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