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10,016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city tpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The. E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for-gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs .will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-.23 P-17 . .Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injure---tive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, RECEIVED CI TV CLERK CITY OF November 14, 1975 NUNTIr+G"rara iiEACH,e�t.IP: 1475 NOV 18 Aft 10 2 6 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen- I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply- for .gas , .water, electric .power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. 1 will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, .fin Y1� •('_ � . • RECEIVE I T v C ERY. November 14 , 1975 11WIacN,ro BEACH,CA.►F:' '915 Nov is RPM 10 : 2 6 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report_ 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. . The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the _revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 2v ae4Z 9� G ;::EC£ky£D November 14 , 1975 -K-Y CLERY. City of Huntington Beach i8 10 ; 2 6 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being " violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page- 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range . of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an uniusc assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to. contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to 'tre Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 p-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure.. 36. I' will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, i RECEIVED November 14 , 1975 GkERK •a:Y OF HUNT;NCTON 3FACH.CAIIF. City of Huntington Beach . 1975 MOV 18 An 10 41 2 6 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range -of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The. E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for. -gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be, a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these cost as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, November 14 , 1975 RECEIVEQ Y CLERK L-:• 11UN1 iwtl'+ 3E;S%Fi CALIF: City of Huntington Beach City Hall ,q.�5 pip 18 A1� 10 : 2 6 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. boy established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact., Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. _ Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02-District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city tplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R-. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas ,-_water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release,- if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all. the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours , . o v �� 4k Ez_EC E{YEO November 14 , 1975 HUAI ixvT 4 3::P,CH,C.pL.IF. City of Huntington Beach 1475 l+CV 1S Ail 10 ' 2 6 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage, of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. 'Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant -land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of. the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction._ The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply- for gas ,' water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the--revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to- these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 p-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, November 14, 1975 (ZtC Gif-R � 0 t fiK. r'�Y f�CYI £¢L4f: City of Huntington Beach City Hall �475 lU 2 6 18 R�1 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen:. I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land .will be residential use -of ,high coefficient run off with reLasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of tne. cit.y tplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for 'gas , .water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36.- I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, 'I will seek re- moval' of assessment and money damages in _the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, i i 1 _ i RGCRVED November 14, 1975 4i rEA ti1u►+1 1Hc*rrr, 3[�eti,cAL.iF. City of Huntington Beach 1475 NOV 1.8 An 10 : 2.6 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being " violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons. Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessittent on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , .water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the - Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action My property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. . Very truly yours, 2 D R€CEtVED _,v CLERK iT November -14, 1975 NUN;ING'M, Y.:ACH,CaL.iF. City of Huntington Beach 1975 NOV 18 RM 10 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen:. I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects .to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes'. The above costs will be a few of the �revenues -needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible . therefor. Very truly yours , / &&4 , s November 14, 1975 '47S ]8 AID �0, • 2 2 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident •and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 . - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to- have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range, of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city kpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of- the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, ,z ;, --. BECEIYED CLERK C"Y OF I1UWHNi,T�� DTACH.CALIF. November. 14 , 1975 1975 NOV 18 Aid 10 : 2 2 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report. 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the. district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10;016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . . Page 36' - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the. district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor., Very trul yours, 0 Dall ljo,✓ ST. i4CEIYE`0 _ ryLnERK NUNTi November 14 , 1975 '975 NO I All IO 22 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being 'violate'd. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 -- Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city tplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes federal Action) . Page 36 = The E.-I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my" present system is adequate. The . drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 p-17 _ Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I Wrll appeal to the Courts requesting in;u--::4 1ve release, 4 ' the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my_ property is assessed or. subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, 47� f� �J DIRECTIONS 1. Send or deliver one copy on/or before Monday November 17, 2 . Or take one signed copy to City Council Meeting, Monday night 7 P.M. , November 17th. 3. Keep one copy for your records and place with your property title. 4. If possible, have notarized before delivery. 5. REMEMBER - This is your legal recourse for future claims. BE SURE you get this into City Hall. , November 14 , 1975 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report . 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city tplacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02 . Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts -requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, CLfR'K CITY �r November 14, 1975 RUN TiNGT13N "CACH.CALIF. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen- I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old- Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your. proposed methods of assess- ing the established acid existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District .is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing ari unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- rieglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E..I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I i-11 -appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the - Drainage District #73-02 9- adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, �a � �z RECEIVED CITYWHTINGUM BEACH,UWF: November 14 , 1975 M NOVIA AM 10 2 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report . 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. . . Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. will appeal to the Courts requesting injur_ctive release, �f twe Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the- City Officials responsible therefor. Ve truly yours, . •"ice 1��F F 7N31Nii1't;td. ;E RCN,C u 1F. November 14 , 1975 �47V 1$ AM 10 : 3 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being 'violate-d. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injun-ctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re-- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, Q;:CE11+E0 ERK November 14, 1975 T.V nF !i1]NIt!r%7EN':�:1Cn..AI.IF. City of Huntington Beach `a75 NOV 1$ All la ; 7 3 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment. District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5. - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . -Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain-they are a. city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows -no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed 'to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed .to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 - Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly your Rc.CFIVEG ACH-CAL IF. November 14, 1975 'QNOV.75 � 1 AM 10 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen- I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. G The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. ' Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, *than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing ail unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues. needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit . the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. 19r'ill appeGl to the Court -requesting llij'ar.ctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Ver' truly yours, mr-S P Cke 'j INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California r'' os n eles r, OFFICIAL SEAL WINONA M. DEBENEQICTIS 17th_____________day of.....November ........19_75 before me, • NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIPORNIA On this............. LOS ANGELES COUNW Los Angeles ........MY-==.-.expiras•4 I;-l" .............................. a Notary Public in and for said..............................County, (S persona y a red RENAT ..G.. ABRERA---------•---•------ ........ ---••--- - • -• . . ... ...... .................. •--- .............................. known to m to be the n ....whose name.._ ..is........F--------- :=':subscribed to the within instrument, a nowl ced t ......he. . _e ecut th e. _FS nd an o sel. ... ;= ;...--- Notary Public in and for said.......LOS ANGELES _ _____________________County and State JULY 1, 79 P-16.9 4-73 My commission expires-------•-•--------- ------19....... November 14, 1975ctVEg .qK H.If4i;; :t! . City of Huntington Beach City Hall ; Q : 1� Huntington Beach, California a ear- 43, � `� Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and . constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost- should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 4% of the. district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of 4 people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be . developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to Courts _-equesting 'injunctive- release; if the Drainage District -#73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment nd oney damages in the Court against the City and all the City 0 fi • al responsible therefor. er truly urs, RECEIVED :I tERK November 14 , 1975 =q75 moi! 18 An 10 : 2 6 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage .Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being " violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem- at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range- of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23-. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The - E-. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject ._to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours 1 R'C€tVED Cl.fBK November 14 , 1975 HUNT�µG F(,'�ON fir- 3inr..H.CALIF. City of Huntington Beach 'g75 � �� 18 Ai'i 10 2 6 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen- I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends- to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. -Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R., Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, . electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district.. I will be asked to contribute 'to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- went should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to -assessment, -I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, z12�B i � �,IzAkAle__ 1 V.r ItUN1 F. ".."r. :Y 1F. November 14 , 1975 `Q75 KIN 18- AM 10 : 2 3 City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District- Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. _ Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. : I. maintain .they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61. 40 of the. district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The Tnedian income range of the 73-02 District is 52500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 The E. I .R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I .R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. ' The assess- . ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E. I .R. 73-23 p-17 Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I 4"I1' appeal .fo Lthia '`our _req es ting inJ unCb.._vG release, . If .a.c Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very ruly yours, 911 =ECEIVED G}_ R November 14 1975 HUNT d4i"+i City of Huntington Beach 175 00i 18 AM 10 . 2 3 City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or .owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . my established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a.. - problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2.500 below that .of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting in;unctiv� release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, -I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, b November 14 , 1975 RECEIVED i " CLERK ,iTY r,F IIUNJMGTON �.EACH,CALIF. City of Huntington Beach City Hall '475 MOO jR QM 10 : 7 ,. Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen:" I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and 'existing structural . property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice . My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range- of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that or the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the -costs of supply- for -gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes: The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future. development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to -be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 _ Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If. by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, 'I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. . . Very truly yours, A 11 November_ 14 , 1975 RECEIVED KUNTt 8_ City of -Huntington Beach City Hall ? Huntington Beach, California 'QT5 N-ON Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.40 of the district ' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income ranqe of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest. of the city .. kpiacing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to. estimateindividual costs due to school construction. . The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the .revenues needed .to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to .these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is -adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land .to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount-of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the .facts on E.I.R. 73-23- P-17 _ Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, November 14, 1975 RECEIVED. TV CLERK yQ-' HUNIiNGTCH BEACH,Ctl-I City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California 14.5 NOV . 2 8 1 R AM1D Gentlemen: . I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are :unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use. of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people .over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range-'of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the -city (placing an. unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I.R. 73-23- neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for . updating the costs of supply -for- gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will- benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the . Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours titV40 r (;a November 14 , 1975 RtUEIVE-O CiT; Ci cRK Y LF HUNTiNGT(IN HEACH,UL IF. City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California 1975 NO I Ati 10 : 7 8 Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 = Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor: Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends- to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city - (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes' Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E. I..R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . . Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the , Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, November 14, 1975 RE-'GVEO GITY �ERK . LITY OF ,11UNTINGTON I; Ctt,CAL-IF; City of Huntington Beach City Hall 'q75 OV 1 Ali 10-: ? 8. Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves . Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use -of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. . Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment. on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E.I .R. 73-23- neglects .to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R: Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas, . water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment . although my present system is adequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment should be based upon the amount of water .contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I .R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release , if the Drainage District . #73-02 is adopted. _If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, •I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages. in the Court against the City and all the City Officials _responsible -therefor. Very truly yours, r ; 1 401 L November 14 , 1975 }�F0t`{VEO rl-ry Uc�RK. OF Ti CALIF: City of Huntington Beach {IUNI1NC N 3_hC� City Hall Huntington Beach, California �� $ Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report_ 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves. Page 8 - Present pumping costs. I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4% of the district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 ueluw that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 = The E. I .R. 73-23 neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas , water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well. as the drainage assessment although my present system is aCequate. The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess'- ment should be based upon the amount of water contributed to the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17_- Figure 5; P 12-6 , Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court. against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours November 14 , 1975 RECE iVEDK City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California $ Gentlemen: I am a resident and/or owner of property in the Old Town Drainage Assessment District Number 73-02 . Your proposed methods of assess- ing the established and existing structural property owner and residents are unfair and a gross miscarriage of . justice. My established occupancy of ownership and constitutional rights are being violated. The Environmental Impact Report 73-23 specifically states the following information that is consistently being ignored. Page 17 - Figure 5 - Existing Zoning Map. Page 12-6-Figure 36 - Coefficient of Run Off Curves. Page 8 -, Present pumping costs . I maintain they are a city problem at the present time, if future development occurs creating a problem, than the cost should be paid by the contributor. Page 8-61.4a of the. district' s vacant land will be residential use of high coefficient run off with reasonable possibility of in- crease due to zone change. Page 25 - The study area tends to have a higher proportion of people over 65. Page 28 - Predicted population increase of 10, 016 persons . Page 31 - The median income range of the 73-02 District is $2500 below that of the rest of the city (placing an unjust assessment on the aged and poor. Constitutes Federal Action) . Page 36 - The E. I .R. 73-23. neglects to estimate individual costs due to school construction. The E.I-.R. Report shows no costs for updating the costs of supply for gas ,.. water, electric power, sewage and solid wastes. The above costs will be a few of the revenues needed to develop the district. I will be asked to contribute to these costs as well as the drainage assessment although my present system is adequate. J The drainage assessment district will benefit the future development of the district. I will have no added water to the area and there- fore should not be assessed. The only solution is to assess the land to be developed. The assess- ment. should be based upon the amount of water contributed to: the Drainage District 73-02. Apply the facts on E.I.R. 73-23 P-17 . Figure 5; P 12-6, Figure 36. I will appeal to the Courts requesting injunctive release, if the Drainage District #73-02 is adopted. If by reason of City action my property is assessed or subject to assessment, I will seek re- moval of assessment and money damages in the Court against the City and all the City Officials responsible therefor. Very truly yours, �1 r7i� 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 'identifie& 'as ;the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. •• ..'_;�__ � -�� ,3 I ��cfc._:-�-C-t-cam:..!=��- -61 41 tk J f_.' /�• fir �-%'��r�%�r_ i�__ �/..�� ,J�`•.w/,�u/l��wiz . ��` f; �� iJ,`�.lf !�i l/ ! �� -� ate, l ..•�• - ///I I t t We,. the residents of Surfside Located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - i known as Tract 5581, do hereby petiCion 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. V . . I We, the residents of Surf side 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 idpgtified the "Old Town: Drainage ssessment s ict No. 73-02. j n oci � � '.' � •`i r�. 1 � � �Jr,.,:••N�,it:\ y� }7_}•,4„. �,•�'�. � N ti l 3l- 1 c;.�,� Pa 1 . - j ill •� ,,, � �, . . �� %✓ u r��j).1.y{ IC' Al d i.)`/ '<- Jam• �`-,�. -'�-• G /�/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. i �� At Li 4t v We, the residents of Surfide located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - know 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 avid desist in any further development of the drainage system identified- as the "Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. � �� Fll 4'6 ,Qee��►�lr� ;�e� �,�, DA ...i""'.i 8 02 4A04 I CzzG. / , O z AW= Jv SZl LJrPo�°7" �d�, r_l S: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•, �� +.. . • ; . . , • ��-y� Svc•��0 0 0. .f,4.�F '. VA !Lox,,eL-�. No �( ql Paw ZO G 9 Ad 'ell es.i Alza {' ; .0 �. V. VV 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. tom=-=l4-1c/1_ . he, /v 415 01 -01 Z13 '3 5� n /R- 1 t'A-,a L 21::�' 77 - �� •'4- Iz . / 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 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 furfher development of the drainage system identified as the 'Old Town: Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. 1. / ej V .,+,. _`JJ c`vt/e,ek� ;J/.'�� •-,.'�`�1:'�r2{L��s-Gf�v-''Z • .�`l�:�-�,-'�; .�-' I � �� _� -•, ifs. t ��, :s ,� 3 �' s- ( C 17 2�) 1- j.`!-r .� C'T�z—_„.C�7, , . . We, the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at Surfwood - known as Tract 5.581, 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. LL 1 We,' the residents. of Surfside aocated 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. Ands f5rthermore, to cease and desist in any further development of the drainage system i identified Lthhe "Old Town: Drainage. Assessment District No. 73-02. ✓ tip W!n se�e� .,,tc OJ.a,,�,; �,�v�,. 8 19 S w I LO va o 1) P-1 V. E 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. ('j• �`` � :•'`f�t�.' J 'J�l i 1, .�.>�./�!:.:;.•�{? �'..;iL Io t 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. AO /' ( 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. et.JIiA 1 � j We; -the residents of Surfside located south of Atlanta at .Su.rfwood known as Tract 5581, do hereby petition the members of Iluntington ' 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. r I i