Loading...
10-02-97 v 1 1 I . .1 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH SPECIAL CALLED MEETING 7:15 PM - October 2, 1997 Call to order 1. Report and related action in connection with stormwater management in Howell Park (Commissioner Borno) 2. Discussion relative to access gate to Hanna Park on Seminole Road (Commissioner Meserve) 3. Any other business Adjournment MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN CITY HALL,800 SEMINOLE ROAD,AT 7:15 PM ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1997. Present: Lyman Fletcher, Mayor Mike Borno John Meserve Steven Rosenbloom, and Suzanne Shaughnessy, Commissioners Also: James R. Jarboe, City Manager Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney Robert Kosoy, Public Works Director Hugh Mathews, Engineer with England, Thims and Miller Mayor Fletcher explained that while the Commission was waiting for Commissioner Borno to arrive with additional information for the meeting, he would like to talk informally concerning the Core City Project and Howell Park. Mayor Fletcher stated the Commission faces many tough decisions when trying to balance the requests and concerns of all the constituents concerning this project, and indicated that approximately two years ago flooding occurred which sparked a very vocal debate on solutions to resolve the worst drainage problem in the city. Mayor Fletcher further stated this project has been in the works for more than two years, and after many hours of debate and public hearings,the Commission decided to repair the Core City infrastructure which had been neglected for many years, and install the water and sewer lines and storm water drainage all at one time to save money and lessen the inconvenience to residents in the affected area. Mayor Fletcher pointed out all of the meetings and public hearings were advertised as required by law and posted at City Hall, and he believed the citizens had some personal responsibility to keep themselves informed. Mayor Fletcher then briefly explained how the city's storm water drainage system works and recapped several storm water alternatives previously discussed. In conclusion, Mayor Fletcher stated no mater which alternative is chosen by the Commission, it will impact on someone and the economic aspect must be considered when making that choice. 1. Report and related action in connection with storm water management in Howell Park(Commissioner Borno) Commissioner Borno and Hugh Mathews entered the meeting at 7:50 PM. Mayor Fletcher called the meeting to order and indicated the following speaking procedure would be followed: First Commissioner Borno, who chaired the Public Hearing/Data Collecting Page 2 Minutes- October 2, 1997 Special Called Meeting Meeting on Tuesday, September 30, 1997, would speak, followed by Hugh Mathews and third the public would speak and ask questions.. Commissioner Borno apologized for being late, and passed out a Summary of Options considered in the planning of the project and a Project Summary. Commissioner Borno then read the three page Project Summary, which is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A. Emphasis was placed on the third paragraph of page one and the first paragraph of page two of the summary. A summary of the options considered in the planning of the project was also passed out and is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment B. A conceptual drawing indicating how Howell Park will look after construction was displayed and smaller copies passed out to the Commissioners and members of the audience. Mr. Mathews then displayed a site plan of the proposed limits of construction for the Core City Project, and explained the drainage improvements in Phase I would go north from Ahern Street to 11th Street and would be bounded on the west by Sherry Drive and the east by East Coast Drive. Improvements include an underground drainage system, catch basins, new water and sewer lines and new pavement with curb and gutters. The improvements will take the water off the streets faster than before and prevent pollutants from going into homeowners' yards. The water will be carried into Howell Park where the retention pond will allow pollutants to percolate out of the storm water before flowing into the Intracoastal Waterway. Mr. Mathews reported the current plan for the park required the installation of two six foot drainage pipes at Fifth and Seventh Streets, deepening the canal and enlarging the existing pond in the park. Mr. Mathews then presented three alternatives for the project,beginning with Alternate A which would cost$90,000 more and save a large sixty inch maple tree, several lesser trees, and the pedestrian bridge. Alternate A was displayed and Mr. Mathews stated it would move the bulk of the storm water system into open space. It was pointed out that there would be a retention pond at Seventh Street, the lagoon would have to be enlarged and observation decks constructed over the sumps on the end of the pipes for safety reasons. Mr. Mathews then displayed Alternate B and explained that a retention pond would be built in Jack Russell Park which would encompass the racquetball court and one-half the area now occupied by the YMCA trailer and eliminate 30+parking spaces at City Hall. It was pointed out Alternate B would cost an additional $150,000. Alternate C,the most drastic of the proposed choices, would call for the condemning of 14 - 22 homes/vacant lots adjacent to Howell Park to meet the original ruling of the St. Johns River Water Management District(SJRWMD) requiring a retention pond three acres bigger than the Page 3 Minutes- October 2, 1997 Special Called Meeting existing Howell Park. The cost for this alternate would be approximately $2 million. After the presentation of the alternates, Mayor Fletcher inquired if the water could be piped north to 11th Street and then into the existing lagoon. Hugh Mathews stated this could be done for an additional $60,000.00. It was pointed out, however,there would be no percolation or cleaning of the pollutants and would not be approved by the SJRWMD. Commissioner Rosenbloom inquired if some of the streets could be left out of the drainage plan to limit the amount of water flow to the proposed retention pond in the park, and Mr. Mathews stated all the water flows from the east to Sherry Drive and this would not be feasible. Commissioner Shaughnessy, referencing Alternate A, inquired as to the size of the pond and was told it was approximately 1.5 acres. Mr. Mathews pointed out the sump areas did not count as part of the percolation pond. Commissioner Shaughnessy also inquired if in Alternate B the tennis court parking lot could be redesigned as part of the retention pond to save City Hall parking spaces. Mr. Mathews stated that it may be possible to reconfigure the area. Mayor Fletcher inquired how many trees would be saved in Howell Park if all the retention was constructed in Jack Russell Park. Mr. Mathews responded the savings would be one-half acre of trees in Howell Park at the expense of one acre of trees in Jack Russell Park, and pointed out the sumps would still needed. A question was asked regarding diverting the flow through the Atlantic Beach Elementary School property and Mr. Mathews responded it would cost an additional $160,000.00 to re- design the project and was not a reasonable alternative. Commissioner Meserve inquired as to how many trees would be saved if Alternate A was chosen and Mr. Mathews responded twenty trees would be saved. Commissioner Shaughnessy questioned the need for the sump area on Pine Street and commented Alternate A would not save a significant number of trees. Commissioner Shaughnessy then asked if the sump could be relocated to the tennis court parking lot and was told it was possible. Commissioner Borno stated a great deal of work, in a short period of time, had gone into the Summary of Options passed out at the beginning of the meeting and apologized if any options were missing or information misinterpreted from the previous meeting.. David Dyal of 321 Third Street read from a prepared statement indicating he believed this Page 4 Minutes - October 2, 1997 Special Called Meeting project had been ramroded through with foolish, quick decisions being made. He stated Howell Park provided an undefiled, natural area and no wisdom would be shown by the Commission if the giant cypress trees were cut down and indicated such action would rape the essence of Atlantic Beach. Steve Foreaker of 387 6th Street stated he would like other engineering input for the project because he felt mistakes had been made in the design process which need to be corrected. Mr. Foreaker further stated he hoped the Commission was not just "blowing him off' and would take his concerns seriously. He also inquired as to why information on this project was not included in the city's quarterly newsletter. Mayor Fletcher assured everyone the Commission would give serious consideration to their concerns. Fred Kerber of 375 First Street stated that saving the trees in Howell Park was most important problem facing the Commission and the $180.000.00+earmarked for tree replacement in the park could be better utilized elsewhere. Mr. Kerber also requested use of an engineer, as promised during the previous Commission Meeting, to advise the Friends of Howell Park of other options and asked that tonight's meeting be rescheduled for November 11, 1997. Mayor Fletcher commended Commissioner Borno for putting together the information presented tonight in such a short period of time. Joe Zsomboran of 650 Palm Avenue thanked Commissioner Borno for the September 30, 1997 meeting and inquired whether the drainage could be run down Sixth Street and into Howell Park from that point. Hugh Mathews responded that would be cost prohibitive because there was a sewer lift station at the end of Sixth Street which could not be built around and other utilities already took up space in the street. Theo Mitchelson of 340 Oceanwalk Drive North inquired if the pipe size could be reduced if the south sump came in at Pine Street and was told it was a possibility. Steve Kuti of 1132 Linkside Drive recommended that all work be stopped for six weeks to allow time to come up with alternate recommendations utilizing the expertise of the Army Corps of Engineers at no cost to the city. Mr. Kuti also suggested that Hugh Mathews advise the Friends of Howell Park as a resident of Atlantic Beach to help find the least destructive alternative that would