Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-06-15 WS xruTiQr d �° TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $ AREA CODE 714 10 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-2 � 962-2411 ,. � P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 927oa 10644 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) June 9, 1977 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 11 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, _.077, 7 :30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to adjcurnrlent of the regular meeting of ,Tune 8, 1977, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, will meet iT1 an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. The purpose of this meeting is for an informal hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Master Play of Sewer Facilities. Sec. C v ry JWS:rb AB®ARDS OF DIRECTORS 4> b Post Office Box 8127ounty Sanitation Districts , of Grange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 DISTRICT No.- 9540-2910 62 2411 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. (1) Roll call (2) Consideration of actions relative to informal hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities: (a) Open hearing (b) Consideration of motion' to receive and file written comments from the following agencies relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Report: (1) State of California Department of Fish and Game See page "A" - (2) County of Orange Environmental Management Agency See page "B" (3) State of California Department of Transportation See page "C" (c) Consideration of oral comments, if any (d) General discussion and staff comments (e) Close hearing (3) Consideration of motion directing staff to prepare Final Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities (4) Other business and communications, if any (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn 57ATE;OF 'CAI;tFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 s � \../(213) 590-5113 May 20, 1977 Orange County Sanitation District #11 P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA Gentlemen: We have received the draft EIR for the Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan and find that it is adequately comprehensive and presents a realistic appraisal of the project impact on the wildlife values within the Huntington Beach region. However, we feel the following measures should be included to ensure that al-1 necessary safeguards are considered. 1. To reduce or eliminate any impact due to seismic activities of the Bolsa—Fairview and the Newport—Inglewood Faults, we recommend a realignment of Reaches 4 and 5 to a direct path to Reach 3. This would reduce the length of the trunk sewer line adjacent to marsh habitat plus relocating its crossing of the Newport—Inglewood �..� Fault. This realignment would also reduce disturbance to the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow along the marsh adjacent to Reach 5. 2. The alternative proposal for construction of a sewage treatment plant within the Bolsa Chica region should be discussed in more. detail with regard to use of recycled water for fish and wildlife uses. The treated effluent could be utilized to restore a very desirable estuarian condition to the Bolsa Chica wetlands resulting in immeasurable benefit to the wildlife values in the area. We recommend that the location for the treatment plant be near the intersection of Reaches 5, 6 and 7. This would eliminate Reaches 5, 4 and 3 and pump plant 18. This would reduce possible disturbance of the endangered Belding' s savannah sparrow along Reach 5- 3- We recommend that a more thorough description of protective steps to guard against possible failure of the sewer system which could result in adverse impacts to the marshlands and could be hazardous to public health be defined. We are concerned about the growth inducing nature of this project which will have indirect impacts on the fish and wildlife productivity of Bolsa Chica. We believe this project will provide service to approximately 1,324 acres of "A-1" AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (1) "A-1" Orange County Sanitation —2 May 20, 1977 District #11 private land. If developed into a residential community, a net loss of existing open space and wildlife habitat will result. To offset these impacts we recommend the following measures: 1. Pipe size be sufficient to provide service only to meet existing demand so as to minimize the growth—inducing aspects of the project. 2. Construction of Reaches 5 and 6 be delayed until after the need for additional capacity of the existing system has been realized. 3. Reali:gnment of Reach 7 directly to Reach 3 would provide relief to non—coastal area development (and a more desirable alternate route for realignment of Reaches 4 and 5-). We strongly recommend that if measures 1-3 outlined above are not implemented the Sanitation District be required to provide suitable compensation for losses of wildlife habitat within the Bolsa Chita region due to urban expansion made available by the development of increased sewer line capacities. We also recommend that the selection of alternatives for mitigation of wildlife habitat losses be coordinated with appropriate State, Federal, and local government agencies. If suitable mitigative measures cannot be assured by the Sanitation District, we would have no other alternative than to oppose this project. We are also concerned that the proposed seiner line will induce growth within the open space along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. These areas provide important habitat for wildlife including nesting areas for the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow. We believe that opportunities exist for the expansion of urban developments within this region due to the proposed sewer facilities. We also believe the EIR should discuss the impacts to the wildlife resource within this portion of Reach 3, and provide alternatives to compensate for these potential losses. We strongly recommend that the pipe size be sufficient to provide service to meet existing demand so as to minimize the growth—inducing aspects of this project in this area. Any alteration within the high water mark of a streambed during the development of the project will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code. This notification and subsequent agreement must be accomplished prior to commencement of the streambed alteration. "A-2" AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (1) "A-2" r Orange County Sanitation District #11. -3- May 20, 1977 r.d If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jack L. Spruill- or Mr, Richard Nitsos of our IIzvironmental Services staff at the Department of Fish and Game, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802. The telephone number is (213) 590-5137. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document. Sincerely, f / V L4 -I.• /.� bert D. Montgomery egional Manager Region 5 "A-3" AGEHA ITEM #2(B) (1) "A-3 0 o o . l�U fV Tl( ® P ® C;�E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: 834-4643 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION AREA CODE 714 811 NORTH BROADWAY MAILING ADDRESS: SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 4108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 H. G. OSBORNE MAY 3 0 1977 DIRECTOR FILE 2 0-754 RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Mr. Dennis M. Reid, Senior Engineer County Sanitation District of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Reid: This is in reponse to your form letter dated April 21, 1977 that transmitted the Draft Environmental Impact Report. for the Sanitation District No.11 Master Plan (Huntington Beach) and invited comments by May 24, 1977. The Draft EIR has been reviewed and we submit the following comments regarding potential County projects within the subject area. 1. The County is currently studying potential regional park sites at Bolsa Chica Marsh and Huntington Central Park. 2. The County is planning to enlarge the capacity of the East Garden Grove-Winterburg Channel (C05) . The design of future sewer mains related to the effected areas should be coordinated with the Environmental Management Agency-Development. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and responding to your report. Very truly yours, (,./Richard G. Munsell, Assistant Director 7-r. Advance Planning JEB:ps v cc: EMA-Advance Planning (Drennan) EMA-Development (Schwarze; Gilbert, Edwards, Fisher) �arJ "B" AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (2) "B" STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES. 90051 1:, d.d (213) 620-5335 • �iEC'�I�'rn May 31, 1977 JUN 6 1977 {I C! fRONMF�T�16 County of Orange Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan Ultrasystems, Inc . 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92715 Attention: Mr. Reid Gentlemen: We appreciate the opportunity to review the Sanitation District No . 11 Master Plan E.I.R. The impacts we are most concerned with are those that would most .directly affect our transportation facilities, therefore, we, will limit our comments to the following: 1. Traffic during the construction period will be diverted to surrounding streets . 2. Growth inducing impacts may occur and create a demand for transportation improvements in the area. 3. Additional information will be required prior to the issuance of a permit . Such information should include: pipeline alignment, proposed excavation method, con- struction period, and traffic handling plans . If we can be of additional help, please contact Charlotte Sheehan at (213) 620-4912. Sincerely j --j T ,d �, RE VE. , ' Chief En irommn a ' Planning Branch 0V AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (3) "(," COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - • .j MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING June 15, 1977 - 7:30 p•m• L.✓ 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held June 8, 1977, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Districts' offices. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called, and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: Ron Pattinson (Chairman), Ron Shenkman and Laurence Schmit DIRECTORS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, William Clarke and Dennis Reid OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, .General Counsel, Bill Hartge, Rich Barnard, Don DeMars and Herb Chatterton Hearing Re Draft This being the time and place previously Environmental Impact established for the hearing on the Draft Report for Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for of Sewer Facilities Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11, the Chairman declared the hearing open at 7:35 p.m. The Secretary reported that the Draft Environmental Impact Report had been received and filed by the Board of Directors on April 13, 1977, and that May 24, 1977 had been established as the final date for submittal of all comments on said EIR in accordance with the Districts' Guidelines Imple- menting the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. On April 21, 1977, the Draft EIR was mailed to all affected and interested agencies and individuals. On May 27, 1977 a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and said notice had been continuously posted at the Districts' administrative offices since that date. The staff then briefly reviewed the purpose of the- EIR prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the construction of major trunk sewer facilities in District No. 11. Addenda to the EIR will be filed at a later date addressing the physical construction impacts. It was then moved, seconded, and duly carried: 6/15/77 That the following written communications received relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Report be received and ordered filed. - Letter dated May 20, 1977, from the State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game - Letter dated May 30, 1977, from the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency - Letter dated May 31, 1977, from the State* of California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation - Letter dated June 13, 1977, from the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Planning and Environmental Resources The Chairman then recognized Mr. Rich Barnard, representing the City of Huntington Beach, who expressed the concern of the City that the alignment of the Coastal Trunk Sewer addressed in the Environmental Impact Report around the perimeter of the Bolsa Chica is different than the alternatives in the Master Plan for Reaches 5 and 6. Mr. Don DeMars of Ultra Systems, the firm that prepared the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report, then explained that after reviewing the alternate routes shown in the Master Plan through the Bolsa Chica marshlands with the engineer, Keith and Associates, and the Districts' staff, it was determined that they were only tentative and that the exact routing had yet to be established. The EIR limited its study to the third alternative which, in the opion of Ultra Systems, was the most advantageous from an ecological standpoint and would have the least impact. The other alternate routes were not addressed in the EIR because the California Environ- mental Quality Act has been interpreted as requiring investigation of alternatives only if there would be a lesser impact for those alternatives. The Board then entered into a lengthy discussion concerning a revision of the documents to reflect the changes so that there is agreement between the EIR and the Master Plan on the alternate routing of the Coastal Trunk through Bolsa Chica marshland area. The Board also discussed the possibi- lity of future development of the Signal Landmark properties in the Bolsa Chica area. It was the consensus of the Board that development of the area was, at best, questionable, and that requirements for facilities to serve the Signal property should be strongly qualified in the EIR. It was also pointed out that final alignments would be subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission. The Chairman then declared the public hearing closed at 8:00 p.m. Following the close of the public hearing, the Board entered into a dialogue with Mr. Herb Chatterton, representing the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. The previous discussions as well as the wild life habitat .and the possibility of the State acquiring the marshlands were reviewed with Mr. Chatterton, who expressed his complete satisfaction with the Environmental Impact Report. -2- 6/15/77 Directing Staff to It was moved, seconded, and duly carried: Prepare Final Environmental Impact Report and blaster That the staff be directed to prepare the `••�' Plan of Sewer Facilities final -Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities incorporating the changes relative to the Signal Landmark Development, and revise the Master Plan of Sewer Facilities regarding the alternate routes for Reaches 5 and 6 of the Coastal Trunk Sewer. Discussion re Implementation The General Manager reported that the staff of Connection Fees would be submitting a draft ordinance implementing connection fees for new construction similar to that in District No. 3, which covers the remaining portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The Board has previously declared their intent to adopt such a charge for financing the construction of Master Plan Facilities. Authorizing legal action The General Manager reported that the against Sunset Beach Districts and the City of Huntington Sanitary District re Beach are experiencing overloading of violation of discharge the facilities in Warner Avenue, pri- agreement and authorizing marily as a result of flows that are draft of agreement with being discharged from the Sunset Beach Huntington Beach re Master Sanitary District pursuant to an agree- Plan Facilities in Warner ment between the Sanitary District, the Avenue City of Huntington Beach and District No. 11. The Sanitary District has been exceeding the capacity provided for in the agreement for some time and is, therefor, in violation of its terms and conditions. The Districts' General Counsel and the City Attorney's Office have been unsuccessful, to date, in resolving the matter with the Sanitary District. A revised agreement has been proposed by our District and the City but Sunset Beach has continually delayed facing the issue. The respective Master Plans of the City and District No. 11 provide for the District to build a partial parallel line in Warner Avenue to relieve the existing surcharged conditions and to purchase the remaining line from the City. Mr. Hartge, City Director of Public Works, confirmed that the City is considering immediate construction of the line to be purchased by the District in the future, to relieve the overloaded condition. Construc- tion could be completed in approximately nine months. It was pointed out that unless the problems were resolved, a serious public health problem could exist in the Sunset Beach area. Following a lengthy discussion, the following actions were then taken: Authorizing General Counsel It was moved, seconded, and duly carried: to give Notice to Sunset Beach Sanitary District to That the General Counsel be authorized comply with agreement or to give notice to the Sunset Beach face legal action Sanitary District that unless they comply with provisions in the exist- ing agreement between the City, the Sanitary District and District No. 11, �✓ and proceed to execute a revised agreement for discharge of sewage through the City and District No. 11 facilities within ten days, appropriate legal action will be initiated by the Sanitation District. -3- 6/15/77 Authorizing General Counsel It was moved, seconded, and duly carried: to Draft Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach That the General Counsel be authorized for Construction and Pur- to draft an agreement between District chase of new Sewer in No. 11 and the City of Huntington Beach {Varner Avenue for construction of new Master Plan sewer in (Varner Avenue by the City and sale of said sewer to the District. Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California ATTEST: Secretary of the Board of Directors Count), Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California -4- u BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Change County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 DISTRICT ®. 11 9540-2910 62 2411 +I AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1977 - 7:30 P .M. (1) Roll call Consideration of actions relative to informal hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities: (a) Open hearing (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file written comments from the following agencies relative to the �.r✓ Draft Environmental Impact Report: (1) State of California Department of Fish and Game See page "A". (2) County of Orange Environmental Management Agency See page "B" (3) State of California Department of Transportation See page "C" (c) Consideration of oral comments, if any (d) General discussion and staff comments (e) Close hearing �' w Consideration of motion directing staff to prepare Final Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities Other business and communications, if any (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn �' �� r STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 (21.3) 5 90--5113 May 20, 1977 Orange County Sanitation District #11 P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valleys CA Gentlemen: We have received the draft EIR for the Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan and find that it is adequately comprehensive and presents a realistic appraisal of the project impact on the wildlife values within the Huntington Beach region. However, we feel the following measures should be included to ensure that all necessary safeguards are considered. 1. To reduce or eliminate any impact due to seismic activities of the Bolsa—Fairview and the Newport—Inglewood Faults, we recommend a realignment of Reaches 4 and 5 to a direct path to Reach 3. This would reduce the length of the trunk sewer line adjacent to marsh habitat plus relocating its crossing of the Newport—Inglewood �.d Fault. This realignment would also reduce disturbance to the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow along the marsh adjacent to Reach 5, 2. The alternative proposal for construction of a sewage treatment plant within the Bolsa Chica region should be discussed in more. detail with regard to use of recycled water for fish and wildlife uses. The treated effluent could be utilized to restore a very desirable estuarian condition to the Bolsa Chica wetlands resulting in immeasurable benefit to the wildlife values in the area. We recommend that the location for the treatment plant be near the intersection of Reaches 5, 6 and 7. This would eliminate Reaches 5, 4 and 3 and pump plant 18. This would reduce possible disturbance of the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow along Reach 5. 