Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSanitation - Miscellaneous Reports from Council, Appointment ORANGE OOUNTY -SEWERAGE SURVEY REPORT UPON THE COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINDINGS The Board of Consulting Engineers reports the following FINDINGS, which represent an epitome of the mass of data included by this Report. These Findings have the purpose of pre- senting clearly and concisely all of the important conclusions derived from the mass of data included by this Report, without reference to the Report itself and without any necessity on fthe part of the'reader to review and study the entire Report. INTRODUCTION (Chapter 1). viding for an investigation of the status of 1. Five basic objectives must be attain- sewage disposal .systems covered by such.per- ed in a proper, adequate, and long-term solu- mite "with a.view to recommending the suspen- tion of the sewerage and sewage disposal sion or modification of permits whose contin- problem of Orange County. uance is not warranted by the facts". 2. These objectives demand (a) the de- 6. The Cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, velopment of a comprehensive, orderly plan of Orange, and Santa Ana, and the 4 Sanitary sewerage; (b) the utilization of.existing Districts of Buena Park, Garden Grove, La_ works and structures so far as possible; (c) Habra, and Placentia, together with the U. S. the assured protection of shore waters and Navy Lighter-Than-Air Base, are presently. beaches from pollution; (d)-the orderly pro- served by the Orange County Joint Outfall vision of the necessary sewerage facilities Sewer system, comprising collecting sewers, a free from nuisance and deterioration; and (a) sewage treatment plant, and an outfall into the establishment of equitable procedures of the Pacific Ocean offshore from the mouth of finance and administration. Santa Ana River. 3. The possibility of reclaiming the 7. Along the Orange County shore line sewage for beneficial use by direct irriga- there are 7 independent sewage treatment tion or by augmenting sub-surface water sup- plants in service, from northwest. to south- , plies must be carefully considered. east, as follows: Seal Beach, Sunset Beach Sanitary District, Huntington Beach, Laguna 4. The reclamation of soil fertility Beach, Dana Point Sewer Maintenance District, values through the use of digested sewage San Juan Capistrano Sanitary District, and sludge as fertilizer must receive full con- Capistrano Beach Sanitary District. sideration. y 8. In addition to the communities 5. On March 11, 1946, the California named in Findings 6 and 7 above, Orange ,- State Board of Public Health adopted a reso- County has three military establishments, all lotion prohibiting the continued disposal of of which are served with sewers and sewage raw sewage and -industrial wastes into any of treatment plants, as follows: U. S. Marine the inland and coastal waters of the State. Corps Air Station, U. S. Naval Reserve.Air . without appropriate treatment. As of the Base, and U. S. Navy Net and Ammunition De- same date the Board adopted another resolu- pot. These establishments are of a permanent tion entitled "Resolution Requiring a Review type, and have a .present population (includ- of Outstanding Sewage Disposal Permits", pro- ing civilians) of approximately 11,000. l 2 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY, 9. -This Survey and Report have been daring Los Angeles County, although develop- primarily concerned with trunk sewers, main ing rapidly, is not yet provided with sewer- pumping stations, treatment plants, and out- age. f falls, rather than with local sewerage which 1s not of general or county-wide significance. 14. The coast line of Orange County varies from long, flat, sandy beaches in the 10. The Report is believed to be suffi- northwest to abrupt cliffs in its central ciently comprehensive to permit verification portion and again to stretches of beach at by the reader of the relative and absolute its southeasterly end, all of which is ex- validity of each of the projects considered petted to develop into a heavily populated and recommended. residential and recreational zone. 11. Many field studies were carried out 15. The southeastern portion of the by the Survey to supplement the data already County is mountainous, and in the forseeable obtainable from other sources, including: future it is not expected that its population (a) measurement and sampling of the flows of density will develop sufficiently to warrant domestic sewages and of industrial wastes; sewerage, except for the coastal zone as (b) observations of ocean currents; (c) can- noted above. vass of the kinds and amounts of products processed in all major industrial plants; (d) 16. On a northwest-southeast axis determination of the location and extent of Orange County has a length of some 40 miles existing County population; (a) survey of all and a general width perpendicular to that existing trunk sewers, treatment works, and axis of approximately 20 miles, the total ocean outfalls; and (f) detailed examination area being nearly 800 square miles of which of possible routes and locations for the pro- approximately one-third is cultivated or in posed intercepting and other trunk sewers, use for homes and industries. pumping stations, treatment plants, and out falls. 17. With respect to total area, popu- lation, and density of population (in persons 12. Comprehensive analyses were made in per square miles), Orange County in 1940 the Survey laboratory of large numbers of ranked 48th, llth, and: 6th, respectively, samples of sewage and of industrial wastes to among the 58 counties of the State. determine their character and composition._ Also, many special laboratory studies were 18. There are 13 incorporated cities conducted on such matters as the phenomenon in Orange County, of which Santa Ana, fifth ,of ocean disposal of sewage, the bacterial class, is largest; and the other 12, all of pollution of shore waters, the chemical the sixth class, in alphabetical order are: treatment of sewage, eto. , involving several Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, j thousand additional analyses. Laguna Beach, La Habra, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, San Clemente, Seal Beach, GEOGRAPHY (Ohapter 2). and Tustin. The aggregate population of the 13. The comparatively flat coastal incorporated cities numbers about 114,000, or plain in the northwestern half of Orange 59% of the County's total population. County comprises the major area in which pop- ulations of great density and heavy industri- 19. Orange County contains many .unin- al development will presumably be established oorporated communities, some of which are and therefore will constitute the area where- provided with sewers, and others which are In sewerage problems will be most acute. The developing to such a size as to require sew- eastern half of this coastal plain is now erage facilities. Included in the list of partly sewered but the western portion bor- important unincorporated places are Buena I l ■ FINDINGS Park, Capistrano Beach, Costa Mesa, Cypress,. . the full and free use of the County's valu- Doheny Park, E1 Modena, Garden Grove, Los able recreational coastal areas. . Alamitos, Midway City, Olive, San Juan.Cap-. istrano, Sunset Beach, Stanton, Westminster, TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OF ORANGE COUNTY and Yorba Linda. (Chapter 3).• 24. The topography and geology of any I 20. Within Orange County are 10 Sani- area are basic factors influencing the design ` tary Districts and the Dana Point Sewer Main- of sewerage works. The most important of tenance District, all of .which are engaged in these relationships are: (a) ground surface varying degrees in sewerage or other sanita- slopes determine the size of sewers and the tion activities. Buena Park, Garden Grove, time of travel therein; (b) :industrial devel- La Habra, and Placentia Sanitary Districts opment for the most part takes place in rela- are members of and are presently severed by tively flat areas and, thus, from such ter- the Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer. Cap- rain the volume and strength of sewage may be istrano Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Sun- expected to be greater than from more rugged set Beach Sanitary Districts and the Dana districts; (c) sewerage drainage areas gener- Point Sewer Maintenance District have indi- ally correspond more or less with natural vidual sewerage systems and disposal works. drainage zones if the greatest economy is to Costa Mesa, Midway City and Silverado Canyon be secured; and (d) abrupt changes in slope Sanitary Districts are presently concerned introduce design complications and limits- r only with garbage .collection and disposal. tions. 21. The County is served by one local 25. Certain geological factors of im- and two transcontinental railroad systems and portance ac related to sewerage may be noted by an excellent network. of Federal, State, as follows: (a) depth to ground water in County, and municipal highways, roads, and sewer trenches as affecting the cost::of con- streets. struction and also the amount of percolation • of ground water into the sewers; (b) the sta- 22. Orange County enjoys an agricul- bility of the soil, including the existence tural production of considerable diversity of faults; (c) the shoaling and erosion of and large annual value, the latter for 1946 beach zones; (d) the structure and stability being estimated at more than $81,000,000. of the ocean floor; and (e) the location and Also, many types of industries have developed extent of spreading "areas" through which or have located in Orange County, and the sewage effluents or. water may percolate into numbers are constantly increasing. the ground. 23. Land, population, and industries 26. There are portions of three major exert a profound influence upon the sewerage drainage basin areas in Orange County, name- of a region, and a survey of local conditions ly, those of San Gabriel River, Santa Ana indicates: (a) that the bulk of the sewage River, and Aliso-Trabuoo Creeks; and of these and industrial wastes will continue, as at the Santa Ana River basin area is by far the present, to be developed in the area of the largest and most important. coastal plain; (b) that for many years the industrial wastes will be complex and refrac- 27. Excluding the area drained by tory in respect to treatment, so that land Aliso-Trabuoo Creeks, the remainder of Orange disposal would be both expensive and diffi- • County constitutes a portion of a geologic cult; and (c) that ocean disposal of the ef- zone known as the south Coastal Basin, which, fluents from primary sewage treatment works as a whole, comprises four physiographic di- is definitely indicated provided such can be visions. Of greatest importance with respect accomplished without in any way restricting to sewerage is the division called the Coast- 1} ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY al Plain, which in Orange County, extends 33. The construction of ocean outfalls from Beal Beach to Newport Bay and from that will demand that excavation be carried coast line inland nearly 15 miles. through the beach sand and underlying rock • out to a depth of about 30 ft. , beyond which 28. The surface of the Coastal Plain is the effect of wave action will be negligible generally smooth, has a slope of 20 ft. or and it will be feasible. and.proper to rest less per mile, ranges in elevation from sea the pipe on the ocean floor. level at the coast to 250 ft. at the mouth of Santa Ana Canyon, and has a relatively shal- CLIMATE OF ORANGE COUNTY (Chapter 4). low depth of alluvial sediments resting upon 34. The mild and salubrious climate and at least 1500 ft. of various marine deposits. the attractive physical environment in Orange County are largely responsible for a rapidly 29. Tidal marshes occur along the expanding population as well as for great coast from Alamitos Bay in Los Angeles County temporary influxes of people seeking recrea- to Newport Ba;,• in Orange County, as a series tion. The climate also favors the cultiva- of depressed bodies alternating with marine tion of a wide variety of agricultural prod- terraces. ucts and a high degree of industrial working efficiency. 30. The Aliso-Trabuco Creek drainage basin lies within the "Capistrano Area" of 35. A 30-year compilation of tempera- California, and comprises in turn a coastal ture observations by the U. S. Weather Bureau plainsland, a region of rolling hills, and at Santa Ana may be summarized as follows: steep mountain slopes. Except for the coast- (a) mean annual temperature, 62.20F; (b) min- al settlements and cultivated areas in the imum average monthly temperature, 53.OcF, .oc- stream bottoms near the coast, this region is curring in January; and (a) maximum average for the most part uninhabited and utilized monthly temperature, 72.OoF, occurring in principally for grazing. August. 31. In general, the topography of 36. Studies of wind data collected at Orange County is favorable to simple sewerage various places on or near the Orange County design, but there are localized areas where coast line show that the winds existing near relatively deep excavations will be required, the coast line are principally of the land= others where pumping will be necessary, and and-sea breeze type, resulting from a more still others where rolling hills will noes- rapid heating and cooling of the earth than j sitate numerous independent collecting eye- of the ocean. This wind blows generally on- tems. shore during the daylight hours, and offshore at night, and, during the times of reversal 32. Important geologic factors which in direction, blows more or less parallel to will affect sewerage construction are the shore. following: (a) wet excavation may be ex- pected for most work carried on in the 37. In addition to the daily reversing "Perched water" area; (b) running sand may wind noted above, there exists a non-periodic be encountered when excavating sewer trenches wind which blows principally onshore, and in several localities; (c) peat bogs in the mostly during the daylight hours. vicinity of Westminster will necessitate special construction techniques; and (d) 38. The resulting total wind, during deep sand excavations-will be required paral- the period April through October when the lel to the shore in certain areas; but (e) beaches are popularly used for swimming, elsewhere the conditions will be generally blows in an essentially onshore direction al- more favorable. most 15 hrs. daily, with a mean velocity FINDINGS S closely 7 mph, and in an essentially offshore the sewers will ever be surcharged with sur- direction 9 hre. daily; with a mean velocity face runoff waters during that period of the slightly less than that of the onshore wind. year when the beaches and other recreational areas of the County are being most eaten- 39. Strong winds of very high veiooi- sively used. ties blowing towards shore may occur during. the winter months when the beaches are not in 45. The olimatic-factors exercise other use, but practically never occur in the sum important effects upon-sewerage in Orange mer. County, including the following: (a) the warm temperatures facilitate the process of 40. Rainfall data for five observation sludge digestion; (b) temperature, air move- stations in Orange County indicate annual ment, and humidity are very favorable to the ' mean values ranging from.12.34 in. at Laguna drying of digested sludge on open beds; (c) Beach to 22:75 in. at Santiago Reservoir, sunlight, rainfall, and other climatic fee- with a general mean.of 15.62 in.; of the to- 'tors are favorable to the successful opera tal annual rain, very little occurs during tion of oxidizing lagoons as a method of. sew- the period May through October. age treatment; (d)� wind directions, being generally onshore during the day, require 41. Evaporation from water surfaces in- careful design of sewage treatment works so creases with altitude and distance from the as to eliminate possibilities of odor nui- ocean shore, and annually totals some 69.2 canoe; the winds also have very.important ef- in. at Santiago Reservoir and 90.0 in. at facts on the ocean currents off the Orange Beaumont, the maximum rate occurring in Aug- County shore line, and hence- upon the die- ust with a monthly total of- 8-8 in. at San- posal of sewage effluent to the ocean, 'as tiago Reservoir and 13.4 at Beaumont. will be noted in more detail later; (a) the warm summer temperatures induoe'excessive 42.' Bright sunlight occurs in Orange growths of sulfide producing organisms in the. I County over a large proportion of the days of sewers and consequently increase the oosts of the year. In the vicinity of Santa Ana and maintaining sewers; and (f) many other of- Tustin some 320 days with more or less sun- facts. light occur each year, and even more sunlight may be expected at the more inland places. USE AND IMPORTANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY BEACHES . (Chapter 5). 43. Rainfall is an important factor in 46. The importance of the ocean shore determining the proper oapaoity of both sew- line area of Orange County, in its economic, era and treatment works by reason of direct social, and other aspects, must be assessed infiltration of surface runoff .into the sew-. in highest terms. ere and of indirect percolation of ground wa- ter through porous joints. In Orange County 47. This shore line, some 42 mi. in.ex- the magnitudes of surface runoff infiltration 'tent, includes some of the finest and already resulting from wintertime "flash floods" are most heavily-utilized beaches,. water parks, sufficiently large to augment the normal.saw- and other ocean recreational features to be age flow to a total volume which represents found along the entire western coast. of the the .peak for the year, exceeding the maximum Americas. Visitors come to this region in summer flow which contains a much heavier very great numbers from practically all of contribution of industrial wastes than does the population centers of Southern California the winter flow.. and from many other places, and there is every indication that their -numbers will con- 44. Since heavy rainfalls never occur tinue to increase and that there will be a in the summer, .there is_no possibility that commensurate growth of the permanent popula 6 ORANGE COUNTY SEWMAGE SURVEY ` tion. persons unacquainted with local conditions but which, nevertheless, are seemingly ra- 48. In recognition of the probable de- tional judged by the well-established pattern velopment of the shore areas, the Board of of population movement to California and the Supervisors of Orange County authorized the distribution of this influx. County Planning Commission to prepare a oom- prehensive plan of beach development, inolud- 53. Los Angeles County has been the fo- ing all beach areas, both within and outside cue of development in the southern part of of incorporated territory; accordingly, a the State with respect to commerce, industry, "[aster Plan of Shoreline Development for and population; and it is believed that the Orange County" was submitted to and approved history of the population development in that by. the Supervisors in November, 1941. County furnishes a reliable criterion of the development which may be expected in Orange 49. At the present time there are some County on a proportionate basis and with an locations in Orange County at which sewage or appropriate time lag. sewage effluent is being discharged directly into the ocean waters, namely, in order from 54. Some of the most significant items northwest to southeast: Seal Beach, Sunset in the growth and development of Southern Beach, vicinity of mouth of Santa Ana River California are: (a) of the mass of people (Joint Outfall Sewer), Laguna Beach, Doheny moving to the 11 western states, the propor- Palisades, Capistrano Beach Sanitary Dis- tion settling in Los Angeles County has con- trict, and San .Olemente. stantly increased until by 1930 this was 2 out of every 5, with perhaps even greater 50. Bacteriological and other testing proportionate numbers during the past 17 of shore waters in the vicinity of the 7 out- years; (b) the metropolitan area of Los Ang- falls named above, conducted by the County ales increased from 30,000 in 1880 to Health Department since 1943, has indicated 2,318,000 by 1930, 50 years later, and to that although the shore waters have been 3,700,000 in 1946, representing an increase Intermittently polluted in the past, the of nearly 60% in the last 16-year.period; problem has now become serious due to the (o) the wartime growth of this area was 30% ever-inoreasing volume of sewage flow as well as compared with a national average of 6.5% as to inadequacies in treatment facilities, for metropolitan areas; (d) at the end of i Insufficient lengths of outfalle, and breaks 1946, in spite of severe shbrtages and ob in outfall lines. stacles, housing for 125,000 persons was under construction in Los Angeles County; 51. Unless corrective measures are in- and (a) of all new businesses established in yoked and made positive and permanent, the the United States since the close of the war, degree of pollution of the shore waters and one out of eight has been located in Southern shosea of Orange County will increase in California. general proportion to the population and the resulting volume of sewage, until large areas 55. Of the entire Southern California will be neither pleasant nor safe for use. region, the area most adapted to heavy resi- dential and industrial growth is the coastal POPULATION PAST PRESENT, AND PREDICTED plaineland of Los Angeles and Orange Count- FUTURE (Chapter 6). Ise. Because of the relative high density 52. A study of the factors influencing of population already living in Los Angeles population growth in Orange County, recogniz- County, it is believed that the influx of i ing past trends here and in oontiguous por- new population will increasingly settle in tions of Southern California, leads to esti- Orange County. Also, through-the Metropol- mates which may seem incredibly 'large to ttan Water District of Southern California, 1 FINDINGS there is available an adequate potential plants, the treatment works, and the outfalls. source of water supply necessary to support new growth. 60. The estimates .in this Report of present and future sewage volumes and flow 56. To predict the future population of rates are `based upon the following: (a) rec- Orange County, the County was divided into 67 ords of the existing Joint Outfall Sewer; (b) study areas each representing an entity with- 24-hr. gagings by the Survey of the flow at in which the anticipated type of growth and all other treatment plants in the County; and the reasons therefor were- deemed to be con- (a) gagings by the Survey of the liquid sistent; following this each such area was wastes from 21 of the 29 major waste-produc- classified into one of six density types. ing industrial establishments in the County. For each of the density types a typical growth curve was developed, extending from 61. The total volume of industrial the time of early settlement to time of its wastes is estimated currently (1947) to av- maturity or saturation, on the basis of the erage 4.1 mgd (million gallons per day), actual growth curves for similar areas in Los equivalent to 21.5 gpod (gallons per capita Angeles County which have already become' per day), with a monthly minimum averaging built-up. By applying these curves to the 67 2.4 mgd in December and January and 'a month- study areas the predicted population was ob- ly maximum averaging 6.5 mgd in August. tained for each of them for the years 1947-90. These figures were combined as necessary to 62. The per capita daily contribution obtain the future population figures for the of strictly domestic sewage is estimated at various districts or other area groupings 70 gallons, for the entire area served by considered in this Report. the Joint Outfall Sewer system, .with the ex- oeption of Newport Beach. At Newport Beach, 57. For the entire County the predicted presumably because of sewage contributions population figures, as compared with the 1940 by visitors seeking recreation, the strictly census count of 130,760, and an estimated domestic flow averages some 140 gpcd. ' 1947 population of 260,000, are as follows: (a) 1950 - 290,600; (b) 1970 - 802,800; and 63. .For other communities and districts (c) 1990 - 1,466,000. in the County the strictly domestic flow in 1947 has been estimated to average 50 gpod. ` 58. All of the various sewerage works proposed by this Report would not be built 6.4. At many coastal places there is, immediately, rather, the works Will be con- in addition to the domestic flow, a steady structed in increments as population growths percolation of .groundwater into the sewers clearly demonstrate their need. In general, which amounts to as much as 50 gpod. sewage treatment works have been designed to �. meet conditions of some 20 .years in the fu- 65. Future daily quantities of domestic ture, and other works, including trunk sewers, sewage as of 1970 and 1990 have been computed some 40 years in the future. on the basis of the predicted populations, with the per capita sewage contribution as- QUANTITIES OF SEWAGE FLOW (Chapter 7). sumed to remain the same as at present. 59. Adequate information concerning the volumes of sewage flows developed in the 66. The volume of industrial wastes to County, with respect both to total flow and be developed in the County in 1990 is pre- variations in rates of flow, is fundamental dicted at 30 gpod, applied to the population to the planning and design of practically resident in proposed County Sanitation Die- every important feature of sewerage works, triots Nos. 1-8. including the sewers themselves, the pumping 8 ORM09 COUNTY SEVERA609 SURVEY 67. A careful analysis of infiltration sewage, including industrial wastes, is al of surface runoff into the Joint Outfall Sew- most as indispensable as that concerning er system during periods immediately follow- quantities. To procure this information, it jag times of prolonged heavy rainfall sug- was necessary for the Survey to establish a Bests that a reasonable expression for the suitable laboratory and to conduct a sys- maximum amounts of infiltration to be ex- tematic program of sampling and analysis of pected from such rains is the ration of 2 all wastes, both domestic and industrial, de- million gpdi of rain, with 4 in. per day as veloped in the County. the heaviest steady rain likely to occur over - I an appreciable portion of the territory am- 72. The industrial wastes contributed braced within proposed County Sanitation Dis- to the sewers in Orange County, or more spe- 1 tricts Nos. 1-8. Employing this ratio, a cifically to the sewers of the proposed Coun- formula has been derived expressing the ty Sanitation Districts Nos. 1-8, contain greatest instantaneous rates of infiltration such large concentrations of organic materi- expected to occur in the proposed Districts als that they constitute a basic factor in Nos. 1-8, as follows: Infiltration in mgd = the design of the sewerage works, particu- (300A + 70P)/ (5,000,000), where A equals the larly the sewage treatment works. area in acres and P equals population. Thus 77 i the maximum infiltration rates expected in 73. These industrial wastes are pre- 1970 and 19M are computed to be 23 mgd and dominately seasonal in their distribution 30 mgd, respectively. throughout the year, being greatest in the i summer and least in winter, with the peak in 68. For the area included by the pro- August and the minimum in December and Jan- posed Districts Nos. 1-8, the maximum winter- uary. time rate of flow, comprising the normal sew- age flow plus the amounts of surface runoff 74. Large volumes of wastes, with ao- infiltration previously stated, will slightly companying heavy loadings or organic matter, exceed, both 1n 1970 and 1990, the mazim,m, produced 1n the manufacture Of beet sugar, rate of flow of sewage plus indnstrial wastes under the project recommended herei-n will be occurring in August, and, therefore, is the discharged to the sewers after partial treat- Controlling value in the calculation of sewer meat at the sugar refinery, thus eliminating sizes. the lagoons which are employed at present. 1 69. Estimated minimum flow values for 75. At the peak of the industrial 1950 have been employed to establish minimum wastes prodnotion in 1947, which will occur sewer grades necessary to the maintenance Of in August, the wastes from the industries in- eelf-cleansing velocities. . oluded in proposed County Sanitation Dis- tricts Nos. 1-8 will have an estimated BOD ' 70. Treatment plant Oapaoities have (biochemical oxygen demand) averaging 93,500 been based upon the estimated average daily lbs. per 24 hre., this being equivalent in rate of sewage flow in August, 1970. Treat- organic content to the-domestic sewage flow meat plant operating costs have been computed from some 850,000 people. The corresponding ' on the basis of the average rate of sewage figures for suspended solids are 41,800 lbe. flow for the entire year. and 380,000 persons, respectively; and for chlorine demand, 5,450 lbs. and 1,090•,000 CHARACTER AND COMPOSITION OF DOMESTIC AND persons, respectively. INDUSTRIAL SEVAQES (Chapter 8). 71. In the design of sewage treatment 76. The citrus by-products industry, and disposal works competent information con- beet sugar manufacture, and fruit and veg- earning the character and composition of the stable processing and-packing, all of which II FINDINGS 9 are seasonal, contribute the major part of and sugar manufacture a continued maintenance the industrial waste loadings. of operations at the.present level. 77. The sewage now reaching the J.O.S. 82. The remaining industries, which are treatment plant on the average has three non-seasonal in nature, are of the general " times the loadings or strength with respect type .which it is believed must develop to to content of organic matter as does ordinary sustain the predicted increase in County pop- domestic sewage; and from 5 to 6 times_ as elation. much during the month of August. 83. The total volume of industrial 78. As of the present time the esti- wastes which will reach the sewers in 1990, mated population tributary to the J.0.8. estimated on the basis of studies conducted treatment plant is about 91,000, for which by the Metropolitan Water District, will be the per capita daily industrial sewage flow 30 gped, this being two-thirds of the total averages 35 gallons, if the contribution of amount of water to be used by industry. the Waste Water Disposal Company is included, or 26 gallons without it; while, if applied 84. Based upon analyses of industrial to the total population of the County, the waste contributions in existing built-up figures become 23.5 and 17.5 gallons, respeo- metropolitan regions, it is estimated that tively. the strength or organic content of the above stated 30 gped of industrial-wastes occurring 79. The character and composition of in 1990 will be equal- to that contained in the domestic component of the total sewage the estimated 70 gpcd of strictly domestic flow has been assumed to remain constant dur- sewage. ing the period i947-90, with per capita daily loading in pounds as follows: (a) BOD and 85. Laboratory studies were conducted suspended solids, each 0.11; (b) chlorine to study the amenability of Orange County demand,'0.005; and (c) grease, 0.02. savages to treatment by the method of chem-ical treatment or flocculation, in which it 80. The future character and composi- was determined that such means can effectiv- tion of the industrial flows have been eval- ely clarify the savages to give a resultant uated by estimating the probable growths or effluent having a turbidity of about 30 ppm, declines in existing waste-produoing.indus- corresponding .to- a BOD concentration of about tries and the probable nature of such new ijr- 100 ppm and a suspended solids concentration dustries as. are likely to be developed com- of about 25 ppm, the dosage of either alum mensurately with anticipated population in- or ferric chloride required to effect such creases. clarification being * grains per gallon per 100 ppm of DOD removed. The degree of clan 82. Forecasts of industries of current ification to be obtained may be varied with- types, resulting largely from conferences in wide limits, depending upon the dosages with their managements, indicate: (a) for of chemicals employed. the citrus by-products and the citrus pack- ing industries a possible increase of one- 86. This same study determined that third during the next 10 to 20 years, with the processes of stirring and settling alone, a subsequent decline proportionate to the without chemicals, will effect a substantial reduction of citrus producing acreage and clarification of sewage, to a degree inter- the growth of population;. (b) for the .fruit mediate between that effected by chemical and vegetable processing and packing Indus- treatment and'that effected by plain subsi- tries an ultimate growth to twice their pre- dance. sent proportions and (e) for fish packing 10 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY 87. It is expected that the use of home time to bathing waters and beaches is insuf- garbage grinders will be gradually developed ficient to accomplish the destruction de- in Orange County, as elsewhere, with resul- scribed, pollution with insanitary and un- tant increased loadings upon the sewerage sightly consequences may result. works, and with consequences as follows: .(a) the quantities of screening and of grit in 92. The current studies involved ob- the sewage will be considerably increased; servations of the direction and velocity of (b) there will be no deleterious effect travel of floats of several types and depths 1 either upon the sewers or upon primary treat- released under all conditions of wind and ment processes, although there will be a tide at various times of the day and night, greater production of scum, including grease, at locations along the entire coaat.of Orange and greater removals gf solids requiring in- County, and at distances from shore up to 3 creased capacity of sludge disposal facili- miles. ties; and (a) secondary treatment processes, if employed, must be designed for greater 93. In addition to the compilation and capacity than would be the case if the ground analysis of the observational data obtained garbage were not being discharged into the directly by the Survey, the office studies sewers. comprehended a. study of information on this general subject supplied from many sources, OCEAN CURRENTS OFF THE ORANGE COUNTY notably the U. S. .Coast and Geodetic Survey COAST LINE (Chapter 9). and'the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 88. Comprehensive and reliable inform&- tion relative to ocean currents is essential 94. With' the possible exception of the to the proper location and design of an ocean areas directly over Newport Channel and off outfall, particularly with respect' to the vs- Dana Point, the current characteristics were locities and directions of these currents at observed to.be fairly similar throughout the various times during the day and during the coastal zone of Orange County, a fact which various seasons of the year. permits a wide latitude in the selection of an outfall site. 89. Since the fundamental premise has 1 been adopted that the shore waters and shores 95. As observed at other peninsular of Orange County shall be maintained clean, points, the currents off Dana Point are gen- unpolluted, and suitable at all times for un- erally �relatively strong and incline slightly restricted use, the Survey has devoted a con- -seaward. siderable portion of its budget and of the time of its technical staff to a detailed 96. As is characteristic of ocean Can- field and office study of ocean currents in yons along the California coast, the bed of every phase which affects the proper solu- Newport Channel is subject to periodic move- tion of the problem at hand. meat due to a filling and sloughing of its shore section, and although at this location ' 90. Sewage discharged into the ocean deep water may be reached a relatively short at any depth rises to the surface where it distance from shore, it is not adaptable as spreads out in a relatively thin layer and an ocean outfall site. then tends to diffuse and mix with the ocean waters, so that all of its organic material 97. The currents off the Orange County r, and pathogenic bacteria will undergo oxide- coast, within the 3-mile zone investigated, tion and be destroyed. were found to be essentially rotary in no- tune, with the direction constantly changing 91. Onshore currents will carry this clockwise, and with a 24-hr. or daily cycle. surface layer shoreward and, if the travel - I FINDINGS 11 98. Studies made by the U. S. Coast and which travel to the right of the wind direc- Geodetic Survey in San Pedro Channel demon tibia and average about 2 fpm per mph of the- strate that the currents under discussion ' ` wind. comprise four component elements, namely: (a) component due to tides; (b) component in- 104. Such winds, if suffioiently vio duced by daily periodic winds; (c) component lent, can induce relatively high current ve- due to ocean drift (general circulation of locities but since the strong winds occur for the ocean mass off the California coast); and the most part in winter and since "Santa Ana" (d) component induced by non-periodio winds. winds are offshore winds, the induced our- rents in question lose significance and are 99. The current component due to tides not important to the problem at hand. is an irregular but, nevertheless, periodic current changing clockwise in direction 105. A basis for outfall sewer design throughout a cycle approximating 25 Jars. Off considerations has .been obtained by mathemat- the Orange County coast, within the zone un- ioally combining the several current compo der consideration, the magnitude of this ti- nents just described. The combination has dal current is estimated to range from about been made such that the resultant current 4 fpm to about 31 fpm, averaging about 12 would have the maximum possible onshore .move- fpm. ment;_ hence, this current has been termed the "typical adverse current",since it repre 100. A more important rotary current sents the worst conditions which ban be ex- component is that resulting from the daily petted to occur during the beach season with periodic wind, or daily land-and-sea breeze, any signifioant degree of frequency. which blows onshore. during the day and off- shore at night. This wind induces currents 108. The pattern of this current move- having a clockwise rotation and an exact ment during the 24-hr. .day resembles a daily cycle, and having an estimated magni- spiral with the current direction being on tude off the Orange County coast, within the shore during the day and offshore during the zone under consideration, of about 33 fpm, night. this velocity obtaining throughout the day regardless of the variations in the daily 107. If a float were to be released at periodic wind. a point 15,000 ft. seaward, the average time required before such a float would reach the 101. Observations made by the Survey breaker-zone (estimated at 600 ft. from indicate that the effect of the ocean drift shore) would be more than 24 hrs.; but, for is not generally pronounced within the 3- certain times occurring during a few hours mile zone under consideration, although under of a few days each month, this period of exceptional conditions this element may be travel could be 'reduced to a minimum limit of sufficient magnitude to affect the our- of 5.5 hre. rent movements. 