satisfy the most residents. Rae Brady of 1636 Sea Oats Drive expressed concern for the destruction of the ecosystem in Page 5 Minutes - October 2, 1997 Special Called Meeting Howell Park and asked what will happen to the animals displaced by the destruction of their habitat. Ms. Brady stated she believed a landscape architect could not provide correct information concerning these matters. Hugh Mathews stated Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Consultants, was a very good company often used by England, Thims and Miller. Mike Messiano of Environmental Services, Inc., explained in detail the chemistry of retention ponds. Gray Whaley of 640 Palm Street stated Howell Park was as sacred to him as the Baptist Church and did not want anything in the park disturbed. Mr. Whaley also asked that consideration be given to finding a new engineer for a fresh approach to the project. Mayor Fletcher responded it was a possibility, but it would be expensive and he would take the request under advisement. Dorothy Permenter of 354 Ninth Street stated the flood waters that have filled her home were of more concern to her than saving the trees. Mrs. Permenter stated she lived in fear that her house would be flooded again every time it rains, and she was tired of the postponements. Mrs. Permenter pleaded with the Commission to do something as soon as possible. Pete Dowling of 113 Fourth Street and a member of Friends of Howell Park, agreed with Mrs. Permenter that something should be done, but not at the expense Howell Park. Mr. Dowling indicated he found the alternatives presented encouraging, but not acceptable. J.P. Marchioli of 414 Sherry Drive inquired as to the amount of pollutants going into residential yards and Howell Park and asked if the water quality had ever been tested in those areas. Mr. Mathews responded it had not. In order to save trees, Mr. Marchioli also suggested changing the drainage on Sherry Drive to divert the flow into three areas of Howell Park using four foot pipe, instead of six foot pipe into two areas as presented. Cindy Corey of 394 Eighth Street read a prepared statement which described the park as an oasis, a natural place for woods and wildlife, something needed in the City of Atlantic Beach. Mrs. Corey further stated she was upset because there was no indication to the citizens the park would be altered to such an extent. Bob Phillips of 1535 Park Terrace East Water and Sewer Engineer for the City of Jacksonville stated he had two questions and one concern. Mr. Phillips referenced the storm of August last year which brought this to the forefront, and stated it was his understanding the original design for the system was for a two year storm event and last August's storm was five times greater than that. Mr. Phillips then inquired if that was the case, how the system being proposed would solve the flooding problem. He also inquired how many homes actually flooded inside. Mr. Page 6 Minutes - October 2, 1997 Special Called Meeting Phillips suggested if a large number of homes flooded inside,the city consider spending the $3.5 million on buying up those homes and relocating the residents to higher ground. Mr. Phillips also expressed concern for the time frame of the project, and stated he did not know if the city was aware that Jacksonville was proposing a$251 million water/sewer improvement project for the next two years which will put a big burden on the construction industry in this area. Mr. Phillips's further stated he believed this would cause a substantial increase in cost for the project. He then asked if the treatment for the core city project was actually mandated by law or being requested by the SJRWMD. In conclusion, Mr. Phillips asked that the city consider obtaining a second opinion on the project. Mary Corey of 394 Eighth Street and the daughter of Cindy Corey, read a brief statement telling of her love of the trees in Howell Park and asking that they not be cut down. Alan Potter of 374 Second Street stated not all of the solutions presented on paper were correct and referenced the Department of Environmental Protection Consent Order which he believed only mandated the stoppage of sewage on the ground and did not include storm water management. Mr. Potter felt consideration should be given to deepening and widening the Plaza lagoon up to the Fleet Landing culvert and using this area for retention instead of Howell Park. Referencing the Summary of Options given out by Commissioner Borno, Mr. Potter stated Items#1 & 2 were, in fact, reasonable alternatives and should be seriously considered. Referencing the meetings of the previous year when Johansen Park was discussed, Mr. Potter stated at that time it was determined that retention would occur in either Howell Q Johansen Park, and now Howell Park was chosen because the drainage improvement project was not extended north of Eleventh Street. Mr. Potter also inquired if serious consideration had been given to erosion problems caused by the speed of the water entering Howell Park and indicated the $60.000.00 recently spent on improvements to Howell Park would just be wasted money if the project continued as proposed. A brief discussion ensued, and Hugh Mathews asked for a copy of the minutes of the meeting when Johansen Park was discussed stating he did not remember it being the either/or situation alluded to by Mr. Potter. Mayor Fletcher asked that the City Clerk's Office supply copies of the minutes of of the meetings concerning Johansen Park to Mr Mathews. After listening to all of the concerns and comments, Mayor Fletcher stated he would like to appoint a committee to further review and make recommendations regarding Howell Park. Mayor Fletcher further stated committee members would be appointed during the October 13, Page 7 Minutes- October 2, 1997 Special Called Meeting 1997 Commission Meeting and would include a representative from the Selva area. Mayor Fletcher indicated authorization to involve England, Thims and Miller in the discussion would also take place at that time. Commissioner Rosenbloom focused on what was perceived by him to be the total lack of communication between the Commission, the Commission liaison to the Water and Sewer Committee, and the citizens, and suggested calling the project to a halt and conducting a Town Meeting to discuss the environmental and regulatory issues brought up at tonight's meeting in order to collectively arrive at a solution to the problem. Commissioner Rosenbloom moved to set up a Town Meeting within the next four weeks to include representatives from England,Thims and Miller,the St.Johns River Water Management District,Friends of Howell Park, the Army Corps of Engineers,the flood victims,Public Works Director Kosoy, and Finance Director Ann Meuse to discuss, make recommendations concerning all pertinent issues relating to Howell Park and come to a solution for the problem. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meserve. Some further discussion ensued concerning appointment of the committee by the Mayor and holding a Town Meeting. Commissioner Borno stated that if the Commission utilizes the Mayor's Committee approach, he would like to have the tasking of the committee defined. Mayor Fletcher stated he would address Commissioner Borno's concern, along with all resources available to him to accomplish that objective in written form. Commissioner Meserve stated he had no problem conducting a Town Meeting if it was known what would be accomplished and recommended and suggested the motion be deferred until it is determined such a meeting is needed. Commissioner Meserve moved to defer holding a Town Meeting until such time as it is determined the meeting is needed. There was no further discussion and the motion carried unanimously. As a point of order, Commissioner Shaughnessy related the Water and Sewer Committee had not met in three years. It was pointed out the Committee was dissolved and no longer exists. 2. Discussion relative to access gate to Hanna Park on Seminole Road (Commissioner Meserve) There was no discussion concerning this item. Page 8 Minutes- October 2, 1997 Special Called Meeting 3. Any other business No other business was brought before the Commission. There being no further discussion or the business to come before the City Commission,the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM. /ice Lyman T. Fletcher Mayor/Presiding Officer Attest: ie..-1 "0 'a - Maur--n King, CMC City Clerk ut�i. c. i i 4: lyr1.1 fl LAND iti114S h11L .hE • T J j ATTACHMENT A • SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1997 PROJECT SUMMARY October 2, 1997 Historically, it has not been unusual for Atlantic Beach to experience flooding several times a year. Such flooding resulted in many houses, yards and streets flooded for extended periods of time. The core City Drainage Project began more than five years ago as a start to resolving the flooding when the City Commission authorized a Storm Water Master Plan for the City. CH2M Hill, a Nationwide Engineering Consultant, was commissioned to complete this Master Plan. From that plan it was found that the Core City experienced some of the worst drainage in our City. In 1994, Atlantic Beach experienced major flooding, especially in the Core City. Shortly after that many citizens appeared before the City commission demanding that immediate action be taken to resolve the reoccurring flooding. Shortly thereafter, approximately 18 months ago, the City Commission hired England, Thims &Miller, Inc. (ETM), a well respected local design engineering firm. This firm has had extensive experience designing storm water management projects. The principal-in-charge of the core city project from ETM is Hugh Mathews, P.E., who has been a resident of Atlantic Beach for many years. ETM began the development of the construction design by reviewing the Storm Water Master Plan and other alternatives to resolve the Core City flooding. It is important to point out that the City,just one week before ETM was hired, came under a Consent Order from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) as a result of sewage overflows. This consent order required the replacement and/or repair of leaking sewers which were being effected by the infiltration of storm water, The Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)required, in their Consent Order, that the Core city Plan be completed by September 19, 1999. As noted in the attached October 1, 199'7 letter of clarification from the DEP's Jerry