3. We recommend that a more thorough description of protective steps to guard against possible failure of the sewer system which could result in adverse impacts to the marshlands and could be hazardous to public health be defined. We are concerned about the growth inducing nature of this project which will have indirect impacts on the fish and wildlife productivity of Bolsa Chica. We believe this project +rill provide service to approximately 1,324 acres of "A-1" AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (1) "A-1" Orange County Sanitation —2 May 20, 1977 District #11 private land. If developed into a residential community, a net loss of existing open space and wildlife habitat will result. To offset these impacts we recommend the following measures: 1. Pipe size be sufficient to provide service only to meet existing demand so as to minimize the growth—inducing aspects of the project. 2. Construction of Reaches 5 and 6 be delayed until after the.need for additional capacity of the existing system has been realized. 3. Reali*gnment of Reach 7 directly to Reach 3 would provide relief to non--coastal area development (and a more desirable alternate route for realignment of Reaches 4 and 5•). We strongly recommend that if measures 1-3 outlined above are not implemented the Sanitation District be required to provide suitable compensation for losses of wildlife habitat within the Bolsa Chica region due to urban expansion made available by the development. of increased sewer line capacities. We also recommend that the selection of alternatives for mitigation of wildlife habitat losses be coordinated with appropriate State, Federal and local government agencies. If suitable mitigative measures cannot be assured by the Sanitation District, we would have no other alternative than to oppose this project. We are also concerned that the proposed sewer line will induce growth within the open space along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. These areas provide important habitat for wildlife including nesting areas for the endangered Belding's savannah sparrow. We believe that opportunities exist for the expansion of urban developments within this region due to the proposed sewer facilities. We also believe the EIR should discuss the impacts to the wildlife resource within this portion of Reach 3, and provide alternatives to compensate for these potential losses. We strongly recommend that the pipe size be sufficient to provide service to meet existing demand so as to minimize the groi-,th—inducing aspects of this project in this area. Any alteration within the high water mark of a streambed during the development of the project will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1601 .of the Fish and Game Code. This notification and subsequent agreement must be accomplished prior to commencement of the streambed alteration. "A--2" AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (1) "A-2" Orange County Sanitation District #11 —3— May 20, 1977 V.d If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jack L. Spruill or Mr. Richard Nitsos of our 1hvironmental Services staff at the Department of Fish and Game, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802. The telephone number is (213) 590-5137. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. on this document. Sincerely, y.� obert D. Montgomery Regional Manager Region 5 'law �.d "A-3" AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (1) "A-3" O , R/0k,6V ca I= ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: 634-4643 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION AREA CODE 714 811 NORTH BROADWAY MAILING ADDACSS: SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 4108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 MAY 3 0 1977 H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR FILE 280-754 RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Mr. Dennis M. Reid, Senior •Engineer County Sanitation District of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Reid: This is in reponse to your form letter dated April 21, 1977 that transmitted the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sanitation District No 11 Master Plan (Huntington Beach) and invited comments by May 24, 1977. The Draft EIR has been reviewed and we submit the following comments regarding potential 'County projects within the subject area. 1. The County is currently studying potential regional park sites at Bolsa Chica Marsh and Huntington Central Park. 2. The County is planning to enlarge the capacity of the East Garden Grove-Winterburg Channel (C05). The design of future sewer mains related to the.effected areas should be coordinated with the Environmental Management Agency-Development. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and responding to your report. Very truly yours, te/-Richard G. Munsell, Assistant Director /� r Advance Planning JEB:ps cc: EMA-Advance Planning (Drennan) EMA-Development (Schwarze, Gilbert, Edwards, Fisher) "B" AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (2) "B" STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION. AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 (213) 620-5335 Ivrn May 311 1977 J UN 6 1977 RfV�VI,RONMF�Ta6 County of Orange Sanitation District No . 11 Master Plan Ultrasystems, Inc . 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92715 Attention: Mr. Reid Gentlemen: We appreciate the opportunity to review the Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan E.T .R. The impacts we are most concerned with are those that would most directly affect our transportation facilities, therefore, we will limit our comments to the following: 1. Traffic during the construction period will be diverted to surrounding streets . 2. Growth inducing impacts may occur and create a demand for transportation improvements in the area. 3. Additional information will be required prior to the issuance of a permit . Such information should include: pipeline alignment, proposed excavation method, con- struction period, and traffic handling plans . If we can be of additional help, please contact Charlotte Sheehan at (213) 620-4912. SincereJIIRIMVEEV� . 'd ? I� ' Chief En ironPlanning Branch w licit AGENDA ITEM #2(B) (3) „C„ RE: AGENDA ITEM #2 (b) O CITY OF HunT nGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271 June 13, 1977 Mr. Dennis Reid Senior Engineer, Project Planner County Sanitation District No. 11 P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Reid: The Huntington Beach Planning Department has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report for Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan (Huntington Beach) and offers the following comments. The EIR indicates that the Coastal Trunk Sewer Reach 5 and 6 will follow the roadway alignment and that the construction schedule of the sewer line should be coordinated and scheduled with the construction of the Bolsa Chica Street extension. The most serious problem with the EIR is that �t does not address either the primary or alternative routes of the Coastal Trunk Sewer Reach 5 and 6 as shown in Keith and Associates Master Plan of Sewers Study. The EIR addresses an altogether different alignment. It would appear that the EIR should reflect and address the impacts of all the proposed alignments of that portion of the Coastal Trunk Sewer that is planned to extend through the Bolsa Chica area. The EIR indicates that existing zoning was used to determine sewage unit flow values. An estimate of flow for the year 2000 was arrived at by multiplying the acreage of land designated according to each land use zone by the estimated peak unit flow values. In reviewing the Keith and Associates Master Plan Study, one finds that flow values for a number of land use zones are not shown in the study. Specifically, R2 (medium density residential) , RA (residential-agriculture) , R5 (office professional) , CF-R (community facilities-recreation beach) . The Tabulation Flow Calculations have not been distributed with the Master Plan Study or the EIR. Review of the Master Plan Study and EIR without this information raises, in the reviewers mind, a question as to whether a thorough investigation and calculations were made when preparing the unit flow values for each land use zone. It would be helpful to include in the EIR all zoning categories, with a definition of residential zones, the number of acres of each land use zone and the unit flow calculation for each land use zone. Lnclusion in the EIR and the Master Plan Study explaining the correlation "'between land use zoning categories used to develop the flow calculations and the number of dwelling units associated with each type of residential land use zone would clarify the process used in deriving the flow calculations. Page Two Also, inclusion in the EIR and Master Plan Study of an explanation as to how the average and peak gallons per day per acre figures for each type of land use was derived would provide clarity to the Master Plan Study and EIR. The flow calculations for the municipal and State Beaches (288 gpd/ac. ) appear to be on the low side for projected sewage flow. The EIR (page 6 and 24) indicates a present population figure of 151,500 persons. This figure has been updated to 157, 800. The 8� x 11 base maps that are used throughout the EIR are out of date with regard to City arterial street alignments and classifications. This is reflected on pages 8, 64, 89 , 90 and 92. These maps should use current adopted maps especially when showing the City' s Circulation Plan for Arterial Streets and Highways (Figure 32) . I hope these comments will be helpful in the preparation of the final EIR. Sincerel Edward D. Selich 'director EDS: RB: gc *mow► TE LE PH ON E COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS o d ,� AREA CODE 714 " 54D-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �, 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270E 1❑B44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) May 23, 1977 NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION DISTRICT NO. 11 DIRECTORS AND ALTERNATES: In order to allow sufficient time for publication of notice of hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for District No. 11 , said hearing has been rescheduled from June lst to June 15 , 1977. Therefore, ' the Adjourned Regular Meeting previously scheduled to be held June 1, 1977 , at 7: 00 p.m. has been canceled. The meeting has now been set for June 15 , 1977, at 7 : 30 p. m. in the Districts' administrative offices. Vetary JWS:rb Enclosure: Hearing Notice cc: Chairman Ron Pattinson Director Ron Shenkman Director Laurence Schmit Alternate Thomas Riley Alternate Norma B. Gibbs *mow► COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS o�d TELEPHONES: �.