108. In addition to all of the current 102. The available information indi- components above noted, there is an addi- cates that the direction of such ocean drift tional movement of .the sewage-sea water mass currents is roughly parallel with the coast, above an ocean outfall due to the hydraulic northwest or southeast, that such currents head of the rising volume of fresh water are helpful, when present, but that they through the salt water of the ocean. This cannot be relied upon and, therefore, cannot additional movement must be considered if be considered in outfall design. the true minimum period of dilution,which would occur with an ocean outfall at a stat- 103. Non-periodic winds induce currents ed distance from shore, is to be determined: 12 ORAME COUNTY SEVP MGZ SURVEY 109. For the recommended 15,000-ft. treatment plant, all of the conventional outfall to serve proposed County Sanitation methods of sewage treatment were studied to Districts Nos. 1-8, the current due to the determine the moat economical and satisfao- hydraulic head of the sewage field may be ea- tory combination of collection, pumping, pected to reduce the minimum travel time of treatment, and disposal works. In addition 5.5 bra. to 4.0 bra.; and the corresponding to the main treatment plant proposed to minimum dilution of the volume' of sewage ef- serve County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1-8, fluent anticipated in 1970 would be 1/1500, separate treatment plans were considered a ratio which has been demonstrated to be for Districts Nos. 4, 8, 9, and 10. more than satisfactory. Ordinarily the peri- ods of dilution and the resulting dilution 114. The primary treatment methods ratios obtaining will be very much greater. considered involve the use of the Imhoff tank and of settling tanks with secondary 110. After 1970, with an increased flow sludge digestion facilities; and the secon- of sewage and a correspondingly increased dary treatment methods considered involve ma of the sewage field, it may become de- the use of the activated sludge process, sirable to store a portion of the effluent of high rate trickling filters, standard rate the treatment plant during a period when the trickling filters, oxidation ponds, and vary- onshore currents are most vigorous and to re- ing degrees of chemical treatment; while for lease it at a favorable time later, the dilu- treatment plants other than the main plant tion ratio being thus maintained at the val- proposed to serve County Sanitation Districte no 1/1500. Nos. 1=8, the possibility was investigated . of pumping raw settled sludge to the main 111. The spiral pattern of the typical plant for digestion; and, finally, effluent ocean current suggests that a good method of chlorination was considered for projects sewage disposal would comprehend the storage contemplating the continuous discharge of of an acceptably treated sewage effluent dur- treatment plant effluent through relatively I ing the daytime when the currents are pre- short ocean outfalls. dominately onshore, and its discharge through a relatively short outfall during the evening 115. Wherever treated effluents are to and night when wind and currents are off- be disposed of through outfalls in the ocean, shore. For such a scheme primary treatment the degree of treatment required must be alone should be adequate, and chlorination_ that which, under the .00ntrolling conditions, would be needed only to prevent development will guarantee shore water and beaches free of an odor nuisance due to storage of of- of sewage pollution; and such degree of fluent. treatment will be represented by either pri- Mary or complete treatment depending upon 112. Employing the typical adverse cur- the length of outfall and/or upon the period rent curve and assuming sewage effluent to during the 24 hours of the day when the ef- be released only between 6 pm and 2 am fluent will be discharged. through a 2,000-ft. outfall, the calcula- tions show that the travel time required to 116. For the main treatment plant hav- reach the breaker zone, taken to be 600 ft. ing a design capacity of 85 mgd, to serve from shore, would range from a minimum of proposed County Sanitation Districts Noe. 7.5 to a maximum of 20 hours. 1-8, the disposal 15,000 ft. from shore of the effluent from a primary treatment plant, TYPES OF SEWAGE TREATMENT CONSIDERED including well-designed grease removal fa- i (Chapter 10). cilities, represents a safe and trustworthy 113. At each location considered by and by far the most economical solution of ; the Survey as a possible site for a sewage the problem. I i FINDINGS 13 117. For the Seal Beach-Huntington general layouts made of all essential sewer- Beach zone (District No. 4), it was found to age structures, including trunk sewers, • be appropriate and economical to pump the foice mains, inverted siphons and pumping sewage for treatment and final disposal at plants, in order that the economics of the the proposed main plant, rather than to treat proposed projects may be accurately ascer- and dispose of the sewage locally. twined. 118. For the zone from Dana Point 123. Among the basic design factors are northwest to Laguna Beach (District No. 8), the mean, maximum, and minimum rates of sew- it has been deemed expedient and generally age flow, the varying composition of the sew- advantageous to pump the sewage to the pro- age, and the limiting slopes and correspond- posed main plant for treatment and final dis- ing sewer velocities which can properly be posal regardless of a slight economic disad- employed. vant age. 124. The maximum quantity which a sewer 119. For the zone from Dana Point must -carry will be that forecasted for the southeast to San Clemente (District No: 9), year 1990 made up of the domestic sewage con- the most satisfactory and economic project tributed by the connected population, the in- involves only primary treatment and a 2,000- dustrial wastes, and the infiltration or ft. ocean outfall, with a 16-hr. storage of leakage either of surface runoff or of ground the treated sewage and release thereof dur- water, all at the maximum rates expected to. ing the 8 hrs. of the evening and night when occur simultaneously. positive offshore currents have been demon- strated to prevail. 125. In those portions of Orange County where sewer grades must be flat, in order to 120. For the Santiago Canyon area avoid expensive pumping, the minimum 24-hr. (District No. 10), complete treatment is rate of sewage flow is the controlling design -proposed involving an Imhoff tank, open air factor.provided that self-cleansing veloci- sludge drying beds, and oxidizing ponds,with ties are to be obtained,and deposits, with recirculation, following which the treated, resulting odor nuisances, are to be avoided. practically disinfected effluent would be discharged into Santiago Creek above Santiago 126. Short-term peak flows are rela- Reservoir. tively greater in small than large sewers, and this fact has been recognized- in the 121. If the sewage should be reclaimed sewer' size determinations made by the Survey, for irrigation use, either for direct ir- as follows: (a) 12-in. to 15-in. pipe sew- rigation or for ground water replenishment, ers have been designed to-flow one-half full complete treatment, as by the activated at the estimated 1990 peak rates of flow; sludge process, with chlorination of the ef- (b) 18-in. to 33-in. sewers, three-fourths fluent as an additional safeguard, will be full; and (c) 36-1n. and larger sewers, full. necessary. 127. All trunk sewers have been de- DESIGN OF SEWERAGE WORKS (Chapter 11). signed using a value of "n" of 0.013 in Man- 122. In the development of a regional ning's formula, when flowing full, and ve plan of sewerage, such as that described in locities with minimum rates of flow have this Report, it is not necessary to prepare been designed to give a cleansing or scour- detailed designs and final contract drawings ing effect equal to that obtained with a ve- for. the works considered and/or recommended; locity of 2 ft. per second when the sewer is but all design factors, upon which final de- flowing full. signs will be based, must-be evaluated, and l ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY • 128. Relift or booster pumping has been posed to serve Districts Nos. 1-8, the fac- generally regarded as economical when sewer tors influencing the choice of a method of trenches reach depths of about 20 ft.; and treatment indicated one of two possibilities, where such pumping is required, as is the if all of the sanitary requirements were to case particularly along trunk sewers paral- be met, the choice being between: (a) acti- lelling the coast line, .pumping stations have vated sludge with a comparatively short ocean been located, whenever feasible, to eliminate outfall, or (b) primary subsidence with an force mains, or at any rate to reduce their outfall long enough to prevent the return of lengths to the minimum. plant effluent to recreational waters; and further, it is believed that no type of 129. Pressure pipes, such as inverted treatment intermediate between activated a siphons and force mains, have been designed sludge and primary subsidence would satisfy sufficiently small to insure cleansing veloc- the conditions unless the ocean outfall were ities of 2 to 3 ft. per second during the extended almost to the length required with early years of service, with provision for primary subsidence alone. duplication or replacement later if or when the flow quantities and friction heads re- 135. Making conservative application of quire such changes. cost figures obtained from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, the construction COSTS OF SEWERAGE WORKS (Chapter 12). coat of such a primary treatment plant has j 130. It is difficult to estimate the been estimated at $20,000 per mgd capacity, cost of future construction because of the exclusive of oosts .for land, right-of-way, unsettled conditions of the times. The cost and engineering and contingencies, and the data submitted correspond to an Engineering operation cost at $2.00. per mg, net (after News Record Index of 350, which approximately deductions for revenues from the sale of represents current costa. In 1940 this Index sludge). had a value of about 240. 136. The construction cost of an acti- 131. Greatest reliance has been placed vated sludge plant embodying the main fea- upon cost data derived from sewerage works in tunes of 2 bra. primary settling, 7 to 8 Southern California which either have already hours aeration, secondary settling, and sep- been constructed or are now under construo- arate sludge digestion has been estimated at tion, although all available cost figures about $130,000 per mgd capacity for a plant from all sections of the country have been of 85 mgd capacity, and operation costa may considered. be expected to average $16.00 per mg, net. i 132. Ample data for .use in estimating 137. Were it advisable to utilize high- j the cost. of ocean outfalls has been obtained degree chemical treatment or high rate trick- from the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles ling filtration instead of the activated County and from records of the Orange County sludge process, the average annual costs for Joint Outfall Sewer. the three methods, including costs for chlo- rination and for ocean outfalls, would oom- 133. In general the initial 2,000 or pare as follows, over the period 1950-70: 3,000 ft. of outfall from shore will cost (a) activated sludge, $656,200; (b) high rate about twice as much per foot as any further triokling filtration, $433,400; and (o) ohem- extensions, and consequently the unit cost of ioal flocculation, $437,100. a short outfall is likely to be much greater than for a long one. 138. In contrast with the foregoing, the average annual costs over the period 134. For the main treatment works pro- 1950-70 for the recommended plain subsidence FINDINGS 15 plant, with effluent discharged through a 145. It is recognized that most effi- 15,000-ft. outfall into 120-ft. depth of wa- cient operation of the sewerage system will. ter, would be only $199,500. obtain if a single well-qualified agency as- sumes complete responsibility for such opera- 139. Cost comparisons for District No. tion, and, consequently, estimates of operat- 9 indicate conclusively that a primary treat- ing costs have been made with this plan in ment plant with provision for storage of ef- mind. fluent for 16 hre. each day, and with dis- charge through a short (2;000-ft.) outfall 146. Sewage pumping stations have been over an 8-hr. period during the evening and designed to obtain simplicity of construction night when the currents are offshore, is less and operation, safety of machinery and struc- expensive to build and operate than any other tures, and pleasing appearance; while the es- plan or method which would meet all of the timated operating costs for such structures requirements imposed. have been based upon 20 years of experience with similar structures in the neighboring 140. Although ground garbage will prob- County. ably be added to sewage from home garbage grinder units, in gradually increasing quan- 147. The cost of power, either pur- tities, the future of such practice does not chased or generated from sludge digester gas appear clearly enough indicated to influence to be used in operating pumping stations, is design of treatment plants at this time. estimated to vary with the size and location of the plant, as follows: (a) small outlying 141. Operating costs at the existing plants, lj¢ per kwh; (b) large isolated pump- Joint Outfall Sewer treatment works have av- ing stations, 1¢ per kwh; and (c) large pump- eraged $9.82 per mg, net, for the two fiscal ing stations, R per kwh. years, 1943-44 to 1945-46. 148. The estimated costs of force mains 142. Cost data for estimating trunk assumed the use of reinforced concrete pipe, sewer construction are plentiful and current except for force mains of very small diame- in Southern California, and the information ter; also, separate cost studies were made to gathered from works either built or under determine the most economical diameter for construction has been used conservatively each large force main and for each ocean out- with the result that the estimated costs for fall. .these structures allow some margin of safety. 149. Land for the proposed main sewage 143. Test borings were not made along treatment plant and for the proposed plant the routes'of proposed sewers, but all avail- for District No. 9 has been estimated to cost able.data relating to depth of ground water $1,000 per acre, while for the proposed plant- and soil. characteristics were examined, so for District No. 10, $600 per acre. that the physical conditions assumed in mak- ing the cost estimates are believed to be 150. The proposed sewers have practi- generally correct. tally always been located along streets, so - that an allowance for right-of-way costs has 144. Clay liners, commonly accepted in not been considered necessary in making the the past as necessary protection to concrete construction cost estimates. j sewers against sulfides, are not considered necessary in sewers where other adequate 151. Excepting for the purchase of ex- measures for control of sulfides axe taken isting facilities, an amount of 15% has been and, therefore, have not been included as a added to all estimated construction costs to feature of sewer design. ' provide for engineering and contingencies. 16 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY 152. Many of the existing trunk and construction is required; thus, construction intercepting sewers in Orange County may be postponed to future years will be financed economically integrated into the proposed new by the sale of bonds at the time the con- system and provision for purchase of these struction work is performed. from their present owners at original cost, or at a fair estimate of cost where original SULFIDE CONTROL FOR MAINTENANCE OF SEWERS records are not available, has been included (Chapter 13). in the estimated over-all costs of the pro- 159. Hydrogen sulfide generated in sew- posed system. age will have no ill effects upon clay sew- ers, but, unless controlled, may completely 153. The proposed new system would in- destroy concrete sewers within a short per- clude by purchase all component parts of iod of time. Sections I to VI of the existing J.O.S. sys- tem excepting the Magnolia-Orangethorpe pump- 160. The velocity of sewage flow is an ing station, and would include as well all important factor in sulfide build-up; and for useful sewerage works now individually owned sewage of a given organic content and temper- by the city and sanitary district members of ature there is a certain minimum velocity the J.0.9. which must be equaled or exceeded if sulfide 0 build-up is not to occur; but, unfortunately, 154. Receipts from the sale of existing it is practically impossible to maintain such facilities will be distributed in proportion velocities in the trunk sewers of Orange to ownership. County, so that other means of sulfide con- trol must be invoked. 155. It is proposed that all adminis- trative functions for the 10 proposed dis- 161. Sulfide generation and build-up tricts be vested in a central organization may be controlled by addition of chlorine or for which the annual operating cost is esti- chlorine compounds to the sewage, and the es- mated at $81,200. When practicable, adminis- timated costs of sulfide control included in tration costs are to be charged directly to the recommended plan of sewerage have been the benefiting districts; otherwise, these based upon this method. would be distributed among the districts ac- cording to their relative shares of ownership 162. Experience in sulfide control on in the total system. the J.O.S. system in 1946 indicates that chlorine applied to sewage, in the ration of 156. The cost comparisons between al- 3 ppm for each 100 ppm of BOD in excess of ternative projects have been made on the ba- that which the sewage velocity would control sis of the annual costs, including allowances without treatment, is sufficient to keep for bond service, operation, maintenance, and sulfides in the flowing sewage below concen- administration; and other considerations trations which would cause damage; and this being equal, those projects yielding the low- ratio of chlorine to BOD is the basis of the est annual costs over the period 1950-90 have sulfide control costs estimated by the Sur- been recommended. vey. 157. The cost of money for project fi- 163. Chlorine is estimated to cost 5 nancing has been taken throughout at 2%, and cents per lb. applied to the sewage; and all bonds have been assumed to be of the 40- some 30 chlorinators, ranging in capacities year serial type. from 200 lb. to 700 lb. per day each, esti- mated to cost about $3700 each, will be 158. Estimates of annual cost recognite eventually needed. that bonds need be sold only as money for FINDINGS 17 SEWAGE RECLAMATION AS RELATED TO WATER SUPPLY ocean outfall 15,000 ft. long, primary treat- (Chapter 14). ment involving screening and settling of the 164. There exists an overdraft on the solids by one hour of subsidence, .oupled local water supplies of Orange County such with effective methods of grease removal, is that the underground water basis is endan- adequate; but to produce an effluent suitable gered by salt-water intrusion, and, conse- for use on land such primary treatment must quently, there is a need in Orange County for be supplemented by an intensive secondary an additional supply of water. oxidation process, such as by the activated sludge method. 165. A study of the possible sources of additional water resolves itself into a com- 169. If such high-grade treatment is petition between the reclaiming of sewage and provided, the reclaimed water (effluent) can the use of fresh water through participation be used in either of two ways: (a) by dis- in the Metropolitan Water District of South- tribution over spreading grounds to replenish ern California. the underground water by percolation, or (b) by direct irrigation of crops, thus reducing 166. During the years 1946 and 1947 the the draft on the underground water resources. several irrigation companies in Orange County have been selling water at an average net 170. The sewage originating in Orange cost of $5.00 to $7.00 per ac.ft. ; however, County contains considerable amounts of -boron this figure is not pertinent to a study of believed to originate mostly from citrus the economics of sewage reclamation because packing operations, which will not be removed all of this water is already under sale, so by any known sewage treatment process and that the true comparison with respect to ad- which cannot be removed by any known prac- ditional water must be made between the two ticable process; further, the use of boron- sources mentioned in the previous finding. containing materials is essential as a mold- preventive in the proper packing of oranges 167. The current price at which un- and grapefruit , no satisfactory substitute softened Colorado River water is available to having been developed; and, further, it areas included within the Metropolitan Water- would not be practicable for most of the District of Southern California is $8.00 per packing plants now disposing of their wastes ac.ft. and, in addition, there is a ganeral into the sewers to dispose of them otherwise. tax levy upon all property within the Dis- trict which would amount to about $1.00 per 171. The concentrations of boron which ac.ft. of water supplied, 1%ised on an asses- it is anticipated will obtain in treated sew- sed valuation of $500 per acre, a tax rate of age effluent (at either an inland plant or at 40 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, and a coastal plant) should not be excessive for an,average annual water duty of 24 in. , mak- its use in irrigating field crops, but it is ing the total wholesale cost of water sup- not known whether the introduction of this plied by the District of the order of $9.00 effluent into the ground 'water basin through per ac.ft. spreading areas would create a hazard to citrus crops and other crops which may be 168. To produce sewage effluent ac- damaged by relatively small concentrations ceptable for use in irrigation, according to of boron and which are irrigated by water the regulations of the State Board of Public pumped from this basin. Health, a degree of treatment is required vastly more extended, complete, and costly 172. The geophysical conditions of the than that required for 'final disposal of sew- area are such that any spreading of reclaim- age effluent in the ocean through a long out- ed sewage is possible only in a 6-mile fall. Specifically, for disposal through an length of the Santa Ana River channel extend- I 18 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY ing from the vicinity of Olive to the bound- 179. As determined by the amounte' of ary of the. "pressure area" underlying the reclaimed sewage which would be available, clay blanket overlying the Coastal Plain. Areas "A" and "B" would be developed as of the year 1950 and unit "0" as of 1960, the 173. During wet years this spreading future development and use -of units "D" and area would not be available to receive re- "E" being considered problematical. claimed sewage, while during dry years the spreading ground availability would be lim- 180. The total average annual cost, ited to 6 months. over the period 1950-90, of reclaimed sewage delivered to the land from an activated 174. The quantity of sewage available sludge process plant located near the coast at an interior plant from which the effluent` _ and receiving sewage from County Sanitation could flow by gravity to the spreading Districts Nos. 1-8,_ is approximately $20.35 grounds would be limited and would amount to .,per ac.ft. only 14% of that tributary to the proposed` main treatment plant to be located near the 181. Of the above total cost, $13.60 coast to serve, 0ounty Sanitation Districts :;.per ao.ft. represents the 40-year average Nos. 1-8. cost for. the extra sewage treatment plant r..i -. investment, operation, and maintenance; $5.05 175. The estimated costs of treated ef- `:,per ao.ft. represents the charge resulting fluent from activated sludge process plants from the .construction of pumping plants and at the two locations as of the years 1950-70,";,:foroe mains, plus the cost of power and of would range from $20.80 to $12.20, averaging . ' .:pumping plant operation; and $1.70 per ac.ft. $14.60 per ao.ft. for the inland plant,.,as is.•the estimated 40-year average cost of the compared with a range from $16.10 to $9.20, conorete pipe distribution system. i averaging $11.20 per ao.ft. for the larger plant near the coast. 182. With respect to the chemical qual- ity_of the reclaimed sewage, besides the mat- 176. The excessive costs involved in ter of boron, .the Survey studies indicate producing an acceptable effluent,.the lim- that the reclaimed sewage would probably con- ited availability of spreading .ground with tain no mineral constituents deleterious to respect to both area and period of use,-to- field crops', and, further, that neither the gether with the hazard of: introducing boron total mineral concentration of the reclaimed into the underground waters, combine to make water not its percentage of sodium of the the use of reclaimed sewage by the method of total concentration would be sufficient to percolation impracticable. be harmful;. therefore, the practicability of reclaiming sewage for direct irrigation pur- 177. There are extensive areas in poses must be largely decided on the basis , Orange County on the west side of Santa Ana of costs. River which could be irrigated directly with reclaimed sewage, which areas generally over- 183. Since the cost of such reclaimed lie the clay covering of the Coastal Plain sewage has been demonstrated to be of the and are characterized by "perched water". magnitude of twice the cost of purchasing fresh water, it must be concluded that the 178. In this general territory there reclamation of sewage for the direct irriga- are five areas, designated as Areas "A", "B", tion of crops is an impracticable undertak- "0", "D", and "E", which could be irrigated ing while other means exist for supplementing with reclaimed sewage, and for them an irri- the local water supplies. gation project has been devised and subjected to cost analysis. 184. The plan of utilizing reclaimed FINDINGS 1 sewage for augmenting the underground water 190. The area eventually to be served supply is even less feasible. by the regional system must be divided into districts according to the special character- 185. No monetary evaluation has been istics and needs of each, in order,that a assigned,, in the reclamation studies just re- fair distribution of the cost of financing viewed, .to the appreciable nitrate content of may obtain; the principal factors influencing reclaimed sewage, which would be of'some ben- the delineation of these districts are the efit to crops, and which would not be con- geography, topography, and natural drainage tained by purchased fresh water; but, on the features of the various areas needing sewer- other hand, neither has any monetary deduc- age. tion been made for possible undesirable ele- ments contained by.reclaimed sewage and not 191. The portion of the County for contained by purchased fresh water, such as which sewerage provision must now be made considerable amounts of boron, and other del- divides itself .logically into 10 districts, eterious substances (such as certain toxic each sufficiently different from its neigh minerals and certain petroleum derivatives) bors to warrant its separation; therefore., which might be introduced into the sewage by these 10 districts, designated as County San- industrial plants, even though every effort itation Districts Nos. 1 to 10 of Orange be made to prevent such introduction. County, :have been recommended for formation. PROPOSED SANITATION DISTRICTS - DESCRIPTION, 192. -There is provision in the County GOVERNMENT, AND FINANCING (Chapter 15). Sanitation District .Act for joint-ownership 186. The County Sanitation District Act and operation of sewerage systems as well as of May, 1923, as amended and codefied, is joint administration and operation of com- most applicable to the regional sewerage pletely separate district facilities; thus problem of Orange County. all 10 districts may employ the identical administrative, construction, and operating 187. Fifteen separate sewerage systems staff, and may assign to one district of the now serve parts of. the County; and of these group the necessary limited authority for the "Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer" and control of such activities. . appurtenant works is by far the largest, serving 5 incorporated cities, 4 sanitary 193. The different characteristics of districts, an oil brine waste collecting sys- Districts Nos.. 1-8 make it apparent that, tem, and a militury'establishment; and, fur- while a. single large integrated sewerage aye- ther, there are 7 additional cities, 4 addi- tem is the best and most economical arrange- tional sanitary districts, and 3 military meat for the area covered by the 8 districts, establishments having separate systems. an equal ad valorem tax for construction and operation distributed uniformly over all 8 . 188. None of' the existing systems is so would be unfair. constructed or located as to be economically suitable as a nucleus for a county-wide sys 194. Establishment of the 8 separate tem. sanitary districts and the participation of all in a large cooperative system in com- 189. The contemplated sewerage of pliance with the Sanitation District Act Orange County, being regional in scope, re- solves the issue, by permitting the 8 dis- quires the cooperative effort of all of the tricts to cooperate in mutual undertakings area to be served; thus, it appears that no which will result in economies to the partic- single city or small group of cities can ade- ipants, and by limiting the obligations of quately finance and construct the regional the respective districts to those projects in sewerage works. which they actually share and benefit. 20 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY 195. The Sanitation District Act is al- tion without the sacrifice of flexibility of so applicable to a district which operates operation or other features of good design. its individual separate system, and is ad- vantageous to such a district permitting it 202. Four major cost-economy studies to effect economies in its administration and were made to determine: (a) the best loca- operation expenses through joining with other tion of a treatment plant to serve from 6 to districts in a mutual, more efficient dis- 8 of the proposed county sanitation dis- charge of these administrative functions. tricts; (b) the cost to District No. 4 of 'in- dependent versus cooperative sewage treatment 196. Sanitation districts, as such, are and disposal; (c) the cost to District No. S concerned solely with the construction, oper- of independent versus cooperative sewage ation, and maintenance of trunk sewers, pump- treatment and disposal; and (d) the relative ing stations, sewage treatment works, and costs to the member cities and sanitary dis- outfalls, and are not concerned with local tricts of the existing Orange County Joint sewerage works having no district-wide Big- outfall Sewer, of continued operation as nificance. presently organized versus participation in a county-wide plan as proposed by the Survey. 197. The County Sanitation District Act permits purchase of existing valuable facil- 203. With respect to the location of ities which would be useful to the contem- the main plant to serve 6 to 8 county sanita- plated new sewerage system; thus, existing tion districts, four possible alternatives sewerage works of value in Orange County were considered in detail as follows: (a) a would be purchased with the proceeds from the plant near the mouth• of Santa Ana River as a sale of bonds, and the owners would be fairly complete project; (b) a plant near the mouth compensated, of Santa Ana River, with the functions of sludge digestion and drying to be carried out 199. The minimum interval between the . at the site of the existing J.O.S. treatment date of adoption of a sanitation district and plant; (c) two independent primary sewage the date for a bond election is 120 days. treatment plants, each complete in itself, one near the mouth of Santa Ana River and one 199. The demonstrated success of the at the site of the existing J.O.S. treatment County Sanitation Act in its application to plant; and (d) the existing J.O.S. treatment a large portion of Los Angeles County, where plant as a complete project with such en- conditions are similar in almost all res- largement of the treatment works as may be pects to those in Orange County, recommends necessary. It highly for use in solving the Orange County problem. 204. In terms of annual costs, consid- ering all of the factors involved, alternate COST COMPARISON OF POSSIBLE PROJECTS (a) providing primary treatment ab a com- (Chapter 16) . plete project at a site located near the 200.• The cost of sewage collection,. mouth of Santa Ana River, was found to be treatment, and disposal, per capita and/or definitely the most economical, effecting per unit volume of sewage, decreases as the mean annual savings during a 40-year term, total volume of sewage flow and the contrib- 1950-90, as compared with the three other uting population are increased. alternatives, of from $9,60o to $33.900, the 201. The preliminary designs, upon total savings varying from $348,000 to which the cost estimates have been based, $1,356,000. were therefore developed to make tributary to 205. Five alternative possibilities of each system of trunk sewers and treatment sewerage, sewage treatment, and disposal for works the largest possible area and popula- proposed County Sanitation District No. 4 FINDINGS 21 were investigated in detail with the result ous .study by the Survey to determine the eco- that treatment and disposal jointly with Dis- nomic and other advantages which will accrue tricts Nos. 1-3 and Nos. 5-7 was found to be to its present members through participation definitely the most economical, with the-next in the county-wide joint enterprise as com- most economical project involving high-degree pared with its continued existence substan- chemical flocculation with effluent disposal tially along present lines. through a 1,000-ft. ocean outfall. The an- nual savings during a 40-year term effected 209. For purposes of the study just de- by alternate (a) , providing for joint treat- fined, the entire J.O.S. organization has ment and disposal with at least 6 other dis- been thoroughly reviewed with respect to its tricts was determined to be $8,900 as com- structure of government, system of organiza- pared with the nearest competing alternate, tion, ownership of works, physical conditions (b) as above described, the total saving for and present value of works, outstanding the 40-year period being $356,000. bonded indebtedness, sewage flows from con- stituent areas, and all other pertinent mat- 206. Three alternate possibilities were ters. thoroughly investigated with respect to the sewerage, sewage treatment, and disposal for 210. The study demonstrates that, over proposed County Sanitation District No. 8, the 40-year period, 1950-90, the total annual including Laguna Beach and its environs to savings accruing to the members of the J.O.S. the north and south, .with the result that in- through participation in the proposed county- dependent treatment and disposal, involving wide plan as compared with an enlarged in- primary treatment only and the release over a dependent system of works are estimated to be limited period during each evening and night $144,600, totaling some $5,784,000 for the of the stored effluent through a 2,000-ft. 40-year period. ocean outfall, was found to have a slight economic advantage over the plan of disposing 211. Further, the total savings which of the sewage jointly with Districts Nos. 1-7. would accrue to the present J.O.S. member- The average annual saving with the former owners through their participation in the plan as'compared with the latter, over the county-wide joint enterprise .average $724,000 period 1950-90, was found to be $1,600, total- for each of the eight members, the actual ing some $64,000 for the entire 40-year per- figures ranging from $215,200 for the City of iod. Orange to $1,190,600 for Buena Park Sanitary District, the latter figure being large by _ 207. Cooperation in a joint enterprise virtue of the fact -that under the recommended with Districts Nos. 1-7 is, nevertheless, project, booster pumping of the sewage from recommended as the best over-all project for Buena Park will be eliminated. District No. 8, because of certain specific disadvantages. of local treatment, .namely, the DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED COUNTY-WIDE location of the treatment plant site in an SEWERAGE PLAN (Chapter 17). area of high assessed valuation, the diffi- 212. As a result of all of the numerous 1 culties. of disposing of sludge without the studies and investigations described, the ' development of odor nuisances, the unavaila- Board of Engineers concludes and recommends bility of any additional land which might be that a county-wide plan of sewerage be estab- needed, plus the general burdens inherent in lished in Orange County to include the pro- the independent operation of a small treat- posed County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1-10 ment plant. within three systems, as follows: (a) a sys- tem comprised in Districts Nos. 1-8, inolu- 208. The existing J.O.S. system has live, being the area of the coastal plain and been made the subject of an elaborate, rigor- adjacent foothills, to include the necessary 22 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY trunk and intercepting sewers, pumping plants, owned by 2 or more districts; and the total a primary sewage treatment plant near the construction cost of these 201.7 mi. of sew- mouth of Santa Ana River, and a 15,000-ft. ere is estimated at $15,730,000. ocean outfall; (b) a system comprised in Dia- t trict No. 9, being the narrow strip of land 217. The total sewage flow which will along the coast from Dana Point south to San be tributary to the treatment plant proposed Clemente, inclusive, to include ,the necessary for the 8 districts is expected to contain, trunk sewers, pumping plants, a primary over 'the period 1950-90, progressively lower treatment plant at or near the mouth of Prima concentrations of organic materials, the bio- Deshecha Canada including provision for stor- chemical oxygen demand of this sewage de- age of plant effluent for 16 bra. daily and a creasing from an average annual.value of 380 2,000-ft. ocean outfall through which dis- ppm in 1950 to a value of 245 ppm in 1990. charge would be limited to 8 hrs. during the evening and night when the ocean currents°are 218. The amount of this total sewage predominately offshore; and (o) a system com- flow expected to be tributary to the treat- prised in District No. 10, .being the inhabit- ment plant proposed for the 8 districts is ad areas of Santiago Canyon (namely Silverado estimated to increase from 27 mgd in 1950 to and Modjeska Canyons), to include the noes- 146 mgd in 1990. nary trunk sewers and a complete sewage treatment plant comprising an Imhoff tank 219. The new trunk sewers needed for followed by oxidation lagoons. the proposed sewerage system for the 8 dis- tricts would be built only when developments 213. Sanitation Districts Noe. 1-8, in- clearly indicate their need; and although the olusive, have an area of 352 sq.mi. , a 1947 initial bond authorizations would make pro- population of 194,700 and a 1946 assessed vision for all construction believed to be valuation of $204,360,000. needed over the design period, bonds intended for delayed construction would not be sold 214. Under the proposed county-wide until the time when such construction actu- plan the total capital investment for these ally commences. combined 8 districts will be $22,001,000 at the beginning of the design period (1950), 220. Trunk sewers to be used jointly by which sum will be increased by some two or more districts of the 8 districts $3,080,000 to give a total capital investment would be jointly constructed and operated, of $25,081,000 by 1990. the respective flow-capacity ownership rights of the participating districts being in pro- 215. The total annual costs to the com- portion to the construction costs paid by bind 8 districts for constructing, operating, them,- and the operating and maintenance costs and maintaining the proposed sewerage system, being distributed among them in proportion over the design period (1950-90) , are esti- to their respective volumes of sewage flow mated at $1,107,000, which is equivalent to carried by the jointly owned lines or else- an average tax rate of 15 cents per $100 as- according to actual operating and maintenance sessed valuation (this tax rate decreasing services rendered. over the design period from 69 cents in 1950 to 6 cents in 1990). 221. Trunk sewers needed in the pro- posed sewerage plan for the 8 districts vary 216. A total of 201.7 mi. of trunk sew- in size and type from 8-in. vitrified clay ers would be included within the proposed sewers selected for use at the upper ends of sewerage system for the 8 districts, of which some of the trunks to a 90-in. reinforced 158.2 mi. would be owned outright by individ- concrete pipe located just prior to the teal districts, and 43.5 mi. would be jointly treatment plant. I I FINDINGS 23 222. A single 78-in. reinforced con- ity); by 1990 this sum.shall need to be in- crate pipe represents the most economical creased to an estimated total of $3,561,000. ocean outfall for receiving effluent from the treatment plant for the 8 districts and for 227. The proposed sewerage works for transporting it 15,000 ft. .to sea; 'the total the 8 districts include 13 pumping plants; construction cost of this outfall including and, of these, none will be needed by Dis- a 4,200-ft. land section is estimated at tricts Nos. 1, 2, 6; and 7, but Districts $3,172,000, and at 02,840,000 exclusive of Nos. 4 and 8, which must pump all of their the land section. sewage, will require 3 and 8 stations, re- spectively; also, the total construction cost 223. The existing sewerage works of for the 13 plants is estimated at $366,000. useful value to be purchased by the 8 dis- tricts under the proposed plan would include 228. For the purpose of effecting the practically all of the valuable sewerage most efficient and economical administration, works of the J.0.5. , as well as other value- it is recommended that the 8 districts, to- ble works now owned individually by the pre- gether with County Sanitation Districts Nos. sent city and sanitary district members of 9 and 10, be joined by contract in the opera- the J.O.S.; and the prices to be paid for tion of a single administrative organization such works, provided they are believed to be to assume all engineering, managerial, cleri- sufficiently sound to last over the 40-yr. oal, and legal duties pertaining to'the con- design period, are their original construc- struction, operation, and maintenance of the tion costs, or the estimated original con- complete sewerage facilities of the 10 dis- struction costs if actual cost records cannot tricts. be found. 