Owen, the control of stormwater is a major requirement of the consent order. Given that the project also included replacement of water and sewer lines, as well as storm water, it was important, in the eyes of the Commission, to save money by only tearing the streets up once. It would have made no sense to immediately replace the sewer facilities and then come back and fix the storm water. If that were to happen, roads would be torn up again, streets would have to be repaved, and residents would experience great inconvenience in a relatively short period of time and monies would be wasted. From the beginning, it has also been the intention of the City Commission, even before the Consent Order, to combine the water, sewer, and storm water projects into one project, as it has been designed and recommended by ETM. It has been noted that some of the streets have new water and sewer; however, that water and sewer was not originally constructed with the forethought of developing a complete new water/sewer and storm water system. The existing and new pipes are in conflict with the planned roads, storm drainage and sewer improvements. In reference to sewer lines reconstruction, it appears that the cost to replace the sewer lines is less expensive than slip lining since the roadway reconstruction is mandated by the stormwater project. In addition to water and sewer, England, Thims & MiIler, Inc. under Hugh Mathews' direction, began a long process of designing and permitting the total Core City Project, on an integrated basis to handle the water, sewer and storm water component in order to reduce conflicts in construction. They have been working on the Project for more than 18 months. On numerous occasions, Hugh Mathews and his staff have spoken publicly concerning the project. They have appeared before the Commission in public meetings and talked individually with commission members and citizens to answer questions. Vv1. L. i.i;; l�ri: 11'l'rL!{I'lL' 1ti1f:1� 11f l L F, 117. 3118 F. 3/32 t , _ Project Summary October 2, 1997 Paget In designing the storm water portion of the Project, ETM was faced with the major concern of how to capture and treat the stormwater runoff. After extensive research and alternative analysis by ETM, and upon consulting with the St. Johns River Water Management District; Environmental Services, Inc., environmental consultants; and CH2M Hill, engineer and scientist, the alternative to construct two stormwater ponds in Howell Park was selected and approved by the City Commission. The purpose of these ponds, as mandated by the state legislature and as required by the SJRWMD, is to remove pollutants from the "first flush" of runoff and prevent this pollutant load from reaching the downstream areas. There were many alternatives which were considered by ETM. One of those considerations was to use Selva Marina Lagoon for a retention area of pollution. That course of action was pushed by ETM and the City Staff. However, that option had many inherent obstacles. (1)moving the pollutants from Howell Park to the Lagoon would mean more wetlands would be impacted, and would make permitting of the project more difficult and extremely costly, if not impossible. More importantly, the quality of water in the Lagoon would have had to be downgraded to a polluted state and property would need to be acquired. The lagoon could no longer be used for fishing, boating, etc. Another recommendation was to have a pump station at or near Fleet Landing. This pump station is for flood control only and would have no impact on stormwater treatment nor the ponds in Howell Park. All stormwater treatment must occur prior to the pump station. Therefore, as a result of environmental reasons, ownership issues, pollution concerns, and cost reasons, the lagoon was not selected as the final alternative for ETM. Howell Park was chosen because (1)the City owned it, (2) it was serving naturally as a settlement area, (3) it would effect less wetlands (only one-half acres are affected by using Howell Park), (4) it meets the requirements of the SJRWMD and (5) it is cost effective. As to the tree issue, ETM has designed a mitigation plan to place 213 trees in Howell Park_These trees consist of Red Maple and Cypress which will enhance the park setting. The down side is that it will take five to ten years for trees to grow, but still the trees that will be taken down, will be replaced. PROTECTED TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL (10" DIA. OR GREATER) Location Palms Oaks Cypress Other Total (In.) 1 Total No. Howell Park 894" 396" 239" 1205" 2734" 191 Roadway RIW 1358" 122" 0 158" 1638" 118 Seminole Road Ditch 478" 25" 0 86" 589" 54 4961" 363 4::urtd n1,314,111.) ltllM illLLt:t': VO. 3116 F. 4/3 Project Summary October 2, 1997 Page 3 TREE MITIGATION INCLUDED IN PROJECT Type Quantit Total Inches Howell Park R placement 2" Red Maple 190 380" 113 in Howell Park 2" Bald Cypress 100 200" 100 in Howell Park 3" Sycamore 125 375" 4" Live Oak 95 380" 2.5" Water Oak 150 375" 10" Sabal Palm 40 400" 2" Red Bud 190 380" Total = 213 trees to be planted in 890* 2490" Howell Park * Total = 890 (222 shown on plans, 668 to be determined in field) Estimated Total Cost = $182,000 As it stands now, ETM has secured from the environmental agencies, the Water Management District, and Corps of Engineers, all the necessary permits that are required for the project. What that means is that the regulatory agencies feel that this is a sound environmental plan for handling storm water pollution and runoff in our City. The project plans and specifications are 100% complete and are ready for bidding and construction. 9 4.:MAR Vt,I. L. In" ' 4:4urrl '''" ,1IJ1:Ati1,1 1h1F+iS,•'�1 4' '- ' Rit.ANIit try PlV. 1 Y'r C:':i x.:11..L +. J11 ( Jv. {� :. Department of 0s: , . ' .. .L Environmental Protection Nortitrast District Lawton Char »1S eayniva0owt way.Suitt 4200 vurria B.www.0, Go•crnw pcktO u I1&cto•.4 322S4.7s?0 5.c.a4•Y October 1, 14117 Mr.Robcit S.Koloy, P.I . t Director or Poblic wol k% F Po,i-ir Fos Noi 7671 D•» l L F . ► City of Atlantic Beach ► "O" - i • 1200 5altt ctI [lane ''� 1 , 77 1 • AtLnt[tt:Dutch,cnGh, Florida:12237.4381 I:,)s Dear Mr.Koioy' Thi$wilt confirm my tlillctttsion with you 01%Ortoticr t. i007. It i>tlu-iiac.nt iv the City/11. A11alitiC 13vue:h CcptEetlt Order,0C►C`. No. 95-2ri7I,to prevent mcum water i',cm) olles'mg 440 1116 sanitary seWCJ s'ystllnt and Stti hitng ttu.>c:wet tints t;:tuiifr ovcrliows. The tpt::uls ud prcventiatt itlehrdc: climifatiltL c.rOSs cclnneuicult bcawetn',un1tary wwcl find $lt rnt•wa :i piping. i(:l'Pitillg damaged yCtver limy and rtatairin);sewer 11L'nInlIci to(Vti 7r(`I iiilluw and intittl;lllon ►'her.,e and ether t orrective action$are rrtt:trucc.tl in;SclC:onsriut (Nips tlYou 1lavts any 41i01t0AS or nett/any additional informal ii)n pilc;tcc.tall Since,dy. IA- M. cit, i'.1- ° I.)----------.2r1;y R1ttci rac,ilitiex Adltiiliisttetni 1MO:'11' `Pwiexl CosIirt"nMa���e/i.n,rircnrwwr�n ,i 1.-4 Nl irS it"%c ,rr1'- I,niti s.n•i.%d yaK. ULT. C. 1yUi 4: UY1a ElF,rLNI11) 'I'ff1MS :IILLEit 110 3118 P. 6/32 )4t,91,1 ri(CatelZ Friends of Howell Park September 25, 1997 Mr, James Jarboe, City Manager City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Dear Mr. Jarboe: We appreciate your most encouraging expression of understanding and cooperation in resolving the problems with the proposed storm water drainage plan. As you know, Howell Park was purchased in 1976, with a Federal Bicentennial Grant to provide a natural Florida marsh/woodland park. The community was assured that this area would be preserved in it's original condition for everyone to enjoy. We are opposed to any storm water related alteration in Howell Park. None of us is adverse to improving the core city, however, we believe that there are co effective, if not cost saving, alternatives to bulldozing the trees in Howell Park. Fo example, it appears to be an engineering mistake and mammoth waste of money to install large drain pipes that will remain half full of water at all times. If a large percentage of the pipe's cross sectional area is below the water table, you don't need to be an engineer to reason that most of the storm water will be flowing through the remaining pipe space. This is a possible area to save money and to improve the project. A representative from England Thims & Miller has confirmed that, should the proposed design be constructed, it would not prevent even a "two yearn rain from flooding the streets of the core city. If the passions are running high now, just think what will happen after millions of dollars are spent, the park is destroyed and the newly rebuilt streets are flooded by the next hard rain. We believe that some of your suggestions sound like excellent alternatives and that the best solution may take a combination of these and others to solve this issue. As you requested, please find enclosed some of our suggestions along with our request for additional information to aid with our education on this project Thank you for assisting us in saving a natural resource that can not be replaced in our children's lifetime. Sincerely, Friends of1fowef1Parf, ,U8U. 1a1 4 /1ft MKTLAfili IHIMSAILLEE 110. 3118 P. 7/32 Suggestion # FHP 1 This is a proposed alternative to destroying the trees in the park. • Reduce the diameter of the pipes that flow from Sherry Drive toward the park. • If necessary, use two smaller, less expensive, less disruptive, more maintainable, easier to handle and install pipes, that will drain completely. • Route one line (or a set of lines) down the back drive of Atlantic Beach School near Fourth Street. • Route a smaller (24" or 36") pipe into the park at the sewer lift station. • Take the remainder of the water north on Sherry Drive and cross Seminole Road at Five Points. • Provide retention by cleaning, deepening or widening the current path (via the Selva Marina Lagoon & outfall ditch) to the intracoastal waterway. • Educate the community to understand that after a hard rain, none of these drains, no matter how great we make the pipe, have a large enough space to discharge storm water, and peak rainfall runoff will backup for a short time. Suggestion # FHP 2 As a separate but very much related project, deal with the causes of the backup all the way to the intracoastal waterway. If any single point in this path retards the water it will cause areas south of that point to flood, no matter what improvements are done locally. • Before any work is done hire a qualified engineering firm to analyze the total system so that we will be able to plan a system solution with no surprises. • Remove all restrictions (shallow points) in Selva Marina canal. • Provide a controllable dam where the canal crosses the dike that is formed by Mayport Road. This would afford public works the opportunity to drop the water level when heavy rains are expected (a hurricane or the like). • Install an emergency pumping station at the dam to be used in case of flash floods. The manufacturers cost estimate for this pump station is $150,000 to $250,000. • Any other positive improvements indicated by the engineering study. , UL1. c. 1 i 4:%Ir'I1 tnLAIdL TH1MS4.MILLEF 110. 