� AREA CODE 714 540-291 O OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA . 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. ❑. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) May 23, 1977 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE RE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MASTER PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 11 (HUNTINGTON BEACH) You are hereby advised that the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11 previously scheduled for June 1, 1977 , at 7: 00 p.m. has been rescheduled to June 15 , 1977 , at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' Administrative Offices. If you have any questions concerning the above, you may contact Dennis Reid at 540-2910. Q 1ez 4 e r ary Cal Trans State of California California Coastal Zone 120 South Spring Street Department of Fish and Game Conservation Commission Los Angeles, CA 92012 350 Golden Shore P. 0. Box 1450 Attn: John E. Reeves, Chief Long Beach, CA 90802 Long Reach, CA 90801 Attn: Melvin Carpenter F ional Water Quality City of Huntington Beach Audo Bon Sea 4 Sage ""eontrol Board Planning Department Tucker Wildlife Sanct. 6833 Indiana, Suite 1 P. 0. Box 190 29322 Mojeska Cny Rd. Riverside, CA 92506 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Orange, CA Attn: James Anderson Attn: Jim Palin H. B. Union High School City of Huntington Beach Department of Harbors $ Beach 5201 Bolsa Department of Public Works City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA P. 0. Box 190 103 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Mr. H. E. Hartge Attn: Vincent G. Moorhouse City of Huntington Beach Environmental Management Agency Environmental Management Main Library Development Services Division Agency 7111 Talbert 811 North Broadway Development Division Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA Library Environmental Coalition State Historic Preservation 431 City Drive South 206 West Fourth Street Society, Depart. of Parks Orange, CA Room 316 and Recreation Santa Ana, CA 92701 P. 0. Box 2390 Sacramento, CA 95811 Parks and Recreation Depart. Society for Calif. Archaeology Huntington Beach City Schools C, of Huntington Beach District No. 7 Clearinghouse 735 14th Street WO. Box 190 6201 Winnetka Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Attn: Mr. Bob Pence DISTRICT NO. 11 M. P. Director Thomas F. Riley The Register P. 0. Box 687 12925 Fern St. Santa Ana, CA 92702 Garden Grove, CA 92641 a 'hector Ron Shenkman Mr. Jack Boettner ,. 682 Sunflower Lane THE LOS ANGELES TIMES Huntington Beach, CA 92647 1077 West Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92802 Director Norma Gibbs DAILY PILOT 17087 Westport Drive 17875 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 a Chairman Laurence J. Schmit Mr. H. E. Hartge P. 0. Box 687 City of Huntington Beach Santa Ana, CA 92702 P. 0. Box 190 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Director Ron Pattinson 20681 Elizabeth Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Thomas L. Woodruff 155 North Main Street *U ite 1020 Santa Ana, CA 92701 The Register 625 N. Grand Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 DISTRICT NO. 11 - 1st Class 5/20/77 May 23, 1977 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE RE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MASTER PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 (HUNTINGTON BEACH) You are hereby advised that the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11 previously scheduled for �..✓ June 1, 1977 , at 7 :00 p.m. has been rescheduled to June 15, 1977 , at 7: 30 p.m. in the Districts' Administrative Offices. If you have any questions concerning the above , you may contact Dennis Reid at 540-2910. e r ary V May 23, 1977 NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION DISTRICT NO. 11 DIRECTORS AND ALTERNATES: In order to allow sufficient time for publication of notice of hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for District No. 11, said hearing has been rescheduled from June lst to June 15, 1977. Therefore, the Adjourned Regular Meeting previously scheduled to be held `✓ June 1, 1977, at 7:00 p.m. has been canceled. The meeting has now been set for June 15 , 1977, at 7: 30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative offices. ZA S retary JWS:rb Enclosure: Hearing Notice cc: Chairman Ron Pattinson Director Ron Shenkman Director Laurence Schmit Alternate Thomas Riley Alternate Norma B. Gibbs L v COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 EIR HEARING ON MASTER PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES June 15, 1977 Sylvester: Mr. Chairman, following are the actions, to date, regarding the draft EIR for the Master Plan of Sewer Facilities for District No. 11, which have taken place On April 13, 1977, the Board received and filed the draft of the EIR and established May 24, 1977, as the final date for all comments to be received. On April 21st the draft of the EIR was mailed to all affected and interested agencies and individuals. On May 27, 1977, the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and continuously posted on District's Bulletin Board since that date. 1-- Harper: Mr. Chairman, before we receive the written comments (there have been four written comments received by the Districts) on the EIR, I would like our Senior Engineer, Dennis Reid, to give the Board and the members of our audience a brief description of the Master Plans and the draft Environmental Impact Report. Reid: Since District No. 11 does not have a Master Plan (mike turned off) Facilities and after completion of this because of the location of the major trunk facilities that were proposed, mainly the coastal zone, it was felt that because of the environmental concerns and the measure of the project, .which is a very large trunk sewer system, that it would be advisable to do an EIR on the measure of the project itself. It is the intent of the EIR .to::addre5.s the lfaster Plan as a whole, the growth associated with it and some of the other secondary impacts as far as the actual construction of the trunk facilities; addendums \..✓ will be filed with this EIR addressing the construction impacts themselves. Harper: Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions at this time we would recommend that the actions 2b and 2 and 3 be taken by the Board. Pattinson: Moved by Mr. Shenkman, seconded by Mr. Schmit. Carried by roll call vote. Are there any oral comments from the audience at this time? Harper: Mr. Chairman, possibly before we receive any oral comments we did receive, and it's in your packets (this was after agenda material had been mailed) ,a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Department of the Resources -- I believe there is a representative in the audience. Barnett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is Rich Barnett. -- I'm with the Planning Department of the City of Huntington Beach. Briefly those comments that are here in the letter from Ed Ste-represent those concerns that the Department has with the EIR. If you have any specific questions about them or would like to clarify them, I could do that for you. Shenkman: I would like you to, Paragraph 2, address the coastal trunk sewers, 5 and 6. Barnett: The most serious problem that we saw with the EIR is, Master Plan and EIR together, the Master Plan shows a coastal trunk line going towards -- well, it shows two alternatives; one primary alternative going through Bolsa Chica marsh lands, and it also has an alternate route which basically follows Bolsa Chica's street alignment in the Master Plan; and then you look at the EIR and the EIR does not really address either one of those alignments, which presents the third alternate that which goes on the perimeter of Bolsa Chica. Our concern is basically that the Master Plan and the EIR can reflect the same plans; and if we're going to have three alternatives, well then it should address the three alternatives and its environmental impact or we should have \ftpl� one alignment if that's what the intent is. Reid: I will defer to Dr. DeMars of Ultra Systems, who prepared the EIR, and he will explain the reasoning behind that. - 2 - DeMars: Yes, when we reviewed the document prepared by Keith and Associates, it did show the alignment of the line through the Bolsa Chica marsh area and it was our concern immediately that, and we did ask Milo Keith, the Engineer, why this was the route selected because that is through a very sensitive ecological area and he indicated that the exact route of the alignment,as shown in the Master Plan,had not really been established and that the primary issue was that it was from a costing standpoint and that should the line take another alternative, it might be in the best interest. So our rationale with which we talked to the Sanitation District and to the Engineer was, is there a reason for the alignment to go through the marsh from just plain laying the �..d line? And there wasn't. So we took the fact that, if we routed the line along the bluff area and cross as shown in our report, this would be far more advantageous from an ecological standpoint and that the only reason that the line would go through the marsh area would be if, and when, development was approved in the area and that the interest structure to support a plan should not cause the adverse affect. It's approval of the plan itself that would be located in the marsh area. If no development is ever allowed in the area, then the line that is to serve the region north and west of the area would have the least impact in the routes shown. So we elected to do so with the knowledge of the engineer and the Sanitation District. And so we felt that if the community or the City, Department of Recreation and Game, when that time comes that they would want to allow development of that area in some form or another, the interest structure would be investigated thoroughly along with the impacts of development. So that's the rationale we used and it is subject to discussion. - 3 - Shenkman: So basically, I happen to agree with that, with the sensitivity of the marsh land area -- everyone knows. DeMars: And the should not be evaluated. You can lay that line across there, and you could say there is no need to go there, unless there is first of all, approved development. Shenkman: You have some options that would be difficult to have if it was for going through the marsh lands itself. DeMars: That's right. Shenkman: OK Pattinson: Any other questions on this? DeMars: One other thing I would like to add, if I may, the other thought was why it (did not) consider alternatives? It's our interpretation of CEQA that \MO/ alternatives are to be investigated for a less of an adverse impact and not more of an adverse impact. We felt that running through the line shown on that Master Plan would be more adverse and, therefore, it would not be an alternative which would be logical to warrant investigation. Shenkman: Do you agree with that? Barnett: One of our concerns would be that if this is the position that the EIR will take, the direction that the EIR will take, that the Master Plan that was prepared to support -- to go together -- be revised and amended to show that alignment around Bolsa Chica area is not necessarily true as it does. This misleads people -- they will pick up the map and right away it will cause a lot of concern on the parts of people who don't understand the explanation that was just given. ttinson: Would there be any problem in revising this at this time? Reid: No DeMars: We didn't do the Master Plan. - 4 - Pattinson: Fred do you see any problem? Harper: No, I do not. Pattinson: How about you, Bill (Hartge)? Hartge: No, I think that's correct. I think that would clear the issue quite a bit if the solid line became the dashed line and the dashed line became the solid line (general discussion and illustration of three alternates at head table) , Pattinson: All- right, is there anything else? Harper: Mr. Chairman, I think Director Shenkman was interested in one section in the Environmental Impact Statement relative to the Signal development proposed preliminary plan. Shenkman: Yes, basically my concerns with that is that, following along the line with the discussion we just had, that it is an environmentally sensitive area and the chances of that kind of development in the Bolsa Chica is, at best, not a realistic -- and I don't really think that Signal Landmark has any plans to develop anything at the Bolsa Chica right now. They're just waiting on some Assembly legislation to find out what's going to happen. I'm sure that they would be just as anxious to sell the property if the fact that the State buys it. I really don't think that they have a preliminary Master Plan for the Bolsa Chica at this time. Larry, you're probably more familiar with that. This is correct! Shenkman: If somebody picks this up and reads it, once again you have an area where somebody is going to say "My God" we've got a Master Plan, and it's in the EIR, when, in fact, it is nebulous at best. I don't know how you are going to address that. Harper: I think the fact that this discussion is part of the Public Hearing, it will \Wav/ be addressed in the final EIR on this particular subject. Reid: Do you want the Signal Landmark deleted altogether in the final addendum? - 5 - 4gGnkman: My personal opinion is that it really doesn't have any place in here because it's not . . . . Pattinson: Everything is so much in limbo right now, I think it should be deleted. Schmit: Or at least it should be strongly qualified that there have been proposals but there is nothing definite. Pattinson: In one way or the other, as long as it's clarified. Shenkman: Politically, very candidly, it ought to he deleted. I mean, you know, some- body. . . it's going to cause us problems. Schmit: As soon as you delete the comments completely on it though, they are going to turn around and say you didn't consider that prospect -- it's inadequate. Shenkman: Yes, strong qualification is okay with me. DeMars: Okay. I would say, if I may, since this probably will go to the Coastal Commission also; and they have seen the plans - and I know that we worked with Signal Landmark a few years ago on some of their plans -- and so I would be sensitive from the standpoint of the draft EIR just deleting it. I would be very receptive to the suggestion that we very strongly qualify it so that they may be aware and can't say why didn't you include it as another part of it. Pattinson: I think if they qualified it, it would be the proper way to handle it, I really do. Is there any other discussion on this public hearing before I close it? If not, I close the public hearing. Is there a motion directing the staff to prepare a final Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Sewer Facilities? \"rl Schmit: So moved. Pattinson: Moved by Mr. Schmit, seconded by Mr. Shenkman. Carried by roll call vote. - 6 - 'MYttinson: Is there any other business or communications at this time, Mr. Harper? Harper: Mr. Chairman, just a very brief comment. Of course this is all moving towards adoption of the Environmental Impact Report and the adoption of the District's Master Plan. Once the District's Master Plan is adopted, the District's staff will be recommending that the Board consider a connection charge ordinance in this District similar to that in the other part of Huntington Beach in District No. 3. This would help in the financing of the construction of the needed facilities. How long this is going to take to get to the point to where we can adopt the Master Plan, I am not sure -- whether it will be up to the Board to decide to wait until after the Coastal Commission approves the plan or whether we wish to adopt the plan and then proceed to get Coastal Commission permits for the construction. "henkman: I have a question on that. What is the process now? For instance, if 3.4 d.d on the Bolsa Chica is going to be changed to reflect no sewer trunk line through the marsh lands, then what are you going to do. Are you going to revise that now, right? Reid: That's right! Shenkman: And when will the EIR then come back to us? Harper: The next regular Board meeting, we hope to come back with the final EIR for adoption. It's not clear to me whether the Board could then adopt their Master Plan. Reid: They should! Harper: They can! But that does not mean we can build the facility -- we still have to receive the construction permit from the Coastal Commission. One of the construction projects that is going to be in this next year's budget for District No. 11 will be the immediate construction of the first segment of this line, which is to get it out of the treatment plant at Plant No. 2. There is some question in the staff's mind as to whether or not we will receive the - 7 - Harper: the Coastal Commission permits for construction in the coastal zone, particularly for the size we have in mind and so forth. So there will be some discussions prior to any construction that will be the Board's decision as to when we will build the facilities. We need to get outside of the plant grounds. There is some urgency to that construction in that we want to get out of the way of some future construction that should be coming probably in another year. So these are some problems that we will be faced with in the near future -- that we will discuss at budget time. Pattinson: For the benefit of the late comers, Herb, I'm sorry but we have already closed the public hearing and we're down to other business and communications. But, I know you are very familiar with what's going on and the fact that I know you are very involved with the Amigos Bolsa Chica. So if you'd like to say something that has come to your attention, that you're concerned with, we would be more than happy to listen to it at this time. Chatterton: Just a couple of comments. First of all, it's one of the best EIR's I have read. Unfortunately, the Environmental Council got copies of this EIR through normal distribution channels; but there was a delay in getting copies to our people who normally review these matters. Shenkman: Also for your clarification, we did take some -- why don't you explain what we did on the trunk lines. Pattinson: It is probably more depictable on this map here. They had routed the trunk line through the heart of Bolsa Chica. Come here and I' ll show you -- right through here. What we have done is that we eliminated this and brought it even further up than this -- it goes all the way up along the line up here. Chatterton: Yes, the maps in the EIR show that. In going through this (comment on distribution not fault of District), the financing of the project is not - 8 - rn Chatterton: really covered. That is gone into in some depth in the EIR on the expansion program; but I didn't see anything in here. I'm not sure if, and one of the questions that came up in my mind is, is this part of the federally funded . Pattinson: Fred, maybe you can clarify that. Harper: Unfortunately, we will not receive federal funds. However, we were just mentioning as you came in that as one of the key parts of the financing program, the staff will be recommending to the Board to adopt a connection charge ordi- nance that is very similar to what's in the other part of Huntington Beach in District No. 3. Residential properties pay $250 on new construction per residential unit; and there is a different charge on commercial or industrial properties. Pattinson: We have already adopted that. Harper: You have it in District No. 3. Shenkman: It's in .force in' District No. 3, District 'No. 11'is. the only one that doesn't have it. Pattinson: I thought District No. 11 adopted it. Sylvester: - Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can clarify that. At a special joint meeting last September with the City Council, the financing of the Master Plan Facilities was discussed, including the implementation of the connection fee. The Board declared their intent at that time (approved in concept) to adopt a connection fee after the final Master Plan is approved. Shenkman: That would be on new construction only; I think that's important to note. Harper: We have been very successful in the other Districts with this type of a program and it does give the local tax payers that are already here relief in that he isn't paying for the new sewers. C*tterton: Basically curious because not mentioned in here in any sections. Within the impacts most of them were mitigated quite well. Talked to several people in - 9 - 'l.J Chatterton: the last couple of days -- the leg that would run up the base of the cliff near Coast Highway,inland to the city limits near Central Park, would probably be the section which would have the most environmental impacts. The lowlands there are part of the Gelding Savannah Sparrow habitat within Bolsa Chica and I think that was referenced. That is on the endangered species list. Obviously, the final routing detail and construction techniques -- hopefully timing of construction and methods could be established to have minimal interference. Fish and Game recently did -- are still in the process of a study on the Sparrow up and down the California Coast; and they are finding that south of Point Magu, Bolsa Chica is the prime habitat -- the major habitat, at that, between Magu and Mexico. Since it is on the endangered list, it will be a consideration. Not being an "Audobonner" myself, I don't know how much problem `..