229. The total annual cost of this or- 224. The existing J.O.S. treatment ganization will comprise two sums, one of plant, effluent pumping plant, and 42-in. $52,000'for field work necessary for sewer cast iron ocean outfall, all of which would maintenance and to be distributed among the be purchased by the 8 districts, will beef- districts according to actual services ren- ficiently employed under the,proposed plan to dered, and the other of $82,000 for an ad- supplement the proposed new plant and ocean ministrative and office organization and to outfall at times of heavy downpours when the be distributed among the districts in pro- sewers may become surcharged with heavy in- portion to their respective capital invest- filtration of rainwater. ments in the total districts' works. 225. The recommended treatment plant to 230. County Sanitation District No. 9, serve the 8 districts would be of the primary which comprises the coastal strip from Dana type, with a settling retention period of 1 Point to San Clemente, would independently hr. , separate sludge digestion tanks and open own its sewerage system, including a local sludge drying beds, carefully designed skim- treatment plant and disposal works, but would ming facilities, and chlorination facilities participate with the other 9 districts in the for odor control only; also, power would be operatlon'of a joint administrative organiza- generated on the Bite from the sludge digest- tion; the tax rate for the proposed sewerage er gas. 1s estimated at 87 cents per $100 assessed valuation, this rate being somewhat high com- 226. The initial total construction pared with Districts Nos. 1-8, because of the cost of this plant, which has a design capac- present low density of population, but this ity of 85 mgd, corresponding to the year rate will progressively diminish as the dis- 1970, is estimated at about $2,128,000 (a- triot develops, reaching a value of 9 cents mounting to closely $25,000 per mgd of capao- by 1990, which 1990 value compares favorably .24 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY with corresponding values for Districts Nos. minimum of $522 in 1900 to a maximum of $1690 in 1920; and in 1946 it was $1290. .. 231. County Sanitation District No. 10, 237. Assessed valuation per capita in which comprises the now sparsely populated Orange County has averaged from $190 to $570 areas of Santiago Canyon, would independently higher than for all of California and from own its sewerage system, including a local $100 to $500 more than for the entire United treatment and disposal works, but would par- States. ticipate with the other 9 districts in the operation of a joint administrative organize- 238. The trend in assessed valuation tion; the tax rate for the proposed sewerage since the beginning of the century hae gen- will be initially high, at about $2.22 per erally followed living costs and/or the pur- $100 of assessed valuation, because the chasing power of the dollar. sparse population and the rugged terrain com- bine to make even the most economical solu- 239. Assessed valuation in all of tion to the sewerage problem a fairly expen- Orange County has increased $1340 for each sive one; nevertheless, this rate will dimin- person added to the population during the 56- ish as the area develops to a value of about year period 1890 to 1946, the increase for $0.21 per $100 assessed valuation by 1990. the cities alone for the same period being $1100, and the increase for Santa Ana alone 232. Drawings have been prepared to being $810. show preliminary plans and profiles of the proposed new trunk sewers for all of the 10 240. New improvements and developments districts (See Plates 93 to 115). are nearly proportional to population in- creases and they are largely responsible for 233. Numerous tables have been prepared increased taxable values; therefore, it is J to show in great detail all pertinent data, logical to base estimates of increased as- including cost data, relative to all sewerage sessed valuation upon predicted increases in works to be included within the proposed sew- population. erage system for the 10 districts. 241. Giving due consideration to the 234. And, in addition, a complete nar- lower increases for,the larger cities, a rative and statistical description has been value of $900 has been selected for computing prepared to summarize independently for each the increase in assessed valuation resulting of the 10 districts all of the matters perti- from a one person increase in the population nent to its sewerage, so that the reader may of the County. be able, if he wishes, to limit his review of the details of the county-wide plan to any 242. For the areas included by the particular district of the 10. recommended county sanitation districts, the assessed valuation increases from ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX RATES - PRESENT $208,000,000 in 1946 to an estimated AND PREDICTED FUTURE (Chapter 18). $1,362,000,000 in 1990. 235. The assessed valuation for Orange County has increased from $9,000,000 in 1890, 243. Estimated tax rates for the indi- when the County population was 13,589, to vidual county sanitation districts have been $245,000,000 in 1946, when the.population based on the predicted assessed valuations was 189,700. and also upon estimated annual costs. 236. During this 56-year period the SEWER RENTAL OHARGE (Chanter 19). per capita assessed valuation ranged from a 244. "Sewer rental" describes a charge 26 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY WE w City of Newport Beach and Newport Harbor r 7 ukr .s •"4 .� t,J�w., Ai City of Huntington Beach (Aerial Photographs by Fairchild Aerial Surveys, .Inc.) FINDINGS 25 assessed periodically against the user of a to the simple processes recommended for t sewer; the practice, which is of compara- Orange County. • tively recent origin, is the outgrowth of legal tax limitations and/or inequities in 247. Costs of protecting sewers against services rendered the user, sulfide deterioration may be considerably r increased by the presence of some industrial 245. The need for a sewer rental to sup- wastes, but, even though the responsible in- plement limited general funds in sewerage dustries not be charged specifically for the construction, operation, and maintenance dis- increased cost, the inequity is largely elim- appears in the county sanitation district inated in the county sanitation district plan plan of financing, wherein the law permits in which all of the persons, living in the financing in amount sufficient to attain all areas benefited by industries and who direct- necessary district objectives, irrespective ly or indirectly derive their living from of other tax limitations. these industries, contribute more or less to the increased coots resulting from the pres- 246. Further, the magnitude of the in- ence of industrial wastes. equity in service rendered the user is usu- ally a function of the degree of sewage 248. With respect to the proposed treatment required, and the inequity becomes county sanitation district plan, there is no small when the treatment process is limited need for invoking a sewer rental charge. • 4 3 3( Headquarters of the Sewerage Survey. This old house, opposite the Court House Annex, provided an ideal headquarters, with ample space for offices, drafting room, workshop, and laboratory. (Photo by William A. Anderson, Orange County Sewerage Survey.) RECOMMENDATIONS. 4 � The Board of Consulting Engineers recommends: signed and constructed to serve District No. 10 only. , 1� 1. That for the present, sewerage of rn Orange County be limited to the area com- 6. That the ten County Sanitation Die- prising: tracts of Orange County be joined by con- (a) the coastal plain and adjacent foot- tract in the operation.of a single adminis- hills, comprised in proposed County trative organization designed to serve the Sanitation Districts Nos. 1-9, in- administrative needs of all ten Districts ti+ � elusive. and that the said administrative organize- i (b) a relatively narrow strip of land tion assume all engineering, managerial, 1 along the coast from Dana Point clerical, and legal duties involved in the south to San Clemente, inclusive,, construction, operation, and maintenance of i comprised in proposed County Sani- the complete sewerage facilities of all of tation District No. 9. the-proposed County Sanitation Districts. (c) a relatively 'small habitable area in Santiago Canyon, comprised in pro- 7. That for County Sanitation Districts posed County Sanitation District No. Nos. 1-8, inclusive, such trunk sewers, 10. interceptors, and pumping stations as are `ry delineated on Plate No. 1, and of the size . , 2. That ten County Sanitation Districts, and general characteristics indicated else- numbered 1 to 10, inclusive, be formed in where in the text of .this Report, be con- Orange County in compliance with the Coun- strutted and operated to convey sanitary ty Sanitation District Act of May, 1923, sewage and industrial wastes to a treatment >; as amended and codified, to include all of plant site at or near the mouth of Santa the area presently deemed to require sew- Ana River. '. erage. 9. That at or near the mouth of Santa Ana ^� j That eight of the proposed County Sani- River a sewage treatment plant embodying tation Districts, namely, Districts Nos. plain subsidence, grease removal, separate 1-9, inclusive, be joined by contract in sludge digestion, power generation from the ownership, operation, and maintenance sludge gas, sludge drying on open beds, of jointly owned trunk sewers and Inter- necessary pumping, and all other requisite ceptors, pumping stations, sewage treat- appurtenant works be constructed in ap- ' ment plant, and ocean outfall to serve the propriate increments to a design capacity entire area embodied within the,boundaries of 95 mgd as of 1970 (to be enlarged to of the eight Districts. 155 mgd by 1990) and operated to serve the needs of Districts Nos. 1-8, inclusive. 4. That County Sanitation District No. 9 be provided with trunk sewers, intercep- 9. That an ocean outfall pipe of reinforced tore, pumping stations, a treatment plant, concrete with semi-flexible metallic con- and ocean outfall designed and constructed netting joints be .constructed in general to serve District No. 9 only. compliance with the designs described else-. where in the text of this Report for a die- 5. That County Sanitation District No. 10 tanoe of 15,000 St, seaward from the ordi- be provided with trunk sewers, intercep- nary high water line of the ocean at or tore, and a sewage treatment plant de- near the mouth of Santa Ana River, and that 27 I2\ L ,1 28 ORANGE COUNTY SEWERAGE SURVEY it be operated to discharge treated efflu- type and characteristics described else- ent at no point less than 15,000 ft. from where in this Report, and oxidation ponds shore at this general location. designed for approximately 40 days reten- tion of the sewage- effluent from the Imhoff 10. That for County Sanitation District tank and embodying recirculation of the ox- No. 9 there be designed and constructed the idized effluent through the ponds with die- trunk sewers, interceptors, and pumping charge of treated effluent into the bed of stations, generally depicted on Plate No. 1 Santiago Creek above Santiago Reservoir. of this Report, and operated to convey sew- age to a sewage treatment plant in the vi- 15. That digested sewage sludge from each cinity of the mouth of Prima Desheoha Cana- of the three plants be conserved by .air da. drying and selling to commercial distribu- tors as fertilizer. 11. That the sewage treatment plant at the mouth of Prima Desheoha Canada embody plain 16. That for reasons clearly indicated subsidence, grease removal, separate sludge elsewhere in this Report no attempt be made digestion, necessary pumping, and storage at this time to reclaim the water content in a reservoir designed to retain the flow of the sewage of Orange County, either for of sewage from the sewage treatment plant direct use in agricultural pursuits, indus- for not lees than 16 hre. of each day ex- tries, or other direct use, or for replen- tending generally between the hours of 2 am ishment of the underground water supply. and 6 pm. 17. That the ten proposed County Sanita- 12. That there be constructed a land out- - tion Districts of Orange County be organ- fall line from the storage reservoir to ized as prompt ly.as _oonditions and State connect with the shore end of an ocean out- legislation will permit and that the pro- fall pipe, the latter to be constructed to position of finanoing the sewage works reo- . extend, seaward from or near the mouth of ommended in this Report be submitted suc- Prima Desheoha Canada a distance of 2,000 cessively to the Districts, in turn, com- ft. , and that the storage reservoir and mencing with all possible dispatch with ocean outfall be operated to discharge County Sanitation District No. 1. treated effluent from the seaward and of the ocean outfall for not more than 8 hrs. 18. That those numerous features of the each day extending generally from 6 pm to existing sewerage facilities appropriate to. 2 am during which period the ocean currents the use of the oomprehensive plan of sewer- have a strong offshore component. age proposed and described in this Report be purchased at reasonable values by the 13. That for County Sanitation District newly formed County Sanitation Districts No. 10 there be designed and constructed and the previous owner-agenoies be promptly the trunk sewers and interceptors shown compensated therefor. generally on Plate No. 1 of this Report and that these sewers be operated to convey the 19. That the projects recommended herein sewage of the District to a sewage treat- be financed by the sale of 40-year serial ment site in Santiago Canyon at the approx- bonds following their authorization by the imate location shown on Plate No. 1. voters of the respective County Sanitation Districts, the proceeds of these bond sales 14. That there be constructed at the plant to be used to provide for the construction site in District No. 10 a sewage treatment of the recommended works and payment for plant to include an Imhoff tank (embodying the facilities purchased. I 2 hre. plain sedimentation) of the general i RDWARD. RROTHRRA. INC. Luupd.ON ANN AR.O.. MICHIGA■ 1947 �I • �t1e(cnme to _ Z.THE. CITNFOIF HU N.,IN. ,TC7N> BEACH ram: Map on File with City Clerk ■ "'ti _THE CITY OF I-II,INTI�N:GTON` BI�AC a on i wl I er ■ ■ saiTeT+a. TELEPHON ES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA DE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �, 9 6 2-2 411 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P.0. BOX 5175, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 WELCOME TO THE SANITATION DISTRICTS This booklet attempts to describe the operations of the sanitation districts and their facilities. For many of you, this will be your first contact with this metropolitan area utility service which is so necessary in the development of any area which is experiencing the rate of growth occurring in Orange County. For those with technical backgrounds in this field, we have attempted to describe those parts of our operations which we feel are unique or novel. We hope you enjoy your visit to our plants and while here will have gained knowledge of the subject of waste water disposal. tea . Fred A. Harper V General Manager BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1967 Joint Chairman Lindsley Parsons Vice Joint Chairman Thomas 0 . Speer Mr. Lowell Amo Midway City Sanitary District Chairman David L. Baker County Board of Supervisors Councilman Harold Bousman Buena Park _ Councilman Richard Bowen Cypress Mayor Leonard Crapo La Habra Mr. Norman E. Culver Garden Grove Sanitary District Councilman Al Forgit Newport Beach Councilman Paul C. Furman La Palma Mayor Paul J. Gruber Newport Beach Mayor Lloyd E. Gummere Seal Beach Councilman James Hock Placentia Mayor Charles H. Long Los Alamitos Mayor William D. Martin* Laguna Beach Councilman Clifton Miller* Tustin Mayor Harry Miller Stanton Mr. Clay N. Mitchell South Laguna Sanitary District Mayor Thomas McMichael* Santa Ana Councilman Rex A. Parks* Orange Councilman Lindsley Parsons.* Newport Beach Mr. Ellis N. Porter* Costa Mesa Sanitary District Councilman A. J. Schutte Anaheim Mayor Robert Schwerdtfeger Fountain Valley Councilman Thomas 0. Speer* Brea Mayor Jake R. Stewart* Huntington Beach Mayor Glenn G. Walters Fullerton Mayor James Workman Villa Park *District Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING STAFF Fred A . Harper General Manager Paul G. Brown Assistant General Manager and Chief. Engineer Robert N. Galloway Superintendent of Operations Norman R. Tremblay Construction Engineer J. Wayne Sylvester Director of Finance T. A . Dunn Purchasing Officer William N. Clarke, Sr. Superintendent of Maintenance John E. Sigler Operations Engineer o i^ PA{AOi.tJ4 /• s NK►r W000 � 5 pl t L91e SAN ERA/ARDI�lO FNY 10 // L.A. COUMTY w R F►tTf1E HARROWS 4'~T� ���o°" / A WATRR RED ATION PLANT LOS AN G E L E S r� L O S AN G E L E S/C O U N T Y L.A. CITY MYPERION TREATMENT / PLANT a r \� f M 5 •�• ORANGE COUNTY y < '•rA~Ar r ! i i r R.v84S�0E y = ql Fwy LiMi `\wiw�v�v iiACM pw ` Y � 11asru.m r �GAgOW*m� a 6aov8 p1 L.A. GOUMTY c a, d _ WATRR POLLUTION O0 FOUNTAIN FGO 2 Y9 SAINT ANA CONTROL PLANT r VALL-By_ «<„ •Y� "b NMTIM610M \�W `4 BEACH av ul ANT 2 C. NEW PORT BPACH COWENTION CEWTER C. LAFAYETTE HOTEL 4- LOUG BEACH L O CA T 10 N DISTRICTS' ADMINICTRATIVE OFFICES 8 TREATMENT PLANT Ni.I MA -P 10844 ELLIS AV., FOUNTAIM VALLEY T14 - 9 fo 2- 2411 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TItEATMEIAT PLANT No.2 OF ORANGE COUNTY 22212 SIZ00141WasT ST. CALIF. 11UNTIMGTON 606ACK 714- 9G2 - 2411 �..�� FREPWA.YS STREETS $ HIGHWAY. n=G yM A3, 41 /�-nPF IAA' B Ir��►r'l�-E�� IJ �nCl�f ` t -9_;:rsaer�Orfirr RV., MY IJ 01E, LAR, 'CM .0 EYE .v- ix 1�'`•Ww Ir7wl,.At,fl no o\ °I� `aot�`]C�i'��dP..�,�t���• BC736dQ����� • ■��l��lfll�� t74u�'�a'�Ilu 125 "I �E3 � I..la �I L +CP ` Ya,°'r lOi .ca ;:eo 'PLaI 7J �.,L..1� «► d.�-.. � t� pa��067;- a" ca r ���7 1®LLB i7�a fffL�"klei� �al❑ u61�I� �o� �+na, �G�� �dll� ��L�`•-�\\\� Lid" � 'c�t✓'� Em I is �� R UI I �"bL1�, Q e q 7 1llor �f'+�-I��i7 -_�^ �l♦� y a a� "� ur 111 ,' v �\♦c W� ^C� Z. ��Ld�.P 5W L �.crai.����. �, f/Ll� IF��QI �J '1 �' ��!r 1t1167(r •i ♦ ���llil I ac F_���� r�l 't}� j� ik rlrl Cc, 1�F I'ITiI*Iql .��•` 1v 1.,��gi1(7 IIIII '11 �] f qq t ���wA ce `�Il �u,I I. as • • �E�11111IIIIl01 .1.'��' �� o' I our , a i31q �I ®®k r oo ,liili rr IA K •� rr LJC^a .� ,. "nano • � © ,I al "� irr�_�vnlllldPl�Q $�� 1 W,:T FED,QIJ E;c kt-,r� �-�{ I Ip r�l� aiY,® �!'I♦\�� / �[p Y1pub11�IIwln'dU111� enm ,�, �❑�U a is �unlmuuo� p��qy�!�;� �� a;Zel I K.-V QPMXsv`�`Ma1 ._ p ��O PO .a 0ji •,�����I �/�cl° aVL11�� r,.��,76�► Ail.//� 3 ACREAGE OF 'SANITATION DISTRICTS May 1, 1967 District No . 1 12,044.8 acres District No. 2 65,254. 2 District No . 3 62,329. 6 District No. 5 8,294.2 District No . 6 9,811.2 District No. 7 22,944. District No. 11 10,603.4 Total 191,281.4 acres Plant No . 1 117 acres Plant No. 2 99 acres COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Historical Southern California, a naturally semi-arid region, has had a growth unequalled by any other area in the United States . The desirability of the climate has created an influx of people which in turn demanded urbanization of large areas . Satisfactory urban development requires that four utilities be developed to a high level. These are: 1) Water supply; 2) Transportation and communication; 3) Power - electric and gas; 4) Waste disposal - domestic and industrial. Each of these becomes important only when it is absent, much like the fourth wheel on an automobile. In the metropolitan area that is Northern Orange County, these utilities were developed piecemeal and the urban growth could only match the growth of the utilities . The rivers of this area are not flowing on a year- around basis and hence do not provide a means of waste disposal associated with many of the other urban areas of the country. As early as 1923, some of the inland cities sought a solution by bonding together and forming a "Joint Outfall Sewer" and piping their wastes to the ocean through a screening plant. By 1927, Anaheim and Santa Ana had been joined by the Cities of Fullerton and Orange and the Sanitary. Districts of La Habra, Placentia, Garden Grove and Buena Park. Brea and the coastal cities. of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach operated their own sewage treatment plants. In 1946, the Board of Supervisors of Orange County authorized an engineering study of the waste disposal problem. The county sanitation district concept, which had been successfully applied in neighboring Los Angeles County, was recommended for Orange County. The Sani- tation Districts were to be the "wholesalers" in each drainage area and would collect the liquid wastes from the various governmental agencies, transport them to the treatment plant and dispose of them in the ocean after adequate treatment . Seven Sanitation Districts were formed. They jointly purchased the J.O.S. facilities, built a second treat- ment plant and installed collecting trunks to the areas I concerned. In 1954, actual operation began as a joint venture. Governing Body The Sanitation Districts were originally formed by the County Board of Supervisors but control of each district was vested in a separate Board of Directors. This Board is composed of the Mayor of each municipality. concerned, or a representative of a Sanitary District, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors representing the County as a whole and the unincorporated areas . The seven separate Boards joined as a single body to operate the treatment facilities and ocean outfall. The Joint Boards hired a single professional staff to administer the work of all districts and to operate the joint treatment facilities. Construction and Operation Each district supplies its. own .trunk system to the treatment plants in which it owns a share. Ownership is adjusted annually to satisfy the present and future needs of each district . Each district must pay its share of the operating cost on the basis of how much it used the treatment facilities. Thus a rapidly expanding district will start buying ownership in the facilities to meet its future needs but will not have to share in the operating cost except to the extent it is using the facilities at the present . For new construction at the treatment facilities, the separate Boards vest their power in a single Board to administer each contract as it occurs . The Boards operate on a philosophy of a "pay-as-you-go" basis, for new facilities. While bond elections were held for the initial construction and purchase of facilities and trunks, operation and expansion is from ad valorem taxes against each homeowner in the district . This cost the average homeowner about $16.50 in 1965-66 and was reduced to $16.00 for the fiscal year 1966-67. Present Facilities At present, the seven districts operate about 350 miles of major trunk sewers with 20 pump stations. Jointly they operate two sewage treatment plants and an 8,000 foot ocean outfall into the Pacific Ocean. These facilities have a total value of about $100,000,000. The plants have expanded from about 45 million gallons per day hydraulic capacity in 1954 to a capability of handling 205 million gallons per day in 1967. A. Pump Stations The 20 pump stations located throughout the County are sized to perform their individual jobs auto- matically and unattended. They run in size from small ejection pots to our newest complex capable of handling 25 million gallons per day flows . While all stations are fully automated, the operating condition of the station is te.lemetered to the Control Center over leased wires and the operation is constantly under the sur- veillance of the Control Center Operator. Routine preventive maintenance is performed by a mobile crew which services and inspects the stations on a daily or every other day basis. While many stations are completely below grade, an attempt is made to have all structures above ground pleas- ing to the eye . ,I f 25 million :— gallon = per day outlying pump station B. Treatment Plants The Districts operate two treatment plants to process waste water to the ocean. Plant No . 1, located about four miles from the coast adjacent to the Santa Ana River bed, has an operational hydraulic capacity of 75 million gallons per day and a daily average flow of about 35 million gallons per day. This plant gives primary treatment to all its flow and secondary treat- ment to 15 million gallons per day. This secondary treated water is made available to a tertiary treatment plant for the salt water intrusion barrier project of the Orange County Water District . Plant No . 1 is conventional in its design and equipment, using 3/4 inch bar screens before the main sewage pumps and then grit removal before the primary sedimentation basins . The raw sludge is given primary and secondary anaerobic digestion. Two 40x60 inch Bird Centrifuges for Sludge Dewatering I1. Fleadworks 2. Primary Clarifiers- - 3. Trickling Filters (secondary treatment) 4. Clarifiers (secondary treatment) 5. Digesters 6. Control Center j 7. Laboratory and Operations Office 8 Ad ministrative Office r i 9. O.C.W.D. Tertiary Reclamation Pilot Plant AW Ac -motif=a-€ -;= a -S� 4 ��• /j" ,� f, _; g,. ' � - _ �``-`-----. -_`- .�is=��„ `Y�_ "'Za��'.::�•�` -- J 1_._f�. X.' F: f _ �'�� _ _-'a t.X-` s �j f r J _• lg3- � - r • r - J r j: Treatment Plant No. 1, view looking south with Plant No. 2 and the ocean on the horizon. 1965 capacity is 75 million gallons per day (225 acre feet per day) of primary sedimentation. At present 15 MGD are given secondary treatment. Digester sludge is centrifuged in two 40x6O inch Bird centrifuges and the cake is sold to a processor who makes soil supplements . Plant No . 2, located 1500 feet from the beach at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, can handle a hydraulic load of 135 million gallons per day. The flow averages about 65 million gallons per day at this plant and is given primary treatment . It is simlar to Plant No . 1 except that the sludge is dried in drying .beds instead of by centrifuge . Serving both plants are the outfall booster stations used to pump the flow out to sea and one of the .largest effluent chlorination stations in the world for disin- fection of the effluent . Since our outfall is adjacent to one of the- prime beaches on the west coast, we must maintain the beach water at an acceptable bacteriological level. 80,000 pound per day Chlorination Station for Outfall Disinfection F'.Klr FIVII TV r "� , t rt ' •.tom , taV a,k1 . ,.» 4,," �� r , n4 ,IRA QQ t �� t y a h } lil ti', 1 k'Qi sy i. It t •, '1�,,t: f,. 'sr, 1 ,. l��RRr" r� 'I'` �i , '1 ttKf „�7. t 1 1 t, t'� r,. � •t1f 0 °`,� I ,, U'r , a �k R" i��- t ! k"t ' r1 h I4' 406 T � Y ...� � S..'�'1�` F'{¢ �r� f •',� 13. + � r rR`I� yk(Y, I, � �k Y '"�, t ,�,� tr9 RI �, (w,���r.r/`• /�� �,.i1 '4' �.t, r�otfra t tt7 , T . Y rta1,l � r y 1 ( �r �it' t� 1Y!�Prkr�l`R!F r!r 'd#f If fr "P{, Y l:; �1 r lr;lY, hrkr k9 p �• n,1' � � �� �`. )/N7 Y)r ' �' v, ^ "F �I ,f r r �.` t",��('il1)f•�JF` r � �»{ 1`i �{ tjj,'iy��, •, "° � } �w ': ti"'fx •c rr !,0. t $l t (, ��j p= °33 ''` �,a Y r� ��,,.'�*' � i G�►��.J, �",('' �� i;l f�°?' fr ��,, ��'k��s,�'��),} 1 M¢„ Pic r. N � � w�• Y ��'Y '� r �` � 1 1'`l�r,/�)�) r�17�;r i�rrt �#r��r 3 , ' i�•y� d �� �k •�i; 't� v� � �( " )Ip f � +, I�'f r 1! jtY k!r , I df 7 � •..w t� ('f A� 1 'r ,.�� ',/' _ `!:4, � r S, ° r •'���� I'r�°@4�� j �•� J1(\} ` � �k�ti�tl� ' ""�� f � p}r+�M4,, ° ry ,��;. � '(; 1 ,. rl�... s �: �! 4 5 1 y t � It�,rytn•• , It ,d T , 1' I:" kC E t 1�►(r��A l� d 1 t All � �; � c i , \\\ ,n• � ,t.y , +rt �O 00 J OY �n •A w N R o a t, r ;p � q �,h�� y ',, �'• � '11,r ;w� r �! � �,� o � a --I -' �� c ,z E to rb r r r4�t,JrRyh��. �yj 1 � �A```, 't �1�;�r".:.f Tifff}' s �� "'• 3 k, Located at Plant No . 2 is a gas turbine installation, the first in the United States operating on digester gas . The 1500 horsepower gas turbine drives a 1000 KW electrical generator. The hot exit gases from the turbine are directed through a heat recovery unit to produce about 12,000 pounds of superheated steam per hour. This drives a steam turbine which is connected to a 300 KW generator. 1500 Horsepower Gas Turbine. operated on digester gas Energy recovery is of primary concern through the Districts ' treatment plants . The gas produced in the digestion process not only fuels boilers and incinerators but is used to drive numerous gas engines for pump drives as well as the gas turbine . Water from the gas engine cooling jackets is circulated to give . up its heat which can be reused to help maintain temperature control in the digestion process . Control Center Physically located at Plant No . 1 is the Control Center. This station, continually manned, controls the operation of the entire system. Here, in the view of a single man, are displayed and recorded the operating conditions of 20 pump stations and two treatment plants . At his command are various communication systems to relay his decisions either to a mobile maintenance truck or an operator on the grounds at either plant . -'° - - Centralized Monitors for Plant Operations = # ' . in Control Center Future Plans Currently under design and scheduled for construction in the next three years, is a new ocean outfall estimated to cost about $15,000,000. At the same time, the plant facilities will be expanded to care for the annual increase in flows of about .10 million gallons per day each year. The Boards of Directors and the staff are supporting studies on sludge handling and outfall disinfection which could improve treatment or lower treatment costs in the future. AD.MISTPATW _ iDILDIYG Z IFT STATION DIFLDEFIT am GRIT GMAMeER. t0rm♦Aun 4 PRIMARY SED STAMOST EUCLID TRUtI[ IMENTATI0E1 GRIT tT"�DMr< DliralC7 Ms.I. BASINS (f) GRIT [tLEC.ORNE D-EO MGD t t-71e 1AGO AERATED PRIMARY CLARIFIER!. IT CXAMeER ►ee GYlM1YTIDY E ITt NIL DLT[AITIDu ELL13 AM EUI m `FORGE t load R V erMkr Gelrw Rn1 J acnio YCi Y _ SCRAPERS Man ADAGE n CENTER f� �NItE'6YME ORDQ411t L `' DISTRICT M.1 PE L �. All, R +Q DISTRItt W t TRUNR s iii♦♦J/ L o- TO SR TIEDSERT S�� MIn Nlnaa a a t MrnLL SLUDGE PUMPED TO DIGESTERS 140 FT.VIA. ij�. 4=, TE Ae S, 1 a PRIYANY S,USIY O Pt `�t`f� Le O f DDLUEMT METER 4 f MPATS SnTEM e4-GLP aMGA 1 TA 4P a.t' U.SnNa aims f CA DtiTRlG7 OFF[F I FLU LUA4T1< b 1 M.6 t.T TRLRIK LAS Ir lMIR4 �r0' DISTMso2..am EMMS Iso cr.Di A. sox 90 rt.DIA . MM....U.iAAu ` ` MAGNETIC O NO.4 BASIN Y0.L \ ^/t/ 1 DL - ERS 116. 7 .®tLE Nm rM enetunM tm GmtloL SSmall ` GENERATOR a`' Yu[IDDEE ATMDLO TED BASIN < O GARAGE 1MREYM QIGOI�M Enlart.aMf(n N6p) tSRn 90 FT.DI♦ SGDRGE . rR�tallmT-� �� F"I' 'ED. �� \ EAA4 YP L [SIEFD PRMLt1[mwa ruer(now N6t) TNRINr ,� a \ SHOP YL[eA t _ GVSGEIV GO FT.DIA. DIED PRIMARY • r.LVS TeaLrc 0 7 { DGRI nLMDIT fmm 140 FG Dlw p a �� ttmmAe AS sINM lmsm EEnErr MMARY 1FD.GAS14 f �T E0 rt Diw TE4TKID nAYT sRRN SECONDARY TREATMENT uD.f ttrDIDAeTI Femt TD nfr. PUMP STATION � • - DRGDlAT10STATION ��� n FL Dlw Imrrea Wane Qua RE PQIt4RY ELECTED M OemMl��� �- DIG Ya S j ItwNDA'T tar 1DDNa MtET,R to r w.emA.TaIMN w I MI FDRr[l USE r MDLs,ENN"R O Nm Esau FDR TrANlNmla n nur se E9 Fr.VIA 'F FL DIL / MLFSR[ut rr $It Rama OMDISY _ /ImltRi DNdFa DLDLY /" at eGKMATAN n j l n Sim1MR1 MMTnL TNIeS tLeEQ RIM TIAOa eaMmLmN 9- ' Na lam t A, Gn sm ) In0 ii.DA. TO FL_D4. OmMPRtnm low mmt MISYUR) PRIIIAAT STATLOY AT Wf. DIE.MD f IRS QnmM�MYtMLL.msl PRIMARY a��M SECONDARY DIGESTER DIGESTER N IGN RATE TRIGOIYG FILTER YL I FILTER (i) r © O ® TRICKLING 6 rp'W.i L'DEA NTr SLUDGE DEWll it" 2'-a'LT- ASITN alcohol. up ® s;, F DILL 1DRAT.09 AREA m6'DTTr DISTeRsnML VAS ` DUMP STATION ,Q FE Du SLUDGE DEWATERIMG i V yE 1OE11T ASR 1112 O fl1YA[Y © mun URGED,- FFr111D 7 SWDDN NWRR DE m 7 i CURVES KIM MIX MAN D, —MEN TDtAnt Alm � D � © ' ff ���E y�t �c—�T� MbDBaI/Is RT.W.m DITTDMDM v E� Y� 100 FT DIE. Ie0 FL DIA. � ��talM O ^ atmRnt IN sMD wmt 4- Ttl[eL1YG FILTER Mai TRICKLING FILTER Noe 0 O � �' nKh MEFAFR 1J AK ® I (�n WIDE EFFLUENT TrRe S "wooT�_� . AT/NO 1f: _ ' �TOR IEGUL— G[Yt � DnIEE FTO -V AI tm-W-em—IS p O W PSI) OOG( ��TRIDtLIYG FJLTEq y/ /� N _ �KCIKULAi� —/ fg //��/Q00 14o rL DIL �7��//,V - t. • _ SFODImA[1 L I YSW ELEEI a 3 40.1 �l� hQ [ O OMNn SAINTATIRII jU`n n M MYaE trPITT j,�a� 7FmmLe I40 rt oy VVV IIIAALo rr THE TREATMENT PROCESS n resae w teD ggyC',` rsnrurls m. SECDO&W no.DIMI 1•-'sF AT d ^� Me.Q s�a PLANT No. 1 40�[PE sECOYILAR/EERUEYT h r SIMS AY. AT EGRID ST. c�cTE�c�o�o�J 7r a N Tttu=u R FQmLTUR WALLET,wn.OUT MLE M sum OORML FACILITIES�+ PRIMARY S L U R G E D/R Y I FJ G B ED- i SEDIMENTATION ® BASINS (5) I 20 MGD V _RCTEMT104 2 S[INYER REYOYES .SCRAPERS YOVC SLUGF'...TER 6EF43E S L U D G E t TO SECONDARY —+ IMFLVEYT 1 • TREATYE4T C i D R Y 1 Iv G OUTFACE TA' RCP R DIST ICT MA!♦ ` / u SLUDGE PUMPED' W II TRUNK TO DIGESTERS R E D S 45*a& - a s4'RCP MAGNETICY a S DISTRICT g a/v 2 w T TNIUY S FLOWMETFRS A JS aCD. DYDNRG � w� O IMAGE i I F 1 I o DIGESTER 41m TOYPPFSSION STATION I40 FT DIA. O �WS ST04Af1 � � mt nl[I1aR USE N ONIER,FYGYES,fIC SPHERE ItD FT.D.A.II V ® VITN EUESS I=TRANSNISSI0,1 TO—T NO S ISO PSI) I 9D 7T.DIA. TP[YLIRG FILTER , SFWYDYty DIGFDR PRIMARY TFD.BASIN I •B• I roIYAn OISETTB OFERBON SEC MUSTS[DYTRFLW u \\ O // MOISTER GAt FO[� m tECON01[/JUDOTE[ E SPAYEt Una 4S[ELIRCIIL I- I I,„ ® EFFLUENT DSED RAW SLUDGE m cOYT[Dl tear I/F[DN PeYAq 1 , I DTYATY FOR CI40e4E _ \SED.NSII= SLUDGE [ECIRCYLCTOY� ` ter %KMcm C ✓ / �� BUIIOaC RANT WATER OF DN. Y01 1aTF[ yyy- �-•-Y1 _ O ��1 SEmROARY VIA SLUMS NMTER NAUF AIMS 7RCP P[DMRY D GESTER D LSW \ Minh[LIGmR Al ss'F. BOTTYA SLUDGE m 'A- , u, I.am—uETERIAL AITION PRIMARY SLUDCS PAYING SED3 SECONDARY tF•RCP. DIGESTER AO FT DIE.DIGESTER I ® PLLt B➢I renARr sEn.lA4u R M AEE OWNS 1 .L 90M1¢ NEIDIJONI A. __-_-__ __ - CNIORIME STATION (KARD) _________ / 1T I O - ® C L) TUldNE CONTROL SS, NTTeO BIDS, A BL Di GEYEMiOR 5 OLx TD LiRORDW4 e0 FT.➢IA DIM BDRDIYC BOOM.STA EYAPOIEM cYlOtlYi PCIr4Ry DIGESTER ■ MANE-UP .79 CALORIVATED EFFLUENT LNY D' �■ I--� GRrt ttASDFQef WLTE[ r ti4 'A• TO OCEAN DISPOSAL TNnaMe, 4D• x Go' PAIL aPAcm Ga,000 SIX cEYIEE I�1 PER DAY ' O �P�= �/ \\ 140 FT.DIA. K' IF U u I tNl FT.D14. BD FL DIA. PRIMARY SED.BAtIG 1STC04WRY MGD PYIMAQy DIGFSfE •D' �[ �' SFO� I® rC• J 1 PUMP YA 1 O _ PUMMPP ST vArwu YA.2 !J'RCP SIPHON UNDER SA.YIYER \ L (FOSTER) DI $t 4 TRW.N C B BO FT DIA. LN FT.DIN. (SECONDARY DIG( PRIr4QY MGESIEY P. 140 FT.DIA. 140 FT.DIA. STORE PQIIURY SED.BASIN PYIMAQ•6'Y SED.BA414 SMICE CENTER i 'F• ILUNtR ® ® LOc[ERS VERICLE SIORIVA ISO FT.MA Yi Ga PRIMARY DIG SURGE TOWE[•ti C •G- SURGE TOWER•2 V H PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS S-f 0 MGD-I YL HR RETENTIDLI OTOP LNNN TOAFE1.1K urtx\ (SOWN 7[DUYI PEemunLl t ~ AERATED GRIT CHAMBER M:ieMDnDN scow MVNS SON— \I IT°F T,°rtmuEa xuN G F CNANIEL GIOAU SCON TNI m NN FLuT GEExil TO[ - - ttuN mLLLCfIDY YNlufrt MFLUE4T ---- - m O � DUTIFUL AL. fY N -- _ RSV tLODGf -- ---_- -- msnrin CBOTTQY cmu TFAW-K, (^`( TO SED.BASIN - - "NTT FLOW CArx— t v'fl 'i CO MM TO- DIST RIBUrIOY IN% = _ - SINCE n HOPPER Immit __ LDYYiv GRIT -- TO HEADV/ORNi WET WELL OCEAN OUTFALL Nn 1-MARINE SECTION: OCEAN OUTFALL NA.E-MARINE SECTION: I s G A CLASSIFIER BOW FT.78'R.C.P.INCLUDINO 1000 FT. DIFFUSER PROPOSED 10.000 FT.96-R.C.P. AT 65 FEET BELOW SEA L[VEL. T146 TREATMENT PROCESS AT PLANT Mo.2 BRAO[NORtT ST.AT COAST NI GNVAY YUYTIYGISY BEACH, cALIFORN,A I � z PRIMARY S L U 13 G E D R Y I N G B © SEDIMENTATION v 3}� 1 na BASINS (5) a b =� [0 YiD 1Tt xQ. RCTE14TIOY / d S[UMYFR MATT S FLOgTK uitants NOYt SL16E To CE4n[ 6REASE $ L U G E 2 TD SECONDARY TREATMENT f D R. Y I N 6 DIITFALL TA' RCP 3 jY DISTRICT NP! SLUDGE PUMPED' I Nn II T[URR ' 10 DIGESTERS B E D S A!11¢0. a } i FI P.f4'QCP a/ DISTRICT YAWETIC ///FFF N¢!TRWIF I 1 FIONMETERS: �� !s Mca o �• r[SEWA&II[DYK I SENAGE IT � J F 9` i A iT 140 FT.M. O WS STOW2 / �� (DIGESEat GAS COMPRESSION STATION SrNERE no FT.DLL V, ® 1 FOR FURTHER USE N[GOER.E—E '.FR TRR[lIK (Fp PSI 9D Fi.D11. j .IT.EXCESS FD¢T4MS111t%IDN TO RA.T N¢l ) flln! SF[OtlDMY DI.ESRI Pl14RT SFO.451Y I •B• SEC.GMSTSR tFFIFSW o.,—at FOR— o SOON GGE5IFR 1111, Ow SIIARR SLREti GA[MGRCRLATDR I m SE[.SIm1[/DritN[ ® f tic.0 'PE,� S D"S"MT USED REw UAR ToCOwT[OL tear ) , , I DFILIT `' FOR CRIORIYE SLUM FeDM - J 1\SF0.4xW DGE ULEma �'- • I SMUIIGI 1 IIPIRiRG P"""MATE[ W 0, FRCr DOILIDlS C - - I O .um... at SLUDGE NMM Nu—.n { 7QCp plwary DICESTEI D.LDU \ Yttut!1.1000R AT SF•F DOTM ILUDGE TO 'A' Ay� Fn o"Too 4tnBA "PE,MIKL ACTION PRIMARY DEDS SECONDARY ET'vul .AD FT.DOA. DIGESTER DIGESTER I ® PLLt¢d Pal %ED.uSlu .E• SIT-?RIDR S6'YCP PIT-?NDHIO j OCHLORINE STATION —'-'------ (RARO) NotluN D ® ( [> TUealxE CONTROL OIL STATION I-I // COYTIOL BOIL &G CE4E MTOR r CLt TO LIDNOIIOIa !0 FT.DIA ` 514 DORDIYG `'/ /I DDDFTE[STA FYRPo[lTD[ CYAROYX pl my DIM rA1fE-UP T41K D• I-��cart,tutPNtn —TIE. +..--:r• :'• ® ® a CNLORUNATFD IF EN I�PCIIMA¢�Y I 414 4' TO OCEAN DISPOSAL C [t j ' II N'I X CFO' • e/` NAi E.. TfY�YG4.D00 LD 4T RCP �I((�--PCffl�ll(—JJJ 0. IY D' ■ r I 1 FT.01 A. AG Ir u u 00 FT.DOA. 80 FT DOA. PRIrARA[Y SED.]A41Y STCOYDAQY DUG I PRIMAR/DIGFSTE .D• ® ��SED- I® 1 E' / C' �� clutlpFk 40' 1G0' OuTFALL 14111i MA I d TFLLL' /— \ S.D. RNI tYAT1DY IS•RC.P.SiPNOM UNDER SA NYFR \EO FT.DOA. 80 Fi.DOA. (FOSTER) DISTRICTS 5 f G TR Bx.A P - � ISECOMDOQY DIGI PNrA!'I 01GES1E! 6D. \ H' P. 140 FT.VIA_ 140 FT.DIA STORE PRIMARY SED.DAS1Y pQ1rAQY ]ED-EA414 SERVICE CENTER •F' 6• WIry ® ® lOt[[!S VERICIF SmPAGE + � !!0 FT.DA. GJ Milk"!1 SURGE TOWER.X •6' � wQCiE TOWER♦L O _ j V N PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS O ® S-10 MOD-1 YE NR RETENT104 mr[YYtl TQAYFIIK wRH� (SOY T[OWI RtlOGFLLIF F a - AERATED GRIT CHAMBER OIFnlltlilON Rw tArtlEs xUR 0M ' 1 TM m—E,uw t i Q tx EL Ceun m 4M 1[GRN— iIYTWG 4eFASF FIt, — DNrosu Y z'ja -- - - xw muLTnau =spy- = nAY tlRLutRT -- _- — - - RIDU SIYDGC A. A - -_ _ = DIGCSTcn (NOTIONSURE,C[4u TR¢YEUIK TO SED.IfAVN SL.GE ilu C. COFWEmt n DUST 41BUT10Y r011 SWGE TD NOrK¢ NOPPE¢ �jt' F�HNTeF D—AE tDYNT. T[ GRIT TO MEADWOM NET WELL OCEAN OUTFCLL No.1-118,9114E SECTION: OCEAN OUTFALL K.E-MARINE SECTION: CLASSIFIER 80M FT.76'R.C.P.IMCLU0190 1000 FT. DIFFUSER PROPOSED 10.000 FT.96,'R.C.P. AT Gs FEET BELOW SEA LEVEL. THE TREATMENT PROCESS AT PLANT No.2 blooKYYST V.AT COAST RIGuwxv YVYTIYCm4 DEACN, (ALIFO[M\A COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS a u *� OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA s`a a P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 C o,''"`•" "t+ 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 '�"GE cap (714) 962-2411 - October , 1988 Dear Neighbor: The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, responsible for your sanitary sewer service, want to keep you fully informed about major construction projects being considered to improve and expand the nearby treatment plant and how these could affect you and your neighborhood. Following is an update of our current construction program. WHY ARE TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION NEEDED? We are responsible for protecting public health and the environment while providing wastewater (sewage) management services to most of Orange County, including your household. As environmental standards are refined and the County's residential and business communities grow, so does the need to provide additional sewer and treatment plant capacity. Our two treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach will require improvements and expansion to meet these anticipated requirements, to maintain the quality of our service and protect public health and the environment. HOW CURRENT AND FUTURE TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION ACTIVITIES WILL AFFECT YOU. Four types of treatment plant improvements are being studied, proposed or are underway: 1. HIGH EFFICIENCY CENTRAL POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS: New, cleaner burning engines could soon be installed to replace the conventional engines which now power each of our treatment plants. Eight new state-of-the-art engines will be installed to replace 25 older, less efficient engines. These new engines would be driven primarily by digester gas, a cost-free fuel which is a natural byproduct of the sewage treatment process. Although we currently use some of the digester gas as 'a source of energy, much of the gas is burned as a waste. Using it to power our treatment plants would: • Improve air quality. • Save millions of taxpayer dollars in avoided annual electric power costs. • Pose no significant health risk-to the surrounding community. nuI 1 r ' COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October _, 1988 Page Two 10844 ELLISAVENUE P.O.BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 p 141962-2411. A health risk study was recently completed as part of the normal permitting process for constructing new facilities like the Central Power Generation project. Health risks in studies like this are typically measured in terms of additional theoretical cancer cases which could result from the proposed project. The health study for this project found that the risk from the Central Power Generation Systems project would be 1.5 cases per 100 million people at Plant No. 1 and 1.7 cases in 10 million people at Plant No. 2 in a 70-year period of continuous 24-hour exposure to the maximum projected concentration. This is an extremely low risk and is far below the levels considered relevant to public health. We are very pleased with the safe and improved performance this new power generation system will bring to the Districts and our neighbors. You will soon receive a public notice from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) , the air pollution control agency for most of Southern California, notifying you about the Central Power Generation Systems project and the results of the recent health risk study. The SCAQMD sends these notices to all addresses within 1/4-mile of construction projects within the air basin. Because the SCAQMD notice is somewhat technical , we have enclosed a supplemental Information Sheet (green document) to help answer some of the questions you may have about this project. 