3118 P. 8/32 Friends of Howell Park Information Requested 1 How much retention is required for this project? 2 Is retention occurring in other locations in the current plan, if so, where? 3 is this retention number constant, and if not, what will cause it to vary? 4 How much is this number reduced when the project is in a previously developed existing neighborhood? 5 Please list and explain all of the other options given to the city commission when they chose the Howell Park Plan? 6 Are there now, or have there ever been any other options discussed, if so what are they? 7 Are there restrictions in the federal grant that was used to create the park, that will prevent a change of use of the land? position of Friends of Howell Park • The park may not be disturbed from its present condition. • If retention ponds are required, they go elsewhere. • Flowing storm water into the existing park is fine. • Flowing storm water through the existing park is fine. • Backing up storm water into the park is fine as long as it does not change the present condition of the park. • We would like to hear all reasonable alternative plans the city is offering. u 1, 1491 4: j1 L,71,01: TH!MS&ILLER NO, 3118 P. 9/32 England •Thim) & Millar ,Inc. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT? Principals James E. England P.E.. Pres. Robert E. Mims, Exec. VP Douglas C. Miller, PE.. Exec. VP N. Hugh Mathews. P.E., Exec. V.P. MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Robert S. Kosoy City of Atlantic Beach FROM: N. Hugh Mathews, P,E. DATE: September 30, 1997 RE: Atlantic Beach Core City improvement Project ETM No. 96-025 Subject: Information Requested by Friends of Howell Park The following information was requested by the Friends of Howell Park in their letter to Jim Jarboe dated September 25, 1997. A response to the other issues in their letter will be forthcoming, ITEM NO,1; "How much retention is required for this project?" ▪ The size of the ponds shown in the current design is 1.39 acres. This surface area combined with the items discussed in Item No. 3 below provides the stormwater treatment that was required to obtain a permit from the Water Management District for Phase I of this project. ITEM NO. 2; "Is retention occurring in other locations in the current plan, if so, where?" ▪ No other stormwater treatment facilities are proposed for Phase I of this project(Ahem Street to Eleventh Street.) ▪ Future work proposed north of Eleventh Street will require that stormwater treatment be provided in that area. • 9131 Sr, JOHNS u r ROAD S. • J4cK-oQNvn,,r, FL 32246 • TEL: (9O4) 642.8990 • Fnx: (eO4) 646-94FSS OCT. 2. 1997 4:21P11 ENGLAND THI1.1SAILLER NO. 3118 P. 10/32 • ITEM NO. 3', "Is the retention number constant, and if not,what will cause it to vary?" ▪ The required area of stormwater treatment ponds is not a constant, and several factors may cause it to vary, including: -Length to width ratio of the pond -Depth of the pond -Drainage basin characteristics ITEM NO,4; "How much Is this number reduced when the project is in a previously developed existing neighborhood?" • if this project were a new development, approximately 12.4 acres of pond area would be required, which is greater than the entire 10.4 acre area of Howell Park. The 1.39 acres of ponds shown in the current design and included in the District permit represents a 90% reduction in the amount of pond area that would be required for a new development. ITEM NO.5: "Please list and explain all of the other options given to the city commission when they chose the Howell Park Plan?" • In addition to the Lake Option,the following other options were identified during the preliminary engineering phase as being feasible from an engineering standpoint, and were presented to the Commission: -The Channel Improvement Option consists of excavating and widening the entire channel in Howell Park from Pine Street to Seminole Road. -The Concrete Sediment Basin Option consists of constructing two large(50'x 80'x 10'deep) concrete sediment traps in Howell Park at the end of the Seventh Street and Fifth Street collection systems. J NO. 6: "Are there now, or have there ever been any other options discussed, if so what are they?" • No other options were found that were feasible from an engineering standpoint to accommodate the inverts of the larger outfall pipes. ITEM NO. 7; "Are there restrictions in the federal grant that was used to create the park, that will prevent a change of use of the land?" • We are not aware of any restrictions in that grant. England•Thi&R1Ntar,Inc. OCT. 2. 1997 4:22PM ENGLAND TH1I!S2HLLER NO. 3118 F. 11/32 England n1°Thi5plc Millar,Inc. I= ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Principals James E. England. RE., Pres Robert E. Thims. Exec. V.P Douglas C. Miler, PE.. Exec. V.P N. Hugh Mathews. PE.. Exec. VP MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Robert S. Kosoy City of Atlantic Beach FROM: N. Hugh Mathews. P.E. DATE: October 1, 1997 RE: Atlantic Beach Core City Improvement Project ETM No. 96-025 Subject: Response to Public Input Issues The following are our responses to the issues outlined in the letter from Friends of Howell Park to Jim Jarboe dated September 25, 1997: ISSUE_NO_ 'i: "... it appears to be an engineering mistake and mammoth waste of money to install large drain pipes that will remain half full of water at all times. If a large percentage of the pipe's cross sectional area is below the water table,you don't need to be an engineer to reason that most of the storm water will be flowing through the remaining pipe space. This is a possible area to save money and to improve the project" • This is a common misconception. Anyone familiar with hydraulics realizes that the entire submerged area of a pipe contributes to conveying the flow. • The City of Jacksonville requires submerging the outfall by at least 213 of the pipe diameter to provide energy dissipation (see Section 2.3.3A of the Land Development Procedures Manual) • The stormdrain systems on this project are designed to flow full under the design storm conditions, which is known as pressure flow. The Florida Department of Transportation Drainage Manual states that"in peninsular Florida and in coastal areas, new storm drain systems are usually designed to operate under pressure flow conditions, so they will compensate for flat slopes, provide adequate cover, and avoid conflicts with existing underground utilities." (See Section 10.5.1) 3131 ST. JOHNS 6LUFG Roo S. • JACKEOr.Vr,Le. FL 32246 • TCL: (904) 642-8390 • FAX: (904) 646•$46S NV./ 4:•Zt i ttiiiLAND THIM MILLER NO. 3118 F. 12/32 ISSUE NO. 2; "A representative from England Thims &Miller has confirmed that, should the proposed design be constructed, it would not prevent even a 'two year' rain from flooding the streets of the core city." • This is incorrect. The proposed stormdrains have been designed to convey the two-year storm, which is approximately 5.0 inches of rain in a 24 hour period, without significant street flooding. This design storm is consistent with the City's Stormwater Master Plan. • For information the following rainfall amounts relate to various design storms: 2-yr= 5,0" 5-yr= 6.5" 10-yr= 7.7" 25-yr= 9.7" 100-yr= 13" ISSUE NO.3; "Reduce the diameter of the pipes that flow from Sherry Drive toward the Park" • Considering the requirement of a two-year design storm, a reduction in pipe size is not possible because the hydraulic gradient is currently at the inlet elevations. • If future downstream improvements result in a lower tallwater, the pipes as currently sized will handle a storm larger than the two-year storm. ISSUE NO.4: If necessary, use two smaller, less expensive, less disruptive, more maintainable, easier to handle and install pipes, that will drain completely." ' A common misconception is that a single large pipe may be replaced with two pipes of half the diameter, such as replacing a 72" pipe with two 36"pipes. This does not work because the amount of flow a pipe can carry is primarily a function of the area of the pipe and not the diameter(a single 72" pipe has four times the area of a 36"pipe, although it is only twice the diameter). ' The 72"pipe at Fifth Street would require two 54" pipes, and the 66"pipe at Seventh Street would require two 48"pipes. • The width of the pipe trench required to install two pipes is greater than the width required to install one equivalent pipe(5'wider for 2 @ 54"&4'wider for 2 @ 48"), and would result in more disruption to the park area than the current design. • The cost per foot of installing two pipes is approximately 5%to 25%less than the cost of installing one equivalent pipe for the sizes in question, according to "Construction Contract History" published by the Florida Department of Transportation. However, the costs for the drainage structures for the two-pipe system would be much greater due to their increased size. We believe that the net cost savings for the two-pipe system , if any, would be comparatively small, and would not justify the increased wetland and tree impacts due to the wider pipe trench. A England'Tim)1 Mar,Inc. OCT. 2. 