✓ is would he to mitigate that. Reid: The construction impacts of the actual alignment and the actual alignments will be handled by addendum at a later date. It's anticipated that that reach of the project, if it ever is built, will be many years hence, so just by lapse of time we will be required to file an addendum anyway. But the construction impacts and the actual alignments and the locations This is just intended to be an EIR on the general Master Plan and its secondary impacts. Chatterton: Talking about the alternatives, perhaps providing a smaller treatment plant in the Bolsa Chica area that can provide purified water for agriculture purposes in Central Park. Reid: That's been suggested by Fish and Game. They would like to receive 15 MGD at Bolsa Chica. - 10 - Chatterton: Re-establishment of the estuary there, since it was at one time an estuary, and man came in there and removed all its fresh water sources, reprovision for those fresh waters would really be an advantage to the Bolsa Chica marsh. And so, I was really encouraged by that. We would like to mention that the proposed possible development in Bolsa Chica would not be a terribly large part of the carrying capacity of the trunk sewers through that area. -- which is sort of surprising -- pretty healthy development has been projected by Signal, something (like) a 20% increase in city population would come from just that in one area. I think the document said it would only contribute . . . 6% to the flow of the trunk in that area. Reid: I don't recall, it's in the Master Plan itself, but the percent increase would not change the size of the pipe because it's available in commercial sizes only. the difference in a couple of inches would not make that much difference. Chatterton: . . . . .To brief those who may not be aware of the status of the States' activities to acquire the Bolsa Chica lowlands, that is a line item in the State budget that has passed both the Assembly and the Senate and is now on Governor Brown's desk. . . . but, basically, having reviewed a lot of EIR's in the city, it's a good document, very well done, and I think compliments should go to the staff and Ultra Systems, who prepared it. �.d - 11 - ACTIONS RE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MASTER �•.r✓ PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 : 4/13/77 Received & filed Draft EIR and established May 24 , 1977 , as the final date for all comments to be received 4/21/77 DRAFT EIR mailed to all affected and interested agencies and individuals 5/23/77 Notice of Change of informal hearing date mailed to Directors and same list of agencies and individuals that received Draft EIR 5/27/77 Notice of Public Hearing published in The Daily Pilot and posted on District' s Bulletin Board 6/9/77 Meeting Notice and Agenda mailed to Directors and list of agencies and individuals that received Draft EIR V /vl RE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MASTER PLAN OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 : oN 4/13/77 ^ Received & filedfiDraft EIR and established May 24 , 1977, ���� ,,aas the final date for all comments to be received OP 4/21/77 �'°�"DRAFT EIR mailed to all affected and interested agencies and individuals 5 23/77 Noti a of Chan . r informal he 'fig date mailto D rectors nd sme list o agencies and - div is that eceiv d Draft IR 5/27/77 Notice of Public Hearing tpublished in The Daily Pilot and posted on District' s Bulletin Board 6 /77AM�e�etin Notice and A Fdmailed to Dir for"nd ist of encies rfd indi ' duals tha received\Draft EIR CS �y1 i Nor► 1 * Mr. Chairman tzkbe followinglactionsAbk the draft owe EIR cM the Master PlanAfor District No. 11 s place,®n April 13th 1977, the Board received and filed the draft of the EIROestablished May 24th, 1977 as the final date for all comments to be received. On April 21st the draft of the EIR was TA7led to all �ffected and interested agencies and individuals. On May 27 , 1977, the Notice of the Public Hearing was published�inp the Daily Pilot and +posted on District's Bulletin Board � . * Mr. Ch firma before we receivg the wri� comment b the Districts �f` / /p�1 n j�yr /y '4L on the EIR �I would like our senior en ine&r Dennis Reid to !� � g � give the Board and the members of the audience a brief description of the Master Plans and the draft e Environmental Impact Report. Since District No. 11 does not have a Master Plan CAA,(u -,v,nl Facilities and after completion of this because of the location of the major trunk facilities that were proposed ma444e the err' coastal -zone)it was felt that because of the environmental concerns and the major of the project/very large trunk sewers system that it -be advisable to do an EIR on the ma er- project itself. It is the intent of the EIR to address the Master Plan as a whole the growth associated with it and some of the other secondary impacts as far as the actu 1 construction of the trunk facilities iddendums will be filed a& this EfRothem'l§elves . * Mr. Chairman if there are no questions at this time we would recommend that the actions 2b on 2 and 3 be taken by the Board. Q� �✓�'`J* /Move,�1 by Mr. Shnenkman, econded by MrD Schmitz cwvL� 'G � ra -N.��� 4tl Yry �('1 Mr. Chairma�i,possibly before we receive any oral/comments we did receive wet.,, J a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Department of the Resources I believe there is a representative in the audience. 4 .4 t;�* Yes Mr. Chairman my name is Rich Barnett, I 'm with Planning `%. Department of the City of Huntington Beach, riefly those comments that are here in the letter form Ed �, represen- tativelco cerns that the Department has with the EIR, �f you have any specific questions about them or would like to clarify them J J * I would like you to> paragraph 2� address the coastal trunk sewers The most serious problem that we saw with the EIR is ` _ � Master Plan and the EIR together the Master /Plan gees a coastal turnk line going towards etaa-r• - . primarily alternative6u-�, r� Bolsa CHica �'V�a�nx- ,Qa� and it also has alternate route which basically follows Bolsa Chica' s street alignment in the Master Plan and then you look at the EIR and the EIR does not really address either one of those alignments it presents the third alternate that which goes on the -i h of the Bolsa Chican 'Wur concern is basically that the Master Plan and the EIR can reflect t e same plans and if we're going to have three alterna- tives);A-1-L then it should address with the three alterantives AA or we should have one alignment if thats what the intent is. ge * Yes, when we reviewed the document prepared by and Associates it did show the alignment of the line thro ugh ough the Bolsa Chica \100.1 marsh area and it was our concern immediately that )and we did ask Milo Keith, the engineer, why this was the because that isla very sensitive ecological area and he indicated that tt�, or the alignment as shown in the Master Plan had not really been stab fished and that primary issue was_) A C6� �h it was ' 3s point amnd that Fhould the line take another alternative it might be in the newt interest. So o our ebj et_e was in which we talked to The Sanitation Disti�fjc and to the engineer)was,is there a reason for the alignment to go through the marsh and- , om laying the line. And there wasn't . So we took the fact that>if we routed the line along the bluff area and cross as shown in our reportl this would be far more mc�c{n,cr, from an ecological stand- point and that the only reason that the line would go t rough the marsh area would be if >and when)development in the Alot area and that the interest structure to support a plan should not cause the adverse &Jfec�.Its approval of the plan itself that wo.tld be located in the marsh area,wed taArt Jr rite development is ever allowed in the area,then the line ja&l that is to serve the region north and west of the area would have the least impact in the routes shown,azd 90 we elected to do so with the knowledge of the engineer and the Sanitation District. And o we felt that if the community or the City, d- creationpffGame, when that time comes that they uld want to allow developement of that area in some formhe interest structure would be investigated thoroughly along with Gw So thatPthe rational we used and subject to d' � ( 1.1 ktlOA'`� * So basically )Ipv a�feejwith the sensitivity of the marsh land area= py5 * And the You can lay that line across there> V and you u d say there is no need to go therel� J �( � * You have some options that would be difficult to have4or going throughh}the marsh lands itself. ILA ° ye any questions on this? NStl Oneother thing � �ld like to add,�the other thought was, was why consider, ltern9-0 tive� j is our inter- pretion of semi that alternatives ar to be investigated for a less of a adverse impact and not morepadverse impact, e felt that running through the line shown on that Master Plan would be more adverse and therefore it would not be an alternative which would be a logical (� Do you agree with that? * One of our concerns would be if this 14 the that the EIR b WQLL that the Master Plan that was prepared ^ 4�66L--- — be revised and amended to show that alignment around Bolsa Chica area is not a� necessarily truetl(his misleads people they will pick up the map and right away it will cause lot of concern on the s �people who don't understand the explanation ' Lut" ` * Would there be any problem in revising t vat this i d(e j o, We didn't do the ccMaster Plan Fred do you see th4- problem? No I do not. * How about you Bill(4jjf)� No, I think thats correct I think that would would clear the issue quite a bit if ?IBC a. ar.' 1 (.