HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 17, 1991 (45)a CITY OF LOO§ COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Request From San Joaquin. County Asking City of Lodi to Provide Sewer
Service to County Service Area 31 (CSA 31) Located at Thornton Road
and Highway 12
MEETING DATE: April 17, 1991
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council deny the County's request and reaffirm
the City's position on not serving outside the City limits.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Lodi Municipal Code prohibits the City of Lodi from
providing sewer service and treating sewage from outside
the City limits. This has been a City policy as far back
as can be researched. The City Code reads as follows:
13.12.150 Connections outside city.
No discharge from facTides or properties
outside the limits of the dry shall be allowed
into the sewerage system. (Or& L01 § 1
(P� 1990)
In February 1981, the City received a request from a firm proposing to develop a
roadside service at the southeast quadrant of Thornton Road and Highway 12. The
request was made to the City Council asking that the sewer ordinance be changed in
order for their sewage to be received and treated by the City -s White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility. The decision of the City Council was to not change the
ordinance and denied the request.
In March 1983, the City received a similar request from the California Department of
Transportation asking the City to provide sewer service to a proposed rest stop
being planned for the I-5 offramp at Highway 12.. The City denied this request based
on the recent Council action and the present sewer ordinance.
In December of 1986, the City received a similar request from San Joaquin County
asking the City to provide sewer service and sewage treatment for their proposed
CSA 31. At that time, the City of Lodi was in the planning stages of the current
expansion pro ,;ect and indicated to the County that we would consider taking this
back to the City Council if they (the County) would agree to paying our consultant
to study this request. It was felt there were differences between this request and
the original request by the private development firm in 1981. The differences were
as follows:
APPROVED:'` �I • w
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager •.
CC-?
CC5A31/TXTW.02M ;CO.CCi April 1J, 1991_
CSA 31
April 17, 1991
Page 2
1. A public agency was making the request and not a private developer.
2. The timing was such that the design capacity could be increased so facility life
would not be reduced because of development of CSA 31.
3. The City also was requiring that the County's CSA 31 be expanded to include all
of the developable roadside service zoning at Thornton and Highway 12.
Staff had the same major concerns then as we do now but felt the County did have the
right, because of the above differences, to make this request to the City Council.
Attached as Exhibit A is an abbreviated chronological listing of the major
transmittals and requests related to this subject since December of 1986. This
exhibit shows the initial request was withdrawn and since that time the request has
been reactivated several times. Recently the Regional Water Quality Control Board
has required the County to receive a formal position from the City of Lodi before
they (the Regional Board) can consider approving alternative ways of providing
sewage treatment to CSA 31.
Staff Recommendation
It is the staff's recommendation that the County's request for sewage service be
denied. This recommendation is based on the following:
1. Serving outside the City limits would be precedent -setting. We have already
received informal requests for sewage service from other property owners in the
area and adjacent to our sewer outfall line. Developers have already purchased
land near I-5 and north of Highway 12. The City has had requests from
developers holding land south of our facility. These requests were turned down.
2. Loss of facility life. The attached Exhibit B shows the projected flows based
on a 2% residential growth rate. With the completion of our expansion in
October of this year, it will have a capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day
(mgd). It is estimated that the 8.5 mgd capacity will provide us with a 16 -year
life. The ultimate flow of CSA 31 is estimated at 0.25 mgd. If the Citv elects
to serve CSA 31, the facility life will be decreased by 11 to 2 years.
3. The City will experience a loss of control over land use and types of sewer
flows. Within the City limits, we have strict control over building, zoning and
land use. We would not have this control in CSA 31. Where we have a problem
with sewage from any one commercial or industrial firm in the City of Lodi, we
can simply shut the water off. In CSA 31, the County would be responsible for
water shut offs. The County has indicated they would perform this function at
our request.
CCSA31/TXTW.0�M (CO.COM) April 9, 1991
CSA 31
April 17, 1991
Page 3
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Ja L. Ronsko
Pu is Works Director
JLR; mt
Attachments
cc: Water/Wastewater Superintendent
San Joaquin County, Attention: Manuel Lopez
CCSA31/TXTW.02M (CO.COM) April 9, 1991
COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 31 �
RECAP OF MAJOR CORRESPONDENCE Exhibit A
12/23/86 - Letter from County requesting City to treat effluent from CSA
No. 31
2/6/87 - Letter to County indicating what was needed to take request to
City Council
2/11/87 - Memo to Council informing them of request and our reply
1/3/88 - Study received from Black and Veatch
1/8/88 - Letter to County transmitting study
8 months - no response
9/23/88 - Letter from County asking City for guidance
10/11/88 - Letter to County transmitting our letter of 1/8/88
5 months
3/24/89 - Letter from County indicating developer's desire is to construct
package plant and not tie into City
9/7/89 - Letter from County now requesting they want to tie into City's
system
9/21/89 - Letter to County indicating request would be agendized if County
was in agreement with City conditions
10/4/89 - Letter from County to Developer indicating item would be
agendized for 11/1/89 and he must submit information previously
requested and assure County they can meet City conditions
10/24/89 - Letter to County confirming they want item pulled from agenda
since they have not heard from Developer since early September
2/19/91 - Letter from County again requesting to tie into City's system
2/28/91 - Letter from City asking County to agree to recommendations in
1988 Black and Veatch Study
3/15/91 - Letter from County agreeing to Black and Veatch recommendations
CSA31/TXTW.02M
s.o
8.5
8.0
0
c -D 7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Year
--•••--
WSWPCF Flow Projections
rox 2% + Industrial Capacity — — Capacity less CSA 31
Reserve(0.25 mgd) H
c
xsta�z. m