1997 4:23PE1 ENGLAND THIMHILLER NO. 311E P. 13/32 ISSUE NO. 5; "Route one line(or a set of lines) down the back drive of Atlantic Beach School near Fourth Street." • This option was explored early in the design process and was eliminated for the following reasons: -Routing the pipe down the back drive of the school produces greater problems for safety and maintenance of traffic than the current design, -The roadways and utilities in this area were recently reconstructed in the"Salt Air"project. -It is more cost effective to route the pipe along Sherry Drive which will be rebuilt anyway under the current design, than to pay for additional pavement repair, utility conflicts, and increased pipe size and length incurred by routing the pipe down the back drive of the school as summarized below (See Exhibit No. 3): Cost Deletions for Pine Street Outfall: 192' @ 72" RCP @ $200/ft=$38,000 380'@ 66" RCP @ $194/ft= $74,000 Total Cost Deletions = $112,000 Cost Additions for Pine Street Outfall: 400'@ 72" RCP @ $200/ft=$80,000 450' @ 84" RCP @ $300/ft=$135,000 Pavement Repair= 1250 sy @ $12/sy=$15,000 Utility Conflict=$40.000 Total Cost Additions = $270,000 TOTAL COST INCREASE=$158,000 ISSUE NO.6, "Route a smaller(24"or 36") pipe into the park at the sewer lift station." "Take the remainder of the water north on Sherry Drive and cross Seminole Road at Five Points." • This option would increase the cost of the stormsewer system and would not provide stormwater treatment. (See Exhibit No. 4) Cost Deletions for Five Points Outfall: 55' @ 66" RCP @ $194/ft= $11,000 360'@ 48" RCP @ $76/ft= $27,000 640' @ 42" RCP @ $68fft = $44,000 Total Cost Deletions = $82,000 Cost Additions for Five Points Outfall: 980' @ 60" RCP @$118/ft= $113,000 200' @ 36" RCP @ $56/ft= $11,000 Pavement Repair= 600 sy @ $12/sy= $7,000 Utility Conflict= $15,000 Total Cost Additions= $146,000 OCT. 2. 1997 4:23PE1 ENGLAND THIMS MILLER Na 3118 P. 14/32 ISSUE NO. 7; "Provide retention by cleaning, deepening or widening the current path(via the Selva Marina Lagoon & outfall ditch) to the Intracoastal waterway." • This option was explored early in the design process and discussed with the Water Management District, but was eliminated for the following reasons: -The City does not currently have ownership over most areas of the lagoon, which would require condemnation proceedings and associated costs to obtain easements. -This option would change the state classification of the lagoon from the existing designation of Class ill waters to a designation of stormwater treatment pond, which would prohibit fishing, boating, etc. We believe that it would not be possible to obtain agreements from all adjacent property owners on this issue. -Because the lagoon drains a much larger area than this project, a much larger treatment facility would be required, with associated increase in cost. ISSUE NO. I#, "Educate the community to understand that after a hard rain, none of these drains, no matter how great we make the pipe, have a large enough space to discharge storm water, and peak rainfall runoff will backup for a short time." • The proposed stormsewer system is designed for a two-year storm. On larger storms the capacity of the stormsewer system will be exceeded and some street flooding will occur. The streets have been graded to allow inlet flooding to "pop-off'and flow overland to Sherry Drive, and then to the flumes at the Fifth Street and Seventh Street outfalls. • We agree that the public should be educated on this item, which could be accomplished in the City newsletter or by direct mail. ISSUE NO. 9; "Before any work is done hire a qualified engineering firm to analyze the total system so that we will be able to plan a system solution with no surprises." • The Atlantic Beach Stormwater Master Plan was produced by CH2MHifl, a very large, national engineering consultant in February, 1995, and recommended improvements for seven subbasins draining into Setva Marina Lagoon. This Master Plan effort was led by Mitch Griffin, Phd. at the Gainesville office. • The City of Atlantic Beach received proposals in February, 1996 from several engineering firms to implement the Master Plan improvements in six of those basins. • After reviewing both written and oral presentations, the City selected England-Thims & Miller(E.T.M.) to perform final design, produce construction documents, and assist in permitting and bidding the project - • E.T.M. completed the preliminary design and presented the options to the City Commision during several public meetings in October and November, 1996. The Commission received public input, revieiiiecencilleMdgiltiftilftlikt011iib.options for E.T.M. to proceed with final design_ OCT. ?. 1997 4:23PM EII:JL, ND 'HUMMER iS&}1ILLER Na 3118 P. 15/32 • The City staff then reviewed the progress of the final design at the 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% stages, and issued comments which were addressed by E.T.M. • E.T.M. has now completed the final design, produced the Draft Bid Documents, and is currently assisting the City in permitting the project. ▪ E.T.M. has extensive experience and quaiifictions in the design, permitting, and construction administration of storrnwater management systems as evidenced by our satisfied clients, including the City of Jacksonville. Attached as Exhibit 5 is en outline of E.T.M.'s qualifications and experience on similar projects. ISSUE NO. 10: "Remove all restrictions (shallow points) in Setva Marina canal." • A recent site inspection did not reveal any blockages • The system downstream of Mayport Road has recently been cleaned by F.D.O.T. • The taitwater stage during the two-year storm is approximately 3 feet higher than the normal water level in the lagoon, so locations that are comparatively shallow at normal water levels are not a significant flow restriction at higher stages. • SSUE NO.11; "Provide a controllable dam where the canal crosses the dike that is formed by Mayport Road. This would afford public works the opportunity to drop the water level when heavy rains are expected (a hurricane or the like)." ▪ A controllable flashboard riser structure currently exists at the Fleet Landing Box Culvert. The current design includes replacing the existing flashboard structure with an adjustable weir gate to facilitate water level adjustments. ISSUE NO. 121 "Install an emergency pumping station at the dam to be used In case of flash floods. The manufacturers cost estimate for this pump station is $150,000 to$250,000." • The cost figures provided are not representative of the total costs of constructing a storrnwater pump station. -The function of a stormwater pump station is to mechanically force stormwater to be discharged from a water body at a significantly faster rate than would occur under existing conditions, thereby reducing flood evelations in that water body, at the expense of raising the flood elevations downstream. -Therefore, a pre-requisite for the installation of a stormwater pump station is a downstream outfall that is so large that it can handle the increased discharge with only minor increases in downstream flood elevations_ n >Iand•Thirro&Miiiar,kx. GGT. ?. 1997 4:24PM ENGLAND THI14S&}11LLER 11G. 3118 F. 16/32 -The existing outfall downstream from Fleet Landing to the Intracoastal Waterway is constrictive, and signicantly increasing the discharge rate from Selva Marina Lagoon into the existing outfall ditch will increase downstream discharge rates and flood elevations. This cannot be tolerated by the downstream property owners, nor permitted by Section 40C-4.301 F.A.C. -Therefore, signicant outfall improvements consisting of channel widening and box culvert replacements will be required prior to construction of the stormwater pump station. In our opinion, the costs of these outfall improvements would be approximately$600,000 for the box culvert replacements and approximately$250,000 for the open channel widening. It does not appear that these costs nor the acquisition of additional right-of-way have been included in the manufacturer's cost estimate. • Although a stormwater pump station would reduce flood elevations in Howell Park, it would not eliminate the need for construction of the ponds as shown in the current design. -As discussed in Issue No. 3 above, lowering the tailwater elevation will allow the pipes as currently sized to handle a storm larger than the two-year storm. -We believe that it would be counter-productive to make a signicant expenditure of funds to lower the tailwater elevation, only to install smaller pipes which would result in a two-year design, which is the same as provided by the current design. • Since stormwater pump stations must move a tremendous amount of water, the excavation of a pond located at the pump intake structure is generally required to reduce approach velocities in order to prevent channel scour and resulting sediment transport. issue I!1O.131 "Any other positive improvements indicated by the engineering study." • The Master Plan called for a subsurface collection system for a storm event equal to the 2-year event. The current design reflects the refinement and implementation of the suggested improvements found in the Master Plan for the subbasins in the project area. ADDITIONAL ISSUES; 1) The current plan calls for the construction of two lakes in the Howell Park area totalling 1.39 acres. This represents approximately 10% of the total 10.4 acres in Howell Park. 2) The wetland impact in the park is approximately 1.32 acres. Exhibits No. 1 &2 demonstrate the location and size of the total wetland areas in the project area. Engkrtd.Thltro&maw,Inc. , Vt,1. L. l'Jyi 4:L4r 1—Iiii.JLrti11 1H1L1S MILll!!;' 110. 311 1,1\rosij :• ,1 1 1 1 1 r• lL�I 1 \ SEL MARINA 711= U (...) w 1c.___ ' ,i + Flit, \\ 1 ,, rlow+ t \\ 4 Q 1 Lii .1. �' 1 M' a_�If ^ ...Jr ~ ��s, r C ` _�-. I M�w� q ' ....... \C I IOtM 57 ,1^q ` = ILSPCORaR•0.4 . a 0 NA It 11X • w :‘ s 1 lirliP Illit 11111 li a 11 1, 0 ' 4, $CI 5 1111 >. W fr— Sf(,vn oe , � z t eayc 1 �i-- � U p 01111)„, <1 LI u O Z t / J Z g ,vi. 10.W E,..,.,,, Q V. .. � s ' ov*cT 1 F. 3 i x SEtvA L,oKEs 1 +�V=' :ptuta"WV, q N W 3 u ------ — G ' c.,aeK 4 • Q�-�- f+ + s,.s+sccT 'C,} 9a { wd ^ N ��W.--� AT�AN7IC BEACk S/D oh SEASPRAY / :,,--3\i — L _ �-�1IP si /r) r h ,, , . . Ea jjII\u. J i Gs _ _r ... . ,t` / i / , .• 7.7.= ------- -.. — CBI 'ft...v- 1J;,,f:. 11, ...____,_........,27.ge atev 0, / ifi . �� s I A,,,_ _-__3:110 4 C... I , I , r7474-1 1 13444,1/ fi."//1/ . aorii. CsylIM— `,C._ si,2_41\0111.6 ... 1/ki/ cla f ,- kg/ I /'- f---2 Tf .r _ \ ----- - - -- n — ... „,-- - - AT,....„ceou.i. 7 -------\ „ , .. .9 i. ' OCT, 2. 1,997 4:25PM ENGLAn rE11., Y i1iLER N . 3118 , P. 18 .32 r' S 4 y - - _�` \\ ,., 0 .y, ti —c— 144 •,"' : , fti /F :‘ ,;--.,._.- .-z:.---•\ \ . _ .._-______.,..,. - --_- gZ • :,\• -7/ it l I r-'r'��'i� g l 5 W ._ \ • 1 1 4111 0 '• '11, ';': : \ \ t / -/ : .: ''' Cli ' ''i::'--. -AL' ' • \ \ I I44 1:1 ' } 11 i:0 ' / i/I /' / ,s• \ s \ •:;',*;. : . il 'i \\, '..„--:-..:- •• \,.. ; \ ‘ / . '4111) ,!„: 7:;.,-,- , '..._ . ...-. .�ji s,:...,_',1,:-,:-.k.32 \..... � ems-; • (.7 / r. .- .,,.. :40110 .t..1.4. \ \ / Jr . ,f,, .., . 1, r''/7....;,-..-,-.,-, ''''..