2. IMPROVED TREATMENT FACILITIES: It will be necessary to expand and improve the treatment facilities at our two plants to effectively meet the wastewater management needs of Orange County's future residents and businesses. In addition to providing capacity, the need for higher levels of wastewater treatment is being evaluated. If more stringent wastewater treatment standards are adopted, the additional facilities required would be even greater. As construction takes place, you are likely to observe periodic minor increases in daytime activities. Please be assured that we will do whatever we can to minimize the impacts of these disturbances, and mitigation measures will be included in the environmental assessment documentation for the projects. 3. ODOR CONTROL: Many improvements to our existing treatment plants have already been completed. These improvements have significantly reduced our odors to less than they were just a couple of years ago. You may be aware of the aluminum domes now being installed over our settling basins at a cost of $20 million. When installation is completed in 1989, these domes will eliminate 95% of the odors emitted from the treatment plants. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 1988 Page Three ,oe44 ELLIs AVENUE P.O.BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 (714)962-2411 We now have a policy of enclosing or covering all new treatment facilities to minimize odors. 4. TREATMENT PLANT APPEARANCE: The Districts have committed a considerable budget to improving the appearance of our treatment plants. Many of you have probably seen the major landscaping work now underway. We will continue to enhance the appearance both on the exterior boundaries and the interior sites. TO LEARN MORE It is our sincere desire to be good neighbors. We therefore welcome your views and inquiries on these subjects. If you have specific questions or need additional information, or if you are interested in a neighborhood group presentation, please call Corinne Clawson, Public Information Officer, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County at (714) 962-2411 extension 213 or write her at: County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Post Office Box 8127, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127. Very truly yours, J. Wayne Sylvester General Manager �v COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ^N�tA7/ON 4i� OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA > P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 o S'"°•"" <+ 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 R'NGE CO (714) 962-2411 October 15, 1987 r t� _ 1 L-J G f f' •f� NOTICE TO: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street :pft Huntington Beach, California 92648 r ATTENTION: Jim Sankey, Sr. Analyst -' Public Works Department At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 14, 1987, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 approved an increase in sewer connection charges on each parcel of property located within the district. The effective date of the increase is November 13, 1987. The new connection fee charges in District No. 11 are as follows: Ordinance District Number Residential Fee Commercial Fee 11 1107 $1,500/Dwelling Unit $300/1,000 Sq. Ft. A copy of the ordinance pertaining to your district is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (714) 962-2411, extension 240. ` r William H. Butler Director of Finance CF.1 WHB:pi Enclosure a CRDINANCE NO. 1107 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1106 ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR USE OF DISTRICT SEWERAGE FACILITIES, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1104 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, does hereby ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 702 of Ordinance No. 1106 is hereby amended to read: "702. DISTRICT NO. 11 CONNEC.'TION CHARGES A. District Connection Charges. No application for a permit for a connection to a District sewerage facility or to any sewerage facility which discharges into a District sewerage facility shall be considered until a District connection charge is paid by the applicant. No connection permit shall be issued unless there is an established use of the property to be served or a valid building permit issued which established the use of said property. The following District connection charges are hereby established commencing November 13, 1987, and shall be paid to the District or to an agency designated by the District: (1) Connection charge for new construction, dwelling buildings: For each new dwelling unit constructed, the connection charge shall be $1,500 per dwelling unit. (2) Connection charge for existing dwelling buildings: For the connection of each existing dwelling building, the connection charge shall be $1,500 per dwelling unit. -1- (3) Connection charge for new construction and existing structures, other than dwelling buildings: For all other new construction, including, but not limited to, commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the connection charge shall be $300 per 1,000 square feet of floor area contained within such construction, provided that the minimum connection charge for such new construction shall be $1,500. (4) Connection charge for replacement buildings: For new construction replacing formes buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in paragraphs (1) and (3) above. If such replacement construction is commenced within two years after demolition or destruction of the formes building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed and shall be the equivalent connection charge for the building being demolished or destroyed, calculated on the basis of current charges for new construction. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charges. (5) Connection charges for additions or alterations of existing buildings: In the case of structures where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of family dwelling buildings or the area of buildings to be used for other than family dwelling buildings, the connection charge shall be $1,500 for each dwelling unit added or created, -2- • and, in the case of new construction other than family dwelling buildings, it shall be $300 per 1,000 square feet of additional floor area contained within such new construction, provided such new construction shall contain additional plumbing fixture units." Section 2. Fees established by Section 702 shall be effective November 13, 1987. Section 3. Ordinance No. 1104 is hereby repealed on the effective date hereof, as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 4. The Secretary of the Board shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the District as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, at a regular meeting held October 14, 1987. /s/ Jack Kelly Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California ATTEST: /s/ Rita J. Brown Secretary of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California -3- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, RITA J. BROWN, Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1107 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Board on the 14th day of October, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Directors Tam May, Chairman pro tern, Roger R. Stanton and Grace Winchell NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of October, 1987. Rita J. Brown Secretary of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California 0 ` or TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS o� AREA CODE 714 10 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-2-2411 oA_ 962 P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE(EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) August 1, 1984 Director Don MacAllister 1211 Park Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Subject: Impact of Redevelopment Agency Financing on County Sanitation Districts Dear Don: Redevelopment law in the State of California has provided mechanics in recent years to significantly upgrade the infrastructures in many communities. Cities in Orange County have used this vehicle effectively, as evidenced by the fact that over 18,000 acres are now within redevelopment agencies. The principal which has been used in the majority of the cities in Orange County has been to utilize the redevelopment funding as a means to enhance revenue streams within the area. Although there are mandates as far as housing developments are concerned, the main thrust has been the improvement of commercial or industrial property since this provides a much more attractive revenue stream. This principal is quite obvious when an analyses of each redevelopment agency project is made. Regardless of the development that was made in each area, such development results in the discharge of waste material to the Sanitation Districts which must be processed and disposed of to conform to all the strict requirements of the EPA and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The problem faced by the Sanitation Districts is that because of the redevelopment agency tax increment financing, the Districts annual cost of services may not be covered by the Districts' frozen share of the ad valorem taxes. It should be noted that capital facilities improvements is not at issue. Each development is obliged to pay connection fees for sewer capacity expansion and these fees continue to be adequate. The problem is the annual cost of operations and maintenance. The basic question that must be answered by all of us then is, "How should these treatment costs be paid?" An option that is available is to permit a tax pass-through by the redevelopment agency so that the incremental tax will automatically be forwarded to the District for payment of their escalating operating expenses. However, many of us who pit as Directors of redevelopment agencies are quite reluctant to do this because it may dilute the effectiveness of the agency in achieving its stated purpose. Director Don MacAllister Page Two August 1, 1984 As I have studied the issue, it seems to me that as far as commercial and industrial development is concerned, the user fee will be levied automatically by the Districts pursuant to the existing industrial use ordinance. As we gain a more complete identification of high level users the industrial and commercial developments will pay their fair share. Since these fees are reduced by the equivalent ad valorem tax which has been paid by the property owner, the tax credit will simply be a little bit less because of the redevelopment agency. This leads to the observation that- the real issue is residential development. Significant development of this nature increases waste flow that must be processed by the Districts but does not increase taxes paid to the Districts to cover costs. In these instances, it might be practical to levy a user fee to cover costs. Many Districts already have such a fee and the mechanics of collecting it are already in place. Our Boards have under consideration several options, a summary of which is attached. However, in order to treat. this problem in an equitable fashion, it is important to first determine the nature of the.development in all of the affected agencies which necessitates a response from your redevelopment agency. In this response, a detailed summary identifying the separation of projects between residential and commercial/industrial, as well as the impact of the various options, would be quite valuable. This would enable identification of the 'magnitude of the problem much better than-could be done by our Sanitation Districts' staff. I would appreciate it if you would respond to this problem. The Boards' Fiscal Policy Committee is scheduled to consider this matter at its September meeting and, so, it would be most helpful if I could hear from you by September 1st. .Any suggestions of other systems to achieve equitable payment of fees without creating a new bureaucracy would certainly be appreciated also. Sincerely, Richard B. Edgar Joint Chairman RBE:dl Enclosure 8/01/84 ALTERNATIVES FOR FUNDING OF DISTRICT SERVICES TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS 1. Incremental Tax Pass-Through - Seek a pass-through of incremental tax revenues that accrue to the Redevelopment Agency to cover the Districts' added costs. Our historical share of the ad valorem tax is approximately 3% of the 1% basic levy. This alternative provides for the Agency to "pass-through" to the Districts their historical share (3%) of the incremental tax accruing to the Agency. 2a. User .Fee Collected by District on Tax Bill - Establish a zone for the redevelopment agency and levy a use fee to be collected on the property tax bill. 2b. User Fee Collected by Redevelopment Agency - An alternative to 2a. would be for the redevelopment agency to collect a use fee, on behalf of the Districts, and remit the amount to the Districts, keeping 5% to cover their.administrative costs, . This method would be similar to the existing agreements providing for the cities to collect the Districts' connection fees. 2c. Commercial/Industrial User Fee Combined with Another Alternative for Residential - For commercial/industrial properties, the Districts could issue a permit under the provisions of the current uniform industrial waste ordinance and levy and collect user fees from those properties where the yearly cost of services provided exceed the annual property .tax paid to the Districts. Since the majority of redevelopment projects are commercial/industrial, this option could be utilized for those properties .in combination with one of the five other alternatives for residential properties. 3a. Project Life Subsidy - Subsidize the added cost of providing service for The redevelopment areas with the District-wide share of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13. 3b. Interim Subsidy - As in 3a. , subsidize the added cost of providing service for the redevelopment areas with the District-wide share of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13 only until such time as it is necessary to adopt District-wide user fees. At such time, the adopted fee would also apply to redevelopment properties. It should be noted that the options listed above under alternative 3 may be in conflict with the Revenue Program adopted by the Boards in compliance with state and federal regulations that provide that all users pay their proportionate share of Districts' costs. MN-5 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS (rg�oepznl TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10 962-2 411 962-2411 P. ❑. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF❑RNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) November 30, 1981 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Subject: Grant of Easement from City to District No. 11 re Coast Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 11-13-2 Subject Grant of Easement was accepted by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 at its regular meeting on November 11, 1981. Enclosed herewith for your information is a copy of the recorded Easement. Atalrown Assistant Board Secretary Enclosure cc: Chief Engineer CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE ca 't This is to certify that the interest conveyed by this instrument from City of Huntington Beach to County Sanitation District No. 11 of -� Orange County, California, a political IV corporation, is hereby accepted by order of 00 the Board of Directors of said District on November 11, 1981, and grant a co eats to the recordation thereof by its my t ri d officer. ' By v / �Se r y Date: November 11, 1 .y STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ► COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: On this day of 19 before me, a Notary Public G in and for said County and State, perona 1 appeared / _F % , known to me to be the Mayor and /�i�/[�,4 jjzeg,,�-woc A , known to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, the municipal corporation that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within in- strument on behalf of said municipal corporation and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the same. REQLTFSTED BY.- Or Co. Sanitation "i s _:cts BK 1 4 2 8 8 PG 1 43 13 4 0 2 RECORDEMN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNI;`: WHEN RECORDED ;MAIL TO '2 5-5 PM NOV 12'8 i QrnngP Co. Sanitation Districts �i�51D E-p _ n_ Rix 127 SEE A BRANCH, County Record; _ ^-7 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 _ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this day of 6CCI f7_ 19'y/ by and between CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Grantor, and County Sanitation District No. 11, of Orange County,California,a public corporation,Grantee. WITNESSETH: For a valuable consideration'the Grantor does hereby grant unto the Grantee the easement and right of way to establish, construct and maintain for all time a public sewer or sewers and appurtenances in, through, on and along that certain real property situated in the County of Orange, State of California,more particularly described as follows: A map and legal description attached, marked Exhibit "A" and Exhibit"B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. THIS GRANT is made by the Grantor under the full understanding that the Grantee/ by acceptance of this grant has the right to remove and replace those .facilities which exist in this easement area and only those facilities which interfere with the purpose for which said easement is granted. Grantee shall obtain the concurrence of the Grantor prior to beginning work in said easement, except in temergency situations. The Grantee agrees, after due consultation and cooperation with the Grantor, to assume the expense of removal and replacing said existing facilities. Further, it is understood that connections to such public sewer or sewers constructed on the real property described above may be made only upon strict compliance with such rules and regulations as Grantee shall adopt from time to time and keep on file in the office of its secretary. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the.Grantee forever for the sole object and purpose of constructing and maintaining thereon a public sewer or sewers and appurtenances thereto. Grantee's rights shall include the right to construct and main- tain service roads, manholes, air valves, blow offs, pumping wells, pumping stations, metering stations, stand pipe and service connection structures appurtenant to said line or lines of trunk sewer pipe which structures may extend above the surface of the ground. Dated ` l"' , % CITY OF HUNTINUON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF _ / Ruth Finley, Mayor on before me, the under- _ signed, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appears Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk known tome to..be the person whose name ■ubscribed to the within"instrument and--acknowledged that APPRYIED AS TO FOPM: executed,the same. r, 11 _. _.�:1 ff Name (Typed or Printed) /� ��. =1 Notary Public in and for said County and-° e?ut: C'_tp Att :ley TERMS, DESCRIPTION AND MAP ,PPROVED: ' By Engineering Department B K 1 4 2 B8po 143 3 APPROVED AS TO TERMS, FORM AND LEGALITY: By f General Counsel ' 1 f; J " t i r OLId _ 9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sewer Easement BK 14 2 8 g pG 1 4 3 9 County Sanitation District No. 11 Orange 'County, California (Easement in City of Huntington Beach Parking Lot) An easement to construct, operate, maintain, and reconstruct a sanitary sewer over and under a portion of Section 14, Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.B.B. and Meridian, Rancho Los Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, lying 15.00 feet each side of the following de- scribed centerline: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Pacific Coast High- way, said centerline lying 70.00 feet South of and parallel to the North line of Pacific Coast Highway with the centerline of Beach Boulevard; thence South 00 15' 37" East along the Southerly prolongation of the centerline of said Beach Boulevard a distance of 103.90 feet, to an intersection with a portion of a curve, lying concave Northeasterly, having a central angle of 6° 53' 40" and a- radius of 800.00 feet, and a.partial arc distance of 96.26 feet, said intersection being also the True Point of Beginning; thence along said curve Westerly, along the arc distance of 10.88 feet, having a central angle of 0° 46' 45" and a radius of 800.00 feet, to a point of tangency with a reverse curve lying concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 800.00 feet, a central angle of 6' 14' 28" and an arc distance of 87.14 feet; thence along said curve an arc distance of 87.14 feet to the end of said curve; thence along a line tangent to said curve North 51° 11' 40" West a distance of 624.54 feet to the beginning of a curve lying concave Southwesterly, having an internal angle of 10 25" 56", a radius of 1000.00 feet, and an arc distance of 25.00 feet; thence along said curve an arc distance of 25.00 feet to a point of tangency with a line bearing North 52° 37' 36" West, said line lying 88..00 feet Southerly of the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway measured at right angles thereto; thence along the following courses and distances: 1. A line being North 52° 37' 36" West, a distance of 1779.56 feet. 2. A curve lying concave Southwesterly having a central angle of 7° 10' 21112 a radius of 600.00 feet, an arc distance of 75.11 feet. 3. A line bearing North 59' 47' 57" West, a distance of 416.54 feet. 4. A curve lying concave Northeasterly having a central angle of V 38' 02112 a radius of 600.00 feet, and an arc distance of 48.53 feet. 5. A line bearing North 55° 09' 55" West, a distance of 1089.18 feet; thence North 8' 46' 56" East, a distance of 59.97 feet more or less to an intersection with the South line of said Pacific Coast Highway, said South line being 50.00 feet South of the said centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, said South line lying on a Northeasterly curve having a radius of 1250.00 feet, a radial line to said intersection having a bearing of North 38° 16'. 24" East, and having a radius of 1250.00 feet. �THxE CITY OFF I-I=L:IFTIfNGT01\1 BsEACH= t E -was' Map on File with City Clerk 'F I Tad:''dd �-:f-i.�. i S W�{i: �� '3:M1 �4 i A•. rL:. � REQUEt f FOR CITY COUNQL- ACTION Date t. 29, 1981 PRO"YED By CAT O�FZD By Submitted to: Honorable Mayor & City Council Submitted by: . Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat • Prepared'by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works CITY RK Subject: Coast Trunk Sewer Easement for Orange County Sanitation District Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Orange County Sanitation District has requested that .the City grant a right-of-way easement along the southwesterly side of Pacific Coast Highway from Beach Blvd. to Lake Street for OCSD No. 11 Coast Trunk Sewer. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the granting. of an easement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Grant of Easement. ' ANALYSIS: In conjunction with the County' s Master Plan for sewage facilities, the Coast Trunk Sewer has been constructed along and adjacent to portions of Pacific Coast Highway. One phase of this system, between Beach Blvd. and Lake Street, requires an easement dedication by the City of Huntington Beach. Exhibit "A" shows the location and size of easement. The Community Services and Public Works Departments have examined the easement request and recommend approval. FUNDING SOURCE: None. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny Orange County Sanitation District request. ATTACHMENT OCSD Ltr dtd 6/25/81 Grant of Easement Exhibit "A" CWT:PEC:DRN: jy 3 PIO 4/81 dbtt�TryyO+ TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $ AREA CODE 714 S4O-291 O OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. ❑. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92706 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) June 25 1981 DEPT. O F P u?�:iG tA •07:�KS City of Huntington Beach JuA 2 Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 1vc�rory SzACH. CALIF: Attention: George Tindall, Chief Engineer Subject: Request for Grant of Easement Coast Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 11-13-2 In accordance with your March 20, 1981 comments on our request for an easement for the Coast Trunk Sewer, we have revised the easement document. If this easement document meets your approval, please obtain authorization from your council for the grant and forward it to this office for acceptance and recordation. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the undersigned. Xhomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer TMD/jo Enclosures r 1 i.• - --ti- CU°V£ DATA O _ •• L a IOY.RR' CURVE-DATA 0 ` L• SIRR a ! � _ SANITARY. SEWER :f.ASEM£NT COUNTY SANITAMWOMRICT ORANGE COiiKTY CALIK IN a • CITY`OFNUNTlli8lbil:.11�ACN o� ORANGE COUNTS CA cli.. AM-% PACIFIC COAST HWY. + DETAIL"A° d. feALf - o• - OF w' EIIENt - •jd - + y, • dC3► Ld ti7. -rM!11'p^v .r22 syw•. tit RA'- ? • \ .Spy�.Ly IL P. COAST J ■m•irsr. �Rvt DATA Q e.rH'a • • R•M. tuRvt DATA - _ •��i�. - 90K or w GUM DATA © -- A'9-53,40, + +aR t cluvil & Cuavt DATA -� WUNITANY.. _ i -�:. '• A•rl0'ti EASEMENT � e+oevAe•DATA o: © DETAIL°B" R.soot• _. - .•;. _ ,h:-t j s?� } _ -��8• L•NA3' o A'd: ; ' CITY Off= �VC��i°�6`A..G't O% ����� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNCINGfUN RI-AC.H To C. W. Thompson From Paul E. Cook City Administrator Director ' of Public Works SubjectCoast Trunk Sewer,. Reaches 3 & 4 Date . July 16 , 1981 :y a r The Orange County Sanitation District No. 1.1 has requested the conceptual approval from the -City of Huntington Beach be- for the proposed Reaches 3 and 4 - of the Coast Trunk Line be- tween Lake Street and the Huntington Beach Mesa Bluff Line. The District is rec�uestina conceptual �o apval from the Cite n order that they can file the necessary permit application before the Coastal Commission._ The staffs from both the Development Services Dept. and Publ C Works Dept. have reviewed and commented on the Project Reporl-, and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the prDjec- by the Sanitation District. The route of the proposed Coast. Trunk extension will be in Walnut Street from Lake to 21st a Streets, and northerly in 21st . Street to Orange , and westerly (4 in Orange to Goldenwest Street. This project will provide 4 additional capacity for the proposed redevelopment of the y downtown area and for the proposed Seacliff IV development. 'f Construction is anticipated to begin early in 1982 depending on funding availability. Adequate Mitigating measures ::- .11 he included within the .proj.ect in order -to minimize the _impact ' downtown businesses and residences. Prior to forwarding con- ceptual approval of the project to the Sanitation District, City Council input relative to this project is requested . . PEC:GLT: jy Attach. j { i . i I °•��r�rioH cm T E L E P H O N-ES: COUNTY SATv1TATION DISTRICTS o f��i�.��m AREA COOE 714 i' OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA C 962 241D1 P. O. BOX 6127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270B loe44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) June 17 , 1981 City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention : George Tindall , City Engineer Subject : Coast Trunk Sewer, Reaches 3 and 4 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No . 11 recently approved the preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Documentation for the Coast Trunk Sewer between Lake Street and Slater Avenue . The project report , prepared by a consultant, indicates that the sewer should be extended westerly from Lake Street in Walnut Avenue to 21st Street , then northerly in 21st Street to Orange Avenue , westerly in Orange Avenue to Golden West Street and finally westerly of Golden West Street in Palm Avenue (extended) . Attached for your review is a copy of the project report . The District requests approval and. concept from the City of Huntington Beach for the construction of .Coast Trunk Sewer , Reaches 3 and 4 between Lake .Street and the Huntington Beach Mesa Bluff Line . This request is necessary for the filing of the Coastal Commission application. On February 6 , 1978 , your City Council approved Reaches 1 and 2 of the project which set the alignment in Walnut Avenue . Accordingly, further council action may not be required. If you have any questions or need. additional information, please do not hesitate to call . Thomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer TMD/pr City Huntington of Hunti ton Beach * P.O. BOX 190 C 'L�F'���f Ci 1 Y ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council - ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator CxTY 'ifl -' FROM: H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works DATE: February 1, 1978 SUBJECT: Sanitation District No. 11, Coast Highway Sanitary Sewer Trunk Reaches 1 and 2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Before an application for the construction of the Coast Highway Trunk Sewer can be submitted for the Sanitation Districts to the Regional Coastal Commission for approval, it is necessary that the City approve in concept the Districts' proposed alignment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommen e that the City Council approve in concept the County Sanitation Districts ' proposed alignment for the Coast Highway Sanitary Sewer Trunk Reaches 1 and 2 . ANALYSIS: During the past 6 months City staff has been working with the County Sanitation Districts ' consultant in resolving the potential problems inherent in the construction of the proposed Coast Highway Trunk. Meet- ings were held too with Vince Moorhouse relative to the unique problems of the Coast Trunk alignment proposed through the beach parking lots. The potential loss of revenue and the effect of the proposed project on the existing landscaping were thoroughly analyzed. An alternate alignment of the Trunk Sewer within the Pacific Coast Highway roadway was also considered. The tremendous increase in cost of this alternate alignment ($2, 300,000 vs. $1,700,000) and the horrendous effect on traffic was such that further serious consideration was dropped. It is the opinion of City staff that the proposed alignment as identified on the map accompanying Fred Harper' s letter of Jan. 27 , 1978 addressed to the City Council (copy attached) is the most reasonable and should be adopted by the City Council. The final EIR for the sanitary sewer Master Plan which included Reaches 1 and 2 was adopted by the Board of Directors and certified in July, 1977 . ALTERNATIVES: It is possible for the Coast Highway Trunk Sanitary Sewer to be constructed within the roadway of the Pacific Coast Highway. It is, however, un- economical and would have a most disasterous effect upon traffic utilizing the Coast Highway. FUNDING SOURCE: There are no expenditure of funds involved in the recommended action. J HEH:MZ : jy /1 Attach. U w 0* � er�e,m TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA DE 7❑14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. O. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92706 DEPT. OF PU6LIC WORKS 10644 ELL15 AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY JAN301978 January 27, 1978 HUNMNor0f4 BMACH. CALIF. Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Mr. Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator Subject: Sanitation District No. 11 Coast Highway Trunk . . . . . . Reaches. .1 and .2 . . . . . On January 11, 1978 the Board of Directors of Sanitation District No. 11 adopted the proposed Coast Highway Trunk route for Reaches 1 and 2. The District Board requests concurrance of the route alignment from the City Council in the public interest as being the least environmentally sensitive, the most economical and having the least impact on traffic and commercial enterprise. Attached is a map delineating Reaches 1 and 2 of the proposed Coast Highway Trunk which is planned to run along the east side of Brookhurst Street in a southerly direction from Plant No. 2, thence under the Coast Highway to the old Pacific Electric right-of-way. The alignment will thence go westerly in the beach area, siphon under the Edison Company' s steam plant ocean outfalls to Beach Boulevard, thence through the City' s beach parking lot to Lake Street. The project will require tunneling underneath. the Coast Highway to the northerly side of the Lake Street and Coast. Highway intersection. The "Newland Street Reach will be constructed northerly under the Coast Highway and align itself on the east side of Newland Street, terminating at the Newland-Hamilton Pump Station at a depth to deactivate the pumping station, thus reducing the District' s on-going annual maintenance and energy cost. The District' s staff and consulting engineer have coordinated with the major affected agencies such as the City of Huntington Beach, Caltrans, Southern California Edison Company and the California Department of Parks and Recreation for necessary permits, easements and coordination. Before a construction application can be sub- mitted to the Regional Coastal Commission for approval, the City of Huntington Beach should adopt the proposed alignment. v 2� i• COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach January 27, 1978 Page Two Upon securing .the Coastal Permit and preparing final plans and specifications, construction will begin at Plant No. 2 and Brookhurst Street this summer. The length along Coast Highway will be constructed from mid-September to the' end of March, 1979, thereby avoiding construction during the summer months. The District' s staff will continue to work closely with the City' s staff on the project. If you have any questions, -please do not ,hesitate to call Mr. Ray Lewis, Chief Engineer. Fred A. Harper General Manager FAH:DMR:hjb • 3 �.:OUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFoRNIA P.O. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE "�`" • " r FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 4y Qa 4j 4-) H 4J 4j 4+ �. W X 0) c 4J 4J 4-i Atlanta `n" Avenue Q -_ r:4 c1�jc Hamilton - - Street `\ c �_ o A \ z 9C1 cd w Al co cd. ` `1\ PL 7'T/NO. 2 q, COAST HI GM AY TRUNK1 �. j REACHES i AND 2 � fit f COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. II Proposed Alignment V OD01TATIp, 1/ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ti� ,:fmy AREA CODE 71TELEPHONE4 910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 0 962-2-2411 c P. O. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) October 11, 1978 00is11 198 �6 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office -Box 190 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: " . Mr. Floyd G., Belsito, -City Administrator Subject: Sanitation District No. - ll Coast Highway Trunk Beaches 1 and 2 On November. 8, 1978, the Board of Directors of Sanitation District No.. 11 will consider the adoption of the attached resolution, which will hold in abeyance the potential annexation of Bolsa Chica until the Coastal Commission' s Local Coastal Program is adopted, but no later than July, 1981. This Sanitation District is seeking concurrence from the City Council on this concept and would like to receive its comments. Having received City' and other local approvals, in April, 1978, . j the District No. 11 filed an application with the Regional Coastal Commission for a permit to install the 84-inch Coast Highway Trunk extending from Plant No. 2 to Lake Street along the i beach side of Pacific Coast Highway. This Coast Highway Trunk`., is the backbone system for the Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for this District. On June 26, 1978, the Regional Commission .hear.d all testimony and approved the permit by a 7 to 5 vote. This permit approval was appealed to the State Coastal Commission by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, the Sierra Club and Mrs. Aileen Brock. The hearing on this matter has been set by the State Commission for October 17th. I On Tuesday., September 26th, District Staff met with the staff of the Coastal Commission in San Francisco to discuss the concerns of the. Commission and its staff:. The Coastal Commission staff i did not appear concernced as to the capacities since most of the drainage area lies outside of ..the Coastal Commission zone of I influence. The main concern is the status of the Bolsa Chica j area. The Local Coastal Plan has not been completed for this area j CL,-.qTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Honorable Mayor and City Council of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA. City of Huntington Beach P.O. sox 8127 October - 1.1, -1978 10844:ELLIS AVENUE Page 2 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708.., (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 but must be resolved before July, 1981. The State staff indicated that a favorable report could be made to the Commission- if the- . District would postpone consideration of annexation of this area to the Sanitation District until after the finalization of the Coastal Element Plan for this area. Since no �development could be .-approved by the Coastal 'Commission requiring sewer service, the -Sanitation District is considering adopting a resolution indicating' good faith that the area would not be annexed to the District until the Local Coastal Plan has been adopted, but no later than 1981; this would allow the District to secure the permit and .proceed with . this needed Coast Highway Trunk Sewer. Timing is critical ,on the installation of the sewer because of the interfacing with $75 million of construction underway or to be awarded at Plant No. 2.. The hearing before the State Coastal Commission is .--scheduled ':-for October 17th. It is requested that the City reply so that- its action can be included in the public record at the hearing. Final voting on the. Coastal Commission permit will be on November 15th-.with the District acting on the attached resolution on November 8th. . If you have any questions, please do not .hesitate to call Mr. Ray Lewis, Chief Engineer. Fred A. Harper 'General Manager DMR:mee Attachment cc: Bill Hartage, Director of Public .Works Jim Mc Grath, State Coastal Commission k S A M-P L-E ASSURANCES TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REGARDING ANNEXATION OF BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 CONCERNING THE ANNEX- ATION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA AND THE COASTAL ELEMENT PLAN BEING DEVELOPED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, District did cause to have prepare a Master Plan of Trunk Sewer .Facilities to meet the needs of the District for a 25 year planning period; and, WHEREAS, said Master Plan has been prepared in accordance with the District's policies and in harmony with the Master Plan of local sewers prepared by the City of Huntington Beach; and, WHEREAS, included in the District's Master Plan is a backbone trunk sewer designated as the Coast Highway Trunk, extending from the Districts ' Treatment Plant No. 2 located near the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway and the mouth of the Santa Ana River, thence aligned northerly and on the beach side of Pacific Coast Highway, through the downtown section of the City of Huntington Beach around the Bolsa Chica area, terminating at Algonquin and Warner Avenue in the 'City of Huntington Beach; and, WHEREAS, it is becoming increasir)gly important to commence con- struction on 'said Coast Highway Trunk because of potential inter- ferences with construction activities presently under contract or anticipated to be awarded for treatment .plant improvements; and, WHEREAS, County Sanitation Districts Nos . 