-�•wu l_,c.. n 6 ' y �uti * Alright, is there anything else? * Mr. Chairman I think Director Shenkman• was interested in tbo one section in the Environmental Impact statement relative to the Ignal �d development proposed preliminary plan. --nn__ -- �* Yes, basically my concerns with thatJ that following of the line with the discussion we just had�thatAi,s a `environmentally sensitive area and the chances of that kind of development in the Bolsa Chica is t me-best „=' +s not a realistic . . . and I don't really think that Signal Landmark has any plans to develope anything at the Bolsa ChicW right nowmefh eir just waiting on some Assembly legis- lation that find' out whats going to happen. I 'm sure that they would be just as anxious to sell the property if the fact that the State buys it. I really don' t think that they have a preliminary Master Plan for the Bolsa Chica at this time* ep}0s, k, L * This is correct * If somebody picks this up and reads it, once again y u have an W e'u.e � 0.- area where somebody is going to say "My God" year Master Plan) �� u camd the EIR when in fac it is c I don't know how you are going address that. I think the fact that this discussion is part of the Public t" P— Hearing it will be addressed in the final EIR on this . ) * My personal opinion,(, is vit oe 't Pomitty hctve any place in here ire because its not. . . . . . . . d Q � * Everything is so much in limbo right now I think it should be del e *9�kt least it should be strongly qualified that there have been proposals but there is nothing definite. �w-A- d4 R68 Q� pne way or the otherg as its clarified. ,,J PoliticallyA its ought 4 o be deleted. I 1--�, you know tbP »hi i , ' its going to cause us problems. * As soon as you the commentspon it Up gh) r going to turn aroun and sa+VOince didn't onsid r rospect OK.I would"�a this VV C plans-6— and I know that we 4nWe worked with Signal Landmark a few years ago on some of their plans-land so I wo ld be sensitive . he standpoint 4 the draft a.:. A EIR V deleting it,I would be very . receptive to the suggestion that they aaW very strongly so that they may be aware and can't say why did%� you l,U, A, I think if they qualified it would be ALI Is there � other discussion on this Public Hearing before I close it? .T yTlwee-tom the Public Wearing�s there a motion directing ii th staff to prepare ae ewe Environmental Impact Report for Master Planp"6wer# facilities? * So movedowed by Mr. Schmit, seconded Py Mr. Shenkman , - C�� -, 0 Mr. Chairma� just allbrief comment, ®f coursed, this is all moving towards the adoption -of the Environmental Impact Report and the adoption of the District' s Master Plano®nce the District ' s Master Plan is adopted the District's staff will be recommending that the ik 04�OA,,LA- Board consider , d&ke connection charge riniph District N` JP71��4 '�DUistr� ict No. 31/ his would help in the financing of the construction of the needed res -tys►. How longA is -#t going to take to get to the Q pointAwhere we can adopt the Master Plan, Z am not sure whether, wut to decide to waithafter the Coastal Commission -tos approves the plan )or whether we wish to adopt the plan and then proceed to get A Coastal Commission permits for the construction. * I have a question on that, What is the process now for instance, if 3. 4 � Bolsa Chica is going to be changed no sewer trunk line through the marsh lands, that, what are you going.Ato r`6vi-e that now, right? � * Thats right! And when will the EIR/come back to us? The next regular Board meeting, we hope to come back with the final ►`y'•" d � Via" T-� '4s-�-�. EIR for adoption. w av- to e . , bite—need whether � the Boarq could then adopt thevmaster Plan Butathat does not a wild the facility tZR'Es we still have to receive the v construction permit from the Coastal Commission. One of the &onstructiorl� projects that is going to be in this next year' s, budget for District No. 11 will be the immediate constru i n of the firs segment of this line which is to get it- out f tthe� Plant No. 2 �(here quest ion nt as to whether or not we will receive the Cgasta Commission Permits for tie construction in the d7loastal 4fnekor th size we have in mind and so forth.�o there will be some discussion5prior to any construction that will � be the Board' s decision as to u '" �'utn �issome"�' �r.N�.. to thaft construction in t we want to get out of the way of some future construction that should be coming probably (L v in another year. So �e-_+ et4e i s some problems that we w 11 be faced with in the near future. . . that we budget time. For the benefit of the late comers, Herb I 'm sorry but we have already closed the ?ublic aring and we're down to other business and communications.=../1I know you are very familiar with whats going on `�►' and the fact that I know you are very involved with the regcTl AA^+c6e-4�- Bolsa Chicago suact if you s like to say something that has come to attentiion�that your concerned with� we would be more than happy to heax it at this time. b.✓ a d irst of alo• itunat t' th environmental Council NCLCLI.'LLO (C J �, .mow• t * -It -8LILISo t�AdAarifinationnn''we did take some * It is probably more �o on this map here.-<hey h== routed J �a the trunk line through the heart of Bolsa Chica come here and h I 'll show you)4ere right through here, what we have donetit that Ak-t - we eliminated this and brought ity' further up than tbe this it goes all the way up1the�line up here. *t� maps in the EIR show that# f� �n going through this uJU the financing of the project is �+� nk ,t wo c, M^ A-1 death-vf the EIR on the expansion progra but didn't see anything in here, I 'm not sure �£. . . e3 th questions that came up in my mind is this part o the federally funded. . . c� al n Unfortun tely we will n�lt�be,federal fund�� N However we were just mentioning . Lt-- one of the key parts of the financing program the staff b4z recommend4M to L vz�' 01 C"' `' v'� the Board to adopt a a rr chargenthat is very similiar whats in 6 the other part of Hunt' ton Beach and trict No. 3jfesidential unit hand t @v there is a different charge on;/industrial property- ��„ "(/U� Clitr� O O -� Q � (llc cu.t �•t- �.c-,�1.t< � ��.. 3. ' * RI thought Dis rict No. 11 adopted it. rAJ J �� un Oln btu-1 e construction only, I think thats important taep: We have been very successful in the other D sti'4c�sI"atv" t� c . and it does give the local tax payers A ,,,� e- 1L -� -•=»•=-n�_n � new sewers. l Within the impacts most of them were .�a� quite well. � offiy near Central Park would probably be the section which would have the most environmental impacts The lowlands there are part of the within Bolsan Chica and I think that was referenced .� (M ol'Q.,�, c obviously i*- the final f detail R.A- 4 ct�hopefully tim.ing of construction a„ AAR (AU CI Fish and Game recently di A 5 process of t4ae studyA on the 13,�s l California Coast and the t y V. �a�r"ems� findin fJthat/�tires - W ram if&pw 4�f - _ -`�['t , >/ ,�� ',o,rb�-� Q ,• 'D * The construction impa� the ctual glignment and 'the actual �' Cl alignments will be at a later date r, oD • / I ill b t� e rewired to file an addendum "5re �ut the construction impacts and the actual alignments,,nn and t e loc�tio s _ _ _ _ ,5 .� ��®'Vt Lv a� �w talking about the alternatives prehIp roviding treat- `..� ment plant the Bolsa Chica area that can provide purified water - for agriculture purposes in Central Park �1- � ) . . . . . . . . . . . .T , v Capacity., would like to mention that the proposed possible developement in Bolsa Chica would not be a terribly large part trunk sewers through that area gAN 6XAI_* Are there anymore questions or comments from the audience? * Mr. Chairman, Mr. from' the City of Huntington Beach has called to my attention a problem that exists on Warner Avenue IA— the sewer system eawd erhe Distiict proposes to �I think ter- purchase an existing line as well as construct a relief line in Warner where we're having difficulties because of the increase flows coming from Sunset Beach Sanitary District. They do not legally have the right to do. Mr. Hartshield would like to comment. * (About three sentences that I cannot understand) indicated that the District would be putting in a partial parrell line The result of this problem * We have done a close contact there are two problems quality is one and quantity is the other we have made it clear infact Bill just mentioned it to me that the City Attorney's office even much more firm that the other one, it is pointed out that the City is going to exercise all the legal prog including if necessary consideration of action against individual Directors over this District. I had a call abut three weeks ago, Mr. Harrison who is now floor manager, who is President of the Board. And indi- cated to him that the District had been as tollerant as we could and he said "well we don't think the reports are very accurate, { l � • 4 { � ♦ ( � •�( ee �/� iJ Kim dw ALP ae r e4. Av z 1� o 5 we like to review it. " and I just said you said you challenged the initial report so we hired Keith and said just put a dip stick in that . . . . . . . . . . I indicated to him that we were preparing a new agreement which had frankly some pretty onorious conditions in terms of a rather dramatic escalate scale of fees and immediate payment to buy in and he acknowledged that they were paying right away from their obligation financially, legally or morally, secondly that they had discussed this to some extent and that every thing that was proposed was exceptable to them to get the contract as a matter of curiousity Monday morning we probed out that budget they only have about 130, 000 dollars I really don't know how they can afford this program There is a variety of options, I have little doubt in my mind that I can walk over to the court house tomorrow and get some sort of order how strict or tough it would be I don't know what are you going to do (with it and I have asked Ray Lewis and Milo Keith. . . . . . . . .don't talk to me about dollars cause the judge is not going to ask for dollars just tell me if dollars are completely out of the picture is there some way or some method that they can get rid of that sewerage other than putting it through our lines? And the answer is well yes it can be done you can get a fleet of trucks and haul it or what ever but its possible, well thats a very important issue finance is not our concern their concerned with the sanitate, now granted there going