--? W 11.://eikieliel : it \ ."4. /.1 i / ' „ , 1 .,_____-. . . -. . 1 r. ,. 4.,. . : . ..,....j / l—` ok. I o0he A A 2 3 8 8 ' OCT. 2. 1997 1:25P1.I ENGLAND THIMS2ILLEP NO. 3118 P. 19/32 1 tit.\ ..,- 1 L.________=2,._, Al ="....."".4\ i.. 1 1, ` i'� = is tdu Q CO j ' s IRz 0 t :t fRAp P K �'J \.......,....- -- Q a al °RM !I 'r. . � ►/ ext 1V _._..... .. ..w...t.i.T.,.........,:i Ir. . g PARK NS le :lie W 1 !"al 1, 1 _ -il 1 • ti �-G- �N1ER C1■ lej t tiY ATLANTIC BEAC 0 iti 1 d' U 67 N..,._.„7____ ______'''t--.-:-.,11":;-'"'ite---'1"-4441-- -- ---- CO• 1 �Iw la .tom -- LIJ IP 117 'fi. __el 1141 7• L 4 el : I I ? 41 . *viva, cy ALTAIR �"= 110111. . -.ask \ -iv _ _ t a,,,_ . if / 1 ,v . _ _ _..., _ _ _ Iii..,® 1 , 77--416r A1jANnC �ACN "121___ -_�{ ELAZZARY SCHOOL t t_. _ III +\ t1 SST - \V /044, ' . t\ IVI ...ipli MOM It /11. /ANON PARK �� 1III ATLANTIC BLVD. . • \ / s s . ULi. I'd'�i 4 Grt1 r,i'd!:LriiiL THl1•1Si MILLEE E. 3118 P. 20/32 t �ti --�- J� .L t / .. �' .. I is: W es r.„__ __,C):...,2_, _b.„1,71._,e _.,_,-,___ ____7 --- -7-Al..--.. CD i 4:1 U igt, pz . ! Z c --�s, _ r _�- d . 011 a 1 n i ` br O I-- 1 tat i - X __ L__ __ _ _ . .„.„...„....,.. ....-- "��' D8ARK �•5 R /111 tnAATNflcAc ;i 1Q � A '1.- \‘r s.•.I,d p i p...0 L.i.i w 0...? 0 Lerj3 1 -441 4 . :214\ .11 , '1..i;.,?-3 -L, ,. /_ \, )? / it III. \,--- -- W '. 1 v: ter- \. 4tH ALTA IR 001 \.\_,....___—.. -__ __ --- _?_'"_ IL\ , ala._ tame tA,,r SCNOOt p;,1 • . ' __,..._ _ 72 . An.myteeAcr, �ti 17/i . 1 X , 1U ANT MIDRiti I \ r. , .. ,,_ ..2;. IliY'4111 / I PARK e" Z ATLANTIC BLVD. ' - . -•- a d a • OCT. 2. 1997 4:26PM EIIGLAIID TRIMS2,11ILLE1<.. 110. 3118 P. 21/32 EXHIBIT NO. 5 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENGLAND, TRIMS &MILLER, INC. England,Thims& Miller,Inc is a Jacksonville,Florida based consulting engineering firm founded in 1977 by James E. England, P.E., and Robert E.Thims. England,Thims &Miller, Inc. and its sister company, Sunshine State Surveyors, Inc., have progressed from a two person operation to a more than seventy person comprehensive engineering and surveying company serving public and private interests. The firm has in-house capabilities for total project development,from planning and alternative evaluation through design and construction administration. Specific expertise includes infrastructure master planning and design, transportation planning,traffic engineering,highway and roadway design, drainage design,water and sewer design, environmental permitting, solid waste management and growth management/concurrency analysis. England, Thims & Miller, Inc. has developed extensive capabilities in stormwater planning and management and environmental permitting,and has proven its ability to apply state-of-the-art technology to produce exceptional work in an efficient and economical manner. The majority of England,Thims &.Miller,Inc.'s annual volume of work is for repeat clients and is related to the following project types: • Environmental Permitting • Infrastructure Master Planning • Transportation Services • Mapping • Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis • Water Quality and Environmental Studies • Value Engineering • Utility Engineering • Solid Waste Management • Construction Document Preparation England,Thims &Miller's goal is for every engineering project to be properly executed and successfully implemented. Our personnel strive to perform in a manner that is both budget and schedule-conscious, without sacrificing quality or professionalism. The following summarizes the qualifications of ETM's personnel assigned to the City of Atlantic Beach Project. NAME PROJECT DEGREE ' YEARS ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCE N. Hugh Mathews, P.E. Principal•in•Charge/ B.S. 15 Project Manager Douglas C. Miller,P.E. Quality Assurance/ I .S. 23 Quality Control Douglas W. HurstP.E.. Project Engineer B.S. I I Peter Ma, P.E. Design Engineer B.S. 8 • GGT. 2. 1997 4:26F11 ENGLAND THIMS&MILLE : NO. 3118 F. 22/32 England,Thims &Miller,Inc.'s experience in surface water and stormwater management includes master planning,watershed inventory and mapping,design of storage and conveyance systems, urban stormwater pollution control, stonmvater quantity analysis, conceptual engineering, technical manual and ordinance development, regulatory permitting. development of plans and specifications and construction management. Experience in water and sewer utility work includes wastewater collection and water transmission design, representation of a private utility company as the "Utility Engineer" and master planning and design of system improvements as well as totally new system. England, Thims &.Miller, Inc.'s experience and accomplishments are outlined in three groups. First, projects completed for public and private clients in the City of Atlantic Beach, second,stormwater projects completed for public and private clients and third, water and wastewater projects completed for both public and private clients. Projects completed in the City of Atlantic Beach. PROJECT: EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Co-application Submittal PROJECT MANAGER: Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: CH2MHill/City of Atlantic Beach CONTACT: Robert Kosoy, P.E. (904)247-5808 Provided an in-depth knowledge of the City's stormwater system working with the City of Jacksonville to add the City of Atlantic Beach as a co-applicant. England,Thims &.Miller, Inc.provided support to the City's master plan engineer. PROJECT: Seminole Road Sidewalk Improvement Project PROJECT MANAGER: N. Hugh Mathews, P.E. CLIENT: City of Atlantic Beach CONTACT: Robert Kosoy, P.E. (904) 247-5808 Completed the construction documents for the construction of the sidewalk project in aisting yard arras. England, Thims &Miller, Inc. provided a cost effective approach to the need to construct a sidewalk in a highly congested area. PROJECT: Oceanwalk Subdivision PROJECT MANAGER: N. Hugh Mathews, P.E.. CLIENT: McGarvey,Johnson Sz Bingemann, Inc. CONTACT: Dave Bingemann (904)273-1925 Provided full engineering services for this 120 acre single family development. This project called for a sensitivity to the existing topography and tree coverage in the area while providing full engineering services including environmental permitting and stormwater system design, v‘:l. c• 1a71 4•Lrrrtl c1++a1 1+ ' lnlr:ieccl1LLC!( 1WX11+; 1. Lj%JL PROJECT: Selva Norte Subdivision PROJECT MANAGER: N. Hugh Mathews, P.E.. CLIENT: American Federal Savings ,Sr_Loan CONTACT: Roger Sutton (904) 273-8824 This-40 cure subdivision represents an efon to meet the stormwater treatment requirements without a conventional stormwater pond. This project is an example of England, Thims Sz. Miller, Inc.'s cost effective work approach and included full design services. Stormwater Projects: PROJECT: I-295 Widening Regional Treatment Facility PROJECT MANAGER Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: Superior Construction, Inc. CONTACT: Dick Ayers (904)292-4240 Analysed the feasibility of replacing the proposed linear Storm water management system with a regional treatment facility. This process included an extensive site selection investigation process,with preliminary hydraulic and water quality modeling. As a result of these analyses, a site for one regional stormwater facility was selected that would provide up to 20 times the pollutant removal of the previously proposed five miles of roadside treatment system. A wet detention facility was designed and permitted, providing the F.D.O_T. with a highly effective and low maintenance treatment facility. PROJECT: EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit(NPDES) PROJECT MANAGER: Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: City of Jacksonville CONTACT: Dale Smith, P.E. (904)630-1349 Completing the application for the City's EPA NPDES permit, the largest single NPDES storm water permit in the nation. Part 1 of the permit included the inventory and mapping of over 850 square miles of storm water systems,along with conducting water quality sampling and analysis on 500 individual outfalls. The Part 1 permit is complete and has been reviewed by the EPA Part two of the permit includes additional water quality sampling along with establishing legal and regulatory controls to bring all the City's storm water discharges in compliance with State and Federal water quality standards. The Part 2 permit was submitted to EPA March 1, 1993. pCT. ?. 1997 4:27PEM ENGLAND THIMS&I1ILLER 110. 3118 P. 24/32 • PROJECT: F.D.O.T. District Two NPDES Permit PROJECT MANAGER: Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: F.D.O.T. District Two CONTACT: Craig Teal, P.E. (904)752-3300 Preparation of Part 1 and Part 2 NPDES Permit. F.D.O.T. District Two is a co-applicant with the City of Jacksonville on the NPDES permit. ETM along with our subconsultant CH2M Hill was responsible for the Part I permit that involved the inventory, mapping,water quality sampling and analysis of F.D.O.T. storm water systems within the City of Jacksonville. ETM is also responsible for the Part 2 permit that includes additional water quality sampling, along with establishing legal and regulatory controls, and developing a management plan to bring all storm water discharges into compliance with State and Federal water quality standards. PROJECT: Neptune Beach, Florida NPDES Permit PROJECT MANAGER Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: City of Neptune Beach CONTACT: James Barrington (904)241-3191 Preparation of Part I NPDES Permit. City of Neptune Beach is a co-applicant with the City of Jacksonville on the NPDES permit. ETM along with our subconsultant CH2M Hill was responsible for the Part 1 permit that involved the inventory,mapping,water quality sampling,and analysis of storm water systems within the City limits. PROJECT: Mandarin Drainage Study and Improvements PROJECT MANAGER Douglas C. Miller. P.E. CLIENT: City of Jacksonville CONTACT: Dale Smith, P.E. (904)630-1349 Responsible far a master storm water management plan,permitting, and water quality study encompassing 20 square miles in the southeastern area of Jacksonville. The project involved retrofitting 40 existing storm water basins for storm water treatment,which included the design for a filter bed with pump discharges,and wet detention for storm water treatment. Other areas of engineering included the hydraulic modeling of 29 miles of storm water outfalls, and the design of 10 miles of channel improvements, and Structure replacements. Services also included environmental permitting and preparation of construction and bidding documents. This project was permitted by St. Johns River Water Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida Department of Natural Resources, and Florida Department of Transportation. PCT. ?. 