1, 2 , 3, 5, 6 and 7 , in conjunction with Sanitation District No. 11, have approved various contracts and plans to implement a program to meet the federal requirements for discharge of wastewaters to the marine environment; and, 11T-2" AGENDA ITEM #29 - DISTRICT 11 "T-2" WHEREAS, it is essential for the District to not alter their implementation programs to meet the discharge requirements as presently contained or anticipated to be imposed through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System contained in the provisions of the Federal Water Quality Control Act; and, WHEREAS, the District did apply for a permit from the Regional Coastal Commission for permission to construct said Coast Highway Trunk from Treatment Plant No. 2 to Lake Avenue; and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 1978, the Regional Coastal Commission heard all testimony and approve the District' s permit application to con- struct said Coast Highway Trunk; and, WHEREAS, the action by the Regional Coastal Commission .has been appealed to the California Coastal Commission by citizens and groups concerned about the effects from the sewer system and its relationship to any development which might be proposed in the Bolsa Chica wetlands area. This concern has also been expressed by the California Coastal Commission staff because the Coastal Element Plan for development or use has not been resolved and approved by the California Coastal Commission; and, WHEREAS, the District is obligated to provide the necessary trunk sewer facilities required for the development within the drainage area to the Pacific Coast Highway Trunk; and WHEREAS, construction of said Coast Highway Trunk sewer must be done in sufficient time to avoid construction conflicts with the Districts ' ongoing construction programs to improve the quality of the wastewater effluents being discharged to the marine environment; and, 2 "T-3" AGENDA ITEM #29 - DISTRICT 11 "T-3" r WHEREAS, the Bols" Chica wetlands area is not presently within the Sanitation District and, therefore, cannot be provided sanitary sewer service until said annexation is consummated; and, WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission is concerned as to the offering of utility service until the finalization of the Coastal -Element Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS; Countv Sanitation District No. 11 does hereby resolve not to consider annexation of the Bolsa Chica wetlands area, which is pre— sently outside the District' s boundaries and is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto, until the finalization of the Coastal ' Element Plan for this area, or until July, 1981. This considjeration is made in . good faith that the California Coastal Commission will consider favorably. the District' s application for a permit to construct the Coast Highway Trunk from Treatment Plant No. 2 to Lake Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach, in order not to interfer or delay the Districts ' implementation of treatment facilities. s PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held "T-4" AGENDA ITEM #29 - DISTRICT 11 11T-4" • t ORA54 AVI { WES. 111NIR .4 AVE. o WORTH 4 W o In 1 z JA.7..C.n A DOLE '� �*ter 4VE. u KA iADD N AVE. �.EOr.;rf_R I LAVE. 30 C.S.D. N0. 3 - HEIL I -'� "� AV E. O W� �i<nott Interceptor Tru a c m WART ►:ER ff I �� oI I4VE C I /' � t. 0.------� �.�.. rr, !1 er Holder Tr un% .SLATt'R._ O� AVE. 1 It l31:$i7ord St. rrUl 1{ AL._.CRT -tAV ,� �•' . I c IELLIS =I �1 �:vE.Li f 3 CGRFI L, j �AVE. cl yen KIWN VF. BOLSA CHICAI J I A N L 13 1�llr {fC "WETLANDS" "� ����� � •, TFi EAT'r'iE,�li PI_ANT NO. 2 SA NJTATION DISTRICT NO. I I OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALJ 70 Ri\.11,! EXHIBIT "A" 11T-5" AGENDA ITEM #29 - DISTRICT 11 "T-5" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.0.80X 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE r Er t{�� FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708 Cl7t fl.i. ` (714)540.2910 May 9, 1983 (714)982-2411 P U B L I C N 0 T I C E TO ALL PARTIES CONCERNED SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration re Primary Basins P & Q at Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 21 Job No. P2-26 The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, have ordered the preparation of a Negative Declaration re Primary Basins P Q at Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-26. As required under Section 15083 of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as Amended, this "Notice of Preparation" declares that the Boards of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, having reviewed an Initial Study of the project and having found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, will consider the adoption of a Negative Declaration on June 8, .1983, at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' administrative office at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer, or Hilary Baker, at (714) 540-2910 or 962-2411. Fred A. Harper General Manager I i S REGIONAL WASTEWATER SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA WRITE: LA/OMA PROJECT, PO. BOX 4998,WHITTIER, CA. 90607 TEL: (213) 699-7411 July 5, 1978 f/ �F City Clerk V,� �[ City of Huntington Beach o P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 LA/OMA PROJECT PRESENTATION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL The attached brochures begin with a very important message: Sludge is always coming . . . and it has. to go somewhere." LA/OMA Project is a regional wastewater solids (sludge) management program formed by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and the City of Los Angeles. We have recently developed ten complete treatment trains (called "Sludge Management Projects") that are site-specific, and would handle all of the sludge produced in the Los Angeles/ Orange County Metropolitan Area. As the Projects involve processing and/or disposal at the Orange County Sanitation Districts, Huntinton Beach Treatment Plant, we would like the City Council members to be among the first to receive the information. I understand that a City Council meeting is scheduled for August 7, 1978. A representative of LA/OMA Project would like .to appear before the Council to emphasize key points, and to receive individual responses to the alterna- tive Projects. Please advise Christine Harris, Public Affairs Officer, as to whether or not we could be placed on your agenda. We will require a maximum of 10 minutes floor time. Members of our staff would be happy to meet with,Huntington Beach committees that may review the attached brochures. Please feel free to call us any time. jotAo Bill Davis Project Manager BD:pe cc: Fred Harper Attachments \ LA/OMA Project Regional - • • Management • • for MetropolitanLos Angeles/Orange County Area always • • it all has to • • • _ � �✓ _QQy. i 'l JLJC''�-'S ®r '•'+�Q l 1F= • At I cost in • • The answers to these questions are under investigation. The alternative ideas of how to process and dispose of sludge (called ''sludge management projects") include SOLAR DRYING, COMPOSTING, THERMAL PROCESSING, LAND- FILLING, and OCEAN DISCHARGE. Projects are needed to handle 1800 dry tons of sludge daily -- the amount which must be processed by local agencies by the year 2000. The projects are needed for the sewage service areas of the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, and Orange County Sanitation Districts. This region ranges from the San Fernando Valley in the north, to the San Gabriel Valley in the east, to northern Orange County in the south. Processing sites being examined include the above areas, and extend into such regions as the Mojave Desert, Western Riverside Countv, and the dairylands of San Bernardino County. Some of these alternatives can recover a sludge-based soil amendment and/or produce energy. The projects will cost millions of dollars, affect the environment, and arouse concerns of the public. ,r SOM E FACTS •Currently 900 dry *ocean discharge *Land for processing tons (4,500,000 which currently at existing treatment gallons) of sludge accomodates dis- plants is not ade- is processed each posal of about 25% quate to continue day. By the year of the sludge, is current land-based 2000, this amount precluded by Feder- practices. will double! al law and is to be halted by 1982. •There are resources *The management of *There are also materials { in sludge which can sludge may cost as in sludge which may potentially be re- much as $40 - $60 create adverse environ- I trieved, albeit at million a year . . . mental effects and some cost, and or more on a re- concerns for public ; used . . . Energy . . . gional basis. health. Soil Amendments . . . Nutrients. LA/OMA Project has been created for the purpose of coming to grips with the above. This will be accomplished through the development of a long- term plan to use or dispose of sludge in an environmentally, economically and socially acceptable manner. The sludge management projects in these brochures are undergoing public review. With your input, and other public participation, engineering, economic, and environmental studies, the projects will undergo a "com- parative analysis". The results of this thorough review and comparison will be the identification of a sludge management plan for the Los Angeles - Orange County Metropolitan Area. � � LONG DISTACE TRANSPORT E , } + • SOLAR DRYING PROJECT #1-R-1 i.•."""�r�t-� tI:•A F,_-.'• �;,' � • •- t lei _. R DESERT PROJECT • t z - PROJECT #1-R-2 go a 1 ' zl - - V ,,+ f D.r J _ L• MANAGEMENT CONCEPT • Providing a regional approach to sludge management, these Projects focus upon the concept of drying sludge through the use of solar energy and percolation. • Digested liquid sludge would be pipelined outside the met- ropolitan area to a site where sufficient land is available for the solar drying basins and other processing facilities. �- • Composted sludge could be recycled as a soil amend- ment. Compost not recycled would be landfilled or stock- piled locally. Dried sludge could also be thermally pro- cessed for energy recovery. Organic matter from an exper- imental biomass farm, or other organic wastes such as dairy manure, could be added to enhance energy produc- tion. 61 rr WA' LA/OMA PROJECT 0 I F, OSOLIDS LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA O -_ MANAGEMENT Potential Sludge Management Projects OPROGRAM MARCH 1978 PROJECT M50 1-R-1 LACSD PROCESS DESCRIPTION Combined sludges (primary and second- CENTVAL ary) would be anaerobically digested GOL.LEc.T1o1.1 __ at each treatment plant. Methane gas pp,GILITY �� generated through the bioconversion of sludge in the digester would be � 1 converted into energy for in-plant use. Liquid digested sludge from ; laVPFEVt 1 � each plant would be piped to a central a LAGOON p collection facility. From there, the STOR�11Es6E P sludge would travel through a double 6 barrel pipeline to the processing site. DIZYI NG L GCO's In both Projects, sludge would be cppST placed in lagoons (250 acres) for 1 short term storage. This would be BUFFER followed by drying in basins J (500 acres) using solar energy. 1 I When the sludge of Project #1-R-1 (Solar Drying) is dried to about 600 { g9TRI130M LANDFILL- solids, it would be removed from the 71 basins and composted. The process CatNTRA.'tg would take an average of 20 days, and is capable of producing 1100 tons of compost each day (based upon year 2000 loading rate). The composted sludge i LACSD would be marketed through a recycle OCSD center and could be used for a variety CLA of purposes. Dried sludge in excess of the reuse demand would be taken to a landfill or long-term storage MANURE vYo.'T"�R facility. cANTRAI- Cot.�CGT1oN Sludge dried in Project #1-R-2 (DESERT I ESAC IL.1 TY Project) would be removed to a short- ! � term storage area. From there, energy I would be roduced if slud e were ther- Q` RIoM a ASS Fab am wFFR2' �� p g mally processed in a pyrolytic reactor. 1 P The energy could be used to meet LAGOON p processing needs. Excess energy could STORAGE be marketed to nearby utilities. pRYIN6r Residues would be landfilled. BEDS i The buffer area of Project #1-R-2 STnRA ii could be an experimental biomass rr farm. Water from sources other than i r 810MASS FARM BUFF ` �� the water in the sludge may be needed. Mature plants could be pyrolyzed with — sludge to increase energy production. 1 ( STeAm Yet another option is to add dairy ..rHeRMAL_ manures to sludge, thus managing two eHER�f STD-KRLE regional wastes and increasing over- ELeGT@I AT`( all energy production. { •� o�+au.1 RreT'uoR.NT6 PROJECT 1-R-2 a ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANALYSIS OF THIS PROJECT Costs and impacts will vary depending upon the processing techniques used, the sites where they will be located, and the mitigation measures which are implemented. These items will receive further scrutiny and refinement prior to the comparative analysis of all sludge management projects. The costs and energy figures for Project #1-R-2 (Biomass Farming) are not yet available. But, the Project will neither cost less nor produce less energy than the alternative below. TOTAL CAPITAL COST $380,000,000 to $420,000,000 (total) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE $ 14,000,000 to $ 16,000,000 (annual) POTENTIAL COST RECOVERY $ 7,000,000 to $ 9,000,000 (annual) RESOURCE Energy in the amount of 320,000 to 430,000 KTAIH/dav is produced. This figure RECOVERY represents energy which is in excess to that needed to operate the sludge processing system, including pumping sludge to a rural area. First priority for the energy would be to run the sewage treatment plants. This represents a savings in the amount of energy which could supply 6,400 to 8,600 homes daily. In the year 2000, 1100 tons of compost can be produced daily by Project #1-R-1. This material can be used for agricultural, home and garden, and specialty uses (golf courses, parks). Distribution of compost will be affected by user demand. Studies are underway to determine precisely how much compost can be expected to be recycled through the marketplace. POTENTIAL All proposed sludge management projects have some degree of impact upon IMPACTS individual communities and the environment. Some items which have special significance for this type of project include: • Potential for nuisances such as odor, noise and traffic. • Possible disruption to flora, fauna, and aquatic communities caused by construction and facilities. • Possible degradation of ground and/or surface waters. • Aesthetic impact of new facilities. • Possible migration of toxicants through the food chain. This concern centers around using sludge which contains cadmium on productive land. If strict health regulations were imposed, the market for composted sludge may drop significantly, or even be eliminated. • Even though standards pertaining to the concentration of various air emissions can be met, implementation of this aroject could result in the addition of S02 and NOx emissions in the order of 2800 to 3200 lbs/day. MOJAVE ' i BA¢�Tow 1 . r' 1 �------ _--- DWAiiDS ---.1 A 3`rir_ Farce loss � 1 1 Vir-TORyL.LB San Bernardino Los Angeles .{------------------------------------ ------ - Riverside A preliminary ,t<a regional environ- mental evalua- tion has Orange indicated these a � general areas as potentially suitable for the proposed Projects. The locations shown on this map do not preclude ` -�� the subsequent study or consideration of others. '-- ---- -------- WHY LONG DISTANCE? POTENTIAL AREAS LEGEND o Uses Solar Land needs range between 2,000 ❑ Treatment Energy to and 4,000 acres, depending Plant dry sludge upon buffer size and evapora- tion rates. General areas 1 City of Los o Long distance have been identified for Angeles from treatment further evaluation -- includ- plants to ob- ing one in the Mojave Desert Los Angeles tain large in Kern County and another 2 County Sani- land parcels in Los Angeles County south tation Dists. of Edwards Air Force Base. o Resource County Sani- Recovery of Ongoing studies are exploring 3 tation Dists. soil amendment the desert region of San Ber- of Orange and/or energy nardino County for other po- County tential areas. Potential Project #1-R-2 could be lo- lu Processing cated further east than the Area areas shown above. Processing should take place near an electric utility substation. LA/OMA PROJECT I 0457 = J , COMPOS ING - SLUDGE RECYCLE , ;v y 1 �i; ; � CENTER { ! . ' 'j • CENTRALIZED ��� �'� '` : P 3�,, •�- PROJECT #2-R-1 xx� ' ,��: . � • BY EACH AGENCY i PROJECT #2-S-1 n `Y IkG �4 <...�Y. ?�+i'.U'i •'1r }� f. f,1. s2'#ic4n':Y.r .._..=`. L v MANAGEMENT CONCEPT f . . fll • These Projects focus upon resource recovery through / ,; the composting of sludge in preparation for use as a soil �� >h amendment. • Energy in the form of steam, electricity, or mechanical power is recovered from the gas produced during the ALI - -x digestion of sludge. • This concept could be implemented on a regional basis or independently by each of the local sludge manage- ment agencies. Independent programs can be conduct- ed on-site at each of the major treatment plants with the exception of Hyperion (City of Los Angeles) where suf- ficient land does not exist. • Composted sludge which cannot be distributed as a soil t amendment would be disposed of in a landfill. IN - r _ - OREGIONAL PROJECTWASTEWATER LA/OMA 0 OSOLIDS LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA O MANAGEMENT Potential Sludge Management Projects V -= oAIIVII MARCH 1978 PROJECT 2-R-1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION STbRAGS D 1 STR{8VI'1 ON , LAACSD �O J� Combined sludges (primary and secondary) would be anaerobically oGSD p{� vEW digested at each treatment plant. Methane gas generated through the bioconversion of sludge in the U digester would be converted into energy for inplant use. Ips _� - In the regional project (2-R-1), oBKTpATE "rURW liquid sludge would be pipelined (double barrel line) to the processing site. Here it would be collected and stored in covered ! tanks. The sludge would then be polymer conditioned and dewatered. The centrate would be returned to the treatment plants through the pipeline. Composting would be PROJECT 2-S-1 accomplished using the open-air, windrow process. The area needed for composting is about 130 acres. In the individual approach (2-S-1) processing would occur at the ocsD treatment plants except for M¢CHANICAL LANDFILLHyperion. There the sludge would p be piped off-site for processing. After polymer conditioning, the DEWATER sludge would be dewatered and LACSD DIST216lM #4 mechanically composted in an enclosed structure. This enclosed facility would be designed to i mitigate adverse air a_uality impacts i of dust and odor. i The composted sludge would be Ste'= b 5rRJbVTIoN marketed through a recycle center NQ�i�oc� K and could be used for a variety of purposes. Surplus compost, CLA AVbeyond the reuse demand, would b�V�lA1ER be trucked to a solid waste dispo- sal facility. �\ LANDFILL �`�` 1M�rt11NICA1. +h CBlJTRA7e \�' COMMST REMILN �� ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANALYSIS OF THIS PROJECT Costs and impacts will vary depending upon the processing techniques used, the sites where they will be located, and the mitigation measures which are implemented. These items will receive further scrutiny and refinement prior to the comparative analysis of all sludge management projects. TOTAL CAPITAL COST CENTRALIZED #2-R-1 $253,000,000 to $330,000,000 EACH AGENCY #2-S-1 $250,000,000 to $290,000,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CENTRALIZED #2-R-1 $ 25,000,000 to $ 26,000,000 EACH AGENCY #2-S-1 $ 23,000,000 to $ 25,000,000 POTENTIAL COST RECOVERY FROM SALE OF PRODUCTS EACH PROJECT $ 9,000,000 to $ 10,000,000 RESOURCE The figures below represent energy produced in excess of that needed to op- RECOVERY erate the sludge processing system. First priority for the energy would be to run the sewage treatment plants. The wide range represents a savings in the amount of energy which could supply 2,600 to 10,300 homes daily. NET ENERGY PRODUCED CENTRALIZED #2-R.-1 475,000 KWH/dav to 540,000 KWH/dav EACH AGENCY #2-S-1 130,000 KWH/day to 515,000 KWH/day In the year 2000, both Projects #2-R-1 and #2-S-1 would be able to produce 1100 tons of compost daily. This material can be used for agricultural, home and garden, and specialty uses (golf courses, parks) . Distribution of compost will be affected by user demand. Studies are underway to deter- mine precisely how much compost can be expected to be recycled through the marketplace. POTENTIAL All proposed sludge management projects have some degree of impact upon IMPACTS individual communities and the environment. Some items which have special significance for this type of project include: • Potential for nuisances such as odor, noise and traffic. • Possible disruption to flora, fauna, and aquatic communities caused by construction and facilities. • Aesthetic impact of new facilities. • Possible degradation of ground and/or surface waters. • Possible migration of toxicants through the food chain. This concern centers around using sludge which contains cadmium on productive land. If strict health regulations were imposed, the market for composted sludge may drop significantly, or even be eliminated. • Even though standards pertaining to the concentration of various air emissions can be met, implementation of this project could result in the addition of S02 and NOx emissions in the order of 3000 to 3500 lbs/day. /0'*\ 10000 San Bernardino Los Angeles J. Riverside A preliminary regional environ © ': - mental evalua- tion has //y~� indicated these Orange general areas as potentially suitable for the proposed Projects. The locations shown on this map do not preclude the subsequent study or consideration of others. WHY COMPOST? POTENTIAL AREAS LEGEND o Processing and If implemented as a sludge ❑ Treatment distribution/ management plan, Project #2-R-1, Plant disposal in urban Centralized Composting Facilities, area would be conducted at landfills City of Los with long-term capacity. Storage Angeles o Dry and stabilize and dewatering devices would be sludge; and des- located on firm ground, and win- cos Angeles troy pathogens drow composting on fill material. County San- Compost that is not marketed would 2 itation o Resource recovery he stored on-site. Districts in form of large amounts of compost Project #2-S-1, Composting by Each County San- soil amendment Agency, is proposed to be conduct- itation ed at the existing treatment 3 Districts plants. An exception is the of Orange Hyperion plant, operated by the County City of Los Angeles, where suffi- cient land for mechanical compost- Areas for Com- ing does not exist. Alternative Hosting by locations are indicated in Los Each Agency Angeles County in the Compton (Off-site) industrial area. Several alternate locations are being explored in • Landfills Orange County, including those in Class I & II the foothills behind El Toro Marine Air Station and the Seal Beach Naval Facilitv. LA/OMA PROJECT THERMAL PROCESSING �a ; ^= t =- • SLUDGE ALONE PROJECT #3-S-1 = • SLUDGE WITH SOLID WASTE It' ll I llI _y PROJECT #3-S-2 .� • SLUDGE WITH cal . DAIRY WASTE PROJECT #3-R-2 -. ,_ MANAGEMENT CONCEPT • These Projects focus upon resource recovery through _ the combustion of sludge either alone or with other ma- N: . t. terials to create energy. The energy output both from r the gas produced during digestion and from the thermal processing unit would be in the form of steam, electricity, or mechanical power. 4I' • Additionally, this concept could assist in alleviating dis- posal problems associated with solid waste and dairy manure and, concurrently, generate more energy. y • Landfills would be used for disposal of the ash/char resi- due from the thermal processing unit. - c OREGIONIAL WASTEWATER LA/OMA PROJECT OSOLJDS LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA O MA G Potential Sludge Management Projects MARCH 1978 i I PROJECT I PROJECT PROJECT PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3-R-1 i 3-S-1 I 3-S-2 I I I I 1 I Combined sludges (primary and secon- dary) would be anaerobically digester'_ I at each treatment plant. I I CLA Methane gas generated through the bioconversion of sludge in the x digester would be converted into OCSD LAcSp I energy for in-plant use. I In Project #3-R-1 (Dairy), liquid sludge would be pipelined (double barrel line) to the processing site. There it would be collected and PIPELINE INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUAL I stored in covered tanks prior to { PANTS I ��� further processing. In Projects i I #3-5-1 and #3-5-2, all processing occurs at the treatment plants. At each processing site, the sludge is polymer conditioned and mechani- cally dewatered. DEWA'TER DEWATER DEWATER In Project #3-R-1 (Dairy), dairy 1 manure would be blended with the dewatered sludge. I I J In Project #3-S-1 (Sludge Alone), the sludge is dried to 95° solids in ADD.. I ADD a dehydration unit. DAIWAERST i DE14YMAYICW � PQoCESSED REFUSE In Project #3-S-2 (Solid Waste), 3 . 1 municipal refuse would be processed ! to recover certain metals and to obtain solid wastes with fuel value. (Inert refuse would be trucked to a landfill). The processed refuse THERMAL REACTOR would be combined with the dewatered sludge to make the fuel for the pyrolytic reactor. 141 In all cases, the prepared fuel C would be thermally processed in a-EA j M 1 pyrolytic reactor. The energy ENERGY recovered would be converted to DFILL \ ELECTRICITY electricity, steam, or mechanical �i• _.� power to meet processing needs. Excess energy could be marketed. Residues (ash and excess materials) would be trucked to a landfill. A highly efficient emission cleanup system would be used to control air emissions. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATIOIN ANALYSIS OF THIS PROJECT Costs and impacts will vary depending upon the processing techniques used, the sites where they will be located, and the mitigation measures which are implemented. These items will receive further scrutiny and refinement prior to the comparative analysis of all sludge management projects. The costs and energy figures for Project #3-R-1 (Dairy) are not yet available. But, the Project will likely be comparable to the Projects #3-S-1 and #3-S-2 below. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS SLUDGE ALONE #3-S-1 $300,000,000 to $310,000,000 SLUDGE WITH SOLID WASTE #3-S-2 $400,000,000 to $820,000,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (annual) SLUDGE ALONE #3-S-1 $ 23,000,000 to $ 28,000,000 SLUDGE WITH SOLID WASTE #3-S-2 $ 34,000,000 to $ 49,000,000 POTENTIAL COST RECOVERY FROM SALE OF PRODUCTS SLUDGE ALONE #3-S-1 $ 11,000,000 to $ 16,000,000 SLUDGE WITH SOLID WASTE #3-S-2 $ 17,000,000 to $ 50,000,000 RESOURCE The figures below represent energy produced in excess of that needed to op- RECOVERY erate the sludge processing system. First priority for the energy would be to run the sewage treatment plants. The wide range represents a savings in the amount of energy which could supply 15,000 to 42,000 homes daily. The power generated in Project #3-R-1. (Dairy) could be marketed or used in the processing vicinity. NET ENERGY PRODUCED SLUDGE ALONE #3-S-1 750,000 KWH/day to 760,000 KWH/day SLUDGE WITH SOLID WASTE #3-S-2 790,000 KWH/day to 2,130,000 KWH/day POTENTIAL All proposed sludge management projects have some degree of impact upon IMPACTS individual communities and the environment. Some items which have special significance for this type of project include: • Potential for nuisances such as odor, noise and traffic. • Possible disruption to flora and fauna during construction. • Aesthetic impact of new facilities. • Effects related to preparing the solid waste and dairy manure fuels include truck routes, availability of material, overall economic impacts on the community and dairy industry. • Determining whether or not the technology for these types of projects is sufficiently advanced to assure reliability. Even though standards pertaining to the concentration of various air • emissions can be met, implementation of this type of project could result in the addition of S02 and NOx emissions in the order of approximately 3,000 to 13,000 lbs/dav (respectively). ^`�,��•Mc� ;' San Bernardino Los Angeles -------------- _ Riverside t Orange A preliminary regional environ- mental evalua-- tion has indicated these general areas as potentially suitable for the ^ proposed Projects. The locations ` shown on this map do not preclude the subsequent study or consideration of others. WHY THERMAL PROCESS? POTENTIAL AREAS LEGEND o Significant Tf implemented as a sludge mar:- ❑ Treatment reduction in agement plan, Projects #3-S-1 Plant sludge volume (Sludge Alone) and #3-S-2 (With Solid Waste) would be carried City of Los o Resource recovery out by each agency at existing Angeles in form of large treatment plants. Solid Waste amounts of energy processing equipment would also Los Angeles be located at the treatment e� County San- o Processing and facilities. G itation reuse/disposal Districts in urban area Project #3-R-1 (Dairy Waste) could be carried out at a site County San- within the dairylands of Western itation_ San Bernardino or Riverside 3 Districts County. of Orange County Note: Locations other than Potential those shown on this map will be Processing considered only if a reliable Q Area for energy market is identified. Dairy Waste Protect LA/OMA PROJECT "DISPO L" PROJECTS _ • 1\. �� • :THY i =r • LANDFILLING - PROJECT #D-S-1 ,, �'� �� • OCEAN DISCHARGE PROJECT #4 =� • NO PROJECT" PROJECT #6-S-1 t ll `T -•""_` IIII I I I�IIII - iJJ �� + -.- r-•, ► ryIIII NI 11111 I [[ __9+"p. `"'�.;- -.•. ,_c!' - - _ �. � '_ . �-• `� III;IIII Illll�i�lllilll �k i � -t'Y �'�t;(�r —•l - _ - ... - - J _ . MANAGEMENT CONCEPT __ • These Projects primarily focus upon the disposal of sludge. Some resource recovery is achieved through the q - - bioconversion of sludge to methane gas in the digestion _{�/ ` lop, process. • Landfilling involves the trucking of wet sludge cake �- (about 20% solids In the landfill, the sludge may accen- tuate methane gas generation. • Ocean Discharge involves either barging or piping liquid -�.•e��r. [ sludge (about 3% solids) to deep ocean canyons. • The "No Project" alternative provides for continuationrat 46 of existing practices. Increased sludge loads which can- not be accommodated by existing facilities will be either f�•, .�� _ -��--� ��--o �-.�..;. hauled to a landfill or discharged to the ocean. � r Y 9 y 4 1 �: Y } i � F LA/OMA PROJECT 0 , ., 7 REGIONAL WASTEWATER .. e OSOLIDS LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA O MANAGEMENT Potential Sludge Management Projects =PROGRAM MARCH 1978 CIA PROJECT D-S-1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION In all cases, blended sludge would be anaerobically digested at each �e plant. Methane gas generated through OCSD DEWATERING LANDFILL the bioconversion of sludge in the digester would be converted into energy for inplant use. LANDFILLING #D-S-1 LACED Following digestion, the sludge PROJECT 4 would be dewatered and trucked to a landfill. Sludge placed in any particular landfill would conform 0CS0 JOINT to State and local reauirements. ourF^LL These requirements may include leachate control facilities. LACSO �pE1.1NE °R OCEAN Although considered a "disposal project", resource recovery may be achieved at a later date. Solid COLLf=CT10144 waste processors may install systems CAA POINT to recover the methane gas in waste materials. OCEAN DISCHARGE #4 PROJECT 6-S-1 Following digestion, sludge would DEWATP.R be collected at a central facility for either barging or outfall COMDOS? discharge. LAC5D Ocean Discharge is based upon the LANDFILL concept of disposal to deep marine 72% canyons off shore. Sludge could be pipelined for containment within OCEAN 5 23'6 the bottom of deep (2-3,000 feet) anaerobic basins. Also, sludge MARKET could possibly be barged for dis- persal to such an extent that it is indistinguishable from background DEWATER ocean conditions. "i-0 PROJECT" #6-S-1 CLA LANDFILL 48% The diagrams show what would be 52 done if the only new processing OCEAN facilities implemented at each treatment plant were those needed for an interim sludge management plan. DEWATER The diagrams indicate ratios of OCSD COMPOST each agency's ultimate disposal of sludge. The percentages are based LANDFILL upon the amount of solids that will be generated in the year 2000. OCEAN 10% MARKET "No Project" is a baseline for comparing other sludge management projects. ITEMS VOR CONSIDERATION IN ANALYSIS OF THIS PROJECT Costs and impacts will vary depending upon the processing techniques used., the sites where they will be located, and the mitigation measures which are implemented. These items will receive further scrutiny and refinement prior to the comparative analysis of all sludge management projects. TOTAL CAPITAL COST OCEAN #4 $ 60,000,000 to $ 70,000,000 LANDFILL #D-S-1 $180,000,000 to $190,000,000 "NO PROJECT" #6-S-1 $160,000,000 to $180,000,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (annual) OCEAN #4 $ 1,500,000 to $ 11,000,000 LANDFILL #D-S-1 $ 27,000,000 to $ 30,000,000 "NO PROJECT" #6-S-1 $ 6,000,000 to $ 7,000,000 POTENTIAL COST RECOVERED FROM SALE OF PRODUCTS OCEAN AND LANDFILL $ 5,000,000 to $ 6,000,000 (annual) NO PROJECT $ 5,000,000 to $ 10,000,000 (annual) RESOURCE Energy is produced in the amount of 500,000 KWH/day to 550,000 KWH/day for the RECOVERY ocean and landfill projects. Approximately 200,000 KWH/day to 220,000 KWH/day is produced in Project #6-S-1. These figures represent energy which are in excess to that needed to operate the sludge processing system. First priority for the energy would be to run the sewage treatment plants. This represents a savings in the amount of energy which could supply 4,000 to 11,000 homes daily. 175 tons of compost would be produced in the "No Project" alternative. Current practices show that this quantity of sludge-based compost can be readily marketed. POTENTIAL All proposed sludge management projects have some degree of impact upon individual IMPACTS communities and the environment. Some items which have special significance for these projects include: • Ocean discharge of sludge is prohibited by federal legislation. • Marine impacts may not be readily assessable. Studies are underway to examine the impacts of current ocean disposal practices and the feasibility of deep ocean discharge. • Potential for nuisances such as odors, noise, and traffic exist; particularly with regard to trucking to landfills. • The "No Project" and Ocean Discharge projects present the possibility for migration of toxicants through the food chain, via sludge-exposed food plants or marine life consumed bV humans. • The availability of approved landfills which would accept sludge dewatered to approximately 20%-25% solids. Such landfills may be subject to strict regulation and/or require leachate control facilities. • Even though standards pertaining to the concentration of various air emissions can be met, implementation of these projects could result in the addition of S02 and NOx emissions in the order of 2000 to 4000 lbs/day. 1 M�.�.�.�.► �' San Bernardino Los Angeles f--------:-----•-------------------- Riverside '�- ,ti °ti, 00 Orange • , It a LOW Cr WHY DISPOSAL? POTENTIAL AREAS LEGEND o "Bottom Line" Composting in conjunction with ❑ Treatment alternative Project #6-S-1, currently occurs Plants in two locations. One is on-site o Current sludge at the treatment plant in the 1 City of Los management City of Carson. The other is Angeles practices operated by Golden West Fertilizer Co. , and is located east of E1 Los Angeles o Processing and Toro Air Station in Orange County. 2 County San- distribution/ itation disposal in Ocean outfalls currently serve Districts urban area each of the treatment facilities. For Project #4, the joint outfall County San- facility may be located at White's itation A preliminary re- Point. Barging facilities may 3 Districts gional environmental include Long Beach Harbor. of Orange evaluation has indi- County cated these general Class I and II landfills in Los areas as potentially Angeles and Orange Counties with Composting ! suitable for the adequate capacity are shown. Sludge Sites proposed Projects. is permitted in Class I landfills The locations shown without restrictions. For disposal Landfills on this map do not to Class II landfills, sludge must • Class I & II preclude the subse- be either dewatered to 50% dryness, i quent study or con- minimum, or the processing area be Existing sideration of others. installed with control facilities. Individual Ocean Outfalls LA/OMA PROJECT POTENTIAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROJEC i-S LA/OMA PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE Public .comments on the proposed projects are being formally solicited. While comments are encouraged at any time up to the adoption of the conceptual sludge management plan, those received prior to October, 1978, will receive most consideration in the comparative analysis among the projects. Take the time to read the material accompanying this brochure . . . then complete the attached questionnaire. Tear - fold - staple and return it . . . postage free. 1. Based on current information, o tiej how would you rate the pro- posed sludge management oGo4 �o�K� �GGo4 projects? Q •*• Solar Drying Basins •ee Desert Project •eo Centralized Dewatering and Composting •oo Dewatering and Composting by Each Agencv •eo Energy Recovery from Sludge & Dairy Waste •ee Energy Recovery from Sludge •99 Energy Recovery from Sludge & Solid Waste •*• Deep Ocean Disposal •9e Baseline - No Project Alternative 99* Truck Dewatered Cake to Landfills 2. What aspects of the projects should be emphasized/optimized/deleted? 3. Is there a single Project (from the above list) which you favor? If you favor another approach, please indicate it here. 4. What remains as your primary concerns in choosing a single sludge management project? r LA/OMA Project LP:/OPIA Project has been working towards developing a plan to handle this region's sludge since 1976. During these years, the Project staff and consultants have studied eighteen candidate systems includ- ing incineration, pyrolysis, solar drying, exportation, urban and agricultural reuse, landfill and ocean disposal. From these studies, broad concepts for sludge management alternatives were identified, and, with additional research, the alternatives were developed into site-specific options . . . called sludge management projects. These projects are under careful review and comparison. Near the end of this year, 1978, LA/OMA Project will identify a conceptual sludge management plan for the Los Angeles - Orange County Metropolitan Area. Following the recommendation will be even more studies about the engineering, environmental and public acceptance aspects of the plan; the publication of a Project Report/Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement; and Public Hearings. All of LA/OMA's sludge management planning efforts are anticipated to be complete by the end of 1979. At that time, the participating agencies --- the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Countv Sanitation Districts, and Orange County Sanitation Districts --- will continue the program with the design and construction of appropriate facilities. i This Project has been financed in part with Federal funds from the Environ- mental Protection Agency under grant number C-06-1042-011. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consti- tute endorsement or recommendation for use. Studies regarding Project #4 (Ocean Discharge) have been funded exclusively II by the local participating agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency i and California Water Resources Control Board have not contributed to such studies. _7 I First Class Permit No. 734 Business Reply Mail Whittier, Ca 90607 No postage stamp necessary if mailed in the United States — I i +I I LA/OMA PROJECT P.O. Box 4998 Whittier, Ca. 90607 Off lit of FUMnnd B. Aromn,fir.. Jetcutarg of Atett SACRAMENTO - I,EDMUND G.BROWN JR.,Secretary of State of the State of California, hereby certify: That on the 8th day of June pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code, relating to the annexation of territory to a city, there.tvas filed in this office a certified copy of Resolution No. 3469 as regularly passed and adopted by the, City Council of the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH on June S. 1972 approving the annexation to said city of certain described contiguous uninhabited territory designated as "HUNTINGTON HARBOUR NO. 4 ANNEXATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I execute this certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State of CaMmia this 16th day of June, 1972: A. saaratary of seats i SwJffrAn POYY Ca•I Y(nw.1.1)) AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLETION OF ANNEXATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SS: City of Huntington Beach PAUL C. JONES, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is now and at all times herein mentioned, was the duly appointed,, qualified, and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City. That pursuant to Section 54797.1 of the Government Code, annex- ation proceedings were completed by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on the 5th day of June, 1972, by final adoption of its Resolution No. 3489, said Resolution becoming effective on June 5, 1972. That by said proceedings said City annexed the territory referred to in -that certain certified copy of said Resolution No. 3489 and a map delineating said annexed area as set forth in Resolution No. 3489. That all requirements of the laws relating to such proceedings have been complied with. That on the 6th day of June, 1972, a certified copy of Reso- lution No. 3489 and a map of territory described therein designated as "Huntington Harbour #4 Annekation" , was transmitted to the Secretary of State and was received and filed by the Secretary of State on June 8, 1972 . IN WITNESS THEREOF, I. hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of the City of Huntington Beach on June 21, 1972 City- Clerk and x-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California r PROPOSED HUNTINGTON HARBOUR NO. 4 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH f. Beginning at an angle point in the present City boundary line of the City of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, State of California, as established by "Huntington Harbour Corporation Annexation, Parcel No. 2", Ordinance No. 920 of said City, said angle point being the point of intersection of the center- line of Warner Avenue with the northeast right of way line of Pacific Coast Highway as shown on a map recorded in Book 26, Page 15 of Parcel Maps, records of said County; thence North 89? 