to get behind that short order mess I-4P; I think we could get some orders to assist us, I indicated I wanted some approval through the City's Attorneys office and I was talking to John, Monday we went through the various provisions of the outline and made some changes and my office is working on it today and pro- bably tomorrow. . . . . . . . . . . If they indicated form the Sanitary District that they are prepared to accept it . . . . . . . . . . what can they perform? * Just six weeks ago we had the understanding that they were going to go with the new agrement. And since then they have now changed their position again? * No, not to my knowledge. * Our concern is looking at their budget I don't see how they could do it unless we have * I think if we don't get any reaction from this strong letter we ought to force the issue somehow and get a result. * I think that probably thats the only way that we are going to get a action, file some kind of an injunction or some kind of a legal action. * I understand that alot of the problem is with the high tide dump- ing into the system. * Thats right the system, we have records that indicate and prove that we are pumping more water into the system than they are. * Is there anyway to putting a stop to that for them? * They have got all new lines. . . . . . . * I 'm a little unhappy about this I thought about six weeks ago we finally got them off the dime and we were ready to move with them. and from what I hear now we are just still playing the same game that their acknowledging the problem at least now but still no realistic approach to result again. * Can we give them a specific date and then go to court? Well, when I tlaked to Harrison he said that his Board, now I have no reason to know if his credibility is good or bad I have heard some comments that he is but what he told me was that they had discussed this, that they had a pretty good idea what our District was going to report, so �.✓ ticked off the list these are the proposals that are attained in the new agreement. . . . . and he said "we have heard all of them, we understand all of them, we accept all of them, set up the agree- ment and we will get the Board together and we'll do it. " So thats what I have been doing in the past three weeks in terms of trying to get it, the problem is its a three party agreement and I want to make sure that the City and the District are holding hands so to speak and have an agreement themselves. * What happens if they can't live up to their end of the contract? The money part cause what I 'm concerned about now the City puts these limitations on it and their sure we 'll go along with it and then three months along the line they haven't got the bucks to perform on it then here we are holding the bag again. �d * Last December when I was down there and they were showing me the tp' s in the streets they were willing to pay any price to resolve the problem. The people are willing to go the increase rate to resolve the problem the Board of Directors though just runs on this platform that we got this low rate and we're not going to raise these rates . *When is this next meeting? * Well as I understand it they don't have set meetings. * Based on their mode of operation that we ought to take legal action now, I think that we're just wasting our time. * I think that we should line up a legal step right now, start pre- paring them here, take the steps we have to take * Give them ten days to answer our letter yes or no and if they don't do it then let's start. * I have no quarrel with that at all. * Do you need a motion from the Board to do or. . . . . . . . * I think it would be better to have it. * But I think that you would want to direct us to set the deadline * We have a month * Do you think that would be adequate time for you to prepare a neat format for the steps to take to follow this through? * Absolutely, I have no choice but to advise Harrison if the agree- ment goes on for the next couple of days to him and indicate that if we don't have it back executed like in ten days or some written correspondence from him indicated by him that these terms are acceptable that or these terms are not acceptable, we need to get some further direction. For example we come in with a sub program. They buy six the bulk and one, neither Fred or I have the powers . I have encompassed all the thoughts that have been formed at me and have made it just as tough, its a monster you know its a beautiful agreement that the City and the Sanitation District but for those people rough, they buy the they do but them and we are faced with, can they still perform the quantity going through the lot, its really critical you know peanut fees is one thing but their getting a free ride we can address ourselves to that and they have to, and come up with the money in prospective by the setting rates of the charges or taxes but that doesn't answer the question of their pumping MGD that are required. w * Thats not going to help us indebt. * To me thats a tough question, how to approach that, do you shut it down, you got the services out there, if we could show that the inocation, tides or otherwise whatever those numbers are if their reduced and one of the conditions in the agreements is no more connections in the annex, zero. * Well they had connections. * I 'm saying from this day forward, there will be no further connctions they have got more than their share of pormoting the system. And he said thats no problem, theres really nothing proposed and we 're happy to agree that until we get the system done. * Sounds like he' s ready to buy anything now especially time. * Mr. Chairman the other thing we have to discuss is, there is a public health problem in that area and the County Health Department is very concerned with it, they are waiting to see what we are going to do because they feel that they keep backing out. * I think if we wait until the 13th, that should do it. * Does the entire Board need to vote to take action of this sort? * When is the due date coming up now? * The City sent their letter out I guess today I haven't seen it, Bill just told me that John sent our a letter signed today, I haven't seen it. * If you send a letter out tomorrow and give them ten days from that point and if you don't here from them in the days, then certain legal steps will be initiated? * I have given them all the letters I care to give them. * Send them a telegram that seems to have more effect sometime. * I think we oughta give them ten days and then start legal action. * Do you want to make a motion? * To give them notice on the mailogram or telegram to the effect that no response within ten days we are going to initiate the legal steps we have to take to resolve the problem. * Seconded by Mr. Shenkman * Any other business * Mr. Chairman I think authorize the staff to prepare an agreement with the City of Huntington Beach of construction for a proposed Master Plan Facility on Warner Avenue. * Yes * I got one quick question, when you do something like this on a emergency basis, do you give the contractor, by not going to bid do you have a problem with that. * We go to bid on the construction contract its on the design of the work. * Do you need a motion to go on that? * Move it, second it, we will now cast the third yes vote. * Any other business? * Adjourned. �S MEETING DATE 6/15/77 TIME 7 : 30 p.m• DISTRICTS 11 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS FGATHj ALTAELLI). . . . SHARP . . . RILEY . . . . . . . ANTHONYILEY . . . ANTHONY DOSTAL) . . . . . . BARRETT. . . .R . . . . . . . EVANS (GRAY) . . . . . . . BLACKMAN. . . RIGG . . . . . . . . RIMA . . . . SILLS . . . . . . BURTON. . . . . DISTRICT 2 RILEY CLARK. . . . . . GAEDE . . . . . . COOPER. . . . . GROOT). . . . . . . . . WEDAA . . . . PERRY . . . , . • CULVER. . . . HOYT) SMITH WILLIAMS) . . . . DOSTAL. . . . . . . . GARTH€) . . . . . . EVANS• RILEY • • • • • • • • CLARK • • • • GAEDE) . . FOX. EVANS GARTHE PRIEST) . . . . . . FOX. . . GAEDE) . . . . . . FOX ..... EVANS) . . . . . . GARTHE. . . . . DE JESUS). . HOLT SCULVER) .... . .... .PERRY . . . (WARREN) . . . . . . GLOCKN ER• •. . . . (STEVENS) ROGET . . JARRELL) GRIFFIN. . . . THM) . (DE JESUS) . HOLT. . . . . . . N�SAN SCOTT (LACAYO)• • • • • • HUDSON WEISHAUPT). . . MARSHOTT. . . TIPTON) . . . . . . . WINN . . . . . IWINTERS) . . . . . . WOOD . . . . . DOSTAL). . . . . . MC INNIS. . . FINLAYSON). . . OLSON. . . . . . DISTRICT 3 GIBBS) PATTINSON. . CULVER). . . . . . PERRY. . . . . . STANTO((VV SVALSTAD . ANTHONY). . . . . RILEY. . . . . . LACAYO)• . . . . . . . HUDSON . . MOM IGGS) . . . RIMA. GAEDE. . . . . . . . . COOPER . . EVENS). . . . . ROGET. . GAEDE COOPER . . . . . . . . ROTH. • PERRY . . . . . . . . . CARVER . . . EVANS GARTHE . . . (DOSTA ) . . .. . . RYCKOFF. . . . SHARP . . . . . . . SALTARELLI . PRIEST . . FRESE . . . . RILEY)) . . . . . SCHMIT. . . . . JARRELL). . . . . . . GRIFFIN . . STANTON) • . • . . SCOTT. . . WEISHAUPT�. . . . . MARSHOTT . SALTAP,ELLjj) . . SHARP. . . . . . FINLAYSON . . . . . OLSON . . . . PATTINSON) THOM). . .. . . . . . . ROTH . . . . . HOYT) . . . . . . . . SMMITHITH.. . .• . . S . . . . . . RILEY . . . . . . . . . SCHMIT.. . . YOUNG) . . . . . . . STEVENS. . . . YOUNG . . . . . . . . . STEVENS. . . STANTON) . . . . . SVALSTAD. . . BROWN . . . . . . . . . SYLVIA . . . BROWN) . . . . . . . SYLVIA. . . . . PATTINSON). . . . . WIEDER . . . (GROOT) . . . . . . . WEDAA. . . . . . WINTERS) . . . .. . WOOD . . . . . (PATTINSON). . . WIEDER. . . . . DISTRICT S TIPTON) WINN. . . . . . . WINTERS5. •. . . WOOD. . . . . . . (DOSTAL) . . . . . . . MC INNIS . iANTHONY) • . • • • . RILEY . . . . WILLIAMS) . . . . . DOSTAL . . . _ OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER. . . . . BRIGGS RIMA . . , . , I SYLVESTER. . DOSTA� . . . . . . . RYCKOFF . : j LEWIS . . . . . RILEY . . . ANTHONY . CLARKE. . DISTRICT 7 �pp�II � 1�� II BROWN. . . . . . SSILLST . • . • • BURTON • IDOSTILEAL) • • • • • • • BARRETT • �,�, �piINQS WOODRUFF. . . ✓ GARTHE • • • • EVANS • - - - - - dA4111,J HOWARD. . . . . EWARREc. . . . • • GLOCKNER ' HUNT. . . . . . . SHARP . . . . . . . . SALTARELLI KEITH . . . . . HOYT . . . . . . • • • SMITH • • • KENNEY. . . . . LYNCH. . . . . . DISTRICT 11 MADDOX. . . . . GIBBS .. . . . . • • • PATTINSON MARTINSON— PAT TINSON)• • • • - SHENKMAN • PIERSALL. . . RILEY)• •• • • • • • • SCHMIT STEVENS. . . . TRAVERS. . . . DISTRICT 8 �CLARK) RILEY. . . . LAWRENC€) . . • . • EDWARDS. . JOHNSON . . . . . • SWEENEY . . 6/8/77