1997 4:28P}I Ei1GLAND THIMSwc.IiLLER t10. 311$ P. 25/32 PROJECT: Hogans Creek Drainage Study and Improvements PROJECT MANAGER N. Hugh Mathews, P.P. CLIENT: City of Jacksonville CONTACT: Dale Smith, P.E. (904)630-1349 Responsible far a complete study of the 2,000-acre Hogans Creek primary storm water management system that included flood control and water quality analysis,and recommending improvement alternatives. The water quantity analysis was conducted using the U.S. EPA storm water management model. The water quality analysis was accomplished using a non-point source loading model spedfically developed for the City of Jacksonville. The Hogans Creek basin includes downtown Jacksonville, the Jacksonville Shipyards, Maxwell House Manufacturing Plant,the Historic Springfield area,the University Medical Center, and the densely populated Durkeeville area. PROJECT: Drainage Improvements at Paxon Senior High School PROJECT MANAGER: N. Hugh Mathews, P.E. CLIENT: Duval County School Board CONTACT: Joe Rogers (904)390-2124 Performed a master drainage study for a 63-acre school site. The study involved determining the causes of on-site flooding, and developing conceptual plans to correct the problem, and providing an opinion on the probable costs to do the proposed improvements. An integral part of the study was preparing a detailed hydrodynamic computer model of the outfall ditch surrounding the 559 acre watershed. Based on the results of the master drainage study, ETM developed engineering documents that provided an alternate drainage system and retention facility to relieve on-site flooding. ETM obtained a storm water permit from the St Johns River Water Management District and approvals from the City of Jacksonville for the project. . PROJECT: DurkeevilleBlodgett Outfall Improvement Project PROJECT MANAGER: N. Hugh Mathews, P.E. CLIENT: City of Jacksonville CONTACT: Thomas Goldsbury (904)630-1646 Provide the development of working drawings for the Construction of 72", 84"and 96"storm sewer in existing City of Jacksonville right-of-ways. Since this project was a product of the State's purchase of the Blodgett homes site, the master plan,design and permitting was accomplished on a fast track. This project not only required total reconstruction of the right-of-ways, but also total replacement of the existing water and sewer systems, all while meeting the demands of upstream drainage basins and existing water and sewer customers. This project also required innovation in the area of stormwater treatment by providing a stormwater pond approximately one-tenth the size normally required. In addition to normal design services, England,Thims &Miller, Inc. provided all permitting coordination and full-time construction administration and construction inspection. 2. 1997 4:28P1I ENGLAND THIMS&MILLEE ,OCT. NO. 3118 F. :6r'32 PROJECT: Magnolia Point Stormwater Treatment System Retrofit PROJECT MANAGER: N. Hugh Mathews, P.E. CLIENT: Magnolia Point Golf and County Club CONTACT: Van Royal (904)284-4653 Responsible for designing the Starmwater system fnr this 800-acre residential development in compliance with the St.Johns River Water Management District regulations. This was accomplished through a redesign and re-permit process to convert the system from"retention with filtration"to "wet detention." This process is designed to remove the large maintenance cost of the lake bank underdrain and will help increase the quality of the discharged stormwater. PROJECT: Argyle Forest Drainage Study and Development PROJECT MANAGER: Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: Gulfstream Communities Provided a master drainage plan for approximately 1,500-acres. The process led to the development of application materials for a conceptual permit for the entire 1,500-acres,and a construction permit for 500- acres, from the St.Johns River Water Management District. The construction permit was based upon a strategy of wet detention for storm water treatment. This project was the first wet detention system to be permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District. An additional feature of this project involved 60-acres of wetlands for additional storm water treatment. This wetlands acreage was artificially irrigated because of the effect on surrounding groundwater elevations. PROJECT: Trail Ridge Landfill PROJECT MANAGER: Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: Waste Management, Inc. CONTACT: Warren Smith (305)984-2000 Designed a 2,600 ton per day Class I landfill to serve the solid waste needs of Duval County. The firm was responsible for the design of the liner system, leachate collection and storage facility, gas controls, scale facilities, and closure plan. The work effort included a master storm water plan to provide treatment of storm water runoff from the developed site. Environmental permits were prepared by ETM and issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. ETM also provided full time construction administration. The landfill is 148 acres and has a twenty year capacity. • ' ;SGT, 2. 1997 4:28811 ENGLAND NO. 3118 P. 27/32 PROJECT: St. Johns County Government Center PROJECT MANAGER: James E. England, P.E. CLIENT: St. Johns County CONTACT: Mike Rubin (904) 823-2420 Provided the permitting and modification of the storm water management system for the County Services Building, Fire Station No. 12 and the Emergency Operations Center in St. Johns County. Water and Wastewater Utility Projects: PROJECT: Blodgett Redevelopment (Durkeeville/Davis Street Outfall to Hogans Creek) PROJECT MANAGER N. Hugh Mathews, P.E. CLIENT: City of Jacksonville CONTACT: Thomas H. Goldsbury. P.E. (904)630-1346 Designed the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer for the Blodgett area as a result of the Hogans Creek Drainage Study. This project was also in conjunction with the State of Florida Regional Service Center and the Blodgett/Durkeeville Outfall Project. England, Thims &c Miller, Inc. also provided construction administration for this construction. PROJECT: Deerwood Park North and South PROJECT MANAGER: N. Hugh Mathews, P.E. CLIENT: Gate Lands Company CONTACT: I(enneth P. Wilson (904) 448-3030 Master planned, designed and pro ided construction management for all water, sewer and stormwater management facilities necessary to serve the 1,000 acre mixed used commercial D.RI. located at the intersection of J. Turner Butler Boulevard and Southside Boulevard. The design involved the complete modeling of the water and wastewater system and completion of construction documents for a seven pump station sewer collection system. PROJECT: Kensington Subdivision • PROJECT MANAGER N. Hugh Mathews, P.E, CLIENT: McGarvey, Bingemann CONTACT: David Bingemann (904) 247-0047 Site engineering services including all necessary water, sewer and drainage design and transportation analysis to rezone, design and peunit a 480 acre mixed use residential development. The stormwater master plan for this site induded complete analysis of a 7,000 acre drainage basin and stormwater treatment facility. Using this design approval and analysis,we were able to reduce development cost by$1,000,000. OCT. ?. 1997 4:29PM ENGLAND THIMS&MILLER Na 3118 P. 28/32 PROJECT: Argyle Forest DuLay Utilities PROJECT MANAGER Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: Gulfstream Communities, Inc. Utility engineer for this prlvate utility company until its purchase by the City of Jacksonville. Services included system master planning and analysis,transmission,pumping and collection system design and plant design and permitting. PROJECT: Julington Creek Plantation PROJECT MANAGER: Douglas C. Miller, P.E. CLIENT: Atlantic Gulf Communities, Inc. CONTRACT: J. Thomas Gillettee, 111 (904) 287-4180 Provided water and wastettater master planning to serve a 4,200± acre area serving 7,000 utility customers. ' ,OCT. 2. 1997 4:29n1 ENGI.AND THI1.15',MILLER 11O. 3118 F. 29/32 Equal Opportunity Employer � I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - Engineering Division oQ Ali February 12, 1996 ✓QCKsorvnL` ' TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The engineering design and consulting firm of England, Thims & Miller, Inc., has a long standing relationship with the City of Jacksonville in the area of Public Works Infrastructure projects. This has been in the form of a contractual relationship involving planning, engineering design, Federal and State permit applications, project coordination and public presentations. England, Thims & Miller, Inc., also encounters the City's local regulatory process in their work with privately funded development. In this capacity they have partnered with the City to ensure that the development occurred in a logical and planned fashion and that all applicable regulatory requirements where appropriately addressed. The firm of England, Thims & Miller, Inc., has always performed at optimum levels, professionally, effectively and with integrity for the City of Jacksonville and I strongly recommend this firm for work involving the planning, design and construction management of Public Works Infrastructure projects. Sincerely, an R. Mosley, P. E. Chief, gineering Division ARM:lb mow i"'"Q'; AREA CODE 904 I 630-1363 I 220 E. BAY STREET I JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA 32202 OCT. a. 1997 4:30PM ENGLAND THIMS&MILLEF: NO. 3118 P. 30/32 • FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM February 14 , 1996 To Whom It May Concern: The engineering consulting and design firm of England-Thims and Miller, Inc. was retained by the Florida Department of Transportation, District Two, on numerous projects to provide (1) major roadway engineering design services for the preparation of construction plans (i.e. , I-295 Widening from 103rd Street to North of Normandy Boulevard, 1-95 Widening from Duval County Line to Fl- GA State Line, etc. ) , (2) Districtwide minor roadway design services (i.e. , Arlington Expressway Lighting Project from Mathews Bridge to Southside Boulevard Collector, Arlington Expressway Traffic Signal Upgrade, Sidewalk Improvements, Landscaping Plan, etc. ) and (3) Districtwide Traffic Studies. These projects includes feasibility studies, preliminary and final engineering design, preparation of Federal, State and local drainage/permit applications, coordination with other consultants and local government Engineers, and public presentations. England-Thims & Miller, Inc. have shown excellent performance in all areas and consistently met or bettered the approved schedule dates. The effectiveness of the consultant in implementing the intent and scope of the contracted services, the management of contract, and the effectiveness of the project manager is simply outstanding and professional. I highly recommend England-Thims & Miller, Inc. for their excellence and professionalism. If you have any questions, please advise. Respectfully, ,.Manalo Project Manager �-'! (904) 268-1915 ► OCT. 2. 