51' 53" East 280.30 feet along said present City boundary line and the centerline of Warner Avenue to an angle point in said present City boundary line, said point also being the southwest corner of that certain 1.354 acre parcel shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Page 20, record of surveys, records of said County; thence North 380 06' 22" West 418.61 feet along said present City boundary and the southwesterly line of said parcel of land to an angle point in said present City boundary line; thence North 890 51' 53" East 307.55 feet along the present boundary of said City as established by "Sunset Harbour Annexation" Ordinance No. 800 of said City (being described as North 890 42' 45" East 307.48 feet in said Ordinance No. 800) , and the northerly line of said parcel of land to an angle point in said present City boundary; thence South 00 08' 07" East 360.00 feet along said present City Boundary line as established by said Ordinance No. 800 (being described as South 00 17' 15" East in said Ordinance No. 800) and by "Huntington Harbour Corporation Annexation Parcel 3A" Ordinance No. 934 of said City, and the easterly line and its southerly extension of said parcel of land to an angle point in said present City boundary, said point lies on a line parallel with and 30.00 feet southerly, measured at right angles, from the centerline of Proposed Huntington Harbour No. 4 Annexation to the city of Huntington Beach Page 2 Warner Avenue; thence South 890 51' 53" West 304.98 feet leaving said present City boundary and following along said parallel line to a point on a non- tangent curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 3050.00 feet, a radial line thru said point bears North 500 04' 21" East, said curve being the northeasterly right of way line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence north- westerly along said curve and said northeasterly right of way thru a central angle of 00 44' 15" an arc distance of 39. 26 feet to the point of beginning. CITY OF HUNTMGTON BEACH CA 74-7 i .COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HU•�rfNGr0-N BEACH To HONORABLE MAYOR & From City Administrator CITY COUNTCIL MEMBERS Sus)jectSanitation District Expansion Date January 21 , 1974 Plans This CA represents _ a synopsis of the material included , in the attach. - ed bi:: 'Klet entitled "Informational Brochure. Alternative Proposals for Ad.vai iiced Treatment at Plant No . 2" . The following information_ regarding advanced treat-,ent .at. Orange Count-,,7 Sanitation District Plant 2 is submitted for your consideration. As you snow, the present treatment meets neither State nor Federal Environmental Protection Agency standards. The District is now con- sidering ten major proposals for upgrading the facility and desires o=nts on the various alternatives from citizens and local governments. The current cost of operating district sanitation facilities in Orange County is 2 . 67 million dollars a year or about 35 dollars or the o-;;7ner of a $30 , 000 home. In addition to funding approxi-nately 13% of cons-.ruction costs for new facilities , local taxpayers will also have to pay for the increased operating costs . The least expensive o= the proposed. alternatives will roughly double current operating costs and the resultant- tax levy on property owners . These alternatives are under consideration: Treatment Alternative Total Federal State Local annual Operatir_( . (cost figure in millions Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost of dollars) 001 19 . 0 14. 2 2.4 2.4 5. 34 Description - Would replace sedimentation primary treatment with chemical coagulant treatment. Would meet State standards with grease waiver. 14ould not meet EPA standards . 002 86 . 0 64 . 4 10. 8 10 . 8 4. 67 Description - Add more primary sedimenta-ion basins and secondary trickling filters. :would maet State standards with grease waiver_ Would not meet EPA standards. 003 32 . 0 24 . 0 4. 0 4 . 0 5. 67 Description - Add chemical coagulant and flocculation -treatmenl' to primary stage and add secondary sedimentaton basins and addi- tional chemical sludge facilities . j`;ould meet . waiver. State- standards wi~hLgi`� o j0u d not meet EUZ Standards . f Treatment Alternative Total Federal State Local Annual Operatir. Y (cost figure in millions Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost of dollars) 054 97. 0 72. 8 12.1 12. 1 6. 68 Description - Convert :to chemical primary treatment and add secondary trickling filters. Meets State standards. Does not meet EPA standards. 055 90. 0 67 . 6 11.2 11. 2 6. 01 Description - Add new primary basins plus new aeration basins with contact and stabilization sections and clarifiers . Meets State standards, but not EPA standards . 056 75. 0 56. 2 9. 4 9 . 4 6. 01 Description - Convert and add existing primary units to chemical and add activated sludge units to provide blending capability. ;Meets State, but not federal standards . 103 111. 0 83. 2 13. 9 13 . 9 7 . 68 Description - Add new primary basins, aeration basins , secondary i' clarifiers, sludge handling facilities, and chlorin_` contact basins . i•Ieets State and EPA standards . 105 101. 0 75 . 8 12. 6 12. 6 7. 69 Description - Add covered trickling filter secondary plus chemical coagulation, flocculation, and clarification with chlorination. Meets State and EPA standards. 107 103. 0 77.2 12. 9 12. 9 8 . 35 Description - Convert existing primaries to chemical and acid contact stabilization and sludge handling facilities. Meets State and EPA standards. 109 111. 0 83. 2 13. 9 13 . 9 7 . 63 Description - Add trickling filters, sedimentation, activated sludge treatment and chlorination and dechlorination. Meets State and EPA standards At the convenience of the City Council, the Sanitary District engineers will be pleased to discuss the course of action which should be pursued as ' indicated on the attached questionnaire . Respectfully submitted ; David D. Rowlands City Administrator DDR/gbs qW ° ALI-AATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE RETURN QUESTIONNAIRE BY JANUARY 23, 1974 FOR YOUR INPUT TO RECEIVE FULL EVALUATION TO: Orange County Sanitation -Districts Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 1.. WHICH OF THE. FOLLOWING DO YOU BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT IN ACHIEVING THE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES MOST DESIRABLE FOR ORANGE COUNTY: Rank in order of your preference (use 1 as highest priority) Rank a. Continue ocean disposal of primary treated effluent. b. Meet the objectives of the California Ocean Plan c. Meet both the Environmental Protection Agency and Ocean Plan requirements 0 d. Reclamation of wastewaters El e. Other (explain) ° 2. A. WHICH FACTORS ARE MOST It-TORTANT IN PLANNING ADVANCED TREATMENT FACILITIES? Rank from 1 to 5 (1 being highest priority) Check appropriate box for each factor 1 2 3 4 5 Effluent quality O O O Q C) Reduction of suspended solids" Q 0 Q Q Q Reduction of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Q0 0Q Q Providing for future flexibility Q Q Q Q 0 .Compliance with the law 0 0 0 Q 0 Environmental impact O O 0 0 O Chemical and energy utilization "Q Q Q Q Q Other (explain) B. PLEASE RANK THE FOLLOWING HUMAN IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVES. (1 being highest priority) 1 2 3 4 5 Economic impact Q Q O O O Environmental impacts Q O Q O. O Improvements in ocean water quality Q O O O O (See Reverse Side) 3. SYiOULb THE DISTRICTS' APPLY bv& A WAIVER OF ANY OF THE FEDERALOSTATE REQUIREMENTS? UIREMENTS? Circle one , YES. NO Q Q If YES, circle the appropriate constituent(s) . . Arsenic Chromium Lead Silver BOD Copper Mercury Suspended Solids Cadmium Cyanide Nickel Toxic Pollutants Pesticides, Herbicides, etc. Grease Phenols Zinc Other 4. A. WHAT ALTERNATIVES) DO YOU BELIEVE BEST MEET THE INTENT. OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE NEEDS AND OBLIGATION OF THE CO1iMUNITY? WHY? B. WHICH ALTERNATIVES) DO YOU LEAST FAVOR? WHY? 5. PRESENTLY, THE OWNER OF A $30,000 RESIDENCE IN ORANGE COUNTY WITH AN ASSESSED VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY $7,500 PAYS AN AVERAGE SANITATION DISTRICT TAX OF $35 A YEAR. How much ADDITIONAL Sanitation District- taxes should be paid to meet advanced treatment requirements' Check appropriate box $10-20 per year El $25-35 per year• $40-50 per year 0- Over $100 per year 6. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY C4 t Al INFORMATIONAL BROC E ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS** x; e. FOR ADVANCED TREATMENT AT PLANT NO. 2 f/'a"". a Q 4 L � ORA:Si;E COUNTY SANITATION DISTRI(:TS ��, FOUNTAIN VALLEY-CALIFORNIA °j�Cs4 Nei 46 - 0:utaopreagntcadare Cowl 2 turae . : , p ftOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS' of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 Informational Brochure for Advanced Treatment Processes at the Districts ' Wastewater Treatment Plant No . 2 , located in Huntington Beach, California The Board of Directors of County Sanitation -Districts of Orange County authorized the preparation of a project report to investigate alternative methods to provide advanced treatment at the Districts ' Plant No 2 to best meet the intent-of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and The Clean Water Bond Act of the State of California. This informational - brochure is presented to set forth the various alternatives and to stimulate - comment and discussion on these alternatives in order to arrive at the best method of achieving the water quality objectives . This booklet is not intended as a device to secure approval or rejection of the alternates presented herein, but to receive the maximum input and participation of individuals, groups , and various levels of government to assist the Districts ' staff and consulting engineers in recommending the best a'ppar.ent alternative. The selection of the best apparent alternative must not only be based upon the latest technical knowledge available, but must also include economic , environmental and social considerations. January 16 , 1974 TABLE VII, (cont'd. ) Legend for abbreviations AA.S - Ammonia Air Stripping AS - Activated Sludge B Cl - Breakpoint Chlorination C - Coagulation C-S . - Contact Stabilization • . CA - Carbon Adsorption Cl - Chlorination De Cl - Dechlorination EAS - Ex-tended Aeration Activated Sludge f - Flocculation FE - Flow Equalization filt - Filtration floc -• Flocculation IE - Ion Exchange Nit • . - Nitrification OAS Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge RF - Roughing Filter ' S - Sedimentation - TF - Trickling Filter CHAPTER VII SECTION IV TABLE VII "Screening of Alternatives" Necessary Discharge Sludge Constructior(1) Capital O & M Total' Fit3 on Utilized Effluent Quality Reouirement Alt. T r e a t m e n t # Dewatering Cost :Cost Cost Cost: Existing_ Horse- Consider Satisfied No. Solids (183 MGD) $/MG $/MG $/MG Site power BOD TSS Grease Further % Capture ' Ocean Di-pos- 001 C, f,S 90+ $ 19,000,000 24.40 80.00 104.40 Yes 9,100 144 50 24 Yes a1 OP W/ 002 S, FE,TF,S 90+ $ 86,000,000 110.10 70.00 180.10 Yes 17,000 45 45 15 Yes waiver on 003 S, C, f,S 90+ $ 32,000,000 41.10 85.00 126.10 Yes 9,600 120 40 20 Yes grease •004 S, C-S 90+ $ 90,000,000 115.60: 90.00 205.60 Yes .22,500 40 ' 40 <10 No 051 S, flot 90+ $ 47,000,000 60.40 75.00 135.40 Yes 13,000 120 40vs IOaa ? Ocean 053 floc 90+ $ 25,000,000 32. 10 75.00 107. 10 Yes 12,009 144 500* 10.*a ? 054 C, f,S,T F,S 90+ $ 97,000,000 124.20 100.00 224.20 Yes 16,003 35 35r# 10ca Yes Plan 055 - S. C-S 90+ $ 90,000,000 - 1 15.60 90.00 205.60 Yes 22,500 40 40 410*• Yes • 056 C, f,S/S,AS blend 90+ $ 75,000,000 96.30 90.00 186.30 Yes 20,000 68 37 10 Yes 101 C, f,S. fill, CA, Cl, De Cl 95+ $240,000,000 308.20: .150.00 L 458.20 ? 30 15• -10** No Ocean Dispos- 103 S, AS, Cl, De Cl 95+ $111,000,000 142.60 115.00 257.60 Yes 25,000 25 28 410 Yes al 104 S, OAS, Cl, De Cl 95+ $101,000,000 129.70 115.00 244.70 Yes 22,500 25 28 <10 Yes EPA and 105 S, TF, C, f, S. Cl, De Cl. 95+ $101,000,000 129.70 115.00 244.70 7 16,000 30os 25*# 10** Yes Ocean 106 -C, f,S, TF, S,.Cl, De Cl 95+ $101,000,000 129.70 115.00 E44,70 ? 16,000 29*a 250# 1o** Yes Plan 107 C, f,S, C-S, Cl, De CI 95+ $103;0f10,000 132.30 125.00 257' 30' Yes 20,000 25 28 (10 Yes ..1.09 S, RF,S,AS,S, Cl, De Cl 95+ $111,000,000 142.60 115.00 257,60 No ° 25 28 (10 Yes 201 S, EAS, filt, IE 95+ $239,000,000 305.00 256.00 561.00 ? 15 5 2 No 202 S, AS,S, C, f,S.AAS, filt,IE 95+ $389,000,000 '497.00 280.00 777.00 No 10 2 2 No Land 203 S, C, f,S, filt, CA,AAS, IE 95+ $308,000,000 395.00 361.00 756.00 No 20 2 410 No — Disposal 204 S, AS,S, disc 95+ $473,000,000 605.00 1198,00 1803.00 ? 0 0 0 No 205 S, AS,S, tilt, B Cl, IE 95+ $ZZ3,000,000 285.00 497.00 782.00 No 15 5 2 No 206 S, C, f,S, filt, CA, B Cl,IE 95+ $173,000,000 221.00 595.00 816.00 No 20 5 C10 No 301 S, C, f,S, fill, CA, AAS, B Cl 95+ $420,000,000 �40.00 255.00 795.00 No 20 5 1-10 No River 304 S, AS, Nit, filt, B Cl 95+ $274,000,060 350.00 193.00 543.00 No 10 5 2 No Disposal 305 S.AS, S. C, f,S, filt,AAS, B C1 95+ $351,000,000 449.00 182.00 631.00 No 10 5 2 No 306 S,AS,S, filt, B Cl 95+ $182,000,000 233.00 357.00 590.00 No 15 5 2 No 401 S, AS, S, NIT, S, filt, BC1, IE 95+ $250,000,000 319.00 418.00 737.06 No 15 5 2 No 402 S,AS, S. C. f,S,AAS, filt, B Cl, IE 95+ $426,000,000 545.00 452.`00 997.00 No 10 5 2 No Irrigation 403 S, C, f, S. filt, CA, AAS, B Cl, IE 95+ $345,000,000 441.00 530.00 971.00 No 20 5 2 No 404 S,AS,S, filt,•B Cl, IE 95+ $256,oob,odc 327.00 627.00 954.00 No 10 5 2 No 405 S, C, f,S, tilt, CA,-B Cl, IE 95+ $195,000,000 250.00 725.00 975.00 No 10 5 2 No s All treatment schemes include use of bar screen and grit chamber es The ability of this treatment scheme to meet requirements must be proven by lab work,,bench testing and pilot yvork. (1) Construction Cost includes solids dewatering, treatment of liquid faction but does not include handling, tiansportation or ultimate disposal of solids. For legend of abbreviations, see following page Alternative 000 - No project Description - Make no capital expenditures for improvements to increase the level of treatment at Plant No. 2 . Apparent Advantages : 1. No increase in operating costs. 2. Least expensive no capital expenditures of funds . 3. No change in the present environmental or social impacts . 4 . No change in use of natural resources. S. Leaves available land for, future improvements . 6. 7. Apparent Disadvantages : 1. Does not comply with the law. 2. No improvement in the resultant impact of present effluent on marine environment. 3. No increase in local economic activity, i. e. , construction employment, etc . 4. S. Alternative 001 - Physical chemical primary treatment Description - Would supply "advanced" primary treatment using chemical coagulants . This would be accomplished by conversion of existing primary sedimentation basins to chemical primaries and addition of new chemical primary basins . Addition of chemical handling and storage facilities would be required. Apparent Advantages : 1. Will comply with Ocean Plan with grease waiver. 2. Minimum capital expenditure for improvements . 3. Can take peak loads. 4 . Low energy requirement. S. Uses fairly well-proven technology. 6. Minimizes construction of facilities by modification of existing facilities . 7 . Not subject to process being "disturbed by- toxic materials or a biologically unfavorable- environment.- 8 . 9. Apparent Disadvantages : 1. Will not comply with EPA regulations . 2. Usage of chemicals . 3. Generation of chemical sludges . 4. Requires blending with Plant 1. effluent to meet Ocean Plan with waiver. S. Energy recovery may be hampered by addition of chemical sludge to digesters . 6. 7. Alternative 002 - Primary treatment plus trickling filter seconcTary treatment. Description - This alternative would provide secondary treatment to the entire flow at Plant No . 2 using trickling filters . Would require additional primary sedimentation basins , 10-35 covered trickling filters and 10-20 clarifiers. Additional sludge handling facilities would be required. Apparent Advantages : 1. Will meet Ocean Plan with grease waiver . 2. High capital expenditure. 3. Technology well established and proven to be effective . 4 . No extensive usage of chemicals for treatment . S. Easier handling and disposal of sludge. 6 . Can take shock loads. 7. 8 . Apparent Disadvantages : 1 . Will not comply .with EPA regulations . 2. Will require blending with Plant No. 1 effluent.. 3. Odor control must be taken into account in design. 4. Will require flow equalization basins . 5. 6. Alternative 003 - Primary treatment followed by chemical secon ary treatment. Description - Chemical addition to primary effluent with coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation. Would require addition of primary sedimentation basins and chemical addition facilities for entire flow, pumping system, flocculation basins and secondary sedimentation basins and- additional chemical sludge handling facilities . . Apparent -Advantages : 1. Would comply with Ocean Plan with grease waiver . 2. Moderate -expenditure for capital improvements . 3. Can take peak' loads . 4. Lowest chemical and energy cost per million gallons treated of all improved treatment alternatives . 5. Stable, reliable operation, flexible. 6. Few odors . 7. Generates a smaller amount of chemical sludges compared to other treatment improvement alternatives . 8-. Not subject to biological upset. 9 . 10. Apparent Disadvantages : 1. Will not ,comply with EPA regulations . 2. Will require blending" with Plant No . 1 effluent. _ 3 . Generates some chemical sludge . 4 . Does not reduce BOD. 5. 6. Alternative 054 - Chemical primary treatment followed by trickling Filter secondary. Description_ - Conversion of existing facilities to chemical primary units , addition of new chemical primaries, 10-35 covered trickling filters and 10-20 clarifiers plus sludge handling facilites . Apparent Advantages : r 1. Meets Ocean Plan regulations . 2. Chemical usage helps to optimize biological treatment and control peak loads . 3. Reliable system, good quality effluent. 4. Flexibility for adaptation to. future requirements. S. Lowest energy user of Ocean Plan alternatives in 050 series. 6. Provides an effluent quality that approaches EPA regulations . 7. 8. Apparent Disadvantages : 1. Does not meet EPA regulations. 2 . Highest chemical cost of all alternatives . 3. Odor control must be taken into account in design. 4 . High capital --cost. S. May be biologically upset . 6. 7 . Alternative 055 - Primary treatment followed by contact stabilization Description - Addition of new primary basins, plus addition of aeration asins with contact and stabilization sections and addition of secondary clarifiers. Apparent Advantages' 1. Meets Ocean Plan regulations. 2. Very low chemical costs . 3. 4 . Apparent Disadvantages : 1 . Does not meet EPA regulations . 2. A high energy user. 3. Subje'ct to biological upset. 4. 5. Alternative 056 - Chemical primary combined with activated sludge to provide for a blended effluent. Description - Blended effluents of 33% chemical primary. and 670 activated sludge secondary. Requires conversion of some existing primary units to chemical primaries and the addition of new chemical primaries . Addition of activated sludge unit and addition of chemical- and biological sludge handling facilities. -Apparent Advantages : 1. . Meets requirements of Ocean Plan. . 2. Moderate chemical costs . 3. Very adaptable , can be adjusted to meet peaks or save on chemicals when flows are low. 4. Can be upgraded later , allows more flexibility for adaptation. S. 6. Apparent Disadvantages : 1. Does not meet EPA regulations . 2. A high energy user. 3. Chemical treatment prior to activated sludge has not been tested on a large scale . 4 . Sludge handling of a mixture of chemical and biological sludges would be difficult. S. Subject to biological upset. 6. 7 . Alternative 103 or 104 - Primary treatment followed by activated sludge secon ary eit er conventional or pure oxygen activated sludge) with chlorination and dechlorination. Descrintion - Addition of new" primary basins, addition of aeration basins and secondary clarifiers and required sludge handling facilities and chlorine contact basins . Apparent Advantages : 1 . Meets Ocean Plan and EPA regulations . 2. Well proven and established technology. 3. 4 . Apparent Disadvantages : 1. Subject to biological upset - may not meet requirements at times. 2. High energy user. 3. High capital costs . 4. Operation much more difficult. S. 6. Alternative 105 - Primary treatment followed by trickling filter biological secondary treatment with chemical addition to secondary effluent. Description - Primary treatment plus covered trickling filter secondary followed by chemical coagulation, flocculation and clarification with chlorination. Apparent advantages : 1. Will meet Ocean Plan and EPA regulations . 2,- Final chemical treatment can be adjusted to meet requirements. 3. Stable process, less likely to be upset. 4. Lower power usage as compared to other Ocean Plan-EPA regulations . 5. 6. Apparent Disadvantages : 1 . Technology has not been proven on a large scale. 2. 3. Alternative 107 - Chemical primary followed by contact stabilization. Secondary with chlorination and dechlorination. Description - Would entail conversion of existing primaries to chemical primaries , addition of five chemical primaries , addition of contact stabilization facilities, . and required sludge handling facilities . Apparent Advantages : 1 . Meets all legal requirements for Ocean Plan and EPA. 2. Combines chemical and biological treatment for flexibility.- Could operate with or without. chemicals depending upon effectiveness of biological stage. 3. 4. Apparent Disadvantages : 1. This technology has not been demonstrated to be effective .on a scale as large as this . 2. High chemical and energy usage. 3. Sludges difficult to handle. 4. High capital cost. : . 5. 6. Alternative 109 - Primary treatment followed by roughing filters , sedimentation and activated sludge secondary with chlorination and dechlorination. Description - Would employ trickling filters of either an artificial or rock media. Land utilization studies would be required to determine if available land existed on site . Apparent Advantages : - 1. Meets all requirements of Ocean Plan and EPA. 2. Very reliable biological treatment process. 3. Small usage of chemicals . 4. High quality effluent. S. 6. Apparent Disadvantages : 1. Large capital. cost. 2. Highest energy usage of all alternatives . 3. May not fit on existing site. . 4. S. ALTERNATIVE COST COMPARISON (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) TREATMENT TOTAL COST SHARING ANNUfIL COSTS ALTERNATE CAST F ED, STATE LOCAL OPERATING 000 — o— — — — o— 001 /9.0 142— -204 2.4 5,34 002 86.0 64.4 10.8 IQB 4*67 003 32.0 24.0 4,0 4.0 5* 67 054- 97. 0 72. E 72. 1 IZJ 6,69 O55 9-0.0 - (07.6 /1,2 11.2 6. 01 056 75.0 56.2 9,4 9s4 6. 01 103 III . O 89.2 /3. 9 13.9 7. 68 105 IOL9 75.0 /2.6 12.6 7, 68 107 103. 0 77-2 /2.9 12.9 8. 35 109 I 1 J. O 8362 . 13*9 13,9 768 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIMA.M% PLEASE RETURN QUESTIONNAIRE BY JANUARY 23, 1974 FOR YOUR INPUT TO RECEIVE FULL EVALUATION TO: Orange County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 1. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT IN ACHIEVING THE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES MOST DESIRABLE FOR ORANGE COUNTY: Rank in order of your preference (use 1 as highest priority) Rank a. Continue ocean disposal of primary treated effluent ❑ b. Meet the objectives of the California_Ocean Plan ❑ c. Meet both the Environmental Protection Agency and Ocean Plan requirements ❑ d. Reclamation of wastewaters ❑ e. Other (explain) 2. A. WHICH FACTORS ARE MOST IMPORTANT IN PLANNING ADVANCED TREATMENT FACILITIES? Rank from 1 to 5 (1 being highest priority) Check appropriate box for each factor 1 2 3 4 5 Effluent quality 0 0 0 0 0 Reduction of suspended solids 0 0 0 0 0 Reduction of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) --. 0 0 0 0 0 .Providing for future flexibility 0 0 0 0 0 Compliance with the law - 0• 0 0 0 0 Environmental impact 0 0 0 0 0 Chemical and energy .utilization 0 .0 0 . 0 0. Other (explain) B. PLEASE RANK THE FOLLOWING HUMAN IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVES. (1 being highest priority) 1 2 3 4 5 Economic impact 0 0 - 0 0 0 Environmental impacts 0 0 0 0 0 Improvements in ocean water quality 0 0 0 0 0 (See Reverse Side) 3. SHOULD THE DISTRICTS' APPLY FOR A WAIVER OF ANY OF THE FEDERAL OR STATE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS? Circle one YES NO If YES, circle the appropriate constituent(s) . Arsenic Chromium Lead Silver BOD Copper Mercury Suspended Solids Cadmium, Cyanide Nickel Toxic Pollutants Pesticides, Herbicides, etc. Grease Phenols Zinc Other 4. A. WHAT ALTERNATIVE(S) DO YOU BELIEVE BEST MEET THE INTENT. OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE NEEDS AND OBLIGATION OF THE COMMUNITY? WHY? B. WHICH ALTERNATIVE(S) DO YOU LEAST FAVOR? WHY? 5. PRESENTLY, THE OWNER OF A $30,000 RESIDENCE IN ORANGE COUNTY WITH AN ASSESSED VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY $7,500 PAYS AN AVERAGE SANITATION DISTRICT TAX OF $35 A YEAR. How much ADDITIONAL Sanitation District taxes should be paid to meet advanced treatment requirements - Check appropriate box $10-20 per year �] $25-35 per year $40-50 per year Over $100.per year 6. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY I COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS . AREA CODE 714 5400 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA -291 962 1 �'�� 962-2411 P. ❑. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270E nn 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID ❑FF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) C . v D fa.. II1I 1 3. JUL 31 1973 19'1... CITY F HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council _.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE City of Huntington Beach . ,_... P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 The City of Westminster recently sent you a copy of its resolution No. 1476 asking your support of an attempt to pass legislation designed to give each City discre- tionary control of the routes selected for rights of way in public streets ..by County Sanitation Districts and other similar districts. Before forming an opinion and taking action, you are respectfully urged to consider the position of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County in seeking to maintain the existing rights of County Sanitation Districts in regard to rights of way. The County Sanitation Districts are established to serve various topographically compatible areas within the County of Orange. In most districts there are included all or parts of more than one city and unincorporated territory. In several of the Districts in Orange County there are all or parts of more than ten municipal entities. Rights of way for major trunk sewer lines are primarily determined by engineering requirements, keeping in mind gravity and the needs of the territory to be served. Economics and ecology are not ignored. Politics and small pressure groups are factors that ordinarily do not outweigh the above criteria. If legislation were to be enacted that would give each City discretion in the matter of the routes for rights of way for sewer lines designed to meet regional requirements, the costs of sewers would be substantially increased and the time involved from planning to. construction would be increased from an average of two years to five years. The record of the County Sanitation Districts in Orange County as to their deter- mination of rights of way within their own district boundaries does not show an abuse of this power and it does not show discrimination in favor of or against any person, entity or. class. We respectfully urge you to withhold support of the position the City of westlrinster seeks to promote. Chairman of the. Joint Administrative Agency of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 'v 1 November 1972 TO : City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Code Amendment ; Harbor Sanitation At the request of the Director of Harbors , Beaches and Development, we transmit attached ordinance regulating the disposal of body wastes accumulated aboard vessels . Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:MHM:ahb Attachment 1 �✓ Qv� 5k,EPH0NES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS . .... AREA CODE 714 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 lOS44 ELLIS AVENUE, P. ❑. BOX 5175, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 July 12, 1968 City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Mr. Paul C. Jones, City Clerk Reference: Executive Committee Meeting Dates This is in response to your letter of June 26th, requesting that our Boards of Directors consider changing the regular meeting dates of the Executive Committee. This item was discussed at the July loth Joint Board meeting, and the fourth Tuesday of each month was established as the regular meeting date of the Com- mittee; however, this change was made on a trial basis as the new date is not entirely convenient for all the Committee members. Fred A. Harper General Manager /jb c: Chairman Jerry A. Matney District No. 11 ."' id TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA .DE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA .9 6 2-2 411 10B44 ELLIS AVENUE, P. ❑. BOX 5175, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 April 5, 1968 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Attention: Paul C. Jones, City Clerk The State Health and Safety Code provides that the mayor of each city, the whole or part of which is included in a sanitation district, is a member of the Board of Directors of that District, and that a Council member shall be appointed to act as an alternate, i.e. , when the mayor is unable to attend a meeting. Your city is represented on the following: County Sanitation Districts Nos. 3 and 11 If a municipal election is to be held in your city in April, we would appreciate receipt of the following as soon as possible after the election: 1. A certified excerpt from the minuteslof the Council meeting showing election of mayor 2. A certified excerpt from the minutes show- ing appointment of an alternate to serve on the Sanitation District Boards 3 . The attached information sheet If there are any questions regarding the information requested, please contact Mrs. Jean Bankston at 962-2411, Extension 20. Fred A. Harper General Manager FAH: sw Enclosure `". hK o��NTINRG�Tppe�` � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT a Z G, `�@��isa9;P•\�O� Huntington Beach, California �C�UNTy �'� January 15, 1964 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Subject: Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Gentlemen: Permission is requested to transfer funds in the amount of $25.00 for a connection fee to Sanitation District No. 11. The connection viill be for the proposed seraer in Gothard Street. Enclosed is a resolution requesting the transfer. The check should be made payable to the Orange County Sanitation District. Very truly yours, James R. Viheeler Director of Public Works By C, . E. Hartge Deputy Director of Public Works JRFY:HEH:cn Attch. Please remit check to this office for transmittal. TINGTA �� _� q: CITY OF H�UNTINGTON BEACH "' a ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ems. Huntington Beach, California �C�UNTy CPS' July 31, 1963 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Calif. Subject: Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Gentlemen: Permission is requested to transfer funds in the emount of $25,00 for a connection fee to Sanitation District No. 11. The con- nection will be for the sanitary sewer being constructed in Garfield Avenue from Delaware Street to Beach Boulevard. Enclosed is a resolution requesting the transfer. The check should be made payable to Orange County Sanitation District. Very truly yours, Bi1�.0 pines R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:EEH•a Encl.. Clerk: Remit to this office for transmittal. July 18, 1963 Supervisor David Baker County of Orange Santa Ana, California Dear Sir.- Transmitted herewith is' a copy of Resolution No. 1810 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted by that Body at a meeting held July 15, 1963. This petitions the Honorable Board of Supervisors to initiatO action to' annex nine parcels of uninhabit'4,4 territory to Sanitation 'jistrict No® 11. All of these parcels have been previously annexed to the City of Ifuntingto n Beach or are in the process of being annexed thereto. Since it is almost impossible to contact the owners within these various parcels in order to obtain a petition from them, Mr. Lee Nelson and Paul Brown of the Orange County Sanitation I'istrict, together with Mr. ',;enry E. hartge, and myself, have ag reed ,that it would expedite matters if we presented this proposal to the Huntington Beach City Council and then to your Honorable Board. Will you include this resolution on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board and present it on behalf of Huntington Beach and the County Sanitation District. Your cooperation in this matter will be deeply appreciated and we will endeavor to furn- ish you any information you rtsight need. Sincerely yours, Paul Co Jones City Clerk PCJ:ed En c 0 Fly 9502 Velardo Drive Foun Valley School District Huntington Beach, California �- Telephone 536-9311 -� "The Friendly District" S Where Each.Individual Is Important August 15, 1963 City Council City of Huntington Beach Civic Center - City Hall Huntington Beach, California Re: School Site #22 Attention: Mr. William Hartje Dear Sir: As you may be aware our district is beginning construction on a complete school plant on subject site which is on the north side of Yorktown, roughly midway between Brookhurst and Ward streets. When the site was originally purchased it was the under- standing of the district that Yorktown would be developed to a sixty (60) foot street, however, it is our understanding now that Yorktown will become an eighty (80) foot street. In as much as our building is completely financed by State School Building funds, we are limited by their restrictions as to the amount of pavement we may construct. The state maximum allowable width is eighteen (18) feet of A. C. paving to the curb. It is our request that consideration be given to the paving of the remaining twelve (12) feet by the city. No other of our sites in your city abut upon anything wider than a sixty (60) foot street, nor is it our intention to locate any further sites on arterials, or other streets over sixty (60) feet in width. Very truly yours, Charles F. Miller Assistant Superintendent Business Services CFM:lc Charles F. Miller, Ed. D BOARD OF TRUSTEES. Edward W. Beaubier, Ed. D. DALE STUARD,PRESIDENT Assistant Superintendent ALVIN KRUKENBERG, CLERK District Superintendent Business Services MRS.NAOMI JONKMAN,TRUSTEE Secretary to the Board I 1 ,d TINGTpye CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH U • ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California October 12, 1962 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Subject: Alabama Street Sanitary Sewers Gentlemen: The city council authorized the City Engineer to negotiate the proceedings for city participation for 50% of the cost of construction of sanitary sewers in Alabama Street south of Quincy. The construction has been completed. The builder, Mr. Ralph Jensen, will pay. the sewer contractor and it is in order that we pay the city's share. It is therefore requested that your honorable body authorize the refund of $22)41.07 payable from the Sewer Fund. Transmitted herein is the Resolution transferring money from the Sewer Fund. The check should be payable to Dr. Leon G. Nelson and should be sent to this office for transmittal. Very truly yours, James R. _Wheeler City Engineer JRW:HEHdcn - A RML�72`LON OF THE CI.tT!' t,E:[3MC1�. Lai' .17.::4•.1wN ., . BEACH AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF MUNEY FROM THE, Sewer FUNTI. WHEREAS, the City Commil of 'the City of Huntington Beach has adapted a Budget for the Fiscal Year 62-63h� Ordinance Noo 913 , and h'HEREAS, Section 6 of said Ordinance No,, 913 provides the procedure for authorizing expenditures from the several Special Funds mentioned in said Section 6 , and `[HEREAS9 the City Engineer and the City Administrator have a mended an expenditum m and WIM,RE,iSe the City Coumi1 hemby approves &aid recammandations, RE IT TORE.r ORE, RESOMED that an expo-ndituxe iu the amo►nnt 07 of Twenty four hundred fort; one &(7Z oLb--rs 2,441.O7 t is hereby authorized to he nsde from the Sewer Fund payable to Ralph Jensen f o: City ' participation in construction of sanitary sewers in Alabama Street. 0 :a Administrative Office KI 2-3583 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Treatment Plant Offices KI 5-7147 of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ROOM 239, 1104 W. 8TH STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA August 13, 1962 '`� A �"City Council } V ` r r �� City of Huntington Beach (k j P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Subject: Enclosed Resolution 62-105 Relating to Treatment Plant Expansion and Water Reclamation Enclosed is one copy of Resolution 62-105, adopted unanimously by the Board of Directors of each County Sanitation District at the regular Joint Meeting on August 8, 1962. You will note that the resolution, which relates to expansion of the Joint Districts' treatment facilities, directs that your City be furnished a copy. As will also be noted, the resolution approves of a plan of treatment plant expansion which includes construction of secondary treatment facilities at our Plant No. 1 and thus 't------ will make available in the near future large quantities of water suitable for reclamation either by land spreading, by injection wells to halt sea water intrusion or for delivery to any public agencies or sale to any industries which can make use of said reclaimed water. " According to present planning, a formal public hearing, as required by the Sanitation District act, ,will be held on this matter in the early Fall. At the conclua1-on of these formalities, it is expected that our design engineers will be instructed to proceed with the actual detailed design of the secondary treatment facilities. Our tentative scheduling further contemplates commencing construction of an initial seconds treatment unit of 24 million gallons (approximately 74 acre feet per day capacity in the calendar year 1963 and, consequently, the above amount of reclaimed water of suitable mineral quality should be available for reuse in 1964. Lee M. Nelson General Manager LMN:gg Enclosure 1� RESOLUTION NO. 62- 1.05 APPROVING MASTER PLAN FOR TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION AND ORDERING FORMAL ENGINEER'S REPORT A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1 , 2, 30 S, 6, 7 AND 11 OR ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLAN NO. 1-A AS SET FORTH IN JOHN A. CAROLLO, JUNE, 1962 REPORT "STUDY OF MASTER PLAN ALTERNATES FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES" ; AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FORMAL ENGINEER' S REPORT BASED ON SAID PLAN 1-A. WHEREAS, on June 13, 1962, a report by John A. Carollo, Consulting Engineers , entitled "Study of Master Plan Alternates for Treatment and Disposal Facilities" was received and filed by the Boards of Directors, and WHEREAS, on July 11 , 1962 after study by the individual Directors said report was referred to the Executive Committee for further study and recommendation, and WHEREAS, on July 18, 1962 the Executive Committee accordingly met and after thorough discussion directed that this resolution be prepared recommending to the Joint Boards that Plan 1-A as set forth in said report be approved by the Joint Boards and that a formal engineer 's report based on Plan 1-A be ordered for public hearing as provided in Sections 4747 through 4751 of the California Health and Safety Code, said approval being recommended for the following reasons in addition to those set forth in said report: 1. Secondary sewage treatment as provided in Plan 1-A will provide immediate improvement in ocean conditions as related to discharge of effluent rather than postponing said improvement for several years which would be the case if� reliance is placed on primary treatment only with a longer outfall to be constructed before 1970. 2. Primary treatment and longer outfall will not meet the basic responsibilities of the District and even with the construction of the longer outfall, secondary treatment on land will doubtless be eventually necessary. i 3. Construction of secondary treatment facilities in stages will provide flexibility in incorporating improved methods of treatment whereas the investing of all available funds in the construction of a longer outfall will cause this advantage to be lost. 4. Provision of secondary treatment at Plant No. 1 will make available in the near future large quantities of water suitable for reclamation either by land spreading, by injection wells to halt sea water intrusion or for delivery to any public agencies or sale to any industries which can make use of said reclaimed water. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 51 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California approve Plan 1-A as set forth in the John A. Carollo, June, 1962 report "Study of Master Plan Alternates for Treatment and Disposal Facili: ties", said Plan 1-A being more particularly described on Page 9 of said report. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That in accordance with the agreement dated July 10, 1961 be- tween the Joint Districts and John A. Carollo, Consulting Engineers, John A. Carollo is hereby directed to prepare a formal engineer's report as required by Section .4741 of the California Health and Safety Code, said report to be submitted by September 1, 1962 and to embody Plan 1-A as hereinablve described. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Water District, to all cities and sewering agencies within the Districts and to all other interested agencies and persons. -2- j- City of Huntingtone c � California July 30, 1962 Ur. Eugene Asm City '�-Iklrlini a r t r y City HAll Wastm-incter, Califmmia Re: Proposed Drainage Agree m—nt Dear Gene, E10 'have enclosed a Copy o a3�eament between the City o2 Huntington Deach mid the City Fountain VQ-110YO , covering the transfer of drainagfe2 sc -wean the two cities. Aa gar as we are concerned, an agreement of thic type %could. ba coamletely ti f ory-y betuee our City and the City of I.-Tectminster. Please 1 `ZrGe to calf a o ff. or City Engineer, m Uheel 1- any quact o s should arise. Doyle "Aller I- :a EX.kC✓ '4J9sJ-G+'da Our P I Administrative Office KI 2-3583 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS" Treatment Plant Offices KI 5-7147 of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ROOM 239, 1104 W. 8TH STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA April 24, 1963 AVWY CONS Of Effin0er 751 South visuarooStreet Attention: L . Col. WilliaM S- QwMliah rain she Court= of Mr. Howard W. Crooke, sec ,.tarp mensZer of theorangety Water t o We have bee-n furnished a copy of Your W100 Mo. 16 dated April 15p 1963s coneernIng application bY she California ar t of Pima and Game for permission to install four artifleial rVek to sates ao fish havena in the otean off Huntington Beech. var drawingo showing theproposed location of tbtae rears, Indloates that No. I Will not too distant from the present termlnusof oar J-inoh submarine for she disposal of treated sewage and industvial wa0t= In additiono we should like to oall yaar attention to the Not that by the year 1970 an additlonal submarine Outfall will bO constructed by our Districts In WS vicinity and preposed reef No, interfere w1 h its construction. o a wo suggest that this particular of be relocated farther east or n The seven Sanitation t Of Ora= f ntY have at thle e invested in the zeighborho& of 15 million dollars for treetwout and d0posal 00111000 all based aa t . d1SPQS01 Of qour�+� '����,�y�`a. �y}., n "� general �„M 0a to{7+y� . n 'y�d ion o any e �*yY w[,May.�'¢ dpSbW'� 0"L&°� R¢i�!°'+�s are ��1PArNe ^S!�^@�ly budgeting Nnok`@+�rpfi^y��gy1."'F' ++p��$�a�rr R�@ p%ly 3 .�'+.yaHOyo-ai 011 qh�N,p i.W e[a per Isar $. expansion�cA.4aY. sAL4 Y.�,a* �°P&.'i+„i� +d"q�J o oG:t rah- -Il ien ! $ci— i � h _:. of o dith r expected o �� ; � �°o � o V � *o o f print showing h location of our existing outtall is enclosed. It should be nateQ h4vever, that subsequent to AV drawIng improvemonto have been made the mouth of the Santa Ana Bihar by theuge County Flood Control District. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS U. S. Army Corps of Engineers of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA April 24., 1963 ROOM 239, 1104 W. 8TH STREET, Page 2 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ,Since the seven County Sanitation Districts have a vital interest in the placing of any structures in the ocean in this general area,, we find it difficult to understand uhy we do not receive direct notice of such structures. In this connection, we were not notified of the proposed beach erosion project of Newport Beach and were only made aware of it through press reports. Paul G. Brown Assistant General Man ager PGB:gg Enclosure cc tot California Department of Fish and Game Howard W. Crooke James B. Stoddard Robert W. Lambert 0i�57,eicr COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ROOM 239, 1104 W. 8TH STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA May 3, . 1962 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Doyle G. Miller City Administrator Huntington Beach, California FROM: Mr. Lee M. Nelson General Manager County Sanitation Districts On several occasions Jim Wheeler, Bob Lambert and Jake Stewart have asked for some evidence of our objection to residential construction in the vicinity of our Plant No. 2. Copy of our letter of April 5, 1960, indicates our position. I could only add that since the purchase of the additional twenty-seven (27) acres, we have acquired all the land avail- able for treatment plants. Practically the only area around our Plant No. 2 which needs careful zoning is the area north of Brookhurst which is quite limited; i.e. , it is not as if we were asking the City of Huntington Beach to carefully M-zone on all four sides of our site. 0 LEE M. NELSON General Manager LMN:fh Enc: 2 copies of our letter of April 5, 1960 . i-,dUM-fY SALTATION DISTRt Ofe' ORANGE COUNTY 1104 West 8th Street Ockhta Ana, California April 5, 1960 Planning Comission City of Nuntington Beach City Hall Runtington Beach, California Subjects Change in District Zoning, Zone Case No. 118 in connection with the hearing of your Honorable Body into a change of zone relative to proposed change of District boundary and use classification from R--1 Single Family Residence District to R-5 P-M--T District on a certain parcel of land bounded generally by Brookhurst Street, Bushard Street and Orange County Flood Control District Channel D-2, the wish to subgdt the following information for your guidance. in 1947, a comprehensive report on the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial waste in Orange County was submitted to the Board of Supervisors in which the present property of the Districts, west of the Santa Ana Diver and east of Brookhurst Street, was reconWoided as the principal location of sewage treatment facilities in the county, Subsequent- to that date, eight County Sanitation Districts have been formed, seven of which are joined together to construct, maintain and operate two sewage treatment plants, one of which is located as recommended in the above report. This treatment plant is' in close proximity to the property under ooneideration for rezoning. From an engineering standpoint, this site is the only feasible site to provide joint treatment and disposal for all of the seven Districts. Initial construction was begun in 1953 and the plant was put into operation in 1954. The plant is being expanded at the present time and with the expanding population of Orange County, it will obviously be necessary to enlarge all the treatment units at Plant No. 2. This -is indicated by the attached map. It will be noted that all of our property will be utilized for plant facilities with the exception of a 190 foot setback as stipulated by your Honorable Body in 1953. aJ � tlarmIns Oommission -Z- April 5, 1960 It is obvious that proper treatment and disposal of the wastes from the com mities served by this plant, in- cluding the city of $untington Beach, will require careful planning and the expenditures of acusiderable was of money frost tine to time. ftle plaeming and expenditures are provided for by means of engineering reports and annual budgets provided by ad valorem taxation on all the property in the Districts. Accordingly, we are somewhat concerned that the encroach- ment of developments of the type proposed in the above change of zoning will impose a greater financial burden on all of the taxpayers of Orange County than if the land were zoned for less restrictive uses. We have in mind that if our property become ringed with congested residential uses such as trailer parks, motels, etc. , a continual area of friction and son- troverey will develop into perpetual agitation for extensive and expensive alterations to our plant facilities (or even to suggestions for its removal to a different location). In view of the above, we respeo Wully suggest t that your Honorable Body, for the benefit of all of the taxpayers, dewy the proposed change in zoning and encourage the owners to plan the use of the land in other ways which will be more suitable for all concerned. ?he Districts will be represented at your hearing on April 5 an this change and will be prepared to go into greater detail concerning our present operations and future plans if your Honorable Body so desires. Lee M. Nelson General Manager LMNigg Attachment ING City of Huntington Beach . ......... cl -0, 9 TY CJune 27, 1963 O yNevin R� Shade Wnsct Beach SaKtary District P.0, Los 167 Sunset Beach, California Dear W, Shade: Your June 10th request for an opport-t-njty to exe- cute a contract betteen the City A Huntington Beach and tha Sunset Beach Sanitary District was discussed by tha City Council at their Jana 17th .met ing,and further studied by a comaittee of the Council, appoint- ed by the heyor. It has Qewn th policy 02 the City of uunwhv'to'n Beach WAt cower service by contract, special assess- unnt, or any War zoanc, no be cntended beyond the corporate limits of the Ktty TO committee hao reportad to tho Council end the COM&I hac Otated that in New of the precedent that would be establKhad, th, do not feel that Yhey oan amend this policy. sinoarely, Doyle Miller City Administrator UP S If T SUNSET BEACH SANITARY DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY SUNSET BEACH, CALIFORNIA Telephone GEneva 1-4022 June 10, 1963 The City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. Gentlemen: At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of this District on June 4, 19632 I was requested to explore the means and procedure by_ which this District might dis- charge its sewage into Sanitation District ELEVEN's trunk sewer or other sewers which in turn connect with District ELEVEN's trunk sewer. The Board of Directors of District ELEVEN has expressed itself as willing to consider an agreement for service to this District. The nearest trunk sewer leading to District Eleven' s trunk line at Springdale and Warner Avenues is a City of Huntington Beach facility. This trunk sewer has been designed to accept this District's sewage at such time as this District' s sewage treatment plant could be abandoned to allow Huntington Harbour Corporation to better develope the adjacent area. So much of the following information as may be made available would be of considerable assistance to the Board of this District in its planning. 1. Briefly, what procedure would be required to make your trunk sewer available to this District? 2. What period of time might be required to institute and complete these procedures? 3. An estimate of the costs to our District for those services as may be provided by your City? That you may have abasis for your determination of the above we supply the following informal ion: This District could pump its sewage from its Warner Avenue Pump Station into your trunk sewer located directly in front of our treatment plant on Warner Avenue. The average daily sewage flow is 160,000 gallons. Thank you for your interest and assistance in our futul,e programing. Yours very trul ;- Nevin Shade, President. DONALD M. SMITH PETROLEUM ENGINEER 729 EAST WILLOW STREET LONG BEACH 6,CALIFORNIA GARFIELD 4-9516 April 5, 1962 The City Council City of Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: e I have been informed and, upon investigation, have confirmed that the City of Huntington Beach, in order to alleviate flood conditions in other areas, has pumped water in such a way that it has accumulated on property which I own consisting of Block 2204 of the Ease Side Villa Tract along Delaware Ave. This letter constitutes notice that the City of I-[untington Beach must accept the responsibility for the presence of this undrained water and any liability that arises therefrom. There is a great deal of new grading and new development going on in the area which will contribute greatly to the growth of the city. However, this new development will only aggravate the drainage problem which is now acute as demonstrated by the recent rains. Serious damage may be done unless the condition is corrected. I recommend that the City activate the dormant storm-drain study in the files of the City Engineering Department which calls for a storm-drain to be installed along Delaware Ave. for the purpose of draining the entire area. This drainage project is one which obviously must be completed even- tually, and may be less expensive now than after a serious flood has occurred. Yours truly, Donald D1, 1,6ith 3 Administrative Office K12-3583 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Treatment Plant Offices KI 5-7147 of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ROOM 239, 1104 W. 8TH STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA November 14, 1961 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Attention: Paul C. Jones City Clerk Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 1012--3 which was adopted by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 at a regular meeting on November 8, approving Master Sewer Plan of the City of Fountain Valley. Fred A. Harper Secretary, County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County FAH: jb Enclosure t . RESOLL ..ION NO. 10-1 2-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOUNTAIN VALLEY MASTER SEWER PLAN The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, resolves as follows: WHEREAS, there has been presented to this Board a report dated September, 1961 entitled "City of Fountain Valley - Master Sewer Plan" , and WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Commission has requested that this Board review said report and indicate whether said Master Sewer Plan will conflict with any of the plans or facilities of this District, and WHEREAS, the staff of this Board has carefully reviewed said report and Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 does resolve, determine and order that: (1) The report dated September, 1961 entitled "City of Fountain Valley - Master Sewer Plan" is hereby ordered received and filed. (2) This Board hereby finds that the Master Sewer Plan proposed in said report will not conflict with any of the plans or facilities of this District. (3) The City of Fountain Valley be hereby advised that it is recommended that when the sewer laterals proposed in said Plan on Edinger, Heil, Warner, Slater and Talbert Avenues are constructed, a standard manhole be installed where said laterals cross the easterly boundary of the District in order that a means be provided of determining quantity of flow entering the District. (4) The City of Fountain Valley is hereby advised that it should consider entering into an administrative agreement with the City of Huntington Beach whereby the lateral shown on Garfield Street -1- I _ in said Master Plan between Newland and Cannery Streets be installed with sufficient capacity to serve the needs of that portion of the City of Huntington Beach in this District which is now being served by the facilities of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California. (5) The Secretary is hereby directed to forward a fully executed copy of this resolution to the City of Fountain Valley, the Orange County Planning Commission and the City of Huntington Beach. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss I, FRED A. HARPER, Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 1012-3 was regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Board on the 8th day of November, 1961, by the following vote, to twit: AYES: Directors Cornwell, Bell, Bousman, Dunham, Fry., Furman, Gibbs, Heinly, Kanno, McBratney, Pellerin, Schweitzer, Stewart, Walker and Hirstein NOES: Directors None ABSENT: Directors Baroldi IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, this 8th day of November, 1961. Fred A. Harper, Secretary Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California -2- NST e City of Huntington Beach P' ; (1. Califf omia October 1I... 1961 County Sanitation. Districts of Orange County 1104 W. Sth Street, Rm. 239 Santa Ana, California. I Cent, emen Your letter and resolution No. 971 regarding reclamation of water was presented to the City Council of the City of iunti.a,,•ton Beach on august 214. 1961a for consideration. The Council directed the City Attorney to draw up a resolution in support' of your act.i.on< enclosed herewith is Resolution No. 1316 passed and adopted by unanimous vote of the Council on September 18s 1961, at their regular meeting. Sincerely yours , Paul Co Jones City Clerk 'CJ s ed Enc t l Administrative Office ' KI2-3583 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Treatment Plant Offices KI 5-7147 of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ROOM 239, 1104 W. 8TH STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA August 14, 1961 City Council City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California At the August 9, 1961 meeting of the Boards of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts, Resolution No. 971 was adopted. This resolution re- lates to the Districts ' declaration of policy in regard to water reclamation and should be of interest to the officials of your city. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No.. 971, together with a copy of letter written to the Orange County Touter Districts. LEE J S General Manager LMN:f h En cs r RESOLUTION NO. 971 DECLARATION OF POLIG7 WITH REGARD T5 WATER RECLAMATTUN A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING AND DECLARING POLICY WITH REGARD TO RECLAMATION OF WATER FROM SEWAGE AT PLANT NO. 1 WHEREAS, there exists a continuing and growing need for additional sources of useable water in Orange County, and WHEREAS, one of said sources is the reuse of reclaimed water from sewage, most of which at present is being wasted to the ocean, and WHEREAS, these Boards believe that reclamation and reuse of water from sewage in Orange County should be thoroughly studied and if feasible should be put into effect, and WHEREAS, at the present time there is arriving at Plant No. 1 of the Districts, located at Ellis Avenue and Verano Street in the City of Fountain Valley, approximately 15,000 acre feet annually of waste water of a mineral quality reasonably good for most uses, and WHEREAS, said 15,000 acre feet annually of said water is expected to increase materially in the future to approximately 50,000 acre feet annually within the next twenty years, and WHEREAS, said waste water requires treatment prior to disposal in the ocean in order to meet State and County requirements as well as to meet the basic obligation of the Districts to prevent pollution of the ocean and recreational areas and the Districts now provide primary treatment therefor, and WHEREAS, it is expected that prior to 1965 facilities for the ' secondary treatment of said waste water at said Plant No. 1 will be in service in order to meet said basic obligation, and WHEREAS, cost of said treatment is an obligation of the Districts, and -1- WHEREAS, these Boards believe that for various legal and practical reasons, the Districts should not engage in the con- struction or operation of reclamation facilities but should deliver free of charge secondary treated, unchlorinated water from sewage to a public agency for any further necessary treatment and con- veyance to the point of use; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Boards of Directors of these Districts urge that all methods of reclamation of water from sewage in Orange County and all methods for the conservation of water discharged to the sewers in Orange County be thoroughly investigated; and 2. That if such studies prove said reclamation to be feasible that an appropriate public agency make all possible efforts to put said reclamation into effect at the earliest possible date; and 3. That the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California will deliver if and when available to an appropriate public agency at no cost a minimum of 15,000 acre feet annually of secondary treated water from sewage of reasonable mineral quality at or near the intersection of the Santa Ana River and Garfield Avenue at an elevation of approximately twenty (20) feet above sea level. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, FRED A. HARPER, Secretary of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, do hereby certify that the above and �oregoing Resolution No. 971 was regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Boards on the 9th day of August, 1961, by the following roll call vote, to wit : AYES: Director, Cornwell, Bell, Boer, Cook, DeCamp, Dunham, Fry, Furman, Leonard, Nall, Hirstein, Hock, Kan no, Humeston, Lambert, Lorenz, Meyers, McBratney, Parks, Sc��weitzer, Stewart and Walker -2- NOES: Directors None ABSENT: Directors Baroldi, Pellerin and Stoddard IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of August, 1961. rLcd_ Q . Fred A. Harper, Secretary Or the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11 of Orange County, California -3- Administrative Office KI 2-3583 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Treatment Plant Office KI 5-7 t 47 of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ROOM 239, 1104 W. 8TH STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA August 14, 1961 C 0 P Orange County Water District Y 1629 West 17th Street Santa Ana, California Attention: Mr. Howard W. Crooke, Secretary-Manager At the regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 held on August 9, 1961, Resolution No. 971 "Declaration of Policy with Regard to Water Reclamation" was adopted. A copy of this resolution is enclosed for your information and files. We believe the resolution to be self-explanatory and evidences the desire of the Sanitation Districts to cooperate to the fullest extent with your District or any other appropriate agencies in the reclamation of water -rom sewage. A companion motion war, also adopted at the above mentioned meeting authorizing our Joint Chairman, Mr. Howard M.. Cornwell, to appoint a special committee of our Directors to meet with a similar committee from your District and the engineers for both agencies to implement the planning of water reclamation. When this committee is appointed, we shall get in touch with you to arrange for an initial meeting. S1 Lee M. Nelson LEE M. NELSON LMN:fh General Manager Enc. cc: Mr. Howard M. Cornwell Mr. Fred A. 113arper Mr. C. Arthur Hisson, Jr. City of Anaheim City of Brea City of Buena Park COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF C ORANGE COUNTY 0 1104 West Eighth Street P Santa Ana, California Y Orange County Water District August 14, 1961 -2- cc: City of Costa Mesa City of Cypress City of Dairyland City of Fountain Valley City of Fullerton City of Garden Grove City of Huntington Beach City of La Habra City of Los Alamitos City of Newport Beach City of Orange City of Placentia City of Santa Ana City of Seal Beach City of Stanton City of Tustin City of Westminster r �pNtINS- City of Huntington Beach �a o� California �C4UNTY C� OApril 6, 1961 arrange County Sanitation Districts 1104 West Bth Street - :room 239 Santa Ana, California Attn: Mr. Iee Nelson, Manager Dear Mr. Nelson,. At the regular meeting of the City Council held 'fond ay evening March 20, 1961, our Engineer sub- mitted a propcsal from: your districts to offer for dedication to the City of Huntington Beach., a strip of land 12 7eet in width from Heil avenue, southerly 13.20 feet to the south line of Tract No. 342a3. The Council approved this proposal and. directed me to notify you that deeds will he accepted when presented. Very truly yours, Patel C. Jones City Clerk r CJ. cla �VNTINGTpy CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach California �pUNTY �� March 13., 1961 ®OCUIMENT NO. Honorable Mayor and City Council FILE NO•------------- City of Huntington Beach Attention: Mr. Doyle Miller Gentlemen: At a meeting with representatives of the Orange County Sanitation Districts on March 13, a proposal was made to offer for dedication, to the City, a strip of land 12 feet in width from Heil Avenue southerly 1320 feet to the south line of Tract 3420. It is the opinion of the City Engineer that it is in the general interest of the City for your honorable body to approve ' this acquisition and notify- the OCSD that you will accept deeds for the right of way at the time they are presented. While we do not have an immediate use for this right of way it will provide us with an out of street location for future storm drains or water mains. Very truly yours, 3Jaes A. .Wheeler y Engineer J$W:a \\� NSINGTp,�,� ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JAMES R.WHEELER City Engineer - - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM S. LEWIS Huntington Beach, California Sheet Superintendent O� o �r CpUN C�' December 3, 1959 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The attached plan, for the invert section of a sewer siphon, should be constructed in conjunction with the flood control work now in progress. It is anticipated that it will be necessary to sewer west of the channel at some time in the future, By anticipating this future need and "con- structing the portion under the channel at this time considerable savings should result. Preliminary discussion with the general contractor on the C-5 Channel contract has resulted in a firm price of $11.50 per foot for the concrete cased 12 inch vitri- fied clay pipe. It is r co nded that your honorable body orr ze the transfer of. _ $2,300.00 from the Sewer Fund . for. this ._work, Respectfully, mes R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW:a Attach. f ,a;r A. 9, KOCH L. McCONVILLE COUNTY SURVEYOR AND ASST. COUNTY SURVEYOR ROAD COMMISSIONER AND ROAD COMMISSIONER TELEPHONE: D. VINEYARD KIMBERLY 7-3311 CEXT. 29,23 DEPUTY COUNTY SURVEYOR 4 R. B. VAILE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT HIGHWAY DIVISION ENGINEER P. N. HOOD COURT HOUSE ANNEX BUSINESS MANAGER SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA October 23, 1959 �j Cr 55 cc City Council City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 - 5th & Orange Avenue Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: On October 20, 1959, the County Highway Department presented to the Board of Supervisors an economic study entitled, "Master Plan of Refuse Disposal - A Proposal". The proposed Master Plan would establish a pattern around which would be built the Trash Disposal System for the County as a whole. The Board of Supervisors, in accepting the report, set the time of 10:00 A. M. , November 4th in the Board Room at the County Court House for a public explanation of the Proposal. As the Board of Supervisors felt that you would be greatly,con- cerned about this problem and its development, they instructed the Road Commissioner to forward to you the enclosed copies of this Master Plan. The map exhibits which accompanied the report to the Board of Supervisors have not been reproduced in sufficient quantity to include with each copy. These exhibits may be reviewed in the Office of the County Highway Department. You are cordially invited to attend the public explanation which is scheduled above. Yours very truly, ) A. S. KOCH County Surveyor & Road Commissioner ASK:ml , Encls: S, - - - SAFETY PAYS - ON THE JOB; IN THE HOME; ON THE HIGHWAYS - - - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 4atAer 20, 1959 Aregular meeting of the Board.of Supervisors of Orange County,California,was held October 20j at 9:30 A.M. The following named members being present: Willis H. Warner, Chairman; C. M. Featherly, William-J. Phillips, Wm. H. Hirstein, C. K Nelson and the Clerk. 3N REPORT WTMt NTAN OF MWOR DISFOUL On- motion of oupo'rvi sor Nelson, duly seconded an4 unarilmo ly carried by Bo&X4 member�is present, the report dated October S. 1959. from tho County Suxweyor '�sn,d 'Aoad C`ox ni-2oLoner 'on the meter Plan of RofuGO D1600841 Was aecepted. The Board of Supery eore goes on rpi3ord a Cort nOing- A.S..- ©eh, County Surveyor and Hoad,C ssione s and irr&Y , Storol 'Dispoijal Rnglneer, for a job' well A0238 3n the 'prepara- tioin -of .ea14. X*eD*r-t, The- ioatteV Wae aot for' pub]:3:cimplanation. on . Noveiriber- .4, 19591 aLt 10:00 A'.14.. 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. County of Orange, . I,'L B. WALLACE, County Clerk'and ea-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California,.hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on* record in this office., IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 20P day of OatoOerj 1+9590 L. 6.f WALLACE(/ County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California loM-9-59 ��Vl1TINGTpN� �ie _ • Q`��RpORgT�O �`9� NEY L.LO�VRYCITE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SID z City Engineer ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM S.LEWIS F /r O' Assistant City Engineer C �iso9•P �c0 Huntington Beach, California �CppNTY CP�� August 4, 1958 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: Submitted herewith is a preliminary study and report on a solution to the drainage problem existing in the easterly and northeasterly sections of the City of Huntington Beach. It is this area where most of the serious drainage problems exist and must _be considered in the future development of the City of Huntington Beach. The report includes a hydrologic study of the area under consideration and a suggested design for a storm drain system capable of transporting the probable runoff resulting from a storm having a frequency of once in ten years. While the proposed plan as outlined is preliminary and 'the design is not complete in detail, I feel it to be adequate for any future planning and should be followed as a guide in future construction. It is to be expected that the majority of the con- struction would not be done until the areas develop to such an extent as to warrant the expense. However, in order to derive any particular benefit from the Orange County Flood Control proposed project known as Hunting- ton Beach Channel (D-1) I would recommend that the area designated as "A" in the report be constructed at the same time as the County' s channel. This portion of the work is estimated to cost $41,500.00. Plans and specifications for the Huntington Beach (D-1) Flood Control Channel have been completed and it is the intent of the District to advertise for bids for construction of same as soon as certain right of way matters are completed. Respectfully submitted, Sidne L. 'Lowry City Engineer SLL:m �pNT1NGTD QppRqr�v� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JAMES R.WHEELER V City Engineer a ENGINEERING DEP4RTMENT WILLIAM S. LEWIS p 9' Huntington Beach, California Street Superintendent FCO[/NTy � November 20, 1959 J "v Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: Following your instructions I attended the meeting of November 4th at which time a public explanation of the Orange County Master Plan of Refuse Disposal was made, Disposal Station No, 10, located between Gothard and Golden West Streets, in this city will be filled to capacity by June 1961, At that time this station will probably become one of the four Disposal Transfer Stations in the County. Rubbish will be discharged by short haul trucks at this site, transferred to long haul equipment and be transported to one of the several mountain canyon dump sites, Final plans for the dispostion of the existing site have not been made. About five acres of the 25 will be used for the proposed disposal operation, Long haul trucks will be stored and serviced on another portion of the site. In any event the county in- dicates that the property will be put to a better use than the present, Very truly yours, James R, Wheeler � " City Engineer JEW: �VKTINGrpN - 43� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE JAMES R.WHEELER `' '--- ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN +1 R i ,9� City Engineer WILLIAM 9. LEWIS Huntington Beach, California n V� Street Superintendent � RECEiVEtO �. �C4UNTY �� November 19, 1959 DEC �- 2 19ti9 City of Huntington Beach CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: Reference is made to the sanitary sewers con- structed in May 1958, on Quincy Street from Lake Avenue to Alabama Avenue, Alabama Avenue from Quincy Street to Utica Street, Springfield Street from Alabama Avenue to Delaware Avenue. All of the connections made to this sewer subsequently have been of the waste water or industrial waste type in which connection fees are not required. Realizing that the future demand for sewers in that area may be of a different nature, I have made an estimate of cost for each connection for assessment -purposes, based on the cost of construction of the sewer, so that an- appropri- ate ordinance may be prepared to allow for the reimbursement to the city for the cost of same. The cost per connection to this sewer will need to be set at $160,00, Very truly yours, aames R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW:WSL:a , i4�ti, ��NtINGTpN . °RAT CITE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ,rCA �O q�f DAMES R. WHEELER City Engineer T—=- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM S.LEWIS Street Superintendent y 9 Q Huntington Beach, California �CpUNTY �� November 13, 1959 Honorable . Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: Inasmuch as development of portions of the Talbert Valley is imminent a satisfactory solution to our local drainage requirements must be determined. A drainage study of the area will provide both the necessary basic engineering analysis and an estimate of cost of the ultimate system. From this we will acquire enough. cost information .to determine how financing can be accomplished and a preliminary design from which we can determine our requirements for reservation of ditch and pipe rights of way and for improvements. An estimate of cost of such A study is not available at this time and certain basic data must be gathered before the cost can be- determined, Mr. Keith., of Lowry and Associates has informed me that they can do this preliminary work for $400 or -less and are will- ing to do :so on an hourly basis, the entire amount to , apply against the study if the cost . of the study is approved by the :Council. :I request your approval for this preliminary work, at the rate 'of. $10.00 per hour, not to exceed 40 hours. Respectfully.,. C ames R. Wheeler _ .. City Engineer cc: Irby Terry Y co Lambert vEv T �Iz 19 Waite Ypgo b_ Sork f.._.. �y�Rk �NGF!'r j �•F4' i .fig...... \. ` MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE CP.6jR -'-', ACTING AS EX-OFFICIO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ;6F"! ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT R_rj "{ � ' November 10, 1959 ;:.� �lT� c: EM% y A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, acting as ex-officio Board of Supervisors of Orange County Flood Control District, was held November 10, 1959, at 9:30 A. M. The following named members being present: C.M. F e a t h e r ly, William J. Phillips, Wm. H. Hirstein, C.M. Nelson and the Clerk. Absent: Willis H. Warner, Chairman. On motion of Supervisor Hirstein, duly seconded and carried, Supervisor Featherly was appointed Chairman Pro Tem. IN RE: EXCERPT FROM MINUTES APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS TALBERT CHANNEL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and unanimously carried by Board members present, the Excerpt from the Minutes of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach dated November 2, 1959, approving the plans and specifications for the proposed construction of the Talbert Channel, was , received and ordered filed. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Ss. County of Orange I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County Flood Control District, Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this loth day of November, 1959 . L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County Flood Control District, Orange County, California. 5M January 59 r �pNZINGTpy `2RAT� CITY OF HUNTIN.GTON BEACH JAMES R.WHEELER V City Engineer r - g ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM S. LEWIS,� '' Z. Street Superintendent � 9iP OQ Huntington Beach, California A� Y C� November 2, 1959 0j Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: Plans and specifications for the Talbert (D-2) Channel have been reviewed by my office and found to be satisfactory. In order that the contract can be awarded it is necessary for your honorable body to approve these plans and specifications and authorize the City Clerk to forward a copy of the minute action to the Flood Control Engineer. Respectfully, ames R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW:a Y CI"t`I Ccl ~ ~ 1 1 �i TINGTpNw cP�RAT�Cv�'� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JAMES R. WHEELER V _ 0 City Engineer a ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM S. LEWIS 9 t _ Street Superintendent O Q Huntington Beach, California �C �'�7eosP• �c0 November 2,. 1959 Honorable Mayor and City Council Huntington Beach, Calif;' Gentlemen: In my consideration it is appropriate at this time to suggest, that our municipal reservoir be called the Harry A. Overmyer Memorial Reservoir., Mr. Overmyer was instrumental in formulating the basic plan for a municipal water department and left us an excellent program to carry out. It is fitting that a principal engineering work of our water system should carry his name. Respectfully, ames R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW:a cc: Irby Terry Waite APPROVED BY GiTY c0 C . - •.� = �.-.,•.• .. Y CLERK C F NEWS QUARTERLY i SANITARY ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Q` 1301 SOUTH 46 STREET ffRING •*WA� RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA Vol. IX July 1959 No. 3 Radioactive Waste Disposal An investigation of the removal of strontium-90 from organic wastes by ion exchange has recently been initiated by the radioactive waste disposal group. The study has its origin at the Davis Campus of the University, where the Department of Veterinary Medicine is conducting research on the influence of strontium-90 on the longevity of .large animals, in this case, beagle dogs. At peak capacity, the Davis project will be housing 300 "hot" dogs producing several hundred gallons of strontium-90-bearing wastes each day. Since the research site is. some distance from sanitary sewers or other dilution waters, it will be necessary to provide a very high degree of decontamination at the test site such that the effluent .may be discharged to the earth through a conventional septic tank and tile field. Evaporation or ion exchange were the only processes considered adequate to provide the desired decontamination factor of 104 to 105. For a number of reasons, including the necessity of .minimizing operation problems, ion exchange was selected for detailed investigation, realizing of course that a relatively high degree of clarification will be necessary prior to introducing the waste into ion exchange columns. It is felt,that single service, cartridge type ion exchange units, although costly on a materials basis, .may provide the most convenient and economic solution. In employing ion exchange columns for highly efficient decon- tamination, two interrelated considerations are believed to govern. Resin leakage prior to the normal cation breakthrough will limit the instantaneous DF, whereas resin capacity for strontium-90 will restrict the total volume of waste that .may be passed through a given volume of resin. Leakage depends on flow rate and particle size, and is reported to increase with decreasing ionic strength. Resin capacity for strontium-90 is of course largely dependent on the stable calcium concentration, decreasing with �. - 2 - increasing calcium. A study has been planned to investigate these various factors and to examine the potential. of commercial. resins and clays for laboratory waste disposal. This study is being conducted by Mr. A. D. Ray, Associate and graduate student i.n sanitary engineering. A field -study of the ground disposal. of strontium-containing wastes will shortly begin at the Richmond Field Station. The injection system is of the two-well type, with the injection well and discharge. . well separated by 100 feet. The two wells penetrate a four foot thick confined aquifer at a depth of 90 feet. The system constitutes a .model of the proposed deep- well disposal system involving well depths of several thousand feet. The hydraulic dispersive and permeability properties of the formation will first be investigated with the aid of a tritiated water tracer and piezometric data from the 23 observation wells. Strontium-89, at a .maximum concen- tration of 3. 5 x 10-6 µc/.ml, will then be injected for a two-week period and traced by sampling as A .moves slowly toward the discharge well. The field study will be accompanied by a laboratory .model investigation in which a homogeneous synthetic exchanger is empl.oved to simulate the natural aquifer. Mr. Inoue, graduate student in sanitary engineering, is conducting the field investigation with the assistance of Mr. John Peters. Measurement of Tritium for Ground Water Tracing The investigation of low-.level tritium .measurement is nearing completion with the design and installation of a special cylindrical counting cell in which an opti_mizati.on of the light collection optics will be achieved. It is expected that this cell, when employed with the Packard Liquid Scintillation Counter, will achieve a detection sensitivity of nearly 1, 000 liters per microcurie. At this sensitivity, 30 .minutes' counting time would be used. Several. large-scale field tests involving tritiated water are planned for the ensuing year. Sediment Transport ' The flume study described in previous issues of the News Quarterly has been continued and laboratory studies i.ni.tiated on properties of sedi- ment suspensions and consolidating deposited sediment. Measurements of deposition rates from water flowing in the flume were made at suspended sediment concentrations ranging up to 20. grams per liter. At c.oncentrati.ons above about 15 grams per liter, interparticle bonding caused pronounced changes in the fluid flow. The resistance to internal shear provided by the bonds restricts the propagation of.turbulence from the flow boundaries, and at low flow velocities the central portion moves without internal distortion. Deposition.rates from these suspensions • 3 r .are :very much faster than those from the dilute suspensions studied earlier. Studies of mechanisms of deposition in the flume by means of radioactive gold labeled sediment are continuing. The patterns of. deposition on the flume bed were surveyed by means of the underwater scintillation detector and equipment used for the. field tests described in a previous News Quarterly. Regular patterns are observed, but too few have.been mapped to provide a relation of the . patterns to conditions of flow. In order to-obtain a physical description of the profile of the bed formed during deposition, a number of shearo.meters and a penetrometer have been designed and tested. Because of the rapid increase in strength of the sediment with depth below the bed surface, the penetrometer appeared .mos.t.useful. The one used consists of a six inch diameter hoop covered with screen. . The force required to make the sediment yield under this screen is, measured at various depths. Correlation of the _,yield force to sediment density and shear strength is in progress. Laboratory measurements are in progress on the resistance of flocs- to shear. These measurements are .made by establishing nearly uniform shearing rates in a volume of suspension between concentric cylinders.for, a time sufficient to develop flocs having the maximum size that;will resist the shear .in the fluid. The settling velocities of the flocs. are then determined by .sampling the suspension at a particular depth after intervals of. settling. Refinements are being made on .measurement of torque resisted by the inner cylinder during growth of the flocs. It is anticipated that .sensitive determination of viscosity of the suspensions by, this"means will provide .information on the floc densities and sizes. Observations of consolidating bay sediment have shown that ...consolidation progresses in well defined stages which begin with typical hindered sdttling and continue to a uniform wet sediment. Such consolidation has ;been observed by investigators of other flocculent materials, and a . relation which describes :several of the stages was given by Bosworth. This relation, together .with.measure.ments of consolidation, provide means for interpreting the structure of the sediment during this process. It is expected that this information will provide bases for prediction of sediment stability. The studies of sediment properties are to be continued during.the next few months. In addition, field .measurement of sediment .movement by wave- action are planned which will utilize the tracer methods developed last year. Canal Seepage Research Theoretical and experimental studies of radial dispersion of a tracer in ground water flow have been completed. Results are now being ,summarized in a Ph. D. thesis by Mr. Stephen Lau. ' The completion of these studies .marks the termination of a five- year program of investigation of dispersion phenomena under the sponsor- ship of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. It is planned to issue'a summary report covering the highlights of the entire program later this summer. Algal Research Experiments are being conducted with two new growth units designed to evaluate the operational. features of phase isolation.- Essentially, the units are small-scale replicas of one of the outdoor pilot-plant ponds presently in operation. As with the outdoor pond, bottom sludge is resus- pended periodically by means of hydraulic .mixing, causing the culture to be moved at a velocity in excess of 1 foot per second, the :minimum velocity at which bottom sludge is resuspended in the culture 'liquid. - The first series of experiments will.involve a study of the effect of amount of light energy received by the culture, and the duration of the period of illumination, on the pH of the culture. A paper on the conversion of light energy to the chemical energy of methane will appear in the July issue of "Applied Microbiology". A report on experiments with al.gae culture in an earth-lined pond at Concord, California, was released in May 1959, under the title, "Experiments on Algal Culture in a Field-Scale Oxidation Pond". A second report, "Reclamation of Waste Waters through the Production of Algae", will be released in the near future. In this report are discussed experiments with a lined pond at Concord, as well as field-scale experiments on harvesting of algae by centrifugation and by alum flocculation; on the dewatering of algal slurry by .means of a Byrd centrifuge, a Tolhurst solid-bowl`centrifuge, a Delpark Gravity Filter, and a sand-bed;, and an evaluation of the reclaimed water. Air Pollution A paper entitled "Status of the Chemistry of Air Pollution Resulting from Combustion Processes" was presented by Dr. J. F. Thomas at the 31 st Annual Conference of the California Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association in Long Beach, California. The article has also been submitted . for publication to the Journal. of Sewage and Industrial Wastes, The paper presents a basic discussion of combustion, internal and external; related hydrocarbon production; and possible reactions of the hydrocarbons. - 5 - i � .Fluorescent curves of approximately twenty pure hydrocarbons found in polluted atmospheres have been prepared and compared to hydro- carbons of known composition, In addition-to posit:ive.ly'id.erit:ify.ing nine of the hydrocarbons, this- technique has also in a re.latioinAip between carcinogenic activity and the shape of.the f.luorescen't curve,' thus helping to predict the possible presence of this type of carcinogen even :if :its chemical structure is not known; Detergent Study A technique is being developed for disposing of ABS-froth collected by surface-stripping sewage aeration tanks. It consists of searing the " froth with a digester-gas flame. Present efforts are directed toward economic stripping of high-level ABS solutions. The feasibility of returning, the seared foam condensate to the digester is also being studied. .4-t—the present time there are no indica- tions of an adverse effect of such recirculation on digester operation. Investigative work, which has been sponsored by the Association of American Soap and Olycerin Producers for more than four years, is in the closing stages, with a final report scheduled for release in October 1959. Percolation Studies An experiment was performed to show that a sloping surface in a soil column increases the rate of infiltratilon as well as the percolation capacity of the syste.m'as compared to a column of equal horizontal cross-section but with a horizontal surface. Settled sewage was spread over two lysimeters of Oakley sand, The lysimeters were rectangular steel: tanks, each measuring 12 by 18 inches in horizontal cross-section. In one lysimeter, the 'sand was packed uniformly with constant depth, and in the other it was packed in such a way that a vertical cross-section presented a serrated boundary with 45-degree slopes, Loth soil columns were under- and over-laid with pea gravel to ma:i.ntain surface shape. Settled sewage was spread over each lysimeter at a constant head for a period of two weeks. In this period of time, almost complete clogging of the soil was achieved. The data de.mon:otrated that clogging was restricted largely to an approximately one-inch .layer at, the soil surface. Below this' .layer, piezo.meter measurements indicated water head at less than atmospheric pressure, i. e , the clogged surface supported a hanging column of water 6 very similar to the water-columns in a siphon. The experiment demon- strated two important points, namely, that the total volume of sewage passing through the soil columns was proportional to the surface areas rather than the horizontal cross-sectional areas of the. columns, .and that when the soils were almost completely clogged, the infiltration rates were about proportional to the surface area. Actually, the column with surface slopes had infiltration rates better than theoretical. The presently available data do not yet justify many practical con- clusions, but they confirm the hypotheses upon which the experiment was based. The experiment also yielded unexpected data. Percolate from the lysimeter with the flat soil surface contained a BOD of 334 ppm at the end of the two weeks' run, while the settled sewage being spread over the soil . averaged around 180 ppm, and never exceeded 240 ppm BOD. Hypotheses are being formulated and experiments planned to explain this phenomenon. Economic Value of Water The second part of the two-part study on the economic value of water, now in preparation, analyzes water development in terms of the long-range problem of applying available capital and given natural resources in a manner most likely to stimulate the economic development required to sus- tain a rising standard of living in California. The pressure of population growth, urbanization, and industrialization is resulting in a .marked reshaping of California's environment. During the past two decades, California has undergone a phenomenal transition from a predominantly extractive to a .more diversified, market-oriented economy in which the production and consumption of goods and services overshadow farming as a stimulus to economic development. At the same time, the population increases which have made this economic progress possible portend critical future demands upon the state's resource base as well as a need to expand employment opportunities and to support necessary public works and services. Proceeding on the premise that economic development will be = affected by the ways in which limited land, water, hydro-power, and capital resources are used, the .problem is approached as one of achieving an optimum balance between population growth (an independent variable) and , resource utilization. The subjects presently under investigation include such matters as the interacting relationship of resource utilization; the rate and kind of public and private investment needed to activate and sustain economic growth; case studies demonstrating the statewide interest in local develop- ment problems and possible approaches toward integrated resource management and economic development. The Laboratory The initial -objectives of the sulfuric'-acid-mist air"'pollution` studies have been attained: A report on this work will i'nclude'results of field studies, .laboratory evaluation of current analytical procedures, and results of studies with the electrostatic precipitator, impinger, and sinte'red glass disk methods of collecting samples. Naval Refuse Disposal Study The University of California has been awarded a contract' by the Bureau of Yards and "Docks; a department of the Navy, for an engineering investigation of naval refuse collection systems, The objectives of this investigation are: (1) to develop data 'on man- power and equipment requirements necessary for. refuse and waste collec- tion ,operations; (2) to analyze and evaluate the variables characteristic of refuse and waste collection systems, such as routing, scheduling, .size and type of refuse. collection vehicles, .length of haul, etc. ; and (3) to develop criteria'by which existing systems may be evaluated and to recommend methods for the design of proposed systems. The study will be conducted at typical naval installations in .the Bay Area and-in San Diego. Professor E. A. Pearson has been designated as the faculty investigator, Mr. G. Klein is the project engineer, and Mr, G. Tchobanoglous, a graduate student at the" University of'Cali.fornia, is the field engineer. Students of the University conducting the field studies include Ray Barokas, Robert "Bedford, Frank Dodge, Paul Henault,- and Donald Khig. News of the Staff During the summer .months the staff of SERL increased to a total of 66 individuals. Prominent among those participating in project research are. instructors from other institutions as well as from the University of California. Mr. Donald K._ Jamison, a m-ember of the teaching staff of Virginia Military Institute; Lexington, Virginia, will be working with Professor Orlob on problems in eddy diffusion this summer, and-will continue graduate study in fluid mechanics in the fall. Dr. Robert C. Cooper, a microbiologist in the School of Public Health of'UC, will be working on biological .phenomena associated with failure of leaching fields. Mr. Henry Boyer, a high school science teacher from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who is participating in a. National Science Foundation-research program, will also be'working with Dr, Cooper and Dr. Winn.6berger on ( 8 the percolation studies project. Mr. A. G. Power, a science teacher from Dallas, Texas, and Mr. John S. Carlson, from. Pleasant Hills, California, who are also participating in the. NSF-sponsored program, will be,engaged in research on the algae project. Promotion of three members of the SERL staff effective. July 1,; 1.959, have been announced. Dr. Jerome F. Thomas becomes Associate Professor of Sanitary Chemistry; Dr. Gerald T. Orlob becomes Associate Professor of Sanitary Engineering; and Dr. William J. Oswald assumes the dual role of Associate Professor of Sanitary Engineering and Associate Professor of Public Health. Coincident with these promotions, changes in the adminis- trative set-up of SERL have been made in order.. to spread the:work load previously carried by Professor P. H. McGauhey, Director of SERL, and his Assistant Director, Mr. Gerhard Klein. Effective July 1, 1959, Y Dr. Orlob joined these two as Associate Director of SERL. Professor P. H. McGauhey has been elected president of the California Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association for 1959-1960. At the annual convention of the American Society.for Engineering Education, Professor McGauhey presented a paper entitled "Sanitary Engineering Leaves the Undergraduate Scene". Professor Warren .J. . Kaufman presented a paper entitled "Radio- active Waste Disposal into Deep Geologic Formations" at the California Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association Convention in Long Beach, April 29 - May 2, 1959. Professor G. T. Orlob was a participant in the Fourth Biennial Conference on Water Recharge, and presented a paper on "Research in Waste Water Recharge". Professor Orlob also presented a discussion, "Practical Hydraulics of Waste Collection Systems", at the CSIWA .meeting in Long Beach, April 29-May 2, 1959. Professor B. Tebbens presented a paper entitled "Five Years of Continuous Air Monitoring" at the meeting of the.American Industrial Hygiene Association on April 30th. The sediment tracing project has acquired the services for the summer of graduate students John Hoopes, J. S. Jain, and Aris Liakopoulus. Two high school students, Mr. Win C. Wang and Mr. John C. Dean, have been employed for the summer to work on the algae and detergent projects, respectively. Mr. Arliss Ray, Associate in Sanitary Engineering with the University, is conducting research under the direction of Professor W. J. Kaufman on radioactive waste disposal in connection with. the'Davis Dog Project. - 9 - Mssrs. Donald Feuerstein, L. Muscatine, and William Newman are employed for the summer on the South San Francisco Bay Survey under the direction of Professor Pearson. Another project under Professor Pearson's supervision, the South San Francisco Bay Tracer Study, is being directed in the field by Mr. Robert Selleck, with assistance from students W. S. Kim, C. B. Lum, and Ray Hardy. Mr. John `C. Peters, a student, has been employed by the AEC project for.the summer. He will work under Professor Kaufman's direction on the well field study of radioactive waste travel. A new water resRu�*esnp�roJee,t-sonL:the,surface water hydrology of small drainage basins has been instituted.-,under the direction of Professor Orlob. Mr. Jaime A.moyAchot will e�rve,as; a,s:sistant research engineer on the project. ^, s New SERL employees include Kenneth J. Pine, engineering aide, David Gutman, laboratory assistant, and Michael O'Niel, lab helper. Mr. Benjamin Lusk has been employed as a lab helper-with the air pollution project. The secretarial staff has acquired the services of Miss Kathleen Luck. Miss Leta Spira has returned on a part-time appointment to assist in editorial review of .manuscripts. Mr. Stephen Lau, graduate research engineer, will leave the staff this summer following completion of his doctoral program. He has accepted a position as Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Hawaii beginning in September. r UNIVERSITY OF ��" Fes' ® J.S.POSTAGi G CAI_IFORM ado;0�� Mailing Division,\ ;� � 03 K BERKELEY 4, CAA PB.?32o72 aU1iN L.. HENftiCKSE�1 AD'UrnZSTAATIQE OFFICER - CITY` HALL. . HUNTINGTON B£ACH,. CALIF. <, SE t r / \I croN RATF.0�f�l� CITE OF HUNTINGTON BE CI- L E TAMES WHEELER Z E V Cit, Engineer S - ` WILLI S.LEWIS o �T�r .,�<< - a ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT �. !Streetuperintendent 9 F 7 a' Q Huntington Beach, California TY Cps May 13, 1959 Honorable Mayor and City Council Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: In view of the subdivision activity in the northern part of our city, the need for flood control works becomes more apparent. At this time Flood Contr -l - Bond Issue Projects C-5 and C-6 are scchhe uled for completion to Highway 39 about April 1, 19606- It would be extremely beneficial to our development if the work on these projects could be expedited and drainage provided for our next rainy season. At the same time, the easterly extension of these projects , to Cannery Street at least , should be constructed at an earlier date than is now planned by the District. In order to formally notify the District of our interest in expediting these projects the Council should adopt a resolution requesting action by the Board of Supervisors. Informal discussions with Mr. Warner and Mr. Osborne might also prove effective. Attached you will find a sample resolution for your consideration. Respectfully, ames R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW:a Appi2.0�'�v � 1 MAY 1.8:.1-9.- 9---•-----.1,......_ CLERl' . f, 7 CT i <?A ,� �/ RESOLUTION NO, . 1378 WHEREAS, a considerable interest is being evidenced, regarding subdivision of lands within the corporate limits of the City of Huntington Beach and WHEREAS, the successful development of these lands can- not be accomplished without flood control channels , and WHEREAS, present scheduling of the work precludes the . completion of Flood Control Bond Issue Projects 0-5 and C-6 until after the 1959a-1960 rainy season, and WHEREAS, the funds for these projects will be available in fiscal. 1959-1960, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Board. of Supervisors of the County of Orange be requested to instruct the Flood Control District Engineer to expedite these projects so that these facilities will be available at the earliest date possible. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th. day of May, 1959. Mayor ATTEST : y C e r By: Depu y ityMk ` Telephones: / ✓ Long Beach • GEneva 1-2025 Orange County • LExington 6.6180 THOMAS H. WELCH Ab MARGUERITE WELCH ® C "A Country School for City Children" ,2 t� A 6011 WINTERSBERG AVENUE • HUNTINGTON BEA XURN A �es� . . F F April 3,1959 The City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beachp California. Gentlemen t If and when it is possible we will more than appreciate twice weekly collection of the trash at this address and our home across the street. We ask this because restrictions on burning causes us to retain large quantity of com_ bustable amterials that do create a fire hazard. We find our present service satisfactory but feel that twice weekly services when avaitables, will add a degree of safety not presently available. ully Yo�� homas W D Resi.r'ectaa'. 4 . THE COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL �Gv U 'V FYI ��NTINGTpN� (� �� �PORgTF CITY OF HUNT'INGT'ON BEACH DAMES R.WHEELER Vs� City Engineer o Trr��rr. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM S.LEWIS Street Superintendent Huntington Beach, California �CppNTY GPI\ January 2, 1959 Honorable Mayor Subject : R. M. Pte_s_Boyce and City Council, Camp, Sewer lateral Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: Pursuant to your instructions of December 15, 1958, a study has been made of the feasibility of sewering the subject property. Connection to the existing sewer in .. the ally between Joliet Street and Knoxville Street, east of Florida Avenue should not be permitted. This sewer was designed to serve only the one block and an extension would in- crease the flow in excess of the design capacity, thereby creating a detrimental condition. Any other connections to the sewer system, through city streets, are too distant to be economical. The nearest manhole would require a 600 foot length of sewer. There does exist in the same block in which the camp will be located, a manhole con- structed by the Standard Oil Company as 0 part of their waste water disposal system. It is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the Boy' s Camp sanitary facilities be connected to this man- hole. The developers can make the necessary .arrangements with the Standard Oil Company; refer- ence should be made to the Dameron Fee Waste Water Line. Respectfully, James R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW:a cc : C. A. Beck ���NTINGTpN� - V � 2 - ---- City Hof Huntington Beach F Q California �CD�NTY �P December 211, 1958 C® A. Bec 3050 Murray- Labe, Costa Mesa, Calilornia: Dear Sir, At the r aular hold meeting of the City Coun :1 on December 15, 1958 your reduces t.f o le i ty .to sprats in the expense of seer line construct' a� eferred to the City Engineer for study and report fiery truly yours., re J. Lo Henricksen City` Cle.ik, JLH:lk " r INGTpN/, • ORgrFO�F9� SIDNEY L.LOWRY CITE' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Engineer © R. a ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAMS.LEWIS Assistant City Engineer 40* yC�e. °�?iso9P��c0 Huntington Beach, California TY May 16, 1958 The Honorable. Mayor and City Council City Hall �------ Huntington Beach,. California Gentlemen: There has been submitted for my review and recommendation Plans for the construction of the Talbert Drainage Channel (D-2) proposed to be constructed by the Orange County Flood Control . District. This project involves the construction of bridges across the proposed channel at; Adams and Atlanta Streets and a culvert at Garfield Street. The structures proposed by the Flood Control District will provide for a. roadway width of two 12 ft. lanes or 24 feet, Since Garfield, Adams and Atlanta Streets are shown on the City' s Master Plan of Highways as four lane highways , I recommend to your honorable body that the City enter into an agreement with the Flood Control District to provide for the widening of these three structures to provide for our ultimate requirements . The estimated cost to the City of this betterment work is as follows : _ Gaff field Street _: . 4,028.80 Adams Street 21,585.92 Atlanta Street '. 19,927.04 Total - $45,541.76 Very truly yours, I --siazz y Lo Lowry City Engineer SLL:m e- - 3 7i != "Ii6OIL v r Feb. 26, 19 8 Honorable Mayor ` �f,3 28 1958 L J Members of the City Co ' �ailCIN CLERK Sirs The enclosed photoig will aquaint you with a condition that has existed for a number of. years in the alleys bounded by the fokowing streets, Delaware on the west Geneva on the south and east and Hartford on the north. The alleys under discussion are 1- believe known as a tee alley. These alleys were graded in such a manner that there is a very definite low spot at .the junction of. the two. alleys, as a result the water stands fnmm four to seven inches deep. for a period of three or four days, during- this time it Us; very difdicult to gain access to the garages also it constitutes a very unsanitory condition. This matter has been brought to the attention of the City Engineers .office several times without any results. So at.. this time. I am requesting that a drain of some sort be installed in order t& allev.iate this condition. Respectfully J.Z. Chorley . M Delaware Huntington Beach r �-. o T » TO gA Rfi J INGTpN� �t�apo�AT�o �9s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Engineer NEY I. LOWRY SID ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT W IAM .S. LEWIS t City Engineer Huntington Beach,California � G cOpNTY C�' February 3, 1958 Gl�.� G tiq�-•" .. r "!t Poo Honorable Mayor and City Council, Huntington Beach, Calif, Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, I submit.' herewith Plans, Specifications, and Special Provisions for the construction and installation of Sanitary Sewers on Quincy Street between Lake Avenue and Alabama Avenue, on Alabama Avenue between Quincy and Utica Street, and on Springfield Street between Alabama Avenue and Dela- ware Avenue. There is also included, for your convenience, a Resolution establishing the prevailing wage rate of the type of workmen needed .for the sewer work. The estimated cost for this pro ject' is as follows: :Item Quantity l 372 lin f t. '1211 Vit. Clay Pipe O $6.03 $2,244.00 2 2481 lin. f t. 811 Vit . Clay Pipe Q $3.11 7,719.00 3 1 Drop Manhole 350.00 4 4 Standard Manholes ® $250.00 1,000.00 $ 11013.00 Plus 5% contingencies 566.00 $ 11,879.00 Plant--mixed surfacing for patching ditches (To be done by City) 1,042.00 Total ----- 12,921.00 Respectfully, Sidney L. Lowry City Engineer By , c m. 5.1'1;ewYs !� Asst. City Engineer 'e F. E. and L. L. Mitschler 919 California Street Huntington Beach, California April 1, 1957 City of Huntington Beach City Council c/o Mr. V. Terry, Chairman Huntington 3each, California Gentlemen: At -'-,he request of Mr. Terry, and as sugrrpsted by Mr. Bill Lewis , City Engineering Office, vie submit herewith the following information concerning our property at apprOXiTIatP1-7 q25-927 Frankfort Street, or Lots : -portion 12; _ 13 and 14; 3lock r9O9 -, ' Valley View Tract, and the damaap being done thereto by water drainage caused from an incorrectly graded alley which abuts same. From Hill Street to some distance north of our property line on the alley, our property serves as a run off point for most of the water drainage that occurs from rains or otherwise. This property has a natural grade rade toi-17ard -Prankfort Street, or a drop in elevation from the centerline of the alley to the curb of about two and one- half ( 21) feet. With this elevation -drop and the .channeled drainage water from the alley there is an erosion taking place. feel that the above condition warrants -correction in an expeditious manner. We would therefore be most grateful to you for your kind attention and consideration to the above. Awaiting your reply, we remain, Respectfully Yours , F. B. er 'L. L. Yif:�'chler V cpapORAr�o �q SIDNEY L.LOWRY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Engineer a A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT J//'''''''''''��� WILLIAM S.LEWIS Assistant City Engineer yC ���`isOe•P <e0 Huntington Beach, California �CpUNTY GP�� February 183, 1957 Honorable Mayor and City Council., Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, I submit herewith Plans, Specifications, and Special Provisions for the construction and installation of Sanitary Sewers in Block 1704, Tract No. 51. There is also included, for your convenience, a Resolution establishing the prevailing wage rate of the type of workmen needed for the sewer work. The estimated cost for this project is as follows: Item Quantity 1 797 Lin. Ft. 10" Vitrified Clay Pipe ® $5.00 43,985.00 2 856 Lin. Ft. 8ii Vitrified Clay Pipe -@ $3.00 —$2,568.00 3 4 Standard Manholes @ $225.00 900.00 $7,9453,00 Plant—mixed surfacing for patching ditches $ 690.00 (To be done by the City) TotalSb.,143-00 Re spec tfully., Sidney L. Lowry City Engineer By m. S. w s Asst. City Engineer A - ? C' - Vie C 0Y win 1172 finer Tv �obi .1'yor and City y it h^"�"y'un`<i „l - wt on 3�v:w ch. " r l ; -furt aer to ,the tatter of serving 'o Mt a 141 tar mot with a !rower i a H v i g, been afti.Ted it will not bo poiAble to . covet ear a lateral sewer vn my ro t:*y,, lwauld a- reelate your apwpravaj to constructing -rho lAteral down the �a . . �_ - �t proposed ay� �p�+yyyp 9Y �yt +p�q•y����q�} �pn, `�^�{��yyg^� "^ " 4% as p,ropo d V Vzor ✓�..igrTwg:�;r'{#�1 ing ..J��ad{:k 4 FlR&1ent,. €ath Connection av luvkad W. Five Mplexas wM Ic started t ancoo of cam;p e io . date so I may start construction ortly 'MX7µ ; A ���NTINGTpN� 0 Q a`O kFORgpFO �9 _ s City of Huntington Beach F California FCppNTY CPS\ December 20, 1956 Bruce E. Swartout 8072 Kiner Huntington Beach, California Dear Sir. Your amended request for lat se line in Block 203, Vista Del Mar Tract, aga (erred to the. City Council for further . bo ry truly yours, 6 J. L. Henricksen, d City Clerk J LH:1k co i.q i-,K. 8072 Kiner49 FC Huntington Beach Tuesday, Dec. 11, 1956 Ion, Mayor and City Council Huntington Beach California _1 Gentlemen: Referring further to the matter of serving Block 203, Vista Del Mar tract with a sewer line: Having been advised it will not be possible to construct a lateral sewer on my property, would appreciate your approval to constructing the lateral down the alley as proposed by•your Engineering Department. I will be.- governed entirely by your decision as to my proportionate share of this expense and. will pay for each connection as hooked up. Five triplexes will be started at once. Will appreciate your prompt approval and estimate of completion date so I may start construction shortly thereafter, er - truly your�f f Bruce E. Swartou.t INGTpNp �RpORgT�OP{9 SIDNEY L.LOWRY y CITY OF HUNTING'TON BEACH City Engineer O ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT?•"T�'st.'rr�C[c!• Q WILLIAM S.LEWIS eiei F —p• Q Assistant City Engineer G'�c• ��'isde+P � Huntington Beach, California Cp�NTY cps December 3, 1956 Honorable Mayor and City Council, Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: I submit herewith plans for the construction of 900 lin. ft. of sewer line which is proposed to be constructed along the North property line of the city owned land which is located on Newland Street between 'i" the Pacific Coast Highway and Hamilton Street. The City Engineer' s estimate of cost for this project is $49400.00. Respectfully, Sidney L. Lowry City Engine r By e 5. Lewrs Asst. City Engineer SLL:a INGTpN� �µPORAT�,� F� SIDNEY L.LOWRY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Engineer v �rrc� g ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT — WILLIAM S.LEWIS Assistant City Engineer- 9 F 74W Q Huntington Beach, California FCpUNTY C December 3, 1956 Honorable Mayor and City Council, Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: I submit herewith plans for the construction of 330 lin. f t. of sewer line which is proposed to be constructed in the alley in Block 203 Vista Del Mar_Tr_act_., The City Engineer' s estimate of cost for this project, including the install— ation of 13 "Y" Is and stubs, is $2,200.00. Respectfully, Sidney L. Lowry City Engineer By t m. w I s Asst. City Engineer SSL:a f �d 8072 Kiner Huntington preach, Calif Monday, Nov. 19, 1956 City Council T--' Huntington Beach, ` Calif. Gentlemen: As you may know, I purchased 10 lots in Block 203, Vista .del Mar tract recently and would like to erect 30-units on them - 10 triplexes. It is felt these units would be more appropriate to accommodate the workmen expected on the new Edison plant than those deluxe units originally planned, My loan commitment has been received and bids are coming in from subconstractors. In checking into sewer connections for these 10 buildings, I am amazed to find the sewer down Huntington Avenue is so deep beneath the street teat it will cost $7500 to make these 10 sewer connections if each one is made independently. This is a formal request on the City of Huntington Beach to provide sewer line at my property line the full length of Block 203 facing Huntington Avenue to permit my plumbing subcontractor to stub into this sewer and make only one expensive connection in the street to present deep sewer line. If the City does not feel inclined to do so at their full. expense, perhaps the cost could be handled by special assessment against each of the 10 lots, l''Vill appreciAte your prompt decision to avoid loss of my loan commitment which has taken several morr_`.hs to negotiate, i Since ly, / rue artout 3 _ o, MAIL ADDRESS SHOP ADDRESS 2811 HAMPSHIRE AVE.. — "'"O���fp 2820 FLORIDA AVE. PHONE LEXINGTON 6-3704 + wa wr PAT'S WELDING WORKS — Electric & Acetylene Welding — PAT TIERNEY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIPORNIA October 15,1956 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen Huntington Beach,California Gentlemen, I the underftgned hereby request your honorable body to consider a drainage plan that will keep water from flooding my shop and grounds. In the pest the drainage water was di— verted down -Clay Street,across Florida Street in- to lower grounds.I t is now diverted into Pat' s Melding Works.Due to the fact the City of Hunting- ton Beach has raised Florida Street to an eleva- tion higher than the grounde.And with no .outiet for the water that drains down Clay Street -the shop and grounds .will be flooded. Also no driveway was paved for the Florida Street entrance which is the main gate. Your consideration in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully Pat' s Welding Works F INGTpN/, . PPORAT of CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HARRY yEngineer v TTcc a ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT v Fri-9' Q �C�r �'?1sbe•P ��� Huntington Beach, California CpUNTY October 15, 1956 Honorable Mayor and City Council, Huntington Beach., Calif. . Gentlemen: Reference is made to a discussion of the Streets and Parks Committee prior to the preparation of the fiscal budget, concern- ing the remodeling of a portion of the original 13th Street storm drain in the area of 12th and- Main Streets � It is my opinion that the remodeling of the structure trill aid in the elimination of flood waters which build up during ordinary storms at the above mentioned intersection. The estimated cost of the work nec- essary is $2,364.00. This is a budgeted item under Capital Outlays Reity ^ly, m Overmyer Engineer HAO:aG , GOB 9 i >4Q0 y��G� y� INGTpN PPORAT �f CITE' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HA CRY OVERMYER _ ? ity Engineer ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California a CppNTY GPI' October 1, 1956 y Honorable Mayor � and City Council, Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: I submit herewith plans for the con- struction of 286 lin. ft. of sewer line at the intersection of 17th and Main Streets. It is proposed to construct this sewer as a by-pass from the High School line to the Utica Street lateral. The estimated cost for this project is 1a755-00- Respec ully, Ha A. Overmye Engineer HAO:a 13� G- OV F+V l/ t TMroN� Q� F1pORgT F CITE' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HARC ty O g neer L7 - • Q ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT yC ° ?is68P <c0 Huntington Beach, California �COL/NTY CPS\ July 2, 1956 Honorable Mayor and City Council, Huntington Beach, Calif® Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, I wish to report briefly on the most feasible and economical manner of serving certain areas in the Northeast portion of the City with sanitary sewers. Please be advised that I have had several conferences with the General Manager of the Orange County Sanitation District, together with the Engineer of District .No. 3 on this sub- ject. I am not yet in a position to file a pre- liminary report on this subject, but I am sure that we will be able to work out something with the adjoining sanitation district whereby we can serve not only that area which lies within the Northeast area of the City, but also that general area which lies to the NorSh and to the East of Clay Street and Hampshire Avenue. This appears now to be the most beneficial and ecomonical approach. I hope to have more to report on this subject at your next Council meeting. r Respe" tfully, arry A. vermyer City ngineer c��Y r� YAK ATTENTION: Ex-Officio Board of Supervisors Dear Sirs We, the undersigned, landowners in the lower Talbert Valley Flood Control District do hereby petition your Honorable Board to with,, hold the drainage plans to take care of overflow waters as set forth under the present plans as outlined by the Flood Control. Engineers. We feel that a large canal extending North and South, midway between Bush- ard Avenue .and Cannery Street, would be a serious mistake, would" ruin the value of our property, together with the inconvenience and the un- warranted cost of such a project. We would much prefer smaller channels paralleling Cannery Road and Brookhurst Road; also a channel paralleling the East Mesa of Huntington Beach. The principal thing we need is a channel on the South parallel- ing' the Coast- from the Huntington Beach Mesa to "the Santa Ana River, with automatic tide gates or booster pumps , in order` to shut out the tide water from backing onto our property. If we could have a sufficient channel to handle this water coming from the North and Northeast, we would manage to get rid of our. flood Craters very quickly. We don't feel that we should be too much alarmed about any seri- ous floods, since' we are building conservation and flood control dams in all the. tributary streams flowing into the Santa Ana River, and it seems now that we are going to' have an additional conservation dam in the Car- bon Canyon and Brea Canyon. Trusting you will give this matter your serious consideration, we hereby subscribe our names and addresses : The following have already signed: Joseph R. Callens, 9736 E. 'Ellis Ave. ,- Rt. 3, Santa Ana Andrew Holtz, 26471 Bushard St. , Huntington Beach Hugo J.. Lamb, 2119. Heliotrope, Santa Ana A Page 2 (Ex-offiaio Board of Supervisor's) Anna E. Bushard, 9082 E. "Adams, Huntington Beach T. B. Talbert, P.O. Box 310, .Huntington Beach Allen T. dialer, 819 Frankfort St. , Huntington Beach Wallace R. Weirick, 1415 Pasqualito Dr. , 'San Marino , garl Lamb, 12232 Trask Ave. , Garden Grove ' Walter Lamb, 12461 Panorama View, Santa Ana Joseph Leo Holtz, Jr., 911 Lacy St. , Santa Ana Albert E. 'Farnsworth, 130" E. -Main, Tustin R. Cecil Farnsworth, 1111S.E. Wass, Tustin Elmer. .W. Farnsworth, 1091_S.E. Wass St. , . Tustin . Henry A. _Holtz, 13202 Errand Ave. , Orange Joseph A. Callens, 2012 Heliotrope, Santa :Ana . : Margaret E. Talbert,- 108 -Sixth 3t. , Huntington .Beach Gwendolyn R. Talbert",. 525" Alabama Ave., Huntington Beach Thomas Van Talbert, 525 Alabama Ave., Huntington Beach HONORABLE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA YOUR HONORS: BY THIS PETITION, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, REQUEST THAT THE STORM DRAIN IN THE NEAR VICINITY OF 7842 SPEER STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, BE CLEANED AS THE CONDITION OF THIS STOPPED UP DRAIN HAS CAUSED CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE. 1 NAME ADDRESS 0--41A, -a�fZT-A-EZ •' Ye, a LOCATION MAP Advanced Treatment Alternatives for Plant No. 2 Huntington Beach, California i Q Q nTLnNTA A'•'� '* HAMILTON AVE. aANNING 11A F. ( SIT:E AT 'WHICH VxF C' } a yC/ i ?1 3 - IS TO BE PEF.F0RME0 ,/y ` v gCys � 1 ��.�• F A . pacific Ocean `