1997 1: 30FFI ENGLAND THI1:1Su1t!ILLER II ' 3118 F. 31/32 111111 ,GATE, Petroleum Company February 9. 1996 To Whom It May Concern: G L. National and PV Commercial Properties, as entities of Gate Petroleum Company, have contracted the services of England-Thims & Miller for a number of years. The firm of England-Thims & Miller exhibits a discerning knowledge of the evolving requirements for land planning, engineering design, and permitting with City, State and Federal agencies. In addition, they demonstrate an amenable relationship with their clients. England-Tbinis & Miller has always fulfilled their contractual obligations in an adept and professional manner. We take pleasure in recommending their services. Sin erely, Kenneth P. Wilson Vice President KPW/1rm 1)CT. ?. 1997 4:31PM ENGLAND THIMSut1ILLEP NO. 3118 P. 32/32 INFAX • ® Waste Management, Inc. A WMX Technologies Come:Qry Plan 305.984.2000 2700 NW 46th Street Fac 305.994.2056 Pompano Beach.a 33073 fez,305.984 2059 February 8, 1996 To Whom It May Concern: The engineering consulting and design firm of England-Thims & Miller, Inc. has been employed by Waste Management, Inc. of Florida Group as"Engineer of Record" on various projects since May, 1985. These projects have required very significant effort in the professional disciplines of project planning and engineering design, including feasibility studies, preliminary and final design, preparation and submittal of Federal, State and local permit applications, project management and public presentations. England-Tliimes, & Miller, Inc has, without exception, performed these services professionally and responsively. Without reservation, we are pleased to recommend this excellent firm. Sincerely, Warren N. Smith Director, Business Development WSN:ps 10/2/97 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FL CORE CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STORMWATER, SANITARY AND WATER SYSTEMS CITY PROJECT NO. SU9601 Summary of Options Considered in Planning of Project to Date, Questions and or Solutions presented at Public Hearing Data Collection Meeting of Tuesday, 9/30/97. Considered in Reasonable Cost Impact Re-Design Tree Impact Description Planning Alternative (More / Less) and Re- (More / Less) (Yes / No / (Yes / No) Than Current Permit Time Than Current N/A) Design _ Impact Design 1. Use Plaza Lagoon for Treatment YES NO (ENV) LESS 8-10 MO. LESS 2. Use Golf Course Channel for Treatment YES NO (ENV) MORE 8-10 MO. LESS 3. Street Swales for Treatment YES NO (ENGR) LESS 12 MO. LESS I 4. Buy Vacant Lots for Treatment Ponds YES NO (ENGR) N/A N/A N/Atri H 5. Install Vertical Walls on Howell Park Ponds YES NO (FENCE) MORE 7 MO. SLIGHTLY LESS r 6. Install Weir in Howell Park Creek at Plaza YES NO (ENGR) N/A N/A N/A r r >. 7. Move Ponds to Other Locations Within Park Area YES YES MORE 8-10 MO. SLIGHTLY LESS d H - a 8. Use Existing Ponds in Howell Park for Treatment YES NO (ENGR) N/A N/A N/A 2 r� 1-3 tri 9. Construct Pump Station to Ocean YES NO (ENGR) MORE 12+ MO. UNK - 10. Construct Pump Station to Intracoastal Waterway YES NO (ENGR) MORE 12+ MO. MORE o lzd H O 11. Finish Street Surface with Coquina Shell NO NO (ENGR) LESS 10+ MO. SAME ed z 12. Make Streets One-Way to Reduce Street Widths NO NO (ENGR) LESS 10+ MO. SAME 13. Plant Larger Number of Trees NO YES MORE NONE LESS1/40 14. Buy into Area Mitigation Bank NO NO (ENV) MORE 10+ MO. MORE V t 1 10/2/97 Considered in Reasonable Cost Impact Re-Design Tree Impact Description Planning Alternative (More / Less) and Re- (More / Less) (Yes / No / (Yes / No) Than Current Permit Time Than Current N/A) Design Impact Design 15. Compensatory Treatment YES NO (LAND) MORE 10+ MO. UNK 16. Divert Flow through A.B. School YES NO (ENGR) MORE 8+ MO. SLIGHTLY LESS 17. Divert 7th Street Flow to Plaza YES NO (ENV) MORE N/A N/A 18. Provide Treatment in Existing Howell Park Wetland YES NO (ENGR) N/A N/A N/A 19. Construct a Smaller Scale System of Drainage in Howell Park and Possible Additional Drainage YES NO (ENGR) UNK 12+ MO. UNK 20. Modify Configuration of the Drainage on Sherry Drive to Devide the Flow in Three (3) Directions YES NO (ENGR) UNK 12+ MO UNK 21. Relocate Ponds to West Side of Lagoon @ 11th Street YES NO(ENV) MORE 10+ MORE 2 STATEMENTS MADE AT PUBLIC DATA COLLECTION MEETING OF 9/30/97 Statement No. 1: That Department of Environmental (DEP) Consent Order did not address the storm water management! • Refer to DEP letter of 10/1/97 Statement No. 2: Impact on 96 Renovations previously made to Howell Park. • Current design requires relocation of one bridge and east side path. Statement No. 3: It was indicated Mr. Vern Gwen of the Army Corps of Engineers had advised that federal funds could be available if the area to be drained was at least 1 '/z square miles, and the flow rate from a ten year storm was at least 800 cubic feet per second. • The City of Atlantic Beach Public Works Director is scheduled to have a meeting with the Corps of Army Engineers next week to address this Question. Statement No. 4: Regardless of the requirements of the SJRWMD and the State of Florida, the Howell Park Plan should receive the approval of the Citizens of Atlantic Beach. It was felt that other locations could be considered for storm water retention. • In options considered in formulation of the project, it was considered. Statement No. 5: It was expressed that it was ultimately the responsibility of the City Commission, not the Engineers, to make the decision regarding the specifics of the project such as the location of the retention ponds. • The City Commission has hired ETM to design this project. ETM presented several alternatives last fall. The City Commission selected Howell Park at that time. Statement No. 6: It was suggested that the City Commission consider appointing a committee whose members would be split (opposed/favor) the project to consider all aspects of the storm water drainage plan and present recommendations. • The Master Plan was adopted by the City Commission. Implementation is very technical and could not be done by committee. QUESTIONS MADE AT PUBLIC DATA COLLECTION MEETING OF 9/30/97 Question No. 1: Who in ETM was an expert on Flora/Fauna and what agencies have been consulted? • ETM has own Landscape Architect on staff. Question No. 2: Qualifications of the Engineers of ETM in Storm Water Management? • Answered at meeting of 9/30/97: ETM has operated in Jacksonville since 1977 and approximately 15-20 registered engineers, several of whom were experienced with the City of Jacksonville in Storm Water Management and other major projects.. Question No. 3: Can a more environmentally sensitive plan be developed to solve the storm water drainage problem? • Answered at meeting of 9/30/97: ETM, in consideration of the existing development, worked with the SJRWMD /DEP /Corps of Engineers and felt that the plan being proposed was environmentally sensitive. Question No. 4: Is the project going to improve the drainage on Pine Street? • Yes. Question No. 5: Is there a federally mandated deadline for Compliance? • There is no federal deadline. Question No. 6: Why the Citizens had not been notified of the proposed changes in Howell Park. • They were notified by Standard Publication of Notices in the Florida Times Union, similar to the public notice given on other projects. Question No. 7: Would the SJRWMD have to issue a revised permit in the event the retention pond in Howell Park was reduced , eliminated or relocated? • Yes, any modification requires a permit change. Questions Page 2 Question No. 8: To what extent Atlantic Beach had to include retention ponds to be approved by the SJRWMD. • Current Design represents the minimum. Question No. 9: Members of the Recreation Advisory Board had seen the plans, yet the matter had not come before the Board for review. • It has been missed to date! Question No. 10: Diane Whitehead ask if the current retention pond would impact on her property during the Construction phase. • Contractors are instructed to stay off private property and tree protection barrier will be used! e \ r .- s •y t• dIF e j ti� fr ligated Planting - ...t,.-, r / 1f:;50 ,'k FVri,YI. .�.� 'J+ t. , ' • ; . : ::. . .4. ..'."��_ Svc,' Path DECK N.T.S. LAKE CROSS O ©17 -,O N.T.S. ti-,11,EVATllON S 4i, + , e Abo Ark , ,,kr , _ -wCPIT ..lir • ,...- e , jtilinli41 ' ' ':* If loit .. trail _ • ,tp �, a.. Pede_roan Bridge P'7 - _ Lake �) :>• k . ,404- ---• _ • .1e#., ?•:1 too .,,.. • • • " i 1. 1. Observation Deck .( •,'' � `s, '• . ei.44.1,Cgt" e 1/4071116 ' rfilli 1` ---Th (--- ,O • O England • Them, & Miller ,Inc. ta _.•$\ / At' ,.2,... ,1 • irimii, .1,a k . -,k 4 i Nokill6tViceol, v • • • i 1 — 4_, • , . 1 j 1 ,ivilio , I I N.. I IT ; 40 .1 tt.:, / ke .- I ,. ! 111 4., •••; • • r I [ r : c.:-.0\A e•••,1 \ 0 r''• 3' i••••,4, , . _,,..... .‘, . ,,,0„)).; ..t \ ' -, '• :', •°e: 1' eb .' ' ., t 1 '0 f'',„° • ll, 111 - +--)DytTr .. ,..., 1, -. , : : -J ...., / P 1110 -•••.. ••\_i 'NJ' ,Si •'.. v .., •• .. -,e49\7:ikldlit - ' '• tot 41 4 k .... © AT I ©5\3, DECK N.T.S. 4, PlAti YfiEW ,.. . 4 eh%' • , 1., --er 4... Apit IS•40 II° •, ,..404-, ;• - • ,. ..,.-.. ..."-, .i.f7 41 CI cm It i '* , Qt. .• . I( . , • - .- 4 I t•4,, kl" ' , ( lk • :•0.4V •„ -' ,.;* % kle .3.4. .. IV Sik*ovoi 1 • r ' I,.' . . dF • . . . . ” . I •91k / .; .- 11111, . . •;.-- -:.,• ,,,..-.. •,••,,,- Lake P. II: • / 411III:‘ . . -- • • \. . . ft- • Mlatnigta..it6e P... 4.„4_1_41•k1w11811 - .•,6a•••lP41 / Pg •. , 4, - -* -, leo E., ---• . . ,,,,. . ......dIgitro6-1.". ] ,,,: .,..... ., • v it;,... , -43.: get s. • 5 \ 40 _42 i y I • • I ON •. ' 4.. • 4 ... k .._ ..-; •••••• -a - c Ni t Os 41 -411— • 1-,. • • I I •1 1 +., 1__ ______ _ y_ ____-.-=.1 r r I) ,,.4L\ , , . ____ ..e ______-- _ _—Th r